City-initiated Community Planning Permit By-law for the Downtown Area, as shown in Attachment-1 of Council Memo 2026-204 dated April 15, 2026 be approved

54:59to move and second that deferral.

55:02And that item will come back to us just next month.

55:07So the decision for 115 Watson Parkway North proposed

55:10zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision 2026134

55:14be deferred to the May 12th, 2026 council meeting planning

55:17as requested by the applicant.

55:19And so that's moved by Caitin, seconded by Gibson.

55:22Can I call the vote on that everybody?

55:25Yes, is anyone against that deferral?

55:29That's unanimous.

55:29So thank you very much.

55:31And now we're jumping right into the council consent agenda.

55:34The first one being 31 Yorkshire Street,

55:37which is the notice of intention to designate.

55:40And the second one is the site plan control,

55:42the bylaw for delegated authority for planning updates.

55:47Those are the only two.

55:49Does anyone want them pulled at all for any reason?

55:53Seeing and hearing none.

55:54How about someone willing to move those for me?

55:57Billings and Caitin, thank you.

56:00Anything further?

56:03No, okay, I'll call the vote.

56:04Is anyone against those two consent items?

56:07Nobody, that's unanimous.

56:09Thank you very much.

56:11And so we're moving right along to the 210214

56:16and 222 College Ave East.

56:21And this is where I give a nod to my council colleagues

56:25who have declared the conflict.

56:26And we will see you later.

56:29Just also on the record is Councillor Richardson

56:34has given regrets for the entire meeting.

56:37So with that, Kelly is going to be,

56:40Kelly is our staff member, senior planner.

56:42Hello, thank you for coming.

56:44Is going to be doing a presentation

56:46just to outline what's in front of us to consider.

56:49And just so everyone knows, this isn't a decision meeting.

56:54This is just an application that we are receiving

56:58where it's the first time it's in front of us.

57:00We're here to hear people out, us to ask a few questions,

57:04and then it gets sent back to staff.

57:07So we're not here to make an actual decision.

57:10And so with that, I turn it over to you

57:12and then we'll get into our delegations.

57:14Thank you.

57:17Awesome, thank you.

57:18So good evening, Mayor Guthrie, members of council,

57:20members of the public and staff.

57:22My name is Kelly McCormick,

57:23a nine and development planner reviewing

57:24the Official Plan Amendment

57:25and Zoning By-law Amendment application

57:28for 210214222 College Avenue East

57:31that was received by GSP Group Inc.

57:33on behalf of EM-Gulf Development Limited Partnership.

57:37The proposed application seeks to permit

57:39the development of a 10-story purpose built,

57:41post-secondary student apartment building

57:42with 153 units.

57:45And as Mayor Guthrie noted,

57:46this is the statutory public meeting.

57:48No decisions are being made tonight on the application.

57:53Bear with me as I try and, perfect.

57:55I think it'll switch.

57:57So the site currently consists of three separate parcels

58:01and is located on the north side of College Avenue East

58:04between Eastring Road and Dundas Lane.

58:07The site is rectangular in shape

58:08with approximately 61 meters of frontage

58:10along College Avenue East

58:12and has an area of approximately 0.39 hectares.

58:15Currently, the site consists of vegetation

58:18and three single attached dwellings

58:20in terms of the surrounding land uses.

58:22Immediately to the north is the Cuttenfield Golf Course.

58:25To the east is a secondary parking area for Cuttenfields

58:27and then the Cuttenfield Golf Course.

58:30And then further east are lands associated with university,

58:32including a research plot in several university buildings

58:35and the Arboretum lands.

58:36To the east is the main University of Guelph Campus.

58:40Immediately across from the site

58:41is Varsity Field and a parking area.

58:43And then to the west is a two and a half story

58:45single attached dwelling.

58:47And further west is the Cuttenfields

58:48indoor recreation dome, clubhouse and parking area.

58:54So currently the site is designated

58:56low density residential in the city's official plan.

59:00So it's intended to provide

59:00for a variety of low density residential housing forms

59:03like single attached, semi-detached dwellings,

59:05multiple unit residential buildings

59:07such as townhouses and apartments.

59:09Because this site is located on a nartigral road

59:11within the built up area of the city,

59:13the existing land use designation permits

59:15up to three stories and a density of 60 units per hectare.

59:21So the purpose of the proposed official plan amendment

59:23application is to change the land use designation

59:26to high density residential.

59:28And then to also add a site specific policy

59:31to permit a maximum net density of 425 units per hectare

59:34for a post-secondary school residence.

59:36Whereas the high density residential designation

59:39would permit a net density up to 150 units per hectare.

59:45All right, so the lands are currently zoned

59:47low density residential one,

59:48which permits single attached and semi-detached dwellings

59:51and small multi unit residential buildings

59:53and on street townhouses.

59:55There's also a holding provision on the lot

59:57musically known as 222 College Avenue East

1:00:00that is there to ensure that the lands are not further

1:00:02intensified until the owner has addressed certain

1:00:04servicing related conditions to the satisfaction of the city.

1:00:09In terms of the proposed zoning,

1:00:11the applicant has requested to change the zoning

1:00:13to a specialized high density residential zone

1:00:16with several specialized regulations.

1:00:19So the proposed use and the specialized regulations

1:00:21have been requested by the applicant

1:00:22without staff input at this time.

1:00:24We are currently reviewing it and we'll bring forward

1:00:26a future recommendation report to counsel for a decision.

1:00:30So with respect to the specialized regulations

1:00:32that have been requested to facilitate the proposal,

1:00:37the use post-secondary school residence

1:00:39has been requested to be added as an initial use

1:00:42that has defined to mean the whole of an apartment building

1:00:47consisting of dwelling units primarily intended

1:00:49for post-secondary school students

1:00:51to increase the maximum density

1:00:53from 150 units per hectare to a maximum of 425 units per hectare

1:00:57for a post-secondary school residence.

1:01:00Reduce the minimum front yard setback

1:01:01from six meters to 4.3 meters.

1:01:05Reduce the minimum interior side yard setback

1:01:07along the east side from 7.5 to 5.5 meters

1:01:10and reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 to 5.5.

1:01:14Permit a retaining wall 0.2 meters from the rear lot line

1:01:17and the east interior side lot line.

1:01:19Reduce the minimum buffer strip along the east interior

1:01:21side lot line from 3 meters to 0.2 meters.

1:01:25Permit a transformer and retaining wall

1:01:27within the buffer strip,

1:01:28whereas they are not currently permitted to be there.

1:01:30Increase the maximum floor plate size

1:01:32from 1200 square meters for the seventh and eighth story

1:01:35to 1600 for the seventh story

1:01:37and 1280 square meters for the eighth story

1:01:41and then from 1000 square meters for each story

1:01:43above the eighth story to 1100 square meters

1:01:48for the ninth story.

1:01:50Additionally, to reduce the minimum building setback

1:01:53to two meters for all portions of the building

1:01:55above the seventh story facing a street,

1:01:58whereas the minimum building setback is three meters

1:02:00required for all portions of the building

1:02:01above the sixth story facing a street,

1:02:03so one meter less, one story higher.

1:02:06Reduce the minimum tower setback from 12 meters

1:02:08to 5.5 meters for the east interior side lot line

1:02:11and rear lot line and to 9.5 meters

1:02:13from the west interior side lot line,

1:02:15measured perpendicular from the exterior wall

1:02:17of the sixth story.

1:02:18Reduce the minimum number of active entrances

1:02:21required from one active entrance

1:02:23for every 30 meters of street line

1:02:25for the portion of the building facing the street,

1:02:27which would require two active entrances

1:02:29to one active entrance.

1:02:32Reduce the minimum common amenity area required

1:02:34from 20 square meters per dwelling unit

1:02:35to 16 per dwelling unit.

1:02:40Increase the maximum angular plane adjacent

1:02:42to an RL1 zone from 30 degrees to a maximum of 61 degrees.

1:02:47Permit a parking space dimension of 2.75 meters

1:02:50by 5.5 meters.

1:02:51Apply a minimum parking rate of 0.42 parking spaces

1:02:55per dwelling unit for a post secondary school residence,

1:02:58inclusive of resident and residential visitor parking spaces

1:03:02with a minimum of 20% of the required parking spaces

1:03:04to be reserved for the exclusive use of visitors.

1:03:07Permit a pickup and drop off parking space

1:03:10within the front yard and setback 1.65 meters

1:03:12from the front lot line,

1:03:14whereas parking spaces are not permitted

1:03:16in the front yard and are required to be setback

1:03:17a minimum of three meters from a lot line.

1:03:20Permit a driveway or ramp to be setback

1:03:22zero meters from the building,

1:03:23whereas a minimum three meter setback

1:03:25is required from a surface driveway to a building wall.

1:03:28Permit exterior stairs to project 4.1 meters

1:03:30into the required front yard

1:03:31and be setback 0.2 meters from the front lot line,

1:03:34whereas exterior stairs are permitted to project

1:03:351.5 meters into the required front yard

1:03:38and be setback a minimum of 0.8 meters

1:03:39from the front lot line.

1:03:41And to permit a berry free access ramp

1:03:43to be setback a minimum of 0.1 meters from the front line,

1:03:46whereas a minimum setback of 0.8 meters is required.

1:03:50All right, so in terms of the proposed development,

1:03:53it consists of a 10 story purpose built

1:03:55student apartment building containing a total

1:03:57of 153 dwelling units,

1:04:00which would include a mix of two, three and four bedroom units

1:04:03for a total of approximately 529 bedrooms.

1:04:06The principal building entrance is located

1:04:08along College Avenue East with secondary access

1:04:12located along the west side of the building.

1:04:16There's a driveway on the east side of the site,

1:04:18which provides access to the pickup drop off parking space

1:04:20at the front of the site,

1:04:21as well as the onsite loading area and underground garage.

1:04:24Total of 65 parking spaces are provided

1:04:27in the underground garage,

1:04:2813 of which are proposed to be provided as visitor spaces

1:04:30and two of which are accessible.

1:04:33Additionally, 194 long-term bicycle spaces

1:04:35are included in the second level

1:04:36of the underground parking garage.

1:04:38And 16 short-term bicycle parking spaces

1:04:40will be provided near the principal building entrance.

1:04:43Additionally, the proposed development

1:04:44will include a total of 2,477 square meters

1:04:47of indoor and outdoor common-money space.

1:04:49Indoor amenity space will be provided throughout the building

1:04:52and outdoor common-money areas will be provided

1:04:54within a ground floor courtyard in the middle of the building,

1:04:57as well as on the westerly interior side yard,

1:05:00as well as a 10th floor terrace facing College Avenue.

1:05:05So staff's review of the application

1:05:07will address the following issues.

1:05:10Evaluation of the proposal for conformity and consistency

1:05:12with the Planning Act

1:05:13and the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

1:05:16Evaluation of the proposal's conformity with the official plan,

1:05:19including official plan amendment criteria.

1:05:22Evaluation of the proposal's conformity with the zoning by-law,

1:05:24including a review of the proposed zoning

1:05:25and the need for any additional specialized regulations.

1:05:28Review of the proposal's land use compatibility

1:05:30with the adjacent established land uses.

1:05:32Review of the proposed site layout, built form, parking,

1:05:35pedestrian connections and site servicing.

1:05:38Review of all supporting documents submitted

1:05:40in support of the applications.

1:05:42Review how the proposed development addresses

1:05:44applicable sections of the Community Energy Initiative Update.

1:05:48Review alignment with the city's affordable housing strategy

1:05:50and it will also address all comments and issues

1:05:52raised during the review of the application,

1:05:54including any issues raised during the public meeting tonight.

1:05:57Once the application has been reviewed,

1:05:59a staff report with recommendation will be considered

1:06:01at a future council meeting.

1:06:03And if anyone in attendance tonight wishes to stay informed,

1:06:06including being notified

1:06:07when the application is scheduled

1:06:08to return back to council for decision,

1:06:10please make sure you provide your contact information

1:06:12to the clerk's office, be email at clerks at wealth.ca.

1:06:16So thank you very much.

1:06:17And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

1:06:18And I also understand the applicant

1:06:19and their team are here tonight as well.

1:06:21I'll take a presentation and answer questions.

1:06:23Great, thank you very much for laying that out for all of us.

1:06:28We'll save questions back to staff

1:06:30until delegations are done on this matter.

1:06:33We did have a few that have signed up in advance,

1:06:36but this being a first time at it,

1:06:39there is an opportunity if other people do wish to

1:06:42either call in or they can speak here in the gallery

1:06:46on this item.

1:06:47So the first though that we do have is,

1:06:50forgive me everyone if I'm saying names incorrectly, okay?

1:06:52Please forgive me in advance,

1:06:53but I got Julianne von Westerholtz.

1:06:58Was that good?

1:07:00One for one, good, excellent.

1:07:03And just so everyone knows under this report,

1:07:07you're looking at no more than a 10 minute

1:07:11delegation timeline, okay?

1:07:12So you have the whole 10 minutes if you want it.

1:07:16You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

1:07:18But if you get near the 10 minute mark,

1:07:21you will hear a chime,

1:07:23which is at the nine minute and 30 second mark,

1:07:26which gives you your 30 second warning.

1:07:28And then at the 10 minute mark,

1:07:29your microphone gets turned off and we don't like that.

1:07:32So make sure that you wrap up, okay?

1:07:35And stick around once you're done your delegation,

1:07:38just in case there's a follow up question from myself

1:07:41or any of my colleagues, okay?

1:07:43So Julianne, over to you.

1:07:47Thank you and good evening Mayor Guthrie

1:07:49and members of council,

1:07:50members of the public and staff.

1:07:52My name is Julianne von Westerholtz.

1:07:54I'm an associate at MHBC Planning and Kitchener

1:07:57and I'm speaking on behalf of Guelph Cotton Club

1:07:59or as commonly known, Cotton Fields,

1:08:02a longstanding and iconic recreational institution

1:08:04in the city of Guelph,

1:08:06located immediately north and east

1:08:08of the proposed student housing development

1:08:10at 210, 214 and 222 College Avenue East.

1:08:14Also with me this evening is President,

1:08:18the COO of Cotton Fields,

1:08:20and he's here to hear the comments

1:08:23and the deliberation this evening.

1:08:27Cotton Fields has been part of this community

1:08:29for nearly a hundred years

1:08:30and today operates as a member run championship

1:08:3418 hole golf course serving over 700 members.

1:08:37We want to begin by emphasizing

1:08:40that our client is not opposed to student housing.

1:08:43However, they have concerns about the scale, design

1:08:47and compatibility of the proposal as currently presented

1:08:50given its direct adjacency to our clients lands.

1:08:54The subject lands are currently designated

1:08:56low density residential permitting low rise development

1:08:59to a maximum of about 60 units per hectare.

1:09:02And the application before council includes a redesignation

1:09:06to high density residential building heights

1:09:08up to 10 stories and a requested density

1:09:11of 425 units per hectare.

1:09:14This represents a shift in scale relative

1:09:16to the surrounding context and warrants careful consideration

1:09:20of the impacts on adjacent land uses.

1:09:23A particular concern to our client

1:09:25is the proposed building massing,

1:09:27which includes the requests to increase upper story floor

1:09:30plates resulting in a very large square build form.

1:09:34The submitted shadow study confirms

1:09:36that the ninth hole of the golf course

1:09:39will experience a minimum of four hours of shadow daily.

1:09:42And this will occur for four seasons of the year.

1:09:46The shadow impacts affect both user comfort

1:09:49and the quality and maintenance of the turf,

1:09:52which is critical to the operation of the course.

1:09:55We respectfully recommend that council consider

1:09:58whether a slenderer built form with increased step backs

1:10:02could better balance intensification goals

1:10:04with adjacent land use impacts.

1:10:07The wind study prepared by RWDI identifies

1:10:10that down drafts will be created due

1:10:12to buildings height relative to its surroundings.

1:10:15We request that wind mitigation measures

1:10:17be incorporated into the building design

1:10:19to maintain comfortable conditions for the golfers

1:10:22and outdoor users of the adjoining lands.

1:10:26While we understand and generally support

1:10:28reduced parking rates for student housing,

1:10:30we are concerned about short term parking needs,

1:10:32including ride hailing and delivery vehicles.

1:10:37There is a real risk to the cut and feels parking lot

1:10:40that could be used as overflow.

1:10:42And this will result in increased monitoring

1:10:44and enforcement responsibilities for our client.

1:10:48We therefore request that the onsite drop off

1:10:51and temporary visitor parking be clearly provided

1:10:54and designed as part of this development.

1:10:58Given the proximity of the proposed residence

1:11:00to an active golf course,

1:11:02there are legitimate concerns regarding student safety

1:11:05from errant golf balls, trespassing onto the golf course,

1:11:09and increased liability exposure.

1:11:11We ask that strong consideration be given

1:11:13to physical screening or protective measures,

1:11:16as well as onsite design strategies

1:11:19that discourage trespassing onto cut and feels lands.

1:11:23Finally, cut and feels lands sit approximately four meters

1:11:27lower than the subject site.

1:11:29It is critical that stormwater runoff

1:11:32be fully attenuated onsite

1:11:34or directed to appropriate storm infrastructure.

1:11:37We trust that city engineering staff

1:11:38will ensure that this occurs

1:11:40and that stormwater is not discharged

1:11:43under the golf course,

1:11:44where it could damage greens and playing surfaces.

1:11:48In closing, cut and feels is seeking a development

1:11:51outcome that supports the student housing

1:11:54is better aligned with surrounding context

1:11:56and appropriately mitigates shadow, wind, safety,

1:12:00parking, and drainage impacts.

1:12:03We welcome continued dialogue with city staff

1:12:05and the applicant and look forward to working collaboratively

1:12:08through the detailed design stage.

1:12:10Thank you for your time and your consideration.

1:12:14Great, and thank you for coming tonight.

1:12:15We appreciate it.

1:12:16Councillor Gibson and then Billings has a, and then Alts.

1:12:20We have three for you.

1:12:21Go ahead, Councillor Gibson.

1:12:22Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:12:23I'll be brief.

1:12:24You checked all my boxes.

1:12:25I was, those are my prepared list

1:12:28to ask staff about and take away.

1:12:30I noticed in the report it says,

1:12:32staff haven't weighed in on all these amendment requests yet.

1:12:35So I'm sure they'll be taking notes away.

1:12:37My question is,

1:12:38how does the cut and feels currently

1:12:40manage their parking situation?

1:12:42I know that you share the property there

1:12:45with student parking during the day.

1:12:47I'm looking ahead at potential conflicts

1:12:50between overflow from this residence

1:12:51onto your parking area.

1:12:53How does the, how does the cut and fields

1:12:56manage their parking at present?

1:12:59As I mentioned earlier,

1:13:00are the representative from cut and feels is here?

1:13:02And I think that's a question better directed to him

1:13:04rather than to me.

1:13:05I'm just here to speak to the planning matters, but yeah.

1:13:10Maybe I'll again reiterate.

1:13:12I understand there's a shared parking area there

1:13:15between students and a paid parking lot there

1:13:17and then your field, your parking for your club.

1:13:20How does that manage?

1:13:21Two parking areas that we actually have,

1:13:22one for the members,

1:13:23which is Jason right there with P 19,

1:13:27which is owned by the, or run by the,

1:13:33my apologies, Mayor.

1:13:35We have one big parking spot really is for our members

1:13:39as well as attached to it,

1:13:42but really is covered up.

1:13:44Like there's no access to it except for student parking.

1:13:47But we also have the idea that students currently,

1:13:50when that lot goes full,

1:13:52they go right into our parking spot

1:13:54and just sort of sneak in.

1:13:55The parking lot we are actually talking about

1:13:57is the staff parking lot that we use

1:14:00that is currently right beside the proposed project

1:14:06that they're putting up.

1:14:08That's where the parking is strictly for our staff.

1:14:13Okay.

1:14:14And do you have parking passes for your membership?

1:14:16They have to have something to speak to, you know?

1:14:18Yes, there is notification based on.

1:14:20Okay.

1:14:21But really the top part is having to sort of deal with

1:14:25and you can't really,

1:14:26we sort of know when students are in,

1:14:28we sort of know when they're coming in

1:14:29based on the idea of when class starts.

1:14:32And so we try to get our staff to actually go out

1:14:36and sort of monitor that during that timeframe.

1:14:39It doesn't, it's not necessarily during the course of,

1:14:42it's the nighttime more so where,

1:14:46especially when there's a game happening or,

1:14:48but not knowing that there's a proposed site

1:14:51which really has not very minimal parking spaces available

1:14:55that we fear that the parking spots

1:14:57that we have hold for our staff really is going to be overused.

1:15:03Okay. Thank you.

1:15:04I'll take that away and I'll,

1:15:04I'll offer that to staff as well.

1:15:06I appreciate it.

1:15:08Thank you very much.

1:15:10Billings and then Alt.

1:15:12So through you, Mr. Mayor,

1:15:13I wanted to ask about the angular plane issue.

1:15:17They're requesting max up to 61 degrees

1:15:21and with the shadowing with the ninth green,

1:15:24if it were the 30% angular plane

1:15:29instead of what they're proposing,

1:15:30would that still pose a issue and a problem for the,

1:15:35for the, for the ninth green?

1:15:36Do you know?

1:15:40Through you, Mr. Mayor, that I haven't modeled that.

1:15:42So I can't answer that question,

1:15:44but perhaps the project architect,

1:15:46if he or she's in attendance,

1:15:48would be able to answer that question for the,

1:15:51for the counselor and perhaps city staff.

1:15:54It's, it's something that city staff will be looking at

1:15:57through the, through the consideration of the,

1:16:00of the requests as part of this zoning bylaw

1:16:04and official plan amendment.

1:16:06And then the, you brought up the,

1:16:08the wind studies and the issue,

1:16:09then what would you be proposing them for height

1:16:13or scale of the building?

1:16:16I think, I think that's something that is not,

1:16:19I'm not prepared to, to demonstrate what type of building

1:16:22would be more appropriate.

1:16:24A lot of this happens, this design would happen

1:16:27through modeling exercises.

1:16:28And that's not something that I have prepared.

1:16:32And again, what we are hoping is to open dialogue

1:16:36with the applicant and their,

1:16:38and their consultant team in order to help address

1:16:41some of the concerns that will have an impact

1:16:44on our clients lands.

1:16:45Okay. Thanks.

1:16:47Great. Thanks.

1:16:48And wrapping it up is counselor.

1:16:49Alt.

1:16:53Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie

1:16:55through you to the delegate.

1:16:58Thank you very much for your presentation.

1:17:01I've just been busily looking at the golf course

1:17:04at the University of British Columbia.

1:17:06And the reason for that is that there are apartments

1:17:09that are adjacent the, the golf course

1:17:13and there are shadows cast by the trees.

1:17:16And I'm reasonably familiar with the Cotton Club

1:17:19having lived beside it earlier

1:17:21and having golf there once in my life.

1:17:25The shadows issue confuses me because it strikes me

1:17:29that this is something that will be addressed

1:17:30through turf management, the University of Guelph

1:17:32being renowned for that.

1:17:34And so I'm wondering if you could please comment

1:17:36on the shadows and turf management and the science of that.

1:17:40Cause it seems that this is,

1:17:41this is not something that's insurmountable.

1:17:44Through you, Mayor, I am not able to comment

1:17:49on turf management.

1:17:50My expertise is in urban planning.

1:17:52So unfortunately I won't be able to comment on that.

1:17:55It looks like someone from,

1:17:56I think we have a comment.

1:17:57We'll be here second comment,

1:17:58then answer that question.

1:17:59Yeah. Thank you.

1:17:59Before you comment though, I'm just going to jump in.

1:18:02We're here for a planning exercise,

1:18:04not the science of turf management.

1:18:07With all due respect and a point of personal privilege,

1:18:09this does relate to planning

1:18:11because this is on the Eastern perimeter

1:18:13and the turf issue had come up

1:18:16through the comments of the presenter.

1:18:18Okay. So I've heard your response,

1:18:21but I, as the chair, I'm making that call

1:18:23that I'm still saying that I'd like us to focus

1:18:25on planning justification as to why.

1:18:28So I wasn't going to stop the delegation from coming up.

1:18:31In fact, I'm the one that waved you up here,

1:18:33but I also don't want us to spend an hour

1:18:36on the science of turf management either.

1:18:38So go ahead and answer the question

1:18:39and that council knows my position.

1:18:41I'll be very brief in respect to you.

1:18:43The shadow casts that we have

1:18:45in respect to green turf or turf management,

1:18:48it's a longevity and the actual care

1:18:51of the actual turf requires sun

1:18:54and requires sunlight more so than it does

1:18:56with the actual shadow casting.

1:18:59It's been developed in a way

1:19:01because this type of grass really does grow better

1:19:04with the actual trees.

1:19:05You can go through with the actual sunlight

1:19:09not having any shadow cast on it.

1:19:11The part that if you take a look at cutting fields,

1:19:14ergonomically, we, and looking at the six

1:19:18of how the actual course has been,

1:19:20I don't know when you have actually played it, sir,

1:19:22but we've gone through management

1:19:23and tree management throughout the course

1:19:26and one where there are a few courses

1:19:28that's taken it on where we've omitted a lot

1:19:30of the casting from trees that have been

1:19:33onto either the greens more so,

1:19:35the T-blocks as well as the actual greens themselves.

1:19:38They've become healthier and continue to become healthy.

1:19:41And that's an investment we've taken

1:19:43and for us to be able to lose the idea

1:19:46we're gonna have more, less sunlight

1:19:50on that particular green, particularly it's been rebuilt,

1:19:53the whole golf course has been rebuilt,

1:19:55post 2022 and for us to be able to all of a sudden

1:20:00step back on it and try to figure out

1:20:01exactly how we're going to manage it based on the science

1:20:06that we actually took as opposed to having

1:20:08to figure out what the science is now.

1:20:11Thank you.

1:20:13Just before you go away, our clerks has just asked

1:20:16if you could just state your name for the record,

1:20:18we just have to capture it in the minutes.

1:20:20My sincere apologies, I'm Virheal Yavea,

1:20:21I'm the COO of Cotton Fields.

1:20:24Clerks, are you okay with that?

1:20:25Okay, thank you.

1:20:27You're welcome.

1:20:28Councillor Chew actually is gonna do a follow up question

1:20:30as well, so go ahead.

1:20:33Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:20:34Just two quick questions here.

1:20:37The first one on the step backs,

1:20:40I look to the letter that you've submitted

1:20:42on behalf of Amnit Shbcn, says that you would like

1:20:46to see a step back beyond the two meters.

1:20:50I'm just looking at the consultant,

1:20:53or the proponents landscape plan and it seems to me

1:20:58that the rear yard step back is 5.5 meters.

1:21:02Can you just clarify that for me?

1:21:03Like what are the step backs that you're looking to see

1:21:08improvement in particular?

1:21:10Through you, Chair, the step backs are the actual step backs

1:21:15in the building design and not necessarily the setback

1:21:19from the rear yard.

1:21:20And we're just looking at a conversation

1:21:23to see if there is some opportunity to adjust the design

1:21:27that will create perhaps a shadow that is not as wide

1:21:32that doesn't take as much time over the lands

1:21:36in the mornings and provides a little bit more opportunity

1:21:40for natural light to these greens.

1:21:44In particular, the ninth hole, I think it was, right?

1:21:47Yeah, the ninth hole, yeah.

1:21:49Okay, I appreciate that, Clarity.

1:21:51Your comments are referring to the building floor plate

1:21:54in particular.

1:21:54Correct.

1:21:55And the second question I have is just the parking reduction.

1:21:58You acknowledge that this is purpose built student housing

1:22:01and typically the parking ratio,

1:22:04like it's fair to have a lower parking ratio

1:22:07just given that proximity to the university.

1:22:09Just on that note, do you have any idea

1:22:12with your professional judgment,

1:22:13like what would be better suited than that point 43

1:22:16that's proposed by the proponent?

1:22:19I am not here to argue the parking reduction.

1:22:23I understand that students don't all have cars.

1:22:26Our concern is more with the short-term temporary type

1:22:30of parking situation.

1:22:31Somebody calls an Uber pickup of food or something like that.

1:22:36Where is that spillover gonna happen?

1:22:38And is it gonna happen all the time?

1:22:40I understand that the design proposed a little drop off area

1:22:45and we're encouraged by that,

1:22:47but hopefully the site will be managed

1:22:49so that there is no opportunity for spillover

1:22:52or very little spillover, if that at all.

1:22:55And we're not opposed to student parking reductions,

1:23:00but we just wanna ensure that this parking lot

1:23:04is used by the cutting club and not by others

1:23:09that don't reside there or don't golf there

1:23:12and that's the intent.

1:23:14Okay, I appreciate that.

1:23:17Like the general sentiments more on just the proximity

1:23:20of the proponents build in proximity to P19

1:23:25and cutting clubs parking.

1:23:27And I understand that there may be some conflict there.

1:23:31Like just fundamentally speaking.

1:23:33Is there a question?

1:23:34Yeah, I'm just curious to see like

1:23:37if you guys would be willing to entertain

1:23:39different scenarios for the parking ratios, that's all.

1:23:43I think we would have to look to a traffic consultant

1:23:49that has done that calculation

1:23:51and provided justification and go back to them

1:23:57as well as the design team

1:24:00that is putting the application before you

1:24:03in terms of whether there is sufficient parking.

1:24:06I'm not challenging that there's not sufficient parking

1:24:08for the student use.

1:24:10It's more this temporary short term use

1:24:13that could be problematic.

1:24:14Okay, I appreciate that, thank you.

1:24:16Yeah.

1:24:17Great, thank you.

1:24:19Seeing nothing further, thank you.

1:24:21You're welcome.

1:24:22Thank you both, appreciate it.

1:24:24Okay, Rachel Bossy from the GSP group,

1:24:28did I say that right?

1:24:30Yes, two for two.

1:24:32Okay, come on down.

1:24:35Now, I see like several names here.

1:24:38Are you like a team?

1:24:40You're a team.

1:24:42Okay, so let's see who's here.

1:24:48Of 10 minutes.

1:24:49A joint.

1:24:50Yes.

1:24:51So it's all of you wrapped up into no more than 10 minutes.

1:24:53Correct.

1:24:54Mm-hmm, okay.

1:24:55How do I change the slide?

1:24:57So we have, I just wanna make sure we have everybody

1:24:59on record that's on my list here.

1:25:00So we have Rachel, you're at the mic, right?

1:25:03Correct.

1:25:04Okay, is Jesse here?

1:25:06Okay.

1:25:08Nigel?

1:25:09This one.

1:25:10Okay.

1:25:11Kyle?

1:25:12Okay.

1:25:15Is Sasa here?

1:25:18Yes.

1:25:19It did leave.

1:25:21Oh.

1:25:22President online.

1:25:23Okay, so we got you all.

1:25:27Perfect, okay.

1:25:28No more than 10 minutes.

1:25:30Starts now, go for it.

1:25:31So through the mayor, good evening.

1:25:33My name is Rachel Bossy and I'm a senior planner

1:25:35with GSP Group and tonight I'll be doing a joint presentation

1:25:38with Jesse McCullin, the urban designer,

1:25:40Nigel Terpstra and Kyle Brill,

1:25:42the applicants for Miliseum.

1:25:43In person, we have the landscape architect and online,

1:25:46we have the architect who will both be available for Q&A.

1:25:52The purpose of tonight's meeting is an opportunity

1:25:54for us to share the details of the proposed development,

1:25:56listen to feedback and answer any questions.

1:26:02To support the applications,

1:26:03the project team has completed technical studies

1:26:05required to demonstrate that the development

1:26:07is appropriate for the site and surrounding area.

1:26:09All studies are available on the city's website.

1:26:15The site is located at 210, 214 and 222 College Avenue East,

1:26:19which are three separate lots,

1:26:20each with a single detached dwelling.

1:26:22The surrounding uses are the University of Guelph,

1:26:24the Cutten Club Field Golf Course

1:26:26and a single detached dwelling.

1:26:27College Avenue East is an arterial road

1:26:30while served by sidewalks,

1:26:31cycling infrastructure and transit routes.

1:26:34The site's close proximity to the University

1:26:36and its facilities present a valuable opportunity

1:26:38for intensification,

1:26:40particularly for purpose built student rental housing

1:26:42in a highly desirable and suitable location.

1:26:47The development will include 65 parking spaces,

1:26:5113 visitor and four accessible parking spaces.

1:26:54Parking will be unbundled,

1:26:55so tenants will have the choice

1:26:56whether or not to rent a parking space.

1:26:58For active transportation,

1:26:59there are 210 bicycle parking spaces proposed,

1:27:0216 short term that are located in front of the building

1:27:05and 194 long term within the building.

1:27:07The long term bicycle parking is provided

1:27:09at a rate of 1.26 spaces per unit,

1:27:11which exceeds the minimum requirements.

1:27:13From a servicing perspective,

1:27:14new water, sanitary and storm services are proposed,

1:27:17storm water will be managed on site through a private system

1:27:21and then directed into the municipal system.

1:27:23Predapose development flows are proposed to be balanced.

1:27:29The site is currently designated low density

1:27:31and zoned low density residential RL.1

1:27:34and there is currently a holding provision

1:27:36on 222 College Avenue East related to servicing agreements,

1:27:40connections to municipal infrastructure

1:27:41and the decommissioning of any domestic wells.

1:27:46The proposal is to rezone and designate,

1:27:48redesignate the site for high density residential uses,

1:27:51specifically much needed purpose built student housing,

1:27:53which is currently not contemplated

1:27:55in the official plan or the zoning bylaw.

1:27:57The zoning bylaw amendments are also proposed

1:28:00to remove the existing holding provision

1:28:01as all associated conditions

1:28:03that the holding provision have been satisfied.

1:28:05This development will support the University of Guelph

1:28:07community provides safe and suitable housing for students

1:28:10and help ease pressure on the broader housing market.

1:28:13I'm now gonna pass the presentation to Kyle and Nigel

1:28:16from LSEM to tell you more about them

1:28:17and their vision for the site.

1:28:21Thanks Rachel.

1:28:23Good evening, Mayor Guthrie, members of council.

1:28:25My name is Nigel Terpstra,

1:28:27Director of Development for LSEM Investments and YARA.

1:28:30I'm joined tonight by members of our team

1:28:31and our CEO Saf Hassan.

1:28:34We're very excited to present our project

1:28:35and look forward to working with staff and council

1:28:37to bring about a positive report in the coming months.

1:28:41LSEM Investments was founded in 2023

1:28:43with the goal of supplying high quality,

1:28:45well designed rental buildings in urban markets

1:28:47with strong employment and population growth

1:28:49and in close proximity to transit.

1:28:51LSEM currently has six projects in Toronto area

1:28:54and two in Guelph.

1:29:00In 2025, LSEM launched YARA, a new platform delivering

1:29:03thoughtfully designed student rental communities

1:29:05across Ontario's university centres.

1:29:08We've observed that increasingly students

1:29:09are required to live in housing that often breaks

1:29:11their budget yet fall short of safeguarding their well-being

1:29:14and promoting their academic experience.

1:29:16YARA responds directly to the growing imbalance

1:29:18between student housing demand

1:29:20and availability of purpose-built supply.

1:29:23Through YARA, LSEM is committed to delivering housing

1:29:25that elevates and supports the student experience

1:29:28through environments that are modern and bespoke

1:29:29yet attainable to the average student.

1:29:32While 210 to 222 College East is YARA's first project,

1:29:35our ambitions are high.

1:29:37LSEM's plan is to scale YARA across Ontario

1:29:39with a projected goal of 5,000 beds within five years.

1:29:43Our platform is designed to grow quickly

1:29:45while maintaining a consistent quality,

1:29:47targeting undersupplied university markets

1:29:49across Southern Ontario and beyond.

1:29:51I'd now like to turn the floor over to Calbrill,

1:29:53senior manager of development and product design

1:29:56with LSEM and YARA to give some more detail

1:29:58about the programming and operational aspects

1:30:00of our project.

1:30:01Thank you.

1:30:07Thanks Nigel.

1:30:09So our goal for YARA is to be a long-term partner

1:30:11to students.

1:30:13We see our buildings as an infrastructure

1:30:15that can support their academic and personal success,

1:30:18allowing them to focus on what matters most,

1:30:20their education and personal development.

1:30:23That thinking shapes every decision that we make.

1:30:25Our building is designed to include academic supports,

1:30:28such as study lounges and co-working areas,

1:30:31along with wellness, fitness, and community spaces

1:30:34to support physical and mental well-being.

1:30:37We also aspire to be good neighbors

1:30:39and contribute meaningfully to the wider communities

1:30:41that we serve.

1:30:42To that end, we have considered how our building connects

1:30:45to its surroundings with great care

1:30:47and have designed event spaces that we hope

1:30:49to open to the community and to the university.

1:30:51We're excited to be here and to work with the community

1:30:54and the stakeholders to create a successful project

1:30:57for everybody.

1:31:01I'd also like to note that we build and operate our own projects.

1:31:05So we have a real stake in getting things right,

1:31:07not just at the opening, but over decades.

1:31:09That means thinking carefully about energy use,

1:31:10construction quality, and how our buildings function

1:31:13day to day.

1:31:14Simply put, we want Yara to be a student's first choice

1:31:17and a place the community feels proud to host.

1:31:19To us, that would be the definition of success.

1:31:22Thank you for your time this evening.

1:31:23And with that, I'd like to pass it on to Jesse from GSP.

1:31:27Hi, everyone.

1:31:28My name is Jesse McClellan, and I'm

1:31:29a planner and urban designer with GSP.

1:31:36The proposal introduces a 10-story post-secondary student

1:31:39residence with direct adjacency to the University of Guelph,

1:31:42Cottonfields, Golf Course, and single-detached dwelling.

1:31:45The development was designed to be compatible

1:31:47to these adjacent uses while providing support

1:31:50for the greater post-secondary student residence

1:31:53and university itself.

1:31:56The design uses a variety of techniques

1:31:58to provide appropriate transitions

1:32:00to the adjacent low-rise residential dwelling,

1:32:02to the west and the street, to the south.

1:32:05As you can see here on this slide,

1:32:07it activated street frontages through setbacks,

1:32:09attractive landscaping, and a prominent glazed corner

1:32:11for the lobby.

1:32:14An angled built form above the sixth floor,

1:32:16along the west and south sensitive interfaces,

1:32:19and a dense landscape buffer.

1:32:22Overall, the goal is to create steady transition

1:32:24from the adjacent existing low-rise residential dwelling

1:32:27to the proposed building.

1:32:31Access and circulation, the design

1:32:33provides a main entrance along College Avenue East

1:32:36with additional connections along the west side.

1:32:39The walkways were designed to provide

1:32:41seamless connectivity through the site.

1:32:44There is strong focus on the pedestrian movement,

1:32:46making it easy and safe for pedestrians.

1:32:49At the same time, the vehicle access and parking

1:32:51are organized along the Easterly lot line,

1:32:54utilizing the existing curb cut

1:32:56to reduce conflicts with pedestrians.

1:32:59The project also includes two levels of parking

1:33:01within the built form, as well as an internal loading bay

1:33:05that is efficient and kept away from the public realm.

1:33:08It also supports attractive transportation,

1:33:11sorry, active transportation,

1:33:12by providing ample bicycle parking,

1:33:14encouraging more sustainable ways to get around.

1:33:19Exterior amenities, the building and landscape

1:33:23are carefully designed to maximize sunlight

1:33:25where it's beneficial and provide shade where needed.

1:33:29For example, some outdoor areas are internally sun exposed,

1:33:33sorry, intentionally sun exposed,

1:33:35while others protected by cooler weather.

1:33:38There are multiple exterior amenity areas

1:33:40creating the different conditions.

1:33:42The central courtyard designed as a flexible space

1:33:45for studying, relaxing and socializing.

1:33:48It connects directly in the indoor common areas,

1:33:51creating a seamless indoor outdoor experience.

1:33:54A south facing terrace and a dense landscaped area

1:33:57for passive uses where trees help reduce overlook,

1:34:00provide shade and create more comfortable outdoor conditions.

1:34:03Together, these spaces offer variety and choice,

1:34:07allowing people to use the site comfortably

1:34:09throughout the day and across seasons.

1:34:12Overall, the development includes a large amount

1:34:14of indoor and outdoor amenity space,

1:34:16supporting both social interaction and personal wellbeing,

1:34:19creating a comfortable environment year round.

1:34:21Thank you for your time.

1:34:23This concludes our presentation.

1:34:24We've received all public comments to date

1:34:27and we'll carefully review them and consider them.

1:34:30We'll now turn this back over for additional comments

1:34:32and questions.

1:34:33And should anyone here today wish to reach out to us,

1:34:36personally, we've left our cards here on the counter.

1:34:38Thank you.

1:34:41Great, well, thank you all.

1:34:42We really appreciate you doing your presentation as well.

1:34:47And thank you for also offering up your card

1:34:50if people wanna follow up and meet or discuss with you.

1:34:53That's great.

1:34:55And are there any questions?

1:34:56I have a Boussatil and Katen and that looks like it so far.

1:35:02So we'll start with Councillor Busuttil.

1:35:05Yes, thank you very much for your presentation.

1:35:07I have a couple of quick questions.

1:35:08I saw in your presentation, your materials,

1:35:10about two, three and four bedroom units.

1:35:13And I asked this of a lot of developers.

1:35:16Would those be suitable for a student family,

1:35:19a family to occupy that?

1:35:25Hi, yes, they would very much be suitable

1:35:28for a student family that we've designed them flexibly

1:35:30so that we could scale up and down

1:35:33within similar sized modules.

1:35:36So a four bedroom, for example,

1:35:38could accommodate a family with children as well.

1:35:41Okay, thank you.

1:35:41And similar to that, your presentation speaks about,

1:35:44in response to much needed student housing.

1:35:47I had the privilege, and I use that term loosely,

1:35:49of being interviewed on Monday by media who said,

1:35:52what are you doing as a city councillor?

1:35:54Everything is student, everything is student,

1:35:56even when city council approved other kinds of develop,

1:36:00it morphs into student housing.

1:36:02And so my question is, we also have much needed seniors,

1:36:07community living, other kinds of housing.

1:36:09You talked about flexibility.

1:36:11And so my question is, because we as council only talk

1:36:14about the bricks and the mortar, the building,

1:36:15not the intended use, in your flexibility

1:36:18and your long-term kind of thinking and business plan,

1:36:21have you thought about the day

1:36:24when student housing isn't as much needed

1:36:27and is there a flexibility

1:36:28to provide other much needed housing?

1:36:32That would certainly be a consideration.

1:36:34And it would be possible with the current design language

1:36:37that we've developed and strategy.

1:36:39However, it would require a reprogramming of the building

1:36:42and the amenities that we're offering

1:36:44and kind of a rethinking of some of the layouts over time.

1:36:46But yes, the flexibility exists

1:36:48and it is, you can call it a contingency as well

1:36:51within our business plan.

1:36:53Thank you.

1:36:54Kate, please.

1:36:58Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:37:00Do the units have individual kitchens

1:37:03or are they intended to rely on the communal kitchen?

1:37:09Yes, the units have individual kitchenettes,

1:37:11but the intention to help build community

1:37:14within the building would be

1:37:14that they could use a communal kitchen as well

1:37:17and have limited preparation

1:37:20and sort of meal space within their own unit.

1:37:25Thank you, through the mayor.

1:37:26So there might be a number of students in this location

1:37:30that might be relying on meal plans

1:37:32and have to travel back and forth

1:37:34to the main university area.

1:37:40We would not be involved in the provision

1:37:44of a meal plan with the university.

1:37:47Okay, thank you very much.

1:37:50No problem.

1:37:53Great, I see, no, oh, there is one question

1:37:55from Councillor Gibson and then Guller and then Chew

1:38:00and then me.

1:38:01Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:38:03I'll be quick.

1:38:04Thanks for the presentation.

1:38:0510 stories, just help me put into context

1:38:08what 10 stories is gonna look like.

1:38:09I think that's a fairly, I drive college almost daily,

1:38:12so that's almost a high point as you come

1:38:14and then you go down into the valley past the stadium

1:38:17and then you get back up to the Lang School of Business

1:38:19on the other side of which is some height buildings to it.

1:38:21But what does 10 stories look like?

1:38:23Do you have a scale version?

1:38:25I just, you know, the building on a hill look,

1:38:28I just wanna see what that would look like

1:38:31if you've got it.

1:38:32I don't have anything right now,

1:38:34but we could easily send that over.

1:38:36I'll make that comment to staff too, just the 10 stories.

1:38:39How does it fit in with the surrounding university buildings

1:38:42or make sure it fits in the context?

1:38:43Yeah, within the context of the university.

1:38:46We have slides with the adjacencies

1:38:48but not within the overall mosaic of the site.

1:38:56Thank you, through your worship.

1:38:58This point was raised as one of the other delegates.

1:39:00I have constituents who live on Woodland Road

1:39:04across the street from another golf course

1:39:07and they sometimes get golf balls hidden their cars.

1:39:10What provisions will there be so that students

1:39:12on the lower levels are not impacted by air and golf balls?

1:39:20Is there a way we could get the presentation back up

1:39:22just so that we could show the site?

1:39:50Thank you very much.

1:39:51So you can see the cladding system we developed here

1:39:54with our architects 546 who are available digitally

1:39:56if you'd like to speak with them directly.

1:39:58The cladding system isn't what you'd say

1:40:00as a typical window wall system.

1:40:02It is kind of a shield.

1:40:03It wasn't necessarily designed that way to be defensive,

1:40:06but it is certainly something that's gonna help

1:40:09with things like air and golf balls.

1:40:11Obviously there's nothing you could do to prevent a hook

1:40:14or something like that, but we're hoping to do the best we can

1:40:17in shielding those windows and making sure students are safe.

1:40:19Perfect, so there would be no open balconies

1:40:21to the golf course.

1:40:22That's correct, yes.

1:40:23Perfect, thank you.

1:40:24Great, thank you, and chew.

1:40:27Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you.

1:40:30My question is just around the driveway access.

1:40:35There's a 8% slope that slopes down

1:40:37towards the underground, is that correct?

1:40:40That's correct, correct.

1:40:41Okay, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity

1:40:45to address some of the concerns

1:40:46that the Cuddin' Clubs representative shared.

1:40:52And this is also my concern as well.

1:40:53My question is, have you guys considered maybe

1:40:55like a lay-by parking on College Avenue

1:40:58to address some of those quick delivery pickups,

1:41:02situations, because I also,

1:41:04and then the other question I have on that is,

1:41:06like how wide is the actual driveway width?

1:41:09Because I don't see any of those markups there on my slides.

1:41:17So, oh, sorry.

1:41:20So through the mayor, in terms of the lay-by,

1:41:23we had discussions as a team about that,

1:41:24but our understanding is that the city

1:41:26wouldn't support that.

1:41:27So what we have done is proposed

1:41:29kind of like a short-term drop-off.

1:41:32This design, there's gonna be kind of

1:41:35a concierge system at the front desk,

1:41:37so anyone dropping things off

1:41:38wouldn't be there for very long.

1:41:40In addition, we're gonna have wayfinding signage

1:41:43on the site so that there are any visitors

1:41:45they'll understand that they can go

1:41:47into the first level or the underground parking.

1:41:50So that'll be clear in sight,

1:41:51and we're gonna work through that

1:41:52at the site plan process.

1:41:55Okay, no, that's helpful to know.

1:41:57And can you describe to me maybe

1:42:00how you guys are trying to address

1:42:01some of the relationship between the staff parking

1:42:05that's adjacent directly to the site,

1:42:08and also just the relationship between P9,

1:42:12teen of the university's parking,

1:42:14and also Cunfield's parking,

1:42:15and how we can try and navigate

1:42:18those potential encroachments that heavily take place

1:42:22because the parking is there,

1:42:23and some students may have that.

1:42:26Maybe if we can just entertain that thought,

1:42:29I think that could be very helpful to some folks here.

1:42:33Yeah, so through the mayor,

1:42:35we've received the comments

1:42:36and we are gonna take them back to the general team,

1:42:37but I think on site, again,

1:42:39signage is gonna be a very important piece to this

1:42:42so that people understand where to go

1:42:44when they get on site so that there isn't any confusion

1:42:47about the golf course parking lot versus this parking lot,

1:42:50as well as clarity that visitors have spaces

1:42:53within the building,

1:42:54so that will be an important part

1:42:56to avoid any confusion on site,

1:42:58and we think with that,

1:42:59that that will make it clear and avoid any conflicts.

1:43:04Okay, thank you.

1:43:10You're lucky my question was asked.

1:43:12So you're good.

1:43:14Thank you very much.

1:43:15I see nothing further from questions,

1:43:17so we appreciate your presentation

1:43:18and see what the comments are as you work with others

1:43:22to come back on in the future time, okay?

1:43:24So thank you.

1:43:25Thank you.

1:43:27With that, that is our delegations

1:43:29that had signed up in advance,

1:43:32but because this is a first time in front of us,

1:43:34it's an opportunity to see if anyone wishes to call in

1:43:38the number being 519-837-5603,

1:43:45and also if anyone in the gallery wishes to also speak,

1:43:48and I'll just ask that now,

1:43:49is there anyone else that wants to speak

1:43:50to this particular item?

1:43:54No?

1:43:54Okay, so everyone take a break for three, four minutes

1:43:57or so just as we see if anyone wants to call in,

1:44:01and then it's back to us, okay?

1:46:43Okay, I'm calling the meeting back to order.

1:46:45Can my colleagues online just put on their camera

1:46:49if they don't mind?

1:46:51And we've had nobody call in,

1:46:55so we are good to have this come back to us.

1:46:58Councillor Gibson and Chu is willing to move

1:47:03in second receipt of this application.

1:47:07So it is officially on the floor,

1:47:09but now is an opportunity if necessary

1:47:12for us to give some feedback to staff

1:47:15on anything that they have not heard already,

1:47:21starting with Councillor Gibson.

1:47:23Thank you, and I promise I will not rehash

1:47:26anything I've already said other than to say parking,

1:47:29height are the two things that I heard,

1:47:31and I'd like staff to focus on.

1:47:33The last one, there's a lot of grade separation in my ward,

1:47:37homes being built on top of homes beneath other homes,

1:47:40and stormwater is a common issue that I hear

1:47:44from residents who live down below,

1:47:46a building that is on a separate grade.

1:47:49I see the same situation here,

1:47:50a big structure going on top of at the highest point

1:47:53of the hill, and so that stormwater,

1:47:56I know there's a report, so those from the developer,

1:47:58I understand that you guys are trying to answer that,

1:48:01just ensure that that's a really tight system

1:48:03and that the stormwater is being stored on site

1:48:05and that we're not relying on the cut in fields

1:48:08to absorb any of the stormwater on it,

1:48:10because that will be, again, hard surface,

1:48:1210 stories on the top of the hill

1:48:14that water's gonna want to run somewhere,

1:48:15so just capture that in the comments, thank you.

1:48:19Great, thank you, Downer and then Busatil.

1:48:22Thanks to you, Mr. Mayor, so my concerns are similar,

1:48:26not so, the height but the density is of issue to me,

1:48:30like it's more dense than the old holiday insight

1:48:34that we have, the Alma Project,

1:48:36so it's really, really dense there.

1:48:40The other thing, I'm concerned about

1:48:41the post-secondary residence designation

1:48:45as we need the flexibility to be able to have these

1:48:48new developments move around between,

1:48:51we don't want a people's zone

1:48:53outside of the actual university property,

1:48:56and there's always those other issues around

1:48:59using that type of designation.

1:49:02The other one, I don't know,

1:49:06it looked like Ms. Walk,

1:49:08you wanted to say something in response to that,

1:49:10but I do have one more comment too.

1:49:13Yeah, thanks, I just wanna be clear on the definition,

1:49:14it was their request put forward,

1:49:17staff will be looking at this as an apartment building.

1:49:21Okay, that's great.

1:49:22The other thing that I think I wanna see

1:49:24for staff to consider and really look at,

1:49:26that do we need a crosswalk there,

1:49:29there would be a lot of students in that location.

1:49:31I understand there is a lights right down at the Cutton Club,

1:49:37but even though we have a lot of intersections

1:49:42around the university,

1:49:43we develop a lot of crosswalks too.

1:49:46I mean, on Gordon, they're really close to each other

1:49:48on Gordon, and there's even a crosswalk between

1:49:52that, the Cutton Club and Gordon Street.

1:49:57So you're on a hill there,

1:49:59and students will naturally run across the road,

1:50:02if depending on where they're headed to on campus,

1:50:04before they get to that location.

1:50:07So I just think we need to have safety in mind

1:50:10when we're looking at this as well,

1:50:12and whether that might be required.

1:50:15Great, thank you, and Busatil please.

1:50:17Thank you.

1:50:18Ditto to Councillor Gibson's concerns,

1:50:21ditto to density and flexibility.

1:50:23And just I'm relieved to hear that the city staff

1:50:26will look at this as an apartment building,

1:50:28because as I made reference,

1:50:31I'm hearing comments about students, students, students,

1:50:33students, student housing.

1:50:34What about seniors housing?

1:50:35What about community housing at Alban?

1:50:37I would also, that's a great idea around the crosswalk,

1:50:40because where this is located is also

1:50:42where the Child Care Learning Centre is on East Ring Road

1:50:46when you go up to the Arboretum.

1:50:48So my hope is that this is an apartment building

1:50:52that also meets the needs of families and others,

1:50:55and not just students, and has the flexibility.

1:50:57And with that in mind, I'm gonna steal Councillor Caden's

1:51:01comment about the kitchen, that if it is a rental unit,

1:51:05I know from my kids in university that galley kitchen

1:51:11and those kind of little kitchenettes do not work.

1:51:14And especially if we're thinking about affordability as well,

1:51:17it's rental, and having enough food

1:51:19that you can bring in and make meals, store meals,

1:51:22it's not door dash and skip the dishes

1:51:24over and over and over again.

1:51:25Thank you.

1:51:27All right, thank you.

1:51:28And also Councillor Billings,

1:51:31and then Kate and looks like finally Chu.

1:51:38So through you, Mr. Mayor,

1:51:40and we've all heard in the report,

1:51:42and now that it wasn't staff's verbiage

1:51:45for the post-secondary school residents,

1:51:47however, given the use,

1:51:52are they subject to DCs or not?

1:52:00Yeah, through the mayor.

1:52:01So this is a private development,

1:52:03servicing private needs,

1:52:05not associated with the university.

1:52:07So yes, they would be subject to applicable fees.

1:52:11Okay, so even then, if it was changed

1:52:16to post-secondary school residents,

1:52:19then they still would have to pay development charges,

1:52:24in your opinion.

1:52:28Through the mayor of the council,

1:52:29so we'll ensure that we have some floor plans

1:52:31that we bring back and clearly define

1:52:33what the unit is through a zoning bylaw amendment

1:52:37if supported by staff.

1:52:39Okay.

1:52:40And also with respect to the zoning amendments,

1:52:47yeah, I mean, I don't like the buffer strip reduction,

1:52:51the transformer and retaining wall within the buffer strip.

1:52:55I mean, there's the whole list there, the tower setback.

1:52:58And really what bothers me is the angular plane.

1:53:03I think we should stick with the 30%.

1:53:07And, but I do have a question through you, Mr. Mayor,

1:53:10to staff with respect to the exterior,

1:53:14how much, I was gonna say, how much say do we have

1:53:20with respect to this issue of the cladding?

1:53:27Through you, Mr. Mayor, at this point, not much.

1:53:30Unfortunately, we don't have the powers to regulate

1:53:34the exterior material buildings

1:53:36through site plan control anymore.

1:53:38Yeah, that's what I thought.

1:53:39Okay, that's unfortunate.

1:53:40Okay, thank you.

1:53:44Thank you, Kate and then Chu.

1:53:48Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:53:50So just based on the proposed lower amounts of parking

1:53:55and how it's pretty far away from various groceries

1:53:59and restaurants and everything like that,

1:54:01I would just like staff to consider bus stops

1:54:04because I don't think there are any in that area right now.

1:54:06And so having sheltered bus stops on either side

1:54:10would be important, I think to me.

1:54:13I think the density, like others have mentioned,

1:54:15is pretty high for this space.

1:54:19And I just have some concerns about the offsets

1:54:23for the accessibility ramps.

1:54:26I don't know if that would be a safety issue,

1:54:27but I'm assuming that staff would comment on that,

1:54:29regardless.

1:54:30Thanks.

1:54:32Great, thank you.

1:54:34Councillor Chew, it's over to you.

1:54:36Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:54:38I don't wanna come off, these are comments, by the way.

1:54:41I don't mean to come off too critical,

1:54:43but just from some of the existing

1:54:45condominium builds in the South End,

1:54:48I just know that there are a lot of issues

1:54:50with the drive aisles that, thank you.

1:54:54There have been some issues with the drive aisle

1:54:57with being less than eight meters.

1:54:59And I hope maybe there could be a creative solution

1:55:03and dialogue between staff and the proponent

1:55:06to look at ways in which we can address that,

1:55:10because my concern is that you may have

1:55:15a lot of back ends and queue ups,

1:55:18especially going down to the underground.

1:55:23We just have to acknowledge some of those

1:55:25lived realities as well that may exist.

1:55:28So I'm just trying to be gentle with those comments,

1:55:31but maybe that's something that can be taken away.

1:55:32So thank you.

1:55:36Okay.

1:55:39All right, that's it.

1:55:40Comes to me, and then we'll call the vote for receiving.

1:55:44Yeah, just my comments are, I guess,

1:55:46maybe generally to the room, to the applicant.

1:55:51There's some tweaks you gotta look at,

1:55:53which you've agreed to do.

1:55:54So I think that's the journey that you're on now.

1:55:59My personal request is that you work with your neighbor,

1:56:02with Cutten.

1:56:04They're great neighbors,

1:56:06so work out some stuff there if you can.

1:56:10And you wouldn't wanna do this on the golf course side,

1:56:15but that cladding could also be solar panels,

1:56:19could also do a lot of sort of energy initiatives,

1:56:23could also go into the building too.

1:56:25I know you had a presentation chart with that,

1:56:28but I think there's something that you can probably do

1:56:31there as well, and I wish you all the best.

1:56:34That's it, okay?

1:56:36So with that, I'll call the vote.

1:56:38Is there anyone against receiving the application?

1:56:42Nobody, all right?

1:56:43Thank you very much, appreciate it.

1:56:46That's unanimous.

1:56:49We are going to jump to 81 College Ave West now

1:56:53for the Statutory Public Meeting and Decision Report.

1:56:56We have our staff presenting first.

1:57:01It's, Katchen is coming up.

1:57:07Yes.

1:57:20Hi, how are you?

1:57:22Good, welcome.

1:57:23Thank you for being here,

1:57:24and we will turn it over to you whenever you're ready, okay?

1:57:29I think, if you could actually just go wait 30 seconds,

1:57:31I just think we have a couple of counselors

1:57:34coming back in, Councillor Busuttil and Koran.

1:57:41I think you're good.

1:57:42You can go ahead.

1:57:43Thank you.

1:57:46I'm just figuring, okay.

1:57:48Good evening, Mayor Gathri.

1:57:52Can I just, hold on?

1:57:57I need to move back.

1:57:59Yeah, good evening, Mayor Gathri,

1:58:07members of the Council, members.

1:58:12Good evening, Mayor Gathri, members of the Council,

1:58:15members of the public and city staff.

1:58:17My name is Kanchan Ghadge,

1:58:18and tonight I'm presenting the Statutory Public Meeting

1:58:21and Decision Meeting for the Zoning By-Law Amendment

1:58:24application for the lands,

1:58:25principally known as 81 College Avenue West.

1:58:28An application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment

1:58:31was submitted by Monteenth Brown Planning Consultants

1:58:34on behalf of Rabbi Raphael Steiner

1:58:36of Dr. Jeff and Lisa Weitscher-Bard of Coal.

1:58:39The application proposes the development

1:58:41of a three-story place of worship,

1:58:43which would also include a daycare facility.

1:58:47Attached to the main building at the rear of the site,

1:58:49a two-story private residence

1:58:50containing an additional dwelling unit is also proposed.

1:58:54Tonight is the Statutory Public Meeting

1:58:55under the Planning Act

1:58:56and the Decision Meeting for this application.

1:59:07The subject lands are approximately 0.32 hectares

1:59:11with a 32-meter frontage along College Avenue West.

1:59:14The subject lands are located east of College Avenue West

1:59:17and McGilvery Street T intersection

1:59:20within a low-density residential neighborhood

1:59:22and directly across from the University of Gualt

1:59:25Student Residences.

1:59:27The site is within the city's built-up area

1:59:29as identified on Schedule 1A of the Official Plan.

1:59:33The existing one-story residential building,

1:59:36which currently accommodates the Shabbat of Gualt,

1:59:38is proposed to be demolished

1:59:39to allow for the redevelopment of the site.

1:59:46The subject lands are designated

1:59:47low-density residential in Schedule 2 of the Official Plan.

1:59:51In addition to residential uses,

1:59:53this designation also permits non-residential uses,

1:59:56including place of worship and childcare centers

1:59:58subject to all relevant Official Plan policies.

2:00:07This slide shows the proposed site layout

2:00:09submitted with the application.

2:00:10The three-story institutional building

2:00:13is located at the front of the property

2:00:15with a two-story private residence attached at the rear.

2:00:18The development provides four parking spaces

2:00:20in the front yard, two of which are accessible,

2:00:23and 11 parking spaces in the rear yard.

2:00:26The residential unit also includes its own two-car garage.

2:00:29An outdoor play area is located at the back of the site

2:00:32and an in-ground garbage system

2:00:33is proposed in the southeast corner.

2:00:39The subject lands are currently

2:00:41zoned low-density residential one or RL1

2:00:43under the city's comprehensive zoning bylaw.

2:00:46The RL1 zone permits a range of low-density residential forms

2:00:50along with certain complementary uses

2:00:51such as childcare facilities.

2:00:55However, a place of worship is not permitted use

2:00:58within the RL1 zone.

2:01:04Given the institutional nature

2:01:05of the Shabbat of Gualt's operations,

2:01:07the application proposes to rezone the subject lands

2:01:10from RL1 to a neighborhood institutional NI zone

2:01:13with site-specific provisions.

2:01:15In addition to permitting the place of worship,

2:01:17the application also requests that the site-specific NI zone

2:01:20allow one residential dwelling unit and one ADU

2:01:24as permitted uses on the subject lands.

2:01:29The application requests the following site-specific provisions

2:01:32to permit residential use along with an ADU

2:01:34within the NI zone on the subject lands

2:01:37to reduce the west interior side yard set back to three meters,

2:01:41whereas the zoning bylaw requires six meters

2:01:43or half of the building height, whichever is greater,

2:01:46to reduce the landscape buffer to the east interior side yard

2:01:50to 1.2 meters, whereas a three-meter buffer is required,

2:01:53and to reduce the rear and west side interior side yard

2:01:57buffer strips to 0.0 meters.

2:02:00Staff are recommending modification

2:02:02to this site-specific zoning request.

2:02:04Staff recommend retaining a three-meter buffer

2:02:06along both the west and rear lot lines

2:02:09with an allowance of an uncovered porch

2:02:11to encroach 1.5 meters into the side yard.

2:02:18Site-specific zoning provisions are also requested

2:02:21to establish a fixed parking supply of 11 spaces

2:02:25for the place of worship,

2:02:26whereas the zoning standards require 5.5 parking spaces

2:02:29per 100 square meters of GFA,

2:02:32and lastly to provide relief from section 4.98

2:02:37to allow an in-ground waste storage system

2:02:39to be located in the front yard.

2:02:45This slide shows the detailed site plan submitted

2:02:48with the application.

2:02:49Staff use this plan to assess

2:02:50the requested site-specific zoning provisions.

2:02:53The items form part of the staff analysis

2:02:56and recommendations provided

2:02:57in attachment eight of the staff report.

2:03:03This slide shows the front elevation

2:03:04of the proposed three-storey Shabad of Gualt building.

2:03:11This slide shows the rear yard

2:03:13with the two-storey residential dwelling unit

2:03:15and the two-car garage.

2:03:20This slide shows the uncovered porch area

2:03:22along with the west interior side yard.

2:03:28This slide shows the proposed building

2:03:29from the front and west side yards.

2:03:34The application was circulated to property owners

2:03:37within 120 meters,

2:03:38and it was also posted on the city's website

2:03:40along with all supporting documents.

2:03:42Written comments and concerns received

2:03:44before the staff report was made public

2:03:46are addressed in attachment eight of the staff report.

2:03:50Since this is a decision meeting,

2:03:51members of the public who wish to stay informed

2:03:54about council's decision and this application

2:03:56may email clerks at work.ca,

2:03:59including their name and contact information.

2:04:01This concludes my presentation,

2:04:03and I'd be happy to address any questions.

2:04:05Thank you.

2:04:06Great, thank you very much for your presentation too.

2:04:09And just because we do have some delegations,

2:04:11we'll go to them first,

2:04:14come back to staff after that.

2:04:16But Jay McGuffin is here,

2:04:21one of the planning consultants it looks like,

2:04:22is Jay here?

2:04:24Yes, okay.

2:04:28Are you Benita?

2:04:30Oh, okay.

2:04:30Are you guys gonna do a joint presentation together?

2:04:33Are you gonna do your 10 minutes each?

2:04:36No, we'll do a joint.

2:04:37Okay, great.

2:04:38So, and you're a planning consultant as well, Benita.

2:04:42Okay.

2:04:43Yes.

2:04:44With that, I'll leave you to it.

2:04:46Thank you.

2:04:47Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council.

2:04:48Jay McGuffin, President and Principal Planner,

2:04:51Monteith Brown Planning Consultants.

2:04:53I'm joined with me tonight by Benita Sankovics,

2:04:58one of our senior designers with the firm,

2:05:00as well as our client, Rabbi Steiner,

2:05:03who is the proponent of this proposal.

2:05:07We will keep our submission brief.

2:05:10Just like to speak to a number of comments

2:05:12that were raised through public circulation,

2:05:16just to provide some additional information

2:05:18in addition to that provided by the city's planner.

2:05:23There's some questions about setbacks,

2:05:26setbacks to the rear yard,

2:05:28the setback that is proposed is actually three meters,

2:05:31not zero meters.

2:05:32The placement or the request for a reduction

2:05:36in buffer strip along the east limit of the property,

2:05:42I think I have my compass arrow correct,

2:05:46is a result of a private servicing easement

2:05:50that favors the lands to the west of the property

2:05:54that runs diagonally through the property.

2:05:57That was discovered through consultation with the city

2:06:00and a tremendous amount of work with city staff

2:06:03to understand opportunities relating

2:06:06to the placement of that sewer.

2:06:10We have designed the site around the location of the sewer.

2:06:14Some of the other matters with regard

2:06:15to the placement of the driveway.

2:06:17Originally, the driveway was proposed

2:06:19on the other side of the property

2:06:21and was shifted in response to comments received

2:06:24by the city, as well as the location of that easement

2:06:27for that sanitary connection to adjacent properties,

2:06:30as well as moving the building further away

2:06:33from the built homes that are adjacent

2:06:37to the east side of the property.

2:06:39And I'm not sure if we have an ability

2:06:44to have the city's presentation put back up,

2:06:47but one of the last slides with the site plan

2:06:50indicates the close proximity of those

2:06:53of budding dwellings on the neighboring properties

2:06:55that are quite close to the property line.

2:07:02And then thank you very much.

2:07:04I'll keep going within the interest of time.

2:07:07There was also some comments received

2:07:09with respect to the in-ground malloc garbage storage.

2:07:13These were chosen specifically

2:07:16for their environmental friendliness.

2:07:18I believe there was concern about leachate.

2:07:21These are sealed systems, polyethylene

2:07:24or high density polyethylene systems.

2:07:26They do not rust and they do not leak.

2:07:28The garbage that's put in them is stored underground,

2:07:33keeping the garbage cool, reducing any impact

2:07:36from potential odor, it's covered.

2:07:39And when it's disposed, the truck will come in,

2:07:43lift a bag that's filled with garbage out of the bin

2:07:46and dispose of it in its truck before it exits.

2:07:50We did, worked extensively with city staff

2:07:52on the placement of those garbage bins

2:07:55to ensure that they were designed in such a way

2:07:57to be shielded from public view

2:08:01and really to inform the best location

2:08:04from a truck circulation perspective

2:08:06and the storage and environmental considerations

2:08:09with regard to that fact.

2:08:13And with respect to parking, just to reiterate,

2:08:18our client retained a transportation engineer

2:08:21for, sorry, I can go back.

2:08:27I was actually looking for the site plan,

2:08:29not the rendering.

2:08:33With respect to the parking,

2:08:35retained a traffic consultant to provide

2:08:38a parking opinion, professional engineering opinion

2:08:41on the parking.

2:08:43There is a request for a reduction in parking

2:08:45and that recognizes the use of this building

2:08:49and the obligations of the faith of the congregation.

2:08:53They're not allowed to drive on the Sabbath,

2:08:55so they are walking to this facility for prayer,

2:08:59which therefore means they don't need to park

2:09:03because there is no opportunity.

2:09:04So the parking that is being provided

2:09:07is to predominantly address the residential unit,

2:09:11the additional residential unit and the daycare operation,

2:09:15together with some parking for day-to-day operations

2:09:20within the facility outside of the Sabbath.

2:09:24If council is interested in any more information

2:09:27in regard to that, the rabbi is here

2:09:30and can speak to it.

2:09:32But I think that covers the totality of the comments

2:09:34that we received through the public consultation.

2:09:38I will conclude saying that we have read

2:09:40the staff recommendation and we are in support of it

2:09:43and thanks staff for their diligent work on this project.

2:09:47Over the last three years,

2:09:49it has been a very long planning process

2:09:52and we have undertaken numerous studies

2:09:56that support this development

2:09:57and look forward to having the opportunity

2:10:00to respond to any questions.

2:10:01Thank you.

2:10:03And thank you.

2:10:04And just so I know nothing further

2:10:07within the 10 minutes from you

2:10:08unless there's questions are good.

2:10:11Okay, great.

2:10:13Questions for the delegates?

2:10:15And I do see your hand, Councillor Boussettill for sure.

2:10:18And then I will go Clawson and Keaton.

2:10:22And then I'll come back over here.

2:10:23Yep.

2:10:25Thank you very much.

2:10:26Through the mayor for your presentation,

2:10:27I just have a very quick question.

2:10:29It's about the location of the daycare playground.

2:10:32Have you been working with childcare services

2:10:35at Wellington County for the design of the location

2:10:38of the play structure and just meeting,

2:10:40you know, ministry requirements

2:10:42around proximity of parking lots and things like that?

2:10:50Yes, absolutely.

2:10:54Thank you, Councillor Boussettill.

2:10:56Keaton and then Karan, please.

2:10:59Thanks.

2:11:00Through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:11:02So one of the comments I heard via our resident

2:11:06was issues with potential trees due to the parking space.

2:11:12So I was just wondering about your plan for snow removal

2:11:16and snow management

2:11:17because a lot of folks tend to use one parking spot

2:11:20for the place where they pile their snow.

2:11:22Do you guys have an area that you're going to be using

2:11:25for that back parking lot that kind of abuts the neighbors?

2:11:34Thank you.

2:11:35Through you, Mr. Mayor, to the Councillor,

2:11:37the snow storage is located on the,

2:11:43I'll say on the west side, I was correct.

2:11:46The west side of that parking area

2:11:49and with respect to the snow treatment

2:11:52and environmental review was undertaken

2:11:54and recommendations on treatments for that facility

2:11:58have been provided to the city.

2:12:00And those are matters that will be addressed

2:12:03as we proceed through site plan control approval.

2:12:07Thanks and sorry.

2:12:09I'll just briefly add, Councillor,

2:12:12that the totality of the plan includes

2:12:16that there will not be salt used in this parking area.

2:12:20Salt will kill our own grass as well.

2:12:22So we recognize even with the grass pavers

2:12:24that putting salt into our own property

2:12:27would be a huge mistake.

2:12:31There's lots of different opportunities for drainage.

2:12:33We've gone through numerous ways of doing it.

2:12:36I am very grateful to have worked with numerous neighbors

2:12:39on developing this plan.

2:12:40Much of it has.

2:12:41A lot of the neighbors input put into it.

2:12:45I welcome further input.

2:12:48I wish those individuals would come forward

2:12:51and talk directly so we can have open dialogue

2:12:53because I think we can settle any concerns pretty easily.

2:12:58I'm glad to hear about the salt use

2:13:00and I'm sure the folks that we just worked with

2:13:02on our salt motion for the city

2:13:04would also be very happy to hear that.

2:13:07And I just have one further question through the mayor.

2:13:10So is it that your religious facilities

2:13:14are mostly only used on Saturdays?

2:13:15There's no throughout the week kind of?

2:13:21The largest use would be on Friday nights and Saturdays

2:13:24when it's prohibited for Jews to drive.

2:13:27The daycare would be the largest use during the week.

2:13:30Okay, great.

2:13:31Thank you.

2:13:32Aside for one-off events that occur, but yes.

2:13:35Okay, thanks.

2:13:38Thank you.

2:13:39And before I'm sorry,

2:13:41Councillor Caron, I forgot to go to Councillor Claussin first.

2:13:43So Claussin and then yourself, thank you.

2:13:48Yes, thank you, Ms.

2:13:50I'm hearing feedback.

2:13:51Sorry, excuse me.

2:13:54Can you come back to me so I can just fix my sound?

2:13:56I'm so sorry, Mr. Mayor.

2:13:58No problem.

2:13:59No problem.

2:14:00No problem.

2:14:02Okay, that was a joke.

2:14:03Did anyone get that?

2:14:05Did you do that?

2:14:05Okay, thank you.

2:14:07Councillor Caron, and then we'll try you, Councillor Claussin.

2:14:11Great, thank you to the applicant.

2:14:13And I know you've been working on this project

2:14:16for a long time.

2:14:18One of the uses when I have seen several times during the year

2:14:21you have a big installation tent to act as a Shabbat

2:14:26in lieu of not having a facility.

2:14:29Is that the approximate square footprint

2:14:31of what we're seeing here,

2:14:33or is this a much larger footprint

2:14:34when you erect the big white tent for events in the past?

2:14:41I gotta do the math.

2:14:42I know the numbers of the dimensions,

2:14:44but the actual square footage,

2:14:46I imagine it would be pretty close.

2:14:48The inside of the floor plan,

2:14:49I don't know if I don't think it's part of the presentation,

2:14:52includes versatile usability,

2:14:54so that with an opening wall,

2:14:57so that we can get the full use of the main floor

2:14:59when we do those larger events,

2:15:00we wouldn't have to put up those large tents anymore.

2:15:03Okay, and then I know that some of the questions

2:15:06I'm asking just to acknowledge our city planners,

2:15:10I'm asking some site plan questions,

2:15:11which are not technically part of our deliberations today.

2:15:16You've answered the question about salt use,

2:15:18but I do see the pavers, the grass pavers,

2:15:20so will that allow water infiltration

2:15:24for vegetation surrounding that area

2:15:27that would normally be runoff

2:15:29or would go into storm sewers?

2:15:30This is part of a stormwater,

2:15:33and it would be groundwater recharge.

2:15:38That's absolutely correct, Mr. Mayor.

2:15:40It's an impervious system that allows for a recharge.

2:15:44And speaking of groundwater recharge

2:15:46and low impact development,

2:15:48I know that the community energy statement

2:15:50is just, it's about meeting our community energy plan

2:15:55wherever possible.

2:15:56And unrelated to this development,

2:15:59but related to all developments,

2:16:02we've got everything from LED light bulbs

2:16:05to low flush toilets.

2:16:06Can you talk a little bit more about what you're planning

2:16:10to actually make this as close to a net zero

2:16:15energy efficient building as possible

2:16:16as we enter a time when utility costs are rising

2:16:20and impact on the environment is paramount?

2:16:25My planner just refers to me, will we make of that?

2:16:30Yeah, one of the reasons why we chose to do,

2:16:33for example, green grass pavers in the rear

2:16:35is because we love the natural environment that we're in,

2:16:38and we don't want to disturb.

2:16:39We want to avoid disturbing it as much as possible.

2:16:42We love the double use that we can have a barbecue

2:16:44in the backyard like we've had until now,

2:16:46and we want to continue to be able to do that,

2:16:49as opposed to just putting down asphalt

2:16:50and covering the place and making it look

2:16:52like a commercial space.

2:16:53And inside we're committed to continue to reduce energy

2:16:58that we pull from the city and in every possible way.

2:17:03Thanks, that's great to hear.

2:17:05Last question is, I'm not familiar with the term SUCA.

2:17:09Is that a patio that is an outdoor use

2:17:12that's an extension of the Shabbat,

2:17:14or is that an activated space in another use?

2:17:19I know it's right up against the fence,

2:17:22so I'm just wondering what impact on neighbors

2:17:24from that use if you could.

2:17:25Yeah, so that area is basically pavers.

2:17:29It's like, as you would have maybe a patio

2:17:31in your backyard is what it really is.

2:17:33For eight days during the Jewish month of Tishrei,

2:17:37we put up a little hut that we eat inside.

2:17:39And Councillor Caron, you probably saw a blue hut

2:17:43aside for the massive tent that we put up at various times.

2:17:46And that one is for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot,

2:17:49where we put some foliage on top.

2:17:51It's up for eight days.

2:17:52It comes down after the holiday.

2:17:54And then it turns into other uses

2:17:56where kids can play lounging and the like

2:17:59the rest of the year.

2:17:59That's very helpful.

2:18:01Thanks very much.

2:18:03Great, thank you.

2:18:04Councillor Klassen, do you want to try again?

2:18:09Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

2:18:10And thank you for your patience

2:18:11as I navigated to sound systems.

2:18:16Thank you for the presentation.

2:18:17I have two questions with regard to the childcare center.

2:18:21So one is I'm just looking at the layout of the property.

2:18:24And I know that I'm seeing most of the parking spaces

2:18:28at the back.

2:18:29And I know that planning calls for five spaces

2:18:31for childcare.

2:18:32I was just wondering if you could walk us through

2:18:34what pickup and drop off might look like

2:18:37and how kids will, you know,

2:18:42how parents will be navigating that.

2:18:45And then if you will,

2:18:46can I ask my second question as well?

2:18:49The second question is with regard to Seawelk funding,

2:18:55the capital specifically,

2:18:56I know that I think that there is funding available

2:19:01for capital projects.

2:19:02And I'm just curious if that's something

2:19:03that you'll be able to benefit from

2:19:06with this construction?

2:19:09Yeah, I'll go in the reverse order since that's more fun.

2:19:13We've been already approved for Seawelk

2:19:15and have been approved for a significant amount

2:19:17of capital funding.

2:19:19I was just notified a few weeks ago through our MP

2:19:22that they will even be adding more funding

2:19:25for the capital project.

2:19:27So that's very exciting.

2:19:29And we're working with the county.

2:19:31We're approved for 49 spots.

2:19:33So we spent a lot of time figuring out

2:19:36how to do pickup and drop off.

2:19:39That was something we really thought a lot

2:19:41about considering how many parking spots we're gonna have.

2:19:44It's going to be a circular system.

2:19:46I don't, maybe, can someone,

2:19:48can we pull up the site plan again?

2:19:51Really quickly.

2:19:53You can probably envision it.

2:19:54I'll talk while they're pulling it up.

2:19:57Cars come in one way in the right of way,

2:19:59go all the way to the back, turn around,

2:20:02pull up right in front,

2:20:03and then pull out after their child is dropped off.

2:20:06So we'll have teachers in the front

2:20:08pulling kids from their car in a very gentle way, of course,

2:20:11and then bringing them into the school

2:20:15that will be on the second floor.

2:20:18And then cars pull out after their child is dropped off.

2:20:21And the same thing in the reverse for pickup.

2:20:26Perfect. Thank you.

2:20:27That helps a lot.

2:20:28And congratulations on the Seawelk funding

2:20:31and the 49 spaces.

2:20:33Like, you know, if you will, Mr. Mayor,

2:20:35I know that I spend a lot of time in this area

2:20:39and 49 new Seawelk funded spaces

2:20:42is going to do a lot for our community.

2:20:45So thank you for integrating this into your development.

2:20:50Yeah, we're very excited about it.

2:20:53Thank you so much.

2:20:55And so last I have his downer on the list.

2:20:58Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

2:20:59Through you, I just wanted to acknowledge

2:21:02the private service easement that you've had a challenge with

2:21:05for a number of years working through.

2:21:07And I'm glad to see that you've come up with a design

2:21:09that works for UN for the city.

2:21:13The question I have, so there have been,

2:21:16you've gotten a lot of letters of support

2:21:18from the people on Woodside.

2:21:20So in the last couple of days,

2:21:21there's been some letters from the people at University Ave.

2:21:24And again, these are site plan, more issues

2:21:27than the drainage you've addressed.

2:21:29But they've also been concerns around trees

2:21:32and one of them has hired their own arborist

2:21:34or tree person to, and they're contradicting

2:21:38some of the things in that are in the report.

2:21:44So I just want to confirm too that you're willing,

2:21:46and these are our site plan issues,

2:21:48they're not going to do with the zoning.

2:21:50And these will be addressed at site plan

2:21:51and I'll ask staff that later.

2:21:54You're willing to work with those neighbors

2:21:56to address some of those tree issues,

2:21:58issues around the drip lines and where the protection

2:22:00of the roots that are on trees are on their property

2:22:03or possibly brown tree trees.

2:22:05Yeah, always have been and it's important to me

2:22:08not just to get this application approved

2:22:09but also to make sure that the vegetation on my property

2:22:12and everyone's property nearby is also just as happy as I am.

2:22:15Okay, great, thank you.

2:22:19Great, I have nobody else with further questions.

2:22:22So thank you very much for coming and presenting

2:22:24and delegating to us, we appreciate it.

2:22:26Thank you.

2:22:27Thank you.

2:22:29So as I did in the last one,

2:22:32we're going to take a three to four minute break or so

2:22:35to see if there's anyone else that wishes to delegate

2:22:39either here in the room or by calling in

2:22:42with the phone number being 519-837-5603.

2:22:49And in the room, is there anyone that wishes

2:22:53to also speak to the matter?

2:22:57Okay, we have two, we have three, okay?

2:23:00And so once we come back in three to four minutes,

2:23:03we can, I'll call on you three, okay?

2:23:06Thank you very much.

2:25:36Okay, we've had nobody call in

2:25:39and so I'll call the meeting back to order.

2:25:41If I could have my colleagues online,

2:25:43turn their cameras on as well.

2:25:46Three people in the room wish to also give us

2:25:50their opinions on the matter.

2:25:51So I'll just start from right to left.

2:25:54That's the way I think I saw it.

2:25:57And so just come on up and then just state your full name

2:26:00if you don't mind, just so it's on the public record.

2:26:02And then you as well have up to 10 minutes if you want.

2:26:05So you don't have to take the whole 10,

2:26:07but you absolutely can if you wish.

2:26:09There will be still a chime at the nine minute,

2:26:1130 second mark as the 30 second warning.

2:26:13And then once you're done,

2:26:15if there's any follow up questions, then that will occur

2:26:17and then we'll go on to the next one, okay?

2:26:19So go ahead, what's your name?

2:26:21Okay, thank you.

2:26:22I'm Tim Dewhurst.

2:26:23I'm a resident on University Avenue West

2:26:26with a bordering property line to 81 College Avenue West.

2:26:32So dear Mayor, Cam Guthrie and city councilors,

2:26:35thank you for the opportunity to speak before city council.

2:26:39I speak as a 19 year resident and homeowner

2:26:42in the old University neighborhood

2:26:44who shares a property line with 81 College Avenue West

2:26:48to indicate that I oppose the application to rezone.

2:26:51I have several reasons for opposing the application,

2:26:54which are consistent with the submission already made

2:26:57by another neighbor, Aaron Van Eck,

2:27:00who will be speaking and as another resident and homeowner

2:27:04in the old University neighborhood

2:27:06that shares a property line with 81 College Avenue West.

2:27:11For my time, I wish to use to further expand

2:27:14on the vegetation concerns that will be raised

2:27:17and stemming from the application.

2:27:19The application is proposing a parking lot

2:27:21at the rear of their site

2:27:23where they share a backyard property line with mine.

2:27:26My concern is that if there's parking adjacent

2:27:28to our backyard, it could be detrimental

2:27:30to the vegetation and mature trees in our yard

2:27:34that's near the property line.

2:27:36At the advice of landscapers

2:27:38who have done repeated work in our backyard,

2:27:40we contacted Timmy Fieler,

2:27:42who was the urban forestry technician with the city of Guelph

2:27:46to determine the validity of these concerns.

2:27:49She initially indicated your concerns about loss

2:27:52or damage to vegetation is understandable.

2:27:56Still, once learning that I shared a property line

2:28:03with 81 College Avenue West,

2:28:05she deferred from commenting further.

2:28:07I subsequently received correspondence from Rory Templeton,

2:28:11a landscape planner from the city of Guelph,

2:28:13who spoke about landowners' rights regarding pruning roots

2:28:18and limbs of neighboring trees that overhang a property,

2:28:21but he ignored consideration about the underlying root system

2:28:25and the potential for damage.

2:28:27In advance of this meeting,

2:28:29I provided each of you,

2:28:32mayor and city councillors,

2:28:33with an email thread of correspondence with city staff.

2:28:37Evidently, I was only informed yesterday at 1.05 a.m.

2:28:40by city staff that they have no intention

2:28:43to seek recommendations

2:28:44from an independent certified arborist on the matter,

2:28:47despite this directly contradicting

2:28:49their earlier communication with me.

2:28:52It was city staff that first made mention

2:28:54about this application having the potential

2:28:57to become a civil matter.

2:28:59Further, it was city staff on extremely short notice

2:29:02who invited me to hire at my own expense

2:29:05my own certified arborist.

2:29:07Accordingly, I did so with Jeff Thompson,

2:29:10a certified arborist, making a site visit yesterday.

2:29:14In advance of this meeting,

2:29:15I have also provided each of you,

2:29:18mayor and councillors, city councillors,

2:29:20with a five page memo from Thompson,

2:29:22Environment Planning and Design Limited

2:29:25that was prepared today

2:29:26and reaches very different conclusions

2:29:29from the tree management report

2:29:31which was submitted in the applicant's proposal.

2:29:34I obviously do not have sufficient time now

2:29:36to read the five page memo in full that was shared,

2:29:40but I would like to share with you statements from its summary.

2:29:43And so this is a reading from the summary

2:29:48of the certified arborist.

2:29:49He said, in my assessment, all of the trees of concern,

2:29:53tree number 25, 2830 and 32A,

2:29:57on the two properties will be impacted unnecessarily

2:30:00by the proposed rezoning and redevelopment.

2:30:04The applicant's tree management report, Hill 2025,

2:30:08does not meet the city of Guelph's

2:30:10tree protection standards from 2025.

2:30:13The report disregards the city of Guelph's

2:30:16minimum tree protection zone.

2:30:19You and your neighbors are justifiably concerned

2:30:22when this application also has the potential

2:30:24to flood and contaminate their properties

2:30:27with de-icing chlorides.

2:30:29It is important to remember that you and your neighbors

2:30:31contribute to and maintain green infrastructure,

2:30:34trees, stormwater, infiltration, et cetera,

2:30:38to the neighborhood's benefit and the city's benefit.

2:30:41The four trees of concern discussed here

2:30:43have a combined value of over $200,000.

2:30:47You have been actively involved in the city of Guelph's

2:30:50process, which is intended to involve the public,

2:30:52encourages transparency, is intended to balance

2:30:56the community's interests.

2:30:58Unfortunately, when you receive an email from city of Guelph's

2:31:01staff on April 14th, that your tree concerns have been

2:31:04addressed through the tree management report,

2:31:07and he's quoting communication here from city staff,

2:31:11though it appears some trees are in close proximity to this line,

2:31:15I believe any work would be outside the minimum tree

2:31:18protection zone as outlined in the tree technical manual.

2:31:23In referring to that statement that he just made,

2:31:25he says by staff, he said it strikes him as disingenuous

2:31:29and does not reflect the critical information missing

2:31:32from the tree management report or address the inconsistencies

2:31:36in applying city of Guelph's tree protection

2:31:38standards to this application.

2:31:41The tree management report should be considered incomplete.

2:31:45And so importantly, the memo that I've just

2:31:49highlighted with the summary identifies

2:31:51that the applicant's submission does not meet the standards

2:31:54the city of Guelph has established.

2:31:56Evidently, city staff have not demonstrated

2:31:59due diligence in reviewing the application.

2:32:02Thanks for your consideration of these concerns,

2:32:04Mayor and city councilors, thank you.

2:32:08Okay, and thank you very much for coming

2:32:11and delegating as well.

2:32:13Is there a follow up at all for this delegation?

2:32:15Just a councillor, oh, go ahead.

2:32:17Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

2:32:19Through you to Mr. DuHirst, you used the words

2:32:23impacted unnecessarily with regards to the application.

2:32:28And I just want clarification because impacted unnecessarily

2:32:32means the application could go forward in my opinion

2:32:36if in fact there is some attempt to address

2:32:40your concern about those trees.

2:32:42Am I interpreting that right?

2:32:44When I made that statement, that was the statement

2:32:46of the certified arborist that at my own expense

2:32:49had a hire at the last moment.

2:32:53And that was quoting the summary statement

2:32:57from the five page memo that was shared with Mayor

2:32:59and all city councilors.

2:33:00Okay, thank you.

2:33:01Those were his statements, they were not.

2:33:03Yeah, you were just referencing them.

2:33:05Yeah, for sure.

2:33:08Okay, nothing further at this,

2:33:09oh, I'm so sorry, Councillor Caron.

2:33:12Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:33:13Thank you to the delegate.

2:33:15You heard the earlier delegation speak to the,

2:33:19that they won't be using chlorides on the grass pavers

2:33:24and would be willing to meet with neighbors

2:33:27who have concerns regarding vegetation.

2:33:29Does that give you some confidence

2:33:32as we move into site plan if this passes through tonight?

2:33:36I mean, I was glad to hear that salt's not going to be used,

2:33:39but no, it does not alleviate overall concerns

2:33:43just because with over $200,000 in assessed damage

2:33:48in terms of mature trees that will not survive

2:33:51based on what's being proposed,

2:33:53I have really great concerns that I have mature maples

2:33:57at the back of our yard,

2:34:00that the expert opinion was that they will not survive

2:34:05with what's being proposed.

2:34:06And then implications for our property

2:34:09as well as two other properties

2:34:11are significant flooding concerns.

2:34:14And so I still have great concern,

2:34:17even though I was happy to hear that salt would not be used.

2:34:22Okay, thanks.

2:34:25Thank you.

2:34:26I guess my follow-up question,

2:34:28similar to Councillor Caron's is just a yes or no.

2:34:31Are you willing to meet with them

2:34:33and talk about the issue?

2:34:35Yeah, I mean, I have met with them

2:34:37and I attended when they had the open meeting.

2:34:40You know, I'm registered as an attendee.

2:34:43Sure.

2:34:43And I gate, you know, I use that opportunity to raise

2:34:47and it was addressed in their report.

2:34:49I mean, it didn't attribute it to me specifically,

2:34:52but it was my comment that just said,

2:34:55I have concerns about the vegetation

2:34:58based on where the parking lot is situated.

2:35:00So I voiced that in response at the time,

2:35:04I felt it was very dismissive.

2:35:06I didn't feel like it was addressed suitably.

2:35:08And so I did use that opportunity

2:35:11to try to communicate my concerns.

2:35:13And I did so in a polite way,

2:35:17but at the same time made my concerns known.

2:35:19And then actually over a period of a few years,

2:35:22I've been in touch with city staff

2:35:24where they had acknowledged that

2:35:27they were going to be seeking recommendations

2:35:30from an independent certified arborist.

2:35:32And so when I raised the concerns,

2:35:35I was reassured by that, just thinking,

2:35:39oh, you know, if, you know,

2:35:42based on those recommendations from an independent party,

2:35:45if I learned that my concerns aren't valid,

2:35:48I will respect that.

2:35:50But then I found out at the last,

2:35:51you know, within 24 hours of this meeting

2:35:55that in fact they had changed course,

2:35:58were not seeking those recommendations.

2:36:00And basically it was suggested,

2:36:02if you want something further done, do it yourself.

2:36:05So I did in very short notice, in fact, do that.

2:36:09And then I was actually very alarmed when,

2:36:11to be honest, the concerns that were expressed

2:36:14were far greater than what my initial concerns were.

2:36:17Okay.

2:36:18I'll follow up with staff as well.

2:36:20Thank you for saying that.

2:36:22But my real question is,

2:36:26we have publicly heard tonight a very willingness

2:36:29on behalf of the applicant to meet, to discuss,

2:36:32to try to work things out.

2:36:34Are you willing to meet?

2:36:36Yeah, I have been willing to meet.

2:36:38And of course I continue to be.

2:36:41Perfect.

2:36:41That's all I needed to hear.

2:36:43Thank you.

2:36:43Okay. There's no other further questions.

2:36:46So we'll go on to the next delegation.

2:36:48Thank you again.

2:36:49Thanks.

2:36:50And yeah, go ahead.

2:36:51And then we'll go to you after okay.

2:36:57And again, just to have to state your name

2:36:59for the record as you come up.

2:37:00So please go right ahead.

2:37:01Thank you.

2:37:01Certainly.

2:37:03My name's AJ Van Eck.

2:37:05I've lived in Guelph for 43 years

2:37:07and six years on University Avenue.

2:37:10Good evening, mayor, counselors,

2:37:12and members of the public and other participants.

2:37:16I won't do a full 10 minutes here,

2:37:18but I also object to the rezoning application.

2:37:22I own two of the seven properties directly adjacent

2:37:25to the applicant's property.

2:37:27And those seven are the most affected

2:37:29by the proposed rezoning and development plan.

2:37:33For purposes of this meeting,

2:37:35I don't claim to represent other owners,

2:37:37though some that I've talked to do have similar concerns.

2:37:41In addition to this,

2:37:42the old University Neighborhood Association

2:37:45has provided a letter in support of,

2:37:48in support to the applicant.

2:37:50I wanna be clear that they did not contact myself

2:37:53or the neighbors that I have talked to

2:37:56with respect to this application

2:37:58and do not represent me or others in that group.

2:38:06I pose the rezoning of 81 college

2:38:08from going from low density residential

2:38:12to any type of institutional property,

2:38:14not just this proposal.

2:38:16It represents a significant change

2:38:19from this current zoning.

2:38:21And there are no other local institutional zone properties

2:38:24on the north side of college in that area.

2:38:30The application also includes setbacks

2:38:32and variance requests that will substantially

2:38:34affect neighboring properties.

2:38:37The development will create excessive light

2:38:40and noise pollution directly into our backyards,

2:38:43as well as other issues including privacy

2:38:48and in the noted email they sent to everyone on council.

2:38:55The constant events, excessive parking on University,

2:38:58noise and garbage blowing onto our properties

2:39:01has been a regular nuisance for me.

2:39:05And by law and zoning staff have also refused request

2:39:07to take action.

2:39:11Seems to me that the rezoning application

2:39:12should have been discussed prior to its illegal use.

2:39:17The city staff recommendation report

2:39:18also appears to have recommended approval

2:39:21of the applicant's proposal with few comments,

2:39:24conditions or changes.

2:39:29University Avenue is currently being reduced in size this summer

2:39:34with a road construction project.

2:39:37And we'll have parking on one side,

2:39:40further exacerbating the parking issue.

2:39:44College Avenue has also been reduced in size

2:39:46and there seem to be no mention of cutoff lanes

2:39:49to support changes in traffic flow.

2:39:52And traffic volumes from the upcoming University of residence

2:39:55in addition to this proposal

2:39:58will likely overwhelm College Avenue.

2:40:01The same time the applicant is asking for significant

2:40:04reduction in the amount of parking

2:40:06from the amount required normally by the city.

2:40:11And in spite of the claim about no driving being done

2:40:15on the said Sabbath day, there have been many significant

2:40:19numbers of events with dozens of cars

2:40:21in and dating University Avenue.

2:40:28Lot setback for Ainsons will affect our privacy

2:40:31and our existing vegetation as noted by Tim

2:40:35and also appear to be simply accepted.

2:40:39The applicant has been working on this proposal

2:40:41for two years with planners

2:40:42and has been in consultation with city staff and council.

2:40:46I feel that it would be fair to defer a decision

2:40:48for six to nine months to allow other concerned residents

2:40:51to hire our own experts and obtain either an applicant

2:40:55withdrawal or changes to the application

2:40:57would provide less impact to the neighborhood

2:41:00before such a substantive change is approved.

2:41:04Thank you council for your consideration.

2:41:07And thank you for coming as well.

2:41:08Is there a follow up for this delegation at all?

2:41:12There is not, thank you very much.

2:41:13Thank you.

2:41:14Yep.

2:41:15And oh, sorry, there was please stay.

2:41:17I'm sorry, I did not see Councillor Caton with a question.

2:41:19Go ahead, Councillor Caton.

2:41:21No worries, through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:41:23I was just wondering, I had heard through the past delegation

2:41:27that a lot of the events and things were being done

2:41:29in a tent outdoors.

2:41:31So when they create a building for these events to be held in

2:41:36might not not like reduce some of the noise for the neighbors

2:41:39because it'll be within a building envelope then.

2:41:44I understand that it would probably reduce the noise.

2:41:46However, the parking is the issue

2:41:50that I was referring to on that topic.

2:41:54Okay, thank you so much.

2:41:55Because they've reduced it down to I think 11 in total.

2:41:59I think it really maintains, still is an issue.

2:42:05Thank you.

2:42:07Thank you.

2:42:08Okay, thank you, Councillor Caton.

2:42:10And for real this time, there's no further questions.

2:42:12I'm sorry, thank you very much.

2:42:14Okay, and finally we have our last delegate.

2:42:25Welcome.

2:42:26Please state your name and then you have up to 10 minutes

2:42:27if you need it to, okay, go ahead.

2:42:30So dear Mayor, dear Councillors and staff

2:42:32and everyone who's here, my name is Liz Meiring.

2:42:36I'm a long time resident of the neighborhood.

2:42:40I've lived for 46 years in the OUNRA and 21 years

2:42:43at our current property, which is Kitty Corner

2:42:46to where this is occurring and is impacted

2:42:49and could be impacted by multiple things.

2:42:52We did get the notice, we're within the 120 meters.

2:42:55And I did attend the information meeting

2:42:58that Rabbi Raffae hosted and voiced some concerns there.

2:43:04I was online, so I'm not on the record as me there,

2:43:07but I was there.

2:43:08I do appreciate that they had that meeting

2:43:10and I appreciate the thought that has gone into this.

2:43:13My main concern is what does real consultation

2:43:17really look like, right?

2:43:19When you see, one of the concerns for example was

2:43:23we had the conversation around the buffers

2:43:27and what happened after a consultation is the buffer

2:43:30got put down from three meters to zero meters, right?

2:43:33That was a new thing.

2:43:34I'm not quite sure.

2:43:35Today we learned and it was a bit confusing,

2:43:37I'll frankly say, that the actual recommendation

2:43:42is that it be not zero meters, but three meters.

2:43:44But I guess it's just the 1.2 meter,

2:43:50which is along the whole side where I voiced my concerns

2:43:52about the four properties that abut this,

2:43:54that are gonna be effected,

2:43:55the trees are gonna be effected,

2:43:56that is going to really change the nature

2:44:01of the neighborhood.

2:44:02I think there should be proper communication

2:44:04about that kind of thing.

2:44:05And acknowledgement of concerns.

2:44:07Why does it have to be 1.2 meters?

2:44:09Why can't it be three?

2:44:11I don't understand that.

2:44:12I don't feel like I've had explained to me,

2:44:14and I did read, we've downloaded all the documents

2:44:17and looked at them, but it's actually

2:44:18frankly really confusing.

2:44:19Same thing with the tree plan.

2:44:21There are rules around this.

2:44:22So I welcome the dialogue, I'm in favor of things like,

2:44:27many things that actually the development is trying to do.

2:44:31I think we need to have,

2:44:35diversify our use of land and the daycare,

2:44:37I think is in principle a good thing.

2:44:39But again, we had questions around

2:44:41why does the parking have to be the way it is?

2:44:43And I would like to understand better why it is that way.

2:44:46I feel like I've been told, I get to say things,

2:44:49other people get to say things,

2:44:50and then someone goes ahead with something

2:44:52without real actual discussion and consultation

2:44:55and communication, that's my concern.

2:44:58I see that there has been some,

2:44:59I appreciate one of my concerns also was about

2:45:01traffic impact because there's gonna be all those buildings

2:45:05that go up on College Ave, there's gonna be a lot of traffic.

2:45:09I think it's difficult to get into that site,

2:45:11I would have liked to see the entrance way

2:45:12a little further over, I don't see why the parking

2:45:14couldn't have been out front.

2:45:15Anyway, so there's these questions,

2:45:17and I'm happy to discuss with Rabbi Rafi.

2:45:19But I really think that good faith gets lost

2:45:25when there isn't a back and forth,

2:45:26when it feels like you're being told something

2:45:28and your concerns are not being heard.

2:45:32So thank you very much again for your delegation.

2:45:35And just before I mess up this time,

2:45:39I'm gonna just look around to see if there's any questions

2:45:41for you.

2:45:42There is not for real this time, so thank you very much.

2:45:46Maybe I'll just also say, I don't show up normally

2:45:48because I don't come and complain all the time.

2:45:51So we've seen lots of changes,

2:45:53I've seen lots of changes over many years.

2:45:55And this one, I would have liked to see things

2:45:58go differently.

2:45:59Okay, thank you, no problem, thank you for your delegation.

2:46:04Okay, so Council, it is back to us now.

2:46:09Councillor Caron and Downer both agreed to move

2:46:16the recommendations that are in front of us here.

2:46:19But so it's officially on the floor.

2:46:22But is there any questions and or comments at the same time?

2:46:27Did you, we'll go Cron and then Downer and then to Alt, okay?

2:46:34Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:46:36Questions to staff.

2:46:37So the delegates have brought up the first statutory

2:46:42meeting and we go straight into a decision meeting,

2:46:45which is not always our normal process.

2:46:48I know we do it for applications that are not something

2:46:53we perceive to be too controversial

2:46:56because it expedites the process.

2:46:57So I wonder, and I really hear the comment

2:47:03from the delegates about, we're raising some new issues

2:47:06tonight or in the last 24 hours via email

2:47:10that would normally be responded to

2:47:13between the first staff meeting and the second staff meeting.

2:47:16So can you give me a sense of why we're doing both tonight

2:47:21and whether staff feel there might be some benefit

2:47:25in bringing this back for decision

2:47:27at the next planning meeting to give time for the neighbors

2:47:31to meet with the proponent on some of these,

2:47:33very specific impact issues that shouldn't take too long

2:47:40to resolve recognizing that those are site plan issues.

2:47:44And I know that that's not why we're here tonight.

2:47:47So just a comment from staff on that.

2:47:51Yeah, through the mayor to the counselor.

2:47:52So the application in front of us is for a zoning

2:47:55by-law amendment, which has a 90 day clock

2:47:58according to the province.

2:47:59So when it was submitted and accepted

2:48:02as a complete formal application, we have 90 days.

2:48:04That is why we are here tonight.

2:48:06The applicants also took the step

2:48:09of having neighborhood meetings,

2:48:12which is not a legislative requirement, but is appreciated.

2:48:16And I do believe the dialogue has started with that.

2:48:19And there is, we definitely heard it's going

2:48:21to continue tonight.

2:48:22But the reason for sure, why there's no opportunity

2:48:26to do two meetings on this application

2:48:28is because of the 90 day timeline

2:48:30for a zoning by-law amendment only.

2:48:32The application we heard previously was

2:48:33for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law,

2:48:35which has 120 day clock, which allows us

2:48:39to have two meetings.

2:48:41The 90 day zoning by-law does not permit that anymore.

2:48:44Okay, thank you.

2:48:45That is very helpful.

2:48:47I knew the clock was ticking.

2:48:48I wasn't sure how fast it was ticking.

2:48:50So that's helpful.

2:48:51My second question is responding

2:48:53to some of the delegations,

2:48:55contrary tree impact information.

2:48:59So when you have a tree retention

2:49:05as part of the complete application from the applicant,

2:49:09and now we have a tree impact from a delegate

2:49:12that are in conflict with one another,

2:49:15my question is, is there an opportunity

2:49:18to get a neutral or a third party opinion

2:49:20before site plan is finalized

2:49:23so that city staff can amend perhaps the site plan

2:49:28to ensure that there's no adverse impact?

2:49:31Is that third party a possibility at this stage?

2:49:35Through to the mayor.

2:49:36First, for some background context,

2:49:39your correct, as part of the complete application,

2:49:41the applicant did provide a tree preservation inventory plan.

2:49:44And that plan is really just to assess the trees

2:49:47on the property, adjacent property,

2:49:49and we would review the setbacks to the property lines

2:49:54and assess basically, is there sufficient room

2:49:58for tree protection?

2:49:59And so there's some findings in that,

2:50:01but there's also requirement through site plan

2:50:04for the applicant to also submit a detailed

2:50:08tree preservation compensation and tree protection plan.

2:50:13And that's where the details would be assessed,

2:50:15because that's when we would know

2:50:16building envelopes, grading information,

2:50:20and certainly there's opportunity also to revise the plan.

2:50:25If through the investigations,

2:50:27there's again, tree protection zones,

2:50:30through the investigation, there would be measures taken

2:50:33to ensure that those trees are protected,

2:50:34because, and our tree technical manual

2:50:37guides that work as well.

2:50:39So we rely on arborist reports

2:50:41to provide that information that we review.

2:50:44We don't get into the position of having dueling arborists

2:50:49and on boundary trees or those type of things.

2:50:53But again, there's opportunity to adjust plans

2:50:58based on finding the detailed findings

2:51:00at the site plan stage.

2:51:03We can share that information.

2:51:05Site plan is not a public process,

2:51:07but we can still share that information as well.

2:51:10And I also add like the three meters step back

2:51:12of the parking area does meet

2:51:13our zoning bylaw requirements as well.

2:51:15Okay, I really appreciate that.

2:51:16And just to follow up to that,

2:51:17because I know we're here tonight

2:51:20for zoning bylaw amendment,

2:51:21so site plan is still to come.

2:51:22So if you determined that the current rendering

2:51:25that we have seen on the conceptual plan

2:51:27does not meet the tree technical guide

2:51:29just for the benefit of the delegates,

2:51:31you will adjust the site plan

2:51:33to ensure that it meets those regulations.

2:51:35That's what I'm understanding.

2:51:37That's correct.

2:51:38And again, there's other mitigation measures

2:51:40that we would explore through that

2:51:41if there was some findings.

2:51:43And in terms of stormwater impacts from runoff,

2:51:46that's obviously a site plan issue too,

2:51:48where we ensure that stormwater

2:51:50is just appropriately on site.

2:51:51Okay, thanks.

2:51:55Thank you.

2:51:55I think it's downer and then alt.

2:51:57Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

2:51:58And then to staff.

2:52:00Then on this, just going back to this tree thing,

2:52:03we don't want to get into dueling arbor,

2:52:05so I understand, but would there not be a regard

2:52:08for the information that was presented as well?

2:52:11Like when you get into those details in site plan,

2:52:14I agree, like what we have in front of us

2:52:16is a conceptual site plan.

2:52:18And that those details, once you get into that,

2:52:22will be worked out.

2:52:23Will you not have regard for the new information

2:52:26you've received from another arbor?

2:52:28So not that you get into a dueling thing,

2:52:30but just to see, I mean, you said that you're going

2:52:33to have to meet our own tree protection regulations.

2:52:38If that management plan isn't,

2:52:39as you know, isn't, doesn't,

2:52:42then you'll have to deal with that.

2:52:44Will you not?

2:52:45Through the mayor, you're correct.

2:52:47We can certainly look at that.

2:52:48I've not seen that information.

2:52:49Yeah.

2:52:50But yes, that's.

2:52:52So you'll be taking that into account,

2:52:54the information that was provided by the delegation.

2:52:56The other thing too, so like I've encouraged to hear

2:53:01that the neighbors are willing to meet with the applicants.

2:53:07And do staff have any objection to being,

2:53:10we have sort of done it through motions before,

2:53:13but I don't know that we need to,

2:53:15but would staff be willing to be at one of those meetings

2:53:18to sort of hear those, you know,

2:53:21the discussion between the applicant and the neighbors?

2:53:24Because I understand this is what the issues

2:53:27that are being raised are not the zoning issues.

2:53:30So well, to some degree they are,

2:53:32but they're mostly right down to the trees and drainage

2:53:36and those types of things.

2:53:39Staff are willing to participate in those discussions.

2:53:42Okay, so you're going to do that.

2:53:43And I think, oh, the other thing I was gonna ask about

2:53:48was fencing, I mean, privacy was one of the issues.

2:53:52We'd be, site plan would be looking at a solid wood fences,

2:53:56I'm assuming.

2:53:58That's, yes.

2:53:59It's usually the case around different,

2:54:03and lights that don't interfere with neighbors.

2:54:05We've seen that around.

2:54:07I've seen that at the different.

2:54:09That is another detail that we address.

2:54:11At a religious establishment in the city, yeah.

2:54:13Okay, thanks.

2:54:16Councillor Allt, please.

2:54:17Thank you.

2:54:17Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:54:19Most of my questions were actually answered.

2:54:21I was gonna ask same questions about trees

2:54:23as have been asked.

2:54:25The one question that I think still,

2:54:28I think needs clarification is the issue of parking.

2:54:31And more the location than anything else,

2:54:34and that the easement setback that we have

2:54:39two different answers on.

2:54:40It's either zero or it's three meters.

2:54:43And if we could get that clarified, please.

2:54:46Yes, through to the mayor.

2:54:48The original question from the applicant

2:54:49was a zero meter setback,

2:54:52but staff recommendation is three meter setback.

2:54:54And the applicant is also in agreement with that.

2:55:01The parking at the back.

2:55:03I was wondering just for the purposes

2:55:05of explaining to people why the park

2:55:08is at the back, if you could, please.

2:55:13Based on just a review of the entire site design,

2:55:17a lot of factors go into that.

2:55:18We like the buildings, obviously,

2:55:21building presence at the front of the street.

2:55:25We've talked about the easement,

2:55:27the constraint associated with that.

2:55:29It was an area where it was appropriate

2:55:32for where the driveway was.

2:55:34Just an overall review of the site design.

2:55:37Okay, thank you.

2:55:38And finally, this one might be for Ms. Wolke,

2:55:41I'm not certain.

2:55:43Because this is an exceptional meeting

2:55:46to hear the presentation and to approve it,

2:55:50I was wondering, is there any recourse

2:55:53for the adjacent residents,

2:55:56if we were to approve this tonight?

2:55:58Where could they go?

2:56:00What could they do?

2:56:00Or is this it?

2:56:07Yeah, through the mayor to the counselor.

2:56:09So the appeal rights for the adjacent properties

2:56:11have been removed by the province,

2:56:13so that is not in effect right now.

2:56:15So the recourse and what has been put forward tonight

2:56:18by the applicants is to have those meetings

2:56:20and to have continuing to have that dialogue

2:56:23with the adjacent property owners.

2:56:25Thank you very much.

2:56:26So I just want to clarify that.

2:56:27So the province has removed recourse

2:56:30for adjacent property owners.

2:56:32And that's a generic removal

2:56:35for all property owners everywhere.

2:56:38Through the mayor, that is correct

2:56:39in the province of Ontario.

2:56:40Thank you very much.

2:56:43Thanks, and finally, we have Kate, please.

2:56:45Councillor Kate.

2:56:48Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:56:50I was just wondering how the property taxes

2:56:51would work on a location,

2:56:53because it seems like it's got three different uses,

2:56:57religious, daycare, and residential.

2:57:03Yeah, through the mayor to the counselor.

2:57:04So the religious institution is exempt,

2:57:07but the private residents,

2:57:09we'd have to take a look at that

2:57:10and the purpose of that when it came in,

2:57:12what it was for,

2:57:13and they can apply for an exemption to that.

2:57:15And the ADU, if it depending again,

2:57:18if it's who lives there,

2:57:21it would be most likely to pay property taxes.

2:57:26And that's why you see in the report,

2:57:27there's a range of applicable taxes,

2:57:29because it depends on the actual end use

2:57:31and end users at the time of building permits.

2:57:35Great, thank you.

2:57:39So that would be like a,

2:57:41my mom grew up in a man's,

2:57:43like the house that's attached

2:57:45to Dublin Street United Church, right?

2:57:47So is that what you're trying to, similar?

2:57:50Yes, correct. Yeah, yeah, cause, okay.

2:57:53Okay, I see nothing further.

2:57:57So I am going to just close with comments

2:58:00and then call the vote.

2:58:02I think it was actually important

2:58:05for some of the questions in the probing

2:58:08from a counselor downer,

2:58:11Corrine and such to the degree to have it in the open

2:58:15that there is this willingness to have staff

2:58:20and some of the neighbors and the applicant and such

2:58:24that there's this willing,

2:58:25it's not a cut and dry tonight

2:58:26and you're just done and there's this willingness

2:58:28to move forward into the site plan

2:58:30where a lot of these things are going to be

2:58:33to be discussed further.

2:58:34I really appreciated also the proactive comments

2:58:39from the applicant who stated

2:58:42that they'd be very willing to meet.

2:58:44And so I think that's,

2:58:45that sends a really positive message as well.

2:58:48And so for me, I think the,

2:58:51and counselor downer has mentioned this well,

2:58:54this is a moment for the zoning for us

2:58:57to consider to approve.

2:58:59And I think this is a great application.

2:59:04I think that I do like the layout actually

2:59:07about how it all came together.

2:59:09I am very thrilled about the daycare component for our city

2:59:16and the faith-based institution that's going to be there

2:59:20as well for the Jewish community.

2:59:23I think that's wonderful too.

2:59:25And so I certainly will be supporting both portions

2:59:30of this and the approval as well.

2:59:33And I wish you all the best in the next steps

2:59:36that are ahead for this and to see it get going.

2:59:40So with that, I'll call the vote.

2:59:41Is anyone against the recommendations to approve

2:59:44and move this forward?

2:59:47Nobody, so that's a unanimous vote.

2:59:48So thank you very much.

2:59:51And with that, I think this is appropriate timing.

2:59:54I know we're getting into the later hours,

2:59:57but because the next item was,

3:00:00I think it was the next item, yes, was deferred,

3:00:02we are now left with only, yes, one item,

3:00:10which is the Downtown Community Planning

3:00:12Permitting Decision Report.

3:00:15It is exactly 821.

3:00:19We are going to come back here at 830.

3:00:21We're going to take a nine minute break,

3:00:23please just to get our blood flowing a little bit here.

3:00:27So we will see you in nine minutes.

3:07:56This is your one minute warning, everybody, okay?

3:08:37Okay, everybody, I'd like to ask my colleagues online,

3:08:40if they wouldn't mind just turning on their cameras.

3:08:43It is 830 on the dot.

3:08:48And speaking of time, my gut reaction thinks

3:08:55that this might take a while to wade through.

3:08:57So let's just all be very aware of time

3:09:00as we try to figure out where we're going on this one.

3:09:05So with that kicking us off,

3:09:09let's go with internal, our staff and consulting.

3:09:13So Will and Justine are gonna come up

3:09:17and they are gonna do a presentation for everybody

3:09:20about what's in front of us for today.

3:09:23And then we have some delegations

3:09:24that have signed up as well.

3:09:25So to both of you, thank you for coming over to you.

3:09:30All right, good evening, Mayor and Council.

3:09:33My name is Will Gregory, Project Manager,

3:09:35Policy Planning with the City of Guelph's Planning Division.

3:09:37I'm here to present the Downtown Community Planning

3:09:40Permit System for decision.

3:09:42I'm joined by Justine Giancola from Dillon Consulting,

3:09:44who has been supporting the development

3:09:46of the Downtown Community Planning Permit Bylaw,

3:09:48that is before council this evening.

3:09:50This is phase two of the CPPS project,

3:09:52which has been in development for two years.

3:09:55Over that time, staff have been working with the public

3:09:57and the development community to develop the CPPS

3:10:00in both Stone-Edenborough and Downtown

3:10:02as part of the city's Housing Accelerator Fund,

3:10:05commitments to improve affordability in Guelph.

3:10:08Since we last presented the CPPS to council in January,

3:10:12we have received considerable feedback to consider.

3:10:15In response, we have made revisions to the Bylaw,

3:10:17which we'll discuss in further detail in this presentation.

3:10:20The changes represent a balance

3:10:22between advancing the city's affordable housing goals

3:10:24and supporting the development community

3:10:26during difficult economic conditions.

3:10:28The ultimate affordable housing requirement

3:10:30represents a step in the direction

3:10:32towards the city's housing targets we need to get to,

3:10:34to see more affordable housing in Guelph.

3:10:37Included in the CPPS package for decision this evening

3:10:40is a new community planning permit bylaw for the Downtown,

3:10:43an update to the fee bylaw to right-size fees,

3:10:46and an official plan amendment to designate downtown

3:10:48as a CPP area and to update some land-use designations.

3:10:57This evening, we will review the CPPS tool and how it works.

3:11:01We'll summarize the comments we received before and after

3:11:04the January 20th council meeting and how we've responded.

3:11:07We'll present the changes we made to the CPP bylaw.

3:11:10Finally, we'll end with the next steps

3:11:11after today's council meetings.

3:11:14I'll now turn it over to Justine

3:11:15to go over the CPPS overview.

3:11:18Thanks, Will, and nice to see everyone again.

3:11:21Downtown Guelph is a priority growth area for the city.

3:11:25It's a major transit station area

3:11:27and is planned to achieve 200 people and jobs per hectare

3:11:30by 2051.

3:11:31This project implements OPA 106,

3:11:34which was the Downtown Heights study,

3:11:37which looked at how and where new, taller buildings

3:11:40may be permitted in the downtown,

3:11:43as well as design considerations that may be required.

3:11:46It also leverages the new zoning bylaw,

3:11:50which was approved in 2023.

3:11:52Thank you, Will.

3:11:54But one more slide, actually.

3:11:56Apologies.

3:11:58Oh, that went too much.

3:12:01Pardon me.

3:12:06Which was approved in 2023 to update the rules

3:12:09for development based on the city's official plan,

3:12:12as well as analysis of zoning trends and issues at the time.

3:12:16The CPPS is being piloted in two priority areas

3:12:19of the city, Stone Road and Edinburgh,

3:12:21which came into effect in the spring of 2025,

3:12:24and the second phase tonight being in the downtown.

3:12:28Both of these are intended to support

3:12:30the city's housing affordability strategy

3:12:33that identifies the need for 33%

3:12:36of all additional housing within the city to be affordable

3:12:39and the Housing Accelerator Fund,

3:12:42which is intended to incentivize affordable housing units.

3:12:46As required by legislation,

3:12:48OPA 105, which was the CPPS enabling policies,

3:12:53outlined the goals of a community planning permit system

3:12:56for the city, which include to support housing diversity

3:12:59and affordability, prioritize development applications

3:13:02that contribute to affordable housing options,

3:13:05and require the provision of new affordable housing

3:13:08to name a few.

3:13:10We've undertaken a comprehensive process,

3:13:13including many rounds of public and stakeholder engagement,

3:13:16building off of the housing affordability strategy

3:13:19and the downtown height study process.

3:13:22Will will be going over what we've heard

3:13:24in a little more detail, but we wanted to highlight

3:13:27that the CPP bylaw here has responded to comments

3:13:31and proposed revisions to facilities, services,

3:13:33and matters, transition regulations,

3:13:37updates to the fee schedule,

3:13:38and a refined phase in of affordable housing requirements

3:13:42within and outside of the OPA 106 maximum building heights.

3:13:53This project has been undertaken in five phases

3:13:56and started in 2024 with background analysis.

3:14:01We then pause the downtown community planning permit

3:14:03bylaw drafting to allow the city

3:14:06to complete the downtown height study,

3:14:08which culminated in OPA 106.

3:14:12OPA 106 identifies CPPS as a tool to implement the heights

3:14:17and the zoning bylaw was not updated to enable those heights

3:14:20since the CPPS was intended to do so.

3:14:24We've hosted an open house back in January, 2025

3:14:28to go through the key directions on the downtown CPPS.

3:14:31The statutory public open house was back

3:14:34in January of this year,

3:14:36and we also got a statutory public meeting

3:14:41later in January of this year,

3:14:44and it have gained a lot of feedback

3:14:45and input on the draft bylaw.

3:14:48This project builds off of the broader community

3:14:50and stakeholder input through the official plan,

3:14:53the downtown height study,

3:14:55and now implementing a community planning permit bylaw.

3:14:59In addition, staff have met with a broad range

3:15:01of stakeholders and those who've submitted

3:15:04through the process to help inform the final bylaw

3:15:06that you see in front of you today.

3:15:11So in terms of what a community planning permit system is,

3:15:14as a reminder, it is a tool under the Planning Act

3:15:18available to municipalities.

3:15:20It sits under and implements an official plan.

3:15:24CPP bylaw is similar to a zoning bylaw

3:15:27in that it's a land use regulatory tool

3:15:30that establishes the rules of development

3:15:32that apply to a property and will replace the zoning bylaw

3:15:35within the study area being the downtown.

3:15:39However, to help streamline development,

3:15:41it combines zoning matters, minor variance matters,

3:15:44and site plan matters into a single application

3:15:47and approval process.

3:15:49It's intended to speed up approval timelines

3:15:52by requiring an application under a CPPS

3:15:56with a decision within 45 days

3:15:59compared to approximately 180 days under the current system.

3:16:04It allows a municipality to require conditions of development

3:16:07to secure community needs such as affordable housing,

3:16:11which have been specifically identified

3:16:13in the city's in effect enabling policies, OPA 105.

3:16:18It also allows for flexibility in permitted uses

3:16:22by introducing discretionary use,

3:16:25which is a use that may be permitted

3:16:27subject to certain conditions or criteria

3:16:29defined in the bylaw.

3:16:35CPPS is a tool available to municipalities

3:16:38under the Planning Act, Section 70.2

3:16:41for the policy buffs out there,

3:16:43and Oregs 173-16, which defines the specific rules

3:16:49of using a CPPS.

3:16:51Under this regulation, municipalities may require

3:16:53facility services and matters.

3:16:55You could think of them as community benefits

3:16:57as a condition of approval of a development

3:17:00in exchange for a specified height of development

3:17:03that may be within the ranges permitted,

3:17:05such as like a Class I application,

3:17:08or within the variation that may be permitted,

3:17:11such as a Class II or a Class III application.

3:17:14The Oreg doesn't limit facility services and matters

3:17:18so long as it's proportionate

3:17:19and allows municipality to exchange height or density

3:17:23for things such as affordable housing

3:17:25and other community goods.

3:17:28If a municipality wants to use this part of the tool,

3:17:31it's not required, it's available,

3:17:33they are required to undertake the official plan

3:17:37enabling policies to establish the need

3:17:41for a proportional relationship

3:17:43between the facility services matters

3:17:45and the height or density that may be permitted.

3:17:49Your in effect OPA 105,

3:17:52which was adopted in April 2025,

3:17:55enables the CPPS generally in the city of Guelph

3:17:58and includes specific objectives

3:18:00of requiring new affordable housing,

3:18:03policies allowing the municipality to impose conditions

3:18:06to for approval of affordable housing,

3:18:09and policy noting that conditions may be in exchange

3:18:12for height and density,

3:18:13both within the permissions established by the bylaw

3:18:17or within the potential variations.

3:18:20In addition, the bylaw could have used OPA 106,

3:18:24maximum building heights as the Class II limit.

3:18:27You could have not taken your OPA 106

3:18:30and made it the Class I,

3:18:31you could have made the Class II limit

3:18:34and require then an applicant to justify

3:18:37how they could get to that additional height.

3:18:41However, given the desire for efficiency

3:18:43and to leverage the extensive community

3:18:45and stakeholder engagement process

3:18:47that went into OPA 106,

3:18:49staff are recommending making OPA 106,

3:18:52maximum building heights,

3:18:53the as of right Class I standard.

3:18:57Subject to the provision of specified facility services

3:19:00and matters for those looking to utilize

3:19:03that additional building height.

3:19:06I'll pass along to Will

3:19:07to go into a little bit more in the comments.

3:19:14Following the January public meeting,

3:19:16we received considerable interest from the public,

3:19:18which shaped some of the changes to the CPP bylaw

3:19:21that you see before you today.

3:19:25In total, we received 10 letters from interested parties

3:19:28in the development industry and effective public agencies.

3:19:31We solicited public comment

3:19:33through the city's Have Your Save webpage,

3:19:34which included a survey and a commenting function

3:19:37on the draft CPP bylaw through the online project page.

3:19:41In total, we received 15 survey responses

3:19:44and 10 comments and questions

3:19:45through the Have Your Save page from the general public.

3:19:48We met with each of the parties

3:19:49that submitted written comments,

3:19:51some more than once,

3:19:54and provided responses to online comments and questions.

3:19:59In total, we held 12 meetings with interested parties

3:20:02to work through the comments

3:20:03and make changes as appropriate.

3:20:05Overall, the feedback generally endorsed the use

3:20:07of the CPP as tool and the timelines

3:20:09that are associated with it,

3:20:11with many of the comments focusing on the community benefits.

3:20:17Some common themes,

3:20:18there were some common themes

3:20:19that emerged in the written correspondence.

3:20:22There's a detailed summary of staff's responses

3:20:24to the comments and attachment five of the staff package,

3:20:27but I'll just summarize some of the main things

3:20:28that we heard.

3:20:30We heard that the proposed affordable housing requirements

3:20:32would negatively impact development in the downtown.

3:20:35We heard a perception that the city was not following

3:20:37the province's regulations for the CPPS.

3:20:40We heard requests for clear transition provisions

3:20:43for in-progress zoning bylaw amendment applications,

3:20:45such as 70 Fountain Street,

3:20:47which held a public meeting in February.

3:20:50Finally, we heard a request for greater variation flexibility

3:20:53to the CPP bylaw's development standards.

3:20:56In some cases, we made changes to the bylaw

3:20:59to address concerns.

3:21:00In others, there's an opportunity for dialogue

3:21:02between city staff and interested parties

3:21:04on how the CPPS tool is set up

3:21:06under provincial regulations.

3:21:08Overall, staff are confident that the CPPS

3:21:10is in full compliance with OREG and the Planning Act.

3:21:14The downtown CPP bylaws requires facility services matters

3:21:17for height-approved in OPA 106,

3:21:19consistent with approaches in the Stone Road,

3:21:21Edinburgh CPP bylaw, that's already in effect,

3:21:23as well as recent CPP bylaws passed in Innisfil, Aurora.

3:21:30So now we'll go over some of the revisions

3:21:32we've actually made to the draft CPP bylaw.

3:21:37So in addition to the comments that we received,

3:21:40we also looked at best practice of in-progress

3:21:43and the recently adopted CPP bylaws elsewhere in Ontario,

3:21:46as well as some of our experience

3:21:48starting to implement the Stone Road,

3:21:49Edinburgh Road, CPP bylaw.

3:21:53So this kind of inventory,

3:21:55some of the changes that we made,

3:21:57we updated the exemptions provisions

3:21:59to have clear exemptions for residential projects,

3:22:01especially small-scale things like fences and sheds.

3:22:04We added new transition provisions

3:22:06for in-progress zoning bylaw amendment applications

3:22:09and established an opportunity for in-progress applications

3:22:11to go through the site plan application process

3:22:14within two years.

3:22:15We added a conditional approval expiration of three years

3:22:18to match the city's recently adopted

3:22:20water and wastewater capacity allocation policy,

3:22:22as well as opportunities for extensions.

3:22:25We updated the section seven site-specific standards

3:22:28to remove standards relating to maximum building height

3:22:30and minimum parking.

3:22:32We updated the bylaw to match the recent

3:22:34partial comprehensive zoning bylaw appeal settlement

3:22:36with the home builders,

3:22:38which included updates to the definitions

3:22:39by school parking standards in order to be consistent.

3:22:43We increased the class two variation thresholds

3:22:45for the new downtown precincts.

3:22:47Generally, standards have approximately 10% class two

3:22:50variation, instead of the around 5% we proposed in January.

3:22:54Finally, we updated the bylaw's affordable housing requirement

3:22:58to reach the OPA 106 maximum permitted heights.

3:23:02And with that, I'll turn it back over to Justine

3:23:03to go over some of the specifics of the revised bylaw.

3:23:10Thanks, Will.

3:23:11So the legislation does not state

3:23:16what types of things are considered,

3:23:17facility services matters,

3:23:20nor any limits on the amount that can be required

3:23:24as a condition of development.

3:23:26As such, the city could have identified

3:23:28a facility services matters charge,

3:23:30a financial contribution,

3:23:35just a charge, or a range of other things

3:23:37that the city could accept in exchange

3:23:39for additional building height when implementing OPA 106.

3:23:44Given the city's prioritization for affordable housing

3:23:47in the downtown, and in an abundance of caution

3:23:50to understand the development impacts,

3:23:52the city retained Watson and associates economists

3:23:56to assess the uplift provided by the additional height

3:24:00enabled through OPA 106.

3:24:02And what portion of affordable housing units

3:24:05could be added to a prototypical development scenario

3:24:09when allowing for those additional heights

3:24:11without any negative impact on the development feasibility.

3:24:15The October and November 2025 Watson technical memos

3:24:19identified that all scenarios explored,

3:24:22which included ownership and rental,

3:24:25mixed use developments with first floor commercial

3:24:27and condo or rental above,

3:24:30with a variety of different scenarios

3:24:32building out from six up to 24 stories,

3:24:36that in all the scenarios between 40 and 88%

3:24:39of the additional units enabled through OPA 106,

3:24:43building heights could be affordable

3:24:45without negatively impacting the pro forma results

3:24:48compared to the existing as a right conditions today.

3:24:53In the draft CPP bylaw brought forward

3:24:55at the statutory public meeting on January 20th, 2026,

3:24:59staff proposed a complete community charge

3:25:02aligned with the city's current CBC,

3:25:04as well as a graduated and phase in

3:25:06of affordable housing requirements

3:25:08based on the heights included in OPA 106

3:25:12until December 31st, 2027,

3:25:15followed by a permanent rate of 33%

3:25:18or one third of all additional units

3:25:20being required to be affordable

3:25:22in alignment with the Stone Road and Edinburgh CPP bylaw

3:25:26and to help contribute to the city's commitments

3:25:28under the house.

3:25:31As mentioned by Will, the majority of feedback

3:25:33on the city, the city received on the draft CPP bylaw

3:25:36was regarding concerns with the proposed facility services

3:25:40and matters required for building heights within OPA 106.

3:25:47Based on the feedback and concerns raised,

3:25:49staff are now recommending a significant reduction

3:25:52in the requirement for facility services and matters

3:25:55for buildings that are within the maximum building height

3:25:57of OPA 106.

3:25:59The refined requirement would see 5%

3:26:02of just those additional units associated

3:26:04with the increase in building heights as per schedule D

3:26:09and would only take effect on May 1st, 2027.

3:26:13These changes are intended to balance

3:26:15the city's affordable housing policies and goals

3:26:18as set out in the house

3:26:20with the economic realities expressed by builders today.

3:26:24If I were to provide a specific example,

3:26:27what this would mean is that a property

3:26:28that currently has zoning approvals for up to

3:26:32or equal to six stories

3:26:34and OPA 106 permitted up to 10 stories.

3:26:38If the developer wanted to take advantage

3:26:40of that additional height being provided

3:26:43based on the bylaw you see in front of you,

3:26:46it would be a Class 1 application.

3:26:49If it came in before May 1st, 2027,

3:26:52there would be no affordable housing requirements

3:26:55associated with that development.

3:26:57If it was after May 1st, 2027,

3:26:595% of the units above six stories,

3:27:02so the top four stories of that development

3:27:05would be required to be affordable.

3:27:08So if we were to just assume 10 units per floor, per story,

3:27:13to provide some example,

3:27:15this would equate to two of the total 100 units

3:27:20being affordable or 5% of the 40 units

3:27:24associated with the top four stories

3:27:27and a cash and lieu equivalent

3:27:29if someone did not want to provide affordable housing

3:27:31of $194,000.

3:27:35For developments proposing additional building height

3:27:37above OPA 106,

3:27:4033% of those additional units would need to be affordable

3:27:44in addition to the application meeting the criteria

3:27:47and requiring council approval

3:27:49as part of a Class 3 application.

3:27:53The CPP bylaw seeks to implement

3:27:55the maximum building heights enabled through OPA 106

3:27:58and it proposes to allow these heights

3:28:00as part of a Class 1 permit

3:28:02based on the provision of facility services and matters.

3:28:06Should a framework for facility services and matters

3:28:09not be approved today,

3:28:11as part of these as of right permissions,

3:28:13there will not be another opportunity

3:28:15to require these in the future

3:28:16and this is likely to have the largest amount,

3:28:19this is likely the largest amount of additional height

3:28:22the city may contemplate increasing

3:28:24in a single planning approval

3:28:27and furthermore is within your downtown area

3:28:29where all your amenities and transit exist.

3:28:37The affordable housing requirements

3:28:40in exchange for additional height

3:28:41only applies to sites where the CPP bylaw

3:28:44is actually increasing permitted heights.

3:28:48So we've received comments about inconsistency

3:28:50and how it's being applied.

3:28:52That's because it's only being applied

3:28:54where the OPA is actually enabling additional height

3:28:57on those properties.

3:28:59Sites where OPA 106 enables additional height

3:29:02would be subject to the requirements of affordable housing

3:29:06intended to be proportionate

3:29:07with the additional height being granted.

3:29:10Sites with existing height permissions

3:29:12in the city's current zoning bylaw

3:29:13have no requirement to provide affordable housing

3:29:16or in kind contributions.

3:29:18Only the complete community charge

3:29:21which may apply to these sites

3:29:22and is aligned with the CBC charges today.

3:29:28While the CPP bylaw builds off of the new zoning bylaw,

3:29:32it also establishes opportunity

3:29:33for more flexibility and implementation.

3:29:36With staff having the ability to improve developments

3:29:39that include variation within those defined limits.

3:29:43And these are, this is an item Will mentioned earlier

3:29:46that we've reconsidered and made some proposed revisions to.

3:29:52Following the last round of engagement of feedback,

3:29:54staff have proposed revisions to some specific limits

3:29:57such as to increase a number of them

3:30:00that were proposed at 5% up to 10%.

3:30:05To help staff and council determine

3:30:07whether the requested variation is appropriate,

3:30:10the CPP bylaw sets out criteria

3:30:13that it follows the requirements and objectives

3:30:16of the CPP bylaw, aligns with the city's official plan,

3:30:20considers guidelines from the province, region,

3:30:22and the city and technical studies,

3:30:24and identifies and mitigates potential offsite impact

3:30:27where appropriate.

3:30:29So it's not a guarantee that those variations

3:30:31would be approved, it is an ability to consider

3:30:35those on the application by application perspective.

3:30:39We've also recommended limits

3:30:41to a class recouncil approval for maximum building height

3:30:44above OPA 106 of 20%,

3:30:48above which would require an applicant

3:30:50to undertake an amendment to the CPP bylaw.

3:30:56Another area of proposed changes

3:30:58since the statutory public meeting

3:31:00is within the transition precincts

3:31:03and site specific provisions.

3:31:05We've recommended expanding transition provisions

3:31:07for in-process zoning bylaw amendments

3:31:09to add some clarity to the city's intent.

3:31:12We've updated the low density residential permissions

3:31:16to provisions, pardon me,

3:31:17to reflect the standards of the downtown.

3:31:19And we've also updated the site specific precinct

3:31:22for Duke and Ferguson Street to allow approved height

3:31:25and correspond with the submitted urban design master plan.

3:31:31Back to you, Will.

3:31:34Thanks, and we're nearing the conclusion.

3:31:39The final piece that we wanna highlight today

3:31:42is the changes to the CPPS development review fees.

3:31:47The changes are intended to right size the fees,

3:31:50to the scale the review,

3:31:51and to have consistency with the site plan process.

3:31:54The goal is to ensure that equivalent projects

3:31:56have consistent fees within the CPP bylaw area

3:31:59and outside the CPP bylaw.

3:32:01In other words, if a project requires

3:32:03the equivalent of a minor variance,

3:32:05you'll pay the same amount

3:32:06if you're going through a CPP application

3:32:09or through the Committee of Adjustment as a minor variance.

3:32:12To achieve this, we created a new single dwelling

3:32:15slash accessory level fee that replicates

3:32:17the cost of a minor variance before the Committee of Adjustment,

3:32:19which was not included in the current CPP fee schedule.

3:32:24For the existing minor and major project levels,

3:32:27we reduced the class to minor and major fees in some cases

3:32:30and added in review specific fees like pre-submission fees

3:32:34or amendments to executed fees

3:32:35to ensure that we're charging the same levels of fees

3:32:39for site plan level projects within the CPP area and without.

3:32:44Finally, the fee bylaw proposals also last staff to waive

3:32:47or reduce variable fees included forest sum based fees.

3:32:51And it's important to note,

3:32:52unlike everything else we've talked about,

3:32:54the changes to the fee bylaw will apply

3:32:56in Stone Road, Edinburgh Road and downtown.

3:32:59And only the fee bylaw needs to be amended

3:33:03in order to achieve that.

3:33:04Amendment to the Stone Road, Edinburgh Road,

3:33:06CPP bylaw is not required.

3:33:12All right, so let's look at the next steps.

3:33:16The bylaw we were proposing today seeks to streamline

3:33:19the development review process

3:33:21and to increase the city's supply of affordable units

3:33:24downtown.

3:33:25The affordability threshold seeks to provide housing

3:33:27for working professionals like nurses, teachers,

3:33:30police officers and some cases city staff

3:33:32to ensure that working professionals

3:33:33have an affordable place to live in Guelph.

3:33:36Once the bylaw is approved by council,

3:33:38there will be an appeal period.

3:33:40If there are no appeals, the CPP bylaw will go into effect

3:33:42at the end of the appeal period.

3:33:45Staff will continue to work on implementation

3:33:47and educational materials for both Stone Road,

3:33:49Edinburgh Road and for downtown.

3:33:51And hopefully before long,

3:33:52staff will be processing CPP applications downtown.

3:33:58All right, that's all we have.

3:34:00Thank you so much for your attention.

3:34:03And city staff and Justine are here

3:34:06to answer questions.

3:34:07Any questions you have about the CPP bylaw?

3:34:09Thank you so much.

3:34:12Great, then thank you very much for your presentation

3:34:15and we appreciate it.

3:34:15And we'll certainly get back to you

3:34:18as soon as we're done with hearing the delegations, okay?

3:34:21And speaking of delegations,

3:34:23our first one, David McCauley is here,

3:34:27has been here the whole time, patiently waiting.

3:34:32And is Kevin Thompson in the room?

3:34:34Okay, so you're in the wings, okay, Kevin?

3:34:39And just so everyone knows, this is five minutes,

3:34:42not 10, okay?

3:34:43So you'll hear the chime at four minutes and 30 seconds

3:34:47as you're warning before the five minute timer is up.

3:34:51And then the microphone gets turned off at five minutes.

3:34:54We don't like that, so don't let it get there.

3:34:56And then stick around just in case there's any questions

3:34:59of you from my colleagues or myself.

3:35:02David, thank you for waiting, it's over to you.

3:35:04Thank you, Mayor Guthrie and Council.

3:35:07I'm here independently as a semi-retired architect.

3:35:10So I'm not representing any individuals.

3:35:13I am representing the need in the community

3:35:17for affordable housing and that percentage is my concern.

3:35:22So I applaud staff and council for considering

3:35:25in the community planning permit system.

3:35:27I think it's gonna streamline the process

3:35:29and bring a lot of things together

3:35:30to facilitate more streamlined development.

3:35:34And certainly the housing affordability strategy

3:35:37is what I wanna reference primarily.

3:35:39That's documented, I'm sure everybody here knows,

3:35:42dated December 2024, which I believe

3:35:44was part of this council.

3:35:46So I wanna read some of the stats in there

3:35:49and on page three of that,

3:35:51it talks about affordable rentals and affordable ownership.

3:35:55And it talked about affordable ownership as being 18%

3:35:59of new ownership homes need to be affordable.

3:36:02I'm assuming in that that's ownership,

3:36:04which would include condos.

3:36:06For affordable rentals, they say 53%, that's 53%,

3:36:11not 5% of new rentals must be affordable.

3:36:15And there's some conditions to that.

3:36:17So we're looking at numbers here that are not aligned

3:36:21with what has been talked about in the presentation here.

3:36:25So I'm talking about the goals and the goals on page four

3:36:30and executive summary talk about our community access housing

3:36:34that is affordable throughout the city,

3:36:37not just in Stone Road area,

3:36:38not just in downtown, we're talking here.

3:36:41Goal two is our community contribute to diverse

3:36:44and inclusive housing options for everyone.

3:36:47So we're not talking about students,

3:36:50we're not talking about younger people,

3:36:51not talking about older people,

3:36:53we're talking about the full range of our community.

3:36:56And goal number three is our community understands

3:36:59and promotes the importance

3:37:00of long-term affordable housing options.

3:37:02So that's long-term affordable housing options.

3:37:04We're not looking at the short fall of,

3:37:07I know the predicament in terms of housing now

3:37:10is very severe.

3:37:12We don't know what the costs of buildings are.

3:37:13I've involved in a number of projects.

3:37:15It's hard to estimate what the costs are going to be,

3:37:18but we're looking long-term in this and providing affordable.

3:37:21That doesn't deplete the need for affordable housing.

3:37:24If anything, it's gonna increase the need

3:37:26from December of 2024.

3:37:30So if you want examples of that,

3:37:31I'm just gonna do a free ad here.

3:37:34It is for everybody, including council, planners,

3:37:37and developers to take a look at a documentary

3:37:41called Thinking Beyond the Market

3:37:43by a planning professor from the University of Waterloo.

3:37:46And it is directly concerned about

3:37:50the affordable housing issue

3:37:51and goes across Canada to give it really good examples

3:37:55of things that have been happening in many municipalities

3:37:58the size of Guelph larger and smaller.

3:38:01Unfortunately, no examples were shown in Guelph.

3:38:03I'd have to say, quite embarrassingly,

3:38:05but there are in Waterloo and Kitchener.

3:38:07So that's all I have to say.

3:38:08I'm well within the five minutes, I believe,

3:38:10but I'm more than happy to answer any questions.

3:38:15I think we have a degree of magnitude in this,

3:38:19and there's a lot of difference between 53% and 5%

3:38:22that's being allowed.

3:38:23So I'd like to really speak on behalf of the affordability

3:38:27need that we have in the city

3:38:28and try to increase that limit.

3:38:30Something more reasonable that's more in line

3:38:32with what has been agreed basically

3:38:35as a need in the community.

3:38:37Okay.

3:38:38Great.

3:38:39Thank you, David.

3:38:40We appreciate your delegation and patience

3:38:43to get to the microphone tonight.

3:38:45I saw a hand go up here, Guller.

3:38:47I saw one up here, Councillor Busuttil.

3:38:50So go ahead, Councillor Goller.

3:38:53Thank you for your presentation, Mr. McCulley,

3:38:55and I appreciate that you have experience doing builds.

3:39:00I'm looking at what is being recommended here,

3:39:05and part of the self-recommendation is to do 5%

3:39:10on heights above a certain level.

3:39:14From your perspective, having done builds,

3:39:16what would be more equitable?

3:39:18Would it be like 5% on any building

3:39:21that gets built downtown?

3:39:23Acknowledging that through the system,

3:39:24we cannot regulate outside of the downtown.

3:39:26So sticking with this major transit area,

3:39:29what would you see as a more equitable way

3:39:31of distributing this requirement?

3:39:35I would say a much higher rate than 5%.

3:39:39That's kind of an arbitrary number,

3:39:41but the numbers I can see that I can't dispute,

3:39:43and I'm not a social worker and I'm not a planner,

3:39:46is the numbers that are agreed to

3:39:48in the housing strategy, and that was very clear.

3:39:53I read the numbers and we're nowhere near 5%,

3:39:57and that's not across the board.

3:39:58So if the need is 53% and you're offering 5%,

3:40:01I mean, there's a lot of room to negotiate in that.

3:40:04But I think your experience as a builder,

3:40:07if you had been required to build 50% or 33%,

3:40:11would you have been able to make the math work

3:40:15for a building where that requirement was in place?

3:40:18I have two or three projects that are underway now.

3:40:21One of them particularly is not in the downtown area.

3:40:24The owner came to me and we talked to them,

3:40:27and they're gonna do 100% affordable.

3:40:30So that's one example.

3:40:31Another one is going to be at least 25% affordable.

3:40:34That's also not in the downtown area,

3:40:36but these are areas where they can absorb,

3:40:38and they're not high buildings, by any means.

3:40:40These are small ones that are having a big difference.

3:40:42I think the answer to affordability from my point of view

3:40:47would be to spread it through the city,

3:40:50not to build higher buildings, just to get affordable housing.

3:40:53I'd like to provide something that's in the fabric

3:40:56of the neighborhoods and fits into the neighborhoods,

3:40:58and I've done, as many of you know,

3:41:00a number of including Grace Gardens is one good example,

3:41:03where things are inserted into neighborhoods

3:41:06in a much more compatible way and with less controversy

3:41:11and mixing that population to make a homogenous neighborhood.

3:41:16And so I think this has to be spread across the city.

3:41:18Well, thank you, and through your worship,

3:41:19the last question.

3:41:20We have this document and this tool available to us today.

3:41:23Staff said this is one of the only opportunities

3:41:25that we have to put this in place.

3:41:28We cannot require something across the city today.

3:41:32Would it make more sense, from your perspective,

3:41:34to not approve any requirements for affordable housing

3:41:37as part of the community planning permit system,

3:41:40and wait for something else to be spread across the city,

3:41:43or to implement something today,

3:41:45and then figure out what to do with the rest of the city later?

3:41:50My view is that you're setting a precedent with us,

3:41:53and when you say 5%, I think it leaves room

3:41:56for other places as they come up,

3:41:59and housing plans come forward,

3:42:01funding a bill of building with Canada bills

3:42:02and that type of thing,

3:42:03a number of projects that are working in that,

3:42:05and I think you're setting a dangerous precedent

3:42:08if you go with 5%.

3:42:10So to be clear, you think that we should set a percentage

3:42:14today across the downtown,

3:42:16and then figure the rest of the city later?

3:42:18Yes.

3:42:19Okay, thank you.

3:42:21Thank you.

3:42:22So, Bousatil, Downer, and then Alt, okay?

3:42:25Thank you.

3:42:26I think my question's already been answered,

3:42:27but I wanted to thank you for your delegation,

3:42:30your presentation, and recognizing Council's unanimous approval

3:42:34of the Housing Affordability Strategy,

3:42:36including those goals that you referenced in here,

3:42:40and I was going to be asking,

3:42:43in your presentation, you were saying 5% isn't enough.

3:42:47I was going to ask you if there was a magic number,

3:42:49but you said no, that that would be variable

3:42:51throughout neighborhoods and the downtown

3:42:55and other kinds of areas.

3:42:56Is that fair?

3:42:58Yes, I'd say that.

3:42:59I mean, at 5% we're not coming anywhere near to the needs

3:43:03that have been expressed.

3:43:05If you go with 53%, maybe you're very close

3:43:07to addressing those needs,

3:43:10but I say that's probably not feasible.

3:43:13So, if something's in between,

3:43:14it's probably going to address the issue

3:43:16and start to move the dial in the direction

3:43:18of satisfying the need for affordable housing

3:43:21across the board.

3:43:22Thank you, and I just want to say thank you

3:43:24for your goodwill development work

3:43:26in the community as well.

3:43:28All right, thank you, and Downer, then Alt?

3:43:31Yes, so I, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

3:43:33So, Ms. McCall, I don't want to back you into a corner game,

3:43:36but the original CPPS system had a sliding scale,

3:43:42so it had the 5% up to six stories,

3:43:45a 10% seven to 14 stories,

3:43:47and 33% at 15 to 18 stories.

3:43:50So, is that something closer to what you think

3:43:53would be in more alignment

3:43:54with the affordable housing strategy?

3:43:56It's not the 53, but it does take us closer.

3:44:00I think it's better, but the example it was given

3:44:03by Justina, I believe it was, kind of spelled that out,

3:44:06and I think if the numbers were correct in that,

3:44:09was it a 10 story building?

3:44:12It was a 10 story building, so that would be two.

3:44:16That's correct, it were two,

3:44:17and then I think for the first six floors,

3:44:19there were none, was that correct?

3:44:21I'm not sure about that.

3:44:23Okay, so in a 10 story building,

3:44:24you're getting two, two or four units.

3:44:27That's under the flat 5% that they're recommending tonight,

3:44:31but the previous iteration of this by-law

3:44:35had it at 5, 10 and 33%.

3:44:41Yeah, I just don't see the numbers coming up

3:44:44to meet the need, really.

3:44:48Okay, thank you, and Alt please.

3:44:52Mr. McCauley, thank you very much for your presentation.

3:44:56I was very much intrigued by your statement

3:44:59that you're involved in a number of projects,

3:45:01one of which is 100% affordable.

3:45:04And I'm not here to debate whether 100% affordable

3:45:10is achievable everywhere,

3:45:12but I am wondering if you could outline

3:45:15how do you get to more affordability

3:45:18from your professional experience as an architect,

3:45:21and maybe also probably as a financier, I don't know.

3:45:27Well, I guess Phil, the answer to that question

3:45:29is go see the movie.

3:45:30Sorry, I didn't hear you.

3:45:31Go and see the documentary.

3:45:32I think you'll see the examples there,

3:45:33but by and large what they're talking about

3:45:36is not-for-profits, and we're working with a number

3:45:40of not-for-profits now that are working

3:45:42for affordable housing.

3:45:45One example I know is the Abbey Field House,

3:45:47they're looking at $2,500 a month for everything included

3:45:51that you'd get in a retirement home.

3:45:53It's a not-for-profit social agency,

3:45:56because it's operating that way,

3:45:57they're able to offer 2,500 a month,

3:45:59and I think anybody would say that's a good deal

3:46:01for a senior group home, you could say, up to 16 units.

3:46:06So that's one good example I could just spell it on.

3:46:08I've been involved in a number of projects

3:46:11outside Guelph in that model, so you could look that up.

3:46:15So that's one way of doing it,

3:46:18and we're looking also at one,

3:46:20there's another project I'm working on in Kitchener,

3:46:22that's a blend, so it is for-profit, it's rental,

3:46:25and there's a number of things like senior women

3:46:26living with women sort of things,

3:46:28so it's a communalist assembly.

3:46:30So that's another example where I'm living

3:46:32in a co-housing community, it's much more affordable

3:46:34to live that way than it is independently

3:46:37in 12 different households.

3:46:39So those are just two good examples

3:46:40that I could just put out there,

3:46:42ways that we can achieve the affordability

3:46:44with a good lifestyle and a healthy lifestyle.

3:46:47I'm hearing you say that both non-profit and for-profit,

3:46:51we can, affordable is achievable.

3:46:55Okay, next question, and again,

3:46:57this one gets into economics,

3:46:59and also reputational risk.

3:47:01I was wondering if you were able to appraise

3:47:04the inflationary and the reputational impact

3:47:07of the city doing nothing,

3:47:10or possibly just doing the bare minimum

3:47:13on the housing market and on the city?

3:47:17Well, I think it's well known, I can't state the numbers,

3:47:20but I know that the cost of having homeless people

3:47:23on the street is, my understanding is

3:47:26it's approaching $100,000 per person.

3:47:29If we can accommodate that to reduce the amount of,

3:47:32it measures emergency services,

3:47:34the justice system, the social system,

3:47:36mental health and the healthcare system,

3:47:38and the educational system,

3:47:40I think we're going ahead with that.

3:47:41So I think we're doing a similar thing

3:47:43with affordable housing, if you wanna say

3:47:44that that's what it's about.

3:47:46I think addressing the housing issue

3:47:47is gonna alleviate us from societal issues

3:47:50in a number of other sectors.

3:47:53So I think it comes down to housing in a lot of ways,

3:47:55and there's a lot of evidence to support that.

3:47:57Thank you very much.

3:48:00Thank you, I don't see any other questions,

3:48:02so thank you very much, Dave, appreciate it.

3:48:04And Kevin Thompson is coming

3:48:06from the Grand Highland's Home Builders Association.

3:48:11Looks based on 185 Woolwich Holdings,

3:48:15and then Ian Pannabaker is in the wings, okay?

3:48:17So Kevin, thank you for being here, it's over to you.

3:48:21Thank you, worship, good evening everyone.

3:48:23As mentioned, I'm here on behalf

3:48:24of the Grand Highland's Home Builders Association,

3:48:27as one client and also a private landowner, 185 Woolwich

3:48:30Holdings, Inc., which is the owner of 36th Cardigan Street,

3:48:33one of the properties that had the uplift

3:48:36through OPA 106 from six to 12 stories.

3:48:39So my comments are in relation generally

3:48:42to the affordable housing requirements.

3:48:44Both of those clients have equal concerns in that regard.

3:48:48We have submitted correspondence

3:48:50on behalf of our private landowner client,

3:48:52and we provided also a detailed legal opinion

3:48:54to the Home Builders Association,

3:48:55which was included as part of their written submissions

3:48:58for you today.

3:48:59Very lengthy, anyone who got through that, I commend you.

3:49:04To be clear, our position, I think,

3:49:06is fundamentally at odds with staff

3:49:08that we do not believe there is a legal authority

3:49:10to implement mandatory minimums of affordable housing

3:49:14through a CPP bylaw.

3:49:15It is only through an inclusionary zoning regime

3:49:18that those requirements can be imposed as minimums,

3:49:21and there's no debate,

3:49:22golf does not have inclusionary zoning,

3:49:23no one's suggesting they do.

3:49:25The issue really comes down to the interpretation

3:49:28of the authorizing regulation under the Planning Act,

3:49:30and whether you have the legal authority

3:49:32to impose mandatory minimums, be it 5% or 33%

3:49:36either within the range, up to 106 heights,

3:49:38or above the range.

3:49:40Quite simply, it's our opinion

3:49:41that the inclusionary zoning regime covers the field,

3:49:44and it is made clear when the province amended

3:49:47that Ontario regulation that Ms. John Kola mentioned.

3:49:51In 2018, it brought inclusionary zoning into CPP bylaws.

3:49:56It said you can, through a CPP bylaw,

3:49:59implement inclusionary zoning.

3:50:01There would be no need for that amendment

3:50:04if CPP bylaws could already implement affordable housing

3:50:08without any of the constraints

3:50:10that an inclusionary zoning regime has.

3:50:12If you can do both,

3:50:14if you can do both, affordable housing

3:50:16with no limits whatsoever as a facility, service, or matter

3:50:20in exchange for additional heights through a CPP bylaw,

3:50:24or you're constrained to very strict procedural requirements

3:50:26and a 5% cap through inclusionary zoning,

3:50:30why would you ever choose the latter?

3:50:31It doesn't make sense that the regulation

3:50:34would be interpreted that way.

3:50:37I appreciate I have five minutes here.

3:50:39I have written submissions.

3:50:40I don't want to belabor sort of the legalese points in there,

3:50:43but I do just commend that to you.

3:50:46It would be one thing for me standing before you

3:50:48as a lawyer and a representative of the development community

3:50:51to say this is not gonna get things built.

3:50:55But I was somewhat surprised to see a letter

3:50:58from the Guelph Community Health Center

3:51:01in the submissions for tonight

3:51:03that shares those same concerns.

3:51:05And I want to quote just from that letter,

3:51:07affordability requirements must not become a barrier

3:51:11to building.

3:51:12And so while even the community health center

3:51:14supports the intent of what is sought to be achieved here,

3:51:18they are even concerned that,

3:51:20we can't let perfection get in the way of the good here.

3:51:24If we impose requirements to go beyond statutory limits,

3:51:28shovels are not gonna get in the ground.

3:51:30And while I appreciate Mr. McCauley's comments

3:51:31and the need to have a broader strategy,

3:51:33and I completely agree, we need a better broader strategy

3:51:36to spread the affordable housing obligations

3:51:39across the downtown and across the city,

3:51:43this is not the way to do it.

3:51:44And imposing an inequitable requirement

3:51:46only on those properties that achieve the uplift

3:51:49through OPA 106 is not the way

3:51:51you're going to get shovels in the ground.

3:51:53I did look at Innisfil,

3:51:55that was one of the municipalities that Guelph modeled

3:51:57its CPP by law off of.

3:52:00Innisfil does not take facility services of matters

3:52:04inclusive of affordable housing for any uplift.

3:52:07It has an official plan prescribed maximum height,

3:52:11and that is your as of right class one.

3:52:13If you want to go above that with a class two variation,

3:52:16facility services and matters are imposed,

3:52:18and that includes affordable housing.

3:52:20If you want to go even further above that,

3:52:22that's a class three council application

3:52:24and additional facility services and matters,

3:52:26including more robust affordable housing

3:52:28can be negotiated in those contexts.

3:52:31Look to the city of Waterloo's draft, same approach.

3:52:33You have your baseline official plan amendment heights,

3:52:36the class one approves that height as of right.

3:52:40Going above that with a class two or a class three

3:52:42is where you invoke facility services and matters.

3:52:46I don't dispute that you can require

3:52:48what I'll call FSM within the class one heights.

3:52:51It just can't be affordable housing

3:52:53because of the way the Ontario regulation in 2018 was amended.

3:52:59We urge council to defer.

3:53:01You have time, you have until the end of this year

3:53:03to secure the half funding.

3:53:05We can go back, have additional consultations.

3:53:08We can get this right and bring this back in time

3:53:11to have this in place, implement 106 appropriately

3:53:14and then conformity and get shovels in the ground

3:53:17by the end of the year.

3:53:18Thank you.

3:53:20Okay, thank you very much for your presentation

3:53:23and I'll see if there's any questions at all.

3:53:25Councillor Goller, please.

3:53:27Thank you for your worship.

3:53:28Thank you for the letter and for your presentation.

3:53:32Could you help me envision?

3:53:34Because we're starting with the question

3:53:35of how do we build affordable housing?

3:53:37If you're saying that this is not the right tool,

3:53:39what do you see within what we have available?

3:53:41How do we get that housing built?

3:53:44Thank you through the mayor to councillor Goller.

3:53:45I'm not saying it's not the right tool.

3:53:46We're not opposing a CPP process in general in the downtown

3:53:51and we commend staff for all the work they've done

3:53:53to bring this forward.

3:53:54The issue is really the affordable housing mandatory minimums

3:53:58that have been built into this version.

3:54:00You can come back with a CPP bylaw

3:54:02that implements OPA 106 and that incentivizes

3:54:05affordable housing through bonus tight and density.

3:54:08And that's the direction that Waterloo

3:54:11is going, they haven't passed it yet,

3:54:12but that's the direction that Waterloo is going.

3:54:13It's a bonus height.

3:54:16So if you have 106, let's say you have 12 stories

3:54:19that were granted through OPA 106.

3:54:21If you want to build 12 stories, that is as of right.

3:54:23And that's the way a traditional zoning bylaw would treat it.

3:54:25You would simply do a conformity exercise

3:54:28to bring your zoning bylaw into conformity

3:54:30with the official plan.

3:54:3112 is the built form that has been established

3:54:33through the official plan.

3:54:35The zoning simply implements it.

3:54:36What I'm suggesting is the CPP bylaw

3:54:38should do the same thing.

3:54:39It should implement the height permissions

3:54:42up to the maximums of 106.

3:54:44A class two variance, staff level,

3:54:48can be additional bonus tight in exchange

3:54:50for facility services and matters in a classroom.

3:54:52It can be even more.

3:54:53The framework's already there.

3:54:54OPA 105 does allow for bonus tight and density

3:54:59above the OPA 106 height maximums.

3:55:02And staff are proposing a 20% cap

3:55:04and take no issue with that.

3:55:06So the tool is here.

3:55:08It just needs to be tweaked and improved

3:55:11and needs to be compliant with the planning act.

3:55:13And quite simply, it's not, in my opinion,

3:55:15right now, compliant.

3:55:16We're very close.

3:55:17OK, I appreciate that.

3:55:18And I can see the argument of going above what is approved.

3:55:22If there's any additional height, we

3:55:24ask 25% affordable or whatever it is.

3:55:27From your perspective, can the market

3:55:30bear an X percentage across all levels

3:55:34so that if we want anything built in the downtown,

3:55:37we need to have X percentage of affordable housing?

3:55:41Through the merit to the council.

3:55:42The issue, I think, is imposing set caps in the bylaw,

3:55:46as opposed to facility services and matters in exchange

3:55:49for bonus tight and density is meant

3:55:51to be treated the way section 37 benefits were originally done.

3:55:56It was community benefits in exchange

3:55:58for further height and density.

3:56:00Setting mandatory minimums, be it 5%, 25%, 33%,

3:56:03or is what's problematic here.

3:56:05Every site is different.

3:56:07And what is proportional and fair on any given site

3:56:09relative to its input costs is something

3:56:12that should be negotiated on a site by site basis.

3:56:15And so what may be appropriate here

3:56:17may not be appropriate in a more complex site,

3:56:21or a brownfield site, for example, downtown.

3:56:23So it really should be about allowing staff,

3:56:26giving staff the tools to negotiate facility services

3:56:31and matters, including affordable housing,

3:56:33above the 106 height caps.

3:56:38Thank you.

3:56:40Seeing nothing further, thank you very much.

3:56:43Your delegation, we appreciate it.

3:56:46And Ian, oh, Krista, yeah, go ahead.

3:56:51We'll just have our staff respond for something.

3:56:53Go ahead.

3:56:54Yeah, sorry, I just, just,

3:56:56I don't know if there's clarification needed,

3:56:58but we have the author of the Innisfil CPPS here

3:57:02and some of the statements that were said are incorrect.

3:57:05We can address that later, Mr. Mayor,

3:57:07but I do think that some of what was portrayed was wrong.

3:57:12No, I think right now is appropriate,

3:57:14just so it's butted up against the statements

3:57:16that were made, so go ahead.

3:57:19Thank you, Mayor.

3:57:20So a couple statements were made around the Innisfil

3:57:23and the Waterloo CPP bylaw that I would like to clarify.

3:57:26So for the Innisfil bylaw,

3:57:29which is an effect for Alcona and the shoreline,

3:57:32if I were to take an example like the mixed use precinct,

3:57:36which is where the majority of growth is intended to go,

3:57:39the Class I permission is for 14 or 15 meters.

3:57:43You could equate that to approximately five stories

3:57:47if we do three meters per story.

3:57:49Class II permission goes up to seven, sorry, 20 meters.

3:57:54You could equate that to approximately seven stories.

3:57:57And the OP permits up to eight.

3:57:59So they did not take the OP and make that the Class I standard

3:58:04and then only require facility services matters above that.

3:58:09They require 25% affordable housing

3:58:12for the jump from five stories up to seven stories.

3:58:17And then additional facility services

3:58:19and matters beyond that.

3:58:22In addition for the Waterloo bylaw, which is in draft,

3:58:26Waterloo is contemplating no additional height

3:58:29along the Herb Street corridor

3:58:32through a Class I, Class II or Council

3:58:35because they have committed maximum height permissions.

3:58:38They are only looking at a small amount of increased density.

3:58:42So again, I think those statements were inaccurate.

3:58:48Okay, thank you very much.

3:58:49We appreciate that.

3:58:51Ian, come on up, okay?

3:58:59Thank you.

3:59:00Great, thank you very much.

3:59:02I have actually prepared 10 minutes,

3:59:03so I'm gonna kind of ad-lib quickly my notes.

3:59:08I didn't say that in the agenda, quite frankly.

3:59:11I'm Ian Panabaker.

3:59:13I'm the Vice President of Development for Wood Development Group.

3:59:17We represent Plant Number Two downtown in the ward.

3:59:20It's been in consultation for a number of years now

3:59:23and is in staff's hands for review.

3:59:26And we're hopeful to get it to Council very soon.

3:59:29And wanted to acknowledge that we've been working with staff

3:59:33both on the height OPA last year

3:59:36and through this process.

3:59:38And we've had really good contact with the process,

3:59:40both processes as they evolved.

3:59:42Because we're ensnared in this

3:59:44as we're trying to bring an urban design master plan

3:59:46for 9.7 acres through a changing landscape of regulation

3:59:51and trying to make it work.

3:59:53And we appreciate everybody's time on this.

3:59:57I just wanted, we've provided submissions

4:00:00both before and also tonight.

4:00:03Don't wanna reiterate that too much.

4:00:05As has my planner, Tim Smith from Urban Strategies.

4:00:08I just wanted to take the time tonight

4:00:10to highlight some things for our own site.

4:00:15Because it's unique, because it's the last

4:00:17of the Urban Design Master Plan areas in the secondary plan.

4:00:20It's an odd duck.

4:00:22And I've said this before.

4:00:25But we have had a couple of things happen.

4:00:26So we have acquired a small piece of land

4:00:29on Elizabeth Street that completes our North parcel

4:00:32and gets rid of a missing tooth.

4:00:34And that's 39 Elizabeth Street.

4:00:37And this happened when things were already underway.

4:00:41So the maps that staff, which we appreciate

4:00:44or included in OPA 114, miss this one property.

4:00:50And we would beg councils leave to acknowledge

4:00:53that there's actually an amendment to be made on that map

4:00:57if possible to make the rear yard also mixed use too.

4:01:03Which it's currently not.

4:01:04It's just being held out because we weren't the owners of it.

4:01:07At the time the map was drawn.

4:01:11The other item for consideration is that,

4:01:14and Tim will take us through more of this,

4:01:16is that there are some unique features

4:01:18because of the layout of our site

4:01:20and the master plan nature of it.

4:01:22That we would benefit from a site specific consideration

4:01:26for the D2 precinct that we've been assigned.

4:01:28Again, with gratitude, because that actually aligns

4:01:31with much of the year in site master plan objectives.

4:01:36And if it was again to council's pleasure

4:01:39that if you could acknowledge a specialized zone

4:01:43or specialized precinct designation for that area,

4:01:46that would get rid of some of the basic variances

4:01:48that would be caused later on

4:01:51when we become applications under the CPPS.

4:01:54And it would just be a housekeeping thing

4:01:56that would allow the administration of the file,

4:01:59clarity and some confidence.

4:02:01So those are the site specific issues for us.

4:02:05I'd plant number two.

4:02:07And cycling, I just wanted to reiterate

4:02:09on the affordable housing provisions.

4:02:13I was at council before when it was 33%

4:02:17and was serious when I said when that was imposed,

4:02:21our project stopped.

4:02:22And so we appreciate the difference

4:02:26between 33 and 5% on our site.

4:02:31That said, we still on principle object

4:02:35to the imposition of affordable housing

4:02:38on as of right heights that we achieved last year

4:02:41with council's approval.

4:02:43We had given our case to council and to the community

4:02:47through multiple consultations with the ward residents

4:02:50on the challenges we have with redeveloping plan number two,

4:02:55Brownfield, major infrastructure renewals.

4:02:58It goes on the laundry list of kitchen sink items

4:03:01we have to do under the land cost for that site.

4:03:06And the imposition of the affordable housing

4:03:12adds an additional cost to the project

4:03:15that's already immensely complicated.

4:03:18It's not just us.

4:03:20Having been identified as one of the sites that has uplift,

4:03:23we find the inequity between that proposition

4:03:26of having stated our case about why we needed height

4:03:29and density in the first place to get the project valid

4:03:36has now been affected by this additional imposition.

4:03:40And we are different now from neighbor to neighbor

4:03:43and you're creating an inequitable landscape

4:03:45across downtown and indeed across the city

4:03:49because we're the only ones,

4:03:51the people who have been tagged with this,

4:03:53to bear additional cost.

4:03:55And that's not the right policy in the city.

4:04:00So we also would put forward again that.

4:04:07Okay, thank you again.

4:04:11And let me see if there's any questions for you.

4:04:14Okay, Councillor Collor.

4:04:16Thank you, Chair Worship.

4:04:18Thank you so much for your letters and your presentation.

4:04:21You were saying that this is not the way to do it.

4:04:24What would be in your opinion a more equitable way

4:04:27of imposing affordable housing across the downtown?

4:04:34It's a large question.

4:04:36And both Mr. Macaulay, a friend,