Application from Van Harten Surveying Inc. on behalf of 8 Mitchell St Inc. for a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning from the current Neighbourhood… be received

12:49one we have up is for 8 Mitchell Street, which is a proposed zoning bylaw. And we're going to have a

12:57presentation from one of our own planners. And then we have one, two, three, four, we got five

13:03delegations that have signed up in advance for this item. Eric, you're at the podium. I will

13:10turn it over to you to kind of give us a presentation on this before we move forward. Further, go ahead.

13:16Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good afternoon, Mayor Guthrie, members of the City Council, staff, and members

13:22of the public. The City has received an application for a zoning bylaw amendment from Van Hart and

13:27Surveying to rezone the property known municipally as 8 Mitchell Street to permit the development of

13:32two semi-detached dwellings with four semi-detached dwelling units, uh, um, running onto Arthur

13:39Street on four separate lots. The applicant's intention is to provide two additional dwelling

13:43units on each of those lots within the main structure for a total of 12 dwelling units on

13:48the subject lands. Today's meeting is a statutory public meeting, uh, required under the Planning

13:53Act, and no decisions will be made on that, this application, uh, today. The subject site is an

14:01existing through lot with approximately 28 meters of frontage on Mitchell Street and 37 meters of

14:06frontage on Arthur Street North. The site is located west of Aramosa Road, and a former church building

14:12fronting onto Mitchell Street currently occupies the site. The subject lands are immediately bound

14:17on all sides by low density residential dwellings as well as one convenience commercial building

14:23located to the east fronting onto Aramosa. The lot has a size of approximately 1,815 square meters.

14:32The subject property is designated as low density residential in the official plan.

14:36This land use designation applies to residential areas within the city, which are low density in

14:40character. The low density residential designation is intended to provide a variety of low density

14:46residential housing forms and types, including detached, semi-detached, duplex dwellings,

14:52as well as multiple unit residential dwellings such as townhouses and apartment buildings.

14:56A small number of non-residential uses like the previous place of worship use are also permitted.

15:04The subject lands are zoned neighborhood institutional and I in the 2023 comprehensive

15:09zoning bylaw. The surrounding properties are all zoned low density residential RL1, except for one

15:15convenience commercial property fronting onto Aramosa Road that you can see just to the south

15:19of the subject property on the site. A portion of the subject lands are located in the zoning

15:24bylaws floodplain overlay. The portion of the lands closer to Arthur Street North. Development within

15:30this floodplain overlay is permitted, provided that the specific area flood proofing requirements

15:35are met as established by the Grand River Conservation Authority. The zoning bylaw amendment

15:42to change the zoning of the lands from neighborhood institutional and I to low density residential

15:47RL1 is required to facilitate the proposed development. The proposed development largely

15:57conforms to the RL1 zone as passed by council in April of 2023. However, as portions of the

16:03bylaw remain under appeal, 11 site specific provisions that actually conform with the RL1

16:08zone as passed by council are required. I can go into further detail on these if requested,

16:14but to be clear, these provisions are identical to those required in the RL1 zone as passed by

16:20council last year. These 11 site specific provisions are required as they're currently

16:24under appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal. The following two provisions are the only

16:33requested site specific provisions that do not conform with the RL1 zone as passed by council

16:37last year. These are firstly that the front line shall be the Arthur Street frontage and the rear

16:43lot line shall be the Mitchell Street frontage of the properties, whereas the bylaw currently

16:48recognizes both frontages on a through lot as front lot lines. And secondly that the second

16:54ADU may contain a maximum of four bedrooms, whereas the bylaw currently limits ADUs to two

16:59bedrooms in size or two bedrooms in size unless they are located within a basement, in which case

17:04three bedrooms may be permitted. Here you can see the proposed site plan for the development

17:12with Mitchell Street at the top of the screen and Arthur Street north at the bottom of the screen.

17:16The existing structure on the site would be removed and two semi-detached buildings

17:20would be constructed at fronting onto Arthur Street. Each of the four lots would be through lots

17:25and have frontage on both Mitchell Street and Arthur Street north. Here's a bit of a zoom in on the

17:34site plan. Each of the four lots would have five meter wide driveways and attached garages, allowing

17:40for three legal parking spaces per lot. This would meet the zoning bylaw's minimum parking

17:45requirements of one space per unit for the main dwellings and the two ADUs per lot that are proposed.

17:54Here's a potential proposed building rendering and a second option.

18:01Staff's review of this application will address the following issues. The evaluation of the

18:06proposal's conformity and consistency to the 2024 provincial policy statement, evaluation of the

18:12proposal's conformity with the official plan, review of the proposed zoning, review of the built

18:17form compatibility with adjacent and established land uses, review of supporting documents submitted

18:22with the development application, review how the proposed development addresses applicable sections

18:27of the community energy initiative update, review alignment with the city's affordable housing

18:33strategy and address all comments and issues raised during the review of this application.

18:38Once the application is reviewed and all issues have been addressed,

18:42staff report with the recommendation will be considered at a future meeting of council.

18:47Any issues raised at today's public meeting, either verbally or in writing, will be noted by

18:52planning staff for future consideration as we evaluate and review this application. And if

18:57anyone in attendance at tonight's meeting wishes to stay informed via regular mail of the application,

19:02including when the application is scheduled to return to council for a decision, please make sure

19:06that you provide your contact information to the clerk's office via email at clerks at wealth.ca

19:12or by calling 519-837-5609. Thank you very much and I'll be pleased to answer any questions council

19:19may have. Great, thank you very much. As is normal, I'll save questions for staff until after

19:27delegations. Okay, but thank you very much for your presentation to sort of set the stage here

19:32of what's in front of us. As I said, we have a few delegations and under this section,

19:39individuals would have up to 10 minutes if they wish to speak for this matter. Okay,

19:44doesn't mean you have to take the full 10 minutes, but you can if you if you wish.

19:48After we're done with that, I'll also do an open call to see if there's anyone else that needs to

19:52add anything that's new to the discussion. So coming to us in person is Jeff Buseman

20:01from Van Hart and surveying and not here, but you are Chris. Okay, because you're next on

20:08list Chris Krosky from Van Hart and surveying is coming over. May I just ask then is Jeff just not

20:15here tonight then? It's only you. Okay, okay, I'll just cross that name off the list then.

20:20Okay, and is Marcel here? Okay, you're in the wings. Okay, so you'll be up next.

20:27So again, no more than 10 minutes. You'll hear a chime at the nine minute 30 second mark just to

20:34kind of give you that 30 second warning. And then I'll ask the clerk actually from here on out that

20:40at the 10 minute mark we can turn off the microphone. So there's no no more speaking at the 10 minute

20:45mark. So go ahead, Chris over to you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know some of you, not all of you.

20:51My name is Chris Krosky. I'm a land use planner. And I'm acting on behalf of eight Mitchell Street

20:58Inc. which is the who are the proponents of this application. And I thought Eric did a very good

21:05job summarizing basically what the request is. And I just wanted to reinforce a few points.

21:14First of all, the site is designated low density residential and what we're proposing are

21:21two semi detached structures each containing two dwellings with related ad use. That complies with

21:29the low density residential designation of the property. The requested zoning that we've asked

21:36for is RL one and the zoning schedule is briefly up on the screen. Most of this neighborhood and

21:44quite a few neighborhoods in the city are zoned RL one. And that is the category that we're

21:50requesting here. We have requested a few special regulations. Really, most of those except for

22:00the two that Eric mentioned, are regulations verbatim from the new city of golf zoning bylaw

22:082023 20970. And the reason we're having to request those is because parts of the new bylaw

22:17are not yet in effect or approved because they're still under appeal. So basically we're mirroring

22:24those regulations that would apply if the bylaw was approved and in effect.

22:31In submitting the application, I have taken a look at the policy applicable to the site and to the

22:37application both at the provincial level as well as the official plan. And I believe that the

22:43application does conform with upper tier policy in the provincial policy statement and the growth

22:50plan as well as the planning act. And at the local level, I believe it complies with the official

22:57plan. Eric noted that he'll be reviewing the application under the new provincial policy

23:05statement, which comes into effect on October 20th of 2024. So not long from now. And I've taken a

23:14look at that as well. And I believe we fully conform and comply with that. And that the new policy

23:21document contains very supportive language for the type of proposal that this is, which is infill

23:28and intensification section 2313 says planning authority shall support general intensification

23:35and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities, including by planning for

23:41a range and mix of housing options. And that's what's proposed here. I would also note that

23:48ADU's additional dwelling units are permitted as of right in the old bylaw and in the new bylaw.

23:56And this application does include two ADU's each within the semi detached units. So there will

24:07be a total of 12 one semi unit with two ADU's times four. The official plan actually encourages

24:16intensification on lots such as this and states that 46% of all new housing in the city is to occur

24:26within the existing built up area. And that's that's a definition within the official plan.

24:31And this property is within the existing built up area. And I had it's also a very quick walk

24:38to the downtown, which has its own status in terms of planning that further encourages intensification.

24:48Aside from the official plan in the zoning bylaw, the city's been very active in terms of encouraging

24:53this type of development. There was a housing pledge March 10th 2023, where there was a commitment

25:01to try and add 18,000 new housing units by 2031. And that's quite ambitious.

25:09Historically, you know, the maximum number of building permits issued within the city,

25:15if you use that number and apply that going forward to 2031, you wouldn't hit the number

25:21that you want. So, you know, I think an intensification application like this

25:27addresses what the city's identified as a key need. And one of the comments in that housing pledge

25:35was one of the strategies to try and implement this 18,000 new units was to finalize your new

25:41zoning bylaw, which you now have done for the most part, aside from those sections

25:47that are under appeal. And really that bylaw sets a framework for intensification. It permits

25:54various unit types within the RL1 zone, single semis, and some even higher density type units

26:01and that. So, this application fits, as I mentioned, exactly within the zoning framework that the

26:08city has adopted, and that is almost approved with those two minor exceptions. In closing,

26:15we believe that this application delivers the type of intensification proposal that the city

26:22is inviting through your official plan, which encourages it, and through your zoning bylaw,

26:28which sets a framework for it. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation.

26:36Any follow-up at this time? Councillor Klassen, and then Koran, and then Alt, and then Guller.

26:43Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the delegate. I just had a question with regard to the units

26:51and how they're laid out within each semi-detached unit. So, I think I heard that there's

26:5712 dwelling units. Would that mean there's three per building, or are there?

27:03Well, because there are semis, the semi-structure contains two units,

27:08which is then severed down the middle. So, there's two semi-structures, each with two units, so

27:14there's four, and each of those units will contain two ADUs within. Okay, so the main dwelling unit

27:24and then the two extras, so there are three, like one on each level. Yes, okay, thanks. I just wanted

27:29to clarify that piece, and I think that was all. Thank you.

27:37Great, thank you, Councillor. Councillor, Koran, and then Alt.

27:41Thank you for my question, and I just want to clarify, and the back of the property that

27:49offers onto Mitchell, is that suitable under R01, or is that going to be based? What is the

28:00plan for rear Mitchell frontage? Is there an additional future planned at a 4-3-U, the later date?

28:11What we've applied for is to have the entire property rezoned to R01,

28:18and we are not proposing any additional development on the Mitchell frontage as part of this application.

28:31Can you help me understand then what the Mitchell frontage would just be fenced back?

28:39Well, initially it would be landscaped, and that would be it, and the one existing lot of today,

28:50in order to accommodate the semis, would be severed into four separate parcels,

28:57and each of those four separate parcels would go basically extend from Arthur up to Mitchell Street,

29:03and yeah, there would be nothing on the Mitchell frontage other than landscaping.

29:10Okay, I'm just trying to, maybe this is a question for staff, I'm just trying to get an idea whether

29:16there's enough land for you then to sever the back portion to create a separate lot on Mitchell.

29:26But you're saying that that's not your intent at this time?

29:29No, no, Councillor, it's not part of this application.

29:33Okay, thank you. Councillor Allt and then Guller.

29:43I'm just going to turn off my video. I'm a bit concerned about the additional dwelling units.

29:52As I am considering this application, it strikes me that this will have a significant impact

30:00on the character of the neighbourhood, transforming it with the inevitability of Conestoga College

30:06coming down in town into, as much as anything else, a dormitory for Conestoga College.

30:14I'm equally concerned about the traffic off Arthur Street, as that is a challenging intersection

30:21already, and I'm wondering as a consequence of both of those, if we could have some comments

30:27on intensification and on whether these are intended to be rentals by room?

30:35With respect to intensification, as I mentioned, I reviewed all the policies,

30:42including those that relate to compatibility, and I visited the street. I've lived in Guelph

30:49since the mid-1980s. The street is described in the Planning Justification Report as

30:58kind of a very eclectic mix of dwelling types. There's some bungalows, there's some

31:06two or two and a half storey dwellings, there are some apartment type structures very close by,

31:12and so there is quite a mix. The definition of addability, which is contained within the official

31:22plan, says development or redevelopment, which may not necessarily be the same as, or even similar

31:30to, the existing development, but can coexist with the surrounding area without unacceptable

31:37adverse impact. I think that that definition puts a little bit of context to a fairly subjective

31:46consideration of what fits and what doesn't fit. There'll be semi-detached dwellings. Clearly,

31:54in my mind, those are compatible with what's on the street in terms of unit types. The look of

32:01the dwellings, there'll be larger structures, and Eric showed the renderings. There are a mix of

32:09house sizes on the street as well, some larger, some smaller, so again, I don't think it's really

32:15out of character in that respect. Parking, what I know is that we comply with the zoning by-law.

32:25One space per unit is required, and based on the preliminary plan that we've got,

32:33we can meet that, we can meet that reg, we can meet that requirement. In terms of renting by the room,

32:42I mean, I didn't look at the application from that perspective. I looked at it based on the type

32:49of unit that's being proposed, and I know that that complies with the by-law and with the official

32:55plan, and I can't really answer the question on how it's going to be rented, or it will be a rental,

33:04they will be rental properties, but I'm not sure how the proponent plans to rent them out.

33:16Thank you very much. Caller, then a Rourke. Thank you, and thank you Mayor Guthrie.

33:24Thank you to the delegate for your presentation. I do agree that we need more densification,

33:33and that we need more housing units. I think the question here is taking the lot and divided

33:37into four lots, supposed to say three lots, and the impact that that would have, in particularly,

33:46as other folks mentioned on the character of the street, and I think what I'm hearing from people

33:54is the concern about parking. If you were to build a foreplex in that space without subdividing it,

34:02you would have x number of cars. By having several units, there will be that many more

34:09vehicles on the streets. Have you done a traffic impact study or a parking impact study to determine

34:16whether dividing this lot into four separate lots is appropriate for that street?

34:22Councillor, we have a pre-consultation meeting with the city. I don't believe traffic was one of

34:33the requested studies as identified by staff, so we haven't. No.

34:40Okay, okay, that's fair. Thank you very much. Thank you, Worship.

34:45Thank you, Councillor Oroarke, then Downer. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie. Mr. Krosky,

34:50through you, Mayor Guthrie, can you just help me understand, in this oath, and we've got a couple

34:56of similar designs, but there's an ADU in the yard, right? Is that what you're proposing here?

35:01Because I heard you answer, Councillor Klassen, are the three units in the same half of the semi?

35:12Yes. Okay, all right, so there's no separate accessory building? No, none is proposed.

35:19Okay, one of my colleagues, through you, Mayor Guthrie, one of my colleagues asked you about

35:23the layout. Do you have an idea of how many total bedrooms are going to be in each unit?

35:31I don't have a floor plan, and I mean, at this point, any floor plan would be sort of preliminary.

35:40We're really just trying to address the zone change component. I can definitely

35:49discuss with the proponent if there are floor plans available and share those with staff.

35:55Okay, and then through you, Mayor Guthrie, my last question really is, you're asking for,

36:01well, I'll have to, that you're asking for one of the ADUs to have four units, and I don't have a

36:06good sense of the size of this property. So, excuse me, but the one parking space per ADU

36:13is based on the two bedrooms, right? So, do you have any ability to increase the parking that's

36:19available on site? And I'm just reflecting back to you what we're hearing in our community.

36:25You know, essentially, it's another ADU, right? But you're doubling the number of people there. So,

36:31is there capacity on the site to add parking? That's something that we could look at. I know,

36:37you know, some sites lend themselves to maybe shifting the building back a little bit further.

36:43So, you know, you get the one spot within the garage for the main unit, and then they're,

36:49for each unit, would have two stacked spaces behind the garage.

36:55Or no, sorry, they'd be two side by side because they're five meter driveways.

37:00If you could push the unit back enough, which is something we could perhaps look at,

37:06then you could get one in the garage, two side by side in behind the garage,

37:11and then another two before the road allowance. I'm not sure, based on the grades, if there's room

37:17to do that, but that would be one thing we could take a look at. Okay. Three, thank you. I think

37:25the folks in the neighborhood would really appreciate that. My other question was with

37:29respect to the size of the garage, you said that's in compliance with the zoning bylaw.

37:36I'm just wondering what the plan is for the storage of all the waste containers,

37:40because you've got three units on each side, right? So,

37:46like, is there an intention on where those will be? Again, just feedback that we're hearing from

37:51concerns on other projects, similar projects. Fair enough. And again, we're kind of in early

37:58stages in terms of the actual, what is going to be physically constructed. So, I, to be honest,

38:05I don't know that we have thought about that specific part of this, but I can tell you that I

38:14know the company will retain a property management service that will help, not just with landscaping,

38:22but manage basically the look of the property to be sure that they're sort of neat and tidy.

38:29Great. Okay. Thanks, Meg. Great. Thank you. I have Downer and then Busatil and that's all on my list.

38:38Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor. So, Chris, I'm just reading from the staff report on the

38:44provisions. So, and I know you, how you answered Councillor O'Rourke's question, but this is sort

38:50of confusing me, given your answer. So, that it says that a maximum of two additional residential

38:55units be permitted on a lot, one within the same building as the primary dwelling unit,

39:01and one located in a separate building on the same lot, or two additional residential units

39:08within the primary dwelling unit. Trying to square that with what you just said,

39:14like there's nothing else on the lot. Right. I think it's an either or, the by-law provision,

39:19you can have two ADUs, one internal and one external, or you can have two both internal.

39:27I'll check with staff, but they're making that consistent then with our by-law with this.

39:32Yeah. So, we're proposing the latter two ADUs within the same unit.

39:36Okay. I was just kind of square what you'd said. Great. Thank you.

39:42Great. Thank you. And just your microphone there, Councillor Downer. And last is Councillor

39:47Bousetel. Thank you. I am familiar with the property. My kids did Suzuki School in the church

39:53for many years. So, just a question. I'm a little bit confused because, you know, the word on the

39:57street is, the developer is Spruce Living. And I thought I heard, and I gone back into the,

40:03it's Eight Mitchell Corporation. Is that correct? Or is it Spruce Living and?

40:07Sorry, Eight Mitchell Street, Inc. is the proponent. Okay. All right. And I just heard you as well.

40:17So, the intention here is that the property, these will all be rentals.

40:23Correct. Yes. Okay. And then the last question, I'll ask this of staff as well,

40:27is I'm familiar with the property and the slope there and the comment about the GRCA and making

40:33the units flood proof. And my question is about the, I guess you talked about the slope there.

40:41Is there an opportunity to move the units back? Does that improve the potential flooding?

40:49And are the garages also going to be flood proof? If you can just provide a little bit

40:54more detail. I'm not familiar on how or if that's possible to do, to change the site. So, that

41:00potential flooding doesn't happen on the Arthur Street. Okay. As a general comment,

41:09you know the property, you know that it slopes upward from Arthur to Art Mitchell. So,

41:15theoretically, the further back you push it, the better it would be for flood relief.

41:22Regardless of where it is, it would have to be above the floodline. Habitable rooms,

41:28I'm not sure the garage has to be. But in any event, I think the intention is to ensure that

41:35the entire building is above the flood level as defined by the GRCA. Thank you. That's all.

41:46Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate answering all that. Appreciate your presentation. Thank you.

41:53Marcel, Marcel, am I saying this right? Sclaf? Okay. The way, the way, I meant to say it the way

42:00you said it there. And Sarah? Is Sarah here? Yes. Okay. Sorry, I got to get my glasses on.

42:09You are in the wings. Okay. And the nor is the nor here? Okay. Great. So, that's the three that

42:17I have remaining that have signed up. So, thank you and welcome. And you have the microphone and you

42:22have up to 10 minutes if you need it. Okay. Go right ahead. Mayor Guthrie, counselors, ladies and

42:26gentlemen, first of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. My name is

42:30Marcel Schlaf. I live at 166 Arthur Street North, which is actually directly opposite of the proposed

42:35site. I understand that there's enormous pressure to build more housing. So many more people have

42:40moved to Canada in the last few years. And I do not object to any reasonable development and would

42:44in fact welcome it, welcome it, provided that it actually fits into the character of the neighborhood

42:48that is any development must also consider the already existing structures organically grown

42:52over the last 100 plus years. It does not too negatively impact on the people who have lived

42:56there and paid taxes for decades. I think that's basic fairness. A little bit of historic and

43:01historical geographic context. So it's an old neighborhood with no structure remotely like the

43:05two new two new massive buildings proposed anywhere in the neighborhood. The heritage committee is

43:11supposed to consider the neighborhood for heritage citizen in your future after they finished assessing

43:15the ward and many on the street, how this on the streets, including our own over 100 years old.

43:20Now, the development is labeled as low density. However, in the context of the actual spatial

43:26features of the site and the street, this is in my mind complete nonsense. In the context of the

43:30neighborhood, this is in fact a very high density with by my estimate at least 40 bedrooms and

43:35therefore likely 40 plus residents on a single lot. That's not low density. Furthermore, in one

43:42paragraph, the PJR says that no further development is planned for Partials 123 due to GRC regulations.

43:47But in the very next paragraph, the PJR, it says that further discussions with the GRC will try

43:52to change that. So what are we to make of that? It sounds to me like they're planning to shoehorn

43:58more structures on Partials 123 later on. The proposed structures have no green space whatsoever

44:05and will also destroy some of the extant old growth tree canopy, which is in direct opposition to

44:10what the city is supposedly championing at this point, meaning grow more trees.

44:15Loss of green space and addition of large roof spaces triggers fast runoff,

44:20which will likely lead to more flooding on the street, which already happens during large

44:24thunderstorms and it's bound to get worthless climate change. Now, I personally have lived

44:29through this where I've been personally on the street knee deep in water, shoveling garbage out

44:32of the drainage holes to make sure that the water doesn't come over the curb and flood into the houses

44:37on the south side of the street, including ours. So as far as the traffic goes and things like that,

44:44Arthur Street North is very narrow, effectively one lane street with therefore already very

44:48constricted traffic. The south side of the street used for on street parking,

44:51and much more on this issue in a moment, the proposed structures do not fit into the spatial

44:56and geographical reality and would be more suited to a larger wider street. I think a more reasonable

45:00and fitting and even welcome development would be three to four single family homes similar to

45:05fill infill constructed on other lots in the neighborhood in recent years or a series of

45:09low rise townhouses. All of this brings me to the most disconcerting issue, which is in fact parking.

45:15In my understanding, the proposed structures will provide a total of two garages and four

45:20relatively narrow outdoor parking spaces, two of which will effectively block the garages.

45:25Again, with an estimated total of 40 or more residents, one can project that there will be a

45:29lot more cars than six owned by these residents. Where will they park? Where will any visitors go

45:35with their cars? So on the street, at present, street parking regulations are two hours per day

45:42on a day Monday to Friday between 0800 and 700 hours and no restrictions on weekends or outside

45:48of these times. Also, there's no parking between two in the morning and six in the morning during

45:52the winter month. However, these regulations are fairly enforced in the street is routinely parked

45:56full all day and all night. I submitted some visual evidence of that to the councils by email

46:02earlier. We counted a total of 12 street parking lots on the street between Aramosa and Norwich

46:08with five historical houses having no driveways. Because of this, we and our neighbors at 164 and

46:12others have all day and year round parking permits for which we pay the city. However,

46:17coming when we come home from work after 1700 hours, you often find that the street is already

46:21full. That is, we have to park far away so that others who either do not live there, for instance,

46:26visitors to the Pilates studio or downtown or have driveways, but do park on the street for

46:31convenience can do so. And all this is before another 40 plus residents are added to the street.

46:38This will inevitably mean that we who live there and will have nowhere to go, the situation will

46:43be worse in the winter when there's no banks and packs on the streets. And I believe the situation

46:48on Mitchell Street was similarly dire. This has serious implications because ultimately what this

46:54could mean for people is no parking equals no car means I can't live there because I can't have a

46:59job if I don't have a car that I need to go to work. This law so, of course, be true for any new

47:04residents. So how is this supposed to work? Will the city issue parking permits for another 10 or

47:13more residents on Arthur Street? I can foresee the argument, oh, the majority of any new residents

47:18will not have vehicles anyway. But this is in my anticipation completely naive and nonsense because

47:24almost everyone has a car these days, even students and I'm a professor, I know that,

47:29and they need the cars to conduct their lives and their work. So the question is,

47:34where do they go? So I've submitted earlier in writing some comments of what counter arguments

47:41would be. So why don't we just get parking in the public parking lots and across Aramosa at the

47:46end of the street by the Norwich Bridge? And this would not be fair because in fact it would be

47:53careless because it would mean that people who don't live there and don't pay taxes on the street

47:58would be given preference for parking over actual long-time residents who are also, by the way,

48:03prime customers for downtown businesses within walking distance. So it would mean that elderly

48:07residents or would have to haul their shopping through the snow for hundreds of meters or parents,

48:13their kids. So all of that so that some other people who don't live there can park. So this,

48:20of course, is always not limited to our street as a more general issue because I think in the

48:24downtown court there's a number, not very many, but there's a significant number of houses that face

48:30the same issues. So I think in the long run the city should reconsider how on-street parking

48:37permits are issued and maybe consider giving dedicated parking spots to residents who actually

48:44live there. And this is very important in the long run because we're all supposed to switch to

48:48electric cars. Now this only works if you can charge your car. And in particular in the winter

48:53you actually have to charge your car overnight because you actually have to heat the battery to

48:56charge it. I can tell you that's true as a chemist. So the status quo of how residential

49:03parking permits for on-street parking are handled is no longer working, at least not in the next

49:07five to ten years. So this is a good opportunity to change this or start changing this right now.

49:12So to summarize, we heard the presentation from the representative from 8 Mitchell Street, Inc.

49:19So I got to use my favorite Canadian word, not withstanding, one size fits all legal and planning

49:24definitions. The development as proposed is in the special and historic context of the neighborhood.

49:29In fact, the high density and totally unsuitable for the site and the neighborhood.

49:33And the traffic and parking realities will make life very difficult for people who already live

49:38there if you add this many people and their cars without changing regulations or giving

49:43dedicated parking spots. So also the development as proposed will destroy quite a few old trees

49:50that have been there for a long time. And I think some other delegates will speak to that in more

49:54detail, create a lot more fast runoff with the potential to cross flooding of our houses

50:01on the south side of the street. So overall this parking issue has the potential to completely

50:07change the livability for us on the street and make basically life impossible because again,

50:13ultimately what this could mean for residents, if you can't have a parking, you can't have a car.

50:17If you can't have a car, your whole life gets very difficult, especially if you need the car to get

50:22to and from work or to conduct other business or just your life in general. So from our perspective,

50:28solutions would be build something else that has lower density with fewer residents and actually

50:33fits into the character of the neighborhood or provide a lot more parking and including for

50:40visitors to the site, whatever gets built. And ultimately in terms of looking in the future,

50:48five to 10 years out or even right now, give residents who have historic homes which make

50:53wealth such a beautiful place to live in the opportunity to have dedicated parking and put

50:58in chargers. And this is not a, this is a simple technical issue. And because for instance, our,

51:03in our case, we would have bought an electric car years ago, but when we asked for this years ago,

51:07and I think Councillor Goller can speak to that, we were basically so, no, this is not going to

51:11happen. But I think this thinking has to change. If we go to electric cars, it has to change.

51:18Thank you for your attention. All right. And thank you for your presentation. Just one second.

51:22I'll just ask if there's any follow up there. Okay. There is there is a with Councillor Klassen.

51:27Go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to the delegate Mr. Schlaff. Thank you for your

51:32delegation. I just had one question. You mentioned neighborhood character a number of times and I

51:38know this area, it's a historical area. But what, what does that mean to you? Like, what would you

51:43like to see from a structural point of view? Maybe, I mean, you did mention either three or four

51:49single family homes or low rise townhouses, but from a neighborhood character perspective,

51:53I don't think that's necessarily how many units or how many people live there. So I just wanted

51:58to hear a little bit more about that. Yeah. I didn't mean to imply any nimbyism in a sense,

52:02but the structures are very large with no green space. And if you look at them,

52:08the sizes of the houses, this is a very different kind of development that you more likely would

52:12find on a large thoroughfare. Okay. So it's primarily a comment with regard to the size.

52:18Yeah. I mean, the big concern is the number of residents and the cars that they will bring,

52:22regardless of this idea that, okay, this is going to be rental and they won't have cars,

52:26this is naive, because I know that students have cars and they use them to make money as

52:31Uber drivers or whatever. So everybody has a car. We're in North America. That's just the way it's

52:36going to be. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Thank you. Seeing nothing further.

52:42Thank you very much. Sarah, you are up next. You're coming up here and then Lenora is in the wings.

52:59Sarah Wutun, thank you very much for coming and the microphone is over to you. Go right ahead.

53:05Okay. Good evening, Mayor Guthrie, counselors and other attendants. So actually, Marcel did a

53:11really great job of summarizing all the issues that we are faced in the neighborhood, but

53:16maybe just reiterate some of these. So my name is Sarah Wutun and I'm a resident of 164 Arthur

53:21Street. So I am a neighbor of Marcel and Linda and I live directly across from the proposed

53:25development. And there are four major issues or issues that I'd like to bring up. One is the

53:31parking. Two is the traffic. Three is the fit with the neighborhood. And then four is the impact on

53:37the tree canopy. So Marcel did a very good job of describing the issue with parking. So again,

53:41there are five houses that are historic homes that do not have driveways. And as a consequence,

53:47we pay for parking. And at this point in time, there are 12 to 13 spots that are available.

53:53And usually by 5pm, when you get home, you're able to get a spot, but there's about one or two spots

53:58that are open. So this is not sustainable with the addition of 20 to 40 people moving into these

54:05units. Again, it was very vague in the outline that was provided by the city, but you can count

54:10anywhere from 20 to 40 bedrooms. So a couple solutions for that are as Marcel alluded to,

54:17we could have dedicated parking for the five residents on the street that don't have driveways,

54:22or there could potentially be put, there could be a parking lot put at the back of the property. So

54:28that could be entered through Mitchell Street and that can include visitor parking as well.

54:33So there are solutions to this problem and it definitely is a problem. And this is not just

54:38an issue from Arthur Street. This is also going to trickle down to King Street to Mitchell Street

54:43to Norwich. So this will affect the entire neighborhood. The traffic issue, yeah, that

54:49I that is actually a major issue. So if anyone has tried to turn on or turn off, turn from Arthur

54:55Street on to Aramosa at any time during the day, this is a very dangerous endeavor. And if you have,

55:02you know, 20 or 40 people, extra people trying to get into, get on to Aramosa from Arthur Street,

55:09this is definitely going to end in a terrible accident. And a lot of children walk to school

55:14along the street. In fact, I don't let my daughter walk along Aramosa because it's just too dangerous.

55:20And then fit with the neighborhood again, Marcel alluded to this, there were two render

55:24renderings provided and the second of which which has the brick and the stone facade would fit much

55:29better within our neighborhood. So again, if we have a choice, we would definitely prefer

55:34one that fits with the aesthetic of our neighborhood. And then finally is the tree canopy. So when

55:40this property was owned by the church, we worked together to plant a number of trees on the property.

55:46And it now is quite a lovely property with a lot of mature trees. And a lot of these are along the

55:52perimeter of the property. So if it's possible for the developers to preserve some of these trees,

55:57that would be greatly appreciated. And then once the development is built, if they could provide

56:03more green space and try to replace these trees and potentially plant more trees than are already

56:09there, that would be greatly appreciated. And I think that's about it. Yeah. Great. Yeah, thank you,

56:17Sarah. And is there any questions or follow up for this delegate? There isn't. But thank you very

56:24much. Appreciate it. And Lenore, when there Ross is here, hi, thank you for coming. Thank you for

56:40having us. Yeah, I'll turn it over to you whenever you're ready. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. We've got

56:44three members of council and members of the audience. I thought about how I would open this

56:52presentation and I was a bit conflicted of how I would do that. I'm a resident on Arthur Street,

56:58175 Arthur Street immediately adjacent to the proposed development. I have an 1860s stone cottage

57:06and I have some concerns about the development primarily related to two issues. One is trees and

57:13one is the scale and functionality of the project. And I'm not coming to this application without any

57:22basis. I am a registered professional planner. I work as a planner for the City of Kitchener.

57:27So I understand a little bit about how we need housing and how housing is provided.

57:35I also understand the framework that the province has and what we have is a city

57:41and some of the limitations that we're faced with. And I also recognize that the development group is

57:48not asking for a lot. And they're not asking for anything different from what I have. And I find

57:54that hard because I can put ADUs in my yard. But I do have concerns about trees. I have

58:06very large walnut trees on my property that will be severely impacted. I've had

58:14those trees assessed by arborists and with a foundation 1.2 off 1.2 meters off the property

58:21line they will not survive. Two of those trees will not survive. There are additional large trees

58:29on the property that will also be impacted by the foundation and the excavation and construction.

58:34And those will not survive. They will have to be removed. I understand from the development group

58:40that there will be a tree management report submitted at some time this fall. And I am hoping

58:46that that tree management report can reflect a slightly different building footprint to

58:54to offer better protection to these trees. And I would also encourage the city to have tree by

59:01laws that offer that protection to adjacent property owners. If I cannot persuade the development

59:09group to take responsibility for the impacts to my trees, the responsibility and the financial

59:18implications will fall to me to be addressed through civil court. And that's not correct.

59:24There should be a responsibility on the city's part for any application where there is impacts to

59:30neighboring properties through tree canopy that property owners provide that ascent and consent

59:38to those impacts. And I hope that will happen through the new tree bylaw. My second concern is

59:49my second concern is about scale and function. These are these are large semi-detached buildings.

59:58They will extend if you look at the site plan from the minimum lot set back from the front yard set

1:00:05back right to near the property line that is back of the dividing line between Mitchell and Arthur.

1:00:15That will be a whole wall of building along my property line and on the other side next to

1:00:23the Yerimasa street units and properties. They will have a little bit more separation because

1:00:30of the irregular lot line there and a little bit more relief from that building facade.

1:00:37With the number of bedrooms that are in this development with three units on each side of

1:00:43the development proposal on each side of the semi each of those buildings will need to have

1:00:51access fire access out of those bedroom windows. So there will be overlook on to my property.

1:00:59And because there's semis the opportunity to have those windows on the ends or the front

1:01:07is limited. I think by reducing the number of bedrooms permitted through the additional

1:01:16ADU that is a special request for zoning will reduce some of that overlook will reduce some

1:01:22of the mass of that building and help with that. As part of the written submission that I had made

1:01:31I had included some suggestions for the the zoning bylaw amendment and I would certainly encourage

1:01:39council to have a specific lot area included as part of the zoning bylaw amendment so that the

1:01:48bylaw is not further severed and I would also include regulations that I did not include because

1:01:57these are not in effect yet to address the possibility of four day ADUs that will be coming

1:02:03through the province. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure you were done. Thank you.

1:02:13Is there any follow up questions for this delegate? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Appreciate you

1:02:21coming. Okay at this time we're going to put a full number up on the screen and see if there's

1:02:29anyone that needs to call in on this matter and in the room is there anyone that wants to add

1:02:33anything that maybe hasn't been said? Okay what we'll do is we'll just wait four minutes or five

1:02:43minutes and three to five minutes just to see if there's anyone that also calls in the numbers

1:02:48519-837-5603 and we'll come back to you first and then go to the phones if there's anybody there

1:02:55so we'll just take a three to five minute break just one second. Okay this is just your 10 second

1:05:44heads up. Looks like we didn't have anyone call in so we're going to go with the one individual here

1:05:53put up their hand if you could come forward and just state your name please. Sorry if you could

1:05:59come forward and state your name please that would be great and then you as well have up to 10 minutes

1:06:07so you can go right ahead. Thank you. My name is Andrew Arkley. Hi everyone my name is Andrew Arkley

1:06:24and I am co-founder and principal of Spruce Living. I live in downtown Guelph with my wife and family

1:06:29three kids and we know firsthand why we need affordable housing in this community. We're fortunate

1:06:34enough to be able to walk downtown to events when we have free time. On the way home from

1:06:39a well-storn game this past Friday my seven-year-old asked why so many people are camping together

1:06:45in his childish wisdom he said he liked the idea of camping outside with his friends.

1:06:51Our community needs rental housing and our community doesn't need bachelor units and

1:06:55micro units that are typical of high-rise buildings. We've been told and the demand

1:06:59shows that we need larger rental units. With this development provided the property is resumed to fit

1:07:04the neighborhood anything that is developed on the site will meet all the requirements as settled

1:07:10by the city bylaws. From lot coverage setbacks engineering parking and GRC requirements with a

1:07:16specific site these bylaws were approved unanimously by city council. We are simply following the rules

1:07:23which have been set out for us. City staff does not have any concerns regarding traffic. We have

1:07:29met with neighbors regarding trees that have agreed to pay for any tree removal fence repair or any

1:07:33other impact to neighbors. We completed the traffic study on another property that has a similar

1:07:39design and the result was a negligible increase in traffic so much so that a consultant questioned

1:07:44why we were even completing the study. That being said we're happy to complete the traffic study for

1:07:50this site as well. With this property we have committed to two affordable rental units which

1:07:55will comply with the regulations and rent guidelines set up by provincial and federal levels.

1:08:00For reference this rent rate is approximately $1450 per month. This is truly affordable and

1:08:06we're committing two units that will have a minimum of two bedrooms to this program.

1:08:10In addition we're looking at ways in which any ground level units could be 100 accessible

1:08:15as we have in other sites. Further to this we're implementing separate HVAC systems into our design

1:08:21to limit order transfer in any cross contamination in the air quality across units. We're not asking

1:08:26for rules to be changed. We're asking for the city to commit to the density that it needs it is asking

1:08:32for. Thanks. Great thank you Andrew. Is there any there is two questions? I have Kate and a downer please.

1:08:44To the delegate what will the other units be renting for? The other units will be market rent.

1:08:54I can't say what the exact number will be that could change by the time the project is completed.

1:08:59Great thank you very much. Thank you and downer. Thank you through you Mr. Mayor.

1:09:05Andrew you talked about trees and paying for trees that might have to come down. Sometimes

1:09:12that takes five years when roots are damaged. We know that. So will your tree management plan

1:09:21have like provisions for that type of damage to roots that can happen? I mean they don't come down

1:09:27the trees just get very sick after their roots are damaged to that extent.

1:09:33Yeah so I'm not sure exactly what the two report will say. We met with

1:09:37Lenore sir I don't know her last name the other day and we agreed and we will keep that commitment to

1:09:44either taking down the trees proactively if she wishes or if other neighbors wish if there's an

1:09:50issue with trees as well taking them down proactively and paying that cost even though they're 100%

1:09:56on the other property or we're happy to enter into agreement that if the tree dies

1:10:02in a reasonable time frame like there wouldn't be 20 years but five years or whatever our

1:10:07our tree study shows that that could be up to a certain amount of years we're happy to do that as

1:10:12well. And then would you be willing to I mean this I know this probably is a civil negotiation but I

1:10:17don't know what what can be included in the zoning but to replace trees I guess we don't can't

1:10:24replace trees on private property it's mostly public property but would you be able to put that

1:10:32your plan would because trees will be coming down on the property too that they will in that

1:10:37backyard seeing as you have a significant backyard there will there be extra plantings be able to

1:10:42go into those backyard? We typically try to plant as many trees as possible in our designs we have

1:10:47done that in the past I can't say specifically as we don't have that you don't have plan. We haven't

1:10:52developed that far yet but we're happy to do as much planting as possible and also talk to the

1:10:58neighbors about replanting the trees that we have. Replanting the trees that's one thing yeah that's

1:11:02I understand that'll be a civil matter between yeah we didn't specifically talk about that but we're

1:11:06happy to talk about it. Yeah I mean I think any tree loss that they that there should be maybe

1:11:10over close around to their property right okay thanks. Thank you Oroch please and then Karan.

1:11:17Thank you Margot 33 to Mr. Oakley I'm just wondering you have a few

1:11:22developments like this in the city and what's the parking experience like so you know that the

1:11:28unit that you have coming up in in my neck of the woods there's a lot of concerns around parking

1:11:33but you have a couple units that are occupied and what is your what's your experience with that and

1:11:38recognizing this one's closer to downtown and that they're all a little different but are you finding

1:11:43that every resident has their own vehicle like what does that look like? We are very clear with

1:11:50everything we have rented to date that with how many parking spots are included in the specific

1:11:56unit most of the time it's one there has been some cases where it's two but we are very clear about

1:12:03that and so so far we have not had any parking issues I mean again offered one parking space

1:12:12and we're meeting the bylaw the city doesn't have city staff doesn't have issues with that

1:12:17and we don't foresee a problem. Okay thank you and then through you Margot 33 I'm just curious

1:12:23I think in one of your developments you've got some energy efficient features and do you have any

1:12:29of those in this? We do actually I didn't mention that so we are building to a spec that will

1:12:35essentially be net zero ready so all electric electric heat pumps we are sealing the space

1:12:46roughing conduit in for solar for future we haven't planned solar yet but we're planning for that in

1:12:51the future so we're essentially building net zero safe for the solar. That's great thanks.

1:12:57Thank you and Karan. Oh sorry Leigh Ann, Councillor Caron you're muted I believe.

1:13:14Can you hear me now? Yes you're coming through good now thank you. Okay thank you I just had to

1:13:19switch my phones. Thank you Councillor O'Rourke for asking my favorite question. I'm Mr. Oakley

1:13:26you indicated to have projects on the go and some already occupied. I know the one that I'm

1:13:33familiar with in World 5 the garage is not used parking it's a UTA and for waste ends would that

1:13:44be the intent on this party as well? We haven't again got that far on this plan on that one site

1:13:53on forest yes we are using the garb or the garages for more of a storage component than

1:13:58parking but I can't say for certain on this specific site. Second question the back half

1:14:06of the pretty fronting onto Mitchell is is considerable is it the fourth ADU approved by

1:14:15the city for you to build a DTA detached ADU half the property? We don't have plans right now we're

1:14:22looking just to divide this or well really we're just here for the zone change so we don't have

1:14:27plans developed far enough to answer that question. Okay great thank you and with that

1:14:40I only have this one question just on the fly here but based on what you're looking at

1:14:47would it be fair to say that if our zoning bylaw was not under appeal right now you might not even

1:14:54have to be here? Well it's a zone change there's a couple sort of slight regulations but yeah so I

1:15:02mean this is the zone change so we'd still have to do that. Oh yeah the zone changes still have to

1:15:06be done yeah that's right yes yes so yes we would but everything we're doing to sort of to your point

1:15:14is as of right so in the 2023 bylaws we are meeting again like I mentioned all the setbacks

1:15:21a lot coverage parking requirements we're meeting everything that has been set out by the city.

1:15:28Okay thank you so much. Okay that's it there's no further questions and thank you for coming up

1:15:33appreciate it. Okay council it's back to us and just as a reminder to everyone

1:15:38whether watching or listening and being here tonight there's no decisions being made tonight

1:15:42at all okay so it's just we're the whole point of this is to listen and to gather feedback and then

1:15:47it comes back to our staff to take it away and to discuss further with the developer of NAB

1:15:54so to council as is typical this is your moment to bring anything up that has not already been

1:16:01brought up is there anything further that needs to be stated to staff for them to consider council

1:16:06or work? Thank you Margot through you to staff just a couple of questions if we permit four bedrooms

1:16:14in the ADU as opposed to two one does that set a precedent and two does that require additional

1:16:22parking? Through the mayor to the councillor so when the province introduced ADUs in three

1:16:32units of right the maximum number of spaces we could require per ADU was one it did not specify

1:16:39the number of bedrooms tied to that but the provincial regulation is one space per ADU

1:16:45we will also be coming back this fall hopefully with four units potentially

1:16:53the province does allow three as of right right now they have draft regulations out for ADUs

1:16:58and the draft regulations would indicate that they're removing bedroom caps on ADUs as well

1:17:04thank you and through you Margot three I'm just curious if this property is with

1:17:08what's the distance from this property to the gulf central station and does that fall on the new

1:17:13radius we may have to report back on that I don't have the number right off the top great thanks

1:17:25sorry just just on that this area isn't in the downtown secondary plan I don't think

1:17:31do we know that answer? Through you Mr. Mayor know it is not in the downtown secondary plan

1:17:39so it's probably not in the capturement area for the new provincial laws of no

1:17:45parking requirements but because that's kind of the the boundaries of the secondary plan so

1:17:50uh Claussen and then Boussatil and then Downer and then Guller and a reminder it's only something new

1:17:57thank you yes through you Mr. Mayor to staff I've got two questions for clarification

1:18:04one I've just you know the delegate Marcel Schlaff brought up the potential to develop

1:18:11the lower portion with permission of the GRCA I just wanted to get some clarification language

1:18:17on that that's my first question and then my second question is is that I've heard um

1:18:22you know multiple bedroom numbers being thrown around 28 to 40 and 40 or more residents so I

1:18:29just wanted to get some clarification around what what is the range and potential through the

1:18:39mayor to Councillor Claussen so the GRCA has submitted comments regarding this proposal they

1:18:45have no objection to the Zoning By-law Amendment as per as presented but they will require uh

1:18:50that a GRCA permit be pulled before any building permits are received they've also indicated that

1:18:56they are not supportive of any severances that remove safe access to Mitchell Street which is

1:19:01why the proposal is is for four through lots rather than having lots fronting onto Mitchell

1:19:06Street and Arthur Street separately can can you just clarify why so I think that the reason why

1:19:19the frontage along Arthur Street is partially within the floodplain the floodplain overlay in

1:19:24the city's zoning by-law and official plan so having access to a public right of way that is

1:19:29outside of that floodplain is the intention okay thank you and so would the protection then of that

1:19:35lower portion also mitigate some of the concerns around flooding in that area I think I would need

1:19:43some clarification on on that question uh protection of which lower area the area right

1:19:49on to Arthur Street yeah I think so because I think it's on a slope right that's correct so the

1:19:54proposed semis would be on the lower end of the uh of the lot okay thank you um and then my other

1:20:04question was with regard to the number of bedrooms versus residents and what we can can't know and

1:20:12control absolutely uh through the mayor so the the proposal here before us today would uh would

1:20:20propose three bedrooms per basement adu and then four bedrooms for the second adu uh and then there

1:20:27would be the main dwelling unit which there is no cap in the zoning by-law for the number of of

1:20:32bedrooms in the main dwelling unit so that's where there's a little bit of variability on to how many

1:20:38bedrooms total would be permitted okay so would that 28 to 40 be correct

1:20:48based so for the for the 880 us there would be uh 28 bedrooms maximum permitted and then there would

1:20:58be four semi-detached main dwelling units and that's where the variability rolls in so it depends

1:21:03on how many how many bedrooms would be in each of those main semi-dwelling units okay thank you for

1:21:10the clarification boosted till downer gallward chew thank you very much and through the mayor

1:21:21very similar to um councillor claus and i had a question about the severing of the lots

1:21:27and if there was a potential to sever horizontally as well but what you're saying is

1:21:32just so i'm clear the g rca requires that the severance still provide access at the Mitchell

1:21:40street so it's a long severance and so they're they're saying you cannot sever in the middle

1:21:46horizontally um so my my follow-up to that would be the did the g rca have any restrictions

1:21:53on what happens on the Mitchell street whether it's further development with roofs and water

1:21:58retention and all those other kinds of things given that it is a sloped um property through the

1:22:06mayor to councillor boosted till to my knowledge they haven't requested any conditions for the

1:22:12Mitchell street frontage of the properties but staff will review jrc's comments in further detail

1:22:18ahead of the decision report being presented to council thank you am i my second question is about

1:22:23there was reference to um one of the delegates spoke about the heritage committee in homes a

1:22:29hundred years of age you know it can you place for me is there a review of that neighborhood

1:22:35happening through the heritage committee any kind of designation and what is the timeline

1:22:43through the mayor to the council so yes there is um but it is not uh in effect yet so any heritage

1:22:49conservation district policies do not apply at this time to the site and i think that's it thank

1:22:56you very much through the mayor and thank you councillor downer than goer thank you through

1:23:00you mr mayor uh two staffs can so just um i appreciate some of the other questions but

1:23:07just going back to the trees in the tree management plan are in conditions can we we can put in about

1:23:13protection of trees tree roots and things like that because right now under our tree bylaw we

1:23:19don't have protection or would this property be under the protection over half half an acre

1:23:27no so are those things can they be put into or can they be requested to be put into the tree

1:23:33management plan protection of the trees that are there not like not if they have to come down but

1:23:39the tree i'm talking about tree roots and things like that through the mayor to the councillor so

1:23:46the tree the site is under 0.2 hectares in size so the tree bylaw does not apply to this site

1:23:52as we understand now tonight they're going to be doing a tree protection plan so we will take a

1:23:56look at that um what we can do and the only comment we can make on that is when they apply for

1:24:03demolition of the existing structure we'll put in comments about any city streets in the misbel

1:24:08right away that we do have the ability to enforce and and comment on and then we have a general

1:24:13comment about boundary trees and uh the provisions of boundary trees under the forest react and what

1:24:19we can and cannot do so that'll just be written into the um conditions of demolition but there's

1:24:24we can't condition zoning so we can't do because it's under the half an acre we can't do the

1:24:30cash and louis even right so and require extra planting okay well i'll take it on the good faith

1:24:37of the developer that thank you they said that they'll work on that thank you thank you i just

1:24:45a reminder of your microphone there uh galler then two is there anybody else because that's the only

1:24:50two i have left and then Gibson okay galler thank you through your worship to uh to staff

1:24:57um the developer mentioned that you did not have concerns with regards to uh to parking or or traffic

1:25:06um the impact of traffic on the street um we've heard from some of the delegates that they have

1:25:10concerns about the ability to turn into aeramosa and the added um number of residents may may have

1:25:19an impact to that could you could you speak to comment to to this and whether you will be asking

1:25:23for a traffic impact study on the street or or not the manner to councillor Goller so there was a

1:25:32pre-consultation meeting that took place with various city staff and the developer prior to

1:25:37this application coming forward uh traffic engineering staff did review this application

1:25:41at that time and did not deem it necessary to require transportation impact study as such staff

1:25:48did not require that as a requirement for the submission okay okay uh okay i understand that

1:25:56and what about parking understanding that there will be people that that live there that may

1:26:03have a car that needs to go on the street but the parking non-street parking situation is is quite

1:26:08challenging for for the residents of both Mitchell and Arthur is that is that something that will

1:26:14be addressed through the studies uh through the mayor to councillor Goller again so the

1:26:22proposal does conform with the parking requirements in the zoning bylaw so there aren't any studies

1:26:27being conducted uh about the demand parking that this proposal will have on the street okay okay so

1:26:34then this brings me to to a question about the the size of the lots that were being asked to

1:26:42to subdivide into one of the delegates mentioned that perhaps we should have had um minimum lot

1:26:49sizes where a fourplex could be or or a um a duplex width to additional building units could be put

1:26:56in uh is there any consideration to exploring having a minimum size um for for this development

1:27:04so that it does fit into the neighborhood i suppose so that the what has been proposed which

1:27:09is the the minimum size that a lot can be subdivided into with the mayor to councillor Goller so the

1:27:17the proposal uh for semi-detached dwellings the minimum lot size is 230 square meters per lot

1:27:23and the uh and the proposed uh lots do comfortably exceed that that minimum okay okay no thank you and

1:27:31just one more clarification there's no request for any exemptions on setbacks or side yards or

1:27:37anything like that it's all in compliance with our guidelines is that correct that is correct yes okay

1:27:44thank you very much thank you and so last i have is to bring it home for us there councillor shane

1:27:53oh i got oh gibson okay don't bring it home for us just ask your questions i'll be quick thank you

1:27:59mr. mayor just the staff i just want to expand a little bit on parking um and just indulge me here

1:28:07this is a bit of a hypothetical like right now we're here really just for the two semis

1:28:12and obviously we're looking at uh three parcels on mitral street i'm just thinking is there like a

1:28:20possibility that we can reconfigure um the site plan so that we can optimize parking and if the

1:28:32proponent does wish to add additional parking um would that be possible through the mayor through

1:28:42the mayor to councillor chou um the design of the site is ultimately up to the proponent the proponent

1:28:49to come forward with what they are proposing uh if they do wish to alter the proposal to

1:28:54provide additional parking via mitral street that is something that staff will take into

1:28:58consideration but at this time it's not proposed by the applicant and sorry mr. mayor if i can add

1:29:05to that to the councillor so we also cannot look at site plans for anything with 10 units or less

1:29:11on individual lots so once this goes through the severance process there'll be three units so we

1:29:15do not have the ability as a result of provincial changes to have this go through site plan anymore

1:29:20like we used to in the future previously three units could go through site plan but uh they cannot

1:29:25go through site plan anymore okay no that's good to know uh just if we're just looking at the semis

1:29:34just looking at the rear the um rear yard or actually the side yard sorry is there

1:29:43more than enough space maybe if the proponent wanted to uh put in an additional parking spot

1:29:53through the mayor to councillor chou so they the proposed semis currently have the minimum

1:29:58required setback of 1.2 meters to the lot line and the maximum driveway width or semi-detached

1:30:04lots is five meters which is what they're currently providing so without a further amendment to the

1:30:09bylaw there is no uh possibility to do to do additional parking um on the site without pushing

1:30:16the uh the dwellings back as uh i think mr. karroski did say would be a possibility okay yeah no thank

1:30:23you just for clarifying that all right councillor gibson you're the one bringing it home for us so go

1:30:31right ahead thank you through mr. mayor just a comment for staff to take away i've heard it from

1:30:38the delegates and i've heard it from the the ward counselors i think parking is a front of mind for

1:30:43everyone it looks like those are going to be a number of on-street parking spaces that are

1:30:46going to be removed as part of this development i'm assuming that parking is already tight

1:30:51uh personal experience i drove around our neighborhood last night my ward

1:30:55spoke with the residents who hadn't parked in front of their own home in five years because of

1:30:59how many people were parking on the street um so i know that the applicant has brought forward

1:31:05a proposal that looks like it accommodates all the parking needs which i appreciate and i would

1:31:09just encourage them to continue to get creative and look to accommodate all of the parking needs

1:31:14of this development on their own plot i think um putting any more pressure on public space public

1:31:20streets is uh is just going to create a lot of angst and frustration for the neighborhood

1:31:26so i know it's a challenge but i'll just i'll leave that with staff that those concerns are heard

1:31:31and uh i encourage the the proponent to continue working hard on that park thank you thank you and

1:31:39while i while i got you would you be willing to move just receipt of the application for me

1:31:44councillor gibson sure no problem thank you thank you and councillor too you were the second last

1:31:49to speak would you be willing to second that then yep okay there's nothing further i'll call the

1:31:55vote then just to receive okay i'll call the vote is anyone against just receiving the application

1:32:03no one okay thank you very much to all the delegates and to staff and to the

1:32:07applicant as well and we'll see what happens when it comes back and working working at all

1:32:12so thank you very much um can i just i may i just ask uh through to staff and maybe just a

1:32:47little bit let me try and read the room here a little bit uh is is do you think tonight is a

1:32:56night where we're going to have to have a long discussion on the affordable housing demonstration

1:33:02project item only because i see a staff member here here only one staff member here on that item

1:33:10and i i see a lot of delegations on the other one i'm just wondering how quickly we could

1:33:16accommodate that other motion or sorry that other agenda item because it it seems straightforward

1:33:23to me but that's just me so i just wanted to make sure does this council have a lot to say

1:33:29on that particular one just a couple quick questions yeah that's right um and so i was just

1:33:41thinking uh if we could uh and i just want to ask luke uh luke were you going to also be involved

1:33:50in the housing strategy report as well no you weren't okay um if it's okay with um with with us

1:34:01in the room here i think i'd like to just quickly move to that item for okay and then we can end

1:34:05the evening on the housing uh strategy sorry to staff there that moved down just getting some

1:34:12blood flow for you uh so let's let's do that because then we can also take a break um after that

1:34:17i'm sure the timing would work well for a break okay so if i could ask uh luke and james to come