[00:00:05] I'LL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 25TH, [1. Opening Statement] 2021 TO ORDER. AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY. FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE DENE FIRST NATION. WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS METI AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. [2. Approval of the agenda.] NEXT, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD TODAY. I THINK MORE COULD BE ADDED, I DON'T THINK. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. [3. Disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof.] COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK I'D LIKE TO DECLARE FOR I THINK IT'S ITEM NUMBER THREE, I'M JUST SCANNING TO IT. NUMBER FOUR RIGHT NOW FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR BECAUSE OF MY WIFE'S POSITION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS. THANKS. OK, THANK YOU. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, YOU CAN TURN OFF YOUR CAMERA FOR A SECOND. NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF [4. A memorandum regarding whether to support the proposed subdivision of Lot 65, Block 503, Plan 4476, (84 Curry Drive).] LOT 65 BLOCK 5034476, WHICH IS CIVIC ADDRESS 84 CURRY DRIVE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING TO ADD FROM ADMINISTRATION? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT SUBDIVISION AUTHORITY RESTS WITH THE GNWT AND THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT. SO WHEN A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF A LOT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES MADE, THE GNWT DOES SEEK THE ENDORSEMENT AND SUPPORT OF THE CITY. AND WHEN WE SEE THAT THERE IS A LOT OVER A CERTAIN SIZE, OUR ZONING BYLAW CONFIRMS THAT COUNCIL IS THE ONE TO REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. SO WHEN THE OWNER OF 84 CURRY DRIVE WENT TO THE GNWT TO SEEK TO DIVIDE THE LOT INTO TWO, THE GNWT HAS ASKED US TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. AND IN THE ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN DONE BY OUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TEAM, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FITS IN WITH MUNICIPAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, INCLUDING THE 2020 COMMUNITY PLAN. SO ADMINISTRATION IS HAPPY TO RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL CONSIDER ENDORSING THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYTHING? ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE. THANKS AGAIN FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD, AND WE WILL, I GUESS THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING IS MONDAY, NOVEMBER EIGHT. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, YOU CAN COME BACK NOW. [5. A presentation regarding the Zoning By‐law.] NEXT, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION REGARDING THE ZONING BYLAW, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE MEMORANDUM AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT A PROCESS PERHAPS JUST AFTER THAT, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PRESENTATION. WITH PLEASURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. SO TODAY, ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING TO GPC MEMBERS THAT THE ZONING BYLAW BE REPEALED AND REPLACED. AND THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS WHICH GOT UNDERWAY JUST AROUND THE TIME THAT WORK TO COMPLETE OUR COMMUNITY PLAN WRAPPED UP IN LATE 2019 AS WE AWAITED THE MINISTER [INAUDIBLE] SIGN OFF ON OUR COMMUNITY PLAN. WE STARTED TO REVIEW OUR ZONING BYLAW, BUT ONCE WE GOT INTO THE PROJECT, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR THAT AMENDMENTS ALONE WOULD NOT ACT TO MODERNIZE OUR ZONING BYLAW, NOR WOULD IT ENABLE ALIGNMENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY PLAN. SO WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO WAS A FULL REPEAL AND REPLACE WITH A NEW MODERN ZONING BYLAW, AND THIS IS GOING TO HELP US WORK TOWARDS A NUMBER OF GOOD GOALS BIG PICTURE GOALS, INCLUDING MUNICIPAL BEST PRACTICES FROM WITHIN CANADA AND AROUND THE WORLD. AND IT ALSO ENABLES US TO ADVANCE A NUMBER OF COUNCIL'S GOALS AROUND USING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, ADDRESSING COST OF LIVING AND ADDRESSING AND MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE. SO AFTER WE DID SOME CONSULTATIONS IN THE FALL OF 2020, WHICH WAS REALLY ON THE BROAD STROKES AROUND ZONING AND PLANNING CONCEPTS, AND WE GOT INTO FURTHER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTS ON THE ACTUAL DRAFT OF THE BYLAW IN AUGUST OF 2021. SINCE THEN, CITY ADMINISTRATION HAS REALLY WORKED TO REFINE THAT AND THROUGH ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC. WHAT WE PRESENT TODAY IS A DRAFT THAT HAS HAD THE THE EYES CAST ON IT FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS. I'M VERY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW, ON THE INTENSE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS BY OUR PLANNING TEAM, ALONG WITH LEGAL AND MANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS ACROSS CITY ADMINISTRATION, TO ENSURE THAT THIS IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IS TAILORED TO YELLOWKNIFE. BUT WHILE IT ALSO IS ALIGNING WITH BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE BEING SEEN ACROSS [00:05:02] MUNICIPALITIES ELSEWHERE, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE COUNCIL GOALS AROUND CLIMATE CHANGE. SO WE KNOW THAT DENSIFICATION AND INFILL ARE KEY ACTIONS IN MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE. WE KNOW, AS WELL AS ZONING IS ALSO A POWERFUL WAY TO ADDRESS THE COST OF LIVING IN YELLOWKNIFE BY MAXIMIZING THE USE OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE ROADS AND OUR WATER SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WELL AS CREATING A WIDER SPECTRUM OF HOUSING OPTIONS THAT CAN BE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR RESIDENTS. SO I'M VERY PLEASED NOW TO TURN THINGS OVER TO CHARLES WHITE, THE CITY'S DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, ALONG WITH ROB LOCKE, THE MANAGER OF PLANNING AND LANDS, WHO'S BEEN PART OF THIS PROJECT SINCE ITS INCEPTION, AND MARGARET KALT, OUR CONSULTANT ON THE PROJECT, WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH US FROM THE START AND VERY ACTIVE, OF COURSE, AS WELL WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THEM TO MAKE A SHORT PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL BE OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE CITY MANAGER AND GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR ALTY, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. I'M JOINED TODAY, AS SHEILA SAID BY MARGARET KALT, WHO IS A PARTNER AND PLANNER WITH DILLON CONSULTING, AND ROB LOCKE, OUR MANAGER OF PLANNING AND LANDS. TOGETHER, WE ARE PLEASED TO PRESENT AN UPDATED DRAFT ZONING BYLAW FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. IN PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS TO GPC AND COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION HAS OUTLINED THE CONSISTENCY, THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN THROUGH AN UPDATED ZONING BYLAW, AND WE WILL SPEAK TO THIS AGAIN IN A FEW MINUTES. BUT BEFORE I GO INTO THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND RECONNECT WITH COUNCIL'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AS WELL AS THE CITY POSITION WITHIN THE TERRITORY AND BEYOND. DID YOU KNOW THAT 2007 WAS THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION LIVED IN CITIES, SO APPROXIMATELY 3.3 BILLION PEOPLE? AND BY 2050, IT'S EXPECTED THAT CITY DWELLERS WILL MAKE UP 70 PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S TOTAL POPULATION. HERE IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, WE'RE AT ABOUT APPROXIMATELY SIXTY THREE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION WHO LIVES IN URBAN AREAS AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE, THEY LIVE IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. THE CURRENT TREND MEANS THIS NUMBER IS LIKELY TO INCREASE AND URBANIZATION IS CREATING UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES FOR CLIMATE AND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. WHILE CITIES TAKE UP LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S AREA, WE CONSUME SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT OF OUR ENERGY RESOURCES AND WE EMIT 80 PERCENT OF GREENHOUSE GASES. STRONG LAND USE DIRECTION CAN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THESE ITEMS. AS WELL, WHEN WE LOOK AT INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS CANADIAN CITIES, THE FUNDING DEFICIT CONTINUES TO GROW AND CURRENTLY SITS AT ABOUT $150 BILLION. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? BECAUSE OVER 60 PERCENT OF OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS OWNED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES PLANNING TO FULLY UTILIZE THIS INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE, BY INCREASING DENSIFICATION IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO JUST BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITIES. THERE ARE MANY VISIONS OUT THERE FOR WHAT THAT PERFECT CITY LOOKS LIKE. SOME FOCUS ON HEALTH AND THE SAFE CITY. OTHERS A SUSTAINABLE CITY, SOME A CULTURAL HUB AND OTHERS COMMERCE OR A CENTER FOR INNOVATION. THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS A CAPITAL CITY AND BASED ON COUNCIL'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS ALL OF THESE IDEALS. IF WE LOOK AT COUNCIL'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, THEY INCLUDE DIVERSIFICATION OF OUR ECONOMY, ENSURING A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. STRATEGIC LAND DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES. AS WELL AS RECONCILIATION. IT IS CLEAR THE INTENT FOR THESE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES IS TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE A CITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. THE CITY'S ZONING BYLAW IS A DOCUMENT THAT CAN BRING ALL OF THESE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TOGETHER AND SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THEIR REALIZATION. HOW DOES A REGULATION DO THIS? YES, THE ZONING BYLAW IS INTENDED TO CONTROL THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY THROUGH DIFFERENT ZONES BY IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, LOT SIZES, PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING HEIGHT. IT REALLY CAN BE MORE IMPACTFUL THAN BEING A LIST OF RULES FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS. BY HAVING IN PLACE AN UP TO DATE CLEAR AND EASY TO USE ZONING BYLAW, THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO BETTER MANAGE SUPPORT, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION. REDUCE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS. SUPPORT THE COMBATING OF CLIMATE CHANGE. AND STRENGTHEN OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD AS WE EMERGE FROM THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH SITUATION. CITY AND COMMUNITY LEADERS ARE BEING ASKED TO REIMAGINE WHAT IS NEXT FOR THEIR CITY. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE EQUALITY AND TRANSFORM OUR URBAN SPACES BY SETTING AN EXAMPLE AND LET US BE AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW. AS WE MOVE TO THE REVIEW OF THE ZONING BYLAW DOCUMENT, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO READ BEYOND THE RULES FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND [00:10:01] CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE BENEFITS OF THESE IMPORTANT CONNECTIONS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL ASK MARGARET IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE PRESENTATION. THANKS, CHELSEA. [INAUDIBLE]. SO WE WON'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME RIGHT NOW. [INAUDIBLE]. WE WON'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME RIGHT NOW RUNNING THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THIS DOCUMENT. WE DO WANT TO SAVE SOME TIME TO ACTUALLY WALK THROUGH THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, BUT WE WILL PRESENT A BIT OF A QUICK OVERVIEW ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR. HOW DID WE GET HERE? AND WHAT WERE THE PROPOSED CHANGES FROM THE INITIAL DRAFT SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC IN LATE 2021? SO HERE'S A HIGH LEVEL REVIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENED TO DATE. WE DID OUR FIRST DRAFT. WE SUBMITTED IT TO THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT ON JUNE 30TH, 2021. THE LEGAL TEAM DID A COMPLETE AND DETAILED COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF A DOCUMENT AND PROVIDED FOR YOU. WAIT, SORRY, MARGARET. ZONING BYLAW WAS THEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING TEAM AND EDITS WERE MADE BASED ON LEGAL REVIEW. THE DIAGRAMS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW WERE FINALIZED. LORI, IF YOU CAN RESTART, WE JUST WE KIND OF LOST EVERYTHING AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THERE WAS THE ECHO, SO IF YOU WANT TO JUST START FROM THE TOP OF THIS SLIDE, PLEASE. SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? WE COULDN'T HEAR BECAUSE THE ECHO, SO IF YOU WANT TO JUST START AGAIN AT THE TOP OF THE SLIDE. OH, OK, SURE. OK. CAN YOU HEAR NOW? OK. OK, SO THE FIRST FORMAL DRAFT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S LEGAL TEAM ON JUNE 30TH, 2021. THE LEGAL TEAM COMPLETED A DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, AND IT PROVIDED SUGGESTIONS FOR INPUT AND. FROM THERE, THE ZONING BYLAW WAS THEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING TEAM AND EDITS WERE MADE BASED ON LEGAL'S REVIEW, THE DIAGRAMS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ZONING BYLAW WERE FINALIZED AND INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DRAFT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. DURING THAT TIME, WE HAD ALSO SPENT A FEW HOURS WITH YOU IN A COUNCIL WORKSHOP PRESENTING THE DRAFT TO ZONING BYLAW FOR DISCUSSION AND REVIEW. AND WE ALSO PROVIDED EDITS BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS AT THAT TIME. THE TEAM WAS ALSO QUITE BUSY DURING THIS PERIOD, PREPARING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MATERIAL THAT IDENTIFIED KEY MESSAGES AND BUILT ON AND BUILDING SPECIFIC FACT SHEETS TO HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THE ZONING BYLAW BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE IT WAS VERY TECHNICAL AND VERY LARGE DOCUMENT WITH SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL BYLAW, WHICH IS BYLAW FOR 444. ON AUGUST 24TH, WE WERE ABLE TO ISSUE THE DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND THE CITY WAS HAD GIVEN THE DEADLINE OF OCTOBER 1ST FOR COMMENTS TO BE RECEIVED SO THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF DRAFT REVISIONS, AND WE COULD GET THIS DOCUMENT READY FOR TODAY. DURING THIS TIME, THE CITY SET UP A SPECIFIC ZONING BYLAW EMAIL TO ACCEPT COMMENTS AND MADE CITY STAFF AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR PROVIDE ANY COMMENTARY OR CONTEXT FOR THE PUBLIC THAT THEY HAVE ASKED. THE PLANNING TEAM ACCEPTED ALL SUBMITTED, BOTH WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS AND PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES. SORRY, CAN ONE OF YOU HAVE? WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH SOME TECHNICAL STUFF. OK. OK. GOOD, HERE'S. OK. THE PLANNING TEAM ACCEPTED ALL SUBMITTED, WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS AND PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE WITH THEM DIRECTLY THROUGH TELEPHONE OR PUBLIC MEETINGS WHERE RESPONSE TO A QUESTION WAS REQUIRED. EFFORTS WERE MADE TO PROVIDE THAT RESPONSE BEFORE THE END OF THE DEADLINE. ALL COMMENTS WERE ORGANIZED AND REVIEWED FOR CONSIDERATION. THE PLANNING TEAM WENT THROUGH ALL THE INFORMATION AND CONSIDERED IT IN THE ZONING EDITS, PROPOSED CHANGES BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PERIOD FOR COMMENTS TO BE RECEIVED, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WAS FOR OCTOBER 1ST, AND THAT WAS TO GIVE US TIME TO GET THIS DOCUMENT READY FOR THIS MEETING TODAY. THE CITY STAFF ARE STILL ACCEPTING COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW AND WILL KEEP CONSIDERING ALL OF THE COMMENTS UP UNTIL THE HEARING IN NOVEMBER. FOR THIS PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT ROUND, WE SUBMITTED THE DRAFT ZONING BALLOT TO THE PUBLIC. IT WAS PROVIDED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND THERE WAS A MEDIA BLAST TO ANNOUNCE THAT IT WAS OUT. EIGHT FACT SHEETS WERE CREATED THAT OUTLINED SOME OF THE MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING BYLAW AND GAVE EXAMPLES AND SPECIFIC LOCATIONS IN THE ZONING BYLAW WHERE PEOPLE [00:15:02] COULD LEARN MORE INFORMATION. AND THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS A ZONING BYLAW FACT SHEET RIGHT THERE. THERE WERE TWO VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSES THAT WERE HELD. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS HAPPENED WHEN IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC LOCKDOWN, SO IN-PERSON OPPORTUNITIES WERE JUST NOT ALLOWED. AND AT THAT TIME, I THINK EVEN YOUR PLANNING TEAM WAS WORKING FROM HOME. BUT WE MANAGED TO HAVE TWO SESSIONS AND THEY WERE ROUGHLY 45 PEOPLE AT EACH SESSION, ANYWHERE BETWEEN 40 AND 45 PEOPLE. THE CITY ALSO HAD SET UP AN EMAIL ADDRESS IN AN INFORMATION PAGE ON THEIR WEBSITE, AND THEY PROVIDED A POINT A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS FOR SUBMITTING ALL COMMENTS. AT THE VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSES WE HAD, WE PROVIDED A SHORT OVERVIEW PRESENTATION OF THE ZONING BYLAW AND THEN WE WENT INTO BREAKOUT ROOMS WITH TOPICS SPECIFIC, SO PEOPLE WANTED TO DISCUSS CERTAIN TOPICS MORE SO THAN THE OTHERS OR WANTED TO HAVE MORE AIR TIME WITH THAT, THEY HAD THE OPTION OF CHOOSING THE SPECIFIC BREAKOUT ROOM THAT THEY COULD BOUNCE INTO. WE ALSO PROVIDED A LARGER PLENARY SESSION THAT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO TALK IN THE LARGER GROUP AFTER THEY'D HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY TALK IN SMALLER GROUPS FOR SPECIFIC TOPICS. THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, THE PUBLIC WAS ALSO ENCOURAGED TO REACH OUT TO CITY HALL, EITHER BY EMAIL OR PHONE, AND CONNECT WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING TEAM IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTIONS OR WANTED TO EXPRESS CONCERNS OR SHARE THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT THE INFORMATION. ALL IN ALL, THIS WAS ROUGHLY A 39 DAY PERIOD SOMEWHERE IN THERE, WHICH IS A PRETTY STANDARD PERIOD FOR WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ARE SUBMITTING DRAFT DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. THE RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT HAS BEEN QUITE STRONG, AND THERE'S ALWAYS THE SAYING IN THE ENGAGEMENT WORLD, IF YOU WANT TO GET SOME FEEDBACK, PUT THINGS OUT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONTROVERSIAL. NOW, ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T INTEND THIS TO BE CONTROVERSIAL, WE DID APPRECIATE THAT THE PUBLIC DID TAKE TIME AND THEY TOOK QUITE A BIT OF INTEREST IN SOME ELEMENTS OF THIS BYLAW. AND AS A RESULT, WE FELT LIKE WE GOT QUITE A BIT OF INPUT AND FEEDBACK. ALTHOUGH ZONING BYLAWS AREN'T ALWAYS THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS TO READ OR CONSIDER, THIS THIS THIS DRAFT DID RAISE QUITE A BIT OF INTEREST AND WE HAD SOME MEDIA COVERAGE AND SOME CONCERN MOSTLY ABOUT THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RC ZONE, AS WELL AS A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN KAM LAKE ADJACENT TO THE GRACE LAKE SUBDIVISION. HOWEVER, WE DID MANAGE TO HAVE 90 INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES. ONE LETTER TO THE EDITOR. ONE PETITION WITH 36 NAMES ON IT, ALL OF WHOM SAID THAT THEY ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THE CHANGES TO THE ZONING BYLAW. AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL CALLS IN CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF AND THE MAYOR AND A HOST OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT COULD ALSO BE PREPARED AND SHARED AS WELL. SO IT CREATED A LOT OF INTEREST AND A LOT OF BUZZ, AND FOR THAT, WE'RE QUITE THANKFUL BECAUSE IT DID CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACTUALLY BE ENGAGED, ESPECIALLY DURING THE TIME WHEN WE WERE ALL STUCK INSIDE IN LOCKDOWN AND DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE IN PERSON. NEXT SLIDE. SO HOW DID WE GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY? AND HOW WAS THIS FEEDBACK CONSIDERED? ALL THE COMMENTS WERE RECORDED THAT WERE RECEIVED BOTH FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND FROM COUNCIL. THEY WERE ALL REVIEWED AND RECORDED AND MAINTAINED BY CITY STAFF, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, A RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED TO ANYONE WHO HAD A QUESTION THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE CONTENT THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT. ONCE WE HAD ALL THE COMMENTS, WE WERE ABLE TO CATEGORIZE THEM AND GROUP THEM BY THEME OR TOPIC, FOR EXAMPLE, A LOT OF COMMENTS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, CAME IN FROM THE RC ZONE AND HOW PEOPLE FELT IT WAS TOO BROAD AND TOO LARGE OF AN AREA. THOSE THEMES WERE GROUPED AND WE WERE ABLE TO READ AND REVIEW THEM TOGETHER. TAKING ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, WE THEN CONSIDERED WHAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS LIKELY SHOULD BE. AND WE LOOKED AT BEST PRACTICE REVIEW. HOW ARE OTHER CITIES HANDLING SOME OF THESE MAJOR ISSUES BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM CAME BACK TO INFILL, DENSIFICATION, AND MIXED USE ACTIVITIES. SO WE DID A BEST PRACTICE REVIEW ON WHAT SOME OTHER CITIES ARE DOING. BUT THEN WE ALSO PAUSED AND WE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ADJUSTMENTS. WHAT WERE THE THINGS THAT WERE MAKING PEOPLE NERVOUS AND WHAT WERE THE ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS AND HOW DID WE HAVE TO THINK THOSE THROUGH AND ADJUST THEM? FROM THAT, WE WERE ABLE TO ADJUST THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW, AND WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO PREPARE RESPONSES AND DIRECT THEM BACK TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY WERE AWARE THAT THESE CHANGES WERE HEARD AND THAT WE HAD MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ZONING. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE MAJOR PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE ZONING BYLAW INCLUDED THE RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL ZONE. A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME BACK WAS THE CONCERN ABOUT TOO MUCH MIXED USE AND TOO MUCH REDUCTION IN REGULATIONS FOR THE ENTIRE AREA, AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY [00:20:05] POINTED OUT TO SOME OF THE SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES, THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLANS AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOME OF THE OBJECTIVES THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN BOTH ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. AND THE REALITY WAS THERE ARE SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE WE ARE ACTUALLY TARGETING MOST OF THE HIGHER DENSITY GROWTH. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE HAD TO THINK THAT THROUGH AND WE HAD TO RETHINK SORT OF WHAT THE RC ZONE LOOK LIKE AND WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS A SUB SUB ZONE CALLED RC-1. AND THESE ARE AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT DON'T HAVE LARGER LOTS, THAT WERE NOT SORT OF DRIVING AND EXPECTING A LOT OF THE HIGH RISE OR THE HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN. AND WE CREATED A NEW LIST OF PERMITTED AND POTENTIALLY DISCRETIONARY USES, AND WE PUT SOME MORE LIMITS AROUND HEIGHT AND DENSITY JUST SO THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE TRANSITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY'RE STILL MEANT TO BE MOSTLY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS, BUT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE INFILL THAT WE'RE HOPING TO ACHIEVE AND THAT THE TRANSITION AND AS THE CITY GROWS AND AS WE SEE THE TRANSITION FROM DENSITY AND INFILL, WE'RE NOT EXPECTING THAT TO HAPPEN EVERYWHERE. AND WE DO STILL WANT A CONCENTRATED IN THE AREAS WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE LOT SIZES AND THE VACANT LAND TO SUPPORT THAT. THE SECOND PROPOSED UPDATE WAS THE KAM LAKE ZONE. THERE WAS A LARGE PORTION OF UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT HAD BEEN ZONED TO BE KAM LAKE. THIS CREATED SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF GRACE LAKE, SO THE CHOICE WAS TO ACTUALLY PUT IT BACK TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PUT MORE TIME THINKING, WHICH WOULD GIVE THE CITY MORE TIME TO THINK THROUGH WHAT ACTUALLY SHOULD BE DEVELOPED THERE. AND HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING THEIR CONCERNS, BUT ALSO SUPPORTING THE GROWTH AND THE NEED FOR LAND, PARTICULARLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND IN KAM LAKE? THE THIRD MAJOR CHANGES WERE EDITS TO THE MAPS, AND THIS CREATED A LOT OF CONCERN IN THE PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND IT WAS EXCELLENT THAT PEOPLE CAME OUT BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE WERE JUST ERRORS OR INADVERTENT OMISSIONS IN THE MAP. WE WERE ABLE TO DO A MORE FINE TUNED REVIEW OF THE MAP AND ACTUALLY EDIT SOME OF THE ZONING THAT WAS PRESENTED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE OTHER PROPOSED UPDATES CAME THROUGH THE YKDFN AS WELL. OVERALL, THE YELLOWKNIFE'S DENE FELT VERY POSITIVE ABOUT HOW THE ZONING BYLAW HAD BEEN PRESENTED AND HOW THEY HAD BEEN INCORPORATED AND THEIR CONCERNS HAD BEEN INCORPORATED. THE ONE THING THEY DID ASK WAS THAT THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT AND POTENTIALLY THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR LANDS WHEN THEY HAVE FINISHED AND COMPLETED THEIR LAND CLAIM AGREEMENT. WE ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS AROUND VARIANCES, AND WE ADJUSTED THE LANGUAGE TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE. AND WE REMOVED THE SECTION THAT PUTS ANY RESPONSIBILITY ON THE DEVELOPER TO ENGAGE NEIGHBORS. THAT WAS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT HAD ALSO COME UP, SO WE REMOVED THAT SECTION. IN THE DEFINITION SECTION, THERE WAS QUITE A FEW COMMENTS THAT POINTED OUT A FEW INCONSISTENCIES OR A FEW CLARITY THINGS IN THE DEFINITIONS, SO WE WERE ABLE TO DO A ROBUST REVIEW OF OUR DEFINITIONS AND WE ALSO ADDED THE DEFINITION FOR IMPACT. WE ACTUALLY DID A REVIEW OF SOME OF OUR REGULATIONS AND HOW MANY TIMES THE WORD IMPACT WAS ACTUALLY BEING USED. IT DID TRIGGER THE NEED TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT WORD DEFINED AS WELL. AND FINALLY, THERE WAS A FEW PROCESS THINGS THAT WE HAD TO CLARIFY AS WE WERE CLEANING UP THE DOCUMENT, PARTICULARLY ABOUT HOW DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE ISSUED AND WHO ACTUALLY ISSUES THEM IF IT'S DISCRETIONARY USE A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE WE HAD IN THEIR CLEAR AND EXPLICIT AND AS CLEAR AS WE PROBABLY REALIZED. AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. THEY WILL TURN IT OVER TO CHELSEA. OK. OH, THAT'S GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS MYSELF, ROB AND MARGARET ARE AVAILABLE, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO JUST TO SHAPE THE MEETING A BIT, WE'LL FOCUS ON QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. [6. A memorandum regarding whether to repeal and replace Zoning By‐law No. 4404, as amended.] ONCE EVERYBODY'S HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS, KIND OF LIKE BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, WHERE IF COUNCILLORS DO WANT TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS, WE'LL KIND OF DO A VOTE TO SEE IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNCILORS ARE IN FAVOR. WHAT STAFF WILL DO, THEY'LL COMPILE ALL THE SO IF IT'S NO CHANGE X TO SAY Y, STAFF WILL DO A BIT OF AN ANALYSIS AND COME FORWARD NEXT WEEK AT GPC SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF WHAT MAY SEEM LIKE A HOUSEKEEPING FIX MAY [00:25:03] ACTUALLY HAVE A BIGGER IMPLICATION. AND THEN AT THAT MEETING WITH THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ADVICE, WE'LL JUST RECONFIRM, YES, WE STILL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CHANGE BEFORE FIRST READING. THERE IS THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING WILL GO TO SECOND READING, WHICH IS WHERE WE'LL WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES AGAIN TO THE BYLAW BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HEARD AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. SO NOT TO CONFUSE STUFF, BUT WE'LL JUST START RIGHT NOW. FIRST STEP, JUST QUESTIONS ON THE BYLAW. SO I'VE GOT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? JUST MY INTERNET WAS A LITTLE SLOWER EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, AWESOME. I THINK JUST FOR AUDIO, I'M GOING TO DROP MY CAMERA FOR THE MEANTIME WHILE I'M SPEAKING HERE BECAUSE I DO SEE EVERYONE'S FACE FREEZING UP FROM TIME TO TIME. MY FIRST QUESTION IS IN REGARDS TO THE NOT USING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR ITEMS THAT DON'T NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. I SEE, I THINK IT'S SECTION 2G. I'M SORRY, YEAH, 4.2G. IT SAYS, DOES NOT EXCEED SEVENTY FIVE SQUARE METERS. WAS I CORRECT IN THINKING THAT THE OLD BYLAW WAS ONE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET? AND WHEN I DO THE CALCULATION, 75 SQUARE METERS THAT COMES OUT TO ABOUT WHERE MY ASSUMPTION IS ABOUT 800 SQUARE FEET. SO I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS AS TO WHY THEY WOULDN'T REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING UP TO 800 SQUARE FEET? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. AND IF I COULD ASK COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, WHICH SECTION 4.23 YOU'RE LOOKING AT? 4.2G, ACTUALLY. OK, THANK YOU. SORRY. I WILL ASK WHETHER MARGARET OR ROB TO ANSWER, PLEASE, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. IN 2015, WE MADE A NUMBER OF MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES TO THE ZONING BYLAW IN ORDER TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVING PERMITS. AT THAT TIME, WE IMPLEMENTED RULES THAT STATED ANY SORT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LESS THAN 75 SQUARE METERS WOULD GO THROUGH A CHECKLIST PROCESS, WHICH IS A PLAN REVIEW, BUT IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH A FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS. SO IN FACT, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE BYLAWS ALREADY IS SOMETHING THAT IS EMBEDDED IN 4404. IT'S NOTHING NEW THAT WE'RE ADDING. IN TERMS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LESS THAN 100 SQUARE FEET, NEITHER A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR A CHECKLIST IS REQUIRED, BUT THAT'S FOR VERY, VERY SMALL SHEDS, EIGHT FEET BY EIGHT FEET, FOR EXAMPLE. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT, THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH, I GUESS YOU GUYS ARE THE CHECKLIST WILL COVER THAT. I'VE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THE TECH CHECKLIST BEFORE, SO I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD PROCESS. THE NEXT ONE IS VERY SIMILAR ON THE SAME PAGE, SECTION K ON 4.2, DECKS ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, NOT NEEDING A DEVELOPMENT. I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS WOULD BE THE CHECKLIST AS WELL. I KNOW IN THE PAST, MAYBE IT WAS AN OLD VERSION OF 4404. THERE WAS A HEIGHT RESTRICTION, SO ANYTHING THAT WAS OVER, SAY, ABOUT 24 INCHES, WOULD NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. SO JUST BECAUSE I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL BE INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE. JUST CURIOUS IF ADMINISTRATION WOULD JUST FLESH THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN WHAT THE THINKING BEHIND THE DECKS WAS AND WHAT THAT PROCESS WILL BE FOR RESIDENTS. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, YES, THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WILL NO LONGER REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CHECKLIST. THE NUMBER YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS ACTUALLY OUT OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. SO THAT'S WHEN SOMETHING IS GREATER THAN THE TWO FEET OFF THE GROUND. BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE USE OF A PROPERTY, WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE SOME OF THESE RED TAPE HURDLES THAT PEOPLE NEED TO GO THROUGH. SO WHILE YOU MAY NOT REQUIRE THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, YOU STILL IN SOME CASES WHERE IT TRIGGERS A BUILDING PERMIT. WE'LL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BUT IT'LL BE A CHECKLIST ON OUR PART. GREAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, YES. SO, CODE AND JUST FOR RESIDENTS KNOWING THAT, OF COURSE, CODE WILL COME IN AND THAT'LL TRIGGER THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE. AND AND I BELIEVE WE'RE DOING THE BUILDING REVIEW NEXT. IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YES, THAT WILL BE IN THE WORKS, THERE'S SOME WORK STARTING UNDERWAY, [00:30:01] BUT YES, THAT'S COMING NEXT. THANK YOU. ANY CHANCE THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE SAME SITTING OF THIS. COUNCIL, SAY, WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. BARRING ANY MASSIVE CURVEBALLS. YES, THAT'S OUR INTENT. THANK YOU. GREAT. GOT ONE MORE JUST ON THAT SAME PAGE, BECAUSE THIS ONE WAS SORT OF SURPRISING TO ME. THE HOME BASED ONLINE LETTER O HOME BASED BUSINESSES FUNCTIONING EXCLUSIVELY FROM AN INTERNAL OFFICE DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AS WE KNOW, MANY OF US ARE WORKING FROM HOME, SO I'M SURE THAT THIS IS A TIP OF A HAT TO THE CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT. BUT WHEN I INSTANTLY THOUGHT OF THIS, I GOT THINKING WHAT ABOUT ACCOUNTANTS THAT ARE HAVING MORE PERMANENT BUSINESSES AND MAY NOT HAVE, SAY, CUSTOMERS ON SITE, BUT INTERMITTENT CUSTOMERS? DOES THAT THEN TRIGGER THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON THAT PART? I'M ALSO THINKING OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SELLING, SAY, FINANCIAL SERVICES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE OPERATING OUT OF THEIR HOME. I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS ABOUT SOME OF THE THE FINER NUANCE TO HOW O WILL BE CONSIDERED BY A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. AND YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE CITY BUSINESS IS HAPPENING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, YOU KNOW, SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE, YOU KNOW, FEES THAT ARE CHARGED ON THE BUSINESS LICENSE ITSELF AND ALSO THAT JUST RESIDENTS ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAPPENING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS AS TO FLESHING OUT, O, A LITTLE BIT MORE AND AND WHAT THE INTENT BEHIND THAT IT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HERE'S TO O. MS. WHITE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SO I'LL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT AND THEN ASK ROB TO ADD AS WELL. BUT HOME-BASED BUSINESS SAYS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS INTENSITY. SO IS THE BUSINESS GOING TO INTENSIFY THE USE ON THAT PROPERTY? ARE WE THEN GOING TO NEED TO LOOK AT PARKING OR IS THERE ROOM ON STREET? SO THAT WILL KIND OF BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT REQUIRING THE PERMIT OR REQUIRING THE PERMIT. SO ONCE YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE HOME, A PART OF THAT BUSINESS, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW ARE THOSE CUSTOMERS GETTING THERE AND WHERE ARE THEY PARKING? SO THAT REALLY WOULD BE THE DEFINING POINT. BUT I'LL ASK ROB IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WHAT I MIGHT ADD IS I BELIEVE IT WAS 2017 WHEN WE MADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCESS AND THE EXISTING BAR LAW. AND IN FACT, THIS RULE WAS IMPLEMENTED THEN THAT IF YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME SORT OF OFFICE BUSINESS WITHIN YOUR HOME AND THE BUSINESS IS ENTIRELY WITHIN YOUR HOME, THERE'S NO CUSTOMERS COMING BY, SO ON AND SO FORTH THAT YOU CAN SKIP THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS AGAIN. IT GOES THROUGH A PLANNING REVIEW AND IT GOES STRAIGHT TO A BUSINESS LICENSE. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING WRITTEN HERE IS IN FACT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN OBSERVING FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS NOW. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. THE NEXT SECTION THAT I KIND OF GOT TO WAS 4.4.4, BUT THEN I GOT THINKING THAT THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY ROADBLOCKS FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT THESE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TO USE AT THEIR DISCRETION. I GUESS THAT COULD ANSWER MY QUESTION IF THAT WAS IN. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SO THERE'S ALWAYS DISCRETION WHEN REVIEWING AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES INTO THE CITY AND NOT ALL ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE ZONING BYLAW APPLY TO ALL PROPERTIES OR ALL APPLICATIONS. SO IT WOULD BE THAT WHICH APPLIES TO THE SPECIFIC SITUATION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WOULD UTILIZE. DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? YEAH, IT CERTAINLY DOES SO LIKE FOR MINOR ALTERATIONS OR MINOR, LIKE A RESIDENT TRYING TO DO SOMETHING. IT'S NOT LIKE THE LEVEL ONE AND LEVEL TWO SITE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WAS ONE OF THOSE ONES THAT KIND OF FIRST SAID, WHOA, THAT'S SCARY. AND THEN TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND THEN I WAS LIKE, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THESE MUST BE JUST THINGS THAT ARE IN THE HAT THAT COULD BE PULLED OUT IF THE DEVELOPMENT WAS TO IMPACT THOSE THINGS, OR IF THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AROUND THINGS LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THAT LOT. SO THAT'S WHEN I THEN CAME OFF THE CLIFF AND IT WAS LIKE, OH, ALL RIGHT. AND I HAD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS CORRECT ON THAT. YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, I SAW LOTS OF HEADS NODDING YES. [00:35:02] ALL RIGHTY, THEN, SO. 7.12 SHORELINE DEVELOPMENTS. SO RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT SECTION, WE SAY THAT ALL PERMANENT OVER THE WATER STRUCTURES AND USAGE SHALL REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE BED OF THE BODY OF WATER. NOW I CERTAINLY HAVE A GOAL. WE WANT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEND PEOPLE ON A RUNAROUND. IS THE REASON THAT THAT'S VAGUE AND DOESN'T CALL OUT THE SPECIFIC AGENCY IN QUESTION BECAUSE IT COULD BE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT AGENCIES UNDER MULTIPLE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS? AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE THIS GETTING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR DEVELOPING THE CITY AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, WAS THERE SOME CONSIDERATION OF MAYBE PUTTING SOME EXAMPLES OUT THERE OR WHAT DEPARTMENTS TO CONTACT SPECIFICALLY IN THE ZONING BYLAW? AND IF NOT, THEN I GUESS WHY NOT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION, BECAUSE, YES, THERE ARE DIFFERENT AGENCIES INVOLVED DEPENDING ON THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF PARCEL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A WATER LOT THAT SOMEONE OWNS? OR IS IT COMMISSIONER'S LAND? OR ARE WE TALKING FURTHER OUT, WHICH WOULD THEN FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF DFO? OR THERE'S COMBINATIONS THEREOF? SO TO KEEP IT SIMPLIFIED, THAT IS WHY WE HAVEN'T SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED WHO. AND HOPEFULLY, AS WITH ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ITS CITIZENS WANT TO CONTACT THE CITY. WE'RE HAPPY TO POINT THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BASED ON THEIR SPECIFIC SITUATION. GREAT. THANK YOU. SO, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT JUST LIKE A POINT OUT THE DOOR AND SHRUG THEIR SHOULDERS. THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ACTIVE PROCESS OF ENGAGING AND HELPING RESIDENTS SORT OF DEAL WITH OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING TO GET OUT THERE. SO THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. MY NEXT SET IS ACTUALLY SOME PRETTY EASY ONES. RC-1, SO AGAIN, A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHEN WE DID OUR COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WORKSHOPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WAS DEBATED THE MOST. SO I ACTUALLY THINK WHAT ADMINISTRATIONS COME OUT WITH IS ACTUALLY PRETTY REASONABLE. MIDDLE POINT BETWEEN, SAY, RC-2 AND RC-1 DID HAVE A COUPLE, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, VERY SMALL ONES. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WAS SORT OF SEEING WHAT RESIDENTIAL OR SORRY CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL OR RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL WOULD INCLUDE. I NOTICED THAT ON THE NEW RC-1 REGULATION, COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE WAS STILL INCLUDED AS A PERMITTED USE, BUT THAT CONVENIENCE STORE WAS SOMEHOW REMOVED. AND I'M JUST NOT SURE IF, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT CONVENIENCE STORES INDIVIDUALLY CALLED OUT IN OTHER ZONES. BUT THIS ONE, IT'S NOT. BUT THEN YOU COULD KIND OF THINK OF A CONVENIENCE STORE AS A COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE OR A SERVICE. SO I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS IN THAT LINE BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE THINGS I, YOU KNOW, I KNOW MYSELF PERSONALLY. I FEEL THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF EXTRA CONVENIENCE STORES IN SMALLER POCKETS OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES JUST FOR ACCESS TO GOODS AND THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES. THAT CERTAINLY HELPS IN TRANSPORTATION. SO IT WAS SORT OF HOPING WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES TO ENCOURAGE SOME OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AND SEEING IT NOW REMOVED. BUT SEEING COMMERCIAL, RETAIL AND SALES AND SERVICE STILL THERE, I'M JUST SORT OF INTERESTED IN WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS AND IF THEY ARE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT, WHY WAS CONVENIENCE STORE REMOVED FROM THAT PARTICULAR? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. YES, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF USES THAT MAY BE SIMILAR, BUT ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN WE GO TO THAT DEFINITION SECTION. HOWEVER, WITH THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION, I'M GOING TO ASK MARGARET OR ROB TO JUST MAYBE GIVE A LITTLE FURTHER EXPLANATION AS THEY KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE LOT FABRIC IN MAKING THESE DECISIONS. SO I'LL PASS THAT OFF. THANK YOU. THANKS, CHELSEA. YEAH, A COUPLE OF REASONS. PART OF IT IS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE WHEN THE NIVEN LAKE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WAS ACTUALLY FIRST CRAFTED. I THINK WE EVEN WHEN WE REVIEWED THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT ALLOWING FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE IN NIVEN. AND THE RESPONSE AT THE TIME WAS THERE'S JUST NO DEMAND BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE, WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF SERVICES. SO IN THIS CASE, PROBABLY THE SAME BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY OF RC-1 TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHERE THERE'S ALREADY CONVENIENT STORES ON TAYLOR ROAD TO HAVE IT AS A PERMITTED USE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE AS LOGICAL. [00:40:01] SO THAT WAS PART OF IT. THE OTHER PART OF IT WAS THEY SEEM TO HAVE DIFFERENT HOURS LIKE A CONVENIENCE STORE AS A USE DOES HAVE DIFFERENT HOURS. THEY ARE OPEN LATER. THEY DO HAVE MORE LIGHTING. THEY CAN ATTRACT MORE TRAFFIC. SO GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN, WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE STORES THAT ARE SIMILAR LIKE THE REDI-MART AND OTHER STORES THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE, IN THAT PROXIMITY, THAT'S STILL FAIRLY WALKABLE. IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A USE THAT WAS AS PRESSING TO ADD AS A USE AS A PERMITTED USE. BUT AGAIN, LIKE THAT WAS SORT OF THE PLANNING RATIONALE BEHIND THAT. SO. YEAH, THAT CERTAINLY MAKES ENOUGH SENSE TO ME, YOU KNOW? AND I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THE REASONING FROM THERE. YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S GREAT. I THINK I'LL MOVE ON TO MY NEXT ONE. AND AGAIN, IT WAS TO DO WITH A PERMITTED USE AND ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RC AND RC -1. AND THAT'S IN REGARDS TO COMMERCIAL RECREATION. AND THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE, OF COURSE, SOME OF THE AREAS THAT ARE IN THAT NEW RC-1 ARE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE AND TO SOME OF OUR WALKING TRAILS AND THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES. SO WHEN I THINK OF COMMERCIAL RECREATION, I THINK OF THAT COULD BE AS SMALL AS A PLACE TO RENT A COUPLE OF BIKES, TO RENT A CANOE AND GO OUT FOR A LITTLE PADDLE ON THE BAY OR TO MAYBE SOMEONE IN THE TIMKEN HILL AREA. IT MAY BE DOING A NATURE WALK OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. SO I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS INTO WHY THAT WAS REMOVED. DOES IT SEEM LIKE A HIGHER IMPACT USE OR OUR MIND SMALL IDEAS OF COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL JUST COMPLETELY OFF BASE, YOU KNOW? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION, BECAUSE YES, SCALE IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE USES AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION, I BELIEVE IS ONE OF THEM. SO YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RECREATION USE THAT SOMEONE IS SELLING FOR A FEE COULD BE ANYTHING TO DO. IT COULD BE A RECREATIONAL FAIRGROUND. IT COULD BE KAYAK RENTALS, OUTDOOR TOURISM OF SOME SORT, WHETHER THAT'S VIEWING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES LIKE THAT. AND I THINK THE REASON IT WAS REMOVED IS BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME TIMES ENDS UP BEING OUTDOOR STORAGE THAT GOES ALONG WITH SOME OF THESE USES AND ADDITIONAL IT COULD INCLUDE ACCESSORIES AS TO IT AS WELL. SO FOOD SERVICES THINKING IF YOU HAVE AN OUTDOOR FESTIVAL, YOU'D HAVE POTENTIALLY SOME FOOD SERVICE THERE OR BEVERAGE ACTIVITIES. I WILL ASK ROB OR MARGARET IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT, BUT I THINK WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT THAT SCALE IS BASED ON THE DEFINITION AND WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE IN THAT RC ZONE. THANK YOU, YES, I THINK THE OTHER THING. EXACTLY TO THE SCALE QUESTION, BUT THE THINGS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED, ROBIN, AND LISTED, OR COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, COULD FIT UNDER A HOME BASED BUSINESS, BUT COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY FIT UNDER THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE. AND THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THE SCALE AND THE POTENTIAL OUTDOOR STORAGE OR THE OTHER TYPES OF ACTIVITIES THAT COULD MAKE IT CONFLICTING WITH THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO ALL THOSE THINGS YOU IDENTIFIED LIKELY COULD FIT INTO EITHER A HOME BASED BUSINESS OR EVEN A COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE LINE THERE, MARGARET? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED SCALE, BUT WOULD IT BE JUST THIS INCLUSION OF, SAY, A SINGLE PIECE OF OUTDOOR STORAGE? OR IS THERE A SAY A LIMIT OR IS THERE A THRESHOLD THAT ONE WOULD HIT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? I GUESS I WILL GO TO MS. KALT? SURE, YOU CAN FIND SOME OF THOSE REGULATIONS IN THE HOME BASED BUSINESS SECTION AS TO WHEN IT TRIGGERS THAT CHANGE AND THE VOLUME OF STORAGE THAT LIKELY ALLOWED, OR EVEN THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT'S ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN UP ON THE ON THE LANDSCAPE. SO IT'S WRITTEN KIND OF INTO THAT HOME BASED BUSINESS REGULATION SECTION, WHICH IS IN SECTION 8.25. EXCELLENT, SO BUT JUST FURTHER TO IT. IS THERE ANY I KNOW IN OTHER USES, THERE'S SOMETIMES A LIGHT VARIETY. THERE WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. IS THERE A, I GUESS, DOES THE ADMINISTRATION SEE THE NEED IN THE NEAR FUTURE? NOT THAT WE HAVE TOURISM RIGHT NOW, BUT IF THAT WAS EVER TO RECOVER FOR US TO MAYBE DELINEATE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT USES SAYING, YOU KNOW, HEAVY COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL RECREATION BECAUSE OF COURSE, YOU KNOW A LOT ABOUT HOW TRAVEL IS [00:45:02] CHANGING. YOU KNOW, LIKE I CAN RECALL PEOPLE DOING A LITTLE PHOTO WALKING PHOTO TOUR OF OLD TOWN. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF OPERATORS DOING THAT AT ONE POINT. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ARTIST AT ONE POINT THAT WAS DOING SOME INSTALLATIONS IN THE TIMKEN HILL AREA AND DOING WALKING TOURS AND THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES FOR THAT. SO I WOULD JUST HATE TO TO PUSH ALL THAT STUFF OUT TO LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WHEN WE HAVE THIS VIBRANT, BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO INTERACT WITH TO EXPLORE. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT LINE OF NEEDING A BUNCH OF STUFF TO BE STORED ON THAT LOT. SO JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION AROUND HAVING THOSE TWO USES SPELLED OUT AND IF NOT, I GUESS WHY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. YES, WE DID HAVE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND REALLY, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS WHEN DOES A HOME BASED BUSINESS NO LONGER QUALIFY AS A HOME BASED BUSINESS? AND SO I THINK TWO KEY PIECES, WHICH IS AGAIN, AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE THE INTENSITY ON THE LOT, BUT ALSO THE HOME BASE BUSINESS IS TO BE ANCILLARY. SO LESS THAN THE MAIN PRIMARY USE, WHICH WOULD BE THE DWELLING OR THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY. SO ONCE THAT HOME BASED BUSINESS EITHER EXPANDS WITHIN IT OR STARTS TO TAKE UP LARGE QUANTITIES, AS MARGARET WAS SAYING, OF THE PROPERTY FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD SAY IT'S NO LONGER A HOME BASED BUSINESS. WE'RE CROSSING OVER INTO THAT COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL. AND THE OTHER PIECE IS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RETAIL SALES AS PART OF A HOME BASED BUSINESS, IT'S LIMITED TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARE CREATED ON SITE. SO THAT ALSO COULD INCLUDE PART OF THAT THRESHOLD AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE HOME BASED BUSINESS BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING THIS AND SELLING IT, OR WE'RE USING OTHER EQUIPMENT AND MAKING IT A LARGER OPERATION COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ALL RIGHT, BUT JUST MY, I GUESS MY LAST POINT TO THIS IS BUT ALSO FOR FOLKS THAT ARE DOING, SAY, DIY TOURS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. THE HOME BASE OF THE BUSINESS COULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THE MEETING LOCATION COULD BE IN ANY ONE OF THESE PARTICULAR ZONES. AND JUST SORT OF CURIOUS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS, SAY, A LOCATION MEETING LOCATION AT, SAY, ROTARY PARK, THAT'S SOMEWHAT CLOSE TO THAT RC-1 ZONE, THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THAT HAPPENING. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. SO WHEN IT'S HOME BASED BUSINESS OR A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL, YOU'RE ASKING IF THEY CAN THEN MEET AND UTILIZE PUBLIC SPACE, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE OK. BUT AGAIN, I WILL PASS THAT BACK TO MARGARET BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME. SO I'M JUST THINKING IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO ACCESS WATER SITUATIONS WHERE IT MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE A PUBLIC ACCESS SPACE AND I KNOW THE ULTIMATE GOAL FOR THE MUNICIPALITY IS TO INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE THAT PUBLIC SPACE FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO ACCESS WATER. BUT I'LL ASK MARGARET IF SHE HAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. SORRY, I WAS JUST CONFERRING WITH ROB. I THINK THERE'S ALREADY EXAMPLES IN THE CITY WHERE TOURISM OPERATORS ARE USING PUBLIC PARKS TO ACCESS THE WATERFRONT, AND I THINK AS LONG AS IT ISN'T CREATING ANY LASTING IMPACT TO THE PARK OR ACCESS TO THE PARK, SO THEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE WHEN PEOPLE START TO TAKE OVER THE PARK WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT OR THEY CREATE ISSUES WITH ACCESS FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO USE THE PARK OR THE INTENSITY OF THEIR USE MAKES IT SO THAT THE PARK ALMOST BECOMES THEIR OWN PERSONAL SPACE. THAT'S WHERE WE RUN INTO ISSUES, AND THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE A CHANGE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE A THRESHOLD CHANGE. BUT SOMEBODY WHO'S RUNNING CANOE TOURS AND IS LAUNCHING IN AT ONE OF THE PUBLIC SPACES. THAT'S WHAT THOSE PUBLIC SPACES ARE THERE FOR, AND THAT'S OK. AND THAT'S WHY THEY APPLY FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE. AND THAT'S WHY THEY APPLY FOR THAT SO THAT THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT AS WELL. BUT I THINK AS LONG AS IT'S NOT IMPACTING THE SPACE OR PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM USING THE SPACE FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, AT LEAST, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THANK YOU, MARGARET, YEAH. YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WITH WHAT MY QUESTION WAS GETTING OUT THERE, SO THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL PASS UP THE FLOOR FOR SOMEONE ELSE. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS ON THE DRAFT. I THINK THAT, YEAH, RC-1 WAS SOMEWHAT OF AN ELEGANT COMPROMISE AND HOPEFULLY THE RESIDENTS ARE HAPPY THAT THEIR VOICES WERE HEARD IN THE CONSULTATION. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK. IT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. I HAVE COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA AND THEN COUNCILLOR MORSE. [00:50:06] AWESOME. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, ADMINISTRATION FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS PUT IN FOR THIS DRAFT AND CLEANING IT UP WITH THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND MANY THANKS TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT TOOK TIME TO PROVIDE US WITH FEEDBACK. IT'S REALLY WELL APPRECIATED. I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, JUST MORE LOOKING TO CLARIFY FOR CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT AND JUST MORE FOR ALSO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS. MY FIRST QUESTION IS WITH THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY. IN THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS THAT FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN, SAY, THE KAM LAKE ZONE. AND THEN SO IT READS FOOD AND BEVERAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES. SO MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? I WENT BACK TO TRY TO GET THE DEFINITION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE AND BASED ON THE DEFINITION IN THE DOCUMENT IT SAYS, DOES NOT INCLUDE FAST FOODS OR ANYTHING SOLD AT A CONVENIENCE STORE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION IS WOULD A CONVENIENCE STORE BE PERMITTED IN KAM LAKE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, AND I'LL ASK ROB OR MARGARET TO MAYBE ANSWER IN A LITTLE MORE DEPTH. YOU. OK, I'LL GET IT STARTED. AND CYNTHIA, I SAW THE EMAIL THAT YOU SENT WITH THAT NOTE. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT AS WELL BECAUSE YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT VENDING MACHINES. SO CONVENIENCE STORES ARE PERMITTED IN KAM LAKE. ROB JUST LOOKED IT UP AND IT IS A PERMITTED USE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOOD AND BEVERAGES TENDS TO BE THINGS THAT ARE COMMERCIAL PREPARATION OF FOOD AND THEN SOLD, OFTEN WITH SOME SORT OF LOUNGE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE ZONING BYLAW DOESN'T, JUST TO YOUR QUESTION THAT WAS SENT BY EMAIL ABOUT VENDING MACHINES. THE ZONING BYLAW DOESN'T MANAGE VENDING MACHINES AND ALSO WHERE SOMEBODY PUTS A VENDING MACHINE IS UP TO THEM. THE INTENT WITH THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SO, YES, A CONVENIENCE STORE CAN HAPPEN IN KAM LAKE PROBABLY CAN'T HAPPEN, THOUGH, IN THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL. BUT IN THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, I THINK WE DID MAKE PROVISIONS FOR A TRUCKER LOUNGE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR NOT THE SALE, LIKE THE COMMERCIAL PREPARATION AND SALE OF FOOD ON SITE, BUT IT DOES ALLOW FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE FACILITIES ON SITE THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE PREPARATION OF FOOD. IF INDIVIDUALS WERE THERE AND THEY WANTED TO PREPARE FOOD. ADDING A VENDING MACHINE TO THAT SPACE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT FALLS UNDERNEATH THE ZONING BYLAW. AND SO IT CAN HAPPEN. ESSENTIALLY. OK, PERFECT, THANK YOU, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I KIND OF WAS LOOKING AT WHEN I READ THE BYLAW WAS THINKING, WELL, YOU HAVE ALL THESE TRUCKERS IN THE WINTERTIME THAT COME IN KAM LAKE OR THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND HOW ACCESSIBLE IS THIS PLAN FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUY CERTAIN THINGS, POP, SOME NOODLES OR WHATEVER IT IS. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I'LL MOVE ON TO MY NEXT QUESTION. SO MY NEXT QUESTION, PAGE 79 ON THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL NUMBER FOUR, IT SAYS THAT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF LANDSCAPING THAT ACHIEVE SIMILAR SITE ENHANCEMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED. SO MY QUESTION IS WHY IS THIS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND NOT STIPULATED IN THE ZONING BYLAW? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A TOPIC WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING RECENTLY AND IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE ZONING BYLAW AND COMING, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY HOT ON THE HEELS WILL BE SOME DESIGN STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT'LL BE ACROSS THE MUNICIPALITY. AND SO THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND REVIEWING AN APPLICATION WILL LOOK TO THESE STANDARDS TO SEE IF IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. IT ALSO WILL ALLOW US TO TAKE A LOOK AT EVEN JUST THE DIFFERENT LANDSCAPES ACROSS THE CITY, WHICH CAN BE DIFFERENT BETWEEN OLD TOWN TO KAM LAKE TO NORTHLANDS. SO IT'S TAKING ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND DIFFERENT TOPOGRAPHIES INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER IS LOOKING FOR THE APPROVAL. AND I WILL ALLOW EITHER MARGARET OR ROB TO ADD SHOULD THEY FEEL THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. YEAH, SO THE INTENT OF PUTTING IT AT THE DISCRETION AND THAT MIGHT BE A PLACE WHERE WE PERHAPS CAN CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE INTENT WAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE WE KNOW [00:55:01] THAT THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF TOWN IS NOT ON TRUCK WATER AND IT'S VERY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE. SO THE INTENT WAS NOT TO PRESCRIBE WHAT LANDSCAPING MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE AND GIVE THE DEVELOPER SOME OPPORTUNITY TO BE AS CREATIVE AS THEY COULD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE OBJECTIVES, WHICH IS TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF SCREENING OR PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO THE ACTIVITY THAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SITE. SO THE REASON IT'S NOT SUPER PRESCRIPTIVE IS BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN SOME REALLY INTERESTING EXAMPLES THAT USES EXISTING MATERIAL TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE ADEQUATE LANDSCAPING THERE, AND THE INTENT IS TO ALLOW THAT TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN WITHOUT BEING CHEAP TOO DETAILED, ESPECIALLY IN THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE CITY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT, AND THAT DEFINITELY TERRIFIES THEM, THAT QUESTION FOR ME. I'M JUST MOVING ON TO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS 7.8.7. IT'S THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES OF PARKING. I JUST NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION IN SECTION A, IT SAYS IN KAM LAKE SOUTH 1, KAM LAKE S2, INDUSTRIAL GENERAL ZONES SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LOADING AND PARKING AREAS CANNOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE MINIMUM FRONT YARDS. FRONT YARDS SETBACK. NOW WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? AND JUST TRYING TO GET SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT, SAY, A COMPANY THAT SOME OF THE BIGGER TRUCKING COMPANIES THAT HAVE A LOT OF TRUCKS READY TO LOAD IN THE FRONT, LIKE, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? I GIVE THAT TO ROB OR MARGARET, PLEASE. AND THANK YOU FOR THE. SORRY FOR. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THE THE POINT THAT COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA IS RAISING REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSIDERATION. I DO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF GAPS IN THE LANGUAGE THERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPORT BACK TO YOU ON THAT ONE. BUT IN GENERAL, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED USE IN CAM LAKE. THAT'S A USE THAT'S BEEN DIRECTED OUT TO ANGLE, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OR THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE WRITING THERE CAPTURES THAT, BUT WE CAN REPORT BACK ON THAT. YEAH, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT, AND I DEFINITELY DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S NO LONGER PERMITTED USE. HOWEVER, I ALSO DO KNOW THAT THEY ARE SOME, YOU KNOW, OLDER COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN AND JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW IT STILL WOULD BE COMPATIBLE BASED ON THIS TERMINOLOGY. THAT'S IN THIS ZONING BYLAW. BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU GUYS GETTING BACK TO ME ON THAT. AND JUST KIND OF MAYBE GETTING BACK TO THEM ON THAT. MY NEXT QUESTION IS 7.8.8 AND THIS IS MORE ON, 7.8.8 IS LOCATION OF PARKING AREAS. SECTION EIGHT SAYS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DT, OT AND CS ZONES, ALL PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME SITE OCCUPIED BY THE BUILDING STRUCTURE OR USE FOR WHICH SUCH PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED. SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR A BUSINESS THAT'S PROBABLY ACQUIRED AN ADJACENT LOT SO THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO MANAGE SAY, A LOT OF PARKING NEEDS LIKE WHAT IS THIS ZONING BYLAW MEAN TO THAT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? AND, ROB, PLEASE. WELL, I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO TO THE SECOND QUESTION, THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE LANGUAGE CORRECT AND WE CAN REPORT BACK ON THAT BECAUSE OUR INTENTION IS NOT TO TO CLOSE OFF THAT OPPORTUNITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MANAGE IT APPROPRIATELY, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES BEING FOCUSED ON AN ANGLE. SO WE CAN REPORT BACK ON BOTH OF THOSE QUESTIONS IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. AWESOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I GUESS I'LL MOVE TO I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS NOT TO TAKE UP BEFORE 8.2.4 GOES TO A FACTORY BUILT HOMES, WHICH IS PAGE 107 IN THE DOCUMENT., SECTION A SAYS ALL FACTORY BUILT OR MANUFACTURED DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE BASE OF THE UNIT TO THE GROUND, WITH MATERIALS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE SIDING MATERIAL. PAINTED PLYWOOD SHALL NO LONGER BE PERMITTED AS SKIRTING. WHY THE CHANGE? LIKE WE SEEN IN OLDER HOMES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN. LIKE WHY THE CHANGE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, AND I WILL ASK MARGARET OR ROB TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER, THANKS. THANK YOU. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE BYLAWS, SO THAT'S A REGULATION THAT YOU'RE SEEING GETTING CARRIED FORWARD FROM 4404. WE AGREE THAT THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME OLDER MODULAR HOMES THAT HAVE GOT [01:00:04] SOME PLYWOOD SKIRTING, BUT IDEALLY AS A NEW MODULAR HOME, IT'S PLACED ON A PROPERTY WE FIND IN TERMS OF DURABILITY AND VISUAL APPEAL THAT USING PLYWOOD SKIRTING IS NOT THE BEST CHOICE. IT DOES NOT HOLD UP FOR THAT LONG. OK, PERFECT. SO JUST MORE TO, MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, IT'S MORE TO THE APPEAL, THE APPEARANCE IS WHAT WE'RE CLEANING UP IN IN THIS REGARD. OK, PERFECT, THANK YOU. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS 9.2.2 WITH REGARDS TO. SO IT READS THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO KENNELS. SECTION I SAYS ALL KENNELS MUST HOUSE DOGS INDOORS BETWEEN NINE P.M. AND SEVEN A.M. DAILY, AND THAT'S ON PAGE 113. MY ONLY QUESTION TO YOU THIS IS, IS THIS A CHANGE TO THE BYLAW AND HOW FEASIBLE IS IT TO HAVE, PUT FORWARD AN EXPECTATION FOR KENNELS TO HOUSE DOGS INDOORS? JUST KIND OF CURIOUS ON HOW FEASIBLE THIS IS. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? ROB, PLEASE. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. I'LL START BY SAYING, JUST AS A REMINDER, KENNELS, WE'VE TAKEN THE DEFINITION FOR DOGS AND SPLIT IT INTO TWO DEFINITIONS. AND SO NUMBER ONE, IT'S KENNELS WHERE YOU MIGHT BOARD YOUR ANIMALS AND AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS KENNELS. AND THEN THE SECOND DEFINITION THAT WE'VE INTRODUCED IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING DOG LOTS, WHICH IS WHERE THERE'S THE KEEPING OF DOGS INTENDED FOR DOG SLEDDING PURPOSES. AND THOSE TWO FACILITIES ARE STRUCTURED VERY, VERY DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT COMES TO KENNELS. WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POSSIBLY BELONG IN KAM LAKE, BUT WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE BEST WAY TO MINIMIZE SOME OF THE EXTERNALITIES, PARTICULARLY THE NOISE, IS TO HAVE SOME HOURS WHERE THEY'RE HOUSED INDOORS. AND WE'VE EVEN REACHED OUT TO [INAUDIBLE] AND CONFIRMED THAT THAT'S THEIR CURRENT PRACTICE IS THEY HOUSE THEIR DOGS INDOORS EVERY EVENING. AND WHEREAS WE HAVEN'T INTRODUCED THAT, THAT REGULATION TO APPLY TO DOG LOTS BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. DOG FOR DOG SLED TEAMS, THEY VERY MUCH ARE ATTACHED TO THEIR HOUSE AND THEY LIVE VERY MUCH OUTDOORS. TWO VERY DIFFERENT USES. PERFECT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I DID READ FURTHER IN THAT DOCUMENT THAT THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS THAT WERE SEPARATED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTS THAT READ AND WERE QUESTIONING BEFORE I DOVE DEEPER INTO THE DOCUMENT HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THEM. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS CLARIFICATION, AND I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORGAN? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANKS FOR ALL OF THE INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL, IT'S GOOD THAT PEOPLE ARE DIGGING SO FAR INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK IN THIS CASE THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COVER AS MANY THINGS AS POSSIBLE. COVER BASES, OK, I'LL STICK TO QUESTIONS FOR NOW. MY FIRST QUESTION AND THIS WAS RAISED BY QUITE A FEW PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT I WANTED TO GET THOUGHTS FROM OUR STAFF AND EXPERTS HERE. IN TERMS OF NEW OR PERMITTED USES IN EITHER THE RC OR THE RC-1 ZONES, SO WE'RE ALLOWING MORE COMMERCIAL USES, ESPECIALLY IN THE RC, BUT ALSO SOME IN THE RC-1. SOME PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE THE UNINTENDED EFFECT OF FURTHER HOLLOWING OUT THE DOWNTOWN CORE OR BUSINESSES MOVING OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW, INTO SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THEN THAT MIGHT PUSH FAMILIES EVEN FURTHER OUT INTO THE SUBURBS. I'M WONDERING WHICH, OF COURSE, SORT OF GOES AGAINST THE GOALS OF OUR PLAN, WHICH IS TO DRAW. WE WANT A MORE VIBRANT DOWNTOWN CORE, AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO LIVE CLOSE TO THE DOWNTOWN, EVEN IN HIGHER DENSITIES. WAS THERE CONSIDERATION OF THIS OR ARE THERE THINGS THAT COULD PREVENT THAT OVERALL TREND FROM HAPPENING? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK TO A FEW DIFFERENT POINTS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT PIECE. SO IF I MISS ONE, PLEASE REMIND ME TO COME BACK TO IT. THE FIRST IS WHEN WE LOOK AT JUST GENERAL PRACTICE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN [01:05:01] PLANNING, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN CORE, WE LOOK AT WHAT THOSE EXISTING USES, EXISTING LOT SIZES CURRENTLY ARE WITHIN THE FABRIC OF OUR CITY AND WHAT IS LIKELY TO LOCATE THERE, OR TO REUSE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT ARE LOCATED THERE. AND THE TYPES OF USES WE'VE ALIGNED WITHIN THAT DOWNTOWN AREA ARE SIMILAR, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING WOULD SLOWLY TRANSITION TO THE AREAS SURROUNDING THE COURSE. THE CORE WOULD BE THE LARGER, MORE INTENSIVE USES, LARGE OFFICE SPACES, LARGE RETAIL. AND THEN WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TRANSITION AREA, WE'RE TALKING SMALLER SCALE AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MAYBE EXPAND THEIR HOME BASED BUSINESS INTO SOMETHING A LITTLE LARGER. SO THERE'S THERE'S KIND OF THAT SLOW TRANSITION AND IT'S BEEN SEEN THROUGH NUMEROUS CITIES. AND I'LL EVEN USE SOME EXAMPLES WHEN YOU TRAVEL TO COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY IN SOME REALLY DENSE CITIES IN EUROPE, WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT COMMERCIAL CORE. AND THEN IT'S WHERE ALL THE TOURISTS WANT TO GO ARE THOSE SIDE STREETS WHERE THE BISTROS ARE AND THE AWESOME SALONS AND THE CUTE LITTLE CLOTHING STORES. THOSE ARE THOSE ATTRACTIVE SIDE STREETS, BUT THEY'RE WALKABLE. THEY'RE CONNECTED TO THE DOWNTOWN. IT DOESN'T DRIVE BUSINESSES FROM THE DOWNTOWN. THEY NEED THAT LARGER SPACE. THIS IS FOR MORE OF THE NICHE MARKET THAT YOU DO SEE AROUND THE WORLD. SO IT'S PROVEN THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ONE TAKE OVER FROM THE OTHER. THEY ACTUALLY REALLY WELL COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. AND WHEN WE SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MOVING TO OTHER AREAS, I GUESS FIRST I WOULD ARGUE THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE BY OTHER STANDARDS DOESN'T HAVE WHAT WE WOULD CALL OR DEFINE AS TRADITIONAL SUBURBS. BUT WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC HERE IS THEY WANT TO LIVE CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN AND WHERE THEY CAN WALK TO WORK, WHERE THEY'RE CLOSE TO COMMUNITY, TO THE SCHOOLS, TO THE SERVICES THAT THEY USE, AND THEY JUST WANT MORE AFFORDABLE SMALLER UNITS OR DWELLING SIZES. AND SO THE COMBINATION AND TRANSITION BETWEEN THESE TWO AREAS WILL ALLOW FOR THAT TO SLOWLY STEP MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO TRANSITION TO AREAS WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE SO THEIR CHILDREN CAN WALK TO SCHOOL OR WALK TO THE CORNER STORE OR GO TO THE PARK RIGHT AFTER SCHOOL. SO LOOKING AT HOW BEST THAT TRANSITION OCCURS, AND THERE'S NUMEROUS EXAMPLES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND ACROSS THE WORLD THAT SHOW THAT THIS DOES WORK. OK, THANKS FOR THOSE THOSE INSIGHTS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION OF TRYING TO LIMIT THE CONCENTRATION OF NEW BUSINESSES OR HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS IN ANY OF THOSE TRANSITION ZONES? WHETHER IT'S LIMITING THE NUMBER OF. THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ON ANY GIVEN STREET? OR I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY STANDARD WAYS OR PRECEDENTS BECAUSE I THINK. YOU KNOW, MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE FINE WITH A COUPLE OF THOSE BUSINESSES ON THEIR STREET, BUT IF SUDDENLY EVERY SINGLE HOUSE BECOMES A BUSINESS OR IF YOU'RE THE THE LAST HOUSE AND EVERY OTHER HOUSE ON YOUR STREET HAS NOW BECOME A BUSINESS THAT SHUTS DOWN AT FIVE OR WHATEVER, THEN IT COULD BECOME A FAIRLY LONELY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANY WAY OR ANY CONSIDERATION TO LIMITING THE CONCENTRATION OR NUMBER OF BUSINESSES IN IN THE TRANSITION ZONES? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I SUPPOSE YOU COULD. WHAT I THINK WILL LIMIT IT IS THE CURRENT USE AND REAL ESTATE VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES. NOW WHAT NORMALLY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY A DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE. SO LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, A STREET WITH HOUSES ON BOTH SIDES, THE WAY THAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE A CITY TRANSITION IS THOSE SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS. THEY HAVE SUITES IN THE BACK, SUITES IN THE BASEMENT. AND THEN YOU'RE RIGHT, ONE OR TWO WILL SAY, OK, I'M ON THE CORNER, AND SO I HAVE VISIBILITY. I HAVE THE TRAFFIC, WHETHER THAT'S FOOT TRAFFIC OR TRANSIT ROUTE. I'M GOING TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN THE FIRST FLOOR AND HAVE A COUPLE RENTALS IN THE TOP FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING, AND THAT'S SLOW TRANSMISSION DOES OCCUR WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT OF LIMITING. YOU CAN ONLY HAVE TWO OF THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS. THREE OF THIS REALLY THE MARKET IS WHAT DICTATES WHAT GOES WHERE IN THESE TRANSITION ZONES AND YOU DON'T USUALLY END UP WITH, AS YOU'RE SAYING, THAT ONE LONE PERSON LEFT IN THESE COMMUNITIES REALLY, REALLY POPULAR IN CALGARY AND IN THE HAMILTON AREA [01:10:01] WHERE THEY'RE VERY, VERY MIXED USE AND YOU HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO STAY THERE. THEY WANT TO LIVE WHERE THEY WORK OR THEY'RE CLOSE TO EDUCATION. SO THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR FAMILIES THERE AS WELL SO THEY CAN WORK AND THEIR CHILDREN CAN WALK TO SCHOOL. I THOUGHT MAYBE I WOULD ASK IF MARGARET OR ROB WANTED TO ADD TO THAT ? YEAH, I GUESS THE WAY YOU CAN KIND OF GAUGE EXACTLY WHAT CHELSEA WAS SAYING. I'M JUST REFLECTING ON SOMEBODY WHO'S LIVED IN L.A. FOR A FEW YEARS, BUT 47TH STREET, WHICH IS SORT OF ON THE EDGE KIND OF WHAT WE CONSIDER THE DOWNTOWN CORE, THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT SLOW TRANSITION. AND IF ANYBODY REMEMBERS THAT'S WHERE LCP HEALTH IS, ELKE'S DINER, THERE'S NO MERMAID AND MOON. I MEAN, THAT TRANSITION TOOK, IN MY TIME IN THE 15 YEARS I'VE LIVED HERE, IT'S TAKEN ALMOST 15 YEARS TO ACTUALLY TRANSITION THAT STREET, AND THAT'S A STREET THAT'S RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF ALL OF THE OFFICES AND MAJOR BUSINESSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO TO CHELSEA'S POINT, THAT STUFF HAPPENS VERY SLOWLY, AND THE MARKET VALUES THAT WE'RE SEEING AND THE DESIRE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF HOUSING IS GOING TO KEEP A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS VERY INTACT AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIRABLE PLACES TO LIVE AND PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE THERE. OK. OK, MOVING NOW TO SECTION 4.8, AROUND VARIANCE AUTHORITY. SO I WAS TRYING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES THAT WERE MADE IN THE THE COPY THAT HAD THE TRACK CHANGES, THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANY TRACK CHANGES IN THIS SECTION, BUT THEN WHEN I WENT BACK. THERE DID SEEM TO BE A FEW THINGS DIFFERENT FROM THE VERSION WE WERE GIVEN BEFORE, SO I MAY HAVE MISSED SOME CHANGES HERE, BUT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIVISION OF ROLES BETWEEN COUNCIL AND THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WHEN IT COMES TO ALLOWING VARIANCES. IT SEEMS IN THE NEWER VERSION THAT'S CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT COUNCIL'S IN CHARGE OF ALLOWING VARIANCES AS THEY RELATE TO SITE DENSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER COULD ALLOW VARIANCES IN REGARDS TO EVERYTHING ELSE. FIRST, I'M WONDERING BECAUSE THEY STILL DON'T SEE THAT SITE DENSITY IS ACTUALLY DEFINED ANYWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT. I WONDERED IF YOU COULD DEFINE IT AND IF IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO DEFINE IT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT'S IN CAPITAL LETTERS, I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE DEFINED. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE. THANK YOU. OH, EXCUSE ME. SO USUALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SITE DENSITY, YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNITS OR DWELLINGS PER ACRE OR HECTARE OF LAND. AND YOU KNOW, MAYBE I WILL ASK ROB IF HE COULD EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING, DEPENDING ON THE ZONE IN WHICH WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT. SO SITE DENSITY AS ITS OWN DEFINITION DOESN'T EXIST IN THE DEFINITIONS, BUT DENSITY DOES EXIST AND SITE DOES EXIST, SO DENSITY MEANS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED BY THIS BYLAW BASED ON THE LOT AREA. SO THAT'S LOOKING AT THE VOLUME OF THINGS THAT ARE ON THERE AS IT RELATES TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT COUNCIL WOULD MAKE DECISIONS ON VERSUS THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. THE INTENT IS THAT COUNCIL WEIGHS IN WHEN IT CHANGES THE FORM OR THE LIKE THE THE BASIC FORM OF THE BUILDING AND HOW MUCH FOR THE BUILDINGS AND HOW MUCH THAT COULD IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. VERSUS JUST THOSE INDIVIDUAL ONE OFFS, SO IT'S A VARIANCE FOR THE SITE AND ALL THEY NEED IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE BECAUSE IT'S AN IRREGULAR SHAPE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR NOT A FLAT LOT. SO IT HAS SOME IRREGULARITIES WHEN IT COMES TO TRYING TO FIND THE LIKE THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCES. THAT'S THE STUFF THAT THEY EXPECT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TO DO WHEN IT RELATES BACK TO THE ACTUAL DENSITY AND THE FORM. SO IF WE'RE TAKING WHAT WAS A 12 STOREY BUILDING THAT FITS ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT BUT IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, MAYBE IT'S NOT A 12 METER BUILDING ANYMORE, MAYBE IT'S A 15 METER BUILDING OR SOMETHING. THAT'S WHEN WE FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO BE THE ONES WEIGHING IN ON THAT VARIANCE VERSUS THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. OK. ALTHOUGH IT DOES STILL SAY THAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER COULD ALLOW VARIANCES WITH REGARD TO BUILDING HEIGHT. SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW, LIKE IN WHAT KIND OF A SITUATION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER [01:15:01] BE ABLE TO ALONE, YOU KNOW, SAY INCREASE BUILDING HEIGHT, BUT HAVE IT NOT RELATE TO SITE DENSITY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? MARGARET? I THINK AN EXAMPLE OF A VARIANCE THAT A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MIGHT APPROVE WOULD BE A NEW HOME IN NIVEN THAT'S SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THAN THE HEIGHT THAT'S PERMITTED OR A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE THAT'S GETTING BUILT IN GRACE SLATE BECAUSE THE GARAGE OR THE SHOP IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER ZONING, YOU KNOW. SO HOWEVER, IF THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE HIGHER THAN IT'S ALLOWED. AND IT'S TO ADD MORE DWELLING UNITS, IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S ANOTHER SUITE OR ANOTHER STORY TO ADD MORE DWELLING UNIT SUITES, THEN WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S A DECISION FOR COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO A DECISION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. OK, THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT AND JUST TO BE CLEAR. IS THERE A THRESHOLD OF VARIANCE THAT THEN IT WOULD GET SENT TO COUNCIL OR ANY VARIANCE AT ALL REGARDING SITE DENSITY AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO COUNCIL, NO MATTER IF IT'S FIVE PERCENT OR 100 PERCENT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, AND IF ROB WANTS TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE LEGISLATION, AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO THAT DENSITY PIECE, IT GOES TO COUNCIL. ROB? AGREED. OK. AND SO FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ON A LIMIT ON VARIANCES, EITHER A LIMIT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER COULD CONSIDER OR COUNCIL? ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE HAVE VERY MUCH, IN MOST OF OUR ZONES, YOU KNOW, INCREASED, SAY, HEIGHT OR DENSITY THAT IS ALREADY NOW PERMITTED? I GUESS, ARE WE SAYING THAT EVEN ON TOP OF THOSE INCREASED MAXIMUM HEIGHTS AND DENSITIES THAT WE'RE ENCOURAGING THAT THERE'S STILL UNLIMITED VARIANT'S ABILITY ON TOP OF THAT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. IT'S AN INTERESTING CONSIDERATION, AND IF THE SITUATION THAT'S NEW TO ME COMING TO YELLOWKNIFE, BECAUSE IN OTHER LEGISLATIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THEY ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY DO OUTLINE WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE AT VARIANCE AND WHEN THAT TRIGGERS INTO A ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT. AND HERE IT'S ALLOWED TO BE SOMEWHAT MORE DISCRETIONARY TO MUNICIPALITIES DEVELOPING THAT BYLAW. I KNOW WITH STAFF, I'VE HAD SOME INTERESTING CONVERSATIONS JUST UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT'S IMPLEMENTED HERE. SO YES, THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES ELSEWHERE WHERE THERE IS KIND OF THAT HARD LINE OF OK. NO, THAT'S NO LONGER A VARIANCE. WE NEED TO LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST IT'S ONE PERCENT OR TWO PERCENT CHANGE AND SAY A SLIDE LOT LINE WHERE THE VARIANCE ACTUALLY DOES HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON THE LAW AS A WHOLE AND HOW IT INTERACTS WITH THE COMMUNITY OR THE USE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. SO I'LL ASK ROB IF HE WANTS TO ADD TO IT, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY A CONVERSATION WE HAVE HAD. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. [INAUDIBLE], WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, HAD PERCENTAGES ASSOCIATED WITH VARIANCES. AND IT WAS FELT THAT. IT RESULTED IN A FAIR AMOUNT OF HOLDUP FOR DEVELOPERS WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE IT WOUND UP A LOT OF APPLICATIONS GOT PUSHED TO COUNCIL FOR A DECISION ON A VARIANCE, AND IN 2014 WE WENT THROUGH A REVISION OF THE BYLAW AND THOSE PERCENTAGES WERE PULLED OUT. AND WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING. AND WITH THE NEW BYLAW, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING GOING BACK TO THAT MODEL, WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT STAYING AT THAT MODEL WHERE, YES, THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES, WHERE THERE IS VARIANCES, WE CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL SCENARIOS IN YOUR BYLAW. AND I POINT TO AN EXAMPLE AT THE SUNDOG TRADING POST RECENTLY, WHERE THEY WENT THROUGH A COUPLE OF PERMITTING PROCESSES, INCLUDING A DISCRETIONARY USE BY COUNCIL AND IN ORDER FOR THAT BUSINESS TO GO AHEAD, THEY REQUIRED A 100 PERCENT VARIANCE. [01:20:03] FOR AN ACCESSIBILITY RAMP AND BY INSTALLING THAT ACCESSIBILITY RAMP, THEY'RE ABLE TO OPEN AS A RESTAURANT. AND SO THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHEN WHAT ON PAPER LOOKS LIKE A VERY LARGE VARIANCE IN REALITY IS NOT THAT BIG OF A VARIANCE. IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THAT WAS ROLLED OUT IN THE FIELD, IT OCCUPIES ONE PARKING SPOT AND THEY GOT A SLIGHT VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE PARKING NUMBERS. AND OF COURSE, BECAUSE THAT STRUCTURE GOES DOWN TIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S 100 PERCENT VARIANCE. BUT WHEN YOU DRIVE BY, IT'S VERY BENIGN AND GENERALLY VERY BENIGN. SO WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING GOING BACK TO THAT MODEL OF PERCENTAGE THRESHOLD THRESHOLDS TO VARIANCES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE TIGHT LOT CONFIGURATIONS, THE SMALL LOT SIZES, THE CHALLENGES OF BEDROCK, THE SHORELINE HERE, THERE'S SO MANY [INAUDIBLE] EXAMPLES THAT ARE SORT OF IMPERFECT OR ODDBALL SHAPE THAT SOMETIMES THESE VARIANCES COME ACROSS YOUR TABLE AS A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. AND YET THE DEVELOPMENT MAKES SENSE. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING IN THIS BYLAW THAT DISCRETION STILL BE AVAILABLE. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT A VARIANCE PROCESS IS A SIMPLE MATTER OF GETTING A VARIANCE. THAT ROBUST PLANNING ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED EVERY TIME A VARIANCE IS CONSIDERED. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. OK, IT DOES GIVE SOME MORE INSIGHT, I'LL HAVE SOME MORE TO SAY, I THINK, LATER DURING OUR DISCUSSION. EXCUSE ME. IN TERMS OF THE LIST OF CONDITIONS FOR A VARIANCE, SO 4.9, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LIST, IT'S ALL LISTED AS ORS, I INTERPRET THAT AS YOU JUST NEED ONE OF THOSE THINGS TO APPLY AND THAT'S A VALID CONDITION FOR A VARIANCE. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT IT CAN'T VIOLATE AIRPORT REGULATIONS AROUND HEIGHT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME OF THE THINGS ON THAT LIST ARE NECESSARY IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T VIOLATE AIRPORT REGULATIONS. BUT SOME OF THEM MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY, AND THEY MAY BE THE REASON WHY YOU NEED A VARIANCE. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S IRREGULAR LOT SIZE OR ROCK OUTCROPPINGS OR SOMETHING. AND SO I WONDERED IF THERE HAD BEEN CONSIDERATION TO HAVING TWO LISTS. ONE OF THEM IS A LIST OF THINGS THAT ONE OF THOSE MAY APPLY, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THINGS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN EVERY CASE. SO IN MY MIND, WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE AIRPORT ONE, BUT YOU KNOW, THE ONE ABOUT NOT UNDULY INTERFERING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THOSE SEEM LIKE NECESSARY CONDITIONS AND THE OTHER ONES SEEM LIKE THINGS THAT MAY APPLY. HAS THERE BEEN ANY? YOU KNOW, SIFTING THROUGH THAT LIST TO SEE IF IT'S REALLY MEANT THAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS EVER NEED TO APPLY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING AN ADDITIONAL LIST, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE ZONING BYLAW BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE AND I COULD ARGUE BECAUSE EVERY APPLICATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, SOME OF THOSE MAY NOT APPLY. YOU POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE A DECISION WITHOUT THOSE IN THERE. AND IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. SO AS OTHER AGENCIES POLICIES CHANGE THROUGH TIME, WE MAY HAVE NEW ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED OR CONSIDERED. SO LET'S SAY WE'RE LOOKING AT A VARIANCE IN JUST TRYING TO THINK OF SOMEWHERE WHERE THE AIRPORT REGULATIONS DON'T APPLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T APPLY NECESSARILY ACROSS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. IT DOES WHEN WE'RE TALKING BACK BAY OR WHEN WE'RE IN A SPECIFIC VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT. SO IT'S I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S A PICK AND CHOOSE, BUT IT'S WHAT IS APPLICABLE TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE CITY AT THE TIME. CAN I GET CLARIFICATION, THOUGH, SO THE FIRST CONDITION THAT IT NOT UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THAT MEANT TO APPLY IN EVERY SINGLE CASE OR ONLY IN SOME CASES. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. SO THAT'S MEANT TO BE USED BY THE PERSON REVIEWING THE APPLICATION TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS CONSISTENCY ACROSS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT'S THE STREET THAT THEY'RE ON OR THE WHOLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THEY'RE FUNCTIONING BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING TO [01:25:01] HAVE THESE COMPLETE SPACES. OK, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S MEANT TO BE CONSIDERED EVERY SINGLE TIME, SO IT'S CONFUSING WHY IT'S IN A LIST THEN OF THINGS THAT ARE ALL OR, OR, OR IF THAT'S MEANT TO APPLY IN EVERY CASE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. OK, SORRY, I THINK WE'RE HAVING A MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE TERMS, SO THE DECISION PROCESS AND CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? SO NOT ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE SPECIFICALLY CONDITIONS. THEY'RE THINGS THAT WOULD BE UTILIZED IN MAKING A PLANNING ANALYSIS. AND MAYBE I'M NOT DESCRIBING THAT IN THE BEST WAY. SO MAYBE I'LL ASK ROB TO STEP IN HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S A CONFUSION IN THE TERM BEING USED, ROB. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I'LL START BY SAYING THAT UNDER 4.91A WHERE IT SAYS THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE AMENITIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE USE ENJOYMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE LAND. BOTH OF THOSE CLAUSES COME DIRECTLY OUT OF THE ACT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REFLECTED HERE. AND THEN WE FOLLOW THAT UP WITH ANOTHER SIX CONDITIONS OR ANOTHER SIX POINTS OF CONSIDERATION WHEN A DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OR COUNCIL AND/OR COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING A VARIANCE. I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS CASE IT'S EITHER AND OR IT'S OR IT'S NEITHER. WE'RE SAYING ALL SIX OF THOSE POINTS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN A VARIANCE IS ON THE TABLE, BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING IT MUST MEET FIVE OF SIX OR IT MUST MEET FOUR OF SIX. WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THROUGH THE VARIANCE ANALYSIS, THROUGH THE PLANNING ANALYSIS THAT GOES WITH THAT, EVERY ONE OF THOSE POINTS MUST BE PROPERLY CONSIDERED. OK, I MEAN, THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT I MIGHT SUGGEST IF THE LANGUAGE IN FOUR POINT NINE COULD BE CLEANED UP A BIT TO REFLECT EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I THINK IT WILL BE CLEAR TO PEOPLE BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT LITERALLY READS LIKE THE ENTIRE SECTION IS. THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR A VARIANCE. AND SO IF WE'RE NOT MEANING PEOPLE TO TAKE IT AS THE STRICT CONDITIONS FOR A VARIANCE THAT ONE OF THESE MAY APPLY, THEN WE JUST NEED TO REFLECT THAT IN THE WORDING, AND SO PROBABLY IF WHATEVER ROB JUST SAID COULD BE WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PEOPLE. OK, GOING BACK TO QUESTIONS, OK, LAST ONE ON VARIANCE, LAST QUESTION. THE ONE ABOUT UNDULY INTERFERING WITH THE AMENITIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THERE ANY I MEAN, IS THERE ANY OBJECTIVE TEST FOR HOW WE DETERMINE THIS? I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS A DIFFICULT ONE TO JUDGE, BUT IS THERE ANY GUIDANCE, ANY STANDARDS, ANY BEST PRACTICES THAT WE CAN REFER TO THAT WOULD HELP US TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OBJECTIVE IN THIS ONE BECAUSE IT CAN GET REALLY, YOU KNOW, HEATED AND CONTROVERSIAL. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. IT CERTAINLY CAN. MS. WHITE, THANK YOU. SO, YEAH, AND YOU ACTUALLY FIND THIS LANGUAGE IN OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION AS WELL. AND WE TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT UNDULY INTERFERE AND I LIKE TO USE THE TERM. DOES IT CREATE A NEGATIVE IMPACT BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT USUALLY CREATES AN IMPACT OF SOME SORT? SOMETIMES IT'S POSITIVE, SOMETIMES IT'S NEUTRAL. AND WHAT WE TRY TO LOOK AT IS, IS THERE A NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR THAT SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AREA? SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STANDARD THAT WE REALLY USE WHEN LOOKING AND DOING A PLANNING ANALYSIS. AND SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT? YOU WOULD AIM TO HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE THE THRESHOLD OR OR ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, SO IT'S NOT NO NEGATIVE IMPACT BECAUSE SOME DEVELOPMENT CAN MITIGATE THAT NEGATIVE IMPACT. SO SOMETIMES WE TALK ABOUT NEGATIVE IMPACT BEING REDUCTION IN VEGETATION COVER. BUT IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE EITHER LOCATION OR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD EQUAL OR BETTER THE WHETHER IT'S LANDSCAPING, FLOODPLAIN, RIVERBED TO MAKE WHAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY NOT NEGATIVE BECAUSE WE'RE REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT GREATER THEN. SO EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A NEGATIVE, THERE IS A WAY TO MITIGATE IT. [01:30:02] BUT WHERE THERE'S NO ATTEMPT BY AN APPLICANT TO SHOW MITIGATION, THEN MAYBE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER MINOR FOR THAT VARIANCE ITSELF. OK, I MEAN, TO ME, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE AND A GOOD STARTING PLACE, AND I WONDER IF SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE COULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT SECTION AROUND. I. YOU KNOW, TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THOSE IMPACTS BE MITIGATED? I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF GETTING INTO LANGUAGE THAT SAY THE [INAUDIBLE] WATER BOARDS MIGHT USE AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ASSESSMENTS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, BUT ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IMPACT IS IS DEFINED ALREADY IN THIS BYLAW BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO JUST PUT IT, PUT A SENTENCE IN THERE THAT RESIDENTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO LOOK TO AND SAY, OK, WELL, THESE ARE SOME OF THE TESTS OR STANDARDS THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO APPLY, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OR COUNCIL CONSIDERS INTERFERENCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD. OK. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, YOU'VE GOT A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. OK. WHY DON'T WE TAKE OUR. WE'VE REACHED 90 MINUTES, SO LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AT 1:46PM. JUST TURN THE CAMERAS ON AT THAT TIME. OK. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTINUE. THANK YOU. OK, SO MOVING ON AND A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMERCIAL SERVICE ZONE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS MAINLY THE OLD AIRPORT ROAD STRIP THERE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ONLY 15 METERS IN THAT ZONE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. I'M THINKING IT'S AIRPORT RELATED, BUT I'LL TURN IT TO MS. WHITE. I ALSO BELIEVE IT IS AIRPORT ZONE RELATED. ROB, CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT? IT'S IN PART. WAITING FOR THE LAG. IT'S IN PART RELATED TO AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS, BUT AS WELL 15 METERS IS KIND OF A STANDARD BUILDING HEIGHT OR A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE SORTS OF USES THAT YOU SEE IN THAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL STRIP WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE SORT OF THOSE SMALLER TO MEDIUM SIZE BIG BOX STORES. AND AT THE OTHER END OF THAT STRIP IS, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THE HOSPITAL AND OTHER HEALTH CARE SERVICES, 15 METERS IS A PRETTY STANDARD. NO, WE WEREN'T INTERESTED IN JUST SUDDENLY THROWING UP A REAL LARGE NUMBER THAT THEN GIVES THE DEVELOPER THE PERCEPTION THAT THEY CAN BUILD THAT. BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE AIRPORT TO SEE IF THAT WOULD WORK WITH THEM. SO THAT'S WHY WE LANDED ON 15 METERS. THAT, AGAIN, CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT A HIGH DENSITY AREA, THAT FOCUS IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE DOWNTOWN. SO ALSO TRYING TO PUT A CAP ON THAT. OK. IN SOME OTHER ZONES, I DEFINITELY SAW MENTION OF ENSURING PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. I DIDN'T SEE ANY MENTION OF THAT AROUND THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE ZONE, WHICH I FIND IS CERTAINLY CURRENTLY THE ONE THAT'S MOST CHALLENGING TO NAVIGATE AS A PEDESTRIAN OR ON A BIKE. AND, YOU KNOW, AS NEW THINGS MIGHT GET BUILT OR THINGS GET CHANGED IN THAT ZONE, I WONDERED IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY THOUGHT INTO ADDING SOME LANGUAGE AROUND. TRYING TO PRESERVE OR ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE PATH CORRIDORS THROUGH THAT ZONE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MS. WHITE. GREAT, THANK YOU. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, AND WE GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN WHERE IT DOES HAVE THIS POLICY DIRECTION RELATED TO THE TRAILS NETWORK HAVING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT ORIENTED AND IN THESE SPECIFIC AREAS, YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE TRAIL NETWORK OR OTHER OPTIONS THAT COULD BE PUT IN PLACE OTHER THAN JUST THINKING OF ROADS WOULD COME THROUGH WHEN WE GET AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN PLACE FOR SOME OF THESE AREAS. SO IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT TOP OF MIND, IT'S EMBEDDED WITHIN THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE THE FRAMEWORK THAT'S BEEN SET BY COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW, IF MAYBE, ROB, YOU WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT AS WELL. I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS IT'S OF COURSE, CHALLENGING WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SAY IT'S A NEW DEVELOPMENT ON OLD AIRPORT ROAD FOR A BIG BOX STORE AND THEY'VE GOT 50 OR 60 METERS OF LINEAR FRONTAGE. IT'S FINE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIDEWALK OUT FRONT THROUGH SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT, BUT REQUIRING A DEVELOPER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE GREATER TRAIL NETWORK THAT [INAUDIBLE] DOESN'T WORK SO [01:35:04] WELL, THAT'S BETTER SET IN PLACE THROUGH OTHER CITY POLICIES AND OTHER CITY ACTIONS, SUCH AS A NEW SIDEWALK BEING INSTALLED, THE LENGTH OF SAY [INAUDIBLE]. WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THAT RESPONSIBILITY ONTO A DEVELOPER; IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WELL. OK. NO, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS THINKING, NECESSARILY JUST MORE IN TERMS OF IF SOMETHING GETS CHANGED OR A NEW THING GETS PUT IN AND IF IT SOMEHOW BREAKS UP THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, MULTI-USE PATH THAT FLOWS ALL ALONG THERE OR PUTS LIKE A REALLY HIGH TRAFFIC ZONE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, BUT I MEAN, IF IT'S ALREADY IN THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT IS TO, YOU KNOW, IT ALREADY EXISTS. SO IF SOMETHING NEW WOULD BE PUT IN, THAT WOULD BREAK UP OR BLOCK THOSE PATHS, I ASSUME THAT WOULD RAISE SOME FLAGS AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DIDN'T SORT OF RUIN SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY THERE. [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, SECTION 7.8.8C TALKS ABOUT LOCATION AND PARKING AREAS AND THAT HOW PARKING FACILITIES SHALL BE DESIGNED. PERHAPS THAT ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERNS. BUT JUST TO CONFIRM, MS. BASSI-KELLETT WOULD THAT POINT, ADDRESS TALKS ABOUT MINIMIZE ANY DISRUPTION TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM OF SIDEWALKS. AND I ASSUME THAT RELATES ALSO TO CS. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. I BELIEVE I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO WEIGH IN. I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO WORK WITH OUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, SO COMMUNITY SERVICES AS WELL AS PUBLIC WORKS. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT DESIGNING ANYTHING NEW, AS YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILLOR MORGAN, WE WANT TO ENSURE WE'RE NOT DISCONNECTING ANYTHING. AND IF THERE WAS SOMETHING NEW THAT IT ACTUALLY BE CONNECTED. SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN THINKING ABOUT THESE NEW USES THAT THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT WE TALK ABOUT INTER-DEPARTMENTAL AS WELL AS WITH THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. OK, THAT MAKES SENSE. I JUST HAVE A FEW MORE LITTLE QUESTIONS HERE. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN IN THE PAST ABOUT, SAY, TOUR BUSSES, PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AND I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS NEW ZONING BYLAW IS TO HELP MANAGE SOME OF THOSE CONFLICTS. BUT CAN YOU POINT ME TO TWO PARTS OF THIS ZONING BYLAW THAT MIGHT RESTRICT OR MANAGE PARKING OF TOUR BUSSES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES? OR HOW WILL THAT BE CONTROLLED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS, I'LL TURN IT TO MS. WHITE FOR THE ZONING, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A FEW OTHER TOOLS THAT ARE DISPOSAL LIKE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC, BYLAW AND OTHER TOOLS THAT CAN HELP US SUPPORT HOW WE MANAGE BUSSES RUNNING OUTSIDE OF TYPICAL WORKING HOURS AND THE SIZE OF OF VEHICLES AS WELL. BUT OVER TO YOU, MS. WHITE TO TALK ABOUT HOW ZONING IS LOOKING AT THIS. GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE USE THAT THE TOUR BUS WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH, AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRADITIONALLY RESIDENTIAL ZONES OR AREAS, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ADDING A LITTLE BIT OF MIXED USE IN CERTAIN TRANSITION AREAS, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD SEE AS PART OF ONE OF THOSE NEW COMMERCIAL USES. SO IT'S NOT EXPECTED THAT THOSE TOUR BUSSES WOULD BE THERE AS WELL. THE ZONING BYLAW DOESN'T REGULATE, AS THE CITY MANAGER JUST MENTIONED, SOME OF THESE ITEMS, WHICH ARE BETTER MANAGED UNDER OTHER TOOLS THAT WE HAVE. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A SITUATION IN A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE THIS DID OCCUR, AND IT WAS THROUGH THE IDEA THAT IT WAS A HOME BASED BUSINESS. BUT THE OFF SITE PARKING THAT WAS ASSOCIATED DIDN'T MEET THAT KIND OF A REQUIREMENT, AND SO THE USE WAS MOVED ELSEWHERE. I DON'T KNOW ROB, YOU OR MARGARET WANT TO ADD TO THAT, BUT IT AS THE ZONING BYLAW STANDS, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO SPECIFICALLY REGULATE IT, BUT THE USE THAT IT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED IN THOSE AREAS. SO THE EXACT SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT LARGE VEHICLES IS UNDER HOME BASED BUSINESS SECTION 8.2.5M. NOW THIS THIS APPLIES TO ON SITE PARKING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING BYLAW REGULATES, BUT IT DOES SAY, EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ONLY ONE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE MAY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOME BASED BUSINESS AND SHALL BE PARKED ON SITE AT ALL TIMES IF IT IS NOT IN OPERATION. THE VEHICLE SHALL NOT BE LARGER THAN 4400 KILOGRAMS. SO THAT'S THE SPECIFIC CLAUSE ABOUT THE SIZE THAT WOULD REGULATE BUSSES. [01:40:01] NOW THAT DOES NOT CHANGE PEOPLE PARKING BUSSES ON STREETS, BUT THAT IS NOT A ZONING VIOLATION. OK, THAT MAKES SENSE. I'M CURIOUS, AND MAYBE I DON'T HAVE THIS RIGHT, BUT I SAW THAT THERE ARE MAXIMUM LOT AREAS SPECIFIED IN R1 AND R2. I DIDN'T SEE MAXIMUM LOT AREAS SPECIFIED IN DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL, THE RC OR OLD TOWN RESIDENTIAL. IS THERE A REASON WHY THERE AREN'T MAXIMUM LOT AREAS IN THOSE PLACES OR DID I MISS SOMETHING? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. MARGARET OR ROB? SO THERE'S NOT ACTUALLY A MAXIMUM WHAT AREA THERE'S A MAXIMUM LOT WIDTH. WHAT WE HAVE IS A MAXIMUM SITE AREA AND THAT IS APPLYING TOWNHOUSES AND LARGER DWELLING UNITS LIKE MULTI DWELLING UNITS. AND THE REASON WE ONLY HAVE THAT IN OUR R1, I THINK R2, AND THEN RC-1 IS BECAUSE THAT'S OUR MEANS OF CONTROLLING THE DENSITY. SO ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC WAS YOU'RE LETTING ANYTHING HAPPEN. AND WE SAID, NO, IT CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN LIKE 12 METERS. AND THEY SAID, YEAH, BUT SOMEBODY COULD BUY SIX CITY LOTS AND THEY COULD ACTUALLY BUILD AN APARTMENT THAT'S ONLY THREE THREE STOREYS HIGH. SO ONE OF THE CONCESSIONS WE MADE OR ONE OF THE WAYS WE MEANT TO GET AROUND THAT AS WE'RE TRANSITIONING SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS IS TO APPLY A MAXIMUM SITE AREA. SO THAT MEANS IF SOMEBODY AMALGAMATE TWO LOTS OR A FEW LOTS, THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY BUILD ON A LOT LARGER THAN OR A SITE AREA. SO AN AMALGAMATION OF TWO LOTS, WHICH IS BASICALLY TWO AND A QUARTER LOT. SO WE'RE PUTTING A LIMIT. WE DID SOME AVERAGING ON WHAT TWO CITY LOTS IS AROUND THE CITY AND WE CAME OUT WITH THIS NUMBER. SO IT'S DEFINITELY LESS THAN THREE LOTS, BUT IT'S MORE THAN TWO, DEPENDING ON TO ACCOMMODATE FOR DIFFERENT LOT SIZES. AND THE INTENT IS THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOR EVERYWHERE. THAT'S JUST HOW WE WERE MANAGING THE DENSITY AND THE CHANGE AND THAT SLOWER TRANSITION IN SOME OF OUR LOWER DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS, LIKE R1, SOME OF R2, AND ALL OF OUR TWO STOREY AND RC-1. OK, BUT IT'S NOT SEEN AS NEEDED IN, FOR EXAMPLE, OLD TOWN MIXED. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. KALT AND MS. WHITE? I CAN GO. I'LL BRING IT. YEAH, SO OLD TOWN MIXED, JUST REMEMBER, IS ONLY THAT STRIP OF AREA THAT'S ALONG ESSENTIALLY, FRANKLIN. SO MOST OF OLD TOWN IS ACTUALLY R1, SO IT MANAGES MOST OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN R1. NOT REALLY INTENDED FOR OLD TOWN MIXED BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF OK WITH SORT OF THE MIXTURE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN ALONG THAT SORT OF NARROW STRIP, WHICH IS BASICALLY ALONG ONE ROAD. SO AGAIN, IF YOU WERE GOING TO ACCUMULATE AND TO MERGE A COUPLE OF PROPERTIES TOGETHER, YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BUY THEM. THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE SALE. SO THE ODDS OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND THE CONCERN AND THE PURPOSE FOR ACTUALLY PUTTING THE MAXIMUM SITE AREA, WE DIDN'T FEEL NECESSARILY APPLIED TO THE OLD TOWN MIXED THE WAY IT DID TO R1, WHICH MOST OF OLD TOWN, AS WE UNDERSTAND, OLD TOWN IS STILL R1 AS WELL. OK. AND THEN LAST QUESTION, I'M CURIOUS, BUT IT HELPS TO PUT INTO CONTEXT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS IN DOWNTOWN AND RC AROUND 45 METERS. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS WE HAVE IN YELLOWKNIFE CURRENTLY EVEN THAT ARE OVER SIX STOREYS, LET ALONE, YOU KNOW, 12 STOREYS, WHICH IS APPROACHING THAT LIMIT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? TRYING TO THINK I DON'T KNOW IF MARGARET OR CHARLSIE OR ROB HAVE DONE THE MATH ON THIS. I HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH. CHARLSIE? OK. I JUST. THINKING OUT LOUD OVER SIX, YOU SAID, SHAUNA, SO THAT WOULD BE NORTHERN. HEIGHTS, THE WATERMARK, ANDERSON THOMPSON AND THAT MIGHT BE IT. PLUS FRASER TOWER. FRASER TOWER AND NUP WOULD BE THE LAST TWO. IS THERE A REASON TO EXPECT WE MIGHT HAVE SEVERAL NEW ONES IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS? I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS IN TERMS OF REALISTICALLY, WHAT CAN PEOPLE EXPECT TO SEE? WE HAVE TO SAY WITH THE MARKET AND HOW SOME BUSINESSES, WE WOULDN'T BE PRIVILEGED TO SAY WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT ? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK IT'S REALLY HARD. I THINK THE MARKET MAKES THAT DETERMINATION. WE'VE SEEN CERTAINLY RECENTLY A REASONABLE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF [01:45:03] CONDOS THAT ARE ON THE MARKET. BUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'D BE SEEING HIGH RISE, TOTALLY MARKET DRIVEN. CHARLSIE, MARGARET, ROB, WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU NEED TO ADD, PLEASE DO. YEAH, I THINK WE MAY SEE A LITTLE BIT AS WE COME OUT OF, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THIS CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH SITUATION, PEOPLE LOOKING FOR WHAT THEY'RE CALLING SAFE CITIES TO INVEST IN PEOPLE WHO HAVE DETERMINED THAT THEY'VE HANDLED THE SITUATION WELL AND ARE PRIMED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT SOME OF THE DIRECTION IN THE ZONING BYLAW WILL DO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT DOWNTOWN PARKING THOSE NEW REGULATIONS OR REMOVAL OF SOME OF THAT. WE'RE REALLY LOOKING TO OPEN UP FOR DEVELOPMENT TO SAY, HEY, YEAH, THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, THAT IS A REALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S AFFORDABLE PLACE TO PURCHASE LAND AND BUILD. WILL THEY BE HUGE OFFICE TOWERS? MAYBE NOT. BUT LET'S MAKE IT SO THAT IF THEY WANT TO COME HERE, WE HAVE THE AVAILABILITY FOR THEM TO DO THAT. OK. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK THERE'S ALSO MAYBE, CHARLSIE, WE SPEAK TO IT, THERE'S BESIDES THE ZONING HEIGHTS, THERE'S THE BUILDING BYLAW AND THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE THAT YOU AFTER BASICALLY FOUR AND UP YOU NEED TO BUILD TO A HIGHER OR MORE EXPENSIVE STANDARD, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY WE DON'T SEE MANY BUILDINGS GOING ABOVE THREE. BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT, MAYBE ADMIN CAN TOUCH ON THAT ON THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE ALSO HAS AN IMPACT ON THE SIZE OF MULTIFAMILY THAT WE SEE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. MS. WHITE, OVER TO YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SO THE BUILDING CODE DOES HAVE SOME TO DO WITH IT, BUT YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE MARKETABILITY AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THOSE COSTS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO THE CONSTRUCTION AND WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY TURN AND SELL THOSE UNITS FOR, WHICH IS WHERE WE HEAR A LOT IN THE MARKET THAT MAIN OR FIRST AND SECOND STOREY AS COMMERCIAL WITH THAT CONTINUAL RENT AND THEN SOME APARTMENTS ON THE TOP REALLY MAKES THE MOST FROM AN INVESTMENT STANDPOINT, THE MOST SENSE IN MID-SIZED CITIES LIKE THIS. THANK YOU. AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR MORGAN. COUNCILLOR KONGE? THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THIS IS CERTAINLY BEEN QUITE THE PROCESS. LOTS OF GOOD INFORMATION HERE TODAY. SO I THINK I'M GOING TO START WITH MY FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE LAND IN GRACE LAKE. KNOWN AS LOT 32 BLOCK 568. WE CHANGED THAT FROM KAM LAKE INDUSTRIAL TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT BASED ON SOME PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT. WHAT'S THE PLAN? YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY. WE'VE HEARD THAT LOTS IN THE ANSWERS THAT MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES HAVE GOTTEN TODAY, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT EASY FOR DEVELOPERS. CHANGING THAT MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT WE WANT IN THE DOWNTOWN TO GROW OR EVEN SET UP. SO I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DECIDED OR IT WAS DECIDED TO CHANGE THAT BACK TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO PUT, YOU KNOW, KAM LAKE STYLE EXTENSIONS WHERE IT'S SMALL BUSINESS, TYPICALLY LOCALLY OWNED. PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE CLOSE TO THEIR BUSINESS ON TOP OF IT, THAT SORT OF THING. WHAT'S THE PLAN THERE? SURE THING. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH, SO THIS IS IN PART DUE TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED. AND IT REALLY MADE THE DEPARTMENT AND OUR STAFF THINK WE JUST NEED A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO DOING THIS AND STICKING A ZONE ON IT. AS PART OF THIS PROCESS WASN'T OPENING THE BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND CAM LAKE, AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE WHO MAY LIVE NEARBY IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SAY WHAT IT IS THERE ARE REAL CONCERNS ARE BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN WE HAVE ZONING BYLAW PROCESS LIKE THIS, PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS THINGS AND SOMETIMES ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. AND SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AND WE'LL BE PROPOSING TO DO IS COMING UP WITH AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT AND APPROPRIATE BUFFERING, APPROPRIATE ZONING IN AND AROUND THAT AREA SO THAT IT WILL MEET THE NEEDS OF THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY THERE, AS WELL AS LOOKING TO CREATE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE WHO, AS YOU SAY, ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND OR LOOKING FOR FOR NEW LOTS. EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION IS WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE PUBLIC AND DESIGN IT [01:50:04] APPROPRIATELY FOR BOTH NEEDS. OK. I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE YEAR, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE THOSE GRACE LAKE BOULEVARD WAS EVEN A CONCEPTION. THE CITY WENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR THOSE LOTS. I RECALL IT HAPPENING, AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME, WE WERE WONDERING WHERE WE WERE GOING TO EXPAND TO. YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE DID THE EXTENSION ON ENTERPRISE DRIVE INSTEAD, WHICH TOOK CARE OF THE DEMAND. SO. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE PAST ENGAGEMENT THAT WE'VE DONE? AND HOW DO WE LIKE OUR REACTION IS TO THE PEOPLE WHO WHO WENT, OH, WE DON'T WANT THIS? BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THIS, OF COURSE, THEY READ THE ZONING BYLAW AND THEY WENT PERFECT. WE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO MEET OUR NEEDS. SO THE PENDULUM HAS SWUNG FROM, OK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO MEET THESE PEOPLE'S NEEDS. BUT A FEW OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED AND WE DIDN'T EVEN GO BACK AND LIKE, THERE'S BEEN NO DIALOG IN THIS CHANGE. AND I'M I'M QUITE WORRIED THAT IF WE GO FROM OUR COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH SAYS THIS IS KAM LAKE, AND IF WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ACTUALLY IF WE AGREE TO WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE ZONING BYLAW RIGHT NOW, WE'VE TAKEN A STEP BACKWARDS AND WE'VE CHANGED OUR COMMUNITY PLAN. AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT STEP. SO I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WOULD BE WE OK? MAYBE ASK A QUESTION? YEAH, OTHERWISE LOOK BACK. LIKE HOW? HOW CAN WE MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN IN OUR ZONING BYLAW WITHOUT GOING BACK AND ASKING, YOU KNOW, DOING THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT? WELL, SO WE COULD TURN THIS TO CATHOLIC INDUSTRIAL, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE LOSS CAN GO ON SALE TOMORROW. WE STILL NEED TO DEVELOP THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH THEN HAS TO COME FORWARD WITH THE REZONING BECAUSE PART OF THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL INCLUDE NATURE PRESERVE OR PARKS AND REC. SO. IT'S PROBABLY A CHICKEN AND AN EGG THING. BUT INSTEAD OF DOING A BIG BLOCK ZONE CHANGE, THE PROPOSAL IS ONCE THE ZONING BYLAW IS DONE, PLANNING AND LANDS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS AND THEN THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN BYLAW PLUS THE ZONING AMENDMENTS WOULD COME FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME SO THAT IT'S NOT STRAYING FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN. IT'S DOING THE PROCESS OF THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLUS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING BASED ON THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AFTER THIS PROCESS. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. MS. WHITE? I AGREE, THANK YOU TO MAYOR ALTY. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY DIRECTION THAT IS GIVEN IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, I PUT IT TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE IT IS, IT IS YOUR DECISION. THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF AND YOU KNOW, WE WILL, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT ZONE ENDS UP BEING. WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS, WHICH WILL INCLUDE CONSULTATION AND WHICH WILL INCLUDE A REZONING OF SOME SORT. SO, YEAH, I PUT IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE'LL TAKE YOUR DIRECTION EITHER WAY. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. AND I'LL MAKE A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT PORTION. MY NEXT IS ON THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. UM, REALLY, I THINK IT'S REALLY THE SAME, YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND IT'S BEEN A LONG ONE, YOU KNOW, AND WE THOUGHT THAT EXTENDING OUR CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND CHANGING WHAT'S ALLOWED THERE IS A GOOD THING. AND I THINK A LOT OF BUSINESSES WERE QUITE EXCITED ABOUT THAT. BUT THE RESIDENTIAL MEMBERS IN SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT, SO LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE PERHAPS SWUNG THE PENDULUM A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR OR MAYBE NOT. I GUESS THAT'S A PERSONAL OPINION. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TAKEN CERTAIN AREAS AND SAID, OK, WE'RE JUST GOING TO SWING IT RIGHT BACK THERE AND. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M NOT A PLANNER. IS IT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE? IS WHAT WE'VE DONE THERE WITH THE RC-1, IS THAT REALLY A GOOD IDEA? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? TMS. WHITE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND SO WHERE WE ARE NOW WITH THIS ONE, IF YOU'LL RECALL, COUNCIL, AT THAT WORKSHOP IS ALMOST WHERE WE WERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN WE WERE HAVING THESE [01:55:01] DISCUSSIONS REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT A TRANSITIONAL ZONE IS OR WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW WE CAN FACILITATE THE CONTINUATION OF RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL AS THE INTRODUCTION OF APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL AND OTHER USES IN THE AREA. SO I'M NOT SURE THE PENDULUM HAS REALLY SWUNG TOO FAR. EITHER WAY, I THINK WE'RE ALMOST SIMILAR TO WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE HAD THOSE PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS. OK, DESIGN STANDARDS, I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY TIMES IT'S MENTIONED IN NEW DOCUMENT. ON A PERSONAL FRUSTRATION, WE'RE WAITING FOR DESIGN STANDARDS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY, IT'S TAKEN A VERY LONG TIME FOR THIS CONFLICT. IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO REFERENCE DESIGN STANDARDS IN OUR BYLAW WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS SORTED OUT FIRST? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN WRESTLING WITH AND WORKING WITH. AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO ALIGN THE TIMELINE FOR HAVING DESIGN STANDARDS THAT MEET THE DESCRIPTIONS IN THE ZONING BYLAWS SO THAT WE HAVE THOSE READY TO GO WITH THE ZONING BYLAW. SO BALLPARK IN EARLY JANUARY, RECOGNIZING THAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS, BECAUSE WE DO WANT THEM TO BE A CORPORATE DOCUMENT, WE DO WANT THEM TO INCLUDE A RANGE OF THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION THAT THE DRAFT THAT COMES FORWARD IN DECEMBER OR IN EARLY JANUARY, FORGIVE ME, WILL BE ITERATIVE, AND SO WE WILL BE ADDING TO IT. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ESSENTIAL PIECES THAT NEED TO BE THERE TO MEET THE TEST OF THE ZONING BYLAW ARE THERE, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BRING THOSE FORWARD TO GROW AND DEVELOP. THANK YOU. AND AT WHAT POINT WILL, BECAUSE WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS, THAT'S I THINK VERY DIFFERENT FROM DESIGN STANDARDS ON DEVELOPMENT. AND MAYBE THAT'S ME MISREADING IT IN HERE, BUT. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE. IT HAS TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RAIN STREET. WHAT WOULDN'T FIT? WHO'S GOING TO DECIDE IF WHAT I WANT TO DO AS A DEVELOPER FITS OR DOESN'T FIT? AND HOW WILL THOSE DETERMINATIONS BE MADE? WILL IT BE THROUGH A COMMITTEE? WILL IT BE THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER? YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS IN DEVELOPMENT. THOSE NEED TO HAPPEN LIKE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE ROADS GO. YOU KIND OF HAVE A FRESH PALETTE AND YOU START. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS BECAUSE THE DESIGN STANDARDS WHERE IT WAS MOSTLY IN THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. I'M NOT SURE HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THAT AND WHO'S GOING TO DETERMINE THAT BECAUSE I THINK IN YELLOWKNIFE, ANYTHING GOES ALMOST ANYWHERE, LIKE THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN DRIVE AROUND TOWN AND SEE THAT THE DESIGN STANDARD IS MET IS IN OUR MODULAR HOME TRAILER BLOCK 501. ANY OF THOSE? THERE'S A DESIGN STANDARD AND IT'S MET EVERYWHERE ELSE. I THINK IT'S I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING WHERE THAT WOULD FALL IN. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? AND WE MIGHT EVEN ARGUE WITH YOU ON BLOCK 501, WHETHER IT'S BEEN MET, SO I MEAN, WHAT WE DEFINITELY SEE AND WE KNOW VERY, VERY CLEARLY. I THINK IT WAS PREVIOUS COUNCIL THAT WE REALLY WRESTLED WITH A ROAD REDESIGN REDEVELOPMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE DECISION WAS AROUND. IS THERE GOING TO BE A SIDEWALK? WILL IT BE ON ONE SIDE, BOTH SIDES? AND SO THAT WAS THAT WAS QUITE A VISCERAL EXPERIENCE FOR THOSE OF US IN THE ADMINISTRATION. WE REMEMBERED VIVIDLY. IT'S DRIVING A LOT OF THE THINKING AROUND WHAT OUR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND SO THEY WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THINGS THAT ARE REALLY TECHNICAL IN TERMS OF WATER AND SEWER PIPE. THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THINGS LIKE CURB HEIGHTS AND MAKE THAT UNIFORM IN ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT. THEY WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHERE DO WE HAVE TO SIDEWALKS? WHERE DO WE HAVE ONE SIDEWALK? WHERE DO WE HAVE NO SIDEWALK? THERE WILL BE OTHER PIECES OF THIS AS WELL THAT AS WE LOOK AT, SHOULD THERE BE IN THE FUTURE, ANY KIND OF FUTURE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT. YOU'RE DARN RIGHT. PARKS WOULD GO IN TRAILS AND GO IN FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S PARTS OF THAT, OF COURSE, ARE COMPLEMENTING THE OTHER USES OF THE AREA AND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A GENERAL SENSE OF DISMAY BY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOUGHT PROPERTIES IN AN AREA TO GO. WAIT A SEC. YOU MEAN I'M GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC TRAIL GOING BEHIND MY PROPERTY? I DON'T WANT THAT ANYMORE. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PIECES TO THIS. BUT DEFINITELY WHAT WE DO SEE GOING ON IS THAT WE WILL HAVE THOSE THAT ARE REALLY RELEVANT AND REALLY REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CROSS REFERENCE FROM THE ZONING BYLAW THAT OUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE THOSE IN PLACE AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN IN 2022, WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE THAT CROSS REFERENCE DONE. [02:00:02] THANK YOU. SO WE ARE NOT. TALKING ABOUT BUILDING [INAUDIBLE], WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT. ROADS TRAILS THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BECAUSE WHEN I WENT THROUGH IT, I WAS THAT WASN'T ALWAYS CLEAR TO ME, LIKE I DID THINK THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING FORM AS WELL. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT ONLY MS. WHITE, BUT IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN MR. WHITE AND MR. GREENCORN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS AS WELL BECAUSE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PAYING A LOT OF ATTENTION TO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, AND IT KIND OF DELVES AND WEAVES INTO HOW DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS ARE INTERCONNECTED, BUT ALSO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF THAT FACADE STANDARD, I THINK, IS WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING MORE TO, RATHER THAN THAT ENGINEERED OR PLANNED DESIGN STANDARD, WHICH IS MORE ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE. AND THERE'S SOME GREAT EXAMPLES OUT THERE OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT FACADE CONSISTENCY AND MASS INCONSISTENCY THAT, YOU KNOW, WORKING TOGETHER WITH DEVELOPMENT, INCENTIVE BYLAWS AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANNING IN CERTAIN AREAS TO REALLY BRING, I THINK, WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, THAT CONFORMITY AND THAT'S REALLY OUTSIDE OF THIS DESIGN STANDARD GUIDELINE. BUT AGAIN, IF MR. WHITE OR MR. GREENCORN WANTED TO SPEAK TO IT, I'M. UM, FROM A PUBLIC FROM A PUBLIC WORKS PERSPECTIVE, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE AND WON'T SPEAK TO THE FORMS THAT MS. WHITE JUST SPOKE TO. THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES FOR THAT, BUT I JUST I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S GOING TO BE WHENEVER THERE'S NEW GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT IN YELLOWKNIFE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE THIS DOCUMENT TO A DEVELOPER AND SAY, THIS IS HOW YOU BUILD ROADS AND THOSE THINGS IN YELLOWKNIFE, AS MS. BASSI-KELLETT SAID, SO THAT WE'RE NOT STUCK WITH SOME OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE CURRENTLY HAVE VERY NARROW, VERY NARROW ROAD ALLOWANCES. IT'S VERY LIMITED, LIKE IN SOME PLACES. WE CAN'T EVEN GET STORM INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THE GROUND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR STORM, SEWER, AND WATER. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENTS WE BUILD IN YELLOWKNIFE ARE TO A STANDARD THAT WE CAN APPROPRIATELY SERVICE AND MAINTAIN THOSE SERVICES IN THE FUTURE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY AND JUST SET EXPECTATIONS ON THIS IS THAT ALL THE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE IN THE NEW STANDARD WE WON'T BE ABLE TO APPLY THEM DIRECTLY TO OLD NEIGHBORHOODS. SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TAKE A 20 METER ROAD ALLOWANCE AND APPLY IT, SAY, TO NORTHLAND'S TRAILER PARK AREA. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT SO, WHILE THERE WILL BE A STANDARD IN PLACE, WE WILL HAVE TO ADJUST AND MAKE ALLOWANCES OR VARIANCES FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM IN THIS DISCUSSION FOR THE VARYING NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT YELLOWKNIFE. SO, YEAH, SO WE PLAN TO BRING THOSE FORWARD, AS MS. BASSI-KELLETT SAID, AND I THINK THEY'LL COMPLEMENT THE GREAT WORK DONE BY PLANNING AND DOING ON THE ZONING BYLAW. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS JUST FOR ROUND ONE? SO I'LL DO MINE. YEAH, FIRST OFF, THANKS FOR THE DIAGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE BYLAW, I FOUND THEM REALLY HELPFUL, LIKE UNDERSTANDING THE THING LIKE SITE SO THAT YOU COULD ONLY BUY TWO LOTS IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO BUY SIX AND CREATE THAT FORTY FIVE METER BUILDING. AND OK, SO I REFERENCE PAGE NUMBERS AND IT'S THE GPC PACKAGE. OH, I GUESS THAT SECTIONS TWO. SO SECTION 4.2.1A. SO WE'LL GET A MINUTE TO GO THERE. IT TALKS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT NOT REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IF AN ACTIVITY IS RELATED TO AN EMERGENCY MANAGED BY THE CITY OR A HIGHER LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. SO JUST WONDERING IF THE GNWT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE DAY SHELTER LAST YEAR? WHETHER THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT'S THREE YEARS? ARE THEY STILL DEFINING? SO JUST TRYING TO GET A BIT MORE INFORMATION, I GUESS, ON ON AN EMERGENCY AND HOW WE WOULD DEFINE THAT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO WEIGH IN ON THE SPECIFIC THINKING AROUND THIS, BUT I CAN SPEAK TO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE AFTERWARDS. GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO AN EMERGENCY IS THOUGHT OF AS BEING NOT A LONG TERM, SO THE IDEA IS THAT IF IT IS GREATER THAN A SEASON OR TWO THAT WE THEN LOOK AT THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS [02:05:01] FOR EVEN A TEMPORARY USE BECAUSE TEMPORARY USES ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE ZONING BYLAW. SO WHILE AN EMERGENCY WILL WORK TO MANAGE AN IMMEDIATE NEED LONG TERM, IT SHOULD BE ANY USE, NOT JUST ONE WE'RE SPEAKING OF. IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IN TERMS OF THE REMAINDER OF THE BYLAW. THANKS, AND I DO ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THAT ONE, BECAUSE BEFORE IT WAS I THINK THIS IS A NEW CLAUSE; IF THAT'S CORRECT. NO. OH OK. SORRY, I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WE COULD ONLY DO THE TEMPORARY. I GUESS THAT'S TEMPORARY STRUCTURES ON THAT, OK? YEAH. AND THE ONE THAT I GRAPPLE WITH IS WHEN WE'VE GOT CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES BEFORE US, AND NOW IT WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE, WILL BE DISCRETIONARY USES IS DESIGN, CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE, WHICH IS A CONSIDERATION WE HAVE TO TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION. AND THERE WASN'T A DEFINITION IN THE LAST BYLAW AND THERE'S NO DEFINITION IN THE ACT. JUST WONDERING IF WE SHOULD DEFINE IT. AND AS I STRUGGLED TO THINK, IS IT THE DESIGN, CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING? OR IS IT THE CHARACTER OF THE USE? SO JUST WONDERING WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A DEFINITION AND SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING OR IF WE'RE NOT, THEN ACTUALLY REFERENCING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT X AND Y MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, GOOD CALL. MS. WHITE? YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION ACROSS THE PLANNING WORLD, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE IN SOME COMMUNITIES, THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY AND STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING, WHILE IN MANY HERITAGE COMMUNITIES, YOU SEE, THEY TALK ABOUT THE USE AS WELL. SO KEEPING AND MAINTAINING EXISTING USES, AND I'M THINKING OF WEST VILLAGE AS AN EXAMPLE. EVEN DOWNTOWN THE CITY OF KINGSTON. SO IT'S MATCHING THAT FACADE, AS WELL AS THE USES IN AND AROUND CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC AREAS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BROADLY ACROSS THE COMMUNITY. AND SO I MEAN, I WILL ASK BOTH ROB AND MARGARET TOUCH ON THIS. BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE WE'RE A LITTLE HESITANT, MAYBE ON CREATING THAT STANDALONE DEFINITION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN NIVEN VERSUS OLD TOWN VERSUS BLOCK 501 AS AN EXAMPLE. AND IT REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THE FUNCTION, THE FORM AND REALLY THE STYLING AND EXTERIOR, WHICH AGAIN MAY GO BACK TO KIND OF THAT FACADE DESIGN STANDARD. WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT IMPLEMENTING IN THE FUTURE. BUT AS I SAID, I'LL ASK ROB OR MARGARET TO MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION. INTERESTING IMPROVEMENT. YES, SORRY, ROB, AND I ARE JUST SORT OF CONFERRING AS WE SIT HERE AND ARE BOTH RECOGNIZING THERE COULD BE SOME ROOM FOR CLARIFYING WHAT THAT'S MEANT BY IN THE BYLAW. BUT TO CHARLESIE'S POINT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE CITY'S INTENTION TO GO SO FAR AS TO SAY YOUR HOUSE MUST BE BLUE WITH THIS KIND OF CLADDING OR SIDING, OR MAYBE IN SOME AREAS OF TOWN IT DOES, BUT NOT OTHERS. SO IT MIGHT BE THAT PROVIDING THAT CLARITY COMES IN GUIDELINES THAT COME AFTER THE FACT, LIKE IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION AND. IT'S YEAH, IT'S LIKE, I GET YOUR POINT, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING DESIGN, WE'VE ADDED IT IN THERE, BUT IT IS TRICKY TO IMPLEMENT WITHOUT BECOMING ONEROUS AND UNREALISTIC FOR DEVELOPERS AS WELL, RIGHT? SO. AND I DON'T WANT FURTHER. YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO DICTATE THAT YOUR HOUSE. NO, BUT I DO THINK WE CAN SPEND A BIT OF TIME OVER THE NEXT WEEK THINKING ABOUT THIS. THE GOOD QUALITY DESIGN AND DESIGN IS VERY CHALLENGING TO DEFINE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY BIASES THAT CAN GET BUILT INTO WHOEVER MIGHT BE DEFINING IT. BUT I DO THINK THERE'S A BIT OF ROOM FOR FOR ADDING SOME LANGUAGE SO THAT WHEN COUNCIL HAS A DECISION ON THEIR PLATE AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE DESIGN, CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE THAT WE CAN, WE CAN HAVE SOME SUPPLEMENTARY SENTENCES THAT CAN HELP INFORM THAT DECISION. SO. WE CAN COMMIT TO GIVING THAT SOME THOUGHT OVER THE NEXT WEEK. YEAH, AND I JUST LIKE EVEN IF THE DEFINITION WAS THE DESIGN, CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING, BECAUSE WHEN WE GO AND ASK NEIGHBORS FOR FEEDBACK ON A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE, WE DON'T GET COMMENTS BASED ON THE BUILDING. NOBODY'S TALKING. OK, I SHOULDN'T SAY NOBODY. SUN SHADOWS COME UP, TRAFFIC COMES UP, BUT IT'S MORE THE CHARACTERS THAT WILL BE USING. IT'S MORE A REFLECTION OF THE USERS. SO JUST TRYING TO GET A BIT MORE OF A DEFINITION THAT WHEN WE SAY DESIGN, CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE, IT'S OF THE BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS. OR MAYBE WE MEAN THAT IT'S THE USE OF A DAYCARE BESIDE A TATTOO PARLOR. [02:10:07] I DON'T KNOW. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? LOOKS LIKE, MIGHT BE ANOTHER COMMENT THERE. THANK YOU, MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. YES, AND SORRY, MAYOR ALTY, AS YOU'RE SPEAKING, ONE THING I THINK WE REALLY WANT TO BE CLEAR ON IS WE'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY GET AWAY FROM THE ZONING OF USERS, PEOPLE WHO WOULD USE THINGS OR THE COMMENTS WE HEAR, WELL, I DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT AREA, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO PULL AWAY FROM THAT SPECIFICALLY. YEAH, AND I THINK IF WE HAVE A DEFINITION, THEN MAYBE IT'S LIKE. NO, SORRY. YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING FOR COMMENTS ON ON THIS. I'LL LEAVE THAT. SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS TAKE MY POINT. SECTION 7.13.1C . LET ME GET THAT UP. SO IT TALKS ABOUT, OH YEAH, NO NECESSARY BUILDING OR ANY PORTION THEREOF SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OR PLACED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF ANY SITE. AND SO JUST WONDERING IF THAT MEANS THAT GREEN HOUSES CAN'T GO IN THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT MAY BE WHERE THE BEST SUNLIGHT IS AND GROWING CONDITIONS, THEREFORE. SO JUST WONDERING IF IT'S THIS CLAUSE MEANS GREEN HOUSES CAN'T GO IN THE FRONT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION. IT'S INTERESTING CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD IN MY HOUSEHOLD, SO I GUESS A WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT A STRUCTURE AND THE DEFINITION IS. SO IF WE GO TO THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, IT'S ANYTHING THAT'S BASICALLY 10 BY 10 OR LESS IS NOT A STRUCTURE. BUT IS IT ALSO ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING AND HOW DOES THAT LOOK OR ARE WE TALKING SEPARATE STRUCTURES? AND SO. YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS WE COULD PROVIDE MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY. ROB OR MARGARET, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I'LL JUMP IN HERE. I THINK WHEN WE SET IT UP, WE RECOGNIZE THAT ANY 10 FOOT BY 10 FOOT BUILDING, WE DON'T NECESSARILY ATTEMPT TO REGULATE IN THE ZONING BYLAW, AND THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO SORT OF ONE OF THOSE SMALLER GREENHOUSES THAT IT'S 10 FEET BY 10 FEET. THE WAY THE BYLAW IS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING YOU COULD PLACE IN YOUR FRONT YARD. A BIGGER STRUCTURE THAN THAT, AT THE MOMENT, THE BYLAW IS STRUCTURED IN SUCH A WAY THAT. IT DOESN'T ENDORSE THAT. IT'S STILL ATTEMPTING TO SORT OF ALIGN WITH FORM AND CHARACTER OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AS THEY'VE BEEN BUILT OUT. HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. YEAH, I THINK SO, LIKE FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL GREENHOUSE THAT WE SEE AROUND WOULD BE A SMALLER SIZE, THEREFORE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO GO IN YOUR FRONT YARD. OK, PERFECT. OK. SECTION 8..8.2C. OOPS! IT IS ABOUT ANY ASSOCIATED SO THIS IS DAYCARE FACILITY, SO A HOME BASED DAYCARE. ANY ASSOCIATED VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED ON SITE. JUST WONDERING THAT JUST LIKE STOP PARKING, THAT NEEDS TO BE ON SITE. DO THEY NEED TO PROVIDE X NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS FOR DROP OFFS? AND JUST WONDERING AND THE SAME QUESTION FOR COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTERS. IT DOES TALK ABOUT ANY ASSOCIATED VEHICLES SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED ON SITE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, ROB? THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE SORT OF EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE USES, SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MIGHT HAVE A COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER THAT HAS A VAN THAT MIGHT GO ON DAY TRIPS OR OR MIGHT ACCOMPLISH CERTAIN THINGS WITH THE REGULATIONS, WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT VAN NEEDS TO BE ACCOMMODATED FOR ON THE SITE . DO NOT PLAN TO PARK THE VAN ON THE STREET YEAR ROUND. THAT THEN SHOULD BE PARKED ON THE SITE WHERE THIS USE IS HAPPENING OR OTHER EXAMPLES LIKE THAT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THEIR INTENT. OK. THANKS FOR THAT. UH, SORRY. OH, OK, ALL HOME BASED BUSINESSES, SO YOU NEED TO SUBMIT A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS, AND IF YOU'RE RENTING A ROOM IN A AS AN STR ON AIRBNB, [02:15:06] WHATEVER WHILE YOU'RE LIVING IN THE HOUSE, THAT'S CONSIDERED A HOME BASED BUSINESS. SO YOU REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND YOU NEED TO SUBMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR A SHORT TERM RENTAL. IF YOU WERE CONVERTING A HOUSE TO JUST TO AN STR BECAUSE IT MOVES FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL, I GUESS JUST TRYING TO GET A BIT MORE UNDERSTANDING WHETHER BASICALLY SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE GOING TO REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT'S A HOME BASED BUSINESS OR A SHORT TERM RENTAL MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MS. WHITE? GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ROBERT MARGARET, PLEASE. SURE THE WAY WE'VE STRUCTURED THE BAILOUT AT THE MOMENT IS THAT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO RENT A ROOM OR MULTIPLE ROOMS IN YOUR HOUSE IS AS SHORT TERM RENTAL OR A BED AND BREAKFAST KIND OF SCENARIO, YES, THAT REQUIRES A HOME BASED BUSINESS. IF YOU'RE GOING TO OWN A HOUSE TO WHICH YOU THEN RENT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND SOME SORT OF SHORT TERM FASHION, WHETHER IT'S 10 DAYS, 20 DAYS OR A MONTH. AND THAT HOUSE STANDS ALONE, AND YOU'RE RENTING ITS ENTIRETY OUT. WE'VE DETERMINED THAT GOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING. FIRST OFF, THE FORMER CHARACTER DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER WHETHER SOMEBODY IS RENTING THAT HOUSE FROM YOU FOR FOR A YEAR OR WHETHER THEY'RE RENTING THAT HOUSE FROM YOU FOR 10 DAYS. BUT SECONDLY, WE ALSO FELT IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO REGULATE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE WON'T HAVE A SENSE OF FROM THE STREET AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON. SO THAT'S HOW WE RESTRUCTURED THE REGULATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO I GUESS THIS COMES BACK TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD BACK IN JANUARY 2020 WHEN WE DID THIS STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING ON IT. SO OUR PRINCIPLE IS YOU HAVE TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A HOME BASED BUSINESS, IF YOU'RE RENTING A ROOM BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE MORE DENSITY BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY LIVING THERE PLUS OPERATING AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, WHEREAS WE DON'T SEE AN INTENSIFICATION IF YOU'RE NOT LIVING IN THE HOUSE, IF YOU'RE JUST RENTING IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S JUST ONE GROUP RENTING IT. IS THAT THE POLICY PRINCIPLE, MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. MR. ROB OR MARGARET OR CHARLESIE, IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH ON THE DETAIL. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD, NO. OK. THANKS FOR THAT. ON THE SAME ONE, IS IT 8.2.5D, WHICH IS HOME BASED BUSINESSES CAN ONLY BE STAFFED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING THERE. YES, THAT'S JUST ACTUALLY A COMMENT. SO I'M LIKING THIS ONE, BECAUSE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL, ONE OF THE THINGS IS COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS FLAGGED, WAS THAT COMMERCIAL RECREATION WAS TAKEN OUT, AND SO IT MAY BE THAT SOMEBODY IS OPERATING THEIR BUSINESS, BUT THEN THEY COULDN'T HAVE ANY STAFF COME AND BE IN THE. THAT'S OK, THAT'S TOO CONFUSING. IT DOESN'T IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT. QUESTION, I GUESS, IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. CAN YOU HAVE A SECONDARY SUITES AND A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ON THE LOT? OR SECONDARY SUITES ONLY ALLOWED WHEN THERE'S A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. SO, YEAH, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SECONDARY DWELLING, THEN YES, IT WOULD BE SECONDARY AND ANCILLARY TO THE PRIMARY USE OF A DWELLING, BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL OR HOME BASED BUSINESS. YOU'RE A DWELLING AND A SECOND UNIT WITHIN THERE. SO LET'S SAY WE'RE TRANSFERRING A EXISTING THREE STOREY DWELLING OF A COMMERCIAL ON THE MAIN FLOOR INTO TWO UNITS. AND OF COURSE, I COULD LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE UNITS. YEAH, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS NOTICING YESTERDAY, WALKING AROUND THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL AREA IS THERE'S SOME OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WHETHER THE HOUSE IS CONVERTED INTO A MASSAGE THERAPY CLINIC AND THEY HAVE SPACE IN THE BACKYARD TO HAVE A TINY HOME AND THAT'S WHERE THEY LIVE. THAT WOULD BE LIKE ALLOWED UNDER THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? YES. UM, YEAH, AND I KNOW WE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK ABOUT DECREASING THE NUMBER [02:20:04] OF COMMERCIAL USES IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND IT APPRECIATED MEANS TOOK SOME TIME TO TRY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHETHER SOME OF THEM SHOULD ACTUALLY BE MOVED TO DISCRETIONARY DISCRETIONARY USE AS OPPOSED TO BEING REMOVED COMPLETELY. SO THE ONES THAT STICK OUT TO ME ARE CONVENIENCE STORE, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND URBAN URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL. BECAUSE IN TALKING TO RESIDENTS ONE ON ONE AND YOU DELVE INTO STUFF A BIT MORE, THE IDEA OF HAVING A LITTLE CAFE ON SOME OF THOSE LOTS PEOPLE AREN'T OPPOSED TO, BUT THEY DON'T WANT A BAR THAT'S LIKE THE RAVEN, OPERATING TILL 2:00 A.M. AND THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT USES. HOWEVER, THEY'RE DEFINED AS THE SAME. SO I FEEL LIKE WE COULD STRIKE A BALANCE MORE BETWEEN AND AS OPPOSED TO REMOVING THEM COMPLETELY FROM THE BYLAW. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO ADMIN WOULD BE WHETHER IT WAS CONSIDERED TO MOVE THEM FROM PERMITTED TO DISCRETIONARY USE AS OPPOSED TO REMOVING THEM COMPLETELY. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE YOU TOUCHED ON THE CONVENIENCE STORE RATIONALE IN THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION. JUST WONDERING THE RATIONALE FOR REMOVING FOOD AND BEVERAGE AND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MS. WHITE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THIS A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN I'LL ASK ROB AND MARGARET TOUCH ON IT AS WELL. ONE THING WHEN WE DO TALK ABOUT PERMITTED USES VERSUS DISCRETIONARY USES, WE HAVE TO THINK NOT JUST AS AS YOU'RE MENTIONING MAYOR, I'LL SAY A LITTLE CAFE WHICH COULD ESTABLISH ITSELF, LET'S SAY, AND ONE OF THESE AREAS. BUT THEN THAT LITTLE CAFE IS SUCCESSFUL AND THEY HOPEFULLY MOVE TO THE DOWNTOWN. AND THEN I COME IN AND WANT TO BUY IT AND SAY EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, OH, IT'S SET UP PERFECTLY. I CAN NOW HAVE A NIGHTCLUB IN THERE. WELL, IT'S ALREADY A PERMITTED USE BECAUSE WE ALLOWED IT AS ONE THING. SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT GOES THROUGH THAT CHANGE OF USE PROCESS FOR THE CAFE, ONCE IT'S ESTABLISHED, THEN THERE'S DIFFERENT, I GUESS YOU CALL SCALES, BUT THEY'RE TECHNICALLY THE SAME USE AND YOU SEE THAT IN THAT DEFINITION. SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHY WE WERE TRYING TO THINK LONG TERM AND HOW THESE AREAS COULD OR POTENTIALLY MAY TRANSITION. NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A BAR, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY REALLY A GOOD EXAMPLE THERE OF HOW THINGS HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LONG TERM. ROB OR MARGARET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT AS WELL? THERE WERE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE MAYOR IN THERE. YEAH. SO YOU HEARD THE CONVENIENCE STORE RATIONALE LIKE THE URBAN AGRICULTURE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN URBAN AND COMMUNITY BASED AGRICULTURE IS REALLY SCALE AND THE SIZE OF THE COMMERCIAL OPERATION VERSUS WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO DO FROM THEIR COMMUNITY, URBAN AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS THEY CAN STILL SELL THE PRODUCE THAT THEY CREATE. SO IT SEEMED LIKE URBAN AGRICULTURE REALLY ONLY IN OUR MINDS FIT IN IN MORE OF THE IN THE AREAS WHERE THERE'S LARGER LOTS. EITHER THE DOWNTOWN OR IN KAM LAKE IN TERMS OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES LIKE, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD TO WHAT CHARLESIE SAID, OTHER THAN IT WAS THE SCALE OR THE INABILITY TO KIND OF CONTROL. AND THE FINAL THING IS, WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS, WE GOT A CLEAR DIRECTION THAT THE INTENT WAS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DISCRETIONARY USES, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE AMPED UP AND BEEFED UP OUR PERMITTED USES. SO WE WERE TRYING TO BE REALLY COGNIZANT OF THAT AS WELL. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE COULDN'T ADD SOME OF THESE IN AS WELL IF COUNCIL FELT THAT THEY HAD THE APPETITE TO ACTUALLY BE INVOLVED, IF THOSE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES POTENTIALLY CAME UP. THANKS. AND DURING COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS QUESTION YOU MENTIONED POTENTIALLY A COMMERCIAL RECREATION COULD FIT UNDER COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES. AND JUST KNOWING THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, I'M WONDERING HOW SOMEBODY COULD QUOTE UNQUOTE SLIDE UNDER THAT OTHER CATEGORY WHEN WE REMOVED COMMERCIAL RECREATION FROM THE PERMITTED USE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. I'LL ALLOW MS. KALT TO ANSWERTHAT. THANK YOU. I THINK AGAIN, IT COMES BACK TO SCALE, SO THE EXAMPLES THAT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS THINGS LIKE WHAT IF I RAN CANOEING TRIPS OR I DID HIKING TOURS OR THINGS LIKE THAT? ALL OF THOSE THINGS, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT AND THE VOLUME OF SUPPLIES OR ACCESSORY THINGS REQUIRED TO RUN THOSE BUSINESSES COULD LIKELY BE DONE FROM SOMEBODY'S HOME AND THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A HOME BASED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL RETAIL. [02:25:01] I MEAN, THE COMMERCIAL RECREATION IS REALLY MEANT TO BE FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPEN THAT REQUIRE LARGE SPACES LIKE PLAYGROUNDS, BOWLING ALLEYS, FAIRS, RACKET COURTS, GYMNASIUMS, LARGER ACTIVITIES. AND I DIDN'T GET THE SENSE THAT'S WHAT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS WAS SUGGESTING, AND HE WAS THINKING MORE OF THAT SORT OF SELLING A PRODUCT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE SPACE NECESSARILY ON SITE, BUT JUST SAY THAT YOU COULD THEN TAKE THAT SERVICE SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD FIT UNDER COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE, WHICH IS PROVIDING RETAIL SERVICES OR THE OPPORTUNITIES OF BUYING OR SELLING A COMMODITY OR SOMETHING. SO WHETHER THAT QUANTITY IS A TOUR OR CANOEING TRIP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S NOT SUCH. IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SITE, AS MUCH AS COMMERCIAL RECREATION MIGHT BE ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING ON THE SITE. THANKS. SO MY QUESTION WAS OR FLAGGING THAT HOME BASED BUSINESS ONE WAS ABOUT. SO YOU WANT TO SELL CANOE TRIPS, YOU'RE STORING YOUR CANOES THERE, YOUR STAFF ARE GOING TO GO PICK THEM UP. SO YOU'RE KIND OF IN VIOLATION. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE A HOME BASED BUSINESS ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT STAFF COMING IN AND PICKING UP THE CANOES. SO JUST WONDERING IF. IF, BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIT MORE THAN A HOME BASED BUSINESS BY STORING YOUR CANOES ON SITES WHEN STAFF COME AND GET THEM, WHETHER YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING BYLAW. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, AND I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT, MAYOR ALTY, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT NO MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE HOME WORKING IN THE HOME BASED BUSINESS. SO YEAH, I SEE THE STRETCH YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THERE. DO I HAVE THREE PEOPLE WHO THEN COME IN PICK UP STUFF AND THEN THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY WORKING IN MY HOME, BUT I'M STORING THAT MATERIAL THERE. SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION. MARGARET, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU FOR THAT CONSIDERATION. TYPICALLY, WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THE HOME BASED BUSINESS, IT'S AGAIN ABOUT THE INTENSITY OF THE USE, NOT ABOUT THE USERS PER SAY. SO IT DOESN'T STAY. YOUR BUSINESS CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE STAFF MEMBER. IT JUST SAYS LIKE YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON ON SITE WORKING STAFF COMING TO PICK UP CANOES TO THEN PROVIDE THE SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE SITE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD. IF THAT REALLY TOUCHES ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IN IN THE CLAUSE THAT'S IN THE HOME BASED BUSINESS SECTION, BECAUSE THE STAFF AREN'T ON SITE AND WE DON'T REGULATE THE NUMBER OF STAFF THE BUSINESS MIGHT HAVE, IT'S JUST MORE ABOUT WHO'S ON SITE. SO IF THERE'S AN OFFICE ON SITE, AN INDIVIDUAL OWNS THE HOME, THEY'RE LIVING IN IT, THEY'RE CONSIDERING IT A HOME BASED BUSINESS. THEN THEY'RE THE INDIVIDUAL RUNNING IT JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE STAFF WHO SHOW UP AT SITE. I FIND THAT A LITTLE TOO TOO SPECIFIC, AND IT'S KIND OF COUNTER TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE HOME BASED BUSINESS. BUT DOES THERE HAVE TO BE CLARITY IN THE BYLAW? MAYBE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD SORT OF CONSIDER AND TALK THROUGH, BUT I'D BE REALLY CAREFUL NOT TO GET TOO HUNG UP ON THE SPECIFICS ABOUT WHAT THAT ONE PERSON IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY YOUR BUSINESS CAN ONLY HAVE ONE PERSON. WELL, AND THE BYLAW SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYBODY EXCEPT THE PERSON WHO LIVES THERE WORKING THERE. SO THAT'S WHERE I DON'T WANT TO CREATE CONFLICTS AND NEIGHBORS SAYING, OH, SO-AND-SO BOUGHT PROPERTY, THEY'RE STORING THEIR CANOES. THEIR STAFF COMES AND PICKS UP THE CANOES. THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANYBODY EXCEPT THAT PERSON THAT LIVES ON SITE WORKING THERE. SO IF THERE IS. AND IT DOES SLIDE INTO KIND OF COMMERCIAL, I FIGURE IF A HOME BASED BUSINESS DOES HAVE THE RESIDENT LIVING THERE, PLUS AN ADMIN ASSISTANT WORKING ON SITE. I THINK WE'RE WE'RE MOVING INTO A NEW NEW GROUND, SO WE WANT TO TRY TO AVOID ANY POTENTIAL LOOPHOLES HERE FROM THE BEGINNING. SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR THAT ONE. OK. SO FOR COMMERCIAL, SORRY, CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. WHY DID WE GO WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 12 METERS, WHICH I KNOW IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN R1 AND NOT 15 METERS LIKE R2'S MAXIMUM? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MR. LOCKE? THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. SO WHEN WE DID A WHOLE BUNCH OF THE VARIANCE ANALYSIS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE WE DID SEE A LARGE UPTICK IN VARIANCES OVER THE LAST SINCE 2012 WAS HEIGHT [02:30:01] VARIANCES. AND AT THE MOMENT IN 4404 BUILDING HEIGHT IS OFTEN LIMITED AT 10 METERS, AND IT'S THAT 10 METER RESTRICTION THAT WE'RE SEEING REPEATED REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES JUST TO ACCOMMODATE THE DESIRED BUILDING FORM. SECONDLY. WELL, IT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO FIT A FOUR STORY STRUCTURE UNDER 12 METERS. NINETY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TIME WITH 12 METERS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A THREE STOREY BUILDING. AND SO IT WAS A COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO THINGS THAT SORT OF HELPED US SETTLE ON THAT NUMBER OF 12 METERS, 12 METERS WILL ALLOW COMFORTABLY IN A VARIETY OF BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS, A THREE STOREY BUILDING SUCH AS, SAY, I DON'T WANT TO POINT TO A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT IT'LL ALLOW FOR THAT THREE STOREY BUILDING AT THE SAME TIME. IT WON'T REQUIRE VARIANCES TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE SETTLED ON 12 METERS. WE FELT THAT IF WE WENT TO 15 METERS, PARTICULARLY IN THOSE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE WERE INTRODUCING THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION, IT'S THEN THAT 15 METERS WOULD START TO REALLY CREEP BEYOND SORT OF AN APPROPRIATE SCOPE AND SCALE AND WHERE YOU'D HEAD TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, THOSE THOSE RESIDENTS CONCERNS THAT ARE BEING EXPRESSED THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN AN APARTMENT CAN COME NEXT DOOR THAT WOULD SO DOMINATE THE LOT THAT THEY'D BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED. THAT'S WHY WE SETTLED ON 12 YEARS. THANKS FOR THAT. SO SHOULD WE BE DROPPING R2 DOWN FROM 15 TO 12 METERS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? MR. LOCKE? BUT NO, AND AGAIN, AS I STATED WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMENTS, I MEAN, THIS IS ULTIMATELY AT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION. THESE ARE JUST SUGGESTIONS AND YOU KNOW, IF THE 15 METERS MAKES MORE SENSE FOR THAT TRANSITION ZONE, THEN MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT AND COME BACK WITH. BUT NO, IN THE HOUR TWO ZONE, I THINK WE WOULD REMAIN WHERE IT IS BECAUSE JUST WHEN THINKING ABOUT THE WONDERFUL TOPOGRAPHY FOR WHICH IS YELLOWKNIFE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING TOO MUCH OF A LIMIT AND THE POINT IS TAKEN. MAYBE WE DO FOR RC-1 NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT? I'LL ASK ROB OR MARGARET IF THEY WANT TO ADD. NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. OK. THANKS FOR THAT. OH. YEAH, SECTION 11.1.3. IT YEAH, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND IT REFERS TO THE CITY'S SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND YELLOWKNIFE DOWNTOWN FACADE IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES. JUST WONDERING, DO WE WANT A REFERENCE THAT OR DO WE WANT A REFERENCE? AN OLD COUNCILLOR KONGE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE REFERENCING DESIGN STANDARDS AND THAT DISCUSSION WASN'T ABOUT THE FACADES. SO AND THEN I GUESS MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING THESE GUIDELINES AS AN ANNEX TO THE ZONING BYLAW. SO JUST. YEAH, LOOKING FOR A BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ONE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, AND THERE'S A FEW PIECES HERE. WHEN WE WERE TALKING AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEETING TODAY, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW DENSIFICATION AND THE WAY THAT WE DESIGN AND DEVELOP OUR CITIES IMPACTS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND I BELIEVE THE INITIATION OF THIS POLICY AND DIRECTION FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN WAS STARTED WITH THIS PLAN THAT WE'RE REFERENCING HERE IN SECTION 11. SO IT'S CONTINUATION AND THIS ZONING BYLAW REALLY SUPPORTS SOME OF THE DIRECTIVES THAT WERE OUTLINED IN THERE. AND WELL, YES, WE'RE GOING TO BE CREATING SOME NEW INTERNAL POLICIES TO IMPLEMENT THE ZONING BYLAW AND IDENTIFY HOW WE WORK WITH DESIGN STANDARDS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO MAKE THEM AS AN APPENDIX. AND THE REASON BEING IF ANY CHANGES WERE NEEDED TO BE MADE, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME THROUGH COUNCIL. SO LET'S SAY THERE'S ENGINEERING STANDARDS. I'LL JUST USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE THROUGH REGULATED BODIES. AND IF THEY CHANGE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE LOCKSTEP RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT COUNCIL PROCESS. SO I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THAT. THOSE TO BE SEPARATE AND THE ZONING BYLAW REMAIN AS THAT BYLAW THAT'S APPROVED BY COUNCIL. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. MAYBE IT'S JUST MORE OF LIKE A WEBSITE THING THAT GOT THE ZONING BYLAW AS WELL AS ANY [02:35:05] OF THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WE REFERENCE THROUGHOUT. OK, SO SECTION 12.1.2. IT'S INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND IT TALKS ABOUT FOOD, BEVERAGES SERVICES, AND IT SAYS BREW PUBS AND OTHER FOOD SERVICES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN ASSOCIATION WITH BREW DISTILLING ESTABLISHMENTS, THE KAM LAKE ZONE. JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT THIS MEANS? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? AND TO ROB, PLEASE. UM, YEAH, WHAT WE REALIZED WHEN WE PUT THIS TOGETHER, ACTUALLY WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR EDITS, THAT THERE IS THE BREWING PART OF THE BREWING AND THE BREW PUB, AND THEN THERE'S THE PUB PART. AND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS RECOGNIZE THAT PERHAPS PUTTING A PUB IN KAM LAKE WASN'T REALLY APPROPRIATE. AND SO WE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THAT, BUT OUR DEFINITIONS HAD PUT THEM TOGETHER. SO WHAT WE WERE JUST TRYING TO DO WITH THAT LINE IS RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A SEPARATION THAT YOU CAN BREW YOUR BEER AND THAT'S FINE AND THAT'S A PERMITTED USE IN KAM LAKE ZONE, BUT ATTACHING THE PUB TO IT WAS NOT THE SAME THING, BUT IN OTHER LOCATIONS, A BREW AND THE PUB DO ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER, AND THAT'S OK. SO IT WAS JUST TRYING TO SHOW THERE'S A DISTINCTION THAT WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING THAT THE PUBS WILL GO WITH THE BREWING IN KAM LAKE. GOTCHA. YEAH, AND. SO, YEAH, I SEE LIKE LAKE DISCRETIONARY AS FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES, SO PERHAPS YOU THEN APPLY, COUNCIL, IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT. BREWPUB AND SIT DOWN AND DINE. OK. THE NEXT ONE IS 12.2 WHICH IS KAM LAKE SOUTH, AND SO. WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN, KAM LAKE SOUTH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DOG MUSHER CENTRAL. AND IT WAS CREATED BECAUSE THERE WAS DOG MUSHERS WHO SAID THEY WANTED TO BUY THEIR OWN LOTS AND LIVE WITH THEIR DOGS VERSUS ONE OF THE CURRENT OPTIONS REALLY IS THE YELLOWKNIFE KENNELS, WHICH IS A NOT FOR PROFIT. THE PEOPLE USE TO STORE THEIR DOGS, BUT THEN THEY LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN YELLOWKNIFE. AND BUT THEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS ZONE, IT ONLY ALLOWS THE DOG LOTS AND NOT KENNELS ALSO I'M JUST WONDERING WHY KENNELS AREN'T INCLUDED. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU, ROB OR MARGARET, PLEASE. WHAT'S REALLY KEY IS THE WAY WE USE THE TERM CANDLE IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN HAS NOW BEEN SEPARATED IN THE ZONING BYLAW. SO WHAT WE REFER TO AS KENNELS IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS NOT THE SAME THING AS IT SHOWS UP IN THE ZONING BYLAW. AND IT'S NOT PERFECT AND IT'S NOT GREAT THAT IT SORT OF ROLLED OUT THAT WAY. BUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY GOT INTO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHAT WE WERE INTENDING TO USE FOR THIS ZONE WAS ACTUALLY HOW WE DEFINE THE DOG LAWS VERSUS THE KENNEL. AND SO THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T SEE KENNEL IN HERE. BUT I ANTICIPATE THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU HAD JUST DESCRIBED, WHICH IS LIVING WITH THEIR DOGS, WOULD LIKELY FALL UNDER THE DOG LOT DEFINITION. THE DOG LOT ISN'T STRICTLY THE WHITE DOG TROTTERS ASSOCIATION, LOTS IN IN KIMLEY. OK. OK, AS LONG AS. JUST TRYING TO DOUBLE CHECK HERE, SO, DOG. IT'S. OK, I'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK TO SEE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. UM, AND I GUESS SOME PAGE. IN KAM LAKE SOUTH 2 WE'VE REMOVED KENNELS AND DOG LOT REFERENCES AND REALLY FOCUSING ON NATURAL RESOURCE, COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND URBAN AGRICULTURE, SO JUST I GUESS THE QUESTION ON WHY WE HAVEN'T INCLUDED DOG LOT OR KENNELS. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? MS. WHITE? AND MS. KALT OR ROB? THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KLS-1 AND KLS-2 IS KLS-1 IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SHORE OF KAM LAKE, WHICH IS A TYPICAL AMENITY DESIRED BY SORT OF THE DOG MUSHING COMMUNITY. SO HAVING YOUR LOT NEXT DOOR TO THE LAKE, WHICH FREEZES IN THE WINTERTIME, [02:40:05] WHICH THEN ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE TRAILS ON THE LAKE AND THEN THOSE TRAILS CONNECT TO OTHER LAKES AND ON YOU GO. WHEN WE CRAFTED KLS-2 THAT WAS INTENDED TO CAPTURE EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING OUT IN THE KAM, WHICH IS ACE ENTERPRISE'S QUARRY, AS WELL AS WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF UNDEVELOPED LAND OUT THERE THAT MIGHT BE SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL. AND THEN THE THIRD THING, OF COURSE, IS AGAIN, WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT'S UNDEVELOPABLE. PERHAPS IT'S ALSO SUITABLE FOR SORT OF THAT AURORA TOURISM BECAUSE THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT AND NO LIGHTING. BUT THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND WHY YOU'RE SEEING DOG LOTS AT KLS-1 ADJACENT TO THE SHORELINE OF KAM LAKE AND NOT THROUGHOUT IN KLS-2. HEY, THANKS FOR THAT. THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM A RESIDENCE ABOUT SETBACKS, YARD SETBACKS FOR R-1 VERSUS R-2, AND IT JUST HAD SOME CONCERNS. YEAH. MAYBE I HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ONE AGAIN TO JUST UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE OR IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO CHANGE IN OUR ZONING BYLAW, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT ONE FOR NOW. SO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. NEXT, WE WILL MOVE INTO ANY DELIBERATIONS, BUT IF THERE ARE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCILLORS WANTED TO SEE AND AGAIN WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL DISCUSS ONE IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNCILLORS IN FAVOR, ADMIN WILL NOTE IT AND THEN COME BACK NEXT WEEK AND WE'LL HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE FEEDBACK BASED ON THAT DIRECTION. AND THEN COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO INCLUDE IT BEFORE IT GOES TO THE FIRST READING OR TO A MINUTE, BECAUSE AGAIN, SOMETHING MAY LOOK JUST LIGHT AND EASY AND SOMETHING WE CAN DO, AND AFTER HEARING FURTHER, WE MAY DECIDE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THAT. SO OPENING IT UP, I KNOW COUNCILLOR MORGAN, YOU SAID YOU HAD A FEW AMENDMENTS YOU WANTED TO BRING FORWARD? YES, SO. UM. OK. AND YOU'RE SAYING LATER ON, WE DO GENERAL COMMENTS? I GUESS I COULD JUST GIVE COMMENTS THAT GIVE SOME CONTEXT TO THE AMENDMENT. ONE I WANTED TO ZERO IN ON WAS AROUND VARIANCES. I KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD A LOT OVER THE YEARS, AT LEAST, I HAVE IN TERMS OF PEOPLE AND THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN, AROUND DISCRETION AROUND VARIANCES AND NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES AROUND VARIANCES OR JUSTIFICATIONS AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO BUILD AS MUCH MORE TRUST AS WE CAN BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND CITY HALL. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT STARTING WITH A BLANK SLATE OVER MANY, MANY YEARS. YOU KNOW, LOTS OF RESIDENTS HAVE LIVED HERE A REALLY LONG TIME. THEY'VE SEEN A LOT OF PLANNING PROCESSES COME AND GO AND THEY MAY HAVE SEEN THE CITY STRUGGLE TO ENFORCE OUR BYLAWS AROUND NEW DEVELOPMENTS AS THEY'RE BEING BUILT, AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH NOW IS THAT THERE IS AMONG MANY RESIDENTS A SIGNIFICANT DISTRUST. AND SO THAT TO ME, THAT MEANS IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE WORK TO REGAIN THAT TRUST BY BEING AS TRANSPARENT AS WE CAN, CREATING RULES THAT ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD, THAT ARE ENFORCEABLE, AND THAT WHERE THINGS ARE LEFT UP TO DISCRETION THAT WERE AS CLEAR AS WE CAN BE AROUND THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT DISCRETION AND THE CRITERIA THAT ARE USED TO MAKE DECISIONS. SO WE HAVE COME SOME WAYS, I THINK, BUT IN TERMS OF THE SECTION ON VARIANCES. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS SOME LIMITS PLACED, AT LEAST ON CERTAIN TYPES OF VARIANCES, I MEAN YOU, GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A PRETTY SEEMINGLY BENIGN VARIANCE AROUND ADDING AN [02:45:01] ACCESSIBILITY RAMP. I THINK WHERE PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN A LOT MORE CONCERNED AND FRUSTRATED IS, FOR EXAMPLE, AROUND BUILDING HEIGHTS, AND SO IT MAY BE AROUND SITE DENSITY AND THAT MAY BE DISCRETION THAT FALLS ON COUNCIL, BUT I STILL THINK THAT THERE COULD BE LIMITS PLACED ON COUNCIL IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF WHAT VARIANCES ARE ACTUALLY ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OTHERWISE WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE IS THAT. WHY EVEN BOTHER SETTING MAXIMUM, YOU KNOW, HEIGHTS OR. UNDER THE CERTAIN ZONE, IF THERE'S THEN UNLIMITED VARIANCE AROUND WHAT IT WHAT IT COULD BE? AND WE COULD SAY, OH NO, NO, NO, YOU KNOW, DON'T DON'T WORRY, JUST TRUST US, WE WON'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S UNREASONABLE, BUT. I JUST THINK WE'RE NOT IN THAT PLACE AS A CITY WHERE WE CAN TELL THE PUBLIC, DON'T WORRY, JUST TRUST US, WE'LL USE OUR DISCRETION FOR GOOD OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE TRANSPARENT AND SET SOME LIMITS ON OURSELVES. NOW I DON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT ON WHAT EXACTLY PERCENTAGE LIMITS COULD BE ON VARIANCES OR WHICH TYPES OF VARIANCES WE COULD REALISTICALLY SET LIMITS ON VERSUS OTHERS THAT ARE RELATIVELY BENIGN, BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE ASK ADMINISTRATION TO COME BACK TO US WITH A PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SOME THRESHOLDS OR LIMITS ON VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE NOT TOO ONEROUS FOR ADMINISTRATION. IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING PAGES AND PAGES OF DIFFERENT CHARTS AND STATISTICS AND LIMITS, BUT FOR THE MAIN VARIANCES THAT CAUSE THE MOST CONCERN AND CONTROVERSY TO PROPOSE SOME REALISTIC LIMITS. SO, THAT'S NOT A SPECIFIC COMMITMENT, BUT. RIGHT. ANY SUPPORT FOR WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? COUNCILLOR KONGE? THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR COUNCILLOR MORGAN. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT IS IF YOU SAID YOU'D LIKE ADMINISTRATION TO COME BACK WITH A VERY DETAILED, LIKE, IF THEY GO FORWARD WITH IT, AND IT'S CITY, THEY SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU YOUR VARIANCE. HOW TO APPEAL AT VARIANCE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? OR ARE YOU JUST NOT WANTING THE VARIANCES? BECAUSE IF IT'S A METHOD TO APPEAL TO VARIANCES, I WOULD VERY MUCH BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. I THINK COUNCILLOR MORGAN WANTS A PERCENTAGE CAP ON VARIANCES WRITTEN INTO THE BYLAW. THAT'S CORRECT. COUNCILLOR MORGAN? THAT IS CORRECT. IT MAY ALSO, IT COULD BE COMBINED WITH A SYSTEM OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE UP TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, FIVE, 10 PERCENT, WHATEVER, THEN IT DOESN'T GO OUT FOR, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC HEARING OR PUBLIC APPEAL. BUT MAYBE IF IT'S OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF VARIANCES, IF IT'S 100 PERCENT, 200 PERCENT VARIANCE, THEN. THERE ARE FORMAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN OR APPEAL LIKE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE WORKED INTO THE SYSTEM. COUNCILLOR KONGE? ANYTHING FURTHER? I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT ADMIN'S BROUGHT FORWARD. I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, AS MUCH AS EVERYBODY WANTS ZONING BYLAWS TO BE SUPER PRESCRIPTIVE. THERE'S A RANGE OF TOPOGRAPHY AND I THINK WE'LL ACTUALLY BE HAMSTRINGING PEOPLE MORE THAN WILL BE APPRECIATING SO YOU CAN GO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND THEY ADVERTISE EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT GETS ISSUED. AND SO I JUST PULLED UP A RANDOM NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST. TWENTY SEVEN. A LOT OF THE IMPROVED VARIANCES COME OUT OUR DECKS, THIS DECK NEEDS A VARIANCE OF 77.8 PERCENT. THE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SHE WAS GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE OF FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT. [02:50:01] AND SO ARE WE REALLY LOCKING DECKS AND SHEDS BECAUSE OF A ROCK IN THEIR YARDS? I THINK THE WAY THAT THE BYLAWS WRITTEN PROFESSIONALS WILL BE REVIEWING IT BASED ON THOSE CONDITIONS. SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. BUT I GUESS MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK MS. BASSI-KELLETT FOR STAFF FEEDBACK ON IF THERE'S FURTHER GUIDELINES THAT COULD BE PUT IN PLACE FOR VARIANCES OR WHAT, I KNOW STAFF HAVE ALSO DONE AN ANALYSIS TO LOOK AT THE RANGE OF VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND. IT IS TOUGH TO TO CHOOSE A PERCENTAGE BECAUSE IT CAN BE SUCH A WIDE PERCENT JUST BASED ON SOMEBODY HAS AN IRREGULAR LINE. THERE'S A ROCK AT THE BACK, THERE'S A ROCK AT THE FRONT, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S AN OLD TREE THAT YOU WANT TO PROTECT. THERE'S JUST A LOT OF VARIABLES THAT COME INTO DEVELOPMENT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, AND SO IT'S FINDING THAT SWEET SPOT BETWEEN THAT PERCEPTION THAT PLANNERS ARE LIKE THE WILD WEST AND APPROVING ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, BUT SOMETIMES NEIGHBORS CAN PERCEIVE THAT AND THE FACT THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE LATITUDE GIVEN TO THE PROFESSIONALS THAT WE MANDATE TO BE DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS, TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL APPLICATION MAY BE RAISING. SO IT IS A SWEET SPOT IN THERE. IT IS ONE THAT WE REALLY DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT TO BE APPROPRIATE, BUT I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE HAS THINGS THAT SHE'D LIKE TO ADD. THANK YOU. CAN I JUST CLARIFY BRIEFLY, JUST IN RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS? LIKE, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE SET SORT OF ONE LIMIT ACROSS THE BOARD, LIKE I DON'T WANT TO GUM UP THE WORKS WITH HAVING EVERY DECK, ALL OF LIKE I'M SAYING, THESE BENIGN TYPES OF VARIANCES COME ACROSS OUR DESK OR, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL'S DESK. SO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WE FIND A FEW OF THE CATEGORIES OF VARIANCES, SUCH AS SITE DENSITY OR BUILDING HEIGHT THAT ARE MUCH MORE CONTROVERSIAL. AND THEY MAY BE THE SMALL MINORITY OF THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT COME ACROSS PEOPLE'S DESKS, BUT IT'S WHAT PEOPLE NOTICE AND REMEMBER SO THAT ONE PERCENT OF VARIANCES MAY ACTUALLY CREATE HUGE CONTROVERSY. SO IT'S JUST PICKING THOSE SMALL NUMBERS OF VARIANCES THAT DO CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND SETTING LIMITS ON THOSE. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE PROPOSING MORE IN TERMS OF THE SITE DENSITY AND AND BUILDING HEIGHT TYPES OF THINGS AS OPPOSED TO THE EVERYDAY BUILDING OF A DECK OR A RAMP. SO I GUESS YOU WANT A MAXIMUM, BECAUSE I GUESS. COUNCIL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN GIVE A VARIANCE FOR SITE DENSITY. ADMIN'S GOT THOSE MORE BENIGN LANDSCAPING FRONT, SIDE AND REAR, SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK OPPORTUNITY THROUGH COUNCIL BECAUSE EVERY SITE DENSITY HAS TO COME TO COUNCIL OR FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ADMINS COMMENTS FOR ADDRESSING SITE DENSITY AND VARIANCES. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. MS. WHITE? THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND MAYBE I COULD PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION AND SOME SOME BACKGROUND TO THIS TOPIC BECAUSE VARIANCES, REALLY, WE'RE TALKING WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT MINOR ALTERATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE LARGER ITEMS, NOT JUST DENSITY, BUT THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS AS WELL IN THE ZONING BYLAW. WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS, WHAT WE NEED TO START ACCEPTING IS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REZONING, RIGHT? SO YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE THAT VARIANCE, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE ANYMORE. YOU'RE CHANGING MORE THAN JUST ONE METER ON A SIDEWALK LINE FOR A DECK. AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT THAT PROCESS OF A REZONING, WHICH WILL REALLY ADDRESS, AS WE SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER IMPACT. WHAT IS THE IMPACT? HOW CAN IT BE MITIGATED OR HOW SHOULD IT BE MITIGATED? AND THOSE ARE LARGER DECISIONS THAT I THINK COUNCILLOR MORGAN, YOU'RE GETTING AT. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ONE FOOT OFF OF A SIDE YARD FOR A SHED IN THE BACK. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND I THINK WHAT THAT LEADS TO IS THAT ZONING PROCESS RATHER THAN THE VARIANCE PROCESS. OK, I MEAN, THAT'S HELPFUL, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHERE'S THE THRESHOLD BETWEEN ORDINARY VARIANCES AND WHEN A VARIANCE BECOMES ACTUALLY, WE'RE BUILDING A WHOLE DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUILDING HERE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT BUILDING A THREE STOREY BUILDING, WE'RE BUILDING AN EIGHT STOREY BUILDING AND THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING. [02:55:02] BUT AS I SEE IT IN THE ZONING BYLAW NOW, THERE'S NO CLEAR, TRANSPARENT THRESHOLD WHERE A VARIANCE BECOMES A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING. YOU KNOW, SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE SET OUT THESE. YOU KNOW, SAY THIS, RC-1 ZONE WHERE WE SAID, OK, WE'RE GOING TO SCALE BACK AND SAY THAT IT'S. WE'VE SET A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF I FORGET, IF IT'S 12 METERS OR 15 METERS NOW, BUT IN THIS ZONE, BECAUSE WE ARE INTENDING IT TO BE A MORE GRADUAL TRANSITION IN THESE ZONES AND THEN SAY IN THE FUTURE, A DEVELOPER COMES FORWARD AND SAYS, WELL, ACTUALLY, I WANT TO BUILD AN EIGHT STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING THERE. AND WE SAID, OH, ACTUALLY, WE'RE SORT OF REGRETTING THAT BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT SETTING THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, BECAUSE MAYBE IT WOULD BE OK IN THAT AREA. AND WE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY OR WHATEVER, AND WE ALLOW THIS VARIANCE. WHEREAS ACTUALLY, LIKE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT FEEL LIKE FAIRLY BETRAYED THAT THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IN THAT ZONE, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, BUT WHAT IN OUR BYLAW IS PREVENTING LIKE A HUGE VARIANCE LIKE THAT FROM FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE? MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. YEAH, AND SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE ZONING PROCESS, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADJUDICATED THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. AND IF WE LOOK AT SECTION FOUR OF THE ZONING BYLAW, WE SPECIFICALLY SAY THE CHANGE OF USE FROM A PERMITTED USE AS WELL AS IN B, THERE IS A CHANGE OF USE IN THE INTENSITY OF THE USE, RIGHT? AND SO WHEN WE'RE GOING FROM DIFFERENT DENSITY LEVELS, NOT JUST SITE DENSITY, BUT OVERALL WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY, THAT'S REALLY THE TRIGGER. SO IT WOULDN'T GO FROM A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING TO AN EIGHT STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING. THERE'S CATCH BUILT IN THERE, AND THOSE ARE NOT CHANGES THAT WOULD MEET THOSE VARIANCE THRESHOLDS OR CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE BYLAW. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IT EXPLICITLY OUTLINED SOMEWHERE SO THAT THE PUBLIC COULD SEE AND UNDERSTAND. AND WE'RE SORT OF MAKING A CLEAR COMMITMENT THAT WE WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO USE THE VARIANCE OPTION TO CREATE BUILDINGS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM, YOU KNOW, THE MAXIMUMS OR THE INTENDED LIMITS FOR A PARTICULAR ZONE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M EXPLAINING MYSELF CORRECTLY, BUT I MEAN THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU'VE SAID TODAY, I UNDERSTAND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IT EXPLICITLY LAID OUT SOMEWHERE SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN BE REASSURED AND SEE THAT LAID OUT SOMEWHERE. PERHAPS IT'S 4.9.1. THAT COUNCIL CAN SUPPORT THE VARIANCE ON DENSITY BY ADDING ONE HEIGHT BECAUSE IT CONFORMS TO THE POLICY OBJECTIVES, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT OF WANTING TO PLAIN LANGUAGE IT AS MUCH. BUT IT WAS JUST LIKE WHEN PEOPLE IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL SAW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS FORTY FIVE METERS, NOT RECOGNIZING THAT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT THAT ONE CLAUSE. IT'S YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON A SINGLE LAW. YOU HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARKING REGULATIONS, YOU HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACKS OF THE YARD AND THE REAR AND THE MAXIMUM. SO AS MUCH AS PEOPLE WANT TO LOOK AT ONLY ONE SECTION FOR ALL THE INFORMATION, YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE BYLAW INTO ACCOUNT. SO I GUESS JUST WHETHER WHAT MS. WHITE'S TALKING ABOUT AND COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S CONCERNS ABOUT ADDING TWO STORIES WOULD ACTUALLY BE ADDRESSED BY 4.9.1F. AND I GUESS MY SECOND POINT TO THAT WOULD BE. VARIANCES THAT GO TO COUNCIL NEIGHBORS IN THE 30 METER ARE NOTIFIED, AND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO EMAIL IN THEIR CONCERNS, AND THEN COUNCIL HAS THE MEETING AND WE VOTE ON IT AND THAT'S THE CURRENT PROCESS AS PROPOSED BY THE BYLAWS; IS THAT CORRECT, MS. BASSI-KELLETT? JUST THOSE TWO POINTS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I BELIEVE SO, BUT LET'S ASK THE EXPERT. MS. WHITE? THANK YOU. YES, AND I'LL ASK ROB OR MARGARET JUST IN CASE I'M MISSING SOME NUANCE HERE. I DON'T THINK WE ARE, BUT I'LL JUST. NO, I DON'T THINK WE'RE MISSING THE NUANCE, I THINK I THINK WE'RE GETTING IT. [03:00:02] AND I THINK, YEAH, LIKE I THINK [INAUDIBLE]. I'M SORRY, I'LL JUST DO IT BECAUSE WE PASSED OUR THREE HOUR MARK IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO EXTEND BEYOND THREE HOURS? MOVED BY COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA SECOND BY COUNCILLOR MORSE. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, WE CAN EXTEND. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, ANYTHING FURTHER? NOT IN THAT ONE, I'LL SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAS COMMENTS. OK. ANYTHING FURTHER ON THE VARIANCE AND THE COUNCILLOR. OH, SORRY, COUNCILLOR KONGE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING HERE? OK, PERFECT. COUNCIL MORGAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER? UM. ONE. RELATIVELY SMALL ONE, I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, 4.4.5, AROUND A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR INFALLING OF A WATER BODY. AND SO IT TALKS ABOUT HOW A DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED OR THAT THEY WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO CONSULT WITH OTHER AGENCIES. AROUND WHAT, YOU KNOW, FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL PERMITS THEY MIGHT NEED FOR IMPACTS TO WATER BODY AND THAT THE CITY WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT CORRESPONDENCE. I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE TIGHTENED UP SO THAT WE GET SOME CONFIRMATION BACK FROM THE FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL AGENCY THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR PROCESS, IF THERE ARE FEDERAL TERRITORIAL PERMITS REQUIRED THAT THEY'VE REVIEWED IT OR SOMETHING. I JUST SEEN IN THE PAST THAT THINGS I THINK HAVE FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACKS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN IMPACTS ON WATER BODIES. I KNOW NIVEN LAKE IS AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S A FRIEND OF MINE FOR MANY PEOPLE. AND. I THINK PEOPLE WANT TO SEE. THAT THERE IS MORE DIRECT COMMUNICATION, PERHAPS BETWEEN THE CITY AND OTHER AGENCIES, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST A FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL PROBLEM, IF WE DO HAVE IMPACTS ON OUR WATER BODIES, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A CITY ASSET IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DOES IMPACT OUR RESIDENTS AND QUALITY OF LIFE. AND SO I THINK, WELL, WE'RE NOT DIRECTLY REGULATING WATER QUALITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE CERTAINLY HAVE A STRONG INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT OTHER AGENCIES ARE ON TOP OF IT. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE TIGHTENED UP TO ENSURE THAT OTHER AGENCIES ARE ARE AWARE THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE TAKING PLACE AND THAT THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR PROCESSES, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS TO GET A BETTER SENSE SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THIS AND, IF WARRANTED, COME BACK. SO IT'S A MATTER OF HOW THE CITY PROVIDES THAT REGULATORY ROLE? I THINK I'VE MISSED SOMETHING IN THIS. I THINK IT'S THAT THE CITY COULD INSTEAD OF JUST BEING MORE PASSIVE IN TERMS OF ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND ANY CORRESPONDENCE THAT APPEARS, YOU KNOW, SEND THAT ON TO US, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WE'RE REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER TO ACTUALLY CONTACT THOSE AGENCIES OR OR FOLLOW THROUGH. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING IN THE PROCESS WHERE CITY STAFF WOULD BE MORE PROACTIVE IN. AS PART OF THE PROCESS, REACHING OUT TO OTHER AGENCIES TO ENSURE THAT ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL PERMITTING PROCESSES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN ARE HAPPENING. NOT NECESSARILY., IS THAT NOT ADDRESSED IN 7.12.1? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THERE, BUT I GUESS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY BACK IS THAT WE TYPICALLY DO LOOK AT WHEN WE HAVE ANY KIND OF COLLABORATION, WE DO SAY [03:05:02] THINGS IN CONTRACTS TERMS THAT WE HAVE, THAT IT IS INCUMBENT ON OTHER PARTNERS, DEVELOPERS TO ADHERE TO ALL APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION AND REQUIREMENTS. SO I'M NOT SURE THIS IS SOMETHING FOR THE ZONING BYLAW, BUT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES AND I'M SORRY, 7.12 WAS IT THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. BUT. THIS IS ALL PERMANENT OVER WATER STRUCTURES, AND IF YOU'RE BUILDING A HOUSE, IF YOU'RE IN FILLING A LAKE AND THEN BUILDING THE HOUSE ON TOP OF IT. WOULD 7.12.1 APPLY IT TO THAT? VERY INTERESTING, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME REAL LIFE EXAMPLES GOING ON AS WE SPEAK. MAYBE I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN AT ALL? BUT WE DO WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT WE STICK IN OUR LANE AS WELL AND THAT WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHERE THOSE AUTHORITIES HAVE JURISDICTION AND WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DO WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION. MS. WHITE? OVER TO YOU. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'D ALSO POINT OUT 7.10.1 AS WELL. IT SPEAKS TO THOSE OTHER AREAS OF JURISDICTION, SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF PIECES THROUGHOUT THE ZONING BYLAW, WHICH, DEPENDING ON WHAT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS MOVING FORWARD, REALLY TRIES TO MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS. AND I'LL CALL THEM CONNECTIONS BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, WE CAN'T REALLY REGULATE HOW OTHER AGENCIES OR DEPARTMENTS BEHAVE. SO, YEAH, IT REALLY IS UPON THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE ALL OTHER PERMITS, LICENSES, MATERIALS THAT THEY REQUIRE FROM THOSE AGENCIES IN PLACE, IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. SO THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT SPHERES OF JURISDICTION. AND WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO EDUCATE AND DIRECT. YOU NEED TO TALK TO DFO VERSUS THE GNWT, BUT ULTIMATELY WE DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM TO THEN SAY, OH, WELL, YOU NEVER TOLD ME I HAD TO TALK TO SO-AND-SO. SO IT'S KIND OF CAUTIOUS. WE'LL MAKE CONNECTIONS, BUT WE DON'T. WE'RE LIMITED IN HOW FAR WE CAN GO WITH THAT. YES, ACTUALLY, THE OTHER POINT THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT IS 4.1.7. IN ADDITION TO MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BYLAW, IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN APPLICANT TO OBTAIN ALL OTHER APPROVALS OR LICENSES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY, TERRITORIAL AND OR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES. SO WHETHER IT COMES TO. GREAT SLAVE HELICOPTERS, YOU KNOW, WE ALLOW THE. THAT'S UNDER A ZONING, BUT THEY HAVE TO GO TO TRANSPORT CANADA AND GET THOSE REGULATIONS OF SHORT TERM RENTALS HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. RESTAURANTS HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, IT'S NOT THE CITY. I THINK THEY DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO FOLLOW THE LAW, AND IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. DFO MAY COME AFTER THEM. PUBLIC HEALTH MAY COME AFTER THE., SO THE ONUS ISN'T NECESSARILY ON THE CITY, I'M SURE COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA HAS ALL THE TRANSPORTS. IT'S NOT THE CITY THAT WOULD COME AFTER HER FOR NOT HAVING COMPLIANCE WITH HER DRIVERS, BUT HER BUSINESS HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING BYLAW ASPECTS. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF SAY, DFO COMES AFTER A DEVELOPER THAT THEY HAVEN'T COMPLIED WITH THE LEGISLATION AND THAT IS UNDERWAY. DO WE THEN WITHHOLD THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNTIL THAT SETTLE? OR DO WE SAY, OH NO, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND BUILD BECAUSE YOU'VE FOLLOWED OUR RULES, EVEN IF YOU'RE IN A DISPUTE WITH ANOTHER AGENCY WHO'S TRYING TO ENFORCE LIKE? OR DO WE COORDINATE SOMEHOW OR WORK TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER AGENCY THAT IS TRYING TO ENFORCE LIKE A? MS. BASSI-KELLET? THANK YOU. HUGE CHALLENGES IN DOING SO, BUT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH MY TEAM, SO THEY PROBABLY ARE DOING. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. WHITE TO DESCRIBE. YEAH, WE ALWAYS TRY TO HAVE THOSE CONNECTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO TERRITORIAL. WE HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BUILT THERE AND WE LIKE TO CONTINUE THOSE. SOMETIMES, I'M NOT GOING TO LIE, DFO CAN BE A LITTLE CHALLENGING, HISTORICALLY. I HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES SINCE BEING HERE. AND YET IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO WORK TOGETHER. AND NO, WE WOULD TRY NOT TO ISSUE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S [03:10:01] AUTHORITY OR REGULATIONS THEY HAVE IN PLACE. OK, I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR NOW THEN. THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR KONGE? THANK YOU. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS ON OUR ZONING MAP. WE'RE CHANGING THAT LOT 32 BLOCK 568 ADJACENT TO GRACE LAKE NORTH RESIDENTIAL. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SUPPORT FOR THAT? COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO PUT MY HAND UP IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILLOR KONGE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SO I'M DEFINITELY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? FOR FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU DON'T SPEAK, I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU'RE AGAINST AND THEREFORE IT, IT WOULDN'T GET MAJORITY SUPPORT. JUST PROCEDURALLY, IF FOLKS ARE INTERESTED. FOR MYSELF, I WON'T BE IN FAVOR, I APPRECIATE WHAT COUNCILLOR KONGE IS SUGGESTING, BUT I THINK IT TURNS INTO THIS TWO STEP PROCESS OF. WITHOUT ALL THAT NOW AND THEN COME JANUARY, WE'LL DO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WE STILL HAVE TO REZONE IT. SO IT'S A QUESTION OF. UH, WHETHER WE DO IT NOW AND AGAIN IN JANUARY OR WHETHER WE JUST DO IT IN JANUARY, SO FOR MYSELF, I'D PREFER TO JUST DO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ALL OF THE ZONING AT ONCE AS OPPOSED TO DOING THE ZONING NOW AND THEN REDOING IT AGAIN WITH THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO. OH, SORRY, COUNCILLOR PAYNE IS IN FAVOR OF COUNCILLOR KONGE. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? YEAH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD SPEAK TO THE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE COVERED OR TOUCHED UPON IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWERS THAT WERE PART OF THE PACKAGE, AND I BELIEVE I READ THE RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE OR FROM ADMINISTRATION SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, DOING THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEN FOLLOWING SUIT WITH THE ZONING, WITH PROPER CONSULTATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, GIVING EVERYBODY ENOUGH TIME. SO AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN IN KAM LAKE , CERTAINLY, THE RESIDENTS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE PART OF A BROADER PROCESS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION THAT SUBDIVISION WHEN IT COMES DOWN THE PIPE, BUT CERTAINLY IN AGREEMENT WITH ADMINISTRATION ON THE PROCESS THAT THEY'VE SELECTED AND THEY'VE COMMUNICATED BACK TO RESIDENTS. SO I JUST WOULDN'T FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO SWITCH THAT AROUND ON THEM BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE RESIDENTS HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAD A BIG SIGH OF RELIEF KNOWING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER PROCESS UPCOMING, SO I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NONE THAT IT DOESN'T GO AHEAD, THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT COME THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, SOMEBODY COMES AND SPEAKS IN FAVOR AND WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN. IT'S JUST WHETHER FIRST READING WOULD GO AHEAD AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT STORY OR WHETHER IT GOES FORWARD AS LIKE ONE OR KAM LAKE 1 EXTENSION. AND AGAIN, IT WILL COME FORWARD FOR REZONING WITH THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO. AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SPEED UP THE PROCESS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. JUST THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS TO GET DONE FIRST. ANY OTHER CHANGES BEFORE FIRST READING? COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. SO FOR ME, I'M NOT SURE IF I SHOULD HOLD OFF ON PROPOSING THE AMENDMENTS. MY BIGGEST THING IS THAT SECTION 7.8.7 ON THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING ZONES, PARKING AND THE LOCATIONS OF PARKING AREAS. I DO KNOW THAT ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY WOULD LOOK INTO IT AND GET BACK TO ME, SO I'M NOT SURE IF I SHOULD HOLD OFF ON PROPOSING AMENDMENTS OR UNTIL WE HEAR BACK FROM ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THOUGHTS FROM ADMIN, IF I GUESS IF YOU LOOK IN AT IT BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT MONDAY AND YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD WITH A PROPOSED CHANGE BEFORE FIRST READING, WOULD THAT BE? OR WOULD YOU LIKE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON THIS RIGHT NOW? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SURE, I THINK I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND ON THIS. IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THERE WAS SOME EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION, BUT IF MS. [03:15:03] WHITE AND HER TEAM HAVE THE GIST OF THIS AND CAN LOOK AT AND HAVE SOME LATITUDE IN EXPLORING HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK. I'LL ASK HER IF SHE'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE WE HAVE YEAH, THE THE GIST OF WHAT IS BEING ASKED BY COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA AND I HAVE A FEW OTHER ITEMS HERE AS WELL. AND PROCESS WISE, I AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER. EXPLICIT DIRECTION WOULD BE GREAT FOR SPECIFIC CHANGES. I DO HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS WHERE WE WILL BE PROVIDING JUST SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEXT MONDAY AT GPC. AS AS OF YET, I SEE NO RECOMMENDED CHANGES. IS THAT CORRECT? COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WANTED CHANGED AT THE MOMENT? AGAIN, THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS SOMEBODY COMES TO THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING OR SUBMITS A WRITTEN COMMENT FOR OF THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER AMENDMENTS AT SECOND READING. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR TODAY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED BY ALL MEANS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, FOR MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IF NOBODY COMES TO THE STATUTORY HEARING OR PROPOSES, CAN I STILL MAKE CHANGES? SO THE ONLY REASON IS ON ONE OF THE SECTIONS WE TALK ABOUT THAT SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LOADING AND PARKING AREAS CANNOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE MINIMUM FRONT YARDS SETBACK. BUT I DO KNOW THAT ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY WOULD PUBLISH IT AND COME BACK TO US ON WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS. SO I'M NOT COMFORTABLE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT UNLESS I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. I JUST DON'T WANT TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT FOR THE SAKE OF PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. SURE. ON YOUR POINT ABOUT IF NOBODY PUTS A COMMENT IN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE CAN'T PROPOSE CHANGES AT SECOND READING, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT? WE CAN GET COVERAGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. THAT'S ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING. I MAY ASK MS. GILLARD TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT WE REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO ANY DIRECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RIGHT NOW FROM GPC MEMBERS THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO INCORPORATE, AND WE BRING A DRAFT BACK THAT DOES INCORPORATE COMMENTS FOR NEXT WEEK. THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING CAN OPEN THE OPEN TO CHANGES THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT THAT TIME. MS. GILLARD, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. MS. BASSI-KELLETT IS CORRECT. ANYTHING THAT IS AMENDED AT SECOND READING IS TO GIVE EFFECT TO WHAT YOU'VE HEARD DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING BYLAW. SO IF. YOU MAY WANT TO TALK TO OTHER COMPANIES THAT WOULD BE OR OR THE RESIDENTS WHO WOULD BE IMPACTED, AND THEY MAY WANT TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN COMMENT AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE PART OF THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER FOR A SECOND READING. [INAUDIBLE] COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? YEP, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I THINK I WILL HOLD OFF ON PROPOSING THE AMENDMENTS AND JUST KIND OF CANVASS AND HEAR WHAT RESIDENTS HAVE TO SAY AND THE COMPANIES THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED. SO I'LL HOLD OFF AND DEFINITELY WE'LL SEE WHERE THIS GOES. THANK YOU. SOUNDS GOOD. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? SO IF THERE WAS NO CHANGES DONE HERE TODAY AT GPC, THEN THERE IS NO CHANGES TO BE MADE AT SECOND READING OF THIS WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL? NO. SORRY, IF WE HAVE THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND NOBODY TALKS ABOUT COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA POINT, CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING OR STORAGE LIMITS, WE COULDN'T MAKE A CHANGE AT SECOND READING BECAUSE NOBODY RAISED THAT IN THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF WE RECEIVE A WRITTEN COMMENT OR SOMEBODY COMES AND MAKES A PRESENTATION, WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE POINTS AT SECOND READING. I GUESS I'M MOST MOSTLY INTERESTED IN COUNCILLOR KONGE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THAT THE PUTTING BACK ON THE TABLE OF KAM LAKE, SO YOU KNOW, I WOULD HOPE TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, I'M ONE OF THOSE GUYS THAT'S ON THE FENCE ON THAT ONE. I CERTAINLY LIKE THE APPROACH THAT ADMINISTRATION IS. BUT AGAIN, IF WE HEAR FEEDBACK FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED, I WOULD LIKE THAT AT LEAST COUNCILLOR KONGE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THAT BACK UP AT SECOND READING THAT MAYBE IF THERE WAS SOME TIME, SO IS IT BEST FOR ME TO THROW MY SUPPORT BEHIND HIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? I KNOW IT'S IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR HERE OR HOW SHALL WE PROCEED THERE? [03:20:01] I ASSUME IT IS ONE ISSUE THAT IF IT IS A PRESSING ISSUE FROM THE COMMUNITY, ONE PERSON WILL RAISE IT IN WRITTEN COMMENTS OR AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN COUNCIL CAN MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT FROM GROWTH MANAGEMENT TO LAKE. HOWEVER, IF WE HEAR NOTHING. WELL, I THINK THAT MAYBE IT'S NOT AS PRESSING OF A CONCERN. WELL, BUT THEN AGAIN, WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR SUCH A THING. SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT THAT VOTE WAS COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA WAS IN FAVOR, COUNCILLOR PAYNE WAS IN FAVOR AND KONGE PRESENTED IT. IF I WAS TO BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. YOU KNOW, COULD THAT HELP WITH THAT DIALOG TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE OF THE EXPANSION OF GAMBLING? YEAH, IT FLIP-FLOPS, THEN IF WE PUT IT BACK TO KAM LAKE, I'M SURE WE'LL HEAR RESIDENTS WHO WILL COME FORWARD AND REQUEST THAT IT GOES BACK TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND THEN COUNCIL CAN ADD SECOND READING DECIDE WHETHER IT'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT OR KAM LAKE. AND THAT BEING SAID, WE STILL HAVE TO DO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IT HAS TO DO THE REZONING. SO IT'S STILL TO COME. IT'S NOT THAT THIS IS NEVER GOING TO GET ZONED, IT'S JUST WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED IS THAT THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AND REZONING HAPPEN AT ONCE AS OPPOSED TO THIS TWO STAGE APPROACH. BUT, MS. BASSI-KELLETT, COMMENTS FROM ADMIN? THANKS VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THAT SUMS IT UP REALLY NICE. THEY'LL SEE [INAUDIBLE] WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE. BUT NO, I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY IT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT OR CAM LAKE, THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NEEDS TO BE PUT IN PLACE, SO IT'S KIND OF A TOSS UP. EITHER WAY, THAT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PLANNING PROCESS NEEDS TO OCCUR REGARDLESS OF WHAT REASON IT SECOND OR THIRD READING. ALL RIGHT, I GUESS I JUST DON'T WANT TO STIFLE ANOTHER COUNCILLOR WITH HIS OWN PUBLIC ADVOCACY. SO IF MY SUPPORT WOULD CHANGE THAT ABILITY COMES SECOND READING, I WOULD CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, PUT MY SUPPORT BEHIND IT SO THAT THE DIALOG COULD CONTINUE AT LEAST UNTIL THIS THING IS PUT TO BED. ANY SUGGESTIONS ON THAT? I KNOW IT'S THE VOTES AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR, BUT HOW SHALL WE APPROACH THAT? I, JUST AGAIN, IT'S MORE JUST FOR ENCOURAGING THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE ZONING BYLAWS DON'T COME AROUND EVERY DAY, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAPPEN. THAT'S WHAT HAS TILTED ME TO THE SIDE OF ADMINISTRATION HERE. BUT AGAIN, WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT COUNCILORS THAT HAVE AREAS OF EXPERTISE. AND CERTAINLY IF COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA AND COUNCILLOR KONGE, WHO RESIDE IN THE AREA AND CERTAINLY DO BUSINESS IN THE AREA, ARE ADVOCATING FOR SUCH A THING. I WOULD HATE TO CLOSE THE DOOR AT THIS EARLY STAGE TO THAT CONVERSATION CONTINUING. YEAH, APPRECIATE IT, AND I GUESS WE CAN REZONE IT, KAM LAKE. HOWEVER, WE CAN'T PUT THE LAND ON THE MARKET FOR SALE UNTIL WE DO THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL INCLUDE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ZONES. IT GENERALLY INCLUDES, AT LEAST LIKE KAM LAKE, PLUS NATURE PRESERVE OR PARKS AND REC. SO UNTIL THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REZONING, WHICH ARE GOING TO HAPPEN TOGETHER, OCCUR, WE CAN'T SELL THE LAND. SO WE'RE NOT SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS TODAY BY ZONING IT KAM LAKE, WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REZONING PROCESS COME EARLY 2022. MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT? THANKS VERY MUCH. WE'RE VERY AWARE THAT THERE IS INTEREST AND DEMAND FOR LOTS AND KAM LAKE. IT IS ON OUR WORK PLAN AND WE DO WANT TO GO THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO BRING THOSE LESSONS FORWARD SO THAT INTERESTED PURCHASERS WILL BE ABLE TO, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS TO GO THROUGH. MS. WHITE, ANYTHING TO ADD? ALL RIGHT, WELL, I GUESS I'LL JUST FINISH BY JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF ANOTHER COUNCILLOR SAY COUNCILLOR KONGE WAS TO REPRESENT SUCH A THING, YOU KNOW, I MAY BE ABLE TO SHOW SUPPORT. I DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WOULDN'T BE. IT WOULD CLOSE THE DOOR FOR SECOND READING. AND I'M A BIG, BIG FAN OF SECOND READING, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITIES AND THE POWER THAT THAT HOLDS. SO IF I WOULD HATE TO HAVE TO LOSE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOOD DEBATE AT A SECOND READING, ANYWAY, THAT'S MY COMMENTS. [03:25:01] YEAH, APPRECIATE IT, AND I GUESS ENCOURAGE COUNCILLORS TO ALSO CANVASS THE PUBLIC AND SEE IF IT IS. UH, SOMETHING, AND ALL I HAVE TO DO IS SEND IN AN EMAIL. PLEASE SUPPORT KAM LAKE, AND THAT'S ON THE RECORD AND THEN IT'S PART OF SECOND READING. I GUESS MS. BASSI-KELLETT IS. COUNCILLORS CAN ALSO ASK THE PRESENTERS WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ON KAM LAKE VERSUS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEREFORE IT'S ON THE RECORD, WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO FURTHER INQUIRE ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT PEOPLE ARE RAISING AND THE CONCERNS THEY BRING FORWARD. THANK YOU. SO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCILS TO ALSO PROMPT AND ASK QUESTIONS OF EVERYBODY WHO ATTENDS THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS SO THAT YOU CAN GET FEEDBACK AND HAVE THAT STUFF ON THE RECORD FOR US TO CONSIDER FOR SECOND READING. UM, I SEE THAT WE'VE REACHED OUR BEYOND 90 MINUTE MARK AGAIN. AND WE DO STILL HAVE A FEW MORE ITEMS, SO LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AT 3:51 AND WE'LL JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS. AND THEN OTHERWISE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO TO THE REST OF THE ITEM. SO BACK AT 3:51. UH, SO WE WILL RECONVENE. ANY FURTHER AMENDMENT? I WILL, I GUESS, PROCEDURALLY SHOULD PASS THE CHAIR TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS, SO COUNCILLOR PAYNE WILL PASS THE CHAIR OVER TO YOU. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU, SO WE APPRECIATE THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL. THEY'RE GOING TO, IT COULD BE JUST LIKE THE KAME LAKE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION THAT WE JUST HAD, BUT. I DO WANT TO CONSIDER FOOD AND BEVERAGE, CONVENIENCE STORE AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION TO BE PERMITTED USES. AS I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND ALREADY HEARD FROM A RESIDENT THIS MORNING THAT HAD CONCERNS ABOUT COMMERCIAL RECREATION BEING REMOVED FROM PERMITTED. I'M NOT SAYING THAT AFTER THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND COME SECOND READING THAT I SUPPORT KEEPING THEM THERE, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THAT. AND THEN FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AT SECOND READING, EITHER MOVE THEM TO DISCRETIONARY USE OR OR REMOVE THEM AS RECOMMENDED, BUT TO ENSURE THAT WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON THOSE USES, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE PUT BACK IN FOOD AND BEVERAGE, CONVENIENCE STORE AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION, AND I KNOW WE'LL HEAR AN EARFUL, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING TO HEAR. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I'M THINKING THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A SECONDER TO SUPPORT WHERE MS. ALTY WOULD LIKE TO GO. AND WE HAVE SECOND BY COUNCILLOR MORSE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS AMENDMENT? COUNCILLOR KONGE? THANK YOU. YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FINAL SIMILAR TO THE KAM LAKE 1. I THINK THAT THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL, I THINK THE PENDULUM SWUNG A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR AND. YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK ON ALL OF THESE, IT'S INTERESTING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN GET PEOPLE ONE ON ONE, THEY WILL SUPPORT THE OVERALL IDEA OF IT, BUT THEN THEY DRILL IN AND THEY GO, OH WELL, I COULD GET KNOW FORTY FIVE METERS TALL BUILDING IN MY BACKYARD. BUT WHEN YOU START BREAKING IT DOWN, LIKE IT'S JUST IT CAN'T HAPPEN. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WHEN WE HAVE MADE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT. WE REALLY NEED, IN MY OPINION, TO OPEN UP THE USES IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT ZONES. TO MAKE THEM, YOU KNOW, SUCH A AS MUCH. DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, AS YOU CAN GET. MS. WHITE, SHE MENTIONED BEING IN EUROPE AND THE SIDE STREETS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. [03:30:03] I LIVED IN DENMARK FOR EIGHT YEARS. I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT THE BIG BOX STORES THAT ARE ON THE MAIN THOROUGHFARES. AND AS SOON AS YOU GO OFF THOSE, THERE'S LITTLE CAFES AND EVERY FRIDAY WE USED TO GO DOWN TO THIS LITTLE CAFé, CAFé ZIGGY AND A BUDDY OF MINE, HE WAS AROUND THE CORNER AND UP FIVE FLIGHTS OF STAIRS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY NIGHTS I SLEPT ON HIS COUCH BECAUSE THE CAFE HAD SUCH GOOD FOOD AND BEER. AND YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN FOSTER THAT, I REALLY THINK THAT IT WOULD CHANGE, YOU KNOW, THE THE WALKABILITY OF THE CITY, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CITY, I THINK IT WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE OF OUR TRANSIT USE. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE CHANGING OUR PARKING. I THINK LIKE 40 PERCENT OF THE DOWNTOWN IS SURFACE PARKING. IT'S SUCH A WASTE OF LAND. BUT IN ORDER TO GET THE DEVELOPERS AND PREFERABLY NOT DEVELOPERS THAT COME FROM DOWN SOUTH AND WANT TO DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTHWHILE COMING HERE UNLESS THEY CAN DO 48 UNITS. NO, THIS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FOSTER LOCAL, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY HAS A LOT THAT THEY'VE BEEN RENTING OUT FOR PARKING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD TO HAVE THE PARKING OR WHATEVER AND THINGS WEREN'T WORKING, BUT NOW IT'S LIKE, OH, YOU KNOW, I COULD PARTNER WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE. EVERYBODY THROWS IN A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY AND WE CAN DO REALLY COOL THINGS. YOU KNOW, THE CITY PUBLISHED THE YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS, AND I THINK THERE WAS 12 DIFFERENT BUILDINGS ON THERE. I WAS OWNER DEVELOPER OF TWO OF THEM. I WAS GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON ANOTHER ONE OF THEM. I WAS, YOU KNOW, HEAVILY INVOLVED IN A FOURTH ONE. A THIRD OF THOSE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN AND AND I BELIEVE, IN MY CORE, THAT THIS IS WHAT WE NEED. TO MAKE THE CITY MORE LIVABLE AND BETTER. SO I'M GLAD THE MAYOR ALTY BRINGS THIS UP BECAUSE I ACTUALLY LIKED THE RC ZONE BETTER THAN I LIKE THE RC-1. SO LET'S SWITCH IT BACK. LET'S REALLY HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN YOU LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE LOOKING AT THIS DOCUMENT, I THINK IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S WHERE WE AS COUNCILLORS LIKE WE'VE MADE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS NEW ZONING BYLAW. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK, NOT AT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE CITY AND WE HAVE TO DO IT, NOT JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS, WE NEED TO DO IT FOR THE BUSINESSES. WE NEED TO DO IT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING. WE NEED TO PROVIDE STUFF FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT, YOU KNOW, PRETTY BIG HELP. LIKE EVERYTHING, YOU NEED TO THINK OF EVERYTHING. SO I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT WHAT MAYOR ALTY IS SAYING HERE. AND I ACTUALLY HOPE THAT WE END UP WITH THE RC INSTEAD OF THE RC-1. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SO I JUST ALSO WANTED TO QUICKLY THROW IN MY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD AND I DEFINITELY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND DO WE HAVE ANY MORE SHOWING SUPPORT? SHAUNA, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR ARE YOU JUST SHOWING SUPPORT RIGHT NOW? GO AHEAD. THANKS. I CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO DEBATE IT AND LIKE, CERTAINLY THE OPTION OF PUTTING IT UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE, AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THOSE TWO OPTIONS WILL BOTH BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION. I KNOW YOU'VE MENTIONED IN SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS. THE IDEA OF PUTTING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE REMOVED BACK IN, BUT UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE. AND YOU SAID MAYBE THAT COULD BE A BACKUP PLAN. I'M NOT SURE. CAN YOU MAYBE CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE THINKING IN TERMS OF? ARE YOU ALSO OPEN TO THE IDEA OF PUTTING THEM UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE OR JUST PERMITTED USE? OR YOU WANT TO DISCUSS PROS AND CONS OF BOTH? I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE PUT THEM IN PERMITTED AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE WHERE THE MAJORITY WERE IN SUPPORT OF PERMITTED OR THESE TWO SHOULD ACTUALLY BE DISCRETIONARY USE OR ALL FOUR SHOULD JUST NOT BE ALLOWED. BUT FOR TODAY, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT'S BEEN PERMITTED BECAUSE THEN I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON WHETHER THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE AGAINST OR IN SUPPORT OF DISCRETIONARY. AND, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, NIELSEN WROTE A NOTE SAYING CHANGING THE RC-1 BACK TO RC. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING ALL OF THE USES THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE RC-1 BACK INTO PERMITTED OR JUST A SELECT FEW? [03:35:01] I THINK YOU JUST MENTIONED A SELECT FEW, RIGHT? YEAH, I'LL PUT IT IN WRITING IN. ADD CONVENIENCE STORE, FOOD AND BEVERAGE AND COMMERCIAL, I GUESS IT'S COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND URBAN AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL INTO PERMITTED IN RC-1. OK, I MEAN, FOR ME, I THINK. I WOULD CONTEMPLATE THOSE UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE. I THINK, FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD ALREADY FROM THE PUBLIC, MY SENSE IS THAT IT WOULD BE TOO GREAT OF AN IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOODS TO GO RIGHT TO PERMITTED, AND SOME OF THE STAFF AND PLANNERS WE'VE HEARD FROM TODAY EXPLAIN SOME OF THOSE REASONS WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONVENIENCE STORE MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON A NEIGHBORHOOD OR MIGHT NOT, DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD PUT IT UNDER DISCRETIONARY USE AS A CONSIDERATION, BUT I'M ALSO, YOU KNOW, WILLING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION DEBATE IT, AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL HEAR MORE FROM THE PUBLIC DURING THE STATUTORY HEARING. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER THIS TO GIVE MORE OF OUR GENERAL COMMENTS? I KNOW NEILS KIND OF GAVE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS JUST NOW, BUT, OK, SO I'LL SAVE SOME OF MY MORE GENERAL COMMENTS FOR JUST AFTER THIS. OK, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE SHOWN ANY SUPPORT FOR THIS? ROBIN? JULIAN? GIVE YOU A SECOND, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU SUPPORT IT. OK. WE CAN BRING THAT FORWARD. I HAND THE CHAIR BACK. BYE, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL? [INAUDIBLE]. MS. BASSI-KELLETT, I GUESS WE JUST HAVE THIS ONE ITEM AND PERHAPS ANY FOLLOW UP TO BRING FORWARD TO GPC NEXT. WEEK? ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE OR WOULD COUNCIL BE OK WITH JUST MAKING THIS, DOES COUNCIL WANT TO HAVE THIS COME BACK WITH STAFF'S ROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THIS CLAUSE? OR ARE YOU OK WITH JUST ADDING THIS TO THE DRAFT AND BRINGING IT FORWARD FOR FIRST READING? SO I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO ECHO THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS THAT WE COULD JUST PUT IT BACK IN THERE. I DON'T THINK FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY NEED TO HEAR FROM ME ON IT. OK, SOUNDS GOOD. WE'VE GOT ENOUGH ON THE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 1ST, SO. OK, SO OPENING IT UP TO NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS, SO JUST OPENING IT UP TO GENERAL COMMENTS, COUNCILLOR MORGAN, YOU HAD GENERAL COMMENTS? GREAT, THANKS. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT THIS AND AS COUNCILLOR KONGE MENTIONED, WE BOTH NEED TO CONSIDER THE BIGGER PICTURE, THE OVERALL SWEEPING GOALS WE HAVE FOR THE CITY, AND WE'VE TALKED A LOT OF ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY IN OUR, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND IN THE MATERIALS THAT WE'VE CIRCULATED TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS. OBVIOUSLY, WE OVERALL ARE STRIVING FOR DENSITY AND INFILL AND AND HAVING A COMPACT CITY THAT'S WALKABLE AND ALL THESE THINGS, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, HOW THAT LOOKS AND HOW IT FEELS AT THE GROUND LEVEL, HOW IT IMPACTS INDIVIDUALS. PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, PEOPLE WHO WORK HERE, PEOPLE WHO DO BUSINESS HERE, SHOP HERE, WALK THEIR DOGS, SPEND TIME, DO ALL OF THE THINGS IN THESE PLACES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND YOU KNOW, OUR SORT OF OVERALL BELIEFS OR IDEOLOGIES ABOUT ABOUT THE CITY, BUT IT ALSO MATTERS HOW THIS FEELS TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE JUST A PLACE MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO WANT TO LIVE HERE AND WORK HERE AND DO BUSINESS HERE AND ALL THOSE THINGS IT HAS TO, QUALITY OF LIFE AND HOW THAT'S EXPERIENCED BY EVERYONE IS SUPER IMPORTANT. AND CERTAINLY LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CITY IS IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S ONE [03:40:06] OF THOSE BIG PICTURE THINGS. INCLUDING THE MONEY THAT WE SAVE FOR ALL TAXPAYERS BY NOT EXPANDING CITY INFRASTRUCTURE, CREATING NEW GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT. BUT QUALITY OF LIFE ALSO MEANS MAKING SURE THAT WE STILL RETAIN ENOUGH GREEN SPACE THAT'S EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE CITY. ENSURING THAT PEOPLE STILL HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY FEEL CONNECTED TO OTHERS WHO LIVE THERE, OTHERS ON THEIR STREET, SO IT MATTERS THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T LET THESE DEBATES BECOME POLARIZED AND AND DON'T TRY TO JUST FIT PEOPLE INTO CATEGORIES OF, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST BUSINESS? ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST DEVELOPMENT? IF YOU DON'T WANT SOMETHING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN YOU'RE JUST A NIMBY. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONSIDER THAT WE ARE TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE AND THAT WE DON'T DISMISS PEOPLE'S OWN INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES OF LIVING HERE AND WORKING HERE AS JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST ONE PERSON WHO'S PROBABLY JUST A NIMBY ANYWAY. BUT THEN IT IS THE COMBINATION OF ALL OF THOSE EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. AND IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF BEING FOR OR AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. IT'S ABOUT CREATING T5HE BEST LIVABLE CITY WE CAN, AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, MANY OF US ON COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, DO HAVE MORE NUANCED PERSPECTIVES AND WANT US TO HAVE A LIVABLE CITY AND HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE. AND SO I'M GLAD WE'RE I THINK WE'RE RELATIVELY ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THAT, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC ALSO KNOW THAT WE DO CARE ABOUT EVERYONE'S EXPERIENCES OF LIVING HERE AND WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, DISMISSING VIEWS OR TRYING TO CATEGORIZE PEOPLE. EVERYBODY'S INPUT AND OWN VIEWS AND EXPERIENCE MATTERS, AND SOMEHOW WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER TO SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE AND THE BIGGER HOLE. BUT IT IS ALWAYS MADE UP OF, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS THE THE BIGGER PICTURE, SO. I KNOW I'M NOT BEING VERY CONCISE HERE, BUT I JUST WAS REFLECTING ON THAT AND WANTED TO MAKE THAT HEARD. THANKS. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR PAYNE? THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE IT SHORT. THANK YOU TO ADMINISTRATION AND DILLON FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I KNOW IT WAS AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK. AND CHANGE TAKES TIME AND IS DIFFICULT, AND THIS IS A DEFINITELY A BYLAW OVERHAUL FOR CHANGE, AND I THINK IN THE END WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRODUCT THAT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO KEEP EVERYBODY HAPPY WITH WHAT WE BRING FORWARD, BUT I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH DISCRETION TO BE USED IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIT MOST THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING FOR. AND IN REGARDS TO WHAT COUNCILLOR MORGAN TALKING ABOUT. SEEING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS ZONING BYLAW IS GOING TO BE GOING INTO THE FUTURE. MAYBE 10 YEARS, 15 YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO BE USING THIS AND LIKE FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE DON'T PAY FOR FACILITIES. THE LAST GENERATION PAYS FOR THE FACILITIES THAT WE'RE USING NOW AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR FACILITIES FOR THE NEXT GENERATION. SO IT'S SOMEWHAT THE SAME. WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT YELLOWKNIFE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE AND WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING, HAVING THE DENSIFICATION INCREASE DENSIFICATION DOWNTOWN, GIVING PEOPLE MORE OPTIONS TO OPEN SMALL BUSINESSES AND TO HAVE SOME FREEDOMS BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PRETTY ROUGH TIME IN THE CITY NOW. BUSINESSES ARE CLOSING. WE JUST NEED TO BE MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM. SO I DO SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUST WANT TO GET, OK, I GOT A FEW. FIRST OFF, A BIG THANKS TO RESIDENTS WHO SENT IN MANY GREAT COMMENTS AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS. [03:45:01] I KNOW NOT EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK YET, SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE OVER THE NEXT MONTH AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH. SECOND, A BIG THANKS TO CITY STAFF AND DILLON FOR COMPILING ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TO DATE AND BRINGING FORWARD SOME SUGGESTIONS ON REVISIONS. I DO THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD CHANGES FOR US TO CONSIDER. AND SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AND FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR FOLKS AS THEY CONTINUE TO REVIEW AND PONDER THE BYLAW BEFORE THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT NEW ZEALAND'S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED JUST LAST WEEK A LAW THAT WILL ABOLISH SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. IT'S THE GOAL OF INCREASING HOUSING IN A COUNTRY WITH A RED HOT REAL ESTATE MARKET. NEW ZEALANDERS MAY NOW DEVELOP UP TO 50 PERCENT OF THEIR LAND AND BUILD UP TO THREE STOREYS WITHOUT REQUIRING CONSENT FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. THE REFORM ALLOWS LANDOWNERS TO BUILD UP TO THREE HOMES PER LOT IN AREAS THAT PREVIOUSLY RESTRICTED THOSE LOTS TO JUST ONE OR TWO HOMES. OF COURSE, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO MAINTAIN JUST ONE HOUSE ON THAT LOT, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO CUT THE RED TAPE TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY AND TO DECREASE THE COST OF HOUSING. HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, WE HAVE A HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUE, TOO. A RECENT POINT IN TIME COUNT SHOW THAT WE HAVE OVER THREE HUNDRED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY TO INCREASE POST-SECONDARY HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, ONE OF THE BIGGEST BARRIERS IS THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE STUDENT HOUSING. AND WHEN TALKING TO LOCAL BUSINESSES, ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES IS THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF STAFF DUE TO THE LACK OF HOUSING OPTIONS AND AFFORDABILITY. LIKE NEW ZEALAND AND MANY PLACES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE, WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE MORE HOUSING AND MORE DIVERSE HOUSING AND THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAWS DRAFTED TO DO THAT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, THOUGH, THAT JUST BECAUSE ZONING BYLAW ALLOWS FOR MORE HOMES PER LOT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE FLOODGATES ARE GOING TO OPEN AND OVERNIGHT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO RUSH OUT AND BUILD MORE HOUSING OPTIONS ON THEIR LOT. THE COST TO BUILD THE TOPOGRAPHY OF EACH LOT PERSONAL CHOICE AND MANY OTHER REASONS WILL MEAN THAT MANY LOTS WILL REMAIN WITH JUST ONE HOME ON THEM. BUT THE ZONING BYLAW IS GIVING PEOPLE PERMISSION TO HELP INCREASE THE HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUE. AND ON THAT NOTE, I'D BE REMISS TO NOT POINT OUT THE RECENT CBC SERIES ON HOUSING ISSUES IN YELLOWKNIFE AND THE MONOPOLY ON THE RENTAL MARKET. AS COUNCILLOR KONGE NOTED ALREADY, BY INCREASING WHAT INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS CAN DO WITH THEIR LOT, BY ADDING A SECONDARY SUITE OR A TINY HOME, OR TURNING THEIR HOUSE INTO A DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, FOURPLEX OR SIX-PLEX. WE'RE INCREASING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE LOCAL CONTRACTORS AND LOCAL OWNERS. I SHARED THE COMPILATION OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING EXAMPLES THAT CITY STAFF PUT TOGETHER AND THEIR EXAMPLES OF LOCALS BUYING SINGLE LOTS AND INCREASING AND DIVERSIFYING THE HOUSING OPTIONS. THE HOMES ARE ALSO THEN RENTED OR OWNED BY NORTHERNERS. TO BUILD AN APARTMENT BUILDING REQUIRES DEEP POCKETS. BUT ADDING AN EXTRA HOUSING UNIT ON YOUR LOT CAN BE DONE BY A LOT OF RESIDENTS. AND I'VE HEARD QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW OUR POPULATION HASN'T CHANGED MUCH, SO WHY DO WE NEED MORE HOUSING? BEYOND THE REASONS ABOVE, OUR DEMOGRAPHICS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE YEARS. HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER DWELLING CONTINUES TO DROP IN YELLOWKNIFE, IN LINE WITH THE TREND IN REST OF CANADA. THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN 2016 IN YELLOWKNIFE WAS 2.7 PERSONS, DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM 2.8 IN 2006. SO JUST LOOKING AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WE HAVE DOESN'T REFLECT HOW MANY HOUSES OR WHAT TYPE OF HOUSES WE NEED. ON THAT POINT, I'VE HEARD HOW WE NEED TO PROTECT THE SINGLE UNIT LOTS AROUND SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN SUCH HIGH DEMAND FOR FAMILIES, WHICH I AGREE, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES WITH ONLY SINGLE PARENTS? IN THE PAST YEAR HAVE HAD AT LEAST THREE FRIENDS GO THROUGH A DIVORCE. THAT MEANS THAT YELLOWKNIFE WENT FROM REQUIRING THREE HOMES TO MEET THEIR NEEDS TO REQUIRING SIX HOMES. AND THEY'RE NO LONGER A DOUBLE INCOME FAMILY, SO THEY CAN'T ALL AFFORD TO BUY OR RENT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THEY'RE NOW IN SECONDARY SUITES OR CONDOS OR APARTMENTS OR DUPLEXES OR TOWNHOUSES. SO WE NEED DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS TO MEET THE DIVERSE MAKE UP OF LIVING SITUATIONS OF OUR RESIDENTS. AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT MIXING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. AND IT'S AN INTERESTING CONCERN FOR MUCH OF HUMAN HISTORY OR COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN MIXED USE. SEGREGATING HOUSES AWAY FROM EMPLOYMENT IS NEW, WITHIN THIS PAST CENTURY. MIXED USE GOT PUSHED ASIDE AS SUBURBS BECAME ELEVATED TO THE GOLD STANDARD. SLOWLY THROUGH REVISED ZONING BYLAWS THOUGH, MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE COMING BACK ACROSS NORTH AMERICA. THE VARIETY OF USES, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS, PARKS, ET CETERA, ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE, WORK AND PLAY AND SHOP IN ONE PLACE. AND IT'S WHAT WE SEE IN OLD TOWN. THERE'S PUBS, THERE'S RESTAURANTS, THERE'S A LOCAL GROCERY STORE OR GENERAL STORE. THERE'S PROFESSIONAL OFFICES LIKE ARCHITECTS, RESEARCH INSTITUTES, NGO'S, GEOLOGY OFFICES AND MORE. AND THERE'S HOUSING. SO PEOPLE CAN LIVE NEAR THEIR WORK AND WALK THERE AND FREQUENT STORES ON LUNCH OR AFTER HOURS OR ON WEEKENDS. IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL, I THINK IT HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING A SIMILAR NEIGHBORHOOD, TOO. I WANT TO ENCOURAGE US TO THINK EXPANSIVE AND ENCOURAGE LIVELY [03:50:01] NEIGHBORHOODS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENTREPRENEURS. I WALK A LOT AND IN PARTICULAR I WALK AROUND THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL AREA A LOT. I SEE SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY. I WALK AROUND AND SEE GIANT GARAGES ON PROPERTIES. THE GARAGE COULD BE TURNED INTO AN ARTISAN SHOP SHARED BY THREE ARTISTS, WHILE THE HOME CONTINUES TO BE USED AS A RESIDENCE OR A RETIREE LOOKING TO EARN A BIT MORE INCOME COULD RENOVATE AND RENT OUT THE GARAGE. AND IT COULD BECOME A MASSAGE THERAPY CLINIC WITH TWO MASSAGE THERAPISTS WHO DO SPLIT SHIFTS AND SHARE THE SPACE. OR IT COULD BECOME A LITTLE YOGA STUDIO OR A DANCE REHEARSAL SPACE WHERE RESIDENTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO WALK THERE. OR IF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TO ZING'S COOKING CLASS IN KAM LAKE, IT'S A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IN A TINY HOME. WHAT ABOUT A COMMUNITY KITCHEN IN A TINY HOME IN THE CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL AREA? I SEE MANY FOOD BUSINESSES POPPING UP ON FACEBOOK. WHAT IF THEY RENTED THE SPACE ONCE A WEEK TO DO ALL OF THEIR PREP AND COOKING AND THEN DELIVER THE MEALS VERSUS DOING ALL THIS IN THEIR TINY APARTMENT KITCHENS RIGHT NOW? THAT THEY CAN EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS ALSO AND HIRE TWO SOUS CHEFS TO KEEP UP WITH THE ORDERS. I'D LOVE FOR THEM TO EVENTUALLY TURN INTO A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT IN DOWNTOWN YELLOWKNIFE, BUT WHAT IF THIS COMMUNITY KITCHEN IN A TINY HOME ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT IS THE START? AND THEN THERE'S THE CONCERN THAT IF WE ALLOW COMMERCIAL THAT WE'LL BE TAKING AWAY RESIDENTIAL SPACE, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. SOMEBODY MAY CHOOSE TO USE PART OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL AND PART FOR RESIDENTIAL. OR MAYBE ONE PROPERTY DOES BECOME COMMERCIAL, BUT ANOTHER PROPERTY ON THE STREET ADDS DENSITY. SO IN THE END, THE STREET NOW HAS ONE RESIDENTIAL SPACE AND ONE COMMERCIAL SPACE , NO LOSS OF RESIDENTIAL. AND I DO LIKE THIS QUOTE FROM A BLOG POST ON STRONG TOWNS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE WORLD "MAPPED OUT BY STRICT USE BASED ZONING IS ALL VERY ORDERLY. THE PROBLEM? THE REAL WORLD IS NOT SO PREDICTABLE OR ORDERLY. ECONOMIES CHANGE, EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS CHANGE THE POPULATION CHANGES AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION CHANGES. A WORLD BUILT ON FOSSIL FUELS IS ALSO FINDING THAT IT TOO HAS TO CHANGE. AND SO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS MUST BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE. MODERN ZONING PRODUCES ARTIFICIAL MONOCULTURES. THE POSTWAR DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS TO A TRADITIONAL TOWN AS A CORNFIELD IS TO AN OLD GROWTH FOREST." OVER THE NEXT MONTH, LEADING UP TO THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE BYLAW, I ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT THEIR BIG FEARS ARE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEN THINK ABOUT YOUR ULTIMATE DREAMS FOR WORLD TRANSITIONS TO MORE AND MORE PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME. WOULDN'T IT BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO WALK TO A [INAUDIBLE] COFFEE SHOP AT THE CORNER OF YOUR STREET ON BREAK? IS IT BEING ABLE TO HAVE YOUR AGING PARENTS LIVE IN A SECONDARY SUITE ON YOUR PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN BE CLOSE TO YOU? IS IT HAVING A COMMUNITY KITCHEN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU CAN RENT IT ONE NIGHT A WEEK TO GET AWAY FROM THE KIDS AND NOT MAKE A COMPLETE MESS OF YOUR KITCHEN AND BEGIN YOUR DREAM OF OPENING A CATERING BUSINESS? WHEN WE DIG INTO HER FEARS AND DREAMS, I THINK WE CAN WORK ON WAYS TO ADDRESS THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FEAR THAT SOMEBODY WILL BUY A SINGLE HOME LOT AND TURN IT INTO A FORTY FIVE METER APARTMENT CAN BE PUT TO REST BECAUSE THEIR PARKING REGULATIONS AND THE ZONING BYLAW THAT ALSO HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. SO YOU'D NEVER BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT HEIGHT AND ADHERE TO THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON THE LOT. IF YOU LOOK AT JUST ONE BULLET IN THE ZONING BYLAW, YOU MISS SEEING THAT YOUR FEAR COULD BE ADDRESSED BY ANOTHER BULLET POINT. SO INSTEAD OF BANNING STUFF, WE MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS THROUGH OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN INTO THE BILL PEOPLE HAVEN'T NOTICED OR BY PROPOSING NEW ONES. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT TO GET PEOPLE THINKING I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM RESIDENTS OVER THE NEXT MONTH. YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS, AS ALWAYS BY EMAIL OR COME AND PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. I KNOW IT'LL BE LIVELY. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL BRING THE PROPOSED BYLAW FORWARD WITH THAT ONE ADJUSTMENT TO FIRST READING, WHICH IS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8TH. NEXT ON THE AGENDA, THE MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE 2021 THIRD QUARTER FORECAST AND VARIANCE REPORTS MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. YES, ADMINISTRATION IS PLEASED TO PRESENT OUR THIRD QUARTER VARIANCE FOR THE 2021 FISCAL YEAR, WHICH REFLECTS OUR FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2021. THIS REFLECTS A FISCAL YEAR THAT'S VERY CLOSE TO OUR BUDGET AND GIVEN THE VOLATILITY OF THIS YEAR, THAT'S STILL GOING ON INTO SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, WE ARE VERY PLEASED WITH WHERE WE'RE STANDING FINANCIALLY RIGHT NOW. I REALLY WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE MANAGERS WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE WORK TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS, AND I HIGHLY COMMEND MISS WOODWARD AND HER TEAM FOR LEADING US THROUGH THIS IMPORTANT WORK CORPORATELY TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE KEEPING THE MACRO VISION OF WHERE THE CITY NEEDS TO BE FINANCIALLY IN MIND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM [INAUDIBLE] BUT WE'LL STICK WITH COUNCIL TODAY. [03:55:06] THEN WE WILL BRING UP FOR THAT, NO, THAT'S JUST FOR INFORMATION. DULY NOTED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, WE WILL GO IN CAMERA. [IN CAMERA] MOVED BY, TO DISCUSS WITH A NEW APPOINTED MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MOVED BY COUNCILLOR KONGE, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR PAYNE. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. SEE YOU IN TWO SECONDS. OK. BUSINESS ARISING FROM IN-CAMERA IS TO APPOINT SARAH SWANN TO THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WITH THAT, WE'VE REACHED THE END OF OUR AGENDA, SO MOTION TO ADJOURN AND SEE EVERYBODY AT 7:00 P.M. MOVED BY COUNCILLOR PAYNE, SECOND BY COUNCILLOR SMITH. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, SEE YOU ALL IN A COUPLE OF HOURS. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.