Oct 07, 2024 Governance & Priorities Committee

[00:00:06]

AND I'LL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 7TH, 2024 TO ORDER, AND I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS

[1. Opening Statement]

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.

MISS WHITE, ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD TO THE AGENDA?

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

THANK YOU.

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

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

NEXT WE HAVE MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO ACQUIRE A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN LOT 26, BLOCK 569 PLAN 4690 121 BRADEN

[4. A memorandum regarding whether to acquire a fee simple interest in Lot 26, Block 569, Plan 4690 (121 Braden Boulevard).]

JUST A REMINDER THAT AS WE ARE ACQUIRING LANDS, WE STILL UNDER OUR LAND ADMIN BYLAW NEED TO HAVE THAT ACQUISITION BYLAW.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TODAY FOR BOTH THIS ONE AND THE APPLICATION FOLLOWING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS DISCUSSION.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT THE CITY HAS MADE EVERY EFFORT TO GET THIS LOT DEVELOPED WITH THE CURRENT OWNER.

MISS WHITE. YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

WE, WITH THIS OWNER AND OTHERS, WE ALWAYS TRY TO, YEAH, WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE WHERE POSSIBLE BUT SOMETIMES LANDS ARE RETURNED TO US AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE NEXT POTENTIAL OWNERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

SEEING NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL NEXT TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH AT 7 P.M.

MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY, SO ENJOY THAT ONE.

NEXT WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE GREATER LAND APPLICATION BYLAW NUMBER 4757.

[5. A memorandum regarding whether to amend the legal description in Greater Land Application By‐law No. 4757.]

SO THIS ONE IS ONCE WE DID THE SURVEY FOR THE LAND AND WE'RE TRYING TO ACQUIRE IT.

OBVIOUSLY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHANGED, AND SO THIS IS JUST TO RECTIFY THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ACQUISITION BYLAW FROM COUNCIL.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE WE WILL BRING THAT FORWARD TO COUNCIL NEXT TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH AT 7 P.M..

NEXT WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING BYLAW NUMBER 5045, AS AMENDED.

[Items 6 & 7]

MISS WHITE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION AS WELL FROM OUR PLANNER, VIVIAN PENG, BUT FIRST I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, IT'S PART OF ONE OF OUR STEPS IN MEETING THE CITY'S OBJECTIVES UNDER OUR HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND AGREEMENT, AND THE AMENDMENT SEEKS TO MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF LOTS, ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH DEVELOPMENT IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, AS WELL AS FULLY UTILIZING EXISTING SERVICES THAT ARE IN THESE AREAS.

ALL OF IT--ALL OF THIS--IS DIRECTED TOWARDS DWELLINGS, WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS THAT MISSING MIDDLE PIECE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS ZONING AMENDMENT IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE UNDERTAKING AND BRINGING FORWARD TO COUNCIL AND GPC AS PART OF THIS HALF PROGRAM, REALLY TO WORK AND COMBINE THESE EFFORTS TO SUPPORT NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVER THE NEXT 4 TO 10 YEARS AND HOPEFULLY BEYOND.

WE DID AS WAS REQUESTED AT LAST GPC.

WE TOOK A LOOK AT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT USE FAR, SO SOME OF THEM USE IT AS A MINIMUM, SOME OF THEM USE IT AS A MAXIMUM.

WE FOUND SOME THAT HAVE A SCALE AND SOME THAT USE FAR AND THEN HAVE EVEN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON TOP OF THAT.

SO WHAT WE DID AS PART OF OUR REVIEW IS WE TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK BEST IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE CONTEXT, AND TOGETHER WE'VE DECIDED THAT USING FAR AS A MINIMUM WOULD PRODUCE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF LAND, AS WELL AS THE TYPE OF DWELLINGS AND DEVELOPMENT THAT CITY RESIDENTS NEED.

SO WHAT I WILL DO IS ASK VIVIAN IF SHE WANTS TO COME UP AND GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW IN HER PRESENTATION.

JUST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS REQUESTED, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AFTER THAT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HELLO EVERYONE. AGAIN, IT'S VIVIAN.

I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT.

LIKE MISS WHITE JUST INTRODUCED THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION IS TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN OUR CONVERSATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

[00:05:11]

THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES NEW ZONES AND ASSOCIATED CHANGES FOR BRINGING MORE HOUSING OPTIONS, AND THERE WERE SOME GOOD DISCUSSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND A MEMO HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

FLOOR AREA RATIO, AKA FAR, IS A NEW TERM USED IN THE PROPOSED NEW ZONES.

THE DEFINITION OF FAR IS THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A DEVELOPMENT OVER THE TOTAL SITE AREA OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

I KNOW IT'S A BIT OF A MOUTHFUL WHEN I SAY IT OUT LOUD, BUT IT'S REALLY EASY TO VISUALIZE IT AS AN EQUATION AS SEEN ON THE SLIDE.

FAR IS A GOOD TOOL THAT CAN THAT CONTROLS BUILDING VOLUME AND DEVELOPMENT SCALE.

IT'S REALLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND A LARGER FAR OR A BIGGER FAR NUMBER MEANS A BIGGER BUILDING VOLUME OR DEVELOPMENT SCALE, AND VICE VERSA.

AS WE MENTIONED LAST TIME, FAR IS A VERY FLEXIBLE TOOL THAT ALLOWS FLEXIBLE SITE SITE PLANNING AND BUILDING DESIGN.

IT ALSO ACCOMMODATES FOR DIFFERENT TOPOGRAPHIES AND LIMITATIONS ON THE GROUND TO ACHIEVE DEVELOPMENT GOAL.

ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE AN ILLUSTRATION THAT SHOWS THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT ALL RESULT IN THE SAME FAR VALUE OF ONE, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY THREE OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE FAR OF ONE.

THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

THESE THREE ARE JUST CHOSEN FOR SIMPLE CALCULATION PURPOSES.

THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE TO SHOW THAT FAR IS A FLEXIBLE TOOL TO ALLOW DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS TO HAPPEN, AND IT'S FLEXIBLE THAN OUR TRADITIONAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN, THIS IS FAR IS FLEXIBLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEFINE A BOX FOR DEVELOPMENT TO FIT IN.

THE METAPHOR WE USED LAST TIME IS THAT IT'S PLAYDOUGH.

YOU CAN STRETCH IT TO DIFFERENT SIZES AND SHAPES, SHAPES, SHAPES TO ACCOMMODATE THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE IT.

IT'S A FLEXIBLE TOOL, AND HOW IS FAR USED IN OUR PROPOSED NEW ZONES.

SO WE HAVE A MINIMUM FAR REQUIREMENT BEING 1.0 FOR RI ZONE AND 0.6 FOR RI-1 ZONE, AND TO QUICKLY RECAP, THE AMENDMENT INCLUDES RE ZONE AND RI-1 ZONE.

RI-1 IS A LITE VERSION OF RI.

SO IT MAKES SENSE THAT RI-1 HAS A SMALLER FAR THAN RI ZONE, AND THE REASON THE PURPOSE WE CHOOSE, MINIMUM FAR, IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A MINIMUM SCALE WILL ADD TO OUR HOUSING SUPPLY.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS THAT MEET THIS MINIMUM SCALE, OR MINIMUM FAR, WILL BE A GOOD USE OF LAND AND WILL BE AN EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY, WHICH IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY PLAN POLICIES.

THE FAR VALUES ARE SUPPORTED BY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE FEASIBLE AND COMPATIBLE FOR OUR CITY.

EXAMPLES OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE USED TO CALCULATE AVERAGE FAR SO THE FAR FOR, AS AN EXAMPLE, AVERAGE FAR FOR DUPLEX IS 0.7.

FOR A TOWNHOUSE IT'S 0.64, FOR MULTI-UNIT IS 1.18.

THE DETAILED EXAMPLES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE MEMO IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

OH, THERE WE GO. ON TOP OF FAR THE NEW ZONES.

ALSO, THE PROPOSED NEW ZONES ALSO CONTAIN TRADITIONAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS HEIGHT LIMIT, LOT COVERAGE LIMIT, SETBACKS, AND SO ON.

THESE TRADITIONAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS WORK WITH FAR TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS, BECAUSE COMPATIBILITY IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION FOR RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION, AND WE PUT IN THESE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, VIVIAN, AND THANKS FOR ALL YOUR CLARIFICATION.

MISS WHITE. SO JUST I UNDERSTAND THE MINIMUM, I UNDERSTAND.

I LIKE THAT TWEAK TO ENSURE A MINIMUM STANDARD IN TRYING TO DO MORE WITH THE LITTLE LIMITED LAND WE HAVE BEFORE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IS IF THERE WAS A RANGE AND IT WAS OUTSIDE THAT RANGE, YOU WOULD NEED TO COME TO COUNCIL WITH THE MINIMUM.

JUST CONFIRMING THAT ELIMINATES THAT BECAUSE IT'S A MINIMUM AND, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE MORE.

[00:10:01]

THANK YOU. YES, WE WERE LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION AGAIN AFTER GPC AND THE CONCERN ABOUT VARIANCES.

SO WE ARE STILL INCLUDING THE CHANGE OF THE TEXT TO ALLOW SOME VARIANCES TO COME TO COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, BY YES REMOVING A CAP AND REMOVING A SCALE, MAKING IT A MINIMUM AND YOU BUILD UP FROM THERE, WE BELIEVE WOULD ELIMINATE ABOUT 95% OF VARIANCE REQUESTS.

THANK YOU. BUENO.

COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

SO I IN GENERAL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ADDING MORE REGULATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IT'S ADDING YET ANOTHER LAYER TO AN ALREADY I THINK, WELL LAYERED BOX.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO IF I HAD A LOT THAT'S 5000FT², THE MINIMUM BUILDING IN THE ONE ZONE WOULD BE 5000FT².

SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM SIZE WE'RE TRYING TO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT'S MATCHING THEN 0.6 WOULD BE THREE.

OKAY. THAT IS LARGE AS A MINIMUM.

I'M JUST THINKING OF PRACTICALLY HOW I'D BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT'S A THAT'S A PRETTY DAUNTING.

IT DOESN'T LEAD TO SMALL, INCREMENTAL STUFF.

THAT'S YEAH, I'LL THINK OF IT A LITTLE MORE, BUT THANKS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THE DEFINITIONS IN IN READING THE PACKAGE IN THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO.

MY READING OF THAT IS THAT AREA WOULD INCLUDE STAIRS, MECHANICAL ROOMS ALL SORTS OF THINGS LIKE THAT.

IS THAT THE CASE, OR ARE THOSE AREAS NOT INCLUDED TO MEET THE MINIMUM? MISS WHITE? SO I'M GOING TO TAKE A STAB AT THE EXPLANATION, BUT I'LL LIKELY TURN THIS TO VIVIAN.

SO THE DEFINITION AS CHANGED, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'VE CROSSED OUT GROSS BECAUSE GROSS WOULD ACTUALLY BE ALL OF THOSE OTHER ITEMS. SO WE'VE REMOVED IT AND ARE VERY SPECIFIC THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STAIRWAYS, BASEMENTS AND THOSE NON-LIVING SPACES, BUT I WILL SEE IF VIVIAN HAS SOMETHING TO ADD BECAUSE SHE SHE DRAFTED IT.

THANKS. YES, MISS WHITE IS CORRECT.

SO WE USE FLOOR AREA RATIO, WHICH BY DEFINITION EXCLUDES THOSE STAIRWELLS, MECHANICAL ROOMS THINGS THAT ARE NON LIVING SPACE.

OKAY. MAKES SENSE.

JUST YEAH JUST SORT OF A COMMENT LIKE TOTAL FLOOR AREA TO ME AS A LAYPERSON READING THE ZONING TO ME THAT WOULD INCLUDE THOSE THINGS, BUT UNDERSTOOD THAT IT DOES NOT.

ALSO FOR CLARIFICATION, IF A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON A SITE WAS LIKE 0.55 FAR AND THE SECONDARY DETACHED STRUCTURE WAS 0.1 FAR WOULD THAT COUNT AS BEING OVER THE 0.6 MINIMUM FOR THE RI-1? MISS WHITE? THANK YOU, AND I'LL TRY TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS BOTH COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN'S QUESTION AND COUNCILLOR WARBURTON'S COMMENT.

SO YES IS THE ANSWER, AND THE FAR ACTUALLY ALLOWS FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY WHERE IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE MEETING THE FAR AS ONE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING.

SO IT COULD BE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS WHICH ARE PERMITTED USES AS IDENTIFIED IN THIS ZONE ACROSS THE PROPERTY, AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT FLEXIBILITY OF FAR COMES IN, IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS MASSIVE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.

IT COULD BE AS COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN IS IDENTIFYING MULTIPLE STRUCTURES TO MAKE UP THAT EQUIVALENT FAR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND THEN ONE MORE.

SO, GIVEN THE CURRENT ZONING A DEVELOPER OR SOMEONE GETS A LOT AND IT'S GOT A BIG ROCK IN THE BACK.

THEY BUILD A DUPLEX, NOT USING THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE TO AVOID BLASTING ROCK AND INCURRING THAT COST.

WHAT WOULD IT MEAN, SAY TO THE ARGUMENT THAT GIVEN A MINIMUM FAR, INSTEAD OF BLASTING THAT ROCK AND CONSTRUCTING A LARGER BUILDING LIKE WE SEEM TO WANT TO ENCOURAGE, THE DEVELOPER SIMPLY WON'T BUILD AT ALL.

BASICALLY, LIKE THE PROFITS OF THE LARGER SCALE DON'T OUTWEIGH THE NORTHERN BUILDING CONTEXT.

MISS WHITE. THANK YOU, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY GREAT QUESTION.

SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU ASKED IT, AND I MAY TALK A LITTLE BIT HERE.

SO A PREVIEW TO NEXT WEEK WE ARE GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BYLAW.

SO WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO IS UTILIZE THIS NEW ZONE IN COORDINATION WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, AND WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

WHEN YOU OBTAIN LAND ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO COMPLETING YOUR PERMITTING PROCESS AND WE'VE LOOKED AT ABATEMENTS AND GRANTS TO HELP SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN BE USED FOR EXACTLY THIS.

IT COULD BE USED FOR THE BLASTING ON THE SITE OR GRADING ON THE SITE.

WE'RE NOT SPECIFYING SPECIFICALLY WHAT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, JUST THAT IF YOU'RE DOING X, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR Y INCENTIVE.

[00:15:08]

SO THESE ARE GOING TO BE PROGRAMS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER IN MONETARY BENEFIT THAN WE'VE EVER HAD IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE BEFORE.

SO THIS ZONING PLUS THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, AND THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO START BRINGING SOME LAND ONLINE AND SEEING HOW THIS WORKS.

NOT GUARANTEEING IT'S A PERFECT SYSTEM, BUT IT'S A START, AND WE CAN AMEND AS WE NEED TO GOING FORWARD AND SEE WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T, AND CONTINUE TO HOPEFULLY FIND WAYS TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT, NEGATING KIND OF THAT NORTHERN EXPENSE THAT WE ALWAYS HEAR ABOUT WHEN PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP IN IN YELLOWKNIFE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH. JUST HAVE A COMMENT, BUT I'LL WAIT FOR MORE QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW BECAUSE I REALLY WANT THIS IS A NEW THING THAT WE'RE ADDING.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT MAXIMUM HEIGHTS AND MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGES AND SETBACKS, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH WHY WE'RE USING THOSE TO REGULATE.

SO THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE BY ADDING THIS TO THE ZONING BYLAW IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE BUILDING THAT GOES ON THE LOT.

WOULD THAT BE CORRECT, MISS WHITE? SO THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY IS PEOPLE ARE NOT MAXIMIZING THE SETBACKS AND HEIGHTS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CURRENT ZONES, AND SO YOU COULD ARGUE IN SOME CASES THAT THE LOTS ARE BEING UNDERDEVELOPED, AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SAY WE, AT MINIMUM WANT TO SEE THIS, AND YOU CAN DEVELOP TO WHATEVER THOSE SIDE HEIGHT AND REAR FRONT YARD SETBACKS ARE. SO YES.

OKAY, AND HAVE WE REACHED OUT TO THE DEVELOPERS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE NOT MAXIMIZING? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU KNOW, BUILDING AT FOUR STORIES OR FLOORS AND BELOW, YOU DON'T NEED AN ELEVATOR.

YOU GET TO FIVE AND ABOVE YOU NEED AN ELEVATOR.

SO SOMETIMES MUNICIPALITIES WILL SAY YOU CAN BUILD FIVE FLOORS, BUT NOBODY'S GOING TO BUILD FIVE, BECAUSE ONCE YOU ADD THE FIFTH, IT COST TOO MUCH.

YOU NEED TO ADD MORE THAN FIVE.

SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GO HIGHER.

THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO WIDER, BUT THEY'RE CHOOSING NOT TO DO THAT.

DO WE KNOW WHY? SO I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS AS TO WHY.

SOME OF IT IS OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS, REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING FOR OTHER FACILITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED ON THESE LOTS.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH INFILL IS LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY ON EXISTING PAVED STREETS AND ROADS, WHERE SOME OF THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THEY'VE HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH SPACE SO THAT WHEN A FIRE TRUCK COMES IN, THEY'VE GOT THE TURNING RADIUS AND COME BACK OUT.

SO IT JUST NEEDS MORE SPACE IN GENERAL WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS AND PROPERTIES.

SO THESE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE SERVICED FROM THE EXISTING ROAD THAT'S ALREADY THERE, JUST USING A FIRE TRUCK AS AN EXAMPLE.

ANOTHER REASON LIKE I SAID IS OUR PARKING AS WELL AS THERE ARE BUILDING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH GOING HIGHER.

WHAT THIS WILL ALLOW IS INSTEAD OF GOING HAVING TO GO HIGHER, YOU CAN GO WITH MULTIPLES ON A PROPERTY.

SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOWER, BUT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A GREATER AREA OF THE PROPERTY POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT.

SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS, AND THE ONE THING THAT WE HAVE NOTED JUST IN SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN ORDER TO MAKE A DEVELOPMENT, QUOTE UNQUOTE, KIND OF PROFITABLE FOR PEOPLE TO TURN OVER, AND SO WE BELIEVE FAR HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT PUTTING OTHER REGULATIONS IN PLACE.

THANK YOU. HAVE WE DONE THEN TO BUILD ON THAT, HAVE WE ACTUALLY DONE THAT PRO FORMA ANALYSIS LIKE WE'VE TAKEN OUR REGULATIONS, TAKEN A LOT, AND DETERMINED IF THE REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WILL MAKE THE PROJECT FINANCIALLY VIABLE? MISS WHITE? SO WE DIDN'T LOOK AT FINANCIAL VIABILITY BECAUSE THAT CAN VARY.

I MEAN, RATES ARE DROPPING, THEN RATES GO UP, AND EVERYBODY WHO'S GETTING LOANS FROM SMALL DEVELOPER TO BIG DEVELOPER, THEY'RE DEALING WITH DIFFERENT RATES AND DIFFERENT TERMS. SO WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

WE DID TAKE A LOOK, AND VIVIAN MAYBE CAN GIVE SOME EXAMPLES.

WE DID APPLY BOTH THE RI AND THE RI-1 TO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY, BOTH CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AND PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE DEVELOPED, AND WE DETERMINED THAT YES, THE FAR WORKS GIVES PEOPLE MORE FLEXIBILITY, MORE ROOM, AND IN A WAY WE'RE HOPING IS GOING TO PROMOTE

[00:20:02]

WE HAVE TO BUILD SOME OF THIS MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.

VIVIAN. YEP, I CAN CERTAINLY ADD TO THAT.

YEAH. SO WE DID A LOT OF SCENARIO ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS FEASIBLE IN YELLOWKNIFE AND IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF YELLOWKNIFE.

SO WE TRIED DIFFERENT SCENARIOS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED DUPLEXES, TOWNHOUSES, MULTI-UNIT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE BUILDABLE TO MEET THE FAR.

THE HEIGHT, THE SETBACKS AND ALL THAT.

SO YES, IN THAT CASE, YES WE DID.

OKAY. SO DO WE BECAUSE ATTACHMENT A FOR ME IS A LITTLE CONCERNING, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE TOWNHOUSE THAT IS ABOVE THE 1.0 AND THE REST OF THE TOWNHOUSES ARE BELOW FAR.

SO DID WE TAKE A LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE EXAMPLES AND DETERMINE IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO HAVE BUILT TO FAR ON THOSE LOTS? BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ALREADY AT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THE MAXIMUM SETBACKS AND THE "MAXIMUM, MAXIMUM, MAXIMUM," HOW ARE THEY GOING TO MEET THE ONE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ZONING OUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT.

MISS WHITE.

THANK YOU, AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO WHEN WE LOOKED ESPECIALLY AT THE TOWNHOMES, WHAT WE UNDERSTAND IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT MAXED OUT RIGHT.

SO WHEN WE DO APPLY THE FAR, WHAT THAT WOULD RESULT IN IS THESE EXAMPLES ARE REALLY SHOWING THE UNDERUTILIZATION.

SO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS COULD HAVE MAYBE HAD 1 OR 2 ADDITIONAL UNITS TO BRING THEM UP TO THAT FAR OBJECTIVE, OR THOSE UNITS THEMSELVES COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT LARGER.

THERE IS ROOM AVAILABLE ON THESE LOTS TO FACILITATE THE FAR AS WE ARE PROPOSING.

THANK YOU. I GUESS THE NEXT QUESTION THOUGH IS I THINK THESE ARE GOOD AS IS AND THAT LIKE AND BY ACHIEVING THE FAR WE WOULD BE REDUCING SOMEBODY'S YARD OR POTENTIALLY MAKING THEM. WELL I DON'T THINK THEY COULD GO ANY HIGHER BECAUSE THEY'RE PROBABLY MAXED OUT FOR HEIGHT.

SO ARE WE NOT DOING A TRADE OFF THAT'S MAKING PEOPLE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT'S LARGER AND REDUCE THEIR YARD? MISS WHITE, THANK YOU.

SO THE YARDS AND THE SETBACKS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THIS NEW ZONE.

SO WHILE WE MAY BE A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE STREET, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME ADDITIONAL EITHER COMMUNAL ROOM IN THE BACK DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS.

AS WELL AS THESE ARE AREAS WHERE WHEN WE'RE APPLYING RE AND RE ONE IT'S INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THERE'S ALREADY POTENTIALLY TRAILS PARKS ETC.

IN THE AREA. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST AS WELL IS NEXT WEEK WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE SEEING OUR HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS WHAT WE ACTUALLY ARE PROJECTED TO NEED IN RELATION TO KIND OF DWELLING SIZES WITH REGARDS TO BEDROOMS, AND BY ADDING FAR, WE WILL SEE LARGER UNITS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING PROJECTED THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED.

SO THAT'S THE THREE BEDROOMS. THE FOUR BEDROOMS. IT'S ACTUALLY MORE THAN I EVEN THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE.

SO I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED AT THAT.

SO MAKING SPACE ON THESE PROPERTIES FOR LARGER DWELLINGS WILL HELP FACILITATE THAT NEED GOING FORWARD.

WITH REGARDS TO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE EXAMPLES, IF YOU'RE STANDING IN FRONT OF IT, THOUGH, THINK ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY TWO FEET ON EACH UNIT, RIGHT? IS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER? IT'S REALLY NOT.

SO IT MIGHT MAKE THE ROW OF HOMES OR EVEN A DUPLEX A LITTLE WIDER, BUT THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE OUTSIDE AMENITY SPACE, BUT IT WILL BE ADDING TO THE SPACE INSIDE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, BUT JUST TO CONFIRM VIVIAN MENTIONED A LOT OF THE SCENARIO ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REGULATIONS COULD BE BUILT, BUT THE SCENARIO ANALYSIS DIDN'T INCLUDE WHETHER THEY WOULD BE FINANCIALLY VIABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

IS THAT CORRECT, MISS WHITE? CORRECT. BECAUSE EACH DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

SO AS I STATED EARLIER, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THROUGH THE INCENTIVES IS THESE ARE A SERIES OF TOOLS THAT WE WANT TO PUT IN PLACE THAT WILL COMPOUND ON EACH OTHER. SO AS I SAID, EVERY DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPER HAS DIFFERENT COSTS DEPENDING ON THE MATERIALS AND HOW THEY DO THEIR BUILDS.

SO IT WOULD BE I DON'T WANT TO SAY UNREALISTIC, BUT IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD EXAMPLE TO TRY TO WORK OUT THE COST OF BUILDING, BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PUT IN PLACE INCENTIVES TO HELP ALONG THE WAY.

SO NOT ONLY CAN THIS ZONE BE PUT IN PLACE, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES COMING FORWARD WILL HELP SUPPORT BUILDING OF THESE UNITS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR WE NEED IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

I GUESS JUST FOR ME, MY CONCERN, THOUGH, IS IF WE'RE NOT DOING ANY FINANCIAL MODELING, WE'RE NOT DETERMINING WHETHER THE INCENTIVES ARE EVEN GOING TO

[00:25:08]

MAXIMUM HEIGHT SETBACKS, MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, I FEEL IS ENOUGH TO ADDRESS MAKING IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO IF WE'RE NOT DOING ANY FINANCIAL MODELING, THAT'S THE THING THAT I'M GETTING HUNG UP ON.

IF I THINK THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE MAXIMIZING THE BUILD RIGHT NOW, AND IF THEY'RE NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT JUST ADDING FAR IS GOING TO DO THAT.

I THINK IT IS A FINANCIAL QUESTION, AND IF WE'RE NOT DOING THE FINANCIAL MODELING, WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT QUESTION.

SO FOR ME, I WOULD PREFER RIGHT NOW TO REMOVE FAR AND TO JUST FOCUS ON MAXIMUM HEIGHTS, THE SETBACKS, THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE AND THE FACT THAT, LIKE WHAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED OR REALLY TALKED A LOT ABOUT IS THAT WE'RE REALLY REGULATING OUT SINGLE FAMILY.

SO EVERY LOT THAT WE ARE CREATING IS GOING TO BE A DUPLEX AND ABOVE.

SO I DO THINK THAT WE ARE ENHANCING BEST USE OF LAND THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT JUST WONDERING ADMINS THOUGHTS ON REMOVING FAR WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD IT IN AT A FUTURE TIME.

ONCE WE HAVE A BIT MORE OF AN ANALYSIS TO BECAUSE MAYBE WE ADD THIS ZONE AND EVERYBODY IS NOW BUILDING TO THE MAXIMUM.

SO JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE ADVISABILITY OF REMOVING FAR FROM THE ZONES.

MISS WHITE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO I GUESS TO ADDRESS THE FIRST PART, WE DO HAVE SOME NUMBERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD NEXT WEEK AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE CONVERSATION THERE.

WE DID LOOK AT COST OF LAND AND HOW IT HAS CHANGED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

DEVELOPMENT COSTS, THAT NORTHERN EXPENSE THAT WE CAN, WE'LL JUST CALL IT THAT, I GUESS, AS WELL AS THE CHANGE IN FINANCING OVER TIME. SO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT INCENTIVES, WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT AND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THROUGH THAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM. I DO FIND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE FOR JUST LOOKING AT FAR TO PULL UP THOSE DEVELOPMENT COSTS, I MEAN, WE COULD LOOK AT WHAT IS EXISTING AND WHAT THOSE EXISTING PERMITS ARE, BUT IT MAY BE A CHALLENGE IN THE VARIABLE MARKET, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY DEVELOPERS FIND THAT AS WELL. TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION, THOUGH, WHAT DOES REMOVING FAR DO? WHAT IT DOES IS IT POTENTIALLY COULD REMOVE INCENTIVE TO FULLY BUILD OUT A LOT.

SO SOME OF THE LOTS THAT WE ARE WE KNOW FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT, HAVE SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL AREAS ON THEM THAT MAY REQUIRE GRADING, AND SO IF FAR IS REMOVED BECAUSE THE, THE LOWEST NUMBER OF DWELLINGS THAT CAN BE PUT ON ONE OF THESE, SAY RI-1 SITES IS A DUPLEX, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS JUST A DUPLEX, AND THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT WOULD BE UNDERUTILIZED.

USING FAR, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRING A MINIMUM SIZE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LOT, AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TIE IT INTO THE BENEFITS, AS I JUST MENTIONED, COMING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, WHICH WE BELIEVE WOULD MAKE DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE THAT MAY BE A LITTLE TOPOGRAPHICALLY CHALLENGING, NOT ONLY VIABLE, BUT WOULD RESULT IN MORE UNITS BEING BUILT WITHOUT FAR.

THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO DO THAT, SO THEY COULD POTENTIALLY APPLY FOR A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE JUST FOR THE DUPLEX, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE NEARLY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE THEY WOULD GET IF THEY WERE PUTTING, SAY, 5 OR 6 UNITS ON THE SAME LOT, BECAUSE THESE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE OF A SIZE WHERE MULTIPLE UNITS ARE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE NOT ONLY OF THE LAND, BUT ALSO OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S RUNNING ALREADY ON THESE ROADS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT, AND FOR ME, IF OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW IS INCENTIVE ENOUGH, THEN PEOPLE WILL BE USING IT TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THEIR BEST USE WITHOUT NEEDING FAR.

SO FOR ME, I'M GOOD WITH GOING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW, AND AND IF THE INCENTIVES ARE ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BLAST AND BUILD MORE ON IT, OR I AM OKAY WITH PEOPLE HAVING A BIT MORE OF A YARD AND HAVING A SMALLER UNIT.

[00:30:04]

COUNCILLOR PAYNE.

THANK YOU.

I'M JUST WONDERING, THESE NEW FIRE REGULATIONS, ARE THEY PRIMARILY ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE DECIDED INTERNALLY? MISS WHITE? SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

SO WE HAVEN'T I WOULDN'T SAY GOT A YAY OR NAY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WE'VE RECENTLY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM AS PART OF OUR HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW IS, IS NOT JUST DEVELOPING, BUT IT'S GETTING THE LAND TO DEVELOP WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY CAN MARKET, AND THERE'S VARIOUS OPINIONS ACROSS THE BOARD ON WHAT THAT MARKET IS AND REMEMBERING EACH DEVELOPER DEVELOPS DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO THE NUMBER THAT WE'VE SPECIFICALLY PUT IN HERE IS NOT JUST BASED ON YELLOWKNIFE, IT'S BASED ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL AS WHAT WORKS WELL IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, BUT AS FOR A SPECIFIC DRIVER FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, NO OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS AGREED UPON AND ALL THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED IS WE NEED MORE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND MORE LAND TO DO THAT SO FAR MAXIMIZES THE TOTAL USE OF LAND THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS VERY LIMITED. THANK YOU.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

YEAH. I JUST WOULDN'T WANT THIS TO BE LIKE A HINDRANCE TO ANY DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, LIKE BASICALLY, I'VE TALKED TO TONS OF DEVELOPERS AND THEY JUST SOMETIMES THEY JUST WANT THE CITY TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THEM DO WHAT THEY DO.

RIGHT, AND THE MORE REGULATIONS SOMETIMES THAT WE PUT ON THINGS I THINK THE MORE WE'RE HOLDING THESE DEVELOPERS BACK.

SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I'M JUST NOT SURE IF IN MY MIND IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU COULD DO IT EITHER OR, BUT HAVING HAVING THESE REGULATIONS SET IN STONE MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST, BUT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

YEAH. IN GENERAL, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING FAR NOW.

I DON'T HAVE ANY SITUATION WHERE ADDING MORE REGULATION HAS ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO DO MORE THINGS.

IT'S USUALLY THE OPPOSITE, AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT THE WHOLE GOAL OF DEVELOPING IS TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF YOUR SPACE.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE PURPOSE.

HAVING SOMETHING THAT FORCES YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE MAY MEAN THAT.

WELL, IT WILL MEAN YOU JUST WON'T DO IT.

SO YEAH, I WOULD SUPPORT TAKING IT OUT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I THINK WE'D BE ADDING LESS AND MAKING THINGS MORE EFFICIENT, NOT ADDING MORE.

SO IF IT DOESN'T WORK, WE CAN PUT IT IN LATER, BUT PREEMPTIVELY PUTTING SOMETHING IN I DON'T AGREE WITH.

THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR.

COCHRANE. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP.

I'M ON THE SAME PAGE AS MY COLLEAGUES HERE.

I THINK FAR SEEMS TO BE A CART BEFORE THE HORSE SITUATION.

UNTIL I SEE WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES LOOK LIKE MIXED WITH THE HOUSING ASSESSMENT.

I THINK THIS IS ADDING A REGULATION THAT DOESN'T SEEM NECESSARY, THOUGH.

OF COURSE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SAID.

WE CAN TRACK, WE CAN ADJUST AND WE CAN ADD IT LATER.

FOR NOW, IT JUST SEEMS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY COMPARED TO SEEING WHAT WILL COME OUT NEXT WEEK, AND THEN AGAIN, WE CAN DECIDE UPON THIS LATER.

THANK YOU, AND I WOULD SUPPORT TAKING IT UP.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR ADMIN. WHEN THE ZONING BYLAW WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE, WAS ANY FINANCIAL MODELING DONE ON ANY OF THOSE OTHER TYPES OF ZONES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY? MISS WHITE? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO.

SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE A FINANCIAL MODELING DONE FOR THIS TYPE OF ZONE WOULD SEEM A LITTLE EXTRA.

ONE OTHER THING IS JUST TO NOTE THAT THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY UNLESS MISS WHITE PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ONLY TO THESE R1 AND RI-1 ZONES NOT TO ANYTHING ELSE.

CORRECT. THE RI AND RI ONE.

MISS WHITE. YES, THAT'S CORRECT, AND SO REALLY IT'S WE'RE WE'RE BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL TO SAY LET'S GIVE IT A TRY AND SEE.

IT'S A NEW ZONE RIGHT NOW.

IT WILL APPLY TO ABSOLUTELY NO LAND IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, AND BY TRYING IT WE'LL SEE WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOOD WITH WITH FAR OR WE'RE NOT, AND IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

OTHER QUESTION RELATED I KNOW ALL OF THIS WORK IS REALLY HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE FUNDS COMING FROM THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND, FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS BECOMING MORE COMMONPLACE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AS A RESULT OF THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND.

[00:35:04]

SO YES, THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND.

WHAT IT IS, IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I'M SURE MANY OF US HAVE SEEN THESE.

WE'LL CALL THEM BLANKET ZONINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE IN PLACES LIKE CALGARY WITH THEIR TWO WEEK LONG PUBLIC HEARING, CITY OF OTTAWA.

SO SOME MUNICIPALITIES HAVE MUCH STRICTER ZONING ZONING AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HALF IN THE NORTH, THERE ARE LESS RIGOROUS REQUIREMENTS.

WE STILL HAVE TO AIM TO CREATE ZONING AMENDMENTS THAT WILL FACILITATE NEW MISSING MIDDLE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S A REQUIREMENT IN OUR AGREEMENT.

WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT BLANKET FOUR UNITS PER EVERY SINGLE LOT.

ALSO, IT DOESN'T WORK IN YELLOWKNIFE.

SO IF WE THINK OF OUR SERVICING, THINK OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ON TRUCK SERVICE, FOUR UNITS ON A SMALL LOT.

I MEAN, HOW WOULD THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE? SO WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC.

SO WHAT THIS IS, IS LOOKING AT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

WE'RE HOPING THAT IT'S GOING TO RESULT ON NEW LANDS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO MARKET IN MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING BEING BUILT.

THIS ISN'T GOING TO APPLY TO LANDS THAT ARE ALREADY R-2 OR R-1 ZONED OR R-C OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER ZONES.

THIS WOULD JUST BE ON A GO FORWARD BASIS TO TRY IT OUT.

IF IT'S SUCCESSFUL, WE HOPEFULLY WOULD CONTINUE USING IT.

IF IT WASN'T, THEN IT'S NOT REALLY IMPACTING ANYONE AND IT CAN BE EITHER AMENDED OR REMOVED ENTIRELY FROM THE BYLAW.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT.

REGARDING AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN ON OUR DOCKET FOR THE LAST OR NOT ON OUR DOCKET, BUT, YOU KNOW, A POINT OF CONVERSATION AROUND VARIANCES AND APPEALS.

IF WE REMOVED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, WOULD THERE BE A POTENTIAL FOR PEOPLE TO APPEAL PROPERTIES OF THIS NATURE IF THEY HAD SOMETHING THAT WAS A LOWER FLOOR AREA RATIO? SO, YOU KNOW, LOWER BUILDINGS.

SO WE WERE TALKING TO THE AMENDMENT OR THE APPENDIX YOU HAD IN THE PAPER WHERE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TOWNHOUSES.

SO IF WE HAD TOWNHOUSES LIKE THAT, WE'RE TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR HIGHER BUILDING, AND YET THIS IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

WOULD THOSE BE OPEN FOR APPEAL THEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A FLOOR AREA RATIO, MAYBE.

I'M NOT MAKING SENSE.

I'M PROBABLY NOT, BUT THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR FEQUET.

I GUESS, YEAH, SO, SORRY WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IF WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE MORE BUILDING AND DENSER BUILDING, INTENSIFIED BUILDING, ARE WE OPENING OURSELVES UP TO APPEALS? IF WE HAVE IF WE DON'T HAVE A FLOOR AREA RATIO, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, THIS BUILDING IS TOO LARGE, IT'S TOO, YOU KNOW, IT'S TOO HIGH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ACTUALLY INTENSIFY BUILDING, AND NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CREATING MORE CHALLENGES AND SLOWDOWNS BY NOT HAVING A REGULATION.

MISS WHITE, THANK YOU.

SO I THINK THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THE QUESTION.

I'LL GET YOU THERE.

OKAY. SO TO THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IF A REGULATION IS NOT WITHIN THE ZONING BYLAW AND DOES NOT MEET THE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR RIGHTS OF APPEAL, AN APPEAL CANNOT OCCUR.

SO IF IT DOESN'T EXIST, YOU CAN'T APPEAL IT.

RIGHT. HOWEVER, YOUR SECOND QUESTION IS IF WE HAVE A REGULATION WHERE WE'RE SAYING IT'S A MINIMUM AND WE'RE TRYING TO INCENT WAYS FOR MORE HOUSING TO BE BUILT, CAN THAT FACILITATE AN APPEAL? AND SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THERE'S A COUPLE ANSWERS TO IT.

THE FIRST IS IF IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING BYLAW, THEN NO.

OKAY. THE SECOND WOULD BE, BUT WHAT IF THERE'S A VARIANCE, RIGHT? SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO THEY'RE ON A CORNER AND THEY NEED TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE SIDE OF THE CORNER BY 1.1 OF A METER.

THAT VARIANCE IN AND OF ITSELF COULD BE GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL.

OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS IN BUILDING THE FAR AND THE YARD REQUIREMENTS, THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT SUCH THAT A VARIANCES AREN'T REQUIRED, WHICH WOULD LOWER THE AMOUNT OF APPEAL, BUT MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE BUILDING OR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE TO BE ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ALSO COULD THEN NOT BE APPEALED.

SO IF EVERYTHING IS MET, THEN THAT GROUND FOR APPEAL WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, AND I AM A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY WHO IS NOT VERSED IN THESE THINGS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION TO OR ANSWERED MY VERY CONFUSING QUESTION.

SO WITH THAT, I KIND OF AM, I'M DEFINITELY IN THE MINORITY OF THE OPINION GIVEN TO DATE SO FAR, OR GIVEN TO THIS POINT SO FAR, BECAUSE I'M SORT OF IN THE MENTALITY OF

[00:40:04]

IF ANYTHING, I'M IN THE OPINION OF THE WORDS THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS USED TODAY, WHICH IS LET'S TRY SOMETHING TO SPUR THESE THINGS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING THE RESULTS WE'RE SEEKING AT THE MOMENT.

SO THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD'S AT.

I WOULD RATHER LEAVE THIS IN FOR THE NEXT CONVERSATION WHEN WE ACTUALLY SEE THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, BECAUSE IF THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SAYS THIS IS ACTUALLY VALUABLE, THEN WE CAN HAVE IT AT COUNCIL WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS, IF WE DETERMINE IT'S NOT SUCCESSFUL, THEN WE CAN YANK IT THEN.

WHEREAS IF WE YANK IT NOW, IT DOESN'T GO FORWARD FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE.

SO THAT'S WHERE MY MIND IS AT IS I WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE IT IN GOING FROM TODAY.

I KNOW IT CONTINUES A THE CONVERSATION, WHICH I KNOW SOME MIGHT NOT WANT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M AT, IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SEEING THIS BUILDING ALREADY.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE STOPPING SOMETHING THROUGH REGULATION THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

IF ANYTHING, THIS PUSHES PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING NEW, AND IT IS A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING.

I MEAN, THE DIRECTOR SORT OF IDENTIFIED, LIKE AROUND THE USE OF YARDS AND PARKING.

YES. THIS WILL LIKELY MEAN SMALLER YARDS, LESS PARKING ON A LOT, BUT THAT'S ALSO HOW WE HAVE TO THINK HOLISTICALLY AS A CITY IN TERMS OF PARK SPACE, IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO NATURE, IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO TRAILS.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE INTERCONNECTED, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM IS WHEN WE LOOK AT ALL OF THESE THINGS AS INDIVIDUAL PIECES, WE HAVE TO BE THINKING BROADLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FAR AND HOW WE BUILD A LOT ALONG WITH OUR COMMUNITY BUILDING MORE BROADLY.

SO I JUST AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS SORT OF IN MY HEAD, BROADEN OUT OUR SCOPE TO HOW WE ACTUALLY SEE OUR COMMUNITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPING.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OR IS BECAUSE THIS REQUIRES A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, THE BYLAW THAT GOES FORWARD.

IF NOBODY ATTENDS THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCIL CAN'T REMOVE A SECTION OR ADD A SECTION AT SECOND READING, IT HAS TO BE CHANGES AT SECOND READING TO GIVE EFFECT TO WHAT WE HEARD AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? CITY CLERKS? SO YEAH, JUST TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL IS CLEAR, IT'S NOT LIKE OTHER BYLAWS OR MOTIONS WHERE WE CAN TINKER AND DO AMENDMENTS AT SECOND READING.

WE CAN MAKE ADDITIONS OR SUBTRACTIONS, BUT ONLY BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING.

HEARINGS. SO JUST A WORD OF CAUTION IN CASE NOBODY COMES AND SPEAKS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST.

I MEAN, FOR MYSELF, I WOULD STILL LEAVE IT IN BECAUSE I SORT OF EVERYTHING ELSE I SAID FOR ME STILL STANDS, BUT I APPRECIATE IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION FOR MY COLLEAGUES.

PERFECT. COUNCILLOR FEQUET, AND THEN COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

QUESTION FOR ADMIN OR MAYBE A COMMENT BEFORE I FORGET IT.

COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN'S COMMENTS MADE ME THINK THAT SOMEONE WHO CAN'T FIND A PLACE TO LIVE HERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE PARKS AND NATURE THAT WE HAVE.

SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE OF THOSE IS A PRIORITY, BUT MY QUESTION FOR ADMIN IS WITH WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE TABLES, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF WE TAKE OUT THE FAR FROM THE R-1 AND THE R-1 LITE? LIKE WHAT'S THE WHAT ARE THE MAIN? IS THERE REALLY ANY MAIN DIFFERENCES THAN THE ZONES WE HAVE NOW? YEAH. THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALLOWED IN THESE ONES, MISS WHITE? THAT'S CORRECT. SO REALLY THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE.

WE'RE TRYING TO FACILITATE THAT MISSING MIDDLE, AND IF YOU REMEMBER AND MAYBE I CAN FLIP IT ONTO THE SCREEN, THE CHART WHICH WAS THAT SPECTRUM OF HOUSING.

SO RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE IS A LOT OF LOTS WHERE IT'S ZONED THAT ALLOWS EVERYTHING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO APARTMENT, AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING LIKE MULTI-STORY, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS SINGLE FAMILIES BEING BUILT AND WE'RE SEEING THOSE MULTI-STORY MULTI UNIT BE BUILT, BUT WHAT WE'RE NOT SEEING AND AT LEAST IN THE LAST TEN YEARS IS ANY SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT ON THAT MIDDLE PIECE.

WE DID GO BACK, I DID TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE BUILDING PERMITS JUST TO SEE LIKE WHEN WAS THAT LAST TOWNHOUSE BUILT.

SO AND WHILE YOU KNOW TIME TREKS ON WHILE WE'RE NOT GAINING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF LAND, WE ARE GAINING A LITTLE BIT THROUGH OUR APPLICATIONS, BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY NEED WANT TO LOOK LIKE? WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE IN 50 YEARS FROM NOW? RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO HAVE THAT VARIABILITY WITHIN.

IT'S A RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE A VARIABILITY WITHIN THE HOUSING SPECTRUM.

THANK YOU. THANKS, AND SO IF FIRE WAS REMOVED FROM THESE ZONES

[00:45:05]

DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO HAVE A FEW.

MISS WHITE. THANK YOU.

SO I GUESS FIRST, YES, THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW UNDERSTANDING THAT IF FAR IS REMOVED, THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC INCENTIVES THAT ARE TIED TO THIS ZONE.

SO WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT INCENTIVES, WE WERE THINKING OF THIS AS A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE.

SO REZONING CREATE A ZONE THAT COULD FACILITATE NEW TYPES OF HOUSING AND THEN TAILOR THOSE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR THIS SPECIFIC ZONE.

WHILE YES, THERE ARE INCENTIVES AND ABATEMENTS FOR OTHER ZONES, WE DID SPECIFICALLY THINK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE OF THESE LOTS AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THOSE INCENTIVES WERE.

IF FAR IS REMOVED, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AND GO BACK TO SEE IF THOSE INCENTIVES ARE STILL GOING TO DO WHAT WE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITH THE FAR IN WE WILL STILL BRING THE INCENTIVE BYLAW FORWARD AS IT IS DRAFTED, AND WE MAY HAVE TO RECOMMEND SOME AMENDMENTS AT THAT POINT. THANK YOU, AND YOU KIND OF GOT INTO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH WAS I RECOGNIZE THAT PLANNING HAS BEEN DOING AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF WORK AND ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTS ARE SEQUENCED, WHETHER PEOPLE REALIZE IT OR NOT.

FROM THE END OF THE FROM THE SUMMER TO CHRISTMAS.

TIME FOR A BIG PRESENT UNDER THE TREE.

SO, YEAH.

WHAT IMPLICATIONS, IF ANY, OTHER THAN POTENTIAL TWEAKS TO THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BYLAW, MIGHT THIS HAVE TO THE TO THE OTHER WORK OR THE OTHER KIND OF ITEMS IN THE QUEUE RELATED TO HELPING US DEVELOP MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY? MISS WHITE? THANK YOU.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO YEAH, PUTTING DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ASIDE, WHAT IS THIS ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE ON THE GROUND IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT FAR? WELL, WE HAVE SOME LANDS THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED TO COUNCIL.

WE'VE ALSO RECENTLY BEEN ABLE TO ACQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL LANDS THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP FOR THESE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND WHAT THAT WILL RESULT IN IS PROBABLY A CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT WE SUBDIVIDE THESE LOTS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ZONING TO SEE HOW WE CAN USE THE ZONING TO FACILITATE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE, WHEREAS WITH FAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS THAT MINIMUM THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP TO LARGER LOTS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MEET SOME OF THESE ITEMS WHICH ARE UP ON THE SCREEN AT THE MOMENT AND TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED LATER.

IT'LL PUT MORE ON US TO TRY TO DECIDE WHAT THE BEST USE IS FOR THE PROPERTY AND CREATE THE SUBDIVISIONS THAT MATCH THAT.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S MORE DIFFICULT, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT STEP.

WHEREAS IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY DECISIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CREATIVITY WITH THE DEVELOPERS RATHER THAN ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS TO MEET THEIR MARKET NEEDS.

SO THAT'S ONE IMPACT.

ANOTHER IMPACT IS AND I'VE SAID IT A NUMBER OF TIMES, SO I MAY SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, BUT WE HAVE ALREADY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND AND WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT.

SO THE LESS UNITS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, THE LESS PEOPLE PAYING FOR IT, THE MORE COST IT IS, BOTH FOR US AND FOR THOSE NEW PEOPLE.

SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF IMPLICATIONS, AND AS I SAID, IT'S LET'S TRY IT OUT, SEE IF IT WORKS, AND I'M OKAY WITHIN A YEAR AND A HALF SAYING THIS IS NOT WORKING OR SAYING IT IS WORKING AND WE COULD TWEAK IT TO DO X, SO I'M ALWAYS OPEN TO THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND KIND OF ALLUDED TO MY NEXT QUESTION TOO.

IT'S LIKE YOU'RE READING MY MIND, AND SO WHEN THE PROPOSED NEW ZONES R-1, R-1 LITE OR THE RI LITE ZONES WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR NEW PARCELS OF LAND, WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS? YEP, STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS, MISS WHITE.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO ANY REZONING OF PROPERTY WOULD COME TO COUNCIL, AND YES, THERE WOULD BE NOT ONLY PUBLIC NOTICE.

SO WE PROVIDE NOTICE NOT JUST ON SITE, BUT ALSO TO ALL PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN 30M.

SOMETIMES WE GO BIGGER DEPENDING ON WHERE IT IS, AND YES, THERE WOULD BE A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AND ULTIMATELY PEOPLE COULD VOICE THEIR OPINION AT THAT TIME.

THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS.

I WAS JUST WALKING MYSELF THROUGH THAT BECAUSE I THINK IN GENERAL, RULES ARE ONLY GOOD IF THEY'RE FOR A REASON.

YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY ECHO THE THOUGHTS OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT WE DON'T WANT TO OVERREGULATE, BUT THIS IN MY MIND IS A TOOL WE'RE CONSIDERING PUTTING IN TO TRY AND I THINK REGARDLESS OF THE HOUSING STUDY BEING BEFORE US, YET WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT THOSE LARGER BEDROOM UNITS FOR FAMILIES IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE'RE MISSING

[00:50:09]

SO, I MEAN, I'M CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THIS IN AT THIS TIME RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S OTHER WAYS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT IF IT'S NOT WORKING OR IT NEEDS TO CHANGE, IT SHOULD, BUT I DON'T SEE ANOTHER TOOL THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED OR IS PRESENT TO HELP US ACHIEVE WHAT WE ALL KNOW WE NEED TO WORK TOWARDS, AND FOR SURE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WILL.

IT WILL CAUSE ONE DEVELOPER NOT TO MOVE AHEAD OR SOMETHING, AND THAT FEEDBACK IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD BE COLLECTING THAT, AND WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THOSE THINGS TO INFORM OUR DECISIONS, BUT I THINK AT THIS TIME I'M NOT AWARE OF OF WHAT OUR OTHER BIG OPTIONS ARE, AND I KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ARE THE OTHER THE OTHER PIECE, BUT THAT'S JUST A COMPLIMENTARY PIECE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

IT'S TIED AGAIN TO THIS ZONE SO THAT IT WILL INCENTIVIZE AND SUPPORT MAYBE THAT FINANCIAL DIFFERENCE OF TRYING TO GET MORE INTENSIFICATION. SO YEAH, I THINK THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR NOW.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH. I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF LEAVING IN THE FAR IN THESE NEW ZONES.

THE BIGGEST FACTOR FOR ME IS LONG TERM PLANNING AND THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE FOR US AS A MUNICIPALITY TO GAIN ACCESS TO NEW LAND, EVEN WITHIN OUR BOUNDARY.

EVEN IF WE COULD, THE COST OF SERVICING AND REPLACING OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE MEANS LARGE SCALE WATER AND SEWER EXPANSION WOULD BE CHALLENGING AND IN MY MIND, FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. THIS MEANS WE MUST WE MUST USE THE LAND THAT WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO, AND THAT IS ALREADY SERVICED AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

I AGREE WITH STAFF THAT THE MINIMUM FAR COUPLED WITH INCENTIVES IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS.

I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE CHALLENGES FACING DEVELOPERS IN THE NORTH.

I DISAGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THEIR MAIN GOAL IS ALWAYS TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF SPACE.

I BELIEVE THEIR MAIN GOAL IS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR RETURN ON THEIR AVAILABLE CAPITAL.

IF THAT IS THE QUICKER PROJECT THAT ONLY GIVES TWO HOUSING UNITS ON A LOT THAT COULD HAVE HELD EIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS A HOUSING CRISIS.

IF OUR REGULATION RESULTS IN UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THESE INFILL LOTS, THEN THE ONLY COURSE OF ACTION FOR FUTURE COUNCILS WOULD BE VERY LARGE AND VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENTS IF THE LAND IS EVEN AVAILABLE.

FOR THAT REASON, I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE FAR IN THESE ZONES.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH.

THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING FAR FOR MYSELF.

I THINK WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS, I THINK WE HAVE GREAT INTENTION IN THIS.

HOWEVER I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILLOR WARBURTON IN.

I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ADDING MORE REGULATIONS, MAKING IT EASIER FOR ANY KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCE, AND WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH HOUSING, YES, AGAIN, WE HAVE BEST INTENTION.

HOWEVER, WE ARE ALREADY AT LIMITED DEVELOPERS HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE.

SO, I MEAN, COUNCILLOR FEQUET SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOSE ONE, WELL, THEN WE LOSE ONE, BUT , I MEAN, WE'RE ALREADY AT LACK OF DEVELOPERS.

I THINK WHEN WE'RE WE'RE DISCUSSING THESE, WE NEED TO CHAT WITH OUR EXISTING DEVELOPERS AND WHAT THEY NEED AND THEIR SUPPORTS.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THIS FOR THE TIME BEING.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

THANK YOU.

TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, KEEPING IT IN, I HAVE COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN, COUNCILLOR FEQUET, COUNCILLOR HENDRIKSEN FOR REMOVING, MYSELF, COUNCILLOR WARBURTON, DEPUTY MAYOR COCHRANE STILL IN FAVOR OF REMOVING.

YES. COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH AND COUNCILLOR PAYNE ON REMOVING.

SO THE MAJORITY ARE IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING.

SO THAT BEING SAID OF WE WILL REMOVE IT FROM THE DRAFT THAT COMES FORWARD FOR FIRST READING.

IF PEOPLE COME AND SPEAK IN FAVOR, THEN IT'S A DISCUSSION AGAIN AT SECOND READING, BUT ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL ON THIS? SEEING NONE, THIS IS KIND OF SIX AND SEVEN, I GUESS, TOGETHER.

NUMBER SEVEN, WE WILL UPDATE TO REMOVE THE REFERENCES TO THE FAR BEFORE IT COMES FORWARD FOR FIRST READING.

ANYTHING FURTHER, MISS WHITE? THANK YOU. CAN I JUST GET CONFIRMATION WHEN IT COMES FORWARD FOR FIRST READING? WOULD YOU LIKE A CLEAN COPY AND A WHAT WE'LL CALL A RED LINE COPY, JUST SO WE CAN SHOW WHERE ALL OF THOSE ITEMS ARE FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

IT'S A CLEAN COPY, I WOULD SAY WITH, LIKE, IF IT'S A MARKING, IT WOULD BE A MARKING ON OUR CURRENT ZONING ZONING BYLAW VERSUS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN FIRST READING.

[00:55:05]

YEAH. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER NEXT WOULD BE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW NUMBER

[8. A memorandum regarding whether to amend Fees and Charges By‐law No. 4436, as amended, by amending Part 18 of Schedule B.]

SO THIS IS GETTING ALL THE 2024 FEES BACK TO 2024 RATES PLUS THE NEW DEVELOPMENT APPEAL.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S MIGHTY RED.

EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE BLACK ITEM.

THAT WAS OUR LAST CHANGE.

SO ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THAT'LL BE BROUGHT FORWARD NEXT COUNCIL WHICH IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH AT 7 P.M., AND THEN FIRST READING OF THE ZONING BYLAW FOR THE RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ZONES WILL ALSO BE FIRST READING NEXT OCTOBER 15TH WITH THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING HAPPENING MONDAY, OCTOBER 28TH AT 7 P.M..

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

IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVED BY COUNCILLOR ARDEN-SMITH, WE CAN BE ADJOURNED.

SEE EVERYBODY NEXT TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH AT 12:05.

THERE'LL BE PLENTY OF HOUSING STUFF ON THE AGENDA AGAIN.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.