25 May 2026 Council meeting Housing

Covenant Amendment No. CA20 and Development Permit No. DP1373 - 6055 Turner Road and 6045 Linley Valley Drive (Part 1)

Motion

That Council direct Staff to amend covenant CA4430955 on the property titles of 6055 Turner Road and 6045 Linley Valley Drive to reduce the minimum requirement for underground parking from 90% to 45% for Phase 1, and to require a minimum 32% green space over both lots.

Minutes, page 14

Sources

Agenda itemCity agenda, whole meeting

Staff reportPage 2

Purpose

To present for Council’s consideration an application to amend a Section 219 covenant on the property titles of 6055 Turner Road and 6045 Linley Valley Drive, which requires 90% underground parking, and a development permit application for a mixed-use, multi-family and commercial development.

Staff report, page 2

Staff recommendation

1. That Council direct Staff to amend covenant CA4430955 on the property titles of 6055 Turner Road and 6045 Linley Valley Drive to reduce the minimum requirement for underground parking from 90% to 45% for Phase 1, and to require a minimum 32% green space over both lots; and 2. That Council issue Development Permit No. DP1373 for a mixed-use multi-family residential and commercial development at 6055 Turner Road and 6045 Linley Valley Drive with variances as outlined in the “Proposed Variances” section of the Staff Report titled “Covenant Amendment No. CA20 and Development Permit No. DP1373 - 6055 Turner Road and 6045 Linley Valley Drive”, dated 2026-MAY-25.

Staff report, page 2

DocumentsStaff report about Housing, Land Use & Urban Form, Economic Development (Proposed Variances), Land Use & Urban Form (Proposed Variances)

Questions and answers

Councillor Ben Geselbracht
No

asked

those in favor. Sorry, Councillor Gesselbrox. Some questions to staff here. Um, at the most recent. Neighbourhood association, uh, engagement and feedback, uh, Rutherford neighbourhood association brought up specifically a large concern about. Development, uh, in this area. And the amount of development in this area and the loss of, uh, treed and green spaces. And one thing that was brought to my attention was, um. The surface parking wasn't included in the calculation of maximum lock coverage for a development. And, um. My concern here is I'm just curious why this covenant was, was put in place in the first place. Um, and. Was that for reasons of minimizing, um, sort of the impact of loss of green space. And that's my first question. Uh, thank you to your

J. Holm

answeredDirector, Planning and Development

Worship to Councillor Gesselbrecht. Yeah. The requirement around, um, under building parking. Um, would have been related to the, um, the form of development that was considered, uh, originally, um, it was intended to be, um, uh, taller format. And we're seeing what we're seeing now that's economically viable is the four to six story format. And, uh, yeah, so it would have, um, it would have been related more to the, um, to the form of development as well as obviously less surface parking. There's the potential to preserve more. More open space, uh, in this case part of the, uh, the requirement is to, to secure a minimum of 32 percent open space at green space. Over both lots, uh, through this development. So yeah, obviously, uh, less surface parking provides more opportunity to retain open space. But, uh, in this case, the proposal does include a security of 32 percent of the green space over both lots.

followed up

Despite the move to more surface parking. Okay. Great. And I think that's the concern. It's just that the cost of building and what's currently being built across than putting the underground parking kind of limits that. And so it's all being pushed on the surface. And because the maximum lot coverage restriction, it's not calculated in that. More and more space is being covered by surface parking. And so I get my, my son question is that, um, the, the change. Is that, would that be more than what would be required currently on any lot like this, uh, beam developed, uh, or is that sort of like what most lots, like this being developed, would require in terms

J. Holm

answeredDirector, Planning and Development

of leaving, you know, non impermeable surface space. Yeah. Uh, through your worship to Council, I guess, I'll break. So there isn't actually, um, an explicit requirement for percentage of open space. In the zoning. It's, it's really, um, uh. An effect of, um, a design review process, but also, uh, looking at, and it depends on the site. It's site specific, but it depends on setbacks. Um, it depends on how they're addressing stormwater management. On site, what natural features are on site that are protected by Bylaw or weren't protection. So it's really, um, very, uh, site specific. But in the, um, and Design, uh, design driven, um, in response to development permit area guidelines and the engineering standards requirements with respect to, uh, stormwater, uh, runoff. So it's not as much prescriptive as it is design driven in site specific. There is no explicit. Percentage of green

followed up

space required if that helps explain. Right. So this one here, it just sets a very clear parameter around it.

J. Holm

answeredDirector, Planning and Development

Uh, yes, that's what's been proposed given that the move is from, uh, larger percentage of required underbuilding parking to less. Proposing to include, um, a commitment to, uh, percentage of green space or open space on the site. Okay.

followed up

Thank you. Yeah. I mean, haven't grown up in that area and just, just looking at the change. I am quite struck by the amount of paved area that's there. And, um, kind of the expansive parking lots that exist, especially around the residential buildings. And so, you know, I can understand the pressures of cost. Um, but I am, I am a little concerned about the surface area parking not being included in the maximum lot surface, lot coverage, um, and I have difficulty supporting this, just given the