TOWN OF CANMORE AGENDA Regular Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, Avenue Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 Times are estimates only. TOWN OF CANMORE AGENDA Regular Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, Avenue Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD Before meeting is called to order A. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5:00 1. Agenda for the November 1, 2016 Regular Meeting of Council B. DELEGATIONS 5:00 5:10 1. Sue Panning: 2017 Canmore Folk Festival Request for Funding 5:10 5:20 2. Wanda Bogdane: Plaid Goat Mountain 2017 Bike Festival Request for Funding C. MINUTES 5:20 5:25 1. Minutes of the September 20, 2016 Regular Meeting of Council 2. Minutes of the October 11, 2016 Public Hearing for Bylaw Minutes of the October 18, 2016 Regular Meeting of Council D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None F. BYLAW APPROVAL 5:25 5:45 1. Tax Penalty Bylaw Recommendation: that Council give first, second, and third readings to Tax Penalty Bylaw :45 6:05 2. Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw Recommendation: that Council give first, second and third reading to Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw :05 6:25 3. Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw Recommendation: that Council give second and third readings to Bylaw with amendments as proposed by Administration (Attachment 2). 6:25 6:45 4. Bylaw Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments Recommendation: that Council give first reading to Bylaw Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments and schedule a public hearing for November 22 nd, 2016 at 5 p.m. Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 1 of 2 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 1 of 88

2 G. NEW BUSINESS 6:45 6:55 1. Request for Waiver or Reduction of Municipal Property Tax Penalty Recommendation: that Council uphold the $ in penalties applied to Roll #16820 for late payment of 2016 property taxes. H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None J. NOTICES OF MOTION None K. IN CAMERA None 6:55 L. ADJOURNMENT Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 2 of 2 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 2 of 88

3 B-2 For council: The Canmore Folk Festival is coming into it's 40th year of bringing music and visitors to Canmore. What started as a one day event with a flat bed truck as the stage has become an internationally known festival presenting a high quality, diverse line up from across Canada and the world on 4 stages over 3 days, as well as our free kick off event on Festival Friday outside the Civic Centre. We have been bringing people to Canmore for a long time rain (or snow) or shine to the festival, into our hotels, into our restaurants and bars and showing off this beautiful town given everyone has to come downtown to get to the site. The Canmore Folk Festival is part of the character of this community. We work to build connections and give back to our community. We have worked to improve Centennial park for many years (built the Stan Rogers Stage, built the permanent washrooms, up graded the water and electrical infrastructure, levelled out and resurfaced the seating area in front of the stage, adopted and pushed the standards of the "Zero Waste" initiative). We have developed an asset lending program to work with other organizations to ensure we have strong arts presentation in our community. We provide a high level of volunteer appreciation for our 500 plus volunteers (80%local). We provide 4 scholarships each year to students at CCHS. With the introduction of our pub stage in 2011 we have endeavoured to support and present many local artists. The Town of Canmore has been there for the festival in terms of supporting projects like many of the up grades mentioned, preparing the site, including us in information sessions on town plans that might impact the festival as well as providing some funding for our pancake breakfast. Our next festival is a milestone. At 40 years we are the longest running festival in Alberta. We would love to do something special to celebrate, particularly since it falls on the same year as Canada's 150 birthday. We are a lean organization operationally. In order to step out "big" we need some financial assistance this year. We are asking the town to give the festival $20,000 to support the overall artistic budget. I look forward to presenting our proposal to you on November 1. Thank you for your time. Yours truly, Sue Panning, Festival Director 1 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 3 of 88

4 B-2 Oct 13, 2016 Plaid Goat Mountain Bike Fest Operator: Wanda Bogdane Blackrock Cres, Canmore, AB T1W 1A To: Town of Canmore Agenda Review Committee via Cheryl Hyde 902 7th Avenue Canmore, AB T1W 3K RE: Plaid Goat Mountain Bike Festival Request Dear Ms. Hyde, (on behalf of Town of Canmore Council), I m writing to ask for an opportunity to present to the Town of Canmore Council as a delegation. I will be requesting one time support for event operations for Plaid Goat in This request will specifically include: $25,000 of support for wages, supplies, contracted services, etc. to help launch this monumental event Waived Town of Canmore facility fees for hosting the event at Centennial Park (pending approved application) Waived Town of Canmore event permit fees. Thank you kindly for your consideration. Warm regards, Wanda Bogdane Operator, Plaid Goat November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 4 of 88

5 Unapproved C-1 TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Regular Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, Avenue Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Rob Seeley Deputy Mayor Esmé Comfort Councillor Ed Russell Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Michael Fark General Manager of Infrastructure Services Sally Caudill Acting General Manager of Municipal Services Adam Robertson Interim Supervisor of Communications Jim Younker Manager of Recreation Services Tracy Woitenko Development Planner Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Development Lori Rissling Wynn Sustainability Coordinator/Development Planner Chris Bartolomie Supervisor of Arts and Events Jacob Johnson Engineering Services Andreas Comeau Manager of Public Works Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder) Mayor Borrowman called the September 20, 2016 regular meeting to order at 5:06 p.m A. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the September 20, 2016 Regular Meeting of Council B. DELEGATIONS None Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 5 of 88

6 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting September 20, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Unapproved C. MINUTES 1. Minutes of the September 6, 2016 Regular Meeting of Council Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council approve the minutes of the September 6, 2016 regular meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Recreation Master Plan Mike Rohlman, RC Strategies, presented the Recreation Master Plan to Council Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the Recreation Master Plan for planning purposes. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Steep Creek Hazard and Risk Policy Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council put motion back on the table: that Council approve the proposed Steep Creek Hazard and Risk Policy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the proposed Steep Creek Hazard and Risk Policy as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Environmental Impact Statement Policy Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the proposed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Policy. 265A-2016 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council amend motion by adding: amend section 5.2 by removing the words including a third party review and add a new section 11.4 All costs associate to a Third Party Review will be at the expense of the Town of Canmore. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 265B-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: replace the entire last two sentences of section 6(1) with Prior to development of the Terms of Reference, the Town will hire a qualified professional(s) to provide input into the Terms of Reference and prepare an independent third party review of the EIS. CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Russell Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 6 of 88

7 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting September 20, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Unapproved 265C-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: make the following change to the fourth sentence from the initial paragraph of section 6: The Terms of Reference shall be developed by administration but may be referred to the relevant decision making authority with input from the qualified professional(s) hired to conduct the third party review of the EIS. CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Russell 265D-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: add the following new sub-clause to between (b) and (c) of section 7(4): Specific recommendations as to whether or not development must be less intensive or less intrusive adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. DEFEATED In favour: Krausert, Russell Opposed: McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford 265E-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: amend section 8(1) as follows: As described in greater detail in the following sections, where an EIS has been prepared and accepted as part of a statutory plan, land use bylaw or development approval, a new EIS is generally not required at a later stage in the approval process unless the planning or development proposal changes significantly. The following provides details of the subsequent EISs. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 265F-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: insert as to which one after discretion in section 8(3). CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman Opposed: Comfort, Sandford, Russell 265G-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: delete the following from section 11(1) unless the nature and scope of the development, or scale or proposed impacts, deem it necessary. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 265H-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: replace the last sentence in section 11(3) with: The third party reviewer will identify and make recommendations on how to reduce, mitigate or avoid negative impacts of the proposal including raising concerns if the negative impacts cannot be satisfactorily reduced, mitigated or avoided. CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Seeley, Russell 265I-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: add the following to the end of section 13(1): provided that the exception is not inconsistent with the Municipal Development Plan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 7 of 88

8 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting September 20, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Unapproved 265J-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: insert a new (3) between (2) and (3) in section 15 as follows: 3) Town of Canmore FireSmart Mitigation Strategy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The vote followed on motion : that Council approve the proposed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Policy as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY F. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give first reading to Bylaw and schedule a public hearing for October 11, 2016 at 6:00 pm. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Bylaw Procedural Bylaw Amendment Public Hearings Procedure Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give first reading to Bylaw Moved by Councillor Russell to postpone the vote on first reading until after a decision has been rendered on a Judicial Review of the Town s rezoning Bylaw (Peaks Landing). DEFEATED In favour: Russell Opposed: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford The vote followed on motion : that Council give first reading to Bylaw CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Russell Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Bylaw CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Russell Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council go to third reading of Bylaw CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Bylaw CARRIED In favour: Krausert, McCallum, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford Opposed: Russell G. NEW BUSINESS, continued 2. Public Art Site Approval Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the Cougar Creek NE Underpass Entrance site as a public art installation site. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 8 of 88

9 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting September 20, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Unapproved 3. Canmore Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) Loan Request Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council transfer $350,000 to the Canmore Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) from the PAH reserve and direct that any repayment be transferred back into the PAH reserve. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4. Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission Canmore Local Transit Service Implementation Martin Buckley, chief administrative officer of the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission, was present and permitted by the mayor to answer questions from Council Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council support the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission in offering an introductory period of Fare-Free transit for the local Canmore service for CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling Upgrade Capital Project Change in Funding Source Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve a change in funding for Capital Project No. 1443, Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling Upgrade for $5,000,000 with $3,404,000 funded from debenture and $1,596,000 from grants. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. Opera House Lease Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council direct the Mayor and CAO to execute a lease agreement for the Opera house with details as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None J. NOTICES OF MOTION None K. IN CAMERA None Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 9 of 88

10 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting September 20, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Unapproved L. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council adjourn the September 20, 2016 regular meeting at 8:59 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY John Borrowman, Mayor Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 10 of 88

11 TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Public Hearing for Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, Avenue Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Unapproved C-2 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Rob Seeley Deputy Mayor Esmé Comfort Councillor Ed Russell Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Michael Fark General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Sally Caudill Interim General Manager of Municipal Services Adam Robertson Interim Supervisor of Communications Lori Rissling Wynn Development Planner Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Development Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder) 1. INTRODUCTION Mayor Borrowman opened the public hearing for Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE BRIEFING Administration provided the context and background of the bylaw. 3. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION The applicants, Marcus and Carolyn Abrahamsson, made a presentation on the substance and content of the application for a bylaw amendment. They have a applied to amend section 3.8 of the Land Use Bylaw, Country Inn Direct Control District (49-96DC) to add Eating Establishment as a discretionary use. 4. QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION Council was provided the opportunity to ask questions of administration and the applicant. Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 11 of 88

12 Town of Canmore Public Hearing Bylaw October 11, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Unapproved 5. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS The following members of the public made a verbal presentation: In support: Geoff Hillhurst Randy Porset Niels Kaech Christine Anderson Amy Young Sarah Yakmission Elizabeth Kuraga Elise Moore Claire Gerald Stu Austin Opposed: Andre Gigon Pia Kocher Gerry Vanc Neutral: Clive Pyburn Matt Hyink Donna Dunbar Christoph Braier on behalf of Lonny Middleton 6. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS The recording secretary to read into the record the names of those who provided written submissions: Opposed: o Andre Gigon o Pia Kocher Neutral (Questions and Concerns): o Donna Dunbar o Matt and Christine Hyink o Craig McLurg o Lonny Middleton o Clive Pyburn 7. FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS None. Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 12 of 88

13 Town of Canmore Public Hearing Bylaw October 11, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Unapproved 8. CLOSING Mayor Borrowman closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. John Borrowman, Mayor Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 13 of 88

14 Unapproved COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Rob Seeley Deputy Mayor Esmé Comfort Councillor Ed Russell Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Regular Meeting of Council Council Chamber at the Canmore Civic Centre, Avenue Tuesday, October 19, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa de Soto Chief Administrative Officer Michael Fark General Manager of Infrastructure Services Sally Caudill Acting General Manager of Municipal Services Marcus Henry Development Planner Katherine Van Keimpema Manager of Financial Services Therese Rogers Manager of Human Resources Greg Burt Manager of Protective Services Todd Sikorsky Fire Chief Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder) Mayor Borrowman called the October 18, 2016 regular meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the October 18, 2016 Regular Meeting of Council Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council approve the agenda for the October 18, 2016 regular meeting as presented, with one addition: Under Unfinished Business add E-1 Cougar Creek Property Purchase CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY B. DELEGATIONS 1. Ron Sadesky, Alberta Nationals Mountain Bike Race Association Support for 2017 National Bike Championships Ron Sadesky, and Brittany Webster, Alberta Nationals Mountain Bike Race Association, spoke to a written submission requesting Town sponsorship in the amount of $10,000 for the 2017 Canadian National Bike Championships. Mayor Borrowman advised that discussions on item D-1 may result in a motion that applies to this request as well. Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 14 of 88

15 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Unapproved C. MINUTES Minutes of the September 27, 2016 Special Meeting of Council Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the minutes of the September 27, 2016 special meeting as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Canadian Cross Country Ski Championships Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council refer the funding request from the 2017 Canadian Cross Country Ski Championships group to administration for review, and that administration provide Council with recommendations for funding options that may involve a new granting process or an additional component of the Community Grants program that could apply to the current requests, as well as future requests of this nature. Recommendations from Administration may become a part of the 2017/18 Budget discussions. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Cougar Creek Property Purchase Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the inclusion of a right of first refusal clause into the offer to purchase agreement between the Town and the owners of the property at 478 Grotto Way. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY F. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. Bylaw Stewart Creek Phase 3 Land Use Boundary Adjustment Bylaw Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Bylaw Stewart Creek Phase 3 Land Use Boundary Adjustment Bylaw. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Bylaw Stewart Creek Phase 3 Land Use Boundary Adjustment Bylaw. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Designated Officers Amending Bylaw Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give first reading to Designated Officers Amending Bylaw A-2016 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council amend motion by adding: amend section 3.1b) by inserting the words other than the employment contract for the chief executive officer between Employment contracts and shall be signed. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 293B-2016 Moved by Councillor Sandford that Council amend motion by adding a new section 3.1h): In section 10.4 delete the words Part 11 Assessment Review Boards and by the Matter Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 15 of 88

16 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Unapproved The vote followed on motion : that Council give first reading to Designated Officers Amending Bylaw with the following amendments: 1) amend section 3.3 by inserting the words other than the employment contract for the chief executive officer between Employment contracts and shall be signed; and 2) amend section 10.4 by deleting the words Part 11 Assessment Review Boards and by the Matter Relating to Assessment Complaints Regulation. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Designated Officers Amending Bylaw CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council go to third reading of Designated Officers Amending Bylaw CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Designated Officers Amending Bylaw CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3. Finance Committee Bylaw Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give first reading to Finance Committee Bylaw A-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: insert the following words at the beginning of section 4.1: Subject to limitations imposed by the Municipal Government Act. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The vote followed on motion : that Council give first reading to Finance Committee Bylaw with the following amendment: 1) insert the following words at the beginning of section 4.1: Subject to limitations imposed by the Municipal Government Act. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give second reading to Finance Committee Bylaw as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council go to third reading of Finance Committee Bylaw CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council give third reading to Finance Committee Bylaw CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 16 of 88

17 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Unapproved Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council repeal the July 5, 2016 Finance Committee Terms of Reference. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for a Waiver of 2016 Property Taxes and Penalties Roll # Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council uphold all of the 2016 property taxes and associated penalties assessed on tax roll # CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. Request for Proposal 1451 Palliser Trail (Moustache Lands) Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the release of a Request for Proposals to the EOI shortlisted proponents for the development of employee housing and/or purpose built rental units for the parcel at 1451 Palliser Trail, with associated costs funded from capital project CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3. Heliport Monitoring Committee Terms of Reference Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council approve the Heliport Monitoring Committee revised Terms of Reference as attached. 304A-2016 Moved by Councillor Krausert that Council amend motion by adding: insert the following as section 3.b. and renumber the existing 3.b. to 3.c: The committee shall review the nature of complaints regarding the operation of the heliport that have been deemed valid by the Town with the intent of making recommendations, if any, for changes to the Conduct of Helicopter Business Schedule. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 304B-2016 Moved by Councillor McCallum that Council amend motion by adding: amend section 4.b. by inserting non-voting after one representative from Alpine Helicopters. DEFEATED In favour: McCallum Opposed: Krausert, Seeley, Borrowman, Comfort, Sandford, Russell The vote followed on motion : that Council approve the Heliport Monitoring Committee revised Terms of Reference as attached, with the following amendment: 1) insert the following as section 3.b. and renumber the existing 3.b. to 3.c: The committee shall review the nature of complaints regarding the operation of the heliport that have been deemed valid by the Town with the intent of making recommendations, if any, for changes to the Conduct of Helicopter Business Schedule. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 17 of 88

18 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Unapproved K. IN CAMERA 1. International Association of Firefighters Collective Agreement Collective Agreement Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council take the meeting in camera at 7:02 p.m. to prevent disclosure of positions developed for the purpose of contractual negotiations, in accordance with section 24(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council return to the public meeting at 7:30 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY G. NEW BUSINESS, continued 4. International Association of Firefighters Collective Agreement Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council authorize the signing of the Collective Agreement between the Town of Canmore and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 4705, as presented in the Updated Collective Agreement dated September 20, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None J. NOTICES OF MOTION None K. IN CAMERA 1. International Association of Firefighters Collective Agreement Collective Agreement This item was considered earlier in the meeting, before item G-4. L. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Mayor Borrowman that Council adjourn the October 18, 2016 regular meeting at 7:31 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY John Borrowman, Mayor Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Minutes approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 18 of 88

19 Request for Decision DATE OF MEETING: November 1, 2016 Agenda #: F-1 TO: Council SUBJECT: Tax Penalty Bylaw SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Shannon Staple, Tax Officer That Council give first, second, and third readings to Tax Penalty Bylaw EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Penalties on unpaid taxes are imposed to encourage timely payment of amounts owing, thus, the current Tax Penalty Bylaw imposes a total penalty of 18% on unpaid current year taxes, applied at a rate of 9% on two different dates. It also imposes a penalty of 1.5% per month (18% per annum total) on all taxes and penalties in arrears starting on January 1 of the following year, a structure that is not optimal and often doesn t encourage as prompt payment as it could. Tax Penalty Bylaw seeks to improve this structure by maintaining the total annual penalty rate but changing the application dates to ones that consider stakeholder feedback, reduce workload, and encourage timely payment. RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS Bylaw provided for the imposition of penalties on unpaid property taxes and rescinded Tax Penalty Bylaw Section 339 of Alberta s Municipal Government Act (MGA) empowers Council to pass a bylaw that incentivises timely payment of taxes, and sections 344 and 345 provide for the imposition of penalties on unpaid property taxes by council, through bylaw. DISCUSSION The purpose for imposing penalties is as an incentive to encourage timely payment of amounts due; it is not an interest charge. The current Tax Penalty Bylaw sets out a 9% penalty on current outstanding taxes, to be imposed on the first business day following the due date, followed by a December 1st 9% penalty on current outstanding taxes. On tax arrears, a penalty is applied on the first day of every month of every year, commencing on the first day of January, so long as the taxes and penalties or any portion thereof remain unpaid. The current application of penalties, using a 2016 calendar as an example is as follows: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 19 of 88

20 Tax Penalty Bylaw Page 2 of 3 Jan 1, 2016 Start of Fiscal Year June 30 Tax Due Date July 4 9% penalty on current taxes due not paid by June 30 first business day after due date Dec 1 Dec 31 9% penalty on current taxes due outstanding at Nov 30 End of Fiscal Year 2017 Jan - Dec 1.5% penalty imposed on Arrears taxes on the first day of every month until paid This structure meets the intention of an overall annual penalty of 18%, however, it is challenging in the following ways: 1. The 9% penalty on the first business day following the due date is significant and ratepayer reaction to staff is challenging. 2. Once the first penalty is applied there is no incentive to pay the current year outstanding tax until as late as November 30 th. 3. Having the arrears penalty imposed on the first day of every month does not imply a business day, adds to workload, and does not have a significant impact on payment patterns. 4. An arrears penalty applied on June 1 st is not included on the annual tax notice issued in May annually. Therefore, those that pay the arrears and current year taxes as noted on the tax notice do not take into account the June penalty. Tax Penalty Bylaw addresses these challenges by 1. Maintaining the annual total penalty at 18%. 2. Modifying the first penalty after the due date with a lower rate and the delay in the impostion of the penalty to the second business day. 3. Modifying thesecond and third penalty dates and rates to incentify quicker payment. 4. Modifying the arrears penalty structure to a quarterly imposition instead of monthly penalty application, resulting in reduced workload and an accurate balance due on annual tax notices that include tax arrears. The application of penalties under the new bylaw, using a 2016 calendar as an example, is as follows: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 20 of 88

21 Tax Penalty Bylaw Page 3 of 3 Jan 1 Start of Fiscal Year Jun 30 Tax Due Date Jul 4 5% penalty on current taxes due Aug 2 6% penalty on current taxes due Sep 2 7% penalty on current taxes due Dec Jan 3 Fiscal Year End 4.5% penalty on arrears taxes due first business day of January; repeat first business day of April, July, October until paid in full. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES No other alternatives are considered at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Penalties are imposed to encourage prompt payment and not to generate revenue. By modifying the rates and when penalties are applied, ratepayers are encouraged to pay when the penalty is relatively smaller, resulting in a decline of the total tax penalty revenue. An accurate estimate of the amount of the decrease is not possible, but will likely be in the range of $4,000 - $8,000 per year. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Comments by ratepayers impacted by the first penalty after the due date have been taken into consideration in the form of the reduction of the penalty amount along with the delay to the second business day following the due date. ATTACHMENTS 1) Bylaw Tax Penalty Bylaw 2) Bylaw Tax Penalty Bylaw AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Approved by: Approved by: Shannon Staple Tax Officer/Treasury Office Supervisor Date: October 14, 2016 Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BABA Manager of Financial Services Date: October 19, 2016 Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: October 21, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 21 of 88

22 BYLAW Attachment 1 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITON OF PENALTIES ON UNPAID PROPERTY TAXES The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows: 1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as the Tax Penalty Bylaw. 2: INTERPRETATION 2.1. In this bylaw: a) Arrears means property taxes that remain unpaid past December 31 of the year in which they were imposed; b) Current means the year in which a property tax is imposed; c) Taxes or property taxes include all property taxes, local improvement taxes and all other taxes or charges lawfully imposed against a property by the Town of Canmore pursuant to the Municipal Government Act or any other statute of the province of Alberta. 3: PROVISIONS 3.1. When any current property taxes remain unpaid after the due date set out in the annual tax notice: a) a five percent (5%) penalty on all current outstanding taxes shall be applied on the second business day of the first month following the due date; b) a six percent (6%) penalty on all current outstanding taxes shall be applied on the first business day of the second month following the due date; and c) a seven percent (7%) penalty on all current outstanding taxes shall be applied on the first business day of the third month following the due date When any property taxes become arrears, a penalty of four and one-half (4.5 %) percent of the unpaid taxes shall be applied on the first business day of January, April, July and October of every year, until the arrears and penalties are paid in full Tax accounts enrolled in the Tax Installment Payment Plan for the current property taxes shall be exempt from penalties provided that there is no default in payment. 4: ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 4.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw Bylaw is repealed December 31, This bylaw comes into force January 1, Bylaw approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 22 of 88

23 Town of Canmore Bylaw FIRST READING: SECOND READING: THIRD READING: Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore: John Borrowman Mayor Date Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk Date Bylaw approved by: Page 2 of 2 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 23 of 88

24 Attachment 2 TOWN OF CANMORE BYLAW PROVINCE OF ALBERTA This Bylaw rescinds: Associated legislation: Section 344 and 345 of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26.1, R.S.A as amended, provide that a Council may by bylaw impose penalties on unpaid property taxes; BEING A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES ON UNPAID PROPERTY TAXES, OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA WHEREAS Section 344 and 345 of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26.1, R.S.A as amended, provide that a Council may by bylaw impose penalties on unpaid property taxes; NOW THEREFORE The Municipal Council for the Town of Canmore in the province of Alberta, duly assembled; hereby enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw shall be known as the Tax Penalty Bylaw 2. In this bylaw: a) Taxes or property taxes include all property taxes, local improvement taxes and all other taxes or charges lawfully imposed against a property by the Town of Canmore pursuant to the Municipal Government Act or any other statute of the province of Alberta. 3. When any current year s property taxes remain unpaid after the due date as per the annual tax notice there shall be a nine percent (9%) penalty on all current outstanding taxes to be applied on the first business day following the due date. 4. When any current year s property taxes remain unpaid after November 30 th there shall be a nine percent (9%) penalty on all current outstanding taxes to be applied on December 1 st. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 24 of 88

25 5. All taxes imposed by the Town of Canmore remaining unpaid after December 31 st of the year in which they are imposed shall have added thereto, on the first day of every month of every year, commencing on the first day of January following the year in which taxes are imposed, a penalty equivalent to one and one-half (1½ %) percent of the then unpaid taxes, so long as the taxes or any portion thereof remain unpaid. 6. Tax accounts enrolled in the Tax Installment Payment Plan (herein referred to as TIPP) for the current year s property taxes, shall be exempt from penalties provided that there is no default in payment. 7. In the event that there is a default in a payment for a tax account enrolled in TIPP and the account remains enrolled in TIPP, no penalty shall be applied if the defaulted payment is replaced before the next TIPP due date. Otherwise a penalty of nine percent (9%) shall be applied to the outstanding amount. 8. In the event that a tax account is removed from TIPP, by the Town of Canmore or by the taxpayer, and property taxes remain unpaid after the date the next monthly payment would have been due had the account not been removed from TIPP, a penalty of 9% of the outstanding property tax will be levied. Subsequently, any unpaid taxes would be subject to penalties as described in Clause (4), (5) above, of this bylaw. FIRST READING: March 6, 2012 SECOND READING: March 6, 2012 THIRD READING: March 6, 2012 MAYOR MUNICIPAL CLERK November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 25 of 88

26 Request for Decision DATE OF MEETING: November 1, 2016 Agenda #: F-2 SUBJECT: Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Shannon Staple, Tax Officer, Financial Services That Council give first, second and third reading to Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A subdivision of a parcel of land followed by construction of a duplex recently occurred in the area for which Three Sisters local improvement bylaw (Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter) applies. In order to ensure the correct owners are charged future local improvement levies, schedules A and B must be amended. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY March 2010, council approved local improvement bylaw for the purpose of the financing, constructing, and assessing of a Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement on Three Sisters Drive (lower). March 2015, council approved Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw which amended Schedules A & B of bylaw DISCUSSION In 2010, council approved local improvement bylaw for the purpose of the financing, constructing, and assessing of a Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement on Three Sisters Drive (lower). Due to a subdivision affecting parcels of land and subsequent construction of duplex units it is appropriate at this time to update Schedules A and B in order to charge the benefiting property owners of this local improvement area. As per Part 10, Section 402 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000: 402(1) If, after a local improvement tax has been imposed, there is (a) a subdivision affecting a parcel of land, or (b) a consolidation of 2 or more parcels of land, in respect of which a local improvement tax is payable, the council, with respect to future years, must revise the local improvement tax bylaw so that each of the new parcels of land bears an appropriate share of the local improvement tax. The Amortization period remains at a total of 15 years. The new properties take over payment in the year following the last payment under the subdivided property. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS No alternatives may be considered as the MGA dictates that a council must revise the local improvement tax bylaw each time a parcel is subdivided. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 26 of 88

27 Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw Page 2 of 2 FINANCIAL IMPACTS Local improvement levies for the total property in question remains the same. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT N/A STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Canmore s services and programs respond to the aspirations of its residents and visitors and are delivered in an effective, innovative, and fiscally responsible manner. ATTACHMENTS 1) Bylaw Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw 2) Bylaw Sidewalk, Path, Curb & Gutter Local Improvement on Three Sisters Drive (lower). 3) Bylaw Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Approved by: Approved by: Shannon Staple Treasury Officer, Financial Services Date: October 14, 2016 Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BABA Manager of Financial Services Date: October 17, 2016 Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: October 21, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 27 of 88

28 BYLAW Attachment 1 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AMEND SCHEDULES A and B OF BYLAW The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows: 1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as Three Sisters Drive Lower Local Improvement Amending Bylaw : PROVISIONS 2.1. Bylaw is amended as follows: a) Schedule A is replaced with Schedule A of this bylaw. b) Schedule B is replaced with Schedule B of this bylaw. c) Bylaw is repealed. 3: ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 3.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw Schedule A and B form part of this bylaw This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed. FIRST READING: SECOND READING: THIRD READING: Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore: John Borrowman Mayor Date Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk Date Bylaw approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 28 of 88

29 Bylaw Schedule A Basis of Local Improvement Tax Calculations Basis of Calculations: Parcel Based Local Improvement Tax Actual Cost of Design and Construction Services for phase 2 $173, Portion of cost allocated to Taxable Properties (50%) $86, Portion of Cost allocated to Town of Canmore (50%) $86, Total affected parcels (phase 2) 47 Remaining amortization Period, years (lower) 15 Interest Rate 4.139% Local Improvement Cost Allocation per Parcel and Repayment Charges 2010 Plan Block Lot Civic Address Year to Start LIT Total LIT Cost per Parcel Annual LIT Repayment (incl. interest) 4171JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ JK 9 20 THREE SISTERS DRIVE (to 2014) $2,162 SUBDIVISION $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ JK 9 19 THREE SISTERS DRIVE (to 2014) $2,162 SUBDIVISION $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK 9 3 THREE SISTERS DRIVE (2014) $1,417 SUBDIVISION $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 (2014) $2,162 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK 9 10 S 257A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK 9 10 N 257B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $ JK B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 Total Local Improvements for Phase 2 (Lower Three Sisters Drive) $86,999 Update: 10/17/2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 29 of 88

30 287B 287A A ane Bylaw Schedule B Lower Three Sisters Drive Affected Property Owners 134A Rundle Crescent si Place Grassi Place Three Sister Drive 200 Grassi Place B 271A A 272B St. Barbara's Terrace B 266A Three Sister Drive 262A 262B 260A 260B A 258B B 127A 126B 126A 125 Rundle Plante Lane B 120A B 257A 255B 255A B 253A B 247A B 243A A 246B Rundleview Drive :1, Meters Three Sister Drive Three Sister Drive November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 30 of 88 Date: 10/12/2016 Name: ENG Map produced by Town of Canmore GIS Services B 229A Rundle Dri

31 Attachment 2 TOWN OF CANMORE BYLAW PROVINCE OF ALBERTA Consolidated April 13, 2015 This Bylaw replaces Bylaw Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement on Three Sisters Drive (lower). WHEREAS The Council of the Town of Canmore has decided to issue a bylaw pursuant to Section 251 of the Municipal Government Act to authorize the financing, undertaking and completing of the Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement on Three Sisters Drive. The Council has also decided to set uniform tax rates on each parcel of land based on the estimated cost of the local improvement pursuant to Section 398(l) (c) (ii) of the Municipal Government Act. This amending Bylaw reflects the actual cost of the construction of this local Improvement upon completion. The Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26. 1, R.S.A. 2000, provides as follows: 399 The undertaking of a local improvement may be started, the local improvement tax bylaw may be passed and debentures may be issued before or after the actual cost of the local improvement has been determined The actual cost of the project is $ 173,998 of which 50% will be financed by way of a local improvement against the benefiting property owners. There are 35 properties that will share equally the costs for the sidewalk as there are 8 properties that have an existing sidewalk adjacent to the property. These properties will not be charged for the sidewalk portion of the local improvement. All properties (43) will share equally the costs of the path and curb and gutter. The affected parcels on lower Three Sisters Drive will commence payment for the Local Improvement Tax as part of the 2010 Tax Roll. The proposed local improvement will benefit 43 properties as shown on the map attached in the Appendix. All required approvals for the project have been obtained and the project is in compliance with all acts and regulations of the Province of Alberta. The Council of the Town of Canmore did not receive a sufficient number of petitions against the undertaking and construction of the Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE DULY ASSEMBLED ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That a tax rate of $2,162 per assessable parcel of land be set for the affected properties paying for 50% of the Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement. This tax rate can be paid as follows: a) Annual payments of $196 / year over a 15 year amortization period at 4.139% interest (Total cost per parcel = $2, over 15 years). b) Lump sum payment at any time. 2. That a tax rate of $1, per assessable parcel of land be set for the affected properties paying for 50% of the Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement. This tax rate can be paid as follows: a) Annual payments of $129/year over a 15 year amortization period at 4.139% interest (Total cost per November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 31 of 88

32 2 parcel = $1,930.80over 15 years). b) Lump sum payment at any time. 3. The "Local Improvement Parcel Cost Allocation" in the Appendix attached hereto is calculated on a per parcel basis. 4. That for the purpose of the Sidewalk, Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement the sum of $103, be collected by adding the annual amount to the municipal tax roll in 2010 to the affected properties on lower Three Sisters Drive (Total of 35 properties). 5. That for the purpose of the Path and Curb & Gutter Local Improvement the sum of $15, be collected by adding the annual amount to the municipal tax roll in 2010 to the affected properties on lower Three Sisters Drive (Total of 8 properties). 6. That any Local Improvement sum outstanding be paid in full prior to the Town granting subdivision of a property. 7. The indebtedness is contracted on the credit and security of the Town of Canmore at large. 8. This bylaw shall take effect on the day of the final passing thereof. 9. Bylaw is hereby repealed. FIRST READING: March 16, 2010 SECOND READING: March 16, 2010 THIRD READING: March 16, 2010 MAYOR DESIGNATED OFFICER November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 32 of 88

33 Bylaw Schedule A: Local Improvement payment information Project: Three Sisters Drive Sidewalk/Path/Curb and Gutter Installation Amended Bylaw Basis of Local Improvement Tax Calculations Basis of Calculations: Parcel Based Local Improvement Tax Actual Cost of Design and Construction Services for phase 2 $173, Portion of cost allocated to Taxable Properties (50%) $86, Portion of Cost allocated to Town of Canmore (50%) $86, Total affected parcels (phase 2) 43 Remaining amortization Period, years (lower) 15 Interest Rate 4.139% Local Improvement Cost Allocation per Parcel and Repayment Charges 2010 Plan Block Lot Civic Address Year to Start LIT Total LIT Cost per Parcel Annual LIT Repayment (incl. interest) Total LIT Cost per Parcel paid over Amortization Period 4171JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK 9 20 THREE SISTERS DRIVE (to 2014) $2,162 SUBDIVISION $0 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ JK 9 19 THREE SISTERS DRIVE 239 SUBDIVISION (to 2014) $2,162 $0 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK 9 3 THREE SISTERS DRIVE 271 SUBDIVISION (2014) $1,417 $0 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $64.50 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $64.50 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK 9 10 S 257A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK 9 10 N 257B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, Total Local Improvements for Phase 2 (Lower Three Sisters Drive) $86,999 $7,901 $118, November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 33 of 88

34 28 287B 287A B 286A 14 Bylaw Schedule B Amended Bylaw Lower Three Sisters Drive Affected Property Owners Lane A Rundle Crescent Grassi Place Grassi Place Three Sister Drive 200 Grassi Place B 271A St. Barbara's Terrace B 266A Three Sister Drive 262A 262B 260A 260B A 258B B 127A 126B 126A 125 Rundle Plante Lane A 120B B 257A 255B 255A 253B 253A B 247A B 243A A 246B Rundleview Drive Meters Date: 2/27/2015 Name: ENG Map produced by Town of Canmore GIS Services Three Sister Drive Three Sister Driv Bylaw November approved 1, 2016 by: Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page Page 343 of of B Rundl

35 Attachment 3 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 35 of 88

36 Bylaw Schedule A Bylaw Schedule A: Local Improvement payment information Project: Three Sisters Drive Sidewalk/Path/Curb and Gutter Installation Basis of Local Improvement Tax Calculations Basis of Calculations: Parcel Based Local Improvement Tax Actual Cost of Design and Construction Services for phase 2 $173, Portion of cost allocated to Taxable Properties (50%) $86, Portion of Cost allocated to Town of Canmore (50%) $86, Total affected parcels (phase 2) 43 Remaining amortization Period, years (lower) 15 Interest Rate 4.139% Local Improvement Cost Allocation per Parcel and Repayment Charges 2010 Plan Block Lot Civic Address Year to Start LIT Total LIT Cost per Parcel Annual LIT Repayment (incl. interest) Total LIT Cost per Parcel paid over Amortization Period 4171JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK 9 20 THREE SISTERS DRIVE (to 2014) $2,162 SUBDIVISION $0 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ JK 9 19 THREE SISTERS DRIVE 239 SUBDIVISION (to 2014) $2,162 $0 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $98 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK 9 3 THREE SISTERS DRIVE 271 SUBDIVISION (2014) $1,417 $0 $ B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $64.50 $ A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2015 $64.50 $ JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $1,417 $129 $1, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK 9 10 S 257A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK 9 10 N 257B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK A THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, JK B THREE SISTERS DRIVE 2010 $2,162 $196 $2, Total Local Improvements for Phase 2 (Lower Three Sisters Drive) $86,999 $7,901 $118, Bylaw November approved 1, 2016 by: Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page Page 362 of of 883

37 28 287B 287A B 286A 14 Bylaw Schedule B Lower Three Sisters Drive Affected Property Owners Lane A Rundle Crescent Grassi Place Grassi Place Three Sister Drive 200 Grassi Place B 271A St. Barbara's Terrace B 266A Three Sister Drive 262A 262B 260A 260B A 258B B 127A 126B 126A 125 Rundle Plante Lane A 120B B 257A 255B 255A 253B 253A B 247A B 243A A 246B Rundleview Drive Meters Date: 2/27/2015 Name: ENG Map produced by Town of Canmore GIS Services Three Sister Drive Three Sister Driv Bylaw November approved 1, 2016 by: Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page Page 373 of of B Rundl

38 Request for Decision DATE OF MEETING: November 1, 2016 Agenda #: F-3 TO: SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Council Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw Lori Rissling Wynn, Development Planner That Council give second and third readings to Bylaw with amendments as proposed by Administration (Attachment 2). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The bylaw amendment proposed would add Eating Establishment as a Discretionary use to the Country Inn Direct Control District located in the Cougar Creek area. A map of the area is included at the end of the existing direct control land use district. A Public Hearing was held on Tuesday October 11, In response to comments made at the Public Hearing, Administration has proposed amendments to Bylaw from what was presented at first reading. Administration recommends Council amend the bylaw as proposed by Administration and give second and third reading to Bylaw PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY The lands are in the Country Inn Direct Control District of Land Use Bylaw Council gave first reading to Bylaw on September 20, DISCUSSION The owners of one of the two Country Inns in this district have requested to add Eating Establishment as a Discretionary use to the district. Both inns have existing restaurants, however they currently only serve overnight guests of the inns. The applicants would also like to offer limited dining to the general public within the existing restaurant and because the current bylaw does not list Eating Establishments as a Permitted or Discretionary use, a bylaw amendment is required. Adding this use to the district as a Discretionary use would enable this use to occur, however as it would be Discretionary, implementation of the use requires submission and approval of a development permit. Development permitting would include statutory notifications and allow for consideration of additional conditions if required. Canmore Planning Commission is authorized by Council to issue development permits that meet the intent of this land use district. Consistency with Statutory Plans The 2016 Municipal Development Plan (MDP) identifies the following economic development goals: To be a business friendly environment where barriers to opportunity are diminished. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 38 of 88

39 Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Page 2 of 5 The Town will regularly review the commercial and industrial land use districts of the Land Use Bylaw to ensure the districts continue to provide an appropriate range of uses to support economic development initiatives. The Local/Neighbourhood Commercial section of the 2016 MDP states: [The] development of small, neighbourhood-scale commercial areas will be encouraged by the Town to provide retail and service uses that meet the daily needs of neighbourhood residents, where the design and operation of these businesses does not unduly affect the residential intent of the neighbourhood. Local/neighbourhood commercial areas will be centrally located and adjacent to primary road systems, and designed to be pedestrian accessible. The 2016 MDP also supports developing local/neighbourhood commercial areas and further suggests reviewing Land Use Bylaw districts to ensure the uses listed reflect that commitment to economic development. Issues raised at the public hearing A number of issues were raised at the Public Hearing and Administration has proposed amendments to the land use district in response to the issues. The proposed amendments are summarized in the table below and shown in the redline version of the bylaw (Attachment 2) and the district wording (Attachment 4). Issue Parking Concern was raised that the use will result in additional strain on parking along Benchlands Trail and Eagle Landing. Response/Amendment Parking for both the Inn and the restaurant has been calculated and can be accommodated on Lot 4 and the adjacent undeveloped Lot 5 (see Map 1 below). The applicants are able to provide adequate parking on the parcels for the existing and proposed use. A shared parking agreement registered on both titles will be required as part of the development permitting process. The applicants currently own both Lot 4 and 5. If they choose to develop or sell the lot in the future, the shared parking will have to be accommodated. The existing parking congestion is related to a number of overlapping activities at this location, and because the applicants are able to offer parking on site, parking should not be seriously exacerbated by this use. While patronage cannot be defined with any certainty, many of the patrons from the surrounding residential neighbourhoods could choose to walk to the Eating Establishment, therefore parking for those diners would not be required. For clarity, the parking requirements for Eating Establishments, in accordance with the Land Use Bylaw, have been added to Section November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 39 of 88

40 Bylaw Stewart Creek Residential Page 3 of 5 Noise Concern was raised that the use will result in additional noise impacts to the surrounding adjacent neighbourhoods. Stand-alone Eating Establishment Concern was raised that a stand-alone Eating Establishment could be built on the adjacent undeveloped lot, which would be inconsistent with the intent of the district. The existing Noise Control Bylaw allows the Town to respond to unreasonable noise. The Development Authority could consider defining appropriate hours of operation as a development permit condition. The applicants have stated they are installing an air conditioning unit which will reduce the need to open windows and doors thereby reducing noise impacts. A new section has been added, Section Eating Establishment Guidelines, which states: Eating Establishments must be accessory to the Small Scale Visitor Accommodation use of this district. The above will ensure that any future development permit application for a stand-alone Eating Establishment on the undeveloped parcel would have to comply with the intent of the district, i.e. a restaurant would have to be accessory to Visitor Accommodation. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 40 of 88

41 Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Page 4 of 5 Map 1 3 eating establishment stalls required and 3 provided; with room for an additional visitor accommodation stalls required and provided Changes to the Bylaw since 1 st Reading The following changes are proposed for Bylaw : 1) Addition of parking requirements for Eating Establishments in Section ) Addition of Section Eating Establishment Guidelines. 3) Renumbering of Sections to accommodate the addition of Section ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS No alternatives have been examined. FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated financial impacts for the Town that would result from this bylaw. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT A public hearing was held October 11, The Town of Canmore has done no additional stakeholder engagement for this bylaw and none is required beyond the Public Hearing and notification as per the Municipal Government Act. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The application aligns with the following Town of Canmore Strategic Plan goal: Canmore has a diverse economy that is resilient to change November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 41 of 88

42 Bylaw Stewart Creek Residential Page 5 of 5 Town of Canmore decisions are based on informed and accurate information and deliberated in an open and transparent fashion ATTACHMENTS 1) Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw approved at first reading 2) Bylaw Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw proposed for second and third reading 3) Redline of the proposed change to the Country Inn Direct Control District approved at first reading 4) Redline of the proposed change to the Country Inn Direct Control District proposed for second and third reading AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Approved by: Approved by: Approved by: Approved by: Lori Rissling Wynn Development Planner Date: October 14, 2016 Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BABA Manager of Financial Services Date: October 19, 2016 Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Development Date October 17, 2016 Mike Fark General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Date: October 17, 2016 Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: October 21, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 42 of 88

43 BYLAW Attachment 1 Bylaw as approved at First Reading A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AMEND LAND USE BYLAW The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows: 1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as the Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw. 2: PROVISIONS 2.1. That section of the Land Use Bylaw be amended to include Eating Establishment in the list of discretionary uses. 3: ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 3.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed. FIRST READING: September 20, 2016 SECOND READING: October 11, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING: THIRD READING: Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore: John Borrowman Mayor Date Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk Date Bylaw approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 43 of 88

44 Attachment 2 Amendments proposed by Administration for Second and Third Reading BYLAW A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AMEND LAND USE BYLAW The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows: 1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as the Country Inn Direct Control District Amendment Bylaw. 2: PROVISIONS 2.1. That section of the Land Use Bylaw be amended to include Eating Establishment in the list of discretionary uses Addition of parking requirements for Eating Establishments to Section as follows: Parking for Eating Establishments will be calculated in accordance with the parking requirements in the General Regulations, specifically the General Parking Regulations section Addition of Section Eating Establishment Guidelines. Eating Establishments must be accessory to the Small Scale Visitor Accommodation use of this district Renumbering of Sections to : ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 3.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed. FIRST READING: September 20, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING: October 11, 2016 SECOND READING: THIRD READING: Bylaw approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 44 of 88

45 Town of Canmore Bylaw Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore: John Borrowman Mayor Date Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk Date Bylaw approved by: Page 2 of 2 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 45 of 88

46 Country Inn Direct Control District [49-96DC] Purpose and Intent Attachment 3 Bylaw as approved at First Reading To provide lots for small scale visitor accommodation in the form of a Country Inn district Permitted Uses One Residential Dwelling Unit per Country Inn Small Scale Visitor Accommodation (max 12 visitor rooms) Discretionary Uses Accessory Uses Accessory Buildings Signs Eating Establishment Minimum Requirements Area of Site 930m Width of Site 20m Front Yard 4.5m (no front vehicular access) Side Yards Principal Building 3.0m Side Yards Accessory Building 3.0m Rear Yard Principal Building 3.0m from easement Rear yard Accessory Building 1.5m from easement Site Coverage All buildings including Accessory Buildings: 40 per cent of the site Height Principal Building: 3 stories or 10.66m Accessory Buildings: 5m Parking One space per visitor accommodation unit Two spaces per residential dwelling Vehicular Access All lots shall have minimum 6.0m rear access easements. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 46 of 88

47 3.8.9 Architectural Controls Attachment 3 Bylaw as approved at First Reading All buildings shall conform to the intent and principles of design identified in the Section 9, Community Architectural and Urban Design Standards, to the satisfaction of the Development Authority Development Authority Council hereby authorizes the Canmore Planning Commission to issue development permits that meet the intent of this land use district Sustainability Screening Report A Sustainability Screening Report is required by the Town as part of the Development Permit application process for developments with a GFA of 500m 2 or more in accordance with Section 1, Administration, and the Town of Canmore Sustainability Screening Process Schedules Schedule A shows the location of this District. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 47 of 88

48 Attachment 4 Country Inn Direct Control District [49-96DC] Purpose and Intent To provide lots for small scale visitor accommodation in the form of a Country Inn district Permitted Uses One Residential Dwelling Unit per Country Inn Small Scale Visitor Accommodation (max 12 visitor rooms) Discretionary Uses Accessory Uses Accessory Buildings Signs Eating Establishment Minimum Requirements Area of Site 930m Width of Site 20m Front Yard 4.5m (no front vehicular access) Side Yards Principal Building 3.0m Side Yards Accessory Building 3.0m Rear Yard Principal Building 3.0m from easement Rear yard Accessory Building 1.5m from easement Site Coverage All buildings including Accessory Buildings: 40 per cent of the site Height Principal Building: 3 stories or 10.66m Accessory Buildings: 5m Parking One space per visitor accommodation unit Two spaces per residential dwelling Parking for Eating Establishments will be calculated in accordance with the parking requirements in the General Regulations, specifically the General Parking Regulations section Vehicular Access All lots shall have minimum 6.0m rear access easements. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 48 of 88

49 Attachment Architectural Controls All buildings shall conform to the intent and principles of design identified in the Section 9, Community Architectural and Urban Design Standards, to the satisfaction of the Development Authority Eating Establishment Guidelines Eating Establishments must be accessory to the Small Scale Visitor Accommodation use of this district Development Authority Council hereby authorizes the Canmore Planning Commission to issue development permits that meet the intent of this land use district Sustainability Screening Report A Sustainability Screening Report is required by the Town as part of the Development Permit application process for developments with a GFA of 500m 2 or more in accordance with Section 1, Administration, and the Town of Canmore Sustainability Screening Process Schedules Schedule A shows the location of this District. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 49 of 88

50 Attachment 4 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 50 of 88

51 Request for Decision DATE OF MEETING: November 1, 2016 Agenda #: F-4 TO: SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Council Bylaw Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments Patrick Sorfleet, Planning and Development Supervisor That Council give first reading to Bylaw Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments and schedule a public hearing for November 22 nd, 2016 at 5 p.m. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bylaw seeks to move the boundaries of several areas currently within the PD district in order to match currently approved lot boundaries and to match the maps within the Spring Creek Mountain Village (SCMV) Area Redevelopment Plan. RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS Bylaw the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan as amended is the statutory plan which governs the redevelopment of the SCMV area. DISCUSSION What is being proposed? This bylaw is intended to alter the boundaries of several Public Use District (PD) areas so that they match the boundaries of parcels either approved for subdivision or planned for future subdivision. Why is this necessary? SCMV applied for land use and the boundaries of those areas in many cases prior to the subdivision of the land. To do this, they had to estimate where they would be locating Municipal Reserve (MR) in the future. This approach has been consistent with the Land Use Concept Map (figure 3 of the SCMV ARP); however, challenges have arisen between the conceptual plan and the exact placement and design of buildings. Now that more detailed design and planning has occurred, a more optimal location of the PD district boundaries is being proposed. MR vs PD The current and future PD districts effectively identify where MR parcels will be provided at future (or current) subdivisions. Recall that PD is the land use district which governs use and provides regulations for an area of land whereas MR is a parcel designation for land which is provided at subdivision stage to the Town of Canmore, the use of which is limited via the Municipal Government Act. While the two areas November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 51 of 88

52 Bylaw SCMV Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments Page 2 of 3 generally match, it should be noted that MR does not have to be in a PD district and that PD districts can apply to land that is not MR. Is this a substantive change? No, this is not a substantive change to the SCMV area as a whole. The SCMV ARP commits to a minimum of 15% MR and the balance of that land to be provided as MR is managed through a deferred reserve caveat on the title of the main SCMV parcel. The proposed changes, if adopted would alter the shape of some of those future MR and development parcels but will still result in the appropriate amount of MR lands. Stage 1 changes (includes area 1 and area 2) The stage 1 changes will allow for the building connections contemplated in Bylaw Area 1 is being increased to accommodate the reduction in area 2 (Figure1). The actual area of the PD districts is not relevant as they extend to the centre of the road right of way; however, the total amount of MR that the Town will receive at subdivision remains the same; it just moves from area 2 to area 1. Figure 1: Locations of Change Stage 2 changes (includes area 3) Area 3 (Figure 1) is proposed to be reduced in size per the approved subdivision. At the time of subdivision, the Planning, Engineering and Parks departments concurred that the reduced width of this area was still more than sufficient to accommodate the multi-use trail connection to the path network on the perimeter of SCMV. The balance of MR is carried on a deferred reserve caveat and will be provided in an alternate and more appropriate location later in the development of SCMV. Sustainability Screening Report The applicant s SSR matrix shows a net positive impact; however the matrix is not able to be accurately completed for this type of application. The narrative describes some benefit and Administration believes there is no negative to the proposed bylaw. In aggregate, the total park space will remain the same. Further, the redistribution of this space will make more efficient use of land and is likely to result in better public spaces as those areas of high or multi-use are able to be enlarged and those connector areas are more appropriately sized. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES No alternatives have been examined. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The proposed land use amendments would have not financial impacts on the Town of Canmore. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 52 of 88

53 Bylaw SCMV Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments Page 3 of 3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT No additional stakeholder engagement beyond the statutory public hearing is proposed. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The proposed bylaw does not fall within Council s strategic plan. ATTACHMENTS 1) Applicant s Submission 2) Applicant s SSR Narrative 3) Applicant s SSR Matirx 4) Bylaw AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Approved by: Approved by: Approved by: Patrick Sorfleet, RPP, MCIP Planning and Development Supervisor Date: October 13, 2016 Alaric Fish, MSc, MCIP Manager of Planning and Development Date October 13, 2016 Mike Fark General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Date: October 17, 2016 Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: October 21, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 53 of 88

54 Attachment 1 Supporting Report for Proposed Land Use Amendments Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & Stage 2 Public District Amendments Lot 1, Block 1, Plan Submitted for: Spring Creek Mountain Village Inc. By: McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. September 8, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 54 of 88

55 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Purpose/Location Proposed Amendments Stage 1: Housekeeping Amendment - Hotel Stage 2 Residential Amendments Policy Framework Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan Sustainability Screening Report Closing List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Location Stage 1 MR Amendments Stage 1 Land Use District Amendments Stage 2 MR Amendments Stage 2 Land Use District Amendments Figure 6 SCMV ARP Figure 7 Figure 7 SCMV ARP Figure 7 Illustrating Amendments List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Stage 1 Amendments Stage 2 Amendments November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 55 of 88

56 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose/Location The subdivision and urban design process is currently underway for Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Spring Creek Mountain Village development. The Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan was originally approved by the Town of Canmore in Since then, several land use bylaw amendments have been completed to re-designate parcels in accordance with the ARP. As lot lines are refined within Spring Creek for each phase of development, land use amendments may be required. Specifically, there are several Public District parcels (proposed Municipal Reserve lands) that are in need of re-alignment in order to remain consistent with current subdivision approvals and recent land use bylaw/arp amendments. Green spaces, reserve lands, and trails are an important aspect of the overall Spring Creek design. Ensuring that these spaces are carefully thought out and logically interconnected is vital to the success of the area. The proposed realignments of MR lands follow the intent of the approved land use and open space pattern set out in the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan and will be as equally beneficial to the community. 1 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 56 of 88

57 Figure 1: Location 2.0 Proposed Amendments 2.1 Stage 1: Housekeeping Amendment - Hotel The hotel site recently received subdivision approval from the Town of Canmore in July, In November of 2015, the Town approved Bylaw which was a bylaw to amend the SCMV-C District and the SCMV ARP. Included in these amendments was the provision for an above ground or underground pedestrian bridge connecting two of the proposed hotel November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 57 of 88 2

58 buildings. The pedestrian corridor is would be aligned within the proposed Municipal Reserve lands and current Public District as outlined below, however the Town does not permit a private pedestrian corridor within municipal reserve lands. To resolve this, a narrow strip is proposed to be removed from Lot 3MR and replaced by an access right-of-way which would ensure public access across the MR lands to Spring Creek Drive. The land over this underground pedestrian corridor would look similar in appearance to the neighbouring MR lands (natural green space), ensuring a smooth transition to Spring Creek Drive. The access easement would be registered on title at the time of subdivision. To make up for this loss of Municipal Reserve lands within Stage I, it is proposed that the 0.015ha of usable MR that will be removed from Lot 3MR be added to Lot 2MR to the north. This has little impact on the overall flow and connectivity of the reserve lands and creates a larger, more usable park space adjacent to Policeman Creek, north of the proposed hotel. The below table and maps outline the proposed re-designations in more detail. Table 1: Stage 1 Amendments DISTRICT (Stage 1) Area (Ha) Area (Ac) From PD to SCMV-C (Lot 3MR) ha ac From SCMV-C to PD (Lot 2MR) ha ac Figure 2: Stage 1 MR Amendments November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 58 of 88 3

59 Figure 3: Stage 1 Land Use Amendments 2.2 Stage 2 Residential Amendments As subdivision and detailed design occurs within Stage 2, amendments are required to ensure that the proposed open spaces and reserve lands complement each development area while still following the intent of the approved land use and open space pattern set out in the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Stage 2 subdivision was approved on August 16, To better accommodate the proposed residential land uses onsite and to ensure that the land use remains consistent with the subdivision approval, it is proposed that Lot 16MR be reduced in width from 17.04m to 10m. This ha park will maintain sufficient access to Spring Creek and the proposed pedestrian trail along the creek, and will also provide a well-sized neighbourhood park. All pedestrian links are maintained in accordance with the SCMV ARP open space policies. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 59 of 88 4

60 There is currently a deferred reserve caveat an title for the entire Spring Creek development. As reserve land is allocated, this deferred reserve caveat is reduced accordingly. The ha which will be removed from Lot 16MR will likely be moved to Lot 21MR in the future, to create larger, more functional park space. The details of this will be outlined when with the subdivision of future phases and will require approval from the Town. No loss of municipal reserve is occurring onsite however as this re-alignment of reserve land will be reflected on the deferred reserve caveat. Table 2: Stage 2 Amendments DISTRICT (Stage 2) Area (Ha) Area (Ac) Change From PD to SCMV-CR (Lot 16MR) ha ac ha to ha Figure 3: Stage 2 Municipal Reserve Amendment November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 60 of 88 5

61 Figure 4: Stage 2 Land Use Amendments 3.0 Policy Framework 3.1 Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan The Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan provides a framework for future subdivision and development within Spring Creek. The plan was approved in 2004 and since then has gone through several amendments. Section 4.9 of the ARP and Figure 7 Open Space and Trails, provide guidelines for open space development within Spring Creek including municipal reserve, private open space, and a trail network. As stated on page 28 of the ARP: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 61 of 88 6

62 The open space policies are designed to ensure that important natural areas are preserved and that the new development areas are served by a diversity of active and passive open spaces linked with a comprehensive trail system. With respect to municipal reserve lands, the ARP states the below: Municipal Reserves: Except were Municipal Reserve dedication has already been provided or adjustments for deferred reserve caveats are required, 15 percent of the developable land (or equivalent park improvements) shall be established as Municipal Reserve. The allocation of Municipal Reserve in each phase may be greater or less than 15 percent provided the overall requirement is provided. The distribution of Municipal Reserve shall generally be as shown on the Open Space and Trails Plan Figure 7. The original ARP figure 7 is illustrated below in Figure 4. The minor amendments are illustrated on Figure 5. Typically, minor refining of parcel boundaries is expected at the subdivision stage of projects. The proposed changes are in line with the general intent of the SCMV ARP open space policies and with the Municipal Reserve distribution shown within the SCMV ARP and as such an amendment to the ARP document is not anticipated. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 62 of 88 7

63 Figure 5: Existing ARP Figure 7 - Open Space and Trails November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 63 of 88 8

64 Figure 6: Amendments Illustrated on ARP Figure 7 - Open Space and Trails November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 64 of 88 9

65 3.2 Sustainability Screening Report As part of the land use bylaw amendment process a Sustainability Screening Report is required by the Town of Canmore. As such a Sustainability Screening report has been prepared for the above amendments. 4.0 Closing The proposed land use amendments follow the intent of the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan and are in keeping with previous land use bylaw/scmv ARP amendments. As each stage progresses through detailed design and subdivision, lot lines may be refined and small housekeeping amendments are necessary to keep all documents consistent. The amendments to the proposed municipal reserve lands are in line with the open space policies and mapping outlined in the SCMV ARP. November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 65 of 88 10

66 Attachment 2 Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & 2 Land Use Bylaw Amendments Sustainability Screening Report Submitted for: Spring Creek Mountain Village Inc. By: McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. September 8, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 66 of 88

67 Table of Contents 1 Project Location & Background Purpose Location Proposed Amendments Overview Sustainability Screening Analysis Strengthening the Social Fabric Enhancing Environmental Stewardship Building Economic Sustainability Closing... 9 List of Figures Figure 1 Location November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 67 of 88

68 1 Project Location & Background 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Sustainability Screening Report is to demonstrate how the proposal will provide a net benefit to the community and build on the Town s sustainability initiatives. Stages one and two of Spring Creek Mountain Village are currently undergoing subdivision and detailed design. During this process, lot lines may be refined and minor land use bylaw amendments may be necessary as each phase develops. The Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan was originally approved by the Town of Canmore in The proposed land use bylaw amendments follow the intent of the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan and are in keeping with previous land use bylaw/scmv ARP amendments onsite. The land use bylaw amendment proposes slight adjustments to municipal reserve/public District parcels within Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Spring Creek Mountain Village development. There will be no loss of municipal reserve lands within the development as a whole, rather these MR lands are proposed to either be repositioned within the same phase or within a future phase and reflected on the existing deferred reserve caveat. The proposed amendments follow the intent of the open space and trail network as outlined in the SCMV ARP. 1.2 Location The Spring Creek Mountain Village (SCMV) Stage 1 Visitor Accommodation site covers an area of approximately 2.39 hectares located on the northern edge of Spring Creek and one block south of main street Canmore. Policeman s Creek and Spring Creek flank the west and eastern boundary of this Stage. The site is proposed to contain three hotel buildings, with a potential for 200 units in total. Spring Creek Mountain Village (SCMV) Stage 2 covers an area of approximately 5.6 hectares located immediately south of Stage 1 in the central portion of the SCMV site. Policeman s Creek and Spring Creek flank the west and eastern boundary of this Stage. Figure 1 outlines the proposed amendments areas within Stage 1 and 2. 1 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 68 of 88

69 Figure 1: Location Amendment areas circled in purple. 1.3 Proposed Amendments The Stage 1 and Stage 2 amendments are outlined briefly below. Further details on the proposed amendments can be found in the Spring Creek Stage 1 & 2 Supporting Report for Land Use Amendments. Stage 1 - Hotel The recently amended (2015) SCMV ARP allows for an above ground or underground pedestrian corridor to link two of the hotel buildings. Through further research and detailed design, the developer has decided on an underground pedestrian link. The Town does not permit a private pedestrian corridor 2 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 69 of 88

70 within municipal reserve lands. To resolve this, a narrow strip is proposed to be removed from Lot 3MR replaced by an access right-of-way which would ensure public access across the MR lands to Spring Creek Drive. To make up for this loss of Municipal Reserve lands, the same amount of MR (0.015ha) will be added to Lot 2MR to the north, adjacent to the ER lands and Policeman s Creek. Stage 2 Residential To better accommodate the proposed residential land uses onsite it is proposed that Lot 16MR be reduced in width from 17.04m to 10m, which will remove ha of proposed MR land from this area, to be repositioned within the Spring Creek development. This remaining ha parcel of MR will maintain sufficient access to Spring Creek and the proposed pedestrian trail along the creek, and provide a well-sized neighbourhood park. The ha which will be removed from Lot 16MR will likely be repositioned to Lot 21MR in the future, to create larger, more functional park space. The details of this will occur when future phases are to be subdivided. No loss of municipal reserve is occurring onsite as this reserve land is reflected on the existing deferred reserve caveat to be repositioned within a future phase. 1.4 Overview The below sections outline the key components of the Sustainability Screening report. Sustainability Screening reports have been completed and approved by the Town of Canmore for Stage 1 (2009 with amendments in 2015) and Stage 2 (2009). This document is intended to supplement to these already completed SSRs with relation to the proposed MR/Public District amendments. An SSR matrix has been attached to supplement this document however due to the nature of the amendments, the SSR narrative will better outline the amendments and benefits. 2 Sustainability Screening Analysis 2.1 Strengthening the Social Fabric Does the project create growth that retains/enhances the Town s identity? What percentage of the site is set aside and is effective for accommodating meeting and social interaction? 3 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 70 of 88

71 Many of the SCMV ARP objectives including increased residential densities, mixed uses, diversity of housing types, sense of place, and a location and design that encourages walking, cycling and environmental stewardship all closely support the principles established for the Sustainability Screening process. At full build out, Spring Creek will provide 15% of its developable land as municipal reserve which can be used for recreation and social interaction. This MR and open space is logically interspersed throughout the development in the form of parks and trails, creating a pedestrian oriented streetscape and trail network. With the development being close to downtown and other commercial and recreational services, pedestrian and bicycle movement will be a popular choice for residents and visitors. This will reduce car use and encourage non-vehicular transportation. The proposed trail system will make travel within Spring Creek safe and efficient and will also provide connectivity to adjacent land uses. The amendments outlined in the attached Spring Creek Stage 1 & 2 Supporting Report for Land Use Amendments do not propose an overall loss of municipal reserve lands, but instead, propose slight adjustments in the locations of these reserve parcels. The amendments follow the intent of the approved land use and open space pattern set out in the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan. The proposed amendments have no impact on the overall flow and connectivity of the reserve lands and trail connections onsite. The Stage 1 amendment will benefit the social fabric of the community by creating a larger, more usable park space adjacent to Policeman Creek for public use and social gathering. In addition to providing a larger park space, the repositioned MR will be located adjacent to the ER lands and the proposed creek trail, creating a buffer from the creek bank similar to its existing location to the south. As the proposed right-of-way for the underground pedestrian corridor will be left in its natural state, visually this land will appear identical to the adjacent MR lands, essentially creating more open space onsite. In addition, pedestrian movement will be further enhanced by the proposed underground tunnel connecting the two hotel sites. This creates an opportunity for underground and above ground pedestrian flow onsite and creates an all seasons alternative for mobility within the hotel site. In Stage 2 the loss of 0.023ha of MR will be repositioned in an adjacent phase in the future. It is likely that this land be added to Lot 21MR to the east and that the shape of Lot 21 MR be re-arranged to provide a larger, more functional block of reserve land off of Spring Creek Drive. The community would 4 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 71 of 88

72 benefit from the location of this reserve land in the more centralized park in the middle of Stage 2. This provides more space for a centralized social gathering spot and provides more options for this reserve parcel whether it be for active or passive recreational uses. The remaining Lot 16MR will still provide adequate space for a small neighbourhood park and will maintain access to the Spring Creek pedestrian trail, having little effect on the overall flow of park space. Does the project provide accessible (physically and cost) recreation or cultural facilities or programs? The Spring Creek area encourages a walkable community which will enhance the social fabric of Canmore by creating a higher density mix of land uses interspersed with trails and parks in proximity to downtown. Being one block from Main Street, walking and cycling will be an attractive option for residents and visitors. The Creekside trails will also be a great benefit to the community s health and well-being. In addition to promoting a walkable community, Stage 2 will provide public outdoor spaces in the form of landscaped medians and sidewalks along Spring Creek Drive. The village square will provide an all season multi-functional outdoor space in the heart of the community and the adjacent central MR will function as an important trail intersection point for the north/south creek side trail and the east/west trail linkage. The proposed amendments will not affect walkability within the community nor will it decrease the number and quality of parks and open spaces. The phase I amendments will promote pedestrian movement within the hotel site by providing all weather connections between buildings and to ground floor commercial uses in the main hotel building. Spring Creek will retain its pedestrian friendly streetscapes and a variety of open space uses such as creek side trails, large feature parks, a village square, small neighbourhood parks, and landscaped medians. Along the creek will be small public activity nodes for either small play structure, exercise apparatus or a sitting and viewing areas. 5 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 72 of 88

73 2.2 Enhancing Environmental Stewardship Does the project move the Town towards more efficient land use by increasing density compared to existing densities? Does the project provide reasonable access to basic community services from residences? Does the project encourage people to use bicycles or walking as a means of transportation? With Spring Creek being a high density, infill development close to downtown there is no contribution to urban sprawl and it reduces any impact on environmentally sensitive areas or wildlife habitats. New trails proposed within the development will encourage walking and bicycling as a main mode of transportation both within the development and throughout the community, reducing automobile dependency. The proximity to Canmore s downtown core along with this new trail system will ensure that residents and visitors can safely and efficiently access commercial services and facilities by walking or cycling. Bike parking is provided throughout the development to further encourage alternative modes of transportation. Does the project minimize its impact on the natural environment? A combination of open spaces, municipal reserve, environmental reserve, and creek side trails will provide protection of riparian habitat by creating a buffer zone and will create controlled access points to discourage off-trail use and encourage creek bank rehabilitation. Mitigation to control and reduce disturbances will include responsible garbage disposal and signage along the trials to promote environmental protection. The creek bank ER and integrated trail system will be designed to ensure that run-off does not flow from the development area into the creeks. This will be achieved by a slightly convex or dished section in the transition area between public and private space. Infill development in general reduces sprawl, uses existing infrastructure, and reduces impact on wildlife habitats and sensitive environments. The proposed amendments do not affect the natural environment as no overall loss of municipal reserve lands or Environmental Reserve lands are being proposed. The proposed adjustments maintain adequate reserve space in proximity to the creeks to create a natural buffer and concentrate and control human impact to certain areas of the site. The amendments will not affect the overall flow of pedestrians and bikes within the development and creek side trails and parks will be maintained with only slight adjustments in the shape of these reserve lands. In Stage 2, the reduction in municipal 6 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 73 of 88

74 reserve land will be reflected in the deferred reserve caveat with future reserve lands being repositioned in a manner which promotes pedestrian movement and does not negatively affect the natural environment. The Stage 1 amendment will create the appearance of additional open space as the space above the underground pedestrian corridor, within the access right of way will be kept in a natural state and maintain a seamless transition to Spring Creek Drive. The remaining reserve will be added to the existing Public District adjacent to Policeman s Creek, thus creating the appearance of more open space overall. This provides a larger more functional piece of reserve land near the creek and therefore provides additional buffering from sensitive riparian habitat. 2.3 Building Economic Sustainability What is the long-term fiscal impact to the Town? Does the project contribute to economic diversification? Stage 1 of the project involves three hotel buildings, with a potential for 200 visitor accommodation units in total, providing the long term commercial component of Spring Creek and assisting the Town in meeting commercial tax base and employment goals. Stage 2 provides a mix of housing types including creekside townhomes, townhomes, apartment units, and live/work studios for a variety of age groups and income levels. Live/work studios located in Stage 2 will give the option for people to have an expanded home based business with street frontage, providing further economic opportunities for residents. The proposed Stage 1 amendments are intended to provide space for an underground pedestrian link between two of the hotels. The other potential pedestrian link to connect the remaining hotels would be in the form of a pedestrian bridge over Spring Creek Drive. These pedestrian links will further enhance the design of the proposed hotels by providing convenient all weather access between the hotel buildings and efficient access to the ground floor commercial uses in the main conference centre/hotel building. This amenity will improve pedestrian flow and enhance the overall design of the hotel, making the hotel more attractive to visitors. 7 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 74 of 88

75 In Stage 2, the re-arrangement of the proposed municipal reserve lands will allow for an additional townhouse unit and more efficient use of land. The mix of housing types within the development including townhomes, apartment units, and live work studios within a close proximity to the downtown core are what makes the development unique. With no negative affects to the overall flow of park and trail linkages within the development, the amendments will provide for the most efficient use of the land. How does the project contribute to the priorities contained in the Economic Development and Tourism Strategy? The project specifically identifies with the below Economic Development and Tourism Strategy priorities: STRATEGIC PRIORITY #1: TOURISM AND EVENTS: Enhance tourism and events as a sustainable, environmentally responsible economic driver for Canmore, increasing visitation and economic impact by 10% ($13 million) equivalent to 2% per year by Stage 1 of the project will increase the supply of high quality visitor accommodation within Town. The developments close proximity to downtown and abundance of trails will also help to create a vibrant downtown atmosphere appealing to residents and visitors. The interconnected hotel buildings and the ground floor commercial will further enhance the visitor experience. STRATEGIC PRIORITY #2: HEALTH AND WELLNESS: Health and Wellness becomes a defined, recognized, and integrated sector of the Canmore economy, and grows in employment and income by 3-5% by Stage 1 incorporates three hotel buildings, one of which is proposed as a spa focused hotel. This will further attract visitors through the health and wellness sector and create further jobs. STRATEGIC PRIORITY #5: SMALL/HOME-BASED BUSINESSES: Harness and mine our complement of small/home-based specialists and leverage their expertise to build sustainable groups of practice which support our economic development drivers. 8 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 75 of 88

76 Stage 2 of the project contains live/work studios which gives the option for people to have an expanded home based business with a street frontage. 3 Closing Overall, these minor amendments to Public District lands within the Spring Creek development do not affect the overall flow of open spaces and trails within the development. The amendments follow the intent and policies of the Spring Creek Mountain Village Area Redevelopment Plan. Many of the design elements being proposed within Spring Creek including mixed land uses, diversity of housing types, increased density, abundance of open spaces and trails, and walkability, all closely support the principles established for the Sustainability Screening process and therefore benefit the community as a whole. 9 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 76 of 88

77 Impact-Offset Matrix Sustainability Screening Report Process Impact - Offset Matrix Attachment 3 Summary Page Overall Results Impact Offset % % Economic Sustainability 0.00 #DIV/0! Environmental Stewardship 0.00 #DIV/0! Social Fabric 0.00 #DIV/0! Total Impact 0.00 Total Offset 0.19 Net Score 0.19 Economic Sustainability Economic Sustainability Income and Wages InfraCycle Assessment Non-Residential Tax Assessment Increasing commercial assessment 0.00 New employment above median salary 0.00 New employment outside of 4 significant sectors 0.00 Floor space for Economic Development & Tourism 0.00 Percentage of local construction labour value 0.00 Economic leadership or innovation Environmental Stewardship Environmental Stewardship Residential Water Consumption Residential / commercial mix of uses Commercial Water Consumption Higher density than current levels Residential Solid Waste Generation Access to community services from residences Commercial Solid Waste Generation Access to services from the commercial site All Building Energy use and GHG emissions Water saving measures Transportation Rain water harvesting system or infiltration Infrastructure (sanitary-gravity) Construction waste diversion rate Infrastructure (sanitary-pressure) Long-term, operating waste diversion Environmentally Sensitive Lands Parking stalls are un-assigned Land Consumption Bike parking of adequate quality Efficient Residential Land Use Average size of the dwellings Efficient Commercial Land Use LEED Certified Efficient Industrial Land Use Built Green Certified Efficient Mixed Use Residential Land Use Other green building certification programs Efficient Mixed Use Commercial Land Use Commercial energy consumption reduction Metres of trails / capita Residential energy consumption reduction Metres of new roads to service development Environmentally sensitive land protection 0.00 Minimize density adjacent to sensitive lands 0.00 Reuse an existing contaminated site 0.00 Environmental leadership or innovation Social Fabric Social Fabric Affordability of Market housing (in relation to median income) 0.00 PAH Housing Units of perpetually affordable housing Seniors Housing Cash contribution towards PAH Employee Housing Bedrooms of employee housing Childcare spaces Bedrooms for employees earning < median income Library Cash contribution towards employee housing Food Bank Usage Units of seniors housing Social Assistance Payments Percentage of the employees housed Crimes Against Persons and Property Employees rental assistance 10% below market levels 0.00 Percentage of site ares for social interaction 0.00 Reuse an existing historic property or building 0.00 Exceed minimum municipal reserve requirements 0.00 Accessible recreation or cultural facilities or programs 0.00 Contribution to recreation facilities 0.00 Support school enrollment 0.00 Support for current childcare facilities 0.00 Support for cultural establishments 0.00 Support for other non-profit community organizations 0.00 Unique supports for community programming 0.00 Support for special events 0.00 Public art component 0.00 Public consultation program 0.00 Social leadership or innovation November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 77 of 88

78 BYLAW Attachment 4 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AMEND THE LAND USE BYLAW The Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled, enacts as follows: 1: TITLE 1.1. This bylaw shall be known as the Spring Creek Mountain Village Stage 1 & 2 Public District Amendments Bylaw 2: PROVISIONS 2.1. That section 15 of the Land Use Bylaw be amended to re-designate the lands identified in schedule A of this bylaw from: a) PD (Public Use District) to DC-SCMV-C (Spring Creek Mountain Village Visitor Accommodation DC District) b) PD (Public Use District) to DC-SCMV-CR (Spring Creek Mountain Village Comprehensive Residential DC District). c) DC-SCMV-C to PD All in accordance with schedule A of this bylaw. 3: ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 3.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw Schedule A forms part of this bylaw This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed. FIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLIC HEARING: THIRD READING: Bylaw approved by: November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 78 of 88

79 Town of Canmore Bylaw Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore: John Borrowman Mayor Date Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk Date Bylaw approved by: Page 2 of 3 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 79 of 88

80 Town of Canmore Bylaw Schedule A Bylaw approved by: Page 3 of 3 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 80 of 88

81 Request for Decision DATE OF MEETING: November 1, 2016 Agenda # G-1 SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Request for Waiver or Reduction of Municipal Property Tax Penalty Katherine Van Keimpema, Manager of Finance That Council uphold the $ in penalties applied to Roll #16820 for late payment of 2016 property taxes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owners of tax roll #16820 are requesting a waiver or reduction of penalties applied, pursuant to Bylaw , Tax Penalty Bylaw, to unpaid 2016 property taxes in the amount of $ The penalties were correctly applied in accordance with the bylaw, therefore, administration is recommending that the request be denied and the penalties be upheld as applied. RELEVANT COUNCIL DIRECTION, POLICY, OR BYLAWS Bylaw provides for the imposition of penalties on unpaid property taxes. Sections 344 and 345 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) 1, provides for the imposition of penalties on unpaid property taxes by council, through bylaw. Additionally, Section 347 of the MGA provides council with the option to cancel, defer, or refund all or part of the taxes where it considers it equitable to do so. In the past, council has reviewed requests on a case-by-case basis, thus ensuring that proper consideration and reflection is given to confirm that taxes are collected and penalties applied according to legislation, local bylaw, and in an equitable manner. DISCUSSION The current owners of tax roll #16820 are requesting a waiver or reduction of the penalties applied to unpaid 2016 property taxes on the first business day after the June 30 payment deadline. Pursuant to Bylaw , Tax Penalty Bylaw, $ in penalties was correctly applied to the unpaid taxes on July 4, The owner argues that they had set up a post-dated on-line payment for the full amount of the taxes through their bank, to be executed on June 30. On July 5 the owner realized the payment did not go through. They then made an online payment for the full amount of the taxes owing, but not the penalties. Council has not historically refunded or waived penalties and administration does not recommend moving away from this practice. Notification that a penalty will be applied for late payment is included on the actual tax notices and advertised in the local newspaper. It is the taxpayer s responsibility to ensure payment is received on time and the back of the tax notice notifies owners of these options and encourages taxpayers to allow 2 5 days bank processing time for online payments, to ensure on time payment. (See attachment #2.) November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 81 of 88

82 Request for Waiver or Reduction of Municipal Property Tax Penalty Page 2 of 2 Historically, a number of owners have encountered problems with online payments or bank processing delays, thus the inclusion of information regarding these types of payments on the tax notice. The Town provides services to all properties and relies on tax dollars to fund them. Penalties are assessed to encourage prompt payment. It is administration s position that the penalties were correctly applied in accordance with Council s Bylaw and thus, should not be refunded in whole or in part. FINANCIAL IMPACTS If the owner s request was granted, $ would not be collected. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The written submission of the taxpayer requesting a tax penalty refund is attached. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council may approve a portion or the entire penalty amount for reduction. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Canmore s services and programs respond to the aspirations of its residents and visitors and are delivered in an effective, innovative, and fiscally responsible manner. ATTACHMENTS 1. Taxpayer request and supporting documentation. 2. Copy of the back of the 2016 property tax notice. AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Katherine Van Keimpema, CPA, CGA, BABA Manager of Finance Date: October 12, 2016 Lisa de Soto, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: October 21, 2016 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 82 of 88

83 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Importance: - Ken Cooke <Kcooke34l@shaw.ca> Tuesday, October 11, :42 AM Katherine Van Keimpema 341 Eagle Heights, Canmore - Roll#l6820 Scan_0002.pdf High Attachment Dear Ms.Van Keimpema, I am writing today to ask that the penalty applied for outstanding taxes due to the Town of Canmore Bylaw be presented to council for cancellation or reduction of the penalty assessed. I understand there is not an appeal process and that this is the only option available. I set our taxes to paid in full, through the bank online bill payment, for June 30/16 and obviously did something wrong. On realizing there was a problem on July 5/16, after checking with your departments and the Bank, I immediately again made payment in full, which was successful. On August 11/16, I received an invoice for a penalty of $ which is an excessive penalty for 5 days interest. If I had sent this payment via of mail, post-marked June 20/16, I am sure we would not be having this conversation. Attached find the correspondence associated with this file. I would ask that consideration be given to this request as the penalty is excessive. Taxpayer has asked this be changed to June 30/16. Regards, Ken Cooke kcooke341@shaw.ca Personal information removed as per Section 17(1) of the FOIP Act RSA 2000 Ch F-25 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. 1 Page 83 of 88

84 TOWN OF CANMORE Town of Canmore 902 7th Avenue Canmore, AB T1W3K1 Phone: (403) GST Registration #: R RECEIPT NO.: BATCH NO.: JULY 61MP DATE: 7/5/2016 Page: RECEIVED FROM IMPORTED CASH RECEIPT COOKE JANET M TYPE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAYMENT BALANCE Tax Roll IMPORTED CASH RECEIPT $6, $ Sub-Total $6, G.S.T. $0.00 Total $6, Cash Cheque lnterac $6, Credit Card Total Tendered $6, Rounding $0.00 Change $0.00 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 84 of 88

85 Ken Cooke From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Ken Cooke September :11AM 341 Eagle Heights Scan_OOOl.pdf High Dear Ms. DeSoto, I am writing today to ask for your help to resolve this matter. Please review the attached. I wrote to Ms. Staple on August 16/16 and have not received any acknowledgement or any reply. I fully realize this is my problem for a mistake made, however, the penalty is excessive. I am not sure there is anything that can be done, however, if someone had mailed a check postmarked June 30 and it was only received, due to mail, on July 5, I am sure that would be acceptable. Thanking you in advance for your consideration, I awa it your reply. Regards, I I I Ken Cooke November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 85 of 88 1

86 - Ken Cooke From: Sent: To: Subject -- mr --- Shannon Staple Monday, September 26, :02 PM Ken Cooke RE: Taxes- 341 Eagle Heights, Canmore- Roll # Hello Mr. Cooke; My apologies. I understand I did not respond to your inquiry. Not sure what happened there. In regards to the penalty applied in July to the outstanding balance of taxes due Town of Canmore Bylaw requires the application of a 9% penalty on the first day following the property tax due date and as a bylaw, neither Council nor administration has the option of not following it. As the bylaw does not include an appeal process, the only avenue open to you is to appeal to Council for a cancellation or reduction of the penalty, as provided for under section 347 of Alberta's Municipal Government Act. If you would like to pursue this option, please provide your written request, including what you are requesting and the reasons why you think Council should agree to it, to Katherine Van Keimpema, Manager of Financial Services and she will include it in an upcoming Council agenda for consideration. She will be required to prepare a staff report to accompany your request that recommends Council make a decision in line with the bylaw, which is to not grant your request; Council then makes a decision that may or may not follow the recommendation. Normally you will not have an opportunity to address Council or present your arguments in person, although you are more than welcome to attend the meeting and Council may call on you to answer any questions they have. Given this, please ensure you include all information in your request that you want Council to consider. The agenda for the meeting is prepared well ahead of t ime and she will need time to prepare the accompanying staff report, we will let you know what date it is on the agenda. I know this is not the answer you were hoping for, but I trust it does provide an explanation of why an adjustment cannot be made except under Council resolution. Regards, Shannon Staple Tax Officer From: Ken Cooke [mailto:kcooke341@shaw.ca] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, :25 PM To: Shannon Staple Subject: Taxes- 341 Eagle Heights, canmore- Roll #16820 Importance: High Dear Ms. Staple, I stopped by to see you but you were away from your desk, so decided to send an which you can respond to when able. 1 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 86 of 88

87 I set our taxes as a bill payment prior to leaving Canmore in the middle of June. I obviously did something wrong as the payment did not come out of the account on time and upon noticing the payment had not been paid, I immediately paid them on July 5, I checked with the bank and they have no record. I have since received additional billing in the amount of $ as a penalty for not paying on time. I realize you probably think... he forgot and is now trying to concoct a storey to get out of the interest payment. I can assure you that is not the case and a mistake is costing me $ I would ask that you go back in your records and you will find we have never been late on any payments in the last 14 years. I would also ask that consideration be given to dismiss this charge. If it is not to be dismissed, what is the additional interest charges and penalties attached to this charge. I thankyou in advance for your consideration and await your reply. Regards, Ken Cooke November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 87 of 88 2

88 Attachment 2 November 1, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 5 p.m. Page 88 of 88