Staff to invite the McAlister Neighbourhood Group to view and provide feedback to the site plan for 855 and 927 Victoria Road South

3:41855-927 Victoria Road South.

3:44It's the proposed, try that again,

3:47proposed zoning bylaw amendment.

3:51And we have one, two, three, four, five.

3:53We have six delegations tonight lined up

3:57just so everyone knows the last one has canceled.

4:00Okay, so just to let you know about that.

4:04And so, and with correspondence of course,

4:06was attached as well.

4:08So what we're gonna do is we're gonna kick right off

4:10to the delegations that are signed up.

4:13And so just so everyone knows before you come down,

4:17we allow no more than five minutes.

4:20And so you're gonna hear a chime at the four minute,

4:2330 second mark.

4:25And that's like your 30 second warning,

4:27just to give you heads up that,

4:29hey, your five minutes is almost there.

4:32Please make sure that you do adhere to that timeframe.

4:36And because I don't wanna interrupt you, I hate doing it.

4:40So don't put me in that position.

4:41So no more than five minutes,

4:43you'll hear the chime at the 30 second mark.

4:46Once you're done, please just stick around at the microphone

4:50just in case a colleague of mine or even myself

4:53might even have a question as a follow up.

4:55Okay, with that, also from a decorum point of view,

5:02we don't allow sort of yelling, jeering, clapping,

5:06woo-hoo's, boo's or any of the above.

5:09So we would ask that we remain respectful

5:12in a decorum manner within these chambers.

5:16With that out of the way,

5:17Susan Church, are you here?

5:19Yeah, front row, that's great.

5:21And Cindy Gerak is Cindy here?

5:24Great, you're in the wings, okay?

5:26So you gotta get ready.

5:28So Susan, thank you for joining us.

5:30The green light will go on the microphone there for you.

5:33And then as soon as you start talking,

5:35that's when your time will start.

5:36So whenever you're ready, you go right ahead.

5:38Is it possible to show pictures at the same time?

5:42No, did you include anything that you sent to us

5:45in the correspondence?

5:46Some of it, yes.

5:47Then we'll be able to follow along on some of it here.

5:50Yeah, thank you.

5:51But again, we'll only start the clock,

5:53make sure you haven't started the clock,

5:54only start the clock when you're ready, you go ahead.

5:59Mayor Guthrie and members of council,

6:02my name is Susan Church,

6:03and I'm a five-year resident of McAllister Boulevard.

6:08My focus tonight will be on the urban design

6:11of this development proposal.

6:13I am not an urban planner, but even to my unskilled eyes,

6:18there are many glaring issues.

6:21In Guelph's official plans, strategic directions

6:25is the objective of, quote,

6:28a city with an effective and collaborative leadership

6:31that consults with citizens and manages growth

6:35based on the quadruple bottom line,

6:37environmental, cultural, economic, and social,

6:41and makes decisions about development

6:43in keeping with those core principles.

6:46My concerns, the rural urban interface

6:51has not been respected.

6:53The mass length of two 10-story buildings estimated

6:58at 195 feet each along Victoria Road South

7:02is completely incompatible with the neighboring rural lands

7:06of Puslinch Township, which lie directly across the road.

7:12The setback of the apartment buildings

7:14is less than 20 feet and is the same setback

7:18given for the four-story townhouses

7:20along McAllister Boulevard.

7:23This development is not on an intensification corridor,

7:27and therefore there is no requirement

7:30for maximum unit density design.

7:33In fact, the development abuts lands designated

7:37in the existing bylaw zoning as natural heritage system,

7:42significant woodlands, significant valley lands,

7:46significant natural area, and regulatory floodplain.

7:50As well, the development lies directly across the road

7:54from the Carter Wells Wellhead, all great neighbors,

7:58and to be respected, please remember

8:02the fragility of these lands.

8:06This development is not at a community mix-use node.

8:10It lies halfway between Stone and Arco Roads.

8:16This development is not compatible,

8:19nor a suitable gateway as a completion

8:23to the already established community of Courtright East.

8:27The need for a development-specific traffic signal

8:31to manage the traffic generated by the density

8:34of this private development is concerning,

8:37and indeed a recognition of the volume of traffic expected

8:41from residents of 486 new housing units.

8:47Nat Zero, EV charging and affordable housing

8:50have little mention or no commitment from the developers.

8:55Common amenity areas are often small in size,

8:59sometimes located on outdoor third-floor concrete pads

9:04of the apartment buildings, and generally scattered

9:07around the development as an afterthought.

9:11This development does lie in Greenfield,

9:14but the densities in the high density residential

9:18are at the ceiling of the range of 100 to 150 units per hectare.

9:24In addition, this development cannot

9:27and will never be able to support the needs

9:30of a walkable community.

9:33I consider Wells Official Plan to be the guidebook

9:36to future development in our city

9:38that is suitable, sustainable, environmentally sound,

9:42and equitable.

9:44The official plan uses the word compatible

9:46at least eight times in its urban design objectives.

9:51This development proposal does not achieve compatibility

9:55in built form and does not respond appropriately

9:59to local context.

10:02This development has underachieved or missed

10:05many of the official plan's objectives in urban design.

10:10Section 10.7 of the official plan

10:13concerning height and density bonus provision states.

10:17The Planning Act allows the city to consider increases

10:20in the height and density of a development

10:23otherwise permitted on a specific site

10:26in exchange for community benefits

10:28as set out in the zoning bylaw.

10:31And secondly, the city will consider authorizing

10:35increases in height and density provided

10:38that the development proposal is compatible

10:41with the surrounding area.

10:44Does this apply to this development process?

10:47Thank you for your time.

10:50Thank you very much for joining us.

10:53And is there a follow-up question for this delegate?

10:55Yes, Councillor Caron has one.

10:58Yes, thank you to the delegation.

11:01From the time that this was first proposed

11:04to the time that we've seen the amended proposal,

11:07did the developer invite you to have conversations?

11:10Was there any contact with your neighborhood group

11:13or neighbors outside of City Hall?

11:18None that I'm aware of.

11:19The only communication we've had from either developer

11:23is from Fusion when they told us

11:26that they were going to start removing soil

11:28from the northern parcel of land.

11:30That's it.

11:32Okay.

11:34Great, seeing nothing further.

11:35Thank you very much.

11:37Okay, next, Cindy, who is in the wings there.

11:40And then Sarah Taylor.

11:44Okay, you're in the wings.

11:46Okay, thank you for joining us.

11:47And the green light will go on there

11:49and the time will start when you're ready.

11:50Okay, go ahead.

11:51Your worship and members of council.

11:53My name is Cindy Garriac.

11:55I'd like to start by saying I have great admiration

11:57for city staff, combing through all the proposals

11:59and addendums and marrying them up

12:01with the city official plans and provincial policies

12:03mind-numbing.

12:05While I may not have the benefit of a degree

12:06in urban design or planning,

12:07I come at this from the perspective

12:09of an 11-year resident of McAllister Boulevard.

12:12I've lived and functioned in the community

12:13and know it intimately.

12:15Despite the professional assessments presented,

12:17I can tell you with certainty that many elements

12:19of the proposal on the table do not reflect

12:21what happens in that area or what will happen

12:24if it goes ahead as proposed.

12:26Let's start with adding 1,010 people

12:28to the corner of a subdivision

12:29that has no walkable amenities

12:31and is underserved by public transportation.

12:34The staff review and planning analysis

12:36quotes the official plan and states that

12:38the residential development can be adequately served

12:41by local convenience and neighborhood shopping facilities,

12:43schools, trails, parks, recreation facilities

12:46and public transit.

12:47There are no services, no shopping

12:49or retail space of any kind in the walkable area.

12:52It takes 35 minutes to walk

12:54to the nearest grocery store on Gordon and Harvard.

12:57There is one public school at capacity

12:59and it is French immersion.

13:01The developers use assessments

13:02by paradigm transportation solution

13:04who claim the proposed development can be serviced

13:07with appropriate commercial recreational

13:09and institutional uses to meet the everyday needs

13:12of residents and lands on the south side

13:14of McAllister Boulevard are zoned

13:16for neighborhood commercial uses.

13:18All possible neighboring land is developed now

13:21except for the neighborhood commercial

13:22for which Gamma proposes a gas station

13:24and a drive-through restaurant

13:26to environmentally contentious unnecessary

13:28commercial conveniences that do not create

13:30more walkable amenities.

13:32Paradigm also suggests having adequate public transportation

13:35will encourage the use of non-auto usage

13:38and would facilitate reducing on-site parking demand.

13:41A worthy sentiment but to be clear,

13:43there's one bus stop near the McAllister-Victoria Road

13:45intersection.

13:46It takes 55 minutes to get downtown on the one bus route

13:49that runs south only on Victoria Road.

13:52It's a 15 minute walk to the nearest bus stops

13:54that run east-west near the intersection

13:56of Victoria and Stone.

13:58To go north up to the wood lawn will take you

14:00on a convoluted journey of more than 40 minutes.

14:02The reality is if you build 486 units here,

14:05you will have over 1,010 people in an area

14:08where most people must have a car.

14:10Traffic studies do not adequately represent

14:12this neighborhood.

14:13Paradigm further suggests that vehicular traffic

14:16generated from the proposed development

14:18will not have an unacceptable impact

14:20on the planned function of the adjacent roads

14:22and intersections.

14:24Consider the increase of cars already coming

14:26from the recently completed and established part

14:28of the neighborhood.

14:29Add cars from the proposed development,

14:31cars using the proposed drive-through restaurant

14:33and gas station when built, and a high school

14:36to be built one kilometer down the road.

14:38How will Victoria Road, adjacent roads, and intersections

14:40not be unacceptably impacted?

14:43This community is mostly single detached

14:45with some duplexes and townhouses.

14:47I can assure you everyone has at least one vehicle

14:50and many have multiple because this is not

14:52a walkable community.

14:54Even if paradigm statistics prove true

14:56based on their formula for car ownership,

14:58there's still equates to 608 vehicles

15:01in the proposed development now vying

15:03to get in and out of the community.

15:05In the official plan, the residential development policy

15:08states that the building form, massing appearance,

15:10and sighting are compatible in design, character,

15:12and orientation with buildings in the immediate vicinity.

15:15There are no 10 story buildings anywhere

15:17along Victoria Road.

15:19This proposal in a non-walkable area

15:21with a rural interface is far from compatible.

15:24On November 18, 2016, a letter from the city senior planner

15:28was sent to a representative with Fusion Homes.

15:30It reads in part, thank you for attending

15:32the Development Review Committee meeting

15:34on November 2nd, 2016 to discuss the proposal

15:37for what is now 855927 Victoria Road.

15:41The proposal is to develop a mix of stacked townhouses

15:44and two six story apartment buildings with surface parking.

15:48What happened to justifying the apartments to 10 stories?

15:51Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

15:54Reducing the number of units in the apartment buildings

15:56and the height would resolve many of the developers' issues

15:59with parking, traffic, garbage, snow removal, et cetera.

16:02In conclusion, we do welcome a scaled down sustainable

16:04development to complete this neighborhood.

16:07It feels like talking environment is politically incorrect

16:09with a housing shortage.

16:11Despite the recommendations that this development

16:13will have no adverse effect on the natural heritage system

16:15of butts, that is false.

16:17Tell the two adults endangered snapping turtles

16:19I found dead on the callister this summer, one filled with eggs.

16:23Tell the turtle tatchlings I found run over there in September.

16:26Tell the beaver that had been culled from Torrance Creek.

16:29Courser will be an impact.

16:30That's what humans do.

16:32But we can lessen it in the sensitive area

16:33for neighbors and the environment by building responsibly

16:36and not intensifying the problem with more people

16:39and vehicles than the area can reasonably support.

16:42Sorry for going over.

16:44No, you didn't go over.

16:45You're good.

16:47In fact, the both of you have set the standard.

16:50Oh, no.

16:50You haven't gone over the five minutes.

16:52You're doing great.

16:53So thank you very much.

16:54Call away just in case there's a question.

16:55Let me ask and see if there is any.

16:58OK, there isn't.

16:59Thank you very much.

16:59Appreciate it.

17:01Sarah, you were in the wings.

17:04And Wayne Church.

17:05Wayne.

17:07OK.

17:08Front row, that makes sense that you'd be there.

17:11Thank you very much.

17:13So Sarah, thank you for joining us and your little one.

17:16Yes, good evening.

17:18Thank you.

17:18Go right ahead.

17:19Welcome.

17:19OK, so my name is Sarah Taylor and I'm a resident

17:22of the neighborhood where this new development or proposed

17:24new development is located.

17:26At the last public meeting about this development,

17:29I stood before council to express my concerns

17:31regarding safety and the sustainability

17:34of this new development.

17:35Some I remember I attended the meeting

17:37with my three month old daughter, who I now have in tow

17:40again, who is almost five.

17:43I don't have any special graphs or stats to show you.

17:46I simply come with experience, common sense,

17:48and as a resident of this community who not only

17:50has a vested interest, but is invested

17:54through community involvement.

17:56The level of density appears to be extremely high compared

18:01to comparable neighborhoods in Guelph.

18:04As it is said to be made up of specialized high density

18:07apartments and specialized residential cluster townhouses

18:10according to the developer.

18:12As was questioned almost five years ago

18:15when this matter appeared before council then in February

18:182019, why this spot?

18:21And how will the increase in drivers and residents

18:24affect this neighborhood?

18:27In my opinion, city planners through their report

18:30approving the development have yet to address any

18:32of the questions and concerns residents put forth

18:35at the last meeting almost five years ago.

18:37Instead, the density has increased by 100 units.

18:43In their role as city planners, I would assume many aspects

18:47of the community and its needs would need to be addressed

18:50and consulted before hastily making a decision

18:53as important as this.

18:55486 residential units made up of 183 stacked townhouses

19:00and two 10 story apartment buildings

19:02with 303 units in total according to the city staff report.

19:0713,374,744 dollars will be collected

19:13in development charges, almost $14 million.

19:17That is definitely enticing to the city

19:19or anyone looking at this project.

19:22Especially at a time where there is a housing crisis

19:24and a very large push by all levels of government

19:26for our community to increase the number of housing starts

19:29and more specifically affordable housing.

19:32However, with that said, I object to this extremely intense

19:35high density, this proposed development demands.

19:41For over 10 years, I worked in the community

19:42on the frontline in the field of social services.

19:45I know and understand the obstacles

19:47and the needs of lower income residents in the city

19:49when it comes to not only finding suitable housing

19:51but sustainable housing.

19:54For years, I worked with adults, young and old,

19:56as well as students and this project is not a solution

19:59for affordable housing.

20:00The location does not make it sustainable.

20:02More specifically, this location has a very low walkability rate

20:07from grocery stores to shopping, employment, transit,

20:10everything is far.

20:12And the public transit for this neighborhood

20:14is severely lacking.

20:15However, at this point in time, transit is not needed

20:19for this neighborhood as there is not a demand for it.

20:23As a side note, public transit is already subsidized.

20:26So to add another route to this neighborhood

20:28that will likely be used very little

20:29by the existing neighborhoods and neighborhood residents

20:33will largely be funded by our tax dollars

20:35and put additional strain on the city budget.

20:37Not to mention that proposed need for a 10% increase

20:41in taxes in 2024.

20:44This neighborhood requires residents

20:45that utilize a personal vehicle

20:47as it is largely made of single family homes.

20:51So in order for anyone else to reside in this development,

20:53they will require a vehicle.

20:55Not quite in line with affordability

20:57or sustainability in my opinion.

21:01With that said, 486 units will come with a large increase

21:04in the number of vehicles utilizing

21:05the residential streets in this neighborhood.

21:07Had effective planning been utilized

21:09like in the Clairefields neighborhood, for example,

21:11extra traffic would not be a concern.

21:13However, this neighborhood was not designed

21:16for high density traffic or planned

21:18to accommodate such through built

21:20in traffic calming measures.

21:22As I mentioned the last time I stood before council,

21:24safety is my biggest concern.

21:25I continue to contact wealth police several times a year

21:29regarding dangerous driving in the neighborhood.

21:31Despite the great lengths that public works has gone through

21:33to decrease the speed of drivers.

21:35Multiple crosswalks and speed buns

21:37have done wonders for our neighborhood.

21:39But with the increased use of residents or streets

21:41and the increase in residents using them,

21:43my concerns continue.

21:45The closest grocery stores for our neighborhood

21:48are located near Gordon and Harvard

21:51and Corridon and Enboro.

21:52I can only assume the majority of people who work,

21:54who move to the neighborhood

21:55will utilize these grocery stores as I do.

21:59As outlined in the city planners report,

22:00the school board does not have any objections to development,

22:02safer couple of stipulations regarding snow removal.

22:05Well, I have several concerns.

22:06At this time there's one English speaking public school

22:08and one French immersion public school

22:10assigned to this neighborhood.

22:11My three children attend Rickson Ridge Public School,

22:13which is not immediately in our neighborhood,

22:14therefore they're assigned a bus.

22:16At this time Rickson Public School

22:17has seven portables for students

22:20and are all fully utilized.

22:22With the most recent portable being added,

22:24taking away from additional outdoor space

22:25for the children to use.

22:27My son recently informed me during the summer.

22:28I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to stop, yeah.

22:30Sorry, sorry, I know you tried your best.

22:31You were speeding up there,

22:32which I appreciate the effort.

22:34Yeah, so I'm gonna have to stop you there.

22:35Though thank you.

22:36Is there any follow up questions for this delegate at all?

22:40Okay, there isn't.

22:41Thank you to the both of you for coming.

22:43We appreciate it.

22:44Can I make one more statement?

22:45No, I'm sorry.

22:47Yeah, I'm sorry, I gotta.

22:48I didn't realize there was only five minutes.

22:50Last time we received 10.

22:51Yeah, for the decision nights it's always five.

22:54Yeah, so thank you.

22:55But you can, did you put that in an email to us already?

22:58No, I didn't.

22:59If you'd like to, you can send it to all of council.

23:01Okay.

23:01Yeah, we're happy to read it.

23:02Thank you.

23:03Yeah, thank you.

23:04Okay, going on next is,

23:09Wayne, thank you for joining us.

23:11And then William or Bill Farr, are you here?

23:15Yes, okay, I see you.

23:16So you're in the wings.

23:18Okay, Wayne, thank you for joining us.

23:20And the time will start when you are ready.

23:22Go right ahead.

23:23Thank you.

23:24Mayor Guthrie, members of council.

23:26My name is Wayne Church.

23:27I live at 355 McAllister,

23:29the 29 unit townhouse complex just south

23:32of the proposed development.

23:34For perspective, the development, my development,

23:37is eight tenths of a hectare,

23:39has a density of 36 units per hectare,

23:43and 2.2 parking spaces per unit, including visitors.

23:49Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening

23:51at the second council discussion of this project.

23:54The first, the statutory public, statutory,

23:57not statutory, public meeting in February of 2019,

24:02resulted in a summary of that meeting,

24:04by Mayor Guthrie, concluding that the meeting consensus

24:07was that the property was overdeveloped and too intense,

24:11and that it was a pulse check from the community and council

24:14that the developer should take away for consideration

24:17in his further planning for their site.

24:20Four and a half years later,

24:22we have before us now a development that has changed.

24:25It is now over 21% larger,

24:28having grown by 86 residential units.

24:31On a property identified by you

24:34has already overdeveloped and too intense.

24:38I'd like to focus on parking and traffic.

24:41There has been much discussion

24:43on the requirements for parking spaces.

24:46It calculated under, if calculated under the formula

24:49in effect in 2019, the total requirement

24:52for parking spaces would be 681 vehicles.

24:55Apparently there was a concern

24:57that the formula was subject to interpretation,

24:59and during the April 18th, 2023 zoning bylaw review,

25:03council changed the wording of the bylaw,

25:05the interpretive wording was removed,

25:07and a reduced resident parking requirement was established,

25:10resulting in a total requirement for the property now

25:13at 604 spaces.

25:15The developer's plan is to include 527 parking spaces,

25:191.08 per dwelling unit, 77 spaces are 13% short

25:24of the 604 required total.

25:27But instead of inconclusive theoretical discussions

25:30over which formula is the most appropriate,

25:31I'd like to use a living example.

25:34The developer, apparently looking for ways

25:36to achieve greater parking, went so far as to state

25:38that they could facilitate an extra 10 spots

25:40of on-street parking on McAllister.

25:44Within that offer they stated that the residents

25:45of 355 McAllister, where I live,

25:49use up some of those limited parking spaces on the street.

25:52As I stated up front, the parking ratio

25:54in our small development offers 2.2 spaces

25:57per dwelling unit.

25:59I believe our small development is better at determining

26:01whether the neighborhood is walkable,

26:03or that bus routes are adequate,

26:05because it is not in the developer's inappropriate

26:07statistical sampling locations, such as Kitchener,

26:10London, or Toronto, but it's actually across the street.

26:14So a 29 unit development with 22.2

26:17spark parking spaces per unit is needing more spaces

26:20and having to overflow into the street

26:22in this unwalkable neighborhood.

26:24If that is the case, what might we expect

26:27from a 400 to 86 unit development

26:29with just over one parking space per unit to require?

26:33There is not a street long enough

26:34in the neighborhood to accommodate.

26:38In fact, there is not enough space in the development's

26:40property to provide for adequate parking.

26:42355 McAllister offers 2.2 spaces per unit.

26:46The developer offers evidence that that is not sufficient.

26:50If the developer offered this 2.2 spaces,

26:52that would be a requirement of 542 more spaces.

26:56I know that's ridiculous, sounds ridiculous,

26:58it is ridiculous, and it may not be the correct number,

27:02but it is directionally sound in showing

27:04that the area of this development cannot support

27:07the extreme level of intensification proposed.

27:10A development of this size increasing the neighborhood

27:13by over a thousand people must have an effect on traffic.

27:17There will be many school buses in and out of the site

27:19twice a day, there will be service vehicles,

27:21waste pickup vehicles, increased traffic issues

27:24on Zaddick, Sweeney, and Courtwright, et cetera.

27:27But the most telling effect of increased traffic

27:29is the agreed requirement for a widening of Victoria

27:32to accommodate a new traffic light controlled

27:34full turns intersection with dedicated north

27:37and south turning lanes, as main ingress

27:40and egress to the development.

27:43This will be the only such intersection

27:44to a private residential community

27:46along the whole length of Victoria Road.

27:49This not only speaks to large vehicle volume

27:51on the site that will increase traffic,

27:53and at the same time impede its flow

27:55on an ever increasingly busy thoroughfare.

27:59We are not at all opposed to residential development

28:01on these two lots, it's necessary, it's inevitable,

28:04but it must however be sensible and sustainable.

28:07Our goal is not to stop the development

28:09but to ensure it meets the sensible, sustainable criteria.

28:13This is the last chance to make that happen.

28:15For the sake of Guelph as a livable city,

28:18please think of the implications of proving all

28:20of the 38 bylaw variances tonight.

28:23Please at least curb your outrageous,

28:25this outrageous proposal.

28:27Thank you.

28:28Great, thank you very much, Wayne.

28:30And right on the dot there.

28:32And just before you walk away,

28:33is there any follow up anybody?

28:36Okay, you can walk away.

28:37All right, thank you very much.

28:39Thank you.

28:41Bill, you're coming down, thank you.

28:43Hugh Handy, are you here?

28:46Okay, you're in the wings.

28:48And so Bill, thank you for joining us.

28:51Yeah, how do I move this forward?

28:54Just a...

28:55Yeah, I think the button's there.

28:56You wanna just try it out before we start your time?

28:58The green one?

29:00The green one, I think is the one that goes.

29:01So I'll make it back.

29:02You good there?

29:03Okay, ready to roll.

29:04Okay, we'll start for you, go ahead.

29:06Okay, council, mayor,

29:09I presented the February 19th meeting.

29:12At that time, there was some very significant concerns

29:16from the council.

29:17And I've tried to summarize them

29:19based on the video from four years ago.

29:22Personally, I was left very hopeful

29:23that the level of engagement of all the council members

29:26on this and their concern.

29:28So this is what you looked like four years ago.

29:33So for ward four, six stories is extremely high.

29:38Six of Butting Victoria versus 10 of Butting McAllister.

29:41Blending density came up more along Victoria.

29:44The discussion with staff, if council wants,

29:472017 official plan can be reviewed,

29:49so we don't have 10 story monsters.

29:52And we still have those monsters.

29:54There was a question that came up about the amendments,

29:56the 5.5 and the 2.75 for underground parking.

30:00Nothing to do with stacked home houses,

30:01but I do hope that you got the answer

30:04because you wanted to know if there was any problems.

30:08On the ward five, there was concerns

30:10about the traffic study,

30:12and was it the right time of day?

30:14The way that it actually reflected was a new study needed.

30:16In addition, there was also do a study

30:19with the cumulative impacts of all sorts of other projects

30:22around from the east, from the south,

30:25and that and bring them together, not just one.

30:27Also, what was brought up was take the rural,

30:29urban boundary very seriously, and net zero.

30:33We also heard about the wildlife concerns.

30:36Mayor Guthrie referenced Eastview Tunnels and Turtle Camp.

30:42Ward five, layout was too dense.

30:45Submitted as compact and tense.

30:48Intense urban design is not compatible on this corner.

30:5210 stories onto McAllister, not in favor,

30:54but it also blocks the natural heritage features

30:57that we are so proud of.

30:58I know we allow for 10,

31:00but does not mean we have to meet 10 stories.

31:04Traffic concerns and court right,

31:06should we bring in an independent urban design

31:08like we did for the Janefield development?

31:10Again, I bring these up because I hope you got good quality

31:13answers to what you brought up four years ago.

31:17There was a noise impact study concern,

31:20water pressure in the area, migratory birds.

31:24Ward five brought up about the parking spaces

31:26as 5.5 too small versus six the standard.

31:30Ward one brought up being too robust.

31:34Also Ward one about this 50 degree angular plane versus 45,

31:38and I think that still hasn't been, it's still not 45,

31:42but a reduction in common amenity spaces was big

31:45by the Ward one representative,

31:47and all traffic should be exiting on Victoria Road.

31:52Ward two brought up, where are these,

31:54where would the park speed to meet the needs

31:57of the new community members?

31:59At the time it was a couple of hundred, it's more.

32:01High density at nodes are okay,

32:04but outside of nodes is disturbing.

32:08Again, the quote, that was a concern.

32:11Ward three, too much density overdeveloped.

32:14Another Ward three concern was as well violating

32:17the official plan and the provincial statutes.

32:20How does Ms. Watson's 130 recommendations

32:23affect the staff recommendations at council?

32:27And Mayor Guthrie left us with some challenges

32:29about the net zero and the hookups,

32:31but more importantly, we need to get creative

32:34on a beautiful development that is going to have to work

32:36for the community.

32:37That was the challenge Mayor Guthrie left for staff,

32:40and I think to develop.

32:42So what will people do for a coffee?

32:44Okay, at Court Wright and Gordon,

32:46we know that they block the street,

32:48and you can't get in, you can't get out.

32:50And even now, it never gets fixed after the fact.

32:53That still happens.

32:55So there's gonna be a coffee shop or whatever across there,

32:58and you can be sure that it's gonna cause problems

33:01with the cars coming both ways,

33:04and this and that, and the exit.

33:06But more, it's gonna be cars, but it's gonna be buses too.

33:10Buses are going to be affected.

33:12So please be proactive and design for what will

33:17really happen on the streets.

33:19Make the exit onto Victoria.

33:22Summer, you're gonna hear from my,

33:23you've already heard from my group.

33:25I thought it was interesting that Ryan Scott,

33:27Senior VP when he was addressing council on Bill 23,

33:31said being able to provide livable communities

33:33from day one with appropriate parks,

33:36and with appropriate open space,

33:38and appropriate amenities is something

33:41that we pride ourselves on.

33:42I don't think he's met that standard for sure.

33:46The community thinks this development

33:48is headed the wrong direction.

33:50And we're confused.

33:52Has the construction started?

33:55Because we're seeing trucks out there,

33:57October 31st and into November, moving soil.

34:00I, we're confused if it started or not.

34:04That's all I have to say.

34:05Thank you very much council.

34:07Great, thank you.

34:07On the buzzer.

34:09Well done, thank you.

34:11Is there any questions as a follow up?

34:14Seeing none, thank you very much

34:16for the presentation as well.

34:17And last we have Hugh Handy.

34:28Welcome and whenever you're ready,

34:30the time will start for you as well.

34:32Thank you for joining us.

34:35Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, members of council.

34:38My name is Hugh Handy and I'm a land use planner

34:41and vice president of GSP group.

34:43I'm here on behalf of Fusion homes and gamma developers.

34:47I also have with me Ryan Scott,

34:50senior vice president of Fusion in the audience

34:53and Mike Von Teichmann of gamma as well here this evening

34:56if there are any specific questions that I can address.

35:00I would note that Blake Tonsik from Fusion,

35:04the last delegate sends his regrets.

35:06He felt ill over the weekend

35:08and therefore is not here this evening.

35:11We are here in support of the staff recommendation

35:14before you this evening.

35:16The application as noted in the report commenced in 2018.

35:21We began a dialogue with the public during the open house

35:25in January of 2019 at the Victoria East golf course

35:30and further listened to the feedback

35:33which you've heard again this evening.

35:36And we had follow up meetings at the Fusion office

35:38following the public meeting

35:40and subsequent discussions after that.

35:43We also listened to the staff and their feedback

35:46as well as council at that meeting

35:48and made a number of revisions for revisions

35:52to the development.

35:54We thank staff for their assistance

35:56to get to this decision meeting tonight.

36:00Changes were made to respond to the public,

36:04some of that and counsel, some of what we heard,

36:07how the density and built form was organized on the site,

36:10trying to pull that to Victoria Street.

36:14The traffic circulation on the site to and from the site,

36:17including the new traffic signals on Victoria

36:21were important and obviously recognizing

36:23that there is density as part of this development

36:26and that respects that and tries to respond to that.

36:30As well to ensure that the natural heritage area

36:32associated with Torrance Creek is protected,

36:35including a trail linkage around the site.

36:38We believe that the proposed zoning by-law amendments

36:42before you represent an appropriate level of density

36:45and implements the current medium

36:47and high density designations for the site.

36:52As a reminder, there's no official plan amendment

36:55and to the delegates, we are looking

36:57at achieving those densities on the site

37:00and that there is also as part of that,

37:05just some of the questions this evening

37:07that there is a commercial site across McAllister

37:11that has been referenced for neighborhood uses in the future

37:14and that is also owned by Gamma just to be clear

37:18and usually increased density brings

37:22with those completions of elements

37:24as we know in our community related to commercial.

37:31Both the developers are motivated

37:33and are ready to bring much needed housing to the site.

37:36Obviously the earthworks indicate

37:39and I'm not aware of anything that is offside

37:41with anything in terms of starting.

37:44There is site plan being reviewed by the city

37:48and that's not to go beyond what we're here tonight

37:52to make a decision, but just to indicate

37:55that this is a real project

37:58that is trying to be brought forward.

38:01With that said, I know in anything change is difficult.

38:05That's what I do on a day to day basis

38:07to try and make sure that the technical reports

38:10before you are substantive,

38:13that we didn't just go away and come back the next week

38:17with this application, we've worked with staff.

38:20And with that said, I would look

38:22for council support this evening of the application

38:26and we would, I would be or our team

38:28would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

38:31Thank you.

38:33Thank you.

38:34I'll go to Alt Billings.

38:36Okay, everyone get ready, ready?

38:38Alt Billings Downer, Koran.

38:41I'll stop there for now.

38:43Go ahead Alt.

38:44Thank you Mayor Guthrie through you

38:45to the delegate Mr. Handy.

38:48Mr. Handy, you made reference to changes in density.

38:52And so that the notion of change

38:55is one that is interesting.

38:58Was the density changed in terms of a higher or lower

39:02or was it just shifted around on site

39:04and therefore it was zero sum gain?

39:07Through your worship to the councillor,

39:09there was an increase in density

39:11and also movement around the site.

39:14We heard at the public meeting the importance

39:17of moving the density towards Victoria,

39:20at least that's how we interpreted it,

39:23to try and obviously dealing with a high density site

39:26and that could have interface I think

39:28with the townhouses on the south side of McAllister.

39:31So that's why we looked at the density towards Victoria.

39:35Thank you, just to follow up,

39:36you also made reference to you and the developer

39:40considers it to be appropriate density.

39:42Could you just develop that a bit please?

39:45Yes, I guess in terms of through your worship

39:47to the councillor, looking at the 150 units

39:53per hectare and the 100 units per hectare

39:55as part of the medium density, so 150

39:58and trying to achieve that on the site.

40:01So that's within the official plan density.

40:04So taking our cues from that.

40:07And you're predicting my last question.

40:09You said there's no official plan change being requested.

40:13Is that correct?

40:14So you do have of right to do that at the present time?

40:19Through your worship to the councillor, yes.

40:21I mean, as an official plan is a guidance document.

40:25That's where we take it from.

40:27Obviously that has to be balanced against

40:30other technical studies, traffic,

40:32whether you agree to it or you don't.

40:34That's what we need to balance the number of things

40:37as we look at density.

40:38Thank you very much.

40:40Billings please.

40:43Through you, Mr. Mayor.

40:45Okay, so Hugh, I just wanted to ask you,

40:47so you have to tell me if I'm wrong, okay?

40:49So in the report, I think it said the exterior parking.

40:53So I'm talking the dimension of the parking space is 2.5 by 5.5.

40:59Is that accurate?

41:03Through your worship to the councillor,

41:04I believe that is accurate.

41:06Yes.

41:07Okay, so I was getting nods from the staff as well.

41:10So I was concerned about the 2.75.

41:13So now it's gone down to 2.5.

41:17So the width of the 2.5,

41:20that's not like just a driveway for a town home.

41:24That's when you have parking spaces in a row,

41:27you're going to have only a width of 2.5.

41:31That's what you're asking for?

41:33That's correct.

41:35Now I've never seen that before.

41:40So the reason why you're doing this is just to try to get

41:44more parking on the site.

41:47Instead of having the 2.75.

41:50Well, the two, and Lindsay can,

41:53it's I believe it's in the new zoning bylaw as well

41:56in terms of the size, but in terms of...

42:08Through the mayor to councillor Billings.

42:10So there's a difference in the 1995 and 2023 bylaws

42:14in terms of exterior parking space dimensions

42:18and also interior parking space dimensions.

42:21So the 1995 zoning bylaw,

42:23the exterior parking space dimensions are 2.5 by 5.5 meters,

42:29which is what is proposed.

42:31And then in the 2023 bylaw,

42:33that requirement went up to 2.75 by 5.5.

42:37So the two bylaws aren't aligned.

42:40So the applicant had to ask for a specialized regulation

42:45to the 2023 bylaw for that,

42:47but they are meeting the 95 requirement of the 2.5 by 5.5.

42:51And then the interior parking space dimensions

42:55in the 1995 bylaw is three meters by six meters.

42:59But in the 2023 bylaw, it changed to 2.75

43:03to 2.75 by 5.5.

43:06So there's a difference between the two bylaws,

43:08which is why there are specialized regulations.

43:12So through you, Mr. Mayor,

43:14my understanding for the 95 zoning bylaw for the 2.5,

43:19that was just for driveways.

43:21Because when you open up your doors,

43:22you can get on the grass, whatever.

43:25But never did I see parking in a row

43:30that it was okay for driveways, for semis, for example,

43:34but I never saw an application come forward

43:37from staff with the 2.5 when you had parking in a row.

43:45So I'll allow staff to answer this right now,

43:47but this is the last time.

43:50I wanna stick to just the delegation,

43:52but I'll allow it.

43:53Lindsay, do you have an answer for that?

43:56So I believe we've never seen that in the 95 bylaw

43:59because the residential, exterior residential parking spaces

44:03in our 95 bylaw are allowed to be 2.5 by 5.5.

44:07And that applies to townhouses,

44:10exterior spaces for apartment buildings.

44:13If this was a commercial site or non-residential,

44:16it would be 2.75 by 5.5.

44:18There is a difference in the 95 bylaw.

44:22Okay, through you, Mr. Mayor, to Hugh,

44:25again, you have to correct me if I'm wrong.

44:27The EV hookups, the charging,

44:30I see that there will be some on the north block,

44:36but I don't believe there's any for the south block.

44:40Is that correct?

44:41That is correct.

44:43And can I ask why?

44:46Full design has not been,

44:48through your worship to the counselor,

44:50has not been determined at the moment,

44:53but that will be under consideration

44:56as part of the development through site plan.

45:01Then why through your worship,

45:03does it say in the report that it's not required then?

45:08Like if it's gonna be under consideration,

45:10but it's quote not required in the report.

45:14Through your worship to the counselor.

45:17At the time, we haven't determined it,

45:21so rather than required at the moment,

45:25we'd rather look at that

45:26through the development of the site.

45:28Okay.

45:30And then also I wanted to ask the common amenity areas.

45:36I could see it clearly for the north block,

45:40but on the concept plan that received in the package,

45:44it's not clear in the south block.

45:47Where the common amenity areas are?

45:52And are there any?

45:54Just three years.

45:55Except for, sorry,

45:56except for small little spaces like a grass.

45:59Yes, there are three years to the counselor.

46:03There are building amenities.

46:06There is a podium amenity spaces part of the development

46:11and there will be interior space as well.

46:14Exterior or, and again,

46:18I'm just talking about the south block.

46:22Any space there for something,

46:27because the closest part I believe is Jubilee Park.

46:31So I was just concerned with the density on this site.

46:36What sort of, in the common amenity areas,

46:40would you be providing for all these people?

46:44Through your worship to the counselor,

46:47there are amenity spaces.

46:48One of the things that was part of the development

46:51was to ensure there was a central spine

46:55to get to the open space area.

46:58So that may be showing up.

47:00At least that's on the conceptual,

47:02the current conceptual site plan.

47:04But there won't be,

47:05but through your worship,

47:07but there won't be to say any play equipment

47:10or anything like that on this site,

47:13on the south block.

47:14There'll be a connection,

47:15but not necessarily a play space.

47:17Those haven't been looked at in terms of programming,

47:21but the size of them to me would indicate

47:24that there could be some benches and other things.

47:27So going to the park would likely be Jubilee Park,

47:31which is near the school,

47:33a walking distance from the development.

47:37Okay, so back to parking.

47:40So North Block has enough parking.

47:43But what's being required isn't being met

47:46with the south block.

47:48So just to be 100% clear,

47:51there is no underground parking with the south block.

47:54Like is it just within the podium?

47:57Or is there underground?

48:00Through your worship to the counselor,

48:02there is podium parking,

48:04which levels I don't believe are completely underground,

48:08but because of the nature of the site,

48:12the podium parking was determined appropriate

48:14based on hydrological issues.

48:18So you're not going underground

48:20because of dewatering issues?

48:22Correct.

48:26Okay.

48:27And then,

48:30okay, with respect to the application,

48:33it's combined, North Block and South Block.

48:37Is it not possible to have two applications?

48:42One for the north, one for the south?

48:45Through you, your worship to the counselor,

48:49the intent was that these applications

48:51would be considered together,

48:53that they would function as a development together

48:56and therefore were filed as one application.

49:01Okay, thanks.

49:03You're welcome.

49:05Okay, thank you, counselor.

49:06Downer than Cron.

49:09Thank you.

49:10Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Handy.

49:12So the width of the townhouses at 5.4 meters,

49:17and that's pretty narrow,

49:20and staff had said in the report

49:22that the developer has other ones

49:24in the city that are somewhat the same size.

49:27Where is that?

49:28I'm trying to just picture where there is.

49:32My type, do you wanna Grange?

49:36Grange Road.

49:38Grange Road.

49:39Through your worship.

49:42And going back to this question about the EVs,

49:48charging stations not being on the South Parking lot,

49:54would you be willing to rough those in at this point?

49:57Because I mean, that's the way it's going.

49:59I mean, by 2035, I mean,

50:02you're gonna lose parking spots

50:04if you have to rough it in later.

50:07Through your worship to the counselor,

50:17would you like the life to come down?

50:20Just to be a bit more formal,

50:22if you did say that there'd be others here

50:24to answer questions, so that's fair.

50:25But to be formal, we just have to capture for the minutes.

50:28I need you to actually come down.

50:30So lots of prices right going on here.

50:33Come on down.

50:34And then you just have to state your name,

50:37please, for the record, and then you can respond.

50:44Thank you.

50:47My name is Michael Von Teichmann.

50:49I'm with Gammon Developers.

50:51We understand, first of all,

50:52the need to, as the environment's changing,

50:55to put EV chargers in.

50:58We don't know how many customers are gonna be driving them,

51:01but it's also responding to what the market will want.

51:04People, as they have these chargers,

51:05will demand that we have them in.

51:07And for us, it's really a question of,

51:09I don't think we wanna put a bunch that are sitting idle,

51:11because that's also not good for the environment,

51:13but to have the right number

51:14for the cars in the development is certainly our intent.

51:24Thanks.

51:25So would you be willing to rough these in at this point?

51:28We're certainly gonna have some roughed in, yeah.

51:30Yeah, there'll be some.

51:31It's some, there'll be definitely roughed

51:33in EV chargers stations for sure.

51:35Okay.

51:40I don't think I have any more,

51:42I have some of staff later, but I don't,

51:45maybe just the one.

51:46I mean, way back, it was six stories,

51:49and now it's 10, and the number has gone up.

51:52Why is that?

51:54I know it's allowable and official plan, but you know.

51:59In part from market research,

52:00we did that said that one bedroom,

52:03we had planned to do three bedroom and two bedroom,

52:05and our original idea was that it would be somewhat more gear

52:08towards families consistent with what's happening

52:10in the neighborhood.

52:11With market research through one of the brokerages here,

52:15meeting with several, a bunch of the agents,

52:17they sort of said that really what is the missing piece

52:21of the wealth housing market is that entry level,

52:23sort of one, two bedrooms, so of young family

52:26that they will plan to move on to a house

52:28more than they would like to live

52:29in a three bedroom apartment.

52:30And so that a little bit sort of, you know,

52:33informed how we looked at this,

52:36that if that's the area in wealth housing

52:38that is chronically short,

52:40and that there's a lot of people moving to wealth

52:42who are in that early family segment

52:44that are currently not served,

52:45that having a bunch of three bedroom apartments

52:48in these buildings,

52:49it's not where they're gonna wanna move as a next step,

52:51they're gonna want a townhouse or a house

52:53or something with stairs was how it was described to us.

52:55And so that's sort of what dictated

52:57that we would have more units,

52:58but they're smaller and hoping that it provides

53:02more housing overall.

53:04But yes, it does increase the unit count.

53:06Okay, so the units are smaller, so the bedroom count.

53:10There's still gonna be two and three bedroom,

53:11but like we sort of thought going in,

53:12it would be heavily on that and really family oriented.

53:15Our market research felt pretty flat on that,

53:17that is a concept that the people are dying

53:20for three bedroom family apartments.

53:22So we sort of modified to say,

53:24okay, well we'll have more smaller units

53:26for younger families,

53:27and then I guess people will move houses

53:30and townhouses and things.

53:31Okay, thank you.

53:36Yeah, thank you.

53:39Picking up on the earlier question about EV charging,

53:41I know this is the only opportunity

53:43that council has to make conditions.

53:45So we can't do that at site plan.

53:46Site plan is after tonight's meeting.

53:49And I think we do have it in our official plan

53:52and in our zoning and in all of our strategic initiatives

53:54that we're moving towards a sustainable city

53:59and that electric field charging is the way everything's going.

54:03So I hear what you're saying is that you're planning,

54:07that you're aware of that

54:08and that you're planning some rough ends

54:10in the North building,

54:11but not any commitments to the South building.

54:14And I'm just, can you commit tonight to us

54:18to give us that confidence that we need

54:21that you're gonna be putting in

54:23electrical vehicle infrastructure

54:24and both buildings?

54:25I can make that there will be EV chargers

54:26on the South parcel.

54:27In the South parcel.

54:28Yeah, I can commit that there will be for sure.

54:30It's the way the world's going.

54:31My husband works for an NGO, an environmental charity.

54:33Like, we understand it's just,

54:36it is a little more nuanced in terms of

54:38how many people want them, you install them

54:39and then they said idle.

54:41And so for us, it's making sure that

54:43we have to respond to the market.

54:44We certainly from the very first phase of this,

54:47we will have EV charging as part of it.

54:49I would, yeah.

54:50Okay, thank you.

54:51That's really great to hear because

54:53part of our decision making is making sure

54:55we're future thinking and so that gives

54:57some confidence to hear that.

55:00And speaking of our climate

55:03and our community energy initiative,

55:05one of the things we ask for in a submission

55:07for any application is the energy initiative sheet.

55:15And Mr. Handy has a really thick skin on this

55:18because he knows I'm gonna ask this.

55:20And I've asked it before and so don't,

55:22I don't want anybody to take it personally,

55:24but I'm sorry, the letters where you're

55:27installing LED lighting and low flush toilets,

55:30just don't cut it anymore.

55:31I know this isn't gonna be a net zero building

55:34and I know that there may be some additional

55:39infrastructure that gets us closer to net zero

55:41when it comes to site plan.

55:43But helping us to meet our net zero goals by 2050,

55:47I'm just not seeing it in this application.

55:50And so I don't know whether who's best to speak to it,

55:52whether it's you or Mr. Handy,

55:54but are you actively looking at technologies

56:00like heat pumps?

56:01I know it's high density building

56:03and there's a little bit more infrastructure up front,

56:06but affordability also includes utilities in perpetuity.

56:11Can you address whether you're gonna be

56:14anywhere close to net zero when this development is finished?

56:19I have to be honest, I don't know the technical net zero

56:22to say whether we're close to not,

56:23cause I don't know the math behind what constitutes.

56:25I know that it's always a balance

56:27between affordability and sustainability.

56:29And if you put all the sustainability measures in,

56:32it becomes a more affordable product.

56:34And so for us, our intent is that it be sustainable.

56:39We don't wanna build something that is not,

56:40that is gonna contribute to the craziness that's going on.

56:44As I said, my husband works for a World Wildlife Fund.

56:45I get it in my ear all the time, he's probably watching.

56:48That it is something that obviously everyone has to address

56:52more fulsomely going forward.

56:53It is also pretty complicated to put it in.

56:57And I know through site plan and building permit,

56:59that's where a lot of that,

57:00those technical matters get worked through.

57:03But certainly our intent is to try

57:05where it doesn't cause a big increase

57:07on the price of the home to put in sustainable measures.

57:11There are things where when you look at it and say,

57:13oh wow, that's a lot of money per unit.

57:15And at the end of the day,

57:17that gets the consumer can choose to buy that or not.

57:20And so it's sort of a half market driven

57:23and trying to keep it that the units don't go

57:26to these crazy.

57:28Is this a condo or a rental

57:30or that hasn't been determined yet?

57:31Because that affordability piece does affect buyers

57:34because the ROI is in the long-term investment.

57:38For sure, we're not sure, 100% obviously.

57:41Financial markets and things,

57:42but our plan was to do part rental and part condominium.

57:45So there'll be rental units in the building as well.

57:47In one of the buildings for sure.

57:52Two more quick questions.

57:53I'm looking at the renderings

57:54that are in attachment to this application.

57:56And I heard and I understand you're near wetlands

58:00and there's water table issues.

58:01So you're not going underground.

58:03On the renderings that are part of the attachment,

58:07is the main level parking structure?

58:11So what I'm seeing when I blow it up on my screen

58:14is I'm seeing doors and people walking in the doors.

58:17And I don't know why I thought that that might mean

58:20that those were entrances to some ground floor units.

58:23But then I look at the windows

58:24and they're completely opaque

58:27and they've got almost like a concrete finish on them.

58:30So those ground level doors and those ground level,

58:34is that all above grade parking?

58:39There's units around the outside.

58:41I believe it's one side of one building.

58:43There are certain sections where it's just a facade,

58:46but the rest of it are meant to,

58:48front doors, walk out, active,

58:50like meant to feel like a townhouse.

58:51It'll be about the parking structure.

58:54There is one side where to deal with the turning

58:58and all the things we had to inside the building,

59:00that one wall is not, one wall's a spandrel glass.

59:05I'm looking at the Victoria Road South.

59:07Elevation.

59:09On the Victoria Road South elevation,

59:12is anything on the first floor residential?

59:15Or is the entire Victoria Road elevation

59:21kind of fenestration that hides parking?

59:26I don't believe it's,

59:27I think there's residences there too.

59:29I think, I don't know which side off the top of my head,

59:32but it's, I believe it's three sides is active

59:35and one side is active.

59:35That's the one I'm looking at.

59:36Yeah, that's the one.

59:37Along Victoria Road,

59:39are those active entrances to people's units?

59:42Or is that, is the fenestration

59:44that you're showing on level one,

59:46is that opaque because it is, it isn't.

59:51Oh, I see what you're saying.

59:52Is this opaque because?

59:53Like these, these actual frontages,

59:54and I believe they are,

59:56but I don't have the floor, but I believe they are.

59:58I think it was the one side on the callus shirt

1:00:01was where it wasn't, and then where else was?

1:00:04Off the top of my head, but I would like to check that.

1:00:06Okay, that matters because obviously our sept head principles,

1:00:10we want eyes on the street, we want active street fronts,

1:00:13so that's good to hear.

1:00:15And then my last question kind of touches

1:00:18a little bit on Councillor Downer's question,

1:00:20about why you went from six to 10.

1:00:22So this was a bit of a surprise to the neighborhood

1:00:24who were responding to six,

1:00:26and now they're responding to 10.

1:00:28And know that we're here tonight on a specific zoning matter,

1:00:34and we're here tonight on an application

1:00:36that relates to zoning.

1:00:37But we have had situations,

1:00:39we just did it with 716 Gordon Street,

1:00:42where we have an active neighborhood group

1:00:44who want to give you their best suggestions

1:00:47to build the best possible development for your benefit

1:00:52and the community's benefit.

1:00:53And we had a motion at that meeting asking for our staff

1:01:00to be able to have the neighborhood group

1:01:03provide feedback, to be able to review

1:01:05and provide feedback on site plan.

1:01:08We know there is no Ontario Planning Act requirement

1:01:12for that, but it's that iterative process

1:01:15where we have an amazing community

1:01:17that want to help you do the best project possible.

1:01:21Would you be willing to have that review and feedback

1:01:25from the community during site plan?

1:01:28Yeah, we also already did.

1:01:29We had the community meeting, we've had the council meeting

1:01:31that made a follow up with meeting

1:01:32with a smaller group of the community residents,

1:01:35and I know maybe it doesn't appear.

1:01:37We thought it was a huge, we thought you'd all say,

1:01:38oh, what a big difference from the first to the second.

1:01:41But that really informed our steps from there

1:01:44in terms of how it was laid out.

1:01:46And one of the big things was the buildings were shadowing

1:01:49over on the townhouses and the rest of the development,

1:01:51part of why they're there and why they're shaped

1:01:53the way they are is to keep the shadowing

1:01:55as minimal as possible.

1:01:56So there was a lot of thought into, well, how do we,

1:01:59and at the end of the day, if it's,

1:02:02the densities that are allowed in the official plan,

1:02:06they require some height because we're losing

1:02:08three stories of parking, right?

1:02:10If we done underground parking,

1:02:13it's also the environmental side of that.

1:02:15You're digging down and it wasn't even the watering.

1:02:17We were sort of, it looked very just problematic.

1:02:21You're getting into water table.

1:02:23As you said, the Torrance Creek watershed,

1:02:24and so to minimize any interaction with that,

1:02:27the thinking was to have the parking above ground,

1:02:30minimize the interaction below ground,

1:02:31and then you have seven stories effectively

1:02:33of residences on top.

1:02:35So that was kind of a little bit how we came

1:02:37a little part of that was not to damage the water,

1:02:40or not to disrupt the watershed.

1:02:42No, I certainly understand why you've made those decisions,

1:02:46but between the meeting at Vic Road,

1:02:48with the neighborhood at the beginning of the process,

1:02:52to where we are now, and where we are now,

1:02:55or where we will be later tonight,

1:02:59and site plan, there's a lot of decisions

1:03:02that still get made at your end about even things like

1:03:05lighting, that only something like a neighborhood group

1:03:08might be able to pick up on and say,

1:03:09oh, you know what, that lighting's actually going

1:03:11straight into the backyard,

1:03:14or things that I think just providing feedback

1:03:18would be helpful in the community engagement

1:03:20that we try to espouse as part of our planning process.

1:03:23I'm just wondering if there's a role

1:03:24for the neighborhood to play still,

1:03:27and you don't have to answer that question

1:03:29or commit to it now.

1:03:29I'm contemplating asking staff something

1:03:32related to that as well.

1:03:34I just wanted to see how you would respond to an idea

1:03:37like that.

1:03:38We do listen with the commercial site,

1:03:40with the gas, with the drive through,

1:03:42and the McDonald's.

1:03:43The reason it's been on pause so long

1:03:44is we're not going to do the gas station,

1:03:46it's just with the way the world's direction,

1:03:47the world's going, we're going to do something.

1:03:49So we do listen.

1:03:52It is, yeah, I mean, we're always seeking feedback

1:03:55to make a better development,

1:03:57so we're not closed to feedback at all.

1:03:59Okay.

1:04:00Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Handy.

1:04:02I think you have something to add.

1:04:03Maybe I can just build on that.

1:04:04Don't go away, Mike, in case we need you.

1:04:08Through your worship to the counselor,

1:04:11I have a way of other developments

1:04:12where we've circulated, I guess what I say this with,

1:04:16I'll do respect to the audience and to counsel,

1:04:19that site plan is sometimes a very detailed,

1:04:22technical matter which counsel will know.

1:04:25So to not set up false expectations,

1:04:28but to be sensitive to the neighborhood.

1:04:31So if we are getting into that,

1:04:33I believe at Claren Gordon,

1:04:35when we did the development there,

1:04:37that the neighborhood was given notice

1:04:42that the site plan was available to review,

1:04:46but not necessarily an active process where,

1:04:50so there is that kind of situation

1:04:53which you may be thinking of,

1:04:54but just to set up the expectations

1:04:56that if that's where you go with it,

1:05:01it's still, as I said, on any of these sites,

1:05:03especially when you get into natural heritage

1:05:05and other things where you're balancing all these things,

1:05:09as you know, it takes time just to get to this point.

1:05:12So.

1:05:13I bet, yeah, a lot of work involved.

1:05:14Thank you.

1:05:17Okay, Councillor Chew, did you have a question

1:05:19for the delegates or are we moving to staff now?

1:05:23I'll just leave it to the staff, thank you.

1:05:24Okay, great.

1:05:26No further questions then.

1:05:27Thank you both for coming down, really appreciate it.

1:05:29Oh, I'm sorry, don't go anywhere.

1:05:31Hang on, my, Councillor Caton, over to you.

1:05:37Question.

1:05:38Through you to the developers,

1:05:41I was just wondering,

1:05:42you mentioned that there is going to be

1:05:44commercial space in the future.

1:05:46Can you tell me how much square foot that would be?

1:05:57I'll pick up your site.

1:05:58Even that, right now I'm drawing a blank.

1:06:00It's somewhere in my brain,

1:06:01but I have hesitances to give us.

1:06:04Could you maybe just email that?

1:06:06I think it was roughly not.

1:06:06I want to say when we had the previous site plan,

1:06:09I want to say it was 9,300.

1:06:11Is somewhere in that square feet?

1:06:13Square feet.

1:06:14There was a range of my head.

1:06:15Now that included agastation and various things,

1:06:18but I can check and we can certainly let you know.

1:06:22Great, and sorry, through the mayor,

1:06:24one further question.

1:06:27The apartments, are they going to be built in such a way

1:06:29that if they needed to be converted

1:06:32to being a wheelchair accessible unit,

1:06:35that that could be done in terms of the doorway,

1:06:38it's in hallway with some things like that.

1:06:43I think we'll be conscious of having some units

1:06:45that meet that as required.

1:06:47Sorry, I think we'll be conscious of having some units

1:06:50that meet those requirements as a matter of principle anyway,

1:06:53but the bylaw also I think requires that,

1:06:55but we'll certainly have,

1:06:57it's possible for someone with accessibility issues

1:06:59by unit or rent a unit in this development for sure.

1:07:03Thank you very much.

1:07:06All right, for real this time we're done.

1:07:09Thank you.

1:07:11Okay, council, it's back to us.

1:07:14Can I at least look to my council here

1:07:17to see if someone would be willing to put

1:07:21the recommendations down before we get

1:07:23to staff questions please.

1:07:27Alt please and Colosson is seconding, thank you.

1:07:32And I'll start with questions.

1:07:33Councillor Chew and then Downer.

1:07:38Yeah, let me just say the names out loud

1:07:40before you start, okay Ken?

1:07:41So councillor Chew, Downer, Alt,

1:07:47boosted to Colosson, that's all I can remember.

1:07:49So we'll go with that.

1:07:54Can I go second?

1:07:57Through you Mr. Mayor, can I go second?

1:07:59I just have to draw my memory on a few items.

1:08:02Sure, sure.

1:08:05That's a first, I like that.

1:08:06Thank you.

1:08:08Downer, over to you, you are first.

1:08:11Okay, thank you.

1:08:12So I guess my question to staff is through Mr. Mayor is,

1:08:16so why was this site designated high density do you think

1:08:20in the official plan when I look along all of Victoria Road?

1:08:24I mean it's what we have now.

1:08:25I mean I accept that this is high density, this piece.

1:08:29But the piece beside it is medium

1:08:31and yeah that's not on the intersection.

1:08:33But when I look down Victoria Road,

1:08:35there's only one other very small site that's high density.

1:08:41And so I'm just curious as to why would this have been

1:08:44designated high density in the official plan to begin with?

1:08:47I know it's where we are now, I know it can't be changed,

1:08:50but.

1:08:52Through the mayor to councillor Downer,

1:08:55just as a bit of history for this site,

1:08:57these lands were annexed from the town of Puslinch in 1993.

1:09:01And the landowners at the time,

1:09:03I believe it was in the late 90s,

1:09:06who started planning for the area

1:09:10and started the drop plan of subdivision

1:09:11for the entire core right east subdivision

1:09:16with the different landowners laid out a plan of subdivision

1:09:20that covered the entire area.

1:09:22So these lands were always designated

1:09:25and shown to be high density and medium density,

1:09:29even going back to the original subdivision plan in 2001.

1:09:33Like these lands are not part of a registered plan

1:09:36of subdivision because through the registration

1:09:37of the other phases, they were technically severed off

1:09:40through the registration and dedication

1:09:43of like the open space.

1:09:44So that's why they've always been somewhat isolated,

1:09:47but they've always been designated.

1:09:48And I think I obviously wasn't around at that time

1:09:53back in the early 2000s,

1:09:54but my understanding was to have the single detached houses

1:10:00and the semis in the middle with the park

1:10:02and then have the higher density away from the residential.

1:10:06So it is on an arterial road.

1:10:09It is separated from the wetland natural heritage system

1:10:14by several hundred meters.

1:10:16So that's where you would wanna see high density uses

1:10:20is an arterial road where it can accommodate

1:10:25large volumes of traffic and be separated

1:10:28and further away from the lower density forms of development.

1:10:34Okay, thanks.

1:10:36So that sort of then leads me to the high density

1:10:38in that rural urban interface.

1:10:41And in the reports, you talk about

1:10:47that that will all be examined at the site plan to stage

1:10:55to do that interface.

1:10:56So can you, what kinds of things will happen at site plan

1:11:02to make that interface more compatible?

1:11:06Like it just seems like we,

1:11:10we got a general idea of what it looks like now,

1:11:11but how will that happen?

1:11:13Like what kinds of things would be done?

1:11:15So I know we have berms further down, further down.

1:11:20Through the mayor to Councillor Downer,

1:11:23there won't be any berms along here,

1:11:24but in terms of the interface,

1:11:28there are gonna be active entrances along Victoria Road.

1:11:33And you can see that in both the townhouses

1:11:35on the fusion parcel and also the Gimmah parcel

1:11:39and also looking at building materials.

1:11:42It is on the boundary of the city.

1:11:46However, our official plan policies

1:11:48do allow for development here.

1:11:49It is a designated site for medium and high density uses.

1:11:54It's always been designated for residential development.

1:11:57A lot of the policies with regards to the rural interface

1:12:01are more dealing with the township side of it

1:12:04and not one fragmented development on the township side,

1:12:06but our policies do allow for development.

1:12:10And you'll be looking for things such as

1:12:13building materials, connections, the sidewalk,

1:12:17there's gonna be bicycle lanes, all that type of stuff.

1:12:20Okay, and so we didn't hear any objections or comments

1:12:22from Post-Linch then.

1:12:26That is correct.

1:12:26They were circulated the initial application

1:12:29and also I did recirculate back in 2022

1:12:34just because there was a three year period

1:12:37between the public meeting and the second submission

1:12:43when it came in.

1:12:43So there was, and then I did circulate the neighborhood

1:12:47as well multiple times when the revised submissions came in.

1:12:51You know, the report talks about it can be adequately

1:12:53serviced by local convenience in neighborhood shopping

1:12:56facilities, schools, trails, parks.

1:13:00The neighborhood does not seem to agree with that,

1:13:02that it's a walkable community

1:13:05as far as convenience commercial.

1:13:12How, what is your response to that?

1:13:14That's just a statement in the report.

1:13:17How can you expand on that?

1:13:20Through the mayor to the counselor.

1:13:23When looking at it, you also have to look at not just

1:13:25what's there, but also what lands are zoned.

1:13:27And there is a neighborhood commercial zone

1:13:30just on the south side of McAllister.

1:13:32There's also a new high school going in.

1:13:35Just up the street, there's the Gwelfin Innovation District,

1:13:38which will be planned in the future.

1:13:40You'll see future development there,

1:13:42which will have commercial uses, employment uses up there,

1:13:45which is just north along Victoria Street.

1:13:49There's also a commercial plaza on the south side

1:13:52of Arcale and Victoria.

1:13:55And with regards to it being walkable,

1:13:58there is gonna be, there's a lot of planned trails

1:14:00in this area of primary, secondary,

1:14:03that will all connect with subdivision to the south,

1:14:07like the Victoria Park Village subdivision to the south,

1:14:09which will be a connection to the high school.

1:14:17And there's, I think it's a good area for,

1:14:22not just what's there now, but also for the future.

1:14:25Okay.

1:14:27Now staff added some of their own

1:14:31specialized regulations to this exceptions.

1:14:36There's a lot of exceptions in here

1:14:37to deal with urban design issues.

1:14:39Like how many, how many of these exceptions

1:14:42were staff driven?

1:14:45Like roughly, you don't have to give me the exact count, but.

1:14:52Through the mayor to the counselor,

1:14:54there was a number of them that were made to address

1:14:58both the 1995 bylaw and 2023 bylaw.

1:15:01Okay, that was it.

1:15:02Which is what, because we are,

1:15:05since the 2023 bylaw is under appeal,

1:15:07we do have to address both of them.

1:15:09There's certain uses in our,

1:15:13that are proposed that aren't permitted in the 95 bylaw,

1:15:16such as like the back to back town houses.

1:15:21Wouldn't see back to back town houses back in 1995

1:15:25when the bylaw was made.

1:15:26And a lot of the specialized regulations

1:15:28to private amenity area are required due to the bill

1:15:32for the back to back town houses.

1:15:34Just how they, just how they are,

1:15:38you can't have a lot of private amenity area

1:15:40because you don't have a front and a back

1:15:42because they are, have units on all sides of them.

1:15:47There's a lot of specialized regulations,

1:15:48or sorry, there's a lot of regulations in the 2023 bylaw

1:15:51that they are meeting in terms of urban design policies.

1:15:55A lot of the 2023 residential,

1:15:58sorry, zoning regulations in our 2023 bylaw

1:16:01in the high density zone deal with urban design.

1:16:05So they do meet a lot of those regulations as well.

1:16:09And they're not specialized,

1:16:11but there are a number of specialized regulations

1:16:13that we did have to add.

1:16:16And in terms of like angular plane

1:16:20along Victoria and McAllister,

1:16:23that was done in response to like the original,

1:16:27there was two options originally presented back in 2019

1:16:31at the public meeting.

1:16:32And that option B showed two 10 story buildings

1:16:35and eight story building along Victoria and McAllister.

1:16:39So instead of in an attempt to respond to the neighborhood

1:16:43group, the developer moved them closer to Victoria road,

1:16:47dropped down, created the podium

1:16:53and moved the density and massing along Victoria,

1:16:57which is why we have the specialized regulations

1:17:00for angular plane.

1:17:02The layout has changed significantly

1:17:06the first submission to this submission.

1:17:08We've worked with both developers

1:17:10and coming up with something that has a good layout,

1:17:17large common amenity areas with central spines

1:17:20that look into the site.

1:17:21So staff are satisfied with the layout of the site

1:17:24from an urban design perspective.

1:17:26So the podium issue, the walk-ins,

1:17:29that's kind of like what's along Arthur Street, right?

1:17:31Where they, that was created where there's towns,

1:17:36has a townhouse look across along the street.

1:17:39And then on top of that is the apartments.

1:17:41E, yes.

1:17:42And I think there are about nine or 10 stories along there.

1:17:46Yeah, so there's the three story podium townhouses.

1:17:49They're essentially part of the building

1:17:51but the three story podiums are generally

1:17:55the three unit townhouses,

1:17:58but they're technically included in the apartment numbers.

1:18:01Okay.

1:18:03Transit, and I know they have what they have,

1:18:07and I don't know if this will be you

1:18:09or Deputy CEO Clark, or should be able to answer that.

1:18:13But when we envision the future of transit

1:18:16and the future planning,

1:18:16like I'm sure the high school must be taken into account

1:18:19for that because we offer free transit, right?

1:18:22Not for high school.

1:18:24Not for high school kids right now.

1:18:25So it started on that.

1:18:26Not for high school kids.

1:18:27But we'll be having extra transit going along that route,

1:18:34I would imagine, on Victoria at some point.

1:18:40Through the mayor to the councillor.

1:18:41So there is, as part of the road improvements,

1:18:44there is a transit pad that will be proposed

1:18:48along Victoria Road.

1:18:52They are providing a three meter wide road winding

1:18:55in accordance with the official plan.

1:18:57And as part of that road winding,

1:18:59it's gonna be the cycle tracks, the sidewalk,

1:19:01the transit pad.

1:19:03And that's something that we would look at further

1:19:07through site plan approval,

1:19:08like the exact location of the transit stop.

1:19:12Okay, I think that was my questions for now.

1:19:18Thanks.

1:19:20Okay, great.

1:19:20Thank you.

1:19:21I know you went maybe a little longer there,

1:19:23but you might have asked a lot of the questions

1:19:25that a lot of us, I'm seeing some heads nod.

1:19:26So in other words, what I'm trying to say is,

1:19:29I'm glad you went first, councillor Downer.

1:19:31Yeah, so we have to thank councillor Chew

1:19:34for you going first.

1:19:36Councillor Chew, you're up now.

1:19:38Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:19:39And a lot of my initial questions have been answered.

1:19:42So thank you, councillor Downer, for that.

1:19:45Just a very quick question.

1:19:47For me, when intensification comes in,

1:19:50traffic safety is paramount.

1:19:53We can encourage behavior change over time.

1:19:57Obviously congestion in the short term is never fun,

1:20:01especially for folks that came in

1:20:03and bought a home at McAlister without that expectation

1:20:07that there would be more identity coming in in the future.

1:20:11Having said, we do have a housing crisis.

1:20:13And at the end of the day, units are units

1:20:18and how the market dictates what those units

1:20:22end up being in terms of affordability

1:20:24that can come through policy and political changes

1:20:27in the future.

1:20:28So I preface all that by saying traffic is important.

1:20:31And I'm just curious because typically we

1:20:34like to establish signalized intersections

1:20:38at more than 200 meters apart from each other.

1:20:42I've noticed that on Victoria Road,

1:20:44the main entrance towards McAlister is less than 200 meters.

1:20:49I understand that traffic warrants may have been met,

1:20:51but can you kind of, staff, can you elaborate

1:20:54how you came to this wholesome decision

1:20:56to put in two full signalized intersections

1:21:02less than 200 meters apart?

1:21:06Through the mayor to Councillor Chew.

1:21:10So I believe the 200 meters is what is optimal,

1:21:14but there are other situations

1:21:16where the 200 meters is not met

1:21:18and that our transportation engineer

1:21:21and traffic services staff do review it

1:21:24and they do provide comments with regards

1:21:26to adequate spacing to ensure safety.

1:21:31I just want to be clear that the developer

1:21:35did provide an initial traffic impact study

1:21:38and then they did do another traffic impact study

1:21:41with their second submission and a number of addendums.

1:21:44So our traffic engineering group

1:21:47has looked at everything in detail

1:21:48and they are in support of the application

1:21:50and they are in support of the signals

1:21:54to alleviate the traffic congestion and concerns.

1:21:57And so they did provide us with those comments

1:21:59so that and that was based off of their expertise

1:22:04and their engineering manuals and everything else.

1:22:08Thank you.

1:22:08Thank you in a quick follow up.

1:22:10For that full signalized intersection to come into play

1:22:16were there conversations with the developer

1:22:19in terms of costing to make that a reality?

1:22:24Through the mayor.

1:22:26Yes, so the developer that I did,

1:22:29engineering did provide comments

1:22:30they are included in the staff report.

1:22:32So the developer does have to design

1:22:35and install and pay a portion of them.

1:22:39I can go back to the engineering comments

1:22:41to see exactly what it says.

1:22:42I just don't know off the top of my head,

1:22:44but it is going to be a developer

1:22:48funded signal for that since it is serving their development.

1:22:54Okay, thank you so much.

1:22:55And one last quick question.

1:22:57Did the neighborhood commercial center

1:22:59dexination south of McAllister play a role

1:23:02in the full signalization that can be taking place?

1:23:08Did that I guess play into your decision making

1:23:11that this is a common sense decision more or less?

1:23:18So through the mayor to councillor Chew,

1:23:22the surrounding land uses were looked at

1:23:26as well as existing and projected growth

1:23:28for a number of intersections

1:23:31that were factored into the traffic impact study

1:23:34that was prepared and reviewed by our engineering staff.

1:23:39I don't know off the top of my head

1:23:40if the commercial plaza was one of them,

1:23:42but I'm guessing that it was

1:23:45because it is directly across the street.

1:23:49So, but it is something that our traffic staff

1:23:52do look at is surrounding uses.

1:23:54Okay, thank you so much.

1:23:57Okay, just being aware of time everyone

1:23:59to keep it going here,

1:24:01alts and then Clausson please.

1:24:03Just get pleased if we could get right to questions.

1:24:05Like who, what, when, where, why?

1:24:07Like, boop, that's what I want to hear.

1:24:07Thank you, I'm not going to do W5.

1:24:10Just a preface first of all

1:24:12in that I've heard some very good arguments

1:24:14from the residents about rural and urban interfaces,

1:24:16concerns about traffic and density and wildlife,

1:24:19and I appreciate all of those.

1:24:22I think that these all speak to the challenges

1:24:23of the planning act as well,

1:24:25and I think that they also speak to the deck

1:24:28that we're playing with.

1:24:29So my question is for staff,

1:24:31given that there is no request for changes

1:24:34to the official, to the, to our official plan,

1:24:39what foundation do we have even to reject this?

1:24:43It strikes me that given the situation we're in,

1:24:48we have very limited latitude on this application.

1:24:58Through the mayor to the, the counselor,

1:25:01I will simply say that it is a council decision.

1:25:03You have staff's professional opinion in front of you,

1:25:06which includes engineering staff and other staffs,

1:25:09and it's presented to council as a recommendation

1:25:11for your consideration.

1:25:14And next question,

1:25:15and the only other question I have, Mayor Guthrie,

1:25:17I understand that if we were to reject this with staff,

1:25:21having made a recommendation that in front

1:25:24of the land tribunal,

1:25:26we would be required to seek outside support

1:25:29for professional advice.

1:25:33That is correct.

1:25:34Thank you.

1:25:40Councillor Cossin, please.

1:25:42Yes, thank you. I have one question.

1:25:44Councillor Chew, semi-asked a question that I had,

1:25:48but I'll ask it maybe slightly differently.

1:25:50So through you, Mayor to staff,

1:25:53the impact of Victoria Road over the next five to 10 years

1:25:56is going to be a bit significant.

1:25:58So we have GID coming in this development in a high school.

1:26:01Can you speak to some of the changes to Victoria Road?

1:26:04I know we talked about the two lights, okay?

1:26:06We don't have to repeat that,

1:26:08but for the ease of traffic flow and pedestrian safety,

1:26:12just overall, because there will be a higher,

1:26:15you know, intensification for people.

1:26:18And parts of Victoria Road,

1:26:19I'm thinking specifically between York Road

1:26:22probably just past the cut in fields.

1:26:25There's not even a sidewalk.

1:26:26So yeah, it's not very walkable.

1:26:29It's not, you know, there's not even,

1:26:30I don't think that part of the road connects the bike paths.

1:26:34So is this all part of the plan

1:26:36as we kind of build towards higher intensification

1:26:39in this corridor?

1:26:44Through the Mayor to Councillor Cossin,

1:26:48I'm not certain what's going on north of this site.

1:26:53Working on the other developments along Victoria Road.

1:26:57So there is going to be a sidewalk proposed

1:26:59along the frontage of this development.

1:27:01There's also going to be one in front of the high school site

1:27:04and the Victoria Park Village subdivision.

1:27:08I believe some of the other road improvements

1:27:10would come about, maybe Christa can correct me

1:27:13if I'm wrong through the transportation master plan

1:27:15and what it's looking at in terms of like the entire

1:27:18road network along Victoria Road.

1:27:22But all I'm familiar with and yes, also with GID

1:27:28and what's going to be happening,

1:27:30the Gwelfin Innovation District

1:27:31and that's on the other side of the road.

1:27:33But all that will be looked at through development applications

1:27:38and also through the broader transportation master plan.

1:27:42Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly then

1:27:44we kind of puzzle piece together the sidewalks

1:27:47as we build developments.

1:27:50So on one side like in front of this new development,

1:27:52for example, you'll build a sidewalk there

1:27:55but it won't necessarily connect down to York.

1:28:02Yeah, I'm not sure about the timing piece of when,

1:28:06yeah, I believe our transportation group

1:28:09does do sidewalk needs assessments as well

1:28:12and through the transportation master plan

1:28:13we do look at that.

1:28:16But all I can speak to tonight is with regard

1:28:19to like the specific development applications

1:28:21but on a broader scale the transportation master plan

1:28:23does look at what's happening along various roads

1:28:28and how to fill in the gaps

1:28:30and there is the sidewalk needs assessment.

1:28:33Hey, it's completed over time.

1:28:35Okay, thanks.

1:28:37So can I just ask for a follow-up then

1:28:38on kind of timing to connect that sidewalk

1:28:42to the rest of sort of the north part

1:28:44I think you referred to it of the street?

1:28:47Just maybe in a follow-up email.

1:28:50Thanks.

1:28:52Great, thank you.

1:28:53Bousatil, then Gibson, then Karan.

1:28:56That's all I've got on the list.

1:28:58Thank you and through the mayor

1:28:59I've got check marks all through my notes

1:29:01because I think Councillor Downer and Chu

1:29:03and other council have asked all of my questions

1:29:06except for one that I heard from a delegation.

1:29:08It was a question about whether construction

1:29:11has actually started.

1:29:16So through the mayor to the council

1:29:18construction has not started.

1:29:20The pictures that you saw were site alteration and grading.

1:29:25So our engineering department did issue

1:29:26a site all in grading permit back in July

1:29:29and that was essentially to change the grades

1:29:33but there is no servicing or any works

1:29:35that have been started to date.

1:29:38Thank you, that's all.

1:29:39Yep, thank you.

1:29:42Gibson, are you still needing to ask a question or no?

1:29:47Through you, Mr. Mayor, Councillor Allt

1:29:49I'll ask my question about the planning justification.

1:29:51Thank you.

1:29:51Okay, thank you and Karan is last, go ahead.

1:29:55Great, thanks and some are questions

1:29:56and then I'll just go straight into comments

1:29:58because that would be next anyway.

1:30:00Great, thank you.

1:30:01Question was answered on potential future laybys.

1:30:04I just want to be clear that the road allowance

1:30:06is being proposed by the developer

1:30:08that will on Victoria Road will allow

1:30:11for future transit laybys.

1:30:13If we're putting close to 500 units here

1:30:16then we absolutely are going to need a layby

1:30:19that isn't going to impede traffic flow on Victoria.

1:30:25Through the mayor to Councillor Caron,

1:30:27there is going to be a transit stop

1:30:31and there is going to be a road widening.

1:30:33So how that actually looks, I'm not sure

1:30:35that's going to be more detailed

1:30:37at the site plan approval stage

1:30:40in terms of whether it's actually a layby

1:30:42or part of the, or just stopping on the road.

1:30:46I'm not 100% sure.

1:30:48Okay, I know at Gordon and Edinburgh

1:30:50we've definitely needed laybys there

1:30:52because the offloading and unloading

1:30:53is more than just a quick pick up.

1:30:55So I know that that'll come later

1:30:57but I just wanted some clarity

1:30:59on whether that road allowance would allow for that.

1:31:02We've covered the EV thing.

1:31:06The actual, the rural urban interfaces

1:31:09where I'm really, really struggling

1:31:11with what I'm going to do when it comes

1:31:13to voting on this application

1:31:14because the area between Stone Road

1:31:20and Arkle Road has many different layers

1:31:24on the east side, on the Puslinch Township side.

1:31:28The GID district, obviously the GID lands

1:31:31at the corner of Stone of Victoria will be developed.

1:31:34That's not across the street from this.

1:31:37The high school, that's going to be a lot of traffic

1:31:40and a lot of activity at the corner of Arkle and Victoria.

1:31:42That's not across the street from this.

1:31:44The lands at Arkle and Victoria

1:31:47have future development potential.

1:31:50That's up to the township and the county

1:31:53but they are lands that are not currently protected

1:31:56in another way.

1:31:58But the lands directly across from this development.

1:32:03Township Puslinch but owned by the city of Guelph.

1:32:07We are the landowner.

1:32:08I don't know if we circulated ourselves

1:32:10with this application.

1:32:11We are in 120 meter distance.

1:32:13I'm assuming we circulated ourselves.

1:32:15But that's land that will, in my opinion,

1:32:18never ever, ever be developed

1:32:20because it is our groundwater.

1:32:24We have wells there and it's groundwater recharge.

1:32:26It's water protection area.

1:32:28It will never be developed.

1:32:29So I see this as very, very different

1:32:32than other adjacencies, other rural urban interfaces

1:32:38because this rural urban interface is a 10 story,

1:32:42two 10 story high rises across the street

1:32:45from natural heritage and groundwater protection area

1:32:47that will never in any of our lifetimes

1:32:50ever be developed because we have to protect our water supply.

1:32:53So I'm struggling with lumping it into annexed Puslinch lands

1:32:58that may be developed for the future.

1:33:00So I just, maybe that's a comment and not a staff question

1:33:03because you've addressed the question already

1:33:05and I don't want you to make,

1:33:06I don't want to make you re-answer it.

1:33:08I'm just articulating that that's an answer

1:33:11that I'm just really struggling with

1:33:13because this is our only opportunity

1:33:18to appropriately develop this property

1:33:22and so that's what I need to decide

1:33:25over the course of the next few minutes.

1:33:27The requirement, I just want again clarity.

1:33:31So my question is about I'm planning to make a motion

1:33:34probably after the main motion,

1:33:36whatever you're gonna do with the main motion.

1:33:38Where I'd like to see something similar

1:33:39to what we did for 716 Gordon,

1:33:42which is to have that engagement piece on site plan.

1:33:46I know that's not a planning act requirement

1:33:48and I know that it is just an invitation.

1:33:54I did forward a potential motion to the clerks

1:33:59and it's just an invitation to review and feedback.

1:34:01But I think we might catch some things at site plan

1:34:05that we can't catch here tonight

1:34:08because they're not further enough

1:34:09in the development process for us

1:34:11to be able to provide you with input

1:34:13and it's not our role here tonight.

1:34:15And I don't want to sit here

1:34:16and start talking about brick color and tree species.

1:34:20But I do think that there is another role

1:34:22for the public to play

1:34:24before the shovels really hit the ground.

1:34:28So I'll wait Mr. Mayor until after the main vote.

1:34:32And again, I'm struggling with where I'm gonna go

1:34:34because if I vote no, and this is commentary,

1:34:37I'm not a question.

1:34:39Any, we'll be accused of not caring about the housing crisis,

1:34:42about being anti-developed, that is absolutely not true.

1:34:45And I want that on the record,

1:34:46no matter how I vote tonight,

1:34:47it has nothing to do with not being in support

1:34:50of more housing and more affordable housing

1:34:53and meeting our housing targets.

1:34:54It has to do with building the best possible development

1:34:58that we can build on this site.

1:34:59And I'm not sure we're right there yet.

1:35:05There are some good aspects to this development.

1:35:07We've all known that it's high density.

1:35:08We've all known that this is a site was,

1:35:10it was going to be developed in the future.

1:35:12I just want to ensure that we're building

1:35:14the best possible intensification

1:35:19that we can on this site without adverse impacts

1:35:23that are gonna come back to haunt us.

1:35:24So that is not an anti-development stance.

1:35:27So I don't want to hear that later anywhere

1:35:30in the public realm or social media,

1:35:32but this is an anti-development rant.

1:35:37All right, then we'll look forward to your vote.

1:35:41Any other just quick comments then

1:35:43before we call the vote?

1:35:45No, Councillor Billings has a question.

1:35:47I have a question.

1:35:50Yeah, no, I saw Phil,

1:35:52but Phil put his hand up for comments, not questions.

1:35:54So go ahead, Councillor Billings, questions.

1:35:57Okay, so through you, Mr. Mayor,

1:36:00probably to Krista,

1:36:03what I'm really struggling with is we just approved

1:36:06the 2023 zoning.

1:36:08And again, this is not the North Block

1:36:11because they have enough required parking.

1:36:13It is the South Block that I have the concern with.

1:36:17And we're 79 spaces short.

1:36:20So how can we just approve the zoning?

1:36:24And yet we're 79 spaces short and staff are so supportive.

1:36:28I'm really struggling with that concept.

1:36:35This through the Mayor to Councillor Billings.

1:36:40The 2023 bylaw is currently under appeal.

1:36:42And what staff had recommended

1:36:47in our 2023 bylaw for apartment uses

1:36:50was approximately one space per dwelling unit,

1:36:53plus a 0.15 per visitor space.

1:36:58Council at that meeting in April

1:37:01did revert back to the 1995 zoning bylaw requirements.

1:37:06What is being proposed is comparable.

1:37:08It is one unit per dwelling unit.

1:37:12And also there is, I think it's a 0.04 per visitor space.

1:37:20The developer has also provided a parking study

1:37:24prepared by Paradigm and looking,

1:37:27they did some studies with regards to other sites.

1:37:31And the other sites came back at requiring 0.98 spaces

1:37:37per unit.

1:37:38So staff are in support of the parking reduction.

1:37:40I also wanna note that what is being proposed,

1:37:45there are a lot of one bedroom apartments.

1:37:49It is maximum density that can be built in proposed,

1:37:52but through the, you know, through marketing or through sales,

1:37:54the number of units could technically go down.

1:37:57Some of the one bedrooms could, you know,

1:38:01turn into two bedrooms, which would lower the,

1:38:07reduce the parking requirement.

1:38:08But staff are in support of it just because there is one unit

1:38:12per dwelling unit and there is the extra for visitor parking.

1:38:15And it was supported by a parking consultant.

1:38:19And it was in line to what staff did originally recommend

1:38:23in the 2020 bylaw based off of a parking study

1:38:26that was prepared by a discussion paper prepared by IBI group

1:38:31as part of the comprehensive zoning bylaw review.

1:38:38Is there on street through you, Mr. Mayor?

1:38:40Is there on street parking on the council?

1:38:55Okay, so to staff.

1:39:00Through the mayor to Councillor Billings.

1:39:03I believe the, what has just been mentioned is

1:39:07it's not all year.

1:39:08However, legal parking spaces have to be provided on site.

1:39:12You can't rely on off street parking

1:39:16to make up your parking numbers.

1:39:18So we are in support of what is being proposed on site.

1:39:25And Councillor Downer has one quick follow up.

1:39:27Oh, sorry, you said okay, Councillor Billings.

1:39:29I thought you were done.

1:39:30Are you done? No.

1:39:32I don't have any more question.

1:39:34It's just that it doesn't matter if it's under the 95 zoning

1:39:37you're 62 short under the 2023 or 79 spaces short.

1:39:42And if there's no on street parking in the area allowed,

1:39:47that's an issue.

1:39:49That's all.

1:39:51Okay, Councillor Downer has a follow up parking question.

1:39:54I can't remember.

1:39:55Are the garage spaces included in those legal parking spaces?

1:40:03So the interior parking spaces for the apartment units are?

1:40:07Yeah.

1:40:09Are you referring?

1:40:10To the townhouses.

1:40:11To the townhouses.

1:40:14So if we're looking at the North site,

1:40:17the cluster townhouses have technically,

1:40:20there's 24 cluster townhouses.

1:40:21They all have a garage plus a driveway.

1:40:23So the only thing that's technically considered

1:40:25in the parking number is the legal parking space,

1:40:28which is in the garage.

1:40:29So the 24 units technically have two spaces each.

1:40:34Okay.

1:40:36Okay, thank you.

1:40:38Okay, quick comments please.

1:40:41Okay, so I'm starting with Alt.

1:40:44Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

1:40:46First of all, thank you very much to all the delegates

1:40:48that have come out here and thank you to staff

1:40:50and for the presentations and the work

1:40:52that has been done on this.

1:40:54I moved the motion because essentially we were

1:40:56in this situation once before on Paisley Road

1:41:00and White Law Road and we rejected an application

1:41:03that was very similar, quite familiar to this one as well.

1:41:07And I supported the rejection.

1:41:10In my heart, would like to support this rejection,

1:41:12but realistically, I have to recognize that planning

1:41:15and zoning are working against any sort of an appeal

1:41:18at a land tribunal.

1:41:20And consequently, I think that in the best interest

1:41:23of both the community and I mean the community

1:41:25in which the delegates come from,

1:41:27that this is most important for us to approve it

1:41:30with the caveat that I hope the delegates,

1:41:33those that are here from the community

1:41:35and those that are here from the developer

1:41:37can engage in future discussions on how to address things

1:41:41like traffic, like wildlife and like water conservation,

1:41:46as these are incredibly important,

1:41:47not just to that particular locale,

1:41:50to the whole of the community.

1:41:51I believe that our city is quite willing to ensure

1:41:55that those things will occur.

1:41:56Furthermore, with respect to my colleague,

1:41:59Councillor Ciarano might vote yes or no.

1:42:02I complete your respect, her vote,

1:42:04and understand that whatever it is,

1:42:06it is clearly not a vote against housing of any kind at all.

1:42:11It is an issue of neighborhood integrity.

1:42:13So thanks to all my colleagues for considering this

1:42:16and the importance of making sound decisions

1:42:19for the whole of the community.

1:42:21Thank you.

1:42:22Is there anyone else that has a comment

1:42:24before, okay, Councillor Downer.

1:42:26Yes, and I'd like to thank the delegates here tonight

1:42:29and I know you've been very engaged

1:42:32over the last few years in this application

1:42:35and we've had many discussions about it.

1:42:38And in truth be told, I don't like this development.

1:42:41I don't like the south part of this development.

1:42:44It feels dense to me, but there is this reality.

1:42:49We're talking to that, Councillor Allt talked about

1:42:51that this has been designated high density

1:42:54for many years.

1:42:56I didn't realize it went back that far actually.

1:42:59And so whatever gets developed there

1:43:01is gonna create extra traffic.

1:43:04They can have up to 150 units

1:43:07without even any kind of an official plan change.

1:43:11And that's what they legally can have.

1:43:13Like that's, and if we go to the OLT,

1:43:16that's what they're gonna come back and say.

1:43:20There are things, I like that there's still

1:43:24green space behind it.

1:43:25I like that there's no request to reduce those buffers.

1:43:30I mean, there's those types of things,

1:43:32but I feel the need to support this application.

1:43:37Due to, like I said, it's meeting.

1:43:41There's no official plan amendments with it.

1:43:44There are things about that I don't like either,

1:43:47but they're not insurmountable that can't be mitigated.

1:43:51So I will be supporting this application.

1:43:57Okay, thank you.

1:43:58Is there anything further before I call the vote?

1:44:01No, okay, then I'll just end with my comments as well.

1:44:04So I'm gonna echo what Councillor Allt started by saying,

1:44:09did owed by Councillor Downer as well.

1:44:11And one of the examples there of what

1:44:16White Law and Paisley is a perfect example of that.

1:44:22It costs the taxpayers $120,000

1:44:25to have the outside legal and planning,

1:44:28just as you asked earlier.

1:44:32And that we handedly lost.

1:44:34Councillor Caron actually one of the things

1:44:36that was fought on that was because you brought up

1:44:39the urban city transition at White Law and Paisley,

1:44:45which OLT completely threw out that type of argument.

1:44:50So it's similar to here as well.

1:44:56The fact that is for me, in my opinion,

1:44:58because we're all allowed to have our opinions here,

1:45:01this to me, this development has changed

1:45:04over the so many years because the climate

1:45:08has changed for housing.

1:45:10And I appreciate it.

1:45:12I don't know who asked it, but to the developer

1:45:14that talked about the market sort of sounding board,

1:45:18our own planners have said to us over and over again

1:45:20that the one, the two bedroom is in dire need

1:45:24in our community.

1:45:26So that's not just a real estate or whatever board,

1:45:28sounding board you did out there for a market research,

1:45:31like our own professional planning staff have said

1:45:33that that is a huge need within our community as well.

1:45:36And because we are in a housing crisis,

1:45:38I think the fact that it fits within the official plan,

1:45:42there just is no argument.

1:45:44I actually, I actually am gonna say this out loud,

1:45:46I'm glad there's more units.

1:45:48I'm glad there's more units

1:45:49because we have to have more units in our city

1:45:51because the province is making us go

1:45:54from 150,000 people today to 208,000 people

1:45:58in the next 30 years, whether we like it or not.

1:46:01We are a growing and changing city.

1:46:03And in this particular piece of land,

1:46:05everything fits within the official plan

1:46:08that's been there for so many years.

1:46:09So I trust our staff that they are gonna work

1:46:12at the site plan level to do exactly what they need to do

1:46:15to make this site as beautiful as possible.

1:46:18And I actually think that a lot of the delegates

1:46:22that have come here today, emailed prior,

1:46:24worked with staff or with us

1:46:27or worked with the developer on or off,

1:46:29they have actually crafted the proposal

1:46:33to come before us today.

1:46:34So it's not a loss, it's different.

1:46:38But it's not, to me, it's not a loss at all.

1:46:40And so I'm looking at the new people

1:46:43that we are gonna be able to welcome to this area

1:46:46and they're gonna be new neighbors for you.

1:46:48And I think that's in part actually

1:46:51what is building community is welcoming new neighbors,

1:46:54especially when it fits under the technical terms

1:46:56of our official plan.

1:46:59So yes, I will be supporting this

1:47:01and I look forward to seeing it all done.

1:47:05I think there's a sense of sometimes

1:47:07with everything that's done here

1:47:08with that a sense of a fear of the unknown,

1:47:11which is valid, I don't dismiss that at all.

1:47:14But once it's done, once it's landscaped,

1:47:17once you're saying hi and waving hi to new neighbors,

1:47:21that's, it's gonna be okay.

1:47:23I think it's gonna be okay.

1:47:25And you can correct me if I'm wrong in a few years

1:47:28if you come back and show me something different.

1:47:30I'm open to that, but I think it's gonna be okay.

1:47:33So with that, I will call the vote, okay?

1:47:36So is there anyone against?

1:47:40Okay, just Councillor Kerron is against and Billings.

1:47:44So that passes with an 11 to two vote, okay?

1:47:49Thank you.

1:47:50And then a follow up motion from Councillor Kerron, please.

1:47:53Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:47:55And I just want to put another motion on the floor

1:47:59and also some perspective to this vote.

1:48:02You know, this was a really tough one for a lot of us

1:48:04because we absolutely understand the housing crisis.

1:48:08And so do the neighbors.

1:48:08Let's give some credit to the neighbors.

1:48:10So I want to ensure,

1:48:14I think there is still a place for some feedback.

1:48:17And the neighborhood group has been very organized

1:48:21about providing very articulate feedback so far.

1:48:24So I'd like to propose a motion.

1:48:29Identical wording to one that we had last month

1:48:31for another application.

1:48:32And that is an invitation,

1:48:34the Council Direct staff to invite

1:48:36the McAllister neighborhood group to view

1:48:40and provide feedback to the site plan for 855

1:48:43and 927 Victoria Road South.

1:48:45I did hear the development team say that engagement

1:48:50is important to them as they work towards

1:48:53getting the shovel in the ground on this property.

1:48:56And so I hope that feedback to make this

1:48:58the best that it can possibly be

1:49:01will be taken in that positive light.

1:49:03So I'll thank you in advance for

1:49:08participating in that additional engagement.

1:49:12The seconder is Billings.

1:49:13Are you seconding it there?

1:49:14Yes.

1:49:15Okay, so this is pretty straightforward.

1:49:17Okay, I'll just go right to the vote.

1:49:19Okay, everybody, anyone against this?

1:49:23Okay, so that's unanimous, okay?