That Rezoning Application No. RA504 for 335 Third Street be referred back to Staff for completion of an access assessment to the site.
Procedural vote
Thank you, Councillor Perino. Thank you, your worship. And I don't like it, but I'm going to support this as well, and the reason is. And I've never turned down an infill either. What? Makes this area so important for density is it's close to downtown. It's close. To the university, it's close to schools, it's close to incredible recreational facilities and parks. So for me, this is exactly where I think families want to live. But. What's turned me is, in fact, Mr. Seaworth, your discussion at the end. About what? You want to do at the beginning and what it ended up being. And that, for me, was the turning point. I can tell the residents. Some of you will never like this. And that's completely understandable. And everyone who spoke tonight, you did a great job and we heard your concerns, so I want you to know that it was very worthwhile for you. To come, but development is never easy. But families coming to this community need homes and. This is a wonderful location to be in, but we need to. Get this right. So I really appreciate everybody coming here. But, Mr. Seaward, I think your comments were excellent. And I have to say. I'm very much in favor of. Looking at what he said.
you, mayor. Yeah. I'm going to support this motion as well. I, too, have never turned down an infill project, and I think that. This is an area where the city plan. Has designated. Higher density because of its location. And it's close to downtown, it's close to schools. It makes sense. It's on transit routes. But I do want to see a better plan in terms of. Traffic. And the set up, and I'd just like to know more before we actually make the decision since it's not going to come back to Councillor again once we do zone
the applicant and the neighborhood. That's fine, then. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thorpe. Yeah, thank you, your worship. Through you. And thanks to Councillor Armstrong for that. Question. And that was in my mind as well. I think on the odd occasion I have voted against NFIl. And I'm not afraid to say that. But I will also say that I quite like this project. And I think it's needed, and I think it has a lot of merit. However, I hear the concerns raised by the residents, and I think they are legitimate, especially in terms of. The traffic access and egress. So I will support Councillor Hemmon's motion for us. To wait and get more information on that. I think on the whole, though, I need to make it clear that I support the concept of the rezoning, and I support most of the features of this project. So on that basis, to get more information regarding traffic and hopefully some other options, which I think are definitely worth reconsideration. Then I will support what's on the
More information. Thank you. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the folks in the neighborhood tonight. And lest you think I'm hard hearted about this. Please don't take it that way. Sharon and I have lived in the same house for 41 years. And not long after we moved into the neighborhood, there was a proposal to build what is now village on the Green, which is a fairly substantial townhouse development aimed at the 55 plus crowd. All of that traffic flows onto Bay street, which is where our house is. I couldn't. Oppose it because my wife was actually acting for the developer at the time. I want to say to you that now that I'm of the age I am and you will all get old, I hope. I've considered from time to time that it will be really nice to have. That number of residences available so that if we decide to move out of our house, we'll. Have a place to live that will be suited to aging in place or aging in your neighborhood, if you will, so I'm not. Unsympathetic to that concept. I'm also conscious of the fact there's. Another large property. Which is right behind us. That will clearly go to multi residential at some point, so please don't think I'm unsympathetic to the changes that take place in a neighborhood. I will support the motion because I don't see any sense in attempting to oppose it. Given the voices I've heard around this table tonight, but I will tell you that. From the perspective of someone who did a little bit of personal injury work in my legal career. And appreciating that every intersection is dangerous. Adding another road onto third street, we'll bring with it. Significant traffic risks. It's why staff being as intelligent as they are and able and trained. And experts in the area, as opposed to amateurs. Basically indicated that an access onto third street was not the sensible way to go. I appreciate your neighborhood faces traffic challenges. And will, with the addition of 56 potential dwellings, But. 1600 cars a day, I'm told, pass up and down in front of our house. And that is the way this city is going to go because everybody wants to live here as I've said many times to this, Councillor. There were just two of us when we moved. Into that house. And then we had two children. And then those children married, and I'm not including their spouses, and amongst them, they had five kids, so the two has become nine. And everybody wanted to live in an ilma. God bless them. And they're still here, so. We are the problem, if you will, and our neighborhoods are going to densify and change. And the nature of those neighborhoods will change. It is inevitable. And what Councillor is trying to do when it comes to rezonings. This has been mentioned. By several Councillor members is recogn. Recognize that densification is important in terms of easy delivery of services. Promoting walkability in a sense, so that people can get out of their vehicles, but also ensuring that we don't have to expand the city limits in order. To. Entertain, if you will. Increasing population. The world has discovered us. We're reproducing. Like the krogs on a good enough pace on our own. So without further ado. All those in favor of the motion? And any opposed? None. Thank you. Motion carries. Appreciate the debate. And discussion tonight. And thank you, the delegations, for coming. We will now take. The recess staff for past time, and I'm conscious of the work they have to do. Sitting here tonight.
I used to live on Wharton street. So I have big concerns about putting traffic streamart in Georgia. It was almost impossible some days. To get out onto Howard. It's an extremely. Dangerous. So I struggle with that because we used to use Howard because it was too difficult to get on to. At the time, it used to be pine. Now, Bruce, very difficult to turn left. There in the morning. Extremely difficult. I think it's going to cause more problems than if we do third street. Secondly, this is a proposed plan that has never, Councillor has never seen. I. Know, when we put in the fourth str. Street bike lane. That was my idea, that we would never put a bike lane on third because that's a main traffic road. It's a main road. My third point is you. Share concerns. Well, this is no different than metro drive. Metro Drive is going to see over thousands of residents. Come on to metro drive. With the new builds we've now approved, so what? Is the difference when we're only approving a few hundred? Versus thousands up on metro drive. So the way it stands right now, and I'll leave my comments for later. It's not supportable for
to the fourth part of the motion after third, reading. There's a motion for Councillor to direct staff to secure the condition. Perhaps we could. No, I'm just clarifying. When we get to that point, then. I would move that we include a piece that it be conditional on a right in, right out. Access to third street being included
that. I don't think I've ever turned down an infill project. I think. This is density where we need it, I hear. The street concerns and the children in traffic concerns. I hear all of that pedestrian movement. However, this one in particular. That curve on Wharton. I struggle with it. I struggle with that density and that configuration. So I just like to know more about what our options are, and I think that's what this does. Thank you.
I definitely think that. We need the housing, and that's a good location for it. Appreciate the community coming out. And voicing their concerns. And I think it is really important that we've got a safe environment for our kids to move around in and we're not choked up by traffic. And I think that's an important consideration, so I'd really like to. See the Georgia Greenway go through down to third because I think that gives opportunity for pedestrian traffic and increasing options for movement. And I think it would be good to explore. What options would look like for being able to have traffic going into the development off a third. I can appreciate staff. Vision of the Third street connector and the complete street through there and then the mobility options through that and the concern about breaking up. That increased active transportation and pedestrian mobility. With the traffic turning off, but potentially that may not be as bad as it may seem, and I think exploring that more could find a solution. For most folks. And then finally. Fitting all those pieces together is really important that we respect the 15 meters setback of the water course. It's amazing. The cat stream feeds into the chase river and just down there. In a little, small section. There's like 30 salmon that are spawning right now, and it's a pretty special thing to have going through our community. Wild salmon spawning and. What to do to keep that healthy. As important. So I think there's a few bits to juggle here, but I'm. Confident that we can make it work for everybody. And move forward, but I think a bit more time is why. So thank you.
Thank you, worship. And I thank you for the presentation. When I look at the concept drawings, it looks like the parking is down on the lower grade. And that there will be some route for them to get up. Necessarily to get to Wharton Street. Is that what the plan is? Because you're seeing third and then you see the parking between the two buildings that's. On
the lower grade. Three year worship to Councillor Manley's question. Yeah, they're actually in the concept. Shows. Them continuing through the building down to the lower parking area. So there's under building parking there that. They would come. There's under building parking that they would come in this concept they're coming from. GEORGIA and Wharton. They're coming through the building
down to the lower parking area to address. The change in grade. Okay, so. They're going to have to go
through. Some multi floor thing to get down into the open parking spot there. Yeah, there is a definitely a
challenging changing grade there. So, yeah, my thought would be similar to Councillor Eastmere, that. We could have that access and another access just to provide. That secondary. I have a question too. Just looking on the first page. Of the report, we see the neighbors. 421-43-1441 it looks like there's. A piece in the back. That is a right of way. Is that correct? Is that for. An alley or is that sewer lines or something? Because I'm curious. At some point, somebody's going to assemble these pieces of property. And put up a building there, at which point. They would need to be put in traffic onto third because there's going to be no way to get. Up
into the other neighborhood. Yeah. Through your worship again, to Councillor Manley. There is a dedicated laneway there. It would not be possible to construct it. The grades actually. Through. There are quite. Significant. But you're correct. It is dedicated Lane between Wharton and Third, running parallel there. But it would be not possible to construct it in that location. Okay. Yeah, it would be supportive of a right in
Thank you, worship. The traffic on this one concerns me. The narrowness of the road, the curve, the blind tail. And I'm wondering what it would take to trip a traffic study. So Councillor could have. More information about exactly what our options might be with this development, because I do think. This density in this area is a good idea for all the reasons that the report outlines, but the traffic is, I think. We're kind of hung up on that. And so I think we would benefit from. A deeper investigation and maybe some more options about how
we could alleviate that. Thank you. Thank you, your worship. Sorry, Councillor Hemmens, you're looking for comment, response or follow? Up, okay? In this case, what's proposed here. Given the limited scale of what's proposed. And the surrounding road network and the capacity of the local roads to handle the traffic generated by the development. Traffic impact assessment wasn't required as part of the development. Mr. Rose could speak to the volumes. And the dispersion in the network, if you'd like. But obviously. Through subsequent development review. We look at the access in more technical detail. But as far as the traffic generated from the development, it didn't warrant a traffic impact. Assessment. But we can and there will be obviously detailed design undertake in four third street consideration. With the city's project there to develop a complete street on Third Street. Obviously, there'd be careful consideration to the location of existing accesses and potential for future accesses there. As well. So it's more of an access assessment than a traffic impact assessment, I think is from a technical perspective is what we'd be looking at in this case. Thank
that we need. Access. Assessment. Thank you. Councilor Prinu. Thank you, you, worship. And a question through you to Mr. Holmes. I'm just in the report. Under the discussion of repose. Zoning. The conceptual plan submitted. I'm just wondering if you. Could explain for us when you talk about conceptual plans, so what we see as far as drawings. And so forth. That's not a done deal. What does that mean for you? I guess my question is. That if we're not going to see. A final design until the development permit stage. When you look at a concept plan and you hear the angst that we have about. The area and the impact, the density as well as the roads and so forth. What does concept plan mean? What should we be considering as we're looking at that word?
Yeah. Thank you. Through your worship to Councillor Prince. So, yeah, great question. So, really? Staff's analysis. We're looking at the city plan policy. And that's a big part of it. And consistency with city plan policy, which the proposed density in this location. Aligns very well with city plan policy. It's also a technical assessment, obviously. Looking at access and servicing. And the technical feasibility to support the development. And obviously that's part of it as well. As far as the land use, just from a higher level land use perspective. The concept is in line with city plan policy. The technical analysis. Does support the access that we're talking about. From Georgia and Wharton, although as you've heard earlier comment. And access from Third street is not off the table. It's not ideal. So it could be as part of the whole concept idea, it could be put in, correct? Yeah. Sorry, I should speak further to your question. So this is the rezoning stage. This is. High level. This is conceptual. If this were to progress to development current. Right, exactly. So if rezoning were to complete if the property were rezoned. We'd be looking at a development permit application. And. There be further review through that? The concept may look quite different at that point. Obviously there's. A lot of work on the developer side to look at. Market analysis and see what's feasible. And what's in demand. And then there'll be a more detailed technical review, as I mentioned. The access considerations. And that as
Thank you. Councillor Armstrong, just for some fast clarification, because I'm not. Against the project at all. I'm just against. The driveway, so if we've. Passed this at rezoning. Could we then deal with the access at the development permit time? So that the developer would know that we're in support of the project. We just want to see some more work around the plan, and then whatever comes back. That would be done at the DP time. Does that make the most sense? I'm just trying to figure that.
Out. Yes. Through your worship to Councillor Armstrong. Nothing that's being proposed now would preclude. Access from Third street, there would be a design review. If it's a timing issue as well, because likely the city is going to come forward. With the way it's scheduled now, the Third street complete street project. Likely will happen before the property is developed, and we'd have to do. And Mr. Rose and Mr. Rosen's staff would be designing the third street project and would have to consider access at that point. Would have to provide for access from Third street at that point, and there would be opportunity through development permit. To look at different access options for the property. Thank you.
Yeah, I do think it's. Important that. The developer gets a signal one way or another. If we're in favor of the project. Or not. So I'll just leave it at that till we get to the motion. Thank you.
Thorpe, Mr. Lindsay, please. Thank you, worship. Just adding a little bit into that last question from Councillor Armstrong. Yes, there's. The opportunity to further evaluate this as you go on. The reality is the development permit may not actually return to Councillor. It's very much likely that it's one of those. That will be delegated to staff. So if council's intent tonight is to only support this land. Use subject to there being access on third, then I would request that there be actually included in council's motion so
Gesselbrook. Through you, mayor. Just on the question of the cat stream and just spray for the footprint. Would we run out of space? Would the building have to start encroaching into that 15 meters setback. If we were to keep the Georgia. Greenway path plus. Put a third street entrance on it, or is there room for that? Through
Your worship to Councillor guess. That's getting into site design question, but. We protect. The this is a concept plan. We protect. The setback would be the follow the development permit area guidelines and protect the water course setback. But the concept that you're proposing would alter the site design. I couldn't speak. To the details of accommodating the access in the Georgia Greenway. And the impact on the site, but it would impact the site design. And our guidance out of the policy that applies in the guidelines. The development permit area would be to protect. The watercourse setback.
a while, so you know the drill. Just introduce. Yourself. Thank you. Try not to disturb the baby. Hi, I'm Christine. I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to engage. With me, including city staff, city Councillor, many of my neighbors, nult, the Herwood Neighborhood association. Old City Neighborhood association and faculty at Vancouver Island University. Had several concerns about this proposal. In terms of infrastructure strain, environmental regulations and the traffic safety, which we talked about a little bit. Tonight. I'm a little closer to the mic, please. Is that better? Okay, so the proposed development is not consistent with the city plan and ignores guidelines within the Herwood neighborhood plan. Specifically. D 4.4.5 in the OCP. It's to do with height variants. And then in the Harwood neighborhood plan, it says, just would have a max of four stories. And this proposal has. Six, but I'm really more concerned with how the traffic is routed in the conceptual rendering. It's not safe. So while the buildings that go on this parcel of land may change. And evolve throughout the development process. The existing infrastructure and the typography will not. We need to feasibly prove that this area can accommodate 56 more homes. In a way. That is safe for everyone before moving forward in the development process, and that hasn't happened. Yet. Currently, the conceptual rendering suggests that vehicle traffic from 56 homes added to three three, five third street. Could be routed via Wharton, which is the backside of the parcel, and as we know, there's. Considerable challenges in terms of blind spots on the hill, and the traffic is really just going back up onto third anyways, because Howard and third is, as mentioned before, is a pretty tough. Intersection. So I asked to counsel tonight is that we hold off on rezoning until a comprehensive traffic survey is complete. Just so we can
Hi. Good evening, everyone. My name is Julia Sheffield. I
Thank you, Councillor Gesselbrook. Thanks to you, mayor. Just. With the plan to have everything come off of Georgia. Did that necessitate to go up? Six stories, or was that
always the plan, regardless of whether it was off third?
Or. The big consideration is achieving the parking requirements for this development. And the only way we could achieve them is put underground parking. So we looked at it and said, do we put underground parking or under grade parking at the front building and lose a story? Or do we put it at the back, which allow two stories of underground parking? But one of the main considerations of that was that. It would allow the access to come down there and have billed it, as they said, a dual retaining wall that's part of the underground parking, but
Also the support for the new driveway. Down into the property, right? So to have that come off of Warton, you'd need to put two stories of parking, and that
would require to have six stories to just make it feasible financially. The building would be six stories from the north from looking at it from Third street. If you look at it from the intersection of Wharton and Georgia, it would be forced. Approximately. Got you. All right. Thank
And Councillor Gus. My question is through you to staff. I'm just concerned that. Is there a way that we can do the rezoning? But not go to DP until we deal with the traffic thing, because I'm just. Thinking like we're sending such mixed messages because I'm hearing that most people want to see it, but our concern is very much about the traffic. So is there a way we can do it so that we pass the rezoning, but somehow, before we go to DP, or whatever that somehow it can come back to Councillor to look at
that. Plan I'm going to look to you or Mr. Lindsay. Your worship. There may be a technical way to do that, but I don't think staff. Would recommend that. I think there would be probably two confusing for both