Sep 23, 2024 Governance & Priorities Committee

[1. Opening Statement ]

[00:00:02]

AND I'LL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2024 TO ORDER, AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY.

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION.

WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.

[2. Approval of the agenda]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY? SEEING NONE.

[4. A memorandum regarding whether to amend Zoning By‐law No. 5045, as amended, by adding two new Residential Intensification zones (RI and RI‐1) and associated changes to facilitate development of more housing options. ]

MR. VAN DINE IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

COUNCIL WILL RECALL THAT WE BROUGHT FORECAST FORWARD ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS PLANNING ITEMS THAT WE'D BE BRINGING FORWARD OVER THE NEXT NUMBER OF MONTHS.

THIS IS THE FIRST PACKAGE THAT WE'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE CHANGING OF OUR ZONING FOR RI AND RI-1, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE TO TAKE US THROUGH THE MEMORANDUM AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO AS MENTIONED, THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BEING PRESENTED TODAY IS A NEW TOOL TO BE USED FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO INFILL. THIS NEW ZONE, THE RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ZONE, IS ONE WAY THAT WE THINK WE CAN ADD NEW HOUSING AND HOUSING OPTIONS TO THE YELLOWKNIFE HOUSING SPECTRUM.

IT WILL PROVIDE ENCOURAGEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DWELLINGS TO MEET THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT IS A TOOL FOR NEAR FUTURE AS THE CITY MOVES TO DEVELOP INFILL AND SOME INTENSIFICATION ON FULLY SERVICED MUNICIPAL LAND WITHIN THE CITY.

THE RI ZONE CONFORMS TO THE POLICIES OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND SUPPORTS THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO BUILDING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AS PART OF THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND. THE NEW ZONE IS NOT GOING TO BE APPLIED TO ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTY, SO THE NEW ZONE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A ZONING AMENDMENT, WHICH IS A PUBLIC PROCESS WITH PUBLIC NOTICE AND A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING TO BE APPLIED TO ANY PROPERTY AND TO COUNCIL FOR A FINAL DECISION.

SO I WILL ASK OUR PLANNER, VIVIAN, TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND PROVIDE A PRESENTATION.

SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO HER.

THANK YOU.

TEST. TEST.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS VIVIAN, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING TO YOU THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT TODAY FOR RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION.

THIS AMENDMENT IS SUPPORTED BY LOTS OF RESEARCH, ANALYSIS AND CONSULTATION.

DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE REPORT IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

MY PRESENTATION WILL BE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL DUE TO TIME LIMITATION.

ALL RIGHT NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO A BIT OF BACKGROUND.

IN JANUARY 2023, COUNCIL DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO INITIATE SOME PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO SUPPORT INFILL AND INTENSIFICATION RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN IN 2024, THE CITY APPLIED AND RECEIVED THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND, AS MENTIONED, TO SUPPORT MORE HOUSING TO BE BUILT IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

AS WE ALL KNOW, HOUSING IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR GROWING COMMUNITY AND OUR GROWING ECONOMY, SO WE NEED TO BRING MORE HOUSING OPTIONS TO MEET THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS. MANY EXISTING POLICIES AND DOCUMENTS AND RESEARCH SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE.

I'VE LISTED A COUPLE OF THEM ON THE SLIDE, AND THE CONCEPT OF RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION IS GETTING MORE AND MORE POPULAR THESE YEARS.

THIS CONCEPT WAS INTRODUCED BACK IN 2023, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH BEING REITERATED HERE.

RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION IS A VERY GOOD LAND USE MANAGEMENT TOOL THAT CAN BRING MORE HOUSING AND ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER BENEFITS THAT DUE TO TIME LIMIT, I WON'T EXPRESS THEM.

MANY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IMPLEMENTED SIMILAR POLICIES TO GET MORE HOUSING, AND THIS IS ALSO A GOOD CONSIDERATION FOR OUR CITY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT CONFORMS TO THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK, INCLUDING THE CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES ACT, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW.

THE TWO ACTS ARE STANDARD.

THEY APPLY TO ALL ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS.

[00:05:01]

THE DETAILED POLICY ANALYSIS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE REPORT AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE FOCUS OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS THE ZONING BYLAW.

THE ZONING BYLAW REGULATES THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND BUILDINGS WITHIN OUR CITY.

THIS IS THE BYLAW THAT WE DEAL WITH ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS WITH DEVELOPMENT, AND WE PROPOSE TO ADD NEW TOOLS TO FACILITATE RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION FOR MORE HOUSING OPTIONS, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT REQUIRES THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS.

IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING BYLAW.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONTAINS TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS AS INTRODUCED.

THE FIRST COMPONENT. THE FIRST COMPONENT IS TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ZONE BEING RI ZONE AND RI-1 ZONE, AND THE SECOND MAJOR COMPONENT IS TO ADD SOME ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE ZONING BYLAW TO SUPPORT THE NEW ZONES, TO SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION DEVELOPMENT, AND TO SUPPORT BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ZONING BYLAW.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

THE TWO NEW ZONES ARE RI AND RI-1.

THEY'RE DESIGNED FOR NEW NEWER INFILL RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION DEVELOPMENT.

THE DIFFERENCE IS RI-1 ZONE IS A LITE VERSION OF RI ZONE WHICH MEANS RI-1 STILL SUPPORTS RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION BUT ON A LIGHTER SCALE.

CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR THE DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS ON THE GROUND BECAUSE NOT ALL LAWS ARE CREATED THE SAME.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SLIDE IS AN INFOGRAPHIC THAT SUMMARIZES THE PROPOSED TWO ZONES.

THIS INFOGRAPHIC IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE, SO FEEL FREE TO HAVE A LOOK.

TO QUICKLY SUMMARIZE, THE TWO PROPOSED ZONES HAVE TAILORED, PERMITTED USES AND TAILORED ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TAILORED TO EACH ZONE.

THEY'RE TAILORED TO THE YELLOWKNIFE CONTEXT TO MAKE SURE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR CITY AND WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT, AND TO STATE TO EXPRESS HERE.

THE NEW ZONES WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO ANY PROPERTIES YET.

THIS WILL GO THROUGH A SEPARATE REZONING PROCESS AS CHARLES INTRODUCED.

IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS AND IT'S REGULATED.

WE'LL GO THROUGH ALL THE REQUIRED PROCESSES AND THE TWO NEW ZONES ARE DESIGNED FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE IDEAL FOR RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION, IT WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO HUGE, LOTS OF HUGE EXISTING BUILT AREAS, AND OF COURSE IT WILL NOT FORCE ANYONE TO REDEVELOP.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE, AND LASTLY ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE ZONING BYLAW.

THE ASSOCIATED CHANGES INCLUDE UPDATES TO SOME DEFINITIONS AND UPDATES TO SOME GENERAL REGULATIONS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

THERE IS A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE REGULATION AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES OF THE REGULATION FOR BETTER VISUALIZATION, AND AGAIN, THE CHANGES ARE TO SUPPORT THE NEW ZONES, TO SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION DEVELOPMENT AND TO SUPPORT BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ZONING BYLAW. THAT'S IT.

THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL OPEN IT UP.

AGAIN BIG THANKS TO ADMINISTRATION FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND DOING SOME INITIAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON IT.

OF COURSE, IF COUNCIL IS SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY, THERE IS STILL THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN AFTER FIRST READING.

SO THE START OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OPENING UP TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.

COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

IT'S A GREAT INFOGRAPHIC, BY THE WAY.

REALLY EXPLAINS IT.

A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

I'LL PULL THEM UP HERE. FIRST, IT'S AROUND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO PREVIOUSLY WE HAD A MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT.

NOW, THE PROPOSAL IN THIS ZONING IS A MAXIMUM ONE SPOT PER UNIT.

QUESTION. DOES THAT INCLUDE IF A DEVELOPMENT IS BIG ENOUGH TO HAVE VISITOR PARKING? ACCESSIBLE PARKING UNITS. IF IT WAS A SCALE OF THAT SIZE, WOULD THAT BE COUNT TO THAT LIMIT OR ARE THOSE KIND OF SEPARATE? MR. VAN DINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THE QUESTIONS, OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DIRECT THEM TO MS. WHITE? MS. WHITE CAN TAKE IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MS. WHITE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO RIGHT NOW IN OUR ZONING BYLAW, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PARKING STANDARDS, WHICH ARE BASICALLY A MINIMUM, AND WE ALSO HAVE ZONES WHERE THERE IS ACTUALLY NO PARKING

[00:10:05]

SO KIND OF BRIDGING THE GAP.

SO WE'RE NOT COVERING TOO MUCH OF A PROPERTY WITH A LARGE SIGNIFICANT PARKING AREA, BUT MEETING THE NEEDS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND HEARD, NOT JUST FROM RESIDENTS BUT ALSO FROM DEVELOPERS. SO IF HYPOTHETICALLY, I'M JUST GOING TO PICK A NUMBER, THERE WAS TEN PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ON ONE OF THESE PARCELS, THEN IT WOULD BE TO THE DEVELOPER AND OR THE RESIDENTS TO WORK OUT WHETHER SOME OF THOSE WOULD BE FOR VISITOR PARKING.

SORRY. WHERE MY BRAIN IS GOING IS THERE'S ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY WITH A MAXIMUM.

SO ONE OF THESE PARKING SPOTS PER DWELLING TO LOOK TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION METHODS AND PARKING FOR THOSE AS WELL.

ALSO WITHIN OUR ZONING BYLAW, WHICH THIS WILL WORK AND MESH NICELY WITH IS WE HAVE THE CARSHARE AVAILABILITY WHICH COULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS.

SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VISITOR PARKING WITHIN THOSE TEN, MAYBE TWO OF THEM ARE CARSHARE, TWO ARE VISITOR AND ASSIGNED.

OTHERWISE. THANK YOU.

PERFECT. THANKS. NEXT ONE IS FLOOR AREA RATIO.

A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS ON THIS.

SO WHAT IS WHAT IS THE INTENT, I GUESS, GOAL OF PUTTING THIS DEFINITION IN AND REQUIREMENT LIKE WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ADDING THIS IN BECAUSE I CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE IT ANYWHERE ELSE IN ZONING.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU.

YES YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS IS A NEW INTRODUCTION AND A NEW OPTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO INSTALL IN OUR ZONING BYLAW.

PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THE ZONING BYLAW RELATED TO DENSITY, AND SO IN THIS MOST RECENT BYLAW, AS AMENDED, WE'RE ACTUALLY MOVING AWAY FROM THE DEFINITION OF OF DENSITY, AND SINCE WE ARE STILL HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INTENSIFICATION, ABOUT INFILL, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT'S NEW IS GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE AND IN SCALE WITH WHAT IS ALREADY CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY? BECAUSE AS WE REMEMBER, OUR INFILL, WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN AREAS WITH FULL MUNICIPAL SERVICES, EITHER TRANSIT OR NEAR TRANSIT, AS WELL AS WALKABILITY.

SO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS REALLY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF USABLE AREA IN A BUILDING OR THAT IT'S PERMITTED TO HAVE, AND THE TOTAL AREA OF A LOT ON WHICH THAT BUILDING STANDS.

SO AND I WILL ASK MISS VIVIAN TO GIVE US A BIT OF AN ANALOGY, BECAUSE SHE HAS A REALLY GREAT ONE OF HOW THIS WORKS, BUT IT'S TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SCALE IS MORE THAN JUST THE MASSING BASED ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND REAR YARD SETBACKS, WHICH THAT JUST REALLY GIVES YOU A BOX, AND SO WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO IS HOW YOU MANIPULATE THAT BOX, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT I WILL ASK IF VIVIAN CAN ELABORATE ON THAT.

SURE. YEAH. THANK YOU, MS. WHITE, FOR THE INTRODUCTION.

THAT'S A VERY GOOD SUMMARY OF WHAT FLOOR AREA RATIO IS, AND I THINK TO MY UNDERSTANDING I USE THIS ANALOGY FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, IS THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT AS A PLAY-DOUGH AND YOU MANIPULATE THE PLAY-DOUGH INTO DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES, BUT WE DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE PLAY-DOUGH.

SO WE ARE LIMITING THE SCALE WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE INFILL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING, BUT GIVING THE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE A DIFFERENT SITUATIONS BECAUSE NOT ALL, NOT ALL LOTS ARE CREATED THE SAME IN SOME SITUATIONS.

MAYBE YOU CAN ONLY DO SHORTER BUILDINGS.

IN SOME SITUATIONS YOU CAN DO OTHER DESIGNS.

SO IT JUST GIVES IT THAT SORT OF FLEXIBILITY, AND JUST TO ADD TO WHAT MS. WHITE JUST SAID ON OUR PLANNING WEBSITE, WE ACTUALLY PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT FAR WOULD LOOK LIKE ON WITH A DIFFERENT VALUE, LIKE SO IF YOU HAVE AVAILABILITY, FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE TO SEE THE DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF WHAT THE DIFFERENT FAR LOOKS LIKE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER.

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE ANALOGY.

I JUST STILL HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WITH ALL THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE OF A BUILDING ON A LOT ALREADY, INCLUDING ALREADY LOT COVERAGE.

I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A CONTROL.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIT TOO MUCH, BUT I'LL COME BACK TO THAT LATER.

BIG ONE IS, IS THIS A MINIMUM RATIO OR A MAXIMUM RATIO? BECAUSE IF IT'S MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM, IT HAS TWO VERY DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS TO THE BUILDING.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, AND IF I CAN MAYBE ADD A LITTLE BIT JUST TO THE LAST QUESTION FIRST.

SO ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THE DIAGRAM UP ON THE SCREEN HERE IS AN ADDITIONAL VISUALIZATION TOOL.

SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RI-1 LOOKING AT DUPLEX FOURPLEX COURTYARD AND COTTAGE COURT, THOSE WOULD ALL BE UNDER THAT RI-1 IF WE WERE LOOKING AT MASSING AND SCALE AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND THEN THE MULTIPLEX TRIPLEX AND THE LIVE WORK BALANCE WOULD BE THE RI, AND

[00:15:09]

SO AS MISS PENG SAID IT COULD BE YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S A ROCK FACE IN THE BACK OR SOME OTHER FEATURE ON IT.

SO SOME WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR TOWNHOUSE UNDER RI AND RI-1.

SO IT WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON.

SO TOWNHOUSE IS KIND OF THE SPLIT POINT BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT ZONES.

SO YES WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT AS COUNCILLOR WARBURTON IS SAYING, YEAH, IT DOES HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS IF IT'S A MINIMUM VERSUS A MAXIMUM, AND SO ONE OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS THE ALLOWANCE TO HAVE THAT VARIANCE COME TO COUNCIL.

SHOULD SOMEONE FEEL THAT IT IS EITHER OVER OR UNDER ON THE WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO BUILD ON A SPECIFIC SITE.

SO AT THIS POINT IT IS THE STANDARD, AND SO ANYTHING THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD WOULD NEED TO HAVE THAT SORT OF A VARIANCE, AND AS MISS PENG SAID, WE RAN THROUGH A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ONLY THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS OWNERSHIP OF TO SEE HOW THESE WOULD KIND OF FIT WITH THE FAR OF ONE, AND SO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT ON PROPERTIES.

SO RIGHT NOW THAT IS THE STANDARD YOU WOULD THINK OF IT IN A MINIMUM MAXIMUM, AND IF THERE IS A VARIANCE REQUIRED THEN THAT IS A VARIANCE WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD NEED TO COME TO COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO NO MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM.

IT'S JUST A RATIO, AND THAT RATIO IS SET.

SO IF YOU DEVIATE FROM THAT AT ALL.

RIGHT OKAY.

AGAIN I'M CONCERNED THIS IS VERY LIMITING, BUT AND IF WE DO A [INAUDIBLE] RATIO, IS THERE ANY PARTS OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE EXCLUDED.

LIKE DOES THAT WILL THAT INCLUDE GARAGES, BASEMENTS, MECHANICAL ROOMS? BECAUSE I NOTICED OTHER PLACES, SOME OF THE STUFF'S INCLUDED.

SOME OF THE STUFF'S NOT INCLUDED BELOW GRADE ABOVE GRADE.

GETTING WEEDY HERE, BUT DOES THAT COUNT IN THAT RATIO? MS. WHITE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

YEAH, AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO HAVE DETERMINED AHEAD OF TIME.

SO ANY WHAT WE CALL NON LIVABLE SPACE WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THAT FLOOR AREA RATIO.

SO PARKING GARAGE INSIDE STAIRS, MECHANICAL ROOMS. IN THE CASE THAT THERE'S AN ELEVATOR SHAFT, THE ELEVATOR LOCATION THAT ALSO WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.

OUR ZONING BYLAW WHEN WE AMENDED, IT DID GET AWAY FROM THE REFERENCE OF STORIES, AND SO WE DON'T REALLY TALK ABOUT ABOVE AND BELOW.

SO AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE TOTAL OVERALL HEIGHT, THEN THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON. INFILL DESIGN REGULATION TEN .5.5.

IT TALKS ABOUT PRIVACY.

I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH DEFINITION HERE.

SO WHAT'S PRIVATE FOR ME IS NOT PRIVATE FOR YOU, AND VIS A VIS.

IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY WIDE OPEN INTERPRETATION, I.E.

OPEN FOR MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF APPEAL IF YOU DON'T FEEL IT'S PRIVACY.

IS WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF PRIVACY? DO WE HAVE TO DEFINE THAT BETTER KIND OF WHERE YEAH SOME SUGGESTIONS ON THAT.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU, AND IT'S YEAH SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN KIND OF TALKING ABOUT OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS, AND WHILE WE INCLUDED IT HERE, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT IF COUNCIL WANTED IT TO BE REMOVED.

IT IS MORE OF A DESIGN AND YEAH, EXACTLY, AS YOU'RE SAYING, SOME PEOPLE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT FEELINGS OF WHAT THAT IS.

SO SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO AS PART OF OUR INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS, BUT NOT ACTUALLY MAKE IT A REGULATION.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I WOULD BE KEEN TO NOT HAVE THEM THERE.

IT'S JUST WAY TOO OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION FOR BOTH THE PUBLIC, BUT ALSO FOR ANYONE THAT'S BUILDING ANYTHING.

I CAN SEE THAT TURNING INTO A BIG AND A TON OF WORK FOR STAFF TO START DEFINING THAT CASE BY CASE.

IS IT A WINDOW? IS IT A DOOR? SO, YEAH.

YEAH, DEPENDING ON THE QUESTIONS OF MY COLLEAGUES, I MAY HAVE SOME MORE, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

WE'LL BOOKMARK THAT ONE TO COME BACK ONCE FOLKS HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT IF THERE'S GENERAL SUPPORT TO REMOVE 10 .5.5C. WE'LL REMOVE THAT SO THAT WHEN IT COMES FORWARD FOR FIRST READING, IT'S NOT INCLUDED, AND THEN THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING FOLKS WOULD NOT BE COMMENTING.

WELL, THEY MAY COMMENT TO SAY PUT THAT BACK IN AND COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER THAT, BUT WE WILL PARKING LOT THAT AND COME BACK TO THAT.

NEXT I'VE COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

SO QUESTION ABOUT IN THE BIG ZONING BYLAW UPDATE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT ONE OF THE GOALS THERE WAS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ZONES AND JUST SORT OF A COMMENT FROM ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOW ADDING A COUPLE OR PROPOSING TO ADD A COUPLE MORE IN, AND THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES OF

[00:20:06]

YES. AT THE TIME, WE AND WE DID SUCCESSFULLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ZONES THAT WERE FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING BYLAW TO THE NEW ONE THAT IS BEFORE YOU.

HOWEVER, ZONING BYLAW IS A LIVING DOCUMENT, AND AS NEW OPPORTUNITIES COME FORTH AND OR, YOU KNOW, NEW NEEDS ARE IDENTIFIED.

THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ADMINISTRATION TO BRING A SUGGESTION TO COUNCIL TO UPDATE A DOCUMENT.

IN THIS CASE, WE ARE LOOKING TO ADD A TOOL TO NOT JUST FACILITATE NEW HOUSING, BUT TO ALSO MEET THAT MISSING MIDDLE REQUIREMENT.

AS WE'VE WORKED OUT WITH THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND.

SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD MEET A NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES, AND IT IS, IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONES, IT IS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN THE TERMS AND THE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH. JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO.

IS THAT A NEW TOOL IN PLANNING CIRCLES IS THAT USED BY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS CANADA? AND IS THAT SORT OF BECOMING MORE COMMON? JUST SORT OF A COMMENT ON HOW THAT PLACES AMONGST PLANNING ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU.

IT'S KIND OF EMBARRASSING, BUT NO, IT'S NOT A NEW TOOL.

IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN AROUND SINCE ABOUT THE 1960S, 1950-60S.

A NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES USE IT, AND A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES ARE SIMILAR TO THE YELLOWKNIFE, MOVING AWAY FROM THE TERMS RELATED TO DENSITY AND MOVING MORE TOWARDS THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE INCLUSIVE AND THEY PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT.

SO YES.

NO, IT'S NOT A NEW TOOL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH. JUST A LITTLE COMMENT THAT I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR WARBURTON THAT DICTATING THAT ANY RI DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO HAVE A SPECIFIC FAR OF ONE SEEMS SORT OF CONSTRICTING TO ME, AND A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

DOES ADMIN FORESEE THE CITY WANTING TO REZONE ANY CURRENTLY DEVELOPED LAND TO THESE NEW ZONES.

MS. WHITE? NO.

THANK YOU, AND DOES ADMIN HAVE ANY SPECIFICS ON WHICH OF THESE NEW ZONES IS PLANNED FOR THE JANUARY 2023 INFILL AREAS? MS. WHITE? SO WE ARE DEFINITELY GIVING CONSIDERATION TO USING THIS ZONE AS WELL AS A COMBINATION WITH OTHER ZONES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AVAILABLE TO MAKE COMPLETE COMMUNITIES WHERE WE'RE ON THE LANDS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN, THOSE THAT INFILL MEMO FROM JANUARY 2023.

SO YEAH, WE ABSOLUTELY ARE LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL.

JUST SO EVERYONE'S AWARE, IT'S NOT JUST FOR CITY LAND.

SO SHOULD YOU KNOW, IN AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO AN EXISTING DWELLING.

IT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO CONSIDER USING THIS INSTEAD OF THEIR EXISTING ZONING.

AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FORWARD TO COUNCIL, BUT IT'S AN OPTION BOTH FOR THE MUNICIPALITY AND FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY IDEA WHEN SORT OF THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS, WHAT THE ZONING MAY BE FOR THOSE INFILL PARCELS MAYBE COMING FORWARD.

MS. WHITE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF TOOLS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING TO COUNCIL OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

ONCE THOSE TOOLS ARE IN PLACE, THE GOAL IS THAT THEY WERE DESIGNED AND THEY'RE DEVELOPED TO WORK TOGETHER.

SO ONCE THEY ARE IN PLACE, HOPEFULLY AT THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL THEN IT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNE TIME TO BRING FORWARD THOSE PROPERTIES.

THE FIRST STEP FOR SOME WOULD ACTUALLY BE AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

SO THEY WOULDN'T DIRECTLY GO TO USE THIS ZONE.

OKAY. SO THERE WOULD BE A STEP BEFORE THIS, BUT THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES WHERE YES, THEY COULD GO DIRECTLY TO A ZONING, AND AS I SAID, WE'RE INVESTIGATING WHETHER IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO USE RI IN THOSE INSTANCES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH, AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION.

JUST REFLECTING ON MAY 2023, MOTION FROM COUNCIL ABOUT ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS TO DO WITH WORK CAMPS.

IS THERE ANY WORK UNDERWAY OR CONSIDERATION TO HAVING ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BYLAW TO DO WITH WORK CAMPS AS PART OF THIS THIS WORK? NOTHING DURING THIS PART.

IT'S A TIER SIX, AND IT WOULD STILL NEED THAT COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW IT WITHIN THE ZONING BYLAW, BUT MS.

[00:25:01]

THANK YOU. PERFECT.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILLOR FEQUET? THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, JUST, I GUESS TWO HIGHER LEVEL ONES BACKING OUT OF THE WEEDS.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY IS STILL WORKING KIND OF IN PARALLEL WITH THE GNWT CITY REGARDING THE BULK LAND TRANSFER AND, AND OR SUBMITTING INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS TO, TO GAIN NEW NEW LANDS, HOPEFULLY TO BRING TO MARKET AT SOME POINT.

WE'LL PAUSE THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT LINKED TO THE ZONING AND WE CAN ADD IT TO A FUTURE GPC IF COUNCIL WANTS AN UPDATE ON THAT MOU PROCESS, BUT MR. VAN DINE, IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS AREN'T GETTING CONFUSED THAT THIS IS LINKED TO THE MOU.

THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS REGARDLESS OF THE MOU.

THIS IS PART OF INFILL COMMUNITY PLAN HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND.

SO, MR. VAN DINE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THIS THIS THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS NOT RELATED DIRECTLY TO THAT PROCESS, AT LEAST IN A STRAIGHT LINE.

ANYWAY I WOULD TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, THOUGH, TO SAY THAT WE ARE, AND THANKS TO THE TEAM FOR PUTTING TODAY'S PRESENTATION TOGETHER.

QUITE ENERGIZED BY A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE ONGOING ISSUES OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, WE HAVE REGULAR CONTACT WITH THEM.

ONE SUCH AREA OF CONTACT IS SORT OF THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF PARTICULAR PARCELS.

THAT IS PROCEEDING EXTREMELY WELL WHERE WE ARE LOOKING TO LEAN IN AND AUGMENT AS PART OF OUR ENERGY AND ENTHUSIASM TO OUR NEW APPROACH TO ITEMS SUCH AS.

WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TODAY IS TO CLARIFY AND EXPEDITE SOME OF THOSE, THOSE LARGER DECISIONS, BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO COME BACK TO A FUTURE GPC AND TALK TO TALK ABOUT THOSE IN GREATER DETAIL AT A LATER DATE.

THANKS FOR THAT. YEAH, AND I RECOGNIZE THIS ISN'T DIRECTLY RELATED, BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE DOZENS OF COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND, YOU KNOW, THE TYPICAL YOU KNOW, NOT IN MY BACKYARD REGARDING INTENSIFICATION.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS THAT ARE LISTENING AND THAT FOLKS THAT MAY VIEW THIS MEETING AFTERWARDS ONLINE, ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE PARALLEL PROCESSES HAPPENING TO ADVANCE HOUSING KIND OF MORE HOLISTICALLY.

SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT QUESTION, AND SIMILARLY, JUST LOOKING FOR IF THERE'S ANY UPDATE ON THE TIMING OF THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

OCTOBER 15TH GPC.

WOO HOO! COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN.

THANKS. SNAKED MY LAST QUESTION THERE.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET OR MY KEY QUESTION.

I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE MEMO.

I MEAN, I THINK ANYBODY HERE KNOWS THAT I AM IN SUPPORT OF THESE TYPES OF CHANGES, AND THANK YOU FOR COUNCILLOR WARBURTON AND MCLENNAN FOR UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THE WEEDS. I THINK I PROBABLY WILL NEED EVEN MORE TIMES READING OVER THIS THAN A WEEKEND TO GET BEHIND IT ALL.

AS SOMEBODY WHO. THIS IS NOT MY WORLD.

I THINK THE OCTOBER 15TH DATE.

THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT, BECAUSE THAT STICKS IN MY HEAD BECAUSE, AS COUNCILLOR FEQUET JUST SAID TO ME, THE THING THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH IS, THOUGH EVEN I AM IN SUPPORT OF THESE, I FEEL LIKE WE MAY BE GETTING OVER OUR SKIS IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC AND BRINGING THE PUBLIC ALONG WITH US.

AS WE KNOW, GOVERNMENTS CHANGE.

THINGS CAN BE AXED.

IT'S SORT OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE THING AT THE MOMENT, AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE STORY OF THE HOUSING ASSESSMENT NEEDS AS PART OF THIS.

SO I GUESS THE HOUSING ASSESSMENT NEEDS IS COMING ON OCTOBER 15TH.

IF THIS MOVES FORWARD FROM GPC, WHICH I'M ASSUMING IT WILL, AND I'M ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF MYSELF, JUST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

WHEN WOULD THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING EXPECTED TO BE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 28TH.

IF WE BRING THIS OCTOBER 15TH TO COUNCIL FOR FIRST READING, BUT MS. WHITE, THANK YOU.

SO THIS ACTUALLY LINES UP ON PURPOSE, AND SO YEAH.

SO WE DEFINITELY TOOK A LOOK AT THE GPC CALENDAR AND COUNCIL CALENDAR.

SO THIS IS KIND OF YOUR FIRST VIEW OF IT.

THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

WE ALSO HAVE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES WHICH ALL TIES IN.

SO VIVIAN PENG IS FIRST UP.

THANK YOU. THAT'S PERFECT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

SO I'M GLAD THE THINKING HAS GONE INTO THAT, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO DOES SUPPORT CHANGES LIKE THIS FOR OUR COMMUNITY THINKING FROM, YOU KNOW, HOW WE BUILD, HOW WE TRAVEL AROUND OUR CITY, HOW WE DO ALL OF THESE THINGS, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE NARRATIVES.

SO THANK YOU TO ADMIN FOR HAVING THOUGHT ABOUT BRINGING THIS FORWARD, GETTING IT IN PEOPLE'S HEADS AND THEN HAVING THE NEXT STAGE WITH THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

[00:30:04]

THANK YOU, AND IT IS THE R-2 IN THE CURRENT ZONING BYLAW HAS A LOT OF SIMILARITIES, EXCEPT R-2 HAS SINGLE DETACHED AND ALLOWS STUFF LIKE INSTITUTIONAL VERSUS.

THIS IS MORE GOING TO BE SPECIFIC, JUST HOUSING AREAS.

SO IT'S NOT WILDLY INTENSE COMPARED TO SOME OF OUR OTHER ZONES JUST TO FLAG THAT FINISHING OFF ON ROUND ONE QUESTIONS.

DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE, THANK YOU SO MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP.

NO REAL QUESTIONS, JUST COMMENTS PRIMARILY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH TO CHELSEA AND HER TEAM, SPECIFICALLY VIVIAN, FOR ALL THE WORK AND RESEARCH YOU'VE GONE INTO THIS.

I AM CERTAINLY IN SUPPORT OF ADDING PLATO OUR TOOLBOX.

I DO ALSO SUPPORT REMOVING THE 10.5.5C FROM THIS PACKAGE, AND HOPEFULLY HAVE IT REMOVED WHEN IT COMES FORWARD TO COUNCIL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU.

I QUESTION SO I'VE GOT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN MY HEAD CORRECT.

WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE WEBSITES AND IT DOES THE WHAT DOES FAR 1 LOOK LIKE, AND THEN SIERRA MANOR HAS GOT A FAR 1.1. GOLD CITY COURT HAS 0.9, AND THEN IT HAS A FAR 0.6.

DIAMOND RIDGE IS 0.65 HEGEL DRIVE, THERE'S A 0.54, AND SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE ONE, YOU DON'T NEED A VARIANCE, AND THEN HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT'S CLOSE.

LIKE 1.1 IS CLOSE BUT IS 1.25 TOO FAR AWAY.

SO JUST I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ALL THESE VARIANCES COMING TO COUNCIL.

IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE RANGES IN THE, THE VARIANCES, MS. WHITE. SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS MAYBE WE GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT SOME EXAMPLES SO THAT WE CAN WALK THROUGH THEM WHEN WE BRING THIS BACK TO COUNCIL, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT MORE FULSOME CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT, WELL, IT'S 1.0265.

SO COULD I ASK FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY PLEASE? YEAH, AND IF YOU COME BACK TO GPC ON THE SEVENTH, THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE WE BRING IT TO FIRST READING ON THE 15TH.

BECAUSE YEAH, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT IF WE NEED TO WRITE SOMETHING TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO STAFF TO APPROVE VARIANCES OF UP TO 0.25 OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

I JUST I KNOW HOW LONG IT CAN GET COMING TO COUNCIL, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACCELERATING THE HOUSING.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT POINT.

I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING 10.5.5C, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF AN INTERNAL AND THEN FOR MYSELF.

YEAH. SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT'S COMING FORWARD IN GENERAL, AND I THINK JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO FOLKS THAT WE'RE JUST ADDING A ZONE INTO THE BYLAW.

SO THIS GIVES COUNCIL AND STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY.

AT THE NEXT TIME THAT PARCELS OF LAND ARE AVAILABLE, WE CAN CHOOSE TO MAKE IT R-1 OR R-2.

IF IT'S IN THE RC ZONE, IT COULD BE RC ONE, OR IT COULD BE AN RI OR AN RI-1.

SO IT ISN'T GIVING IT TO ANY PARCEL OF LAND RIGHT NOW, BUT IT MIGHT BE THAT WE NEVER USE THIS NEW ZONE.

COUNCIL MAY HAVE OVERWHELMING PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE R-2 IN THE FUTURE.

SO BUT I THINK FROM AN ACCELERATING PERSPECTIVE, IT'S GOOD THAT WE GET THIS INTO THE ZONE ZONING BYLAW NOW SO THAT IT'S IN OUR TOOLBAR TOOLBOX FOR FUTURE FUTURE LAND THAT COMES FORWARD, BUT I DO WANT TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE FAR A BIT MORE FLOOR AREA RATIO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT UNINTENTIONALLY CREATING MORE WORK.

SO I'LL JUST GO FOR QUICK COMMENTS ON REMOVING 10.5.5C, WHICH IS INFILL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS THROUGH PROPER PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS, BALCONIES AND OTHER FEATURES.

THE PROPOSAL IF WE REMOVE THIS, IS THAT IT'S AN INTERNAL PROCESS VERSUS BEING DICTATED IN REGULATIONS.

THREE FOLKS IN SUPPORT HERE.

COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN.

SORRY, CAN I JUST A QUESTION, MAYBE MY NEOPHYTE BRAIN ON THESE THINGS? I'M ALWAYS SCARED WHEN I HEAR INTERNAL PROCESS.

WITHOUT IT, THAT'S GOOD, COUNCILLOR FEQUET GIVING ME THE WINK AND THE GUN THERE.

[00:35:03]

SO FOR ME, I'D EITHER WANT TO SEE IT IN THE REGULATION AND THEN IT'S WHAT WHAT HAPPENS, AND WE NEED TO BE CLEARER, AND MAYBE IT'S A TAKEAWAY AND COME BACK WITH SOME EXTRA LANGUAGE. OR WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT LIKE IT'S NOT A THING, BECAUSE I THINK THE IDEA THE SECOND WE GO, IT'S INTERNAL PROCESS.

MS. WHITE LEAVES, VIVIAN LEAVES, WE'RE ALL GONE TEN YEARS FROM NOW.

SOMEBODY ELSE'S INTERNAL PROCESS, IT'S A DIFFERENT BEAST.

SO I WOULD SAY EITHER WE HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING IN, OR WE JUST ACCEPT THAT THE IDEA OF THE PRIVACY PIECE IS REMOVED.

MS. WHITE? NO, AND I AGREE WITH THAT.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD ACTUALLY BE TO LEAVE IT OUT.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET.

THANKS. YEAH.

I GUESS MAYBE JUST ON THAT.

SO I AGREE CLARITY IS BEST.

IS THERE OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD BE IN THERE IN PLACE OF THIS PRIVACY REQUIREMENT? SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE CLEAR TO ACHIEVE THE OUTCOME THAT CLAUSE WAS INITIALLY INTENDED.

MS. WHITE. IT REALLY IS SUBJECTIVE AND SO I DO USE MY OWN PROPERTY AS AN EXAMPLE, WHERE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND LOVE THEM VERY MUCH. WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS WHILE THEY'RE IN THE BATHROOM WHILE I'M ON MY DECK.

SO TO ME, I DON'T MIND.

RIGHT? WE HAVE. IT'S FUNNY, HE BARKS AT MY DOG.

NOT EVERYBODY LIKES THAT, RIGHT? AND SO IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD BE VERY OFFENDED BY JUST THE WAY THOSE SIDES OF THE HOUSES ARE ALIGNED.

SO YEAH, TO WRITE A RULE ON THAT MIGHT NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT.

YEAH. NO, I AGREE, THAT MAKES SENSE.

THEN TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN'S POINT.

LIKE IT'S NOT, IT'S EITHER A REQUIREMENT OR IT'S NOT AND IT'S CLEAR OR IT'S NOT.

GETTING BACK TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO.

NO, JUST 10.5.

YEAH. ONCE WE REMOVE THAT, THEN WE'LL GO ON COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

YEAH, THANKS. I JUST WOULD SAY I'D SUPPORT THAT.

REMOVING IT. I THINK THE DEVELOPER WILL ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THEY THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THINGS MORE OR LESS PRIVATE, AND THAT'S WILL BE DETERMINED BY MARKET CONDITIONS.

SO THAT'S IT.

IN SUPPORT OF THAT.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR PAYNE. PERSONALLY, I'D LOVE TO SIT AND TALK TO SOMEBODY WHILE I'M ON THE TOILET, SO I DON'T KNOW IF MY NEIGHBOR WOULD LIKE IT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE KIND OF NICE, AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF KEEPING THIS OUT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO HEARING GENERAL SUPPORT, WE WILL REMOVE 10.5.5C BEFORE IT COMES FORWARD FOR FIRST READING.

SO NOW I'VE GOT SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

I'VE COUNCILLOR WARBURTON, AND THEN COUNCILLOR FEQUET.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST.

YEAH, I ECHO KIND OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID A LITTLE BIT THERE.

I, I STILL AM STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND FLOOR AREA RATIO, SO I APPRECIATE THAT COMING BACK SO I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THE CONVERSATION HERE IS ALREADY FLAGGING IT FOR ME IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, AND IF WE'RE TALKING THE WORD VARIANCE ALREADY, I JUST HEAR MORE BARRIERS TO BUILDING STUFF.

SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT CLARIFICATION LATER ON.

KIND OF HOW DOES THIS HELP US SOLVE PROBLEMS AND GET MORE OF WHAT WE WANT? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M JUST HEARING THINGS THAT ARE IN THE WAY, AND THEN I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION ON YOU SAID YOU KIND OF LOOKED INTO THE FEASIBILITY LIKE IS IS STUFF OF THIS SCALE THE LOT SIZE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? IS THERE A MARKET TO BUILD THAT, LIKE, IS THERE DO YOU THINK IS THERE A MARKET THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT WOULD WANT TO BUILD THIS? THERE'S NO POINT IN HAVING A WHOLE ZONE IF NO ONE WILL ACTUALLY BUILD ANYTHING, MS. WHITE. SO UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL.

WHAT I DO KNOW IS THERE IS A GAP IN THE SUPPLY OF HOMES, DWELLINGS FROM THAT RENTAL SECTION TO THE $600,000 SECTION.

THAT'S NOT AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MAKE THAT NEXT STEP.

SO WHAT IS THAT NEXT STEP LOOK LIKE? THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL HOPEFULLY WITH THE OTHER TOOLS THAT WE'RE USING, INCENT PEOPLE TO BUILD EXACTLY THAT SO THAT THEY DO COME IN AFFORDABLE AND IS THERE MAY NOT BE RIGHT NOW A BUILDER WHO IS BUILDING IT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE PEOPLE WANTING TO GET INTO IT. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A NEED, AND WHEN THERE'S A NEED, SOMEONE'S GOING TO COME AND FILL IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. YEAH.

BACK TO THE FAR. JUST YOU MENTIONED IT'S AN OLD TOOL SINCE THE 60S AND SIMILAR TO WHAT MADAM MAYOR WAS ASKING ABOUT, AND SIMILAR TO THE COMMENT THAT WAS JUST MADE ABOUT WE'RE

[00:40:02]

IS THAT NEW? MS. WHITE I'LL MAKE A QUICK ATTEMPT AT IT, BUT I WILL ASK VIVIAN, BECAUSE SHE DID GO A LITTLE MORE DEEPER INTO IT.

SOME OF THE AREAS THAT I'VE SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT IN ALBERTA DO HAVE A SET NUMBER, BUT MAYBE THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE RANGES, SO I'LL ASK VIVIAN IF SHE CAN ADD SOME INFORMATION.

THANK YOU. SURE.

I'LL DEFINITELY SPEAK TO THAT.

SO IN MY BACKGROUND RESEARCH, I'VE LOOKED AT MANY OTHER ZONING BYLAWS IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, AND WE I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT EVERY MUNICIPALITY HAS THEIR OWN GOALS AND EVERY ZONE HAS THEIR OWN PURPOSES.

SO THE FAR CAN BE APPLIED IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO MEET THOSE PURPOSES.

SO IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES THEY HAVE A SET NUMBER.

IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES THEY HAVE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM.

IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES THEY HAVE A RANGE.

SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S APPLIED AND WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONE OR THE MUNICIPALITY.

IS ADMINISTRATION ABLE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE EARLIER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE VARIANCES THAT COME TO COUNCIL AND WHY THAT WOULD BE THE APPROACH, RATHER THAN TRYING TO MAKE THE APPROACH IN THE ZONING BYLAW MORE FLEXIBLE TO NOT HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL.

MS. WHITE.

THANK YOU, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING WHEN I ASKED.

LET'S BRING SOME EXAMPLES BACK BECAUSE YEAH, MAYBE A RANGE IS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS ONE, TO MAKE MORE DWELLINGS AVAILABLE THAT PEOPLE NEED AND WANT, BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING DONE THROUGH THAT INFILL PROCESS, THAT THEY'RE OF A SCALE AND A DETAIL THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE AREAS THAT THEY'RE KIND OF INFILLING INTO.

RIGHT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS AT THE SAME TIME.

SO I WILL I'VE MADE A NOTE AND I WILL BRING SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS FORWARD WHEN WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ON OCTOBER 7TH.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

THAT'S GREAT. LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

THANK YOU. YEAH, AND MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY IN TABLE 1014.

THAT FLOOR AREA RATIO IS RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ONE WHERE IT'S FLOOR AREA RATIO OF MINIMUM OF ONE BECAUSE I SEE IN THE PLANNING REPORT IT'S TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOS, BUT WE'LL CHAT FURTHER OCTOBER 7TH ON THAT ONE.

ANYTHING FURTHER ON--COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN.

THANKS, AND, MADAM MAYOR, YOU MAY TELL ME THAT THIS IS FOR ANOTHER DAY, BUT I JUST THINK IT'S TIED INTO A LOT OF THIS AND HOW THE PUBLIC WILL UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES, AND IT'S SORT OF CONNECTED TO THE RESPONSE YOU GAVE TO COUNCILLOR WARBURTON'S LAST QUESTION, BUT CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO WHY THIS NEW ZONING, THESE TWO NEW ZONING OPTIONS ARE BEING RECOMMENDED? WHEN YELLOKNIFERS SEE A LOT OF EMPTY LOTS IN OUR DOWNTOWN OR NEAR DOWNTOWN CORE, SO YELLOWKNIFERS DRIVE AROUND, THEY SEE EMPTY LOTS IN OUR CITY, AND THEN THEY SEE US PROVIDING NEW ZONING AND THEY'RE GOING, BUT THERE'S ALREADY LOTS THAT COULD BE BUILT ON.

SO CAN ADMIN JUST SPEAK TO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WHY THIS IS COMING, EVEN THOUGH YELLOWKNIFERS SEE THOSE THINGS AND COMMENT ON THOSE THINGS REGULARLY.

YEAH, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S PART OF, AGAIN, TELLING THAT STORY AND WHY WE'RE WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS, MS. WHITE. THANK YOU.

I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT SO YOU CAN GO LIKE THIS IF I'M TALKING TOO MUCH.

SO WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN, IT'S A MIX OF USES, RIGHT.

SO YOU'VE GOT COMMERCIAL, USUALLY ON THE MAIN FLOOR AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY RESIDENTIAL, SOMETIMES COMMERCIAL, ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

THE DOWNTOWN IS MUCH BROADER IN DOWNTOWN ZONE.

SORRY, I'LL BE VERY CLEAR. DOWNTOWN ZONE IS MUCH BROADER IN WHAT IS ALLOWED, WHERE IT'S ALLOWED, ETC, AND THERE'S NO PARKING MINIMUMS. THERE'S NO LOT LINES, RIGHT? LIKE SO THE COVERAGE AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF USES IN THE DOWNTOWN IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IN THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY RESIDENTIAL, AND NOT ONLY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO AIM AT A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THAT SPECTRUM, WHICH IS THAT MISSING MIDDLE.

SO PEOPLE WHO ARE, LIKE I SAID, CURRENTLY IN A RENTAL MARKET AND LOOKING TO MOVE UP THROUGH THE SPECTRUM, AND WE'VE REALLY NOT BEEN BUILDING MUCH OF THIS SINCE ABOUT THE LATE 90S.

SO 20-25 YEARS OF NOT BUILDING THIS, WE'RE EITHER BUILDING LARGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF REGULATIONS AND RULES OR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. WHAT WE ALSO ARE AIMING TO DO IS TO FULLY-UTILIZE ALL OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES WE HAVE IN PLACE, BECAUSE WE PAY FOR THEM EVERY DAY BUT THERE ARE THESE VACANT LOTS, AND IT'S NOT JUST IN THE DOWNTOWN.

THERE ARE VACANT LANDS IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS.

SO AIMING IN OR ADJACENT TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, EXISTING SERVICES, WALKABILITY, TRANSIT.

[00:45:06]

THIS IS VERY, VERY SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT.

FOR THAT OVERVIEW. OVERVIEW.

THANKS, COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

YEAH. I THINK RYAN SORT OF COVERED THE QUESTION THAT I HAD, BUT I WOULD JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF LOOKING AT A TOLERANCE OR TOLERANCE LEVEL OR SOMETHING.

JUST THAT WAY DEVELOPERS CAN KIND OF MAP SOMETHING OUT, AND THEN IF IT IS A BIT ABOVE OR A BIT BELOW, IT'S EASY FOR THEM TO REMOVE A UNIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO MEET THE TOLERANCE.

MIGHT SAVE TIME FOR BOTH ADMIN AND DEVELOPERS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, JUST SORT OF A QUESTION FOR THE OCTOBER 7TH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO.

VIVIAN WAS SAYING LOOKING THROUGH VARIOUS BYLAWS, THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES TO ACHIEVE DIFFERENT GOALS IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

I PERSONALLY AND I THINK PUBLIC WOULD APPRECIATE SPECIFIC SPELLING OUT OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BY FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THE SPECIFIC FLOOR AREA RATIO WE ARE SETTING.

IT IS SET AT THIS TO ACHIEVE COST OF UNITS X NUMBER OF UNITS X NUMBER OF BEDROOMS X.

YEAH, JUST SORT OF A QUESTION THAT I THINK WOULD HELP FOR CLARITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND IF FOLKS DO HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS BETWEEN NOW AND PROBABLY TRY TO GET THEM IN BY NEXT MONDAY SO THAT ADMIN CAN THEN PREP THE PRESENTATION AND BE IN A GOOD SHAPE FOR OCTOBER 7TH.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL BRING THIS BACK FOR DISCUSSION OCTOBER 7TH.

IF THAT ALL LOOKS GOOD, THEN WE CAN GO TO FIRST READING ON OCTOBER 15TH, AND THEN THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING WOULD HAPPEN ON OCTOBER 28TH AT 7 P.M..

SO, BUT STEP ONE, COME BACK TO GPC NEXT MONDAY, OCTOBER 7TH.

THE NEXT TWO ITEMS. SCROLL BACK TO THE TOP.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE PRESENTATION.

[IN CAMERA ]

MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE, SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, WE CAN MOVE IN-CAMERA, AND

[7. Business arising from In Camera Session. ]

SO WE WILL BRING THAT FORWARD TO OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH AT 7 P.M..

WITH THAT, THAT'S THE END OF OUR AGENDA.

IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN MOVE BY COUNCILLOR WARBURTON, WE CAN BE ADJOURNED AND WE WILL BE BACK HERE TONIGHT AT 7 P.M..

HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.