►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We
have
an
apology
from
council
of
worster
who's
attending
a
meeting
with
his
local
police
this
morning.
So
councilloran
jones
moved
the
apology
second
by
councillor,
peter
young,
all
in
favor
against
carried,
and
I'm
advised
that
councillor
pauline
young
will
be
on
her
way
shortly.
We
also
welcome
councillor
belden
lumsden
who's
visiting
this
morning.
A
All
right
councillors,
we've
got
a
few
start
items
item
three,
will
unstar
cancer
and
jones
and
we
might
unstar
five
as
well.
A
B
Thank
you
chairman.
I
have
two
today
and
I'll
be
leaving
the
room
for
items
four
and
five
due
to
a
prescribed
interest
with
arcadis
who
are
consultants
to
the
project
and
a
declarable
conflict
with
ups.
I've
provided
the
details
to
the
minute
secretary.
B
A
Well,
if
you're
going,
if
your
intention
is
to
leave
the
room
on
both
of
them,
yes,
then
we
don't
need
to
take
a
vote,
because
that
happens
automatically
okay,
but
perhaps
just
check
that
the
that
they
are
correct
just
go
back
up
again,
just
with
that
the
amount-
okay,
all
right.
So
that's
fine,
all
right
scroll
down.
A
B
B
A
Councilman
jones
did
you
want
a
presentation
on
this
one
or,
if
I
could
thank
you,
do
we.
D
Yeah
sorry,
the
subject
site
is
8
244
square
meters
in
size
and
is
located
on
the
western
side
of
sickle
avenue,
just
after
the
bridge,
the
large
frontage
to
the
hope,
island
canal,
the
previous
approvals
relevant
to
the
site
included
a
material
change
of
use
for
apartment,
building
for
176
dwellings
and
332
bedrooms
and
an
rol
approval
for
access
easement
to
facilitate
vehicle
and
pedestrian
access
to
the
adjacent
lots,
10
and
14
sickle,
avenue,
hope,
island.
The
site
is
mostly
within
the
medium
density
residential
zone
and
a
small
portion
adjacent
to
the
hope.
D
Island
canal
is
within
the
open
space
zone.
On
the
opposite
side
of
sickle
avenue
is
the
multiple
dwelling
development
currently
under
construction
at
one
grant
avenue
the
subject
site
has
a
designated
building
height
overlay
of
32
meters,
adjacent
to
sickle
avenue,
frontage
and
26
meters
for
the
balance
of
the
site.
The
proposal
is
eight
stories
and
25.97
metres
in
height,
therefore,
maintaining
the
code
accessible,
building,
height,
designation
in
terms
of
residential
density
designation,
the
site
has
an
rd6
designation
along
the
frontage
of
sickle
avenue
and
rd5
for
the
balance
of
the
site.
D
As
per
the
site
plan.
The
proposed
development
includes
the
dedication
of
land,
approximately
800
square
meters
for
public
road
along
sickle
avenue
frontage
to
enable
access
to
the
proposed
development
and
the
two
adjacent
properties
to
the
north.
The
proposal
also
includes
the
dedication
of
land
along
the
canal,
frontage
for
the
construction
of
a
future
public
open
space,
broad
walk.
D
The
development
has
been
proposed
in
two
stages
stage,
one
being
the
proposed
access
public
road
from
the
intersection
of
sickle
avenue
and
grant
avenue,
building
a
along
the
canal
frontage
consisting
of
122
dwellings,
190
residents
and
24
visitor
car
spaces
over
two
basement
levels
and
the
public
open
space
board
adjacent
to
the
canal
stage.
2
consists
of
building
b,
which
contains
63
dwellings
and
75
resident
car
spaces
within
a
single
basement
level.
D
These
two
elevation
plans
graphically
represent
the
proposed
development
from
the
canal
and
sickle
avenue
frontages,
with
both
buildings
being
eight
stories
and
less
than
the
26
meter
height,
whilst
building
a
represents
a
built
form
of
approximately
85
meters.
Long
to
the
canal,
frontage,
two
vertical
recesses,
which
is
which
are
3.2
meters
deep
and
approximately
5.5
meters,
wide,
have
been
incorporated
into
the
building
to
assist
in
softening
the
visual
bulk
of
the
building
facade.
D
A
C
Thank
you.
So
it's
a
it's
a
code,
accessible
application
that
I've
tried
to
bring
the
hope
island
community
along
the
ride
for
in
regards
to
the
process
and
the
advertising,
and
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
asked
for
it
to
come
to
committee
today
as
well.
C
The
officers
have
worked
pretty
hard
with
the
applicant
in
regard,
particularly
in
regards
to
that
vertical
recess
to
to
soften
the
the
view
of
that
that
continuous
facade
and
I've
also
done
a
fair
amount
of
work
in
regards
to
the
road
dedication
as
as
well
as
I'm
going
to
say,
technical
argument
regarding
the
gold
coast,
waste
and
water
requirements.
C
One
of
the
things
that
I
am
interested
in
doing
is
amending
the
officer's
recommendation
to
include
a
a
bit
of
a
more
specific
condition
in
regards
to
a
survey
off
sickle
avenue.
When
number
one
grand
avenue
was
constructed.
C
The
there
was
a
bit
of
ponding
and
slumpage
of
that
road
and-
and
I
think,
a
survey-
an
accurate
survey
of
the
sickle
avenue
both
before
and
after
will
help
resolve
any
issues
that
might
arise
from
basement
works
and
the
officers
have
also
recommended
some
words
around
a
dewatering
management
plan
which
they've
provided
to
the
minute
secretary.
So
there
were
clearly
some
concerns
from
the
residents
in
regards
to
the
ponding.
That's
occurred.
C
E
D
Yes,
through
the
chair,
there
has
been
an
assessment
of
other
developments
on
the
island.
I
will
just
that's
been
presented
further
in
the
report.
If
you
go
to
pages
232
and
233,
there's
been
three
sites
identified
as
developments
that
have
underutilized
in
terms
of
what
the
designated
residential
density
is
and
what
was
actually
achieved
on
these
development
sites.
A
C
Thank
you
and
counselor,
and
I
think
the
reality
particularly
for
north
point,
because
it's
a
body
corporate
with
those
detached
dwellings,
the
opportunity
of
density
ever
turning
up.
There
is
basically
very
limited
because
it
would
need
the
consent
of
the
body
corporate
so
so,
and-
and
I
think
that
those
couple
of
pages
go
a
long
way
towards,
in
my
view,
explaining
that
density
conversation
and
that's
again,
one
of
the
benefits
of
having
the
report
come
to
come
to
the
committee.
C
It's
a
as
the
chair
will
know
it's
an
interesting
conversation
at
hope.
Island
because,
what's
happened
at
hope,
island
is
the
infrastructure
was
delivered
prior
to
the
residence.
Half
of
the
residents
have
turned
up,
and
now
they
don't
want
the
infrastructure
to
affect
that
was
delivered
to
be
to
accommodate
any
more
growth.
So
it's
a
it's
a
twin
edge
sword
when
infrastructure
is
delivered
in
in
this
type
of
manner.
So,
but
ultimately,
to
me
that
density
conversation
is
about.
C
Is
there
capacity
in
the
sewer,
the
water
and
the
infrastructure
networks
that
we're
responsible
for,
and
I
think
the
the
honest
answer
to
that
is
that
there
is,
despite
the
fact
that
it
will
involve
some
change
of
traffic
conditions
on
sickle
avenue.
Sickle
avenue
is
still
nowhere
near
the
capacity
that
it's
designed
to
to
cope,
even
though
that
will
change
the
way
people
have
become
accustomed
to
over
the
last
10
years.
Since
that
the
infrastructure
was
put
in
the
ground.
A
C
Was
delivered
by
roger
this
morning
and
I
had
provided
the
other
okay
to
the
minute
sector,
which
was
drafted
by
city
officers
and,
in
my
view,
the
standard
condition
in
regards
to
road
repairs.
A
Yep,
okay,
all
right,
you
happy
with
those
cancer
and
jones.
Okay.
All
right
did
you
want
to
speak
for
the
motion.
C
I
I
need
to
say
that
I
think
that
it's
it's
actually
appropriate
that
the
city
considers
code
accessible
applications
in
in
this
type
of
manner.
It
clearly
is
was
the
intention
of
the
original
hope,
island
master
plan
that
was
put
together
through
community
consultation
and
unfortunately,
now
is
a
little
bit
lost
in
time.
C
C
So
I
think
that
part
of
our
responsibility,
as
representatives
is
keeping
people
informed
in
regards
to
the
difference
between
code,
accessible
applications
and
impact
accessible
applications
and
what
that
means
and
and
what
our
responsibilities
are.
So
there
are
a
couple
of
members
of
the
community
in
hope,
island
that
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
this
refused,
but
I
don't
think
that
that
is
was
ever
on
the
cards.
C
What
we
need
to
do
is
make
sure
that
the
that
it's
been
assessed
correctly
and
that
the
intent
of
the
city
plan
is
followed
through
with,
and
I
think
that
that
is
what's
happened
here.
There
are
really
only
a
couple
of
very
minor
issues
that
have
been
dealt
with
because
they
comply
with
the
higher
level
of
the
of
the
pos
under
the
scheme.
So
I
thank
the
officers
for
the
work
that
they
did
during
the
assessment
process
with
the
with
the
applicant
and
it's
everything,
but
a
simple
tick
and
flick
exercise.
C
It
was
actually
assessed
exactly
how
it
should
have
been.
E
A
We
I've
just
been
advised
by
councillor
pauline
young
that
she
won't
be
able
to
make
it
to
the
meeting.
So
if
we
might
just
deal
with
that
now,
would
someone
like
to
move
an
apology
moved
by
councillor
aaron
jones,
second
by
council,
peter
young,
all
in
favor
against
carried
council
gates.
B
Chairman,
I
was
just
going
to
suggest
that
maybe
the
director
in
general
business
today
could
give
the
people
who
are
the
councillors
attending
today,
a
summary
of
self-assessable
code
accessible
and
impact
accessible,
because
there's
been
some
social
media
commentary
that
suggests
that
impact
accessible
applications
are
in
breach
of
our
city
plan
and
quite
clearly,
that's
not
the
case.
The
case
is
that
it
just
requires
a
higher
level
of
assessment.
So
I
just
think
it's
important.
Everyone
understands
that,
rather
than
bringing
us
into
disrepute
by
suggesting
that
impact
can't
happen,
maybe
in
general
business
yeah.
A
Thank
you,
deputy
chair,
oh
item.
B
A
So,
council
gates,
I
know
that
you
want
to
be
out
for
four
and
five.
Yes,
that's
fine!
There
was
one
other
general
business
item
that
was
proposed,
which
relates
to
the
answer
to
the
question
during
budget
about
the
investigation
areas
that
was
going
to
be
discussed
want
to
come
back.
You
can
otherwise
I'm
happy
for
you
to
depart.
A
A
G
The
subject
site
is
located
within
the
medium
density
residential
zone
and
has
a
total
area
of
1214
square
metres.
Currently
improving
the
subject
site
is
an
older
style,
two-story
apartment
building,
comprised
of
seven
units
subject:
site
has
flat
topography
and
a
limited
supply
of
vegetation
subject.
Side
is
a
relatively
unique
site
in
the
context
of
the
mermaid
beach
locality,
the
site
is
large
and
rectangular
allotment,
which
only
has
one
adjoining
residential
development.
G
G
Key
landmarks
surrounding
the
site
include
pacific,
fair
shopping
centre
and
the
broad
beach
cbd
to
the
north
gold
coast
highway
to
the
west
and
the
nobby's
beach
commercial
precinct
to
the
south.
Subject,
side
is
identified
on
the
building
height
overlay
map
as
having
a
code
accessible
height
of
15
meters
and
three
stories.
It
has
a
residential
density
designation
of
rd5,
which
equates
to
one
bed
per
50
square
meters.
G
G
The
building
height
for
the
proposed
development
is
4
stories
and
18.45
meters
and
has
a
residential
density
of
one
bed
per
35
square
meters.
A
total
of
31
car
parking
spaces
is
provided
for
the
development
which
broke,
which
is
broken
into
27
spaces
for
residents
and
four
for
visitors,
so
car
parking
will
be
provided
with
a
basement
arrangement.
G
The
floor
plans
of
levels,
one
to
three
consist
of
three
units
per
floor.
Each
of
the
units
will
have
three
bedrooms.
The
private
open
space
for
each
of
the
units
contained
within
the
proposed
developments
ranges
between
22
square
meters
and
119
square
metres.
The
rooftop
terrace
of
the
proposed
development
provides
another
component
of
communal
open
space,
which
includes
a
lounge
area,
barbecue
facilities
and
a
turfed
garden.
G
The
sub
the
proposed
height,
exceeded
the
the
prescribed
code,
accessible
hype
for
the
subject
site
the
applicant
utilized
the
50
uplift
provisions
of
the
strategic
framework,
the
proposed
building
height
of
four
stories
and
18.45
meters
represents
an
increase
of
50
above
the
designated
building
height
for
stories.
Only
the
building
height
in
meters
represents
an
increase
of
23
percent.
Above
the
code
accessible
height,
the
portion
of
the
development
which
exceeds
15
meters
is
limited
to
the
rooftop
terrace
and
services
call,
all
of
which
are
centrally
situated
within
the
building
footprint.
G
Well-Managed
interfaces,
which
combine
appropriate
built
form
feature
features
with
a
variety
of
landscaping.
Treatments
ensures
that
the
proposal
enhances
the
amenity
of
the
surrounding
area
representing
a
higher
quality
development,
which
reflects
the
envisaged
residential
character
of
mermaid
beach.
G
The
setbacks
of
the
proposed
development
have
been
considered
against
the
applicable
performance
outcome
and
considered
to
apply
assisting
in
the
protection
of
a
json
amenity
and
contributing
to
the
streetscape
character
of
williams
street.
Additionally,
shadow
diagrams
were
submitted
in
support
of
the
proposed
development
with
the
with
the
diagrams
demonstrating.
The
proposal
complies
with
the
shadow
related,
acceptable
outcomes
of
the
general
development
provisions
code.
G
G
The
proposed
development
includes
a
range
of
landscaping
treatments
across
the
ground
floor
and
rooftop
terrace.
These
treatments
predominantly
include
a
mixture
of
screening,
shrubs
and
canopy
trees.
The
centralized
footprint
of
the
building,
coupled
with
landscaping
embellishments,
ensures
that
the
proposal
represents
a
balanced
outcome
between
areas
of
landscaping
and
built
form.
G
The
original
proposal
included
three
visitor
car
parking
spaces,
which
was
which
submitters
were
concerned
would
result
in
impacts
on
the
on-street
car
parking
supply.
Following
further
advice
issued
to
the
applicant,
the
proposal
was
amended
to
include
four
visitor
car
parking
spaces.
The
car
parking
supply
of
the
proposed
development
complies
with
the
acceptable
outcome
of
the
transport
code.
G
A
traffic
impact
assessment
was
also
submitted
in
support
of
the
proposal,
which
demonstrated
that
the
proposal
would
generate
a
net
increase
of
three
vehicle
trips
per
hour
when
compared
to
the
existing
conditions.
City
offers
consider
the
increase
to
be
minor
and
are
satisfied
that
the
development
will
not
result
in
any
unreasonable
traffic
impacts.
G
And
the
final
key
matter
raised
by
submitters
was
the
proposed
development's
provision
of
communal
open
space.
The
proposed
development
includes
a
range
of
communal,
open
spaces
which
include
a
pool
area,
two
barbecue
facilities
and
a
rooftop
lounge.
The
areas
of
communal,
open
space
are
considered
to
be
safe,
practical
and
appropriately
integrated
into
the
development.
G
It's
also
worth
noting
the
subject
site
adjoins
st
john's
park
and
is
located
150
metres
from
the
beach
following
a
thorough
assessment
against
the
applicable
assessment
benchmarks
and
having
regard
to
the
submissions
is
recommended
that
the
proposed
development
be
approved,
subject
to
conditions.
Thank
you
and
are
there
any
questions.
E
G
Yet
through
the
chair
there
is
a
condition
which
limits
the
hours
of
operation
from
7
a.m.
Till
10
pm
that's
condition
10..
I
can
find
the
page
number
for
you,
that's
all
right
and
67..
Thank
you.
E
And
just
another
question:
if
I
can
share
with
the
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
objections,
do
you
think
that
some
of
those
objections
mentioned
that
they
that
people
might
think
that
a
president
might
be
set
with
the
height.
G
G
The
portion
that
does
exceed
the
the
15
metres
is
limited
to
a
centralized
rooftop
communal,
open
space
area,
which
it
maintains
appropriate
separation
distances
from
those
adjoining
properties
also
mentioned,
was
that
the
site
is
relatively
unique
in
the
mermaid
beach
locality,
in
that
it
only
joins
one
residential
property
with
all
other
boundaries
adjoining
aspects
of
the
public
realm.
Thank
you.
H
Council
hamill,
mr
chair,
thank
you
to
the
officer
and
I
apologize
if
it's
in
the
report,
but
just
in
that
local
context,
what
other
development
has
occurred
in
that
pocket
around
there?
Is
there
any
other
buildings
that
have
been
developed
recently
that
are
around
this
height.
G
G
The
most
recent
was
that
montana
road,
which
is
five
stories
and
set
approximately
17
meters
in
higher
notwithstanding,
we
have
assessed
the
the
height
of
this
development
and
considered
it
appropriate
because
of
that
centralized
location
of
the
part
that
exceeds
15
meters,
but
yeah.
We
do
acknowledge
that
the
character
is
predominantly
one
to
three.
C
You
had
a
slide
earlier
three
years,
you
had
a
slide
earlier
that
showed
the
spread
of
the
submissions
and
where
that
was
that
generated
by
city
offices
or
was
it
generated
by
the
applicant.
C
Mr
chair,
I
found
it
interesting
in
reading
the
report
that
the
officers
had
included
a
paragraph
which
said
that
it's
important
to
note
that,
whilst
properly
made
submissions
must
be
considered
throughout
the
assessment
period,
they
do
not
have
the
ability
to
change
the
meaning
of
the
assessment
benchmark,
and
I
think
that
that's
in
part,
the
challenge
that
we
have
here,
that
you
have
a
pro
forma
submission.
That's
created.
That
wants
to
achieve
a
particular
outcome
which
is
actually
largely
in
conflict
with
the
with
the
intent
of
the
city
plan.
C
So
I
don't
think
that
there
are
grounds
for
us
to
refuse
the
application
based
on
the
volume
of
submissions,
because
the
city
plans
height
being
50
higher
than
the
than
the
mapping,
because
if
criteria
is
met,
is
what
we
actually
have
to
lawfully
consider
the
application
against
and
that
50
higher
than
the
maps
is
the
only
way
the
city
can
manage
the
city
plan
in
the
context
of
having
a
scheme
that
allows
some
flexibility.
So
we're
not
allowed
to
have
a
black
and
white
scheme.
C
We
have
to
have
a
scheme
that
is
performance
based
and
the
50
is
the
only
way
that
we're
able
to
manage
it.
So
I
think
that
part
of
the
challenge
of
that
volume
of
submissions
against
is
a
misunderstanding
of
that
height
limit
and
the
fact
that
there
is
that
50
that
is
allowed
and
it's
allowed
for
a
very
good
reason.
A
I'm
happy
to
move
it
if
someone
wants
to
second
it
second
counselor,
I'm
john
sorry,
did
you
have
a
question:
counseling
law?
Okay,
any
other
questions.
A
A
We
particularly
had
a
conscious
thought
of
how
the
50
uplift
would
work
in
constraining
the
heights
to
where
we
wanted
them
to
be
through
these
various
streets
on
the
back
of
some
five
story,
type
plus
developments
that
had
been
applied
for
at
the
time
and
so
to
me
the
fact
that
we
have
kept
this
to
four
stories
at
approximately
the
15
meters
and
being
able
to
give
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
for
the
lift,
overrun
and
some
communal,
open
space.
I
think
shows
that
the
scheme
did
exactly
in
this
assessment.
A
A
A
A
F
F
You
through
the
chair,
this
application
is
for
another
change
to
an
existing
preliminary
approval,
including
a
variation
request
to
vary
the
effect
of
the
local
planning
instrument.
The
development
application
relates
to
466
to
478
marine
parade
three
to
seven
past
street
and
73
brighton
street,
bigger
awarders.
F
The
existing
preliminary
approval
is
for
the
tricare
labrador
development
code
and
establishes
a
master
plan
for
the
stage
redevelopment
of
the
subject
site.
The
purpose
of
the
code
is
to
provide
a
range
and
mix
of
retirement
facility
dwelling
units.
The
approved
code
identifies
that
the
ultimate
development
outcome
may
include
four
towers.
F
The
approved
code
allows
for
an
increase
to
the
code,
assessable
height
and
residential
density,
from
what
is
prescribed
in
the
city
plan
and
provides
tailored
outcomes
relating
to
setbacks,
site
cover
tower
separation
and
the
provision
of
car
parking.
The
figures
show
the
development
site
and
the
approved
master
plan.
It
is
noted
that
tower
1
located
in
the
north
western
corner
of
the
site
has
approval
for
a
development
permit
for
the
stage
1
tower.
F
F
F
This
plan
shows
the
staging
plan
of
the
development.
The
addition
of
the
new
lots
results
in
changes
to
the
staging
configuration,
including
the
addition
of
stage
five
for
tower
five.
The
inclusion
of
seven
past
street
allows
for
tower
four
to
be
amended
to
replicate
the
form
of
tower
one.
A
new
vehicle,
ingress
and
egress
is
at
par
street.
F
So
during
public
notification,
the
original
development
application
received
17
properly
made
and
six
not
properly
made
objections
during
notification
of
the
change
application.
19
properly
made
and
five
not
properly
made
objections
were
received
as
the
change
application
was
made
within
one
year
of
the
development
approval.
Any
properly
made
submission
for
the
original
application
is
taken
to
also
be
a
properly
made
submission
for
the
change
application.
F
The
key
concerns
relate
raised,
relate
to
building
height
shadow
impacts,
impacts
on
character,
traffic
impacts,
car
parking
impacts,
sewer
and
sewer
capacity
and
construction
impacts.
The
submissions
have
been
reviewed
and
city
offices
are
satisfied
that
these
items
have
been
raised
in
the
assessment
of
the
application
and
have
been
assessed.
F
City
officers
have
completed
an
assessment
against
the
amendments
to
the
tricare
labrador
development
code
and
consider
the
overall
outcomes
of
the
code
to
achieve
the
provisions
envisaged
by
the
city
plan
in
context
of
the
existing
development
approval.
The
proposed
changes
are
considered
to
maintain
the
development
pattern
and
the
development
outcome
intended
for
the
subject.
Site
offices
therefore
have
recommended
this
application
be
approved,
subject
to
conditions.
H
Mr
chair
sorry
said
in
relation
to
the
fact
that
it's
within
12
months,
the
original
approval,
so
just
looking
at
the
items
that
are
listed
in
the
report
that
are
from
submissions,
so
there's
no
delineation
in
there
between
the
original
objections
and
the
most
recent
objections,
it's
all
mixed
in
together.
Again,
yes,.
H
F
Through
the
chair,
so
the
concerns
raised
was
the
length
of
public
notification
for
the
change,
but
we
were
comfortable
that
it
was
completed
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act.
That's.
A
Jones,
okay,
moved
by
cancer
and
john
someone
like
to
second
it
second
by
council,
humble
so
jamie.
Can
you
just
bring
up
the?
Have?
You
got
a
a
picture
on
the
screen
of
the
original
device
yeah
from
the
12
months
ago
or
the
other.
A
E
A
So
jamie,
what
was
the?
What
was
the
tower
separation
in
that
original
master
plan?
Where
that
driving
drive
out
roundabout
is
off
bright
and
straight.
F
So
through
the
chair
that
one
is
12
meters,
the
separation
on
that
one.
A
Okay,
so
counselors,
what
you
can
see
essentially
what's
happened
is
that
the
the
applicants
acquired
the
two-story
fairly
large
dwelling
in
the
southeast
corner
and
then
the
one
down
the
south
west-
and
I
think,
that's
probably
reflected
in
the
submissions,
because
you've
now
got
the
people
who
are
on
par
street
and
south
of
par
street
that
are
feeling
like
these
are
starting
to
encroach
to
the
south,
which
I
think
is
probably
fair.
A
So
my
concern
probably
is
more
around
that
power
street
interface,
more
so
than
say
the
brighton
street
frontage.
So
two
things
about
that.
If
you
just
want
to
bring
up
the
the
current.
A
F
A
Okay,
and
so
what
happens
when
there's
new
heights
coming
in,
that
are
44
meters
instead
of
33,
is
what's
proposed
under
the
city
plan
amendments.
Did
I
read
that
correctly.
F
A
A
Okay
and
so
then
that's
fine,
so
in
relation
to
tower
four.
A
A
So
if
that's
only
set
back
very
close
to
pass
rate,
obviously
that
starts
to
produce
some
much
more
significant
shadow
impacts
across
that
street
than
we
had
previously.
So
I'd
be
interested
in
just
seeing
whether
or
not
there
was
an
ability
for
us
to
compress
tower
one
and
tower
four
a
little
bit
more
in
order
to
increase
those
past
straight
setbacks,.
E
A
E
Sorry,
through
the
chair
on
page
five,
four
six
so
tower
one
and
tau
four
there's
a
separation
of
twelve
meters.
I
think
the
diagram,
that's
that
you
saw
previously-
was
showing
the
tower
form,
but
this
shows
also
the
podium.
So
the
tower
actually
has
multiple
steps
in
in
the
design,
and
I
think
this
is
showing
the
towers
separation
and
I
think,
on
the
lower
levels.
It's
it's
actually
sorry
on
the
tail
levels
it's
bigger
and
on
the
lower
levels,
it's
less
okay,.
J
I
D
I
Just
clarify
that
what's
what's
proposed,
I
guess
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
mismatch.
If
you
want
on
the
I
guess,
the
master
plan
that
jamie
had
previously
and
the
code
so
what's
what's
allowed
for
in
the
proposed
code,
is
a
minimum
of
12
meters,
but
that
master
plan
was
showing
a
separation
distance
greater
than
12
meters
yeah.
So
perhaps
to
address
the
issue
you
had,
the
code
could
be
amended.
Perhaps
so
there'd
still
be
a
minimum
of
12,
but
you
could
push
off
those
boundaries
with
yeah
I'd.
A
You
know
I'm
happy
for
it
to
go
through
today
as
it
is,
but
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
flesh
out
those
issues,
because
those
the
blob
map
that
in
the
ready
kind
of
pictures,
is
obviously
illustrative,
but
it
it
isn't
backed
up
by
what
the
code
allows
for.
So
that's
that's
where
my
concern
lies
all
right.
Any
other
questions,
counsellors.
A
A
A
All
right
so
counselors
there's
a
nemo
here,
that's
being
circulated,
which
alicia
just
want
to
speak
to
that
briefly
and
then
work
out
what
we
want
to
do
with
it.
E
I've
through
you,
mr
chair,
counselors,
richard's,
just
taking
a
memo
around
now.
This
was
a
question
I
took
on
notice
from
councillor
peter
young
at
budget
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
councillor
young,
so
this
was
in
relation
to
the
investigation
area
program
for
city
planning.
The
memo
just
steps
out
the
process.
What
we're
proposing
for
the
next
financial
year
from
the
first
of
july
happy
to
take
any
questions
after
that,
but
that
particularly
goes
into
the
oxenford
and
the
parkwood
areas
and
also
the
gavin
that
which
was
the
subject
of
your
question.
Counselor
young.
A
E
Mr
chair
were
just
going
to
circulate
it
today,
rather
than
just
so.
We
could
explain
it
but
happy
to
put
it
as
a
general
business
that
I
think
it
needs
it.
But
if,
if
that's
council's
wish,
we
can
do
that.
C
Too,
okay
councillor
jones,
so,
mr
chair,
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
a
general
business
item,
but
that,
in
regards
to
the
oxenfield
investigation
area
that
reflects
some
words
richards
recently
provided
to
our
office
for
our
local
newsletter,
just
to
keep
those
residents
informed
of
the
process,
and
I
think
it
aligns
exactly
with
what
we
had
previously
told
them
post
the
budget
adoption
last
year
in
regards
to
the
impacts
of
covered.
So
so
I'm
happy
with
with
it
as
far
as
oxenford's
concern
so
yep.
H
Mr
chairman,
I
note
on
the
back
page
of
it.
It
gives
a
bit
of
a
time
frame
in
regards
when
we'd
see
some
future
reports
back.
But
I
was
wondering
if,
through
richard,
could
maybe
give
a
bit
more
flesh
to
what
we'd
actually
expect
to
see
in
by
the
end
of
2122
presented
back
to
us
like
what
that
would
actually
look
like.
J
So
we'll
follow
up
in
september
with
a
more
detailed
program
for
each
of
these
investigation
areas
and
that'll
include
as
well
any
further
work
that
we've
identified
with
ormo
so
yeah.
The
intention
is
that
we'll
have
that
forward.
Program
mapped
out
that
usually
shows
when
we'll
come
to
committee.
When
we
look
at
any
engagement
activities
that
will
be
happening
as
well.
Yeah,
that's
the
sort
of
nature
of
what
we
have
in
those
programs.
H
All
right,
joe,
I'm
interested
in
how
we
come
to
the
list,
the
order
so
oxford
napa,
road,
parkwood
and
warmo.
So,
just
in
regards
to
my
area
like
what
is
actually
look,
there's
no
mention
of
walmart
the
2223,
that's
correct!
So
there's
no
work
commencing
up
there
in
that
area.
Anytime
soon,.
J
Through
the
chair,
the
main,
I
guess
landowner
in
that
area,
there's
one
one
key
landowner
that
we
are
engaging
with.
So
we
continue
to
maintain
that
dialogue.
So
we
don't
want
to
put
out
a
forward
program
until
we've
reached
a
level
of
agreement
with
that
landowner
about
how
they
want
to
approach
that
area.
J
So
this
point
in
time
we're
maintaining
a
dialogue
with
them
and
you
know:
they've
looked
at
their
options.
There
was,
I
think,
a
previous
conversation
about
a
variation
da
but
yeah
until
we've
firmed
up
what
that
program
looks
like
we
haven't
actually
fleshed
out
in
any
detail
in
this
document.
What
that
is?
That's
all
I
was
looking.
H
A
All
right
any
other
general
business,
maybe
we
should
just
close
the
meeting.
Then
we
can
have
a
chat
about
different
levels
of
assessment.
Council
guides
happy
with
that
all
right,
we'll
close
them.