Committee of Adjustment

5:06Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the February 12th, 2026 hearing of the

5:13Guelph Committee of Adjustment. This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees

5:18appearing in person or remotely and is being live-streamed and recorded. Please be advised that

5:24public hearings form part of the official record and the words, names, and images of those participating

5:30shall be recorded and posted online. We have received regrets from member Fitzpatrick this evening

5:37who will not be attending the meeting. Before I outline the hearing format, if you are watching

5:43online and wish to speak to an application that's listed on our agenda and have not yet submitted

5:49a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is

5:54519-822-1260. That's 519-822-1260 and the extension is 2524. You'll receive instructions on how to

6:07participate if you call. For those attending the hearing in person, you'll also be given a chance

6:13to address our committee. A final call for delegations will be made when each applicant is called.

6:19The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at gulf.ca forward slash c-o-f-a.

6:25And I will remind myself and committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please

6:31mute your microphones when not in use. Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

6:39I'd also like to share the hearing format we'll be using to navigate through each application.

6:44Each applicant will be called by the secretary of treasure and the call-in number for those who

6:49wish to speak to an application shall be displayed on the screen. Afterwards, the applicant will be

6:55given the opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

7:02You'll hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have expired.

7:08If you are the applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.

7:14Following this, for some file, staff may provide a brief presentation. The committee will then be

7:21able to ask questions of the applicant and or staff. After that, we'll hear from the members of

7:27the public who wish to comment on an application. Please note that all comments should be addressed

7:33through myself, the chair, and please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others

7:39and focus on adding new information. Comments as well are limited to 10 minutes or less.

7:47You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

7:52For delegates that have advised staff in advance of hearing that they wish to display a presentation,

7:58your presentation shall be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the podium

8:03for delegates in person to advance their slides. Any members of the public who have submitted a

8:09request to speak prior to the hearing, excuse me, I beg your pardon, for those wishing to,

8:23any member of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing will be

8:28the first invited to provide comments. For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak

8:33to an application and have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call

8:38the number displayed on the screen now. For those attending the hearing in person, you will also

8:43be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address our committee. Once all comments from

8:49the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity to respond to

8:55the comments made. Finally, as chair, I will turn to my committee members for emotion and

9:01deliberation, as well as a vote on the application. When the committee is making its decision on an

9:07application, as chair, I will be asking the secretary-treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

9:13Our secretary-treasurer will call each of the members' names, and each member will respond if

9:18they are in favor or opposed to the motion, and I will announce the results of the vote.

9:29If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, you must submit a written request.

9:35A written request, a written request, can be made by contacting staff using the contact information

9:43shown on the screen. To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofa at

9:51gwellf.ca with your name, the file number that you're interested in. Please note that owners

9:57and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision. At this point, I'll ask

10:05member Mir to provide our territorial acknowledgement, and I'd ask those that can please stand while we do so.

10:18Thanks, chair. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in

10:25golf, a city built over rich indigenous streets. We are guests here, and we should reflect upon

10:33the responsibility to take care for this land, the people who live here today, and the generations to

10:40come. If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make

10:47those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call golf has served as traditional

10:53lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Airti

11:02and Daimurank and the Haudenosaunee. This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the

11:10Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Golf lies directly adjacent to the Hell Demand tract

11:18and is part of a long-established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

11:25Many First Nations in Europe and Metis peoples have come from across Turtle Island called

11:32Golf Home today. Thanks. Thank you again, member Mir. Well put. I do have a one housekeeping item

11:44from our last hearing, which is confirming the vice chair position for 2026. Remember,

11:50Goodfellow was nominated at the January 15th hearing, but she was absent last month, so we need to

11:57confirm that she accepts the nomination before it becomes final. I see member Goodfellow online.

12:04She's not present, but she is with us virtually. Member Goodfellow, do you accept the nomination

12:10of vice chair for 2026? I do. Thank you, chair. Thank you, and thank you for your continued

12:20work on the committee. So with that, I'd like to congratulate you for your election to vice chair.

12:31With that housekeeping out of the way, committee members, are there any disclosure of pecuniary

12:37interest? I see none. I will now ask for approval of our last minutes. Do we have a mover?

12:50Member Mir, seconder. Member Mambreno, all in favor. I believe that's carried,

12:58Madam Secretary Treasurer. I have confirmed with our Secretary Treasurer that we do not

13:03have any deferral requests. So at this point, let me call on the Secretary Treasurer for our first

13:10applicant. The first application is file A-6 size 26, variance to permit increased rear yard

13:19coverage for proposed additional dwelling unit within a separate building at 126 Palmer Street.

13:25I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so

13:30by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

13:39And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

13:45Is the applicant present in the chamber? Yes, please come forward.

14:02Welcome. Can you state your name and your relationship to this application for the

14:06record, please? Yes, I am a May Puthon and I'm the owner and applicant of this property and this

14:11proposal. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning? Yes, both signs

14:18corner lot. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes, I have read them.

14:25I'm in agreement. I have one question. Well, you have 10 minutes. Please make use of

14:32as much of that time as you'd like. Okay, thank you. So I won't review what it is, but Mike,

14:39one question is, it was approved with a condition and the condition is the tree inventory and

14:46preservation plan. And the question is, there are no trees that meet this qualification on this

14:56property. So I'm just wondering if this is a boiler plate, claws or condition. And if it is,

15:03could this be acknowledged before I'm required to hire an arborist and tell me that there are no

15:09trees that qualify? Okay. Is that the extent of your presentation? Okay. Then perhaps we can ask

15:22staff who's present if this is the case. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you or not Mr. Mayor,

15:30Mr. Chair, sorry. Through you. That is just a standard condition that we have on most developments

15:36within the city. That's something that the wording of the condition says to the satisfaction of the

15:41general manager of planning and building. We put that little clause in there so that way we can

15:45review with our landscape planner. And if he's satisfied that you don't need to do the full

15:51tree inventory and preservation plan, then that's something that he can waive without you having

15:54to hire an arborist. So we can have some discussions in the near future about that. Perfect. That answers

16:00my question. Thank you. Thank you. And I will not accept your promotion, but I'll stay as Chair

16:10if that's okay. Did you have anything else you want to add? Okay. If you want to wait right there,

16:17my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions of

16:21this delegate? I don't see any questions coming forward. So at this point, committee members,

16:31what is your wish? Do we have a... Oh, I'm sorry. I'm being reminded that we may want to hear from

16:39the public. Is there anyone in the gallery who would like to speak to this application? Seeing

16:47none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, is there anyone online who'd like to speak to this?

16:52Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates. Thank you. And I jump the gun there. Forgive me.

16:59Committee members, what is your wish? Do we have a motion to consider? Member Spears.

17:07I move that we accept this or approve this application with the condition suggested by City

17:14staff. Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Member Membrano. Is there any discussion on the

17:19motion before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, Treasurer, would you mind calling the roll please?

17:27Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

17:31opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the recommended condition.

17:36Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Membrano. In favor.

17:44Member Meir. In favor. Member Ross. In favor. And Member Spears. In favor. That's carried, Chair.

17:51Thank you. Your application has been approved. Thank you. You're welcome.

18:05Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant please? The next application is file

18:13A-7-26, Variance to Permit Donation Center as an additional permitted use at 282 Victoria Road,

18:20North. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can

18:25do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260,

18:32extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate

18:36remotely. Is the applicant present? Yes. Seems you're online. Welcome. Can you state your name

18:47and your relationship to the application for the record please? Yes. Thank you, through you, Mr.

18:51Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Caitlin Crowley, Associate Planner with Zelenka-Priamo,

18:55and the agent for this application. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as

19:01for the Planning Act? Yes. The signs have been posted and images have been sent and submitted.

19:06Thank you. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes. Have read the staff

19:13report and agree with the conditions noted in the staff report. At this point, as you may have

19:20noticed, you have 10 minutes to address the committee, so please make use of as much time as

19:26that as you'd like. Thank you. So, yes, like I stated, I do agree with staff's recommendation

19:32and the conditions noted. The application is to permit an additional use on the property being

19:37a donation center to allow Goodwill Industries to provide a donation service with an apportion

19:44of that existing building. There is no new build or addition required. The only

19:52requirement that is altering the property is the provision for a loading bay, just to the

20:00southeast of the building. And this is for a small-scale commercial use, so hence the reason

20:07why we did decide to pursue this through the minor variance application route. And as per the

20:14staff report, we will review that loading area with engineering staff to their satisfaction to

20:20ensure that all provisions are met. And thank you all. Be available to answer any questions.

20:27Thank you. Committee members, do we have any questions for this applicant?

20:34Does staff have a presentation or wish to chime in? Yes, please go ahead.

20:44Through you, Chair, I think staff would like to add one condition that might have been missed,

20:49and it's just that the proposed use be limited to only the unit indicated on the plan

20:55to the general manager, to the satisfaction to the general manager of planning,

20:59just in case, you know, as a precautionary, they don't expand to different units on the same lot.

21:05If I may, I'd like to go back to the applicant and ask if that is an accepted condition.

21:13Yes, through the Chair, that is an accepted condition. The intent is only to use that

21:17unit five for this use. Okay, thank you. I don't know that my colleagues have any questions,

21:24but I do have one, and that is you don't anticipate a bin, one of those big metal boxes

21:34at this donation center. Am I correct in that assumption?

21:38Correct. All drop-offs would be done via a vehicle pulling up to the door, and then our

21:45staff of Goodwill would essentially go out to the vehicle and bring all donations,

21:48and there would be no drop-off outside of the donation center. So drop-offs would also only

21:53happen during business hours. Okay, I think there's one other similar condition or situation

22:01in the south end of the city. Am I correct? Yes, correct, yeah. Okay, just wanted to check.

22:07At this point, if you want to wait right there, I'll ask if there are any members of the public

22:12who would like to speak to this. Are there any registered delegates, Madam Secretary Treasurer?

22:18Mr. Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates. And is there anyone in the

22:22auditorium who would like to speak to this application? I don't see anyone there either.

22:27So at this point, committee members, I turn to you for your advice. Do we have a motion

22:33to debate? Member Mambrano. I move to approve the application with conditions as recommended by staff.

22:44And does that include the new condition? Yes, and the new condition as recommended by staff.

22:51Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Member Meir. Is there any conversation or

22:57debate about this motion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you do the honors, please?

23:06Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

23:10opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the four conditions that were

23:16recommended by staff, as well as the new condition that was mentioned at the hearing,

23:22that the proposed donation center used to be permitted in the indicated unit on the site

23:27plan to the satisfaction of the general manager of planning. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow.

23:35In favor. Member Mambrano. In favor. Member Meir. In favor. Member Ross. In favor. And Member Spears.

23:44In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved and you're free

23:50to sign off. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Madam Secretary Treasurer, I believe we have one

24:03last application. Would you mind calling that, please? The last application is file A-8-26,

24:12multiple variances for proposed stacked townhouse development at 36 Love-it-Lame.

24:17For those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the

24:22number displayed on the screen. The numbers 519-822-1260, extension 2524. And when you call in,

24:30staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely. I'll also note that comments

24:34were received after the comment deadline from David Deacon and Dee Chang with concerns about the

24:40application and those pieces of correspondence have been circulated to the committee members and staff.

24:46Thank you. Is the applicant present? Yes, please come on down. Good afternoon. Can you

25:07say your name and your relationship to the application, please? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

25:12My name is Hugh Handy and I'm a land use planner and vice president with GSP Group and I'm here on

25:17behalf of Teraview Homes. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning

25:23Act? Yes, Mr. Chair, it was. And I can confirm that despite the Siberian-like conditions, it certainly

25:30was. And I guess the other question is staff's comments. Have you had a chance to read these?

25:39And do you have any comment about those? Yes, Mr. Chair, we have reviewed those with our client

25:46and in terms of the report and the recommended conditions and we're in agreement with those

25:51conditions. Great. So at this point, as you may have noticed, you have 10 minutes to address our

25:56committee. So please make as much use of that time as you'd like. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of

26:02committee, staff, ladies and gentlemen. Again, my name is Hugh Handy and I'm here as a land

26:09use planner that has been working on the file and the project that's before you and on the screen.

26:17Also with me behind me in the audience is David Bricks and he is the president of Teraview Homes

26:23and he's here this evening. He won't be making a formal presentation but here for questions and

26:29answers as part of our delegation. The block that is part of this or where the Stacked Townhouse

26:38Development was a part of an original subdivision that was approved by council in about 10 years ago.

26:45And what we're proposing is similar to that plan in terms of organization. It was for a

26:53Stacked Townhouse project. It will have access on to Levitt Lane is where the access is proposed

27:01at the bottom of your screen and at the top there is an emergency access that is to court right.

27:09We've worked extensively with staff and also internally probably for over two years now just

27:17modifying the site making sure that everything was appropriate in terms of with staff and with our

27:26builder, the developer. While there are 12 variances before you which having been before council often

27:36get the question how many there seems like a lot of variances. I think when you dig down into some

27:41of these it's really looking at the site how the site was to be developed to ensure that there the

27:49units were around the perimeter of the site that parking was internal that there was appropriate

27:57common amenity area. Of course in the new bylaw there's a bike parking that's also required

28:03which was not part of your previous bylaw so there was kind of a balance of two different worlds

28:09what was originally approved and and working into the new zoning bylaw which I know this

28:14committee will be familiar with given your role. There's also a park immediately to the east of

28:25the site so to your right on on the screen above. As mentioned there's also been common amenity areas

28:33and with the new bike parking regulations also the balance between not invading on those common

28:39amenity areas and balancing the amount of bike parking on the site. We have also had discussions

28:47with staff regarding access to the site looking at court right whether that could be a right in

28:55a right out based on staff's position in engineering and planning it was decided there was not enough

29:03site distance as many of the members will know of traveling court right you climbing to the top of

29:10the hill then you're going down then you're banking around that corner so it was felt that there

29:16wasn't enough site distance to warrant a full access onto the road. We even went as far as

29:24hiring our own traffic engineer just to double check make sure that we weren't leaving anything on

29:31the table looking at all the options and that came up with the same opinion that there wasn't enough

29:39appropriate site distance. We also looked at whether there was any other appropriate site entrance

29:46along court right so could there be okay we showed it more to the west could it be in the middle

29:51could it be down closer to the corner and the same resolution came up with that. I think you

29:59will notice although I wasn't involved in the at the time of the subdivision this is an area that

30:06is close to transit on court right road it's close to other amenities as I mentioned it's close to park

30:13so overall I'm not going to get into the each and every variance but hopefully I've explained at

30:21least a little bit of the high level of this and there's been many eyes on it doesn't mean that I

30:26don't appreciate the discussion that we're going to have today but it's come with a full review

30:32by staff and I think you see that in the report that Mr. Rampol has done so this evening or this

30:40afternoon I look forward to any of the questions we were also received thank you from your staff

30:47that have reviewed the comments. I've also had a discussion with Mr. Deacon and can appreciate

30:55you know living in the neighbourhood so I look forward to his comments but as I said I think

31:01we've reviewed this feel it meets the four tests of the of the act and I'd be happy to answer any

31:10questions as well as David Bricks thank you. Thank you I appreciate the brevity on with the number of

31:21variances that are requested so I'm sure there may be some discussion on some of this. What I would

31:27like to do before I turn to my committee to see if they have any questions for you is to see if staff

31:33has anything they wanted to add. Through you Mr. Chair I do have a brief presentation if you would

31:42like I'll try and keep it extra short because I don't want to repeat what Mr. Handy has already

31:48said but without further ado so the subject lands received the site specific zoning for their property

31:55under the 1995 zoning bylaw back when this subdivision was originally approved back in 2016

32:01and the zoning at that time envisioned a similar townhouse development with slightly fewer units

32:06to comply with a lower maximum density cap that existed at that time. When the 2023 zoning bylaw

32:13was approved the lands were re-zoned to the site specific RM6-12 zone which effectively merged the

32:19site specific provisions from the previous subdivision approval with the RM6 zone that was

32:25introduced with the 2023 zoning bylaw. So when the lot was originally created an envision for

32:31townhouse blocks many of the requirements that apply to townhouse developments did not exist at

32:37that time so this includes the provisions related to variances B, C, D, E, F, and K which is six of

32:46the 12 variances that wouldn't have been applicable back in the 1995 zoning bylaw. So additionally

32:53plans for the lot have since been altered to accommodate a greater density to reflect changes

32:57in the official plan that have taken place over the past several years. So taking this into the

33:04consideration staff have reviewed the requested variances and are satisfied that they meet the

33:08four tests of a minor variance provided that the recommended conditions be included in the decision

33:15and I'm available for questions as well if you have any.

33:20Thank you Mr. Rempel. At this point I'm now going to turn to my committee members and

33:26see if there are any questions either of staff or of the applicant. So I am going to start was it

33:34Spears or Ross who Ross please is the first questioner. Through you Mr. Chair. I think to staff

33:44when the plan of subdivision was first approved was access onto court right contemplated?

33:56Through the chair to member Ross so when there were initial discussions and meetings for the

34:00plan of subdivision that was contemplated but through extensive review it was determined that

34:06there were safety and sight line issues with the access onto court right so when it was ultimately

34:11approved in 2016 it was determined that the access off of Love at Lane would be the appropriate

34:16path forward. I don't recall you mentioning traffic issues onto Love at Lane from the proposed application

34:29is that correct in the staff report? That is correct yes because the subdivision

34:37when it was approved anticipated that the access would be onto Love at Lane

34:41that was already taken into consideration back at that original subdivision approval

34:46and engineering staff haven't noted any additional traffic concerns from the proposed variances before

34:52you tonight. And my final question is it looks like this is the last developable parcel in the plan

35:01is that correct? Through the chair I believe there are some more additional parcels that

35:10haven't been developed I believe there is a high density site just to the east of the park

35:16which would be a bit further east from the proposed townhouse lot so no there is some more

35:22development that is forthcoming on the site. And is it possible to ask the question around where

35:32that high density piece would take its access from at this early stage? So during the draft plan

35:43of subdivision approval it was determined that that would also be accessed by Love at Lane

35:48so there's no changes proposed there and sorry I said that further development on the site and by

35:52that I mean in the plan of subdivision not the specific plot of land we're talking about here.

35:57Understood in my questions of course relate to the capacity of Love at Lane in light of

36:06the residents who are here this evening and have some concern about

36:11the future of capacity of that road and their ability to get in and out of the property.

36:18So thank you very much. Thank you member Ross. Any other questions or concerns raised member Spears?

36:29Yeah through you Mr. Chair to I guess the applicant I think that makes most sense.

36:38I'm reviewing the document or the diagram or the plan am I correct that all of the parking spaces

36:45are going to be wired for EV? Through you Mr. Chair to the committee member believe

36:5291 of the 94 are going to be EV ready? So and I'm glad to hear that because I didn't know it was

37:02the case however one of the one of the variances is a request to not electrify many of the bicycle

37:10spots in fact there'll be very few of them that have access to power and and it was noted in

37:16I think one of the letters from the neighbors that probably a lot of residents there will

37:23inevitably end up with electric vehicles electric bicycles electric scooters anything

37:27like that and it strikes me as a as a serious oversight not to provide power to those users

37:35because if they do have an electric bicycle they're heavy and we're expecting then people to carry

37:42them up well a there's not enough parking spaces but bicycle spaces but certainly if they have to

37:46plug them in we're asking people then to carry them upstairs and downstairs even though it's only I

37:51understand half a floor they're heavy and is there any thought about the practicality of not of

37:59reducing the number of electric? I guess I'll through you Mr. Chair to the committee member

38:07there was a lot like I mean it's sort of looking into the future and obviously the by-law is trying

38:14to look into the future of you know what are we going to be doing and how are we going to be doing it

38:21both upstairs and like on our variances where you know we can allow parking or bikes within

38:28units that's where probably the charging would happen there but it's it's that balance of being

38:35on the site and providing power to you know electrify all of these things all of these bike

38:42spots and that's really it was a balance between looking at what's practical on the site what we

38:48believe and and in the variance before you I don't know whether Dave David you want to add to any of that

38:56Mr. through with your yes by all means having having clarity in your answer is is most important

39:06thank you as you mentioned I'm David Bricks president of terror view so through you chair the

39:19the thought is I must say my wife owns electric bike I don't but the battery packs generally are

39:26removable that you would take the battery pack from your bike into your unit plug it in there

39:31there wouldn't be a need to actually plug your bicycles battery in while the bike is actually

39:36in storage outside okay but I think that that satisfies me thanks thanks thanks member Spears

39:49any other questions for the applicant member good fellow I see please go ahead member good fellow

39:59yes thank you chair so through the chair I think to city staff I noted the the condition around

40:08including bike storage within the units I think on the the lower two lower floors if I'm understanding

40:15correctly I wondered about the dimensions of those storage closets I think they're termed

40:22are they like I don't see dimensions in the condition but so I'm wondering was there

40:28kind of some dimensions contemplated for that I did note that the e-bikes seem to require a bit

40:33more space and so kind of maybe some background on how that condition was arrived at and whether it

40:41would allow for e-bikes as well or if you're thinking that it would just simply be for non-electrified

40:48bikes thank you through the chair to a member good fellow so the or the plan for that condition was

40:59that they would have to meet the required dimensions for standard bicycle parking spaces

41:05but it certainly could be amended if the committee wills it to meet the requirements for e-b parking

41:11spaces yeah I think that's answers that question okay yeah I think yes thank you I appreciate that

41:25and it's exactly where I was headed was potentially including some dimensions there so

41:30I appreciate that clarity thank you chair you're welcome no follow-up not yet thank you okay um

41:46I unless committee members have any other questions I have a couple so forgive me for

41:53extending this a bit but and I'm not sure if they're to the applicant or staff

42:00um I guess the member good fellow has anticipated my concern about the about the size of bicycle

42:14parking I'm I'm I'm curious that request D 0% of the required long-term bicycle parking spaces to

42:26have access to electrical outlets I think that's been answered 0% of short-term bicycle spaces to

42:33be weather protected I guess that's to the applicant could you expound on that a little bit I'm I'm

42:43curious why that request why you couldn't comply for the amount of weather proving

42:51uh Mr. Chair it was intended that I guess based on the the site uh and and having this

42:59amount of parking we felt really wasn't um to a need on the site so okay um let me turn that to staff

43:13staff in your professional opinion does does that meet the four test as being minor in nature

43:25through you Mr. Chair as as noted in the staff report the number of short-term bicycle parking

43:30spaces that would have to be weather protected is three so my understanding is building a

43:36weather protected uh shelter for just three parking spaces would have significant costs so I I think

43:45for those reasons it's understandable that perhaps a reduction of that requirement might be

43:50reasonable for development of this scale um yeah and as as arrived in the staff report staff are

43:59satisfied that it meets the four tests of the minor variance okay I having used the GO train from

44:04time to time I noticed that and I I don't know if this meets the the the definition of uh

44:13weather protected but uh at GO train parking lots they have what amounts to a bus shelter if you

44:19will for bicycles and um would that comply with um with the requirements in the uh in the bylaw

44:32that is a wonderful question and I think I would have to look into the bylaw and get back to you

44:35shortly on that okay um asked and not quite answered but um I'm I'm sure we have members of the public

44:43who wish to to have some opinions so I'll give you a few minutes to look at that and um

44:52I this is for the for the applicant I I note that um in item J a minimum of 6.7 square meters

45:03of private amount of space per dwelling unit and that's up from what I can tell is about half

45:11or less than half of uh of what's recommended in the uh in the zoning bylaw and it helped me with

45:20this is this a function of the original plan being somewhat different than what's now under the new

45:29zoning bylaw is it an iterative sort of thing or is it uh just that you couldn't find the space on

45:37on the site through you to uh Mr. Chair um in terms of the uh the unit size and how it was

45:48envisioned that that requirement was appropriate for the size of the units and in the appropriate

45:57location Dave do you want to say anything to that um through you Mr. Chair I again I believe

46:04you're asking about the private amenity space exemption sort of thing the reduction in the

46:08size of the private amenity space um yeah item J is uh six points proposed to be 6.7 square meters

46:15a private amenity space per dwelling unit and I believe it's 20 now staff can correct me if I'm

46:22wrong which would be um less than half uh more like a third and staff's going to correct me please

46:32go ahead thank you Mr. Chair so there is a caveat in the zoning bylaw that it is a minimum of 10

46:38square meters that is required okay asked and answered thank you very much um that I think

46:46answers most of my questions um yeah first yeah please go ahead there you go um the rationale is that

47:00because of the style of these buildings and I'm sure you've seen them um now it's quite common in

47:05golf the stacked product that the first floor's private amenity space would project over the lower

47:12levels windows so it would really make for a dark space for the lowest level in the building if we

47:21provided enough amenity for the unit above it there really is no other way to manage that

47:27requirement without reducing it to something that doesn't really negatively impact the lower unit

47:33so it's part of the tetris yes that you go through in in design development okay thank you very much

47:41committee members any other questions for the applicant member ross uh through you Mr. Chair

47:48uh to staff for uh section c of the staff report the minimum bicycle parking requirement and just

47:54want to make sure that I understand what staff is suggesting in the last paragraph so just as a

48:01preamble so the the upper units have storage the lower and first floor units uh it's intended

48:08that they carry their bikes up and down one story and staff is um considering the proposed reduction

48:16uh with the condition that um the applicant demonstrate that there's sufficient storage space

48:23for the lower units to store a bicycle can you just clarify what that means through the chair to

48:30member ross so um what you've summarized is correct although I think the one correction

48:36that I would make is that I don't believe it's an entire story up or down to the basement level

48:41or first floor uh units so it is less of a distance that the bicycles would need to be

48:46carried up or downstairs um but the intention of that condition is I know in some municipalities

48:52it's written to the bylaw as of right but in this case it would be there would have to be a closet

48:56space or a patio or some form of space that could be utilized as bicycle parking for whoever is

49:02dwelling in that unit obviously it's not required to be used for bicycle parking but that there

49:07would be sufficient space for uh occupants to store their bicycle in their unit without it just

49:14being in the hallway or in the living room or something like that thank you I understand that

49:19now and just in terms of um how many steps it might be to get up or down can you uh maybe the

49:27applicant has that information we're live uh uh through you uh Mr. Chair um basically it's it's

49:40half a flight of stairs right it's a sort of a split entry so you would be going down seven

49:46stairs to the lowest level and up seven to the level above it so seven steps is that what you're

49:54saying yes we roughly seven seven maybe eight but in most cases it would be seven if I could digress

50:06when I was a student at University of Guelph I can remember carrying my bike up a number of steps

50:12because that was the only way to keep it safe and that was quite a quite a job to get up those

50:19steps but I think it was more than seven so just in terms of this particular variance

50:26where the bylaw requires one long-term bicycle parking space per unit and you're proposing

50:34reducing that to 0.45 spaces per unit the implication of that is that there will be

50:41storage not necessarily bicycle storage for the lower level units it'll be like common like

50:50storage in their patio or some other space in their apartment but it could be used for bicycle

50:56bicycle storage and the other part is that then they climb or descend approximately seven steps

51:05do I have that captured yes so you would be taking it down half a flight or up half a flight

51:13and there would be space within your unit they would accommodate the bicycle to be within your

51:17unit any other questions for the applicant or staff at this point yes sorry remember good fellow go

51:28ahead please all good so just to come back to you the question I had earlier about the dimensions

51:35I didn't have it in front of me at the time but I wanted to perhaps ask the applicant about

51:42dimensions of the space and whether adding some dimensions that would be suitable for an e-bike

51:49would be acceptable in the condition that City Stop has already recommended and the dimension

51:55that I have been looking at I believe is 0.6 meters by 1.8 meters by 1.9 meters and perhaps City

52:03staff could also clarify if I've got that wrong but looking at what they had written in their staff

52:08comments I think those are the dimensions thank you remember good fellow was that directed to staff

52:16or the applicant yeah sorry it was kind of directed to both so I think the question is for the applicant

52:23whether they would they would be okay with adding those dimensions to the condition

52:31unless I have the dimensions wrong and then I was asking staff to chime in so we could do that

52:35in two parts but yeah that is the question can I just ask you to repeat those dimensions just for

52:43my sake yep certainly 0.6 meters by 1.8 meters by 1.9 meters staff I think would like to chime in

53:01Mr. Rumpel please go ahead through you Mr. Chair to member good fellow so those are the correct

53:07dimensions for a standard bicycle parking space yes and I believe that would be roughly two feet by

53:15six feet by six point three feet roughly that's my math okay thank you and then sorry just to

53:30interject before we go over to the applicant through so through the chair to City staff

53:35are the dimensions the same for an e-bike or are the is the dimensions for an e-bike larger smaller

53:45I expect larger but I don't know I'm through the chair to member good fellow so looking at the

53:53bicycle parking space requirement for EV parking spaces it doesn't specifically say that it's for

54:02electric bicycles but I think we can kind of assume that because it requires a electrical outlet

54:10the enclosures are to be a minimum of one meter by 2.6 meters by 1.9 meters okay thank you I'm glad

54:23then I asked that clarifying question and so through the chair or to the chair I guess I

54:30wanted to just make a comment that I think that by limiting the size of the storage units in the

54:40lower units to something that can only accommodate a standard size bike then would change up the

54:46dynamic of what we we are about to approve here for the variances because I think we will then have

54:54units that can store any bike and units that can't so that's why I'm asking so then I will go back

55:01over to the applicant so through the chair to the applicant I think my question then is whether

55:08storage on the order of one meter by 2.4 meters by 1.9 meters

55:15could be added to the condition recommended by City staff already through you Mr. Chair

55:25I'm surprised at that dimension to be honest I as I said I don't own an e-bike my wife does I've seen

55:33them around for in most cases they're the same size as a standard bicycle with exception of having a

55:38battery on them so I would question why we need a meter of width the bike doesn't get wider and

55:47longer because it has a battery as far as I'm concerned so I would rather not have to accommodate

55:54that large an area when I don't think it's required remember good fellow

56:04yes thank you so good point I guess I do not own an e-bike so this is hard for me to comment on

56:13I think my interest here is more in ensuring that we are not disadvantaging some of the units if

56:19they wanted to have an e-bike and needed that extra space so I don't know if City staff or others on

56:26the committee have more experience with e-bikes but that is kind of where I am coming from in my

56:31comments and my questions okay well I unless you have another question I'm sure we can get into

56:39that discussion in a few minutes did you have a follow up member good fellow nope I do not thank

56:47you chair you're welcome committee members any other questions oh yes member remphill please

56:56go ahead thank you mr chair so talking about the provision that was just being discussed by a member

57:03good fellow the requirement for that increased dimension size presumably for electric bicycles

57:09is only to apply to five percent of the units or a minimum of five percent of the units whereas the

57:15indoor effectively bicycle parking spaces for the lower units would represent 55 percent of the total

57:23units rather than five percent so just putting that out there and then in terms of the short-term

57:30bicycle parking questions that you had asked mr chair there is no defined definition of weather

57:36protected but in my view the type of bicycle shelter that you would see at a go station

57:42would meet that definition because of course it needs to be open so that way it can be publicly

57:47accessed rather than a standard long-term bicycle storage locker which would of course need a code

57:53or a key of some sort so in my view a shelter of that nature would meet the definition of a

57:59weather protected bicycle parking space yes and that's for short-term use that is correct yeah okay

58:08thank you for following up on that I really do appreciate it committee members any other questions

58:17thanks for your indulgence there there's a lot to consider in this in this variance application so

58:25if you want to hang on a minute I think we may have some members of the public who wish to speak to

58:31your application so I'm going to ask first the secretary of treasurer if we have any registered

58:38delegates mr chair we don't have any registered delegates okay at this point I'm going to ask

58:46members of the of the audience if they would like to speak to this application I see a hand so please

58:53come on up my name's David good afternoon um I just wanted to restate the rules so you're aware of it

59:11so I will ask your name and you will have 10 minutes to address the committee so please go ahead yes

59:17and I thought I was a registered delegate but that's okay um perhaps I got that in too late too

59:23my name is David Deacon I live at 39 Leavitt Lane and I have to say this has been an iterative

59:31process for me over the last couple of weeks and trying to understand where we are in all of this

59:37because I was not aware that there was only access through Leavitt Lane until two weeks ago um I have

59:44surveyed all of my immediate neighbors through the last weather period here which you can imagine

59:50has been a difficult canvas since I've done most of it at better than minus 15 degrees I have 25

59:57signatures that is every single door I knocked on signed the um note that I can provide you people

1:00:03with what I want to do though is pull back for a second and say why does this really have me fully

1:00:11engaged and it goes like this I moved to Guelph 16 years ago and it is a fabulous city I mean it

1:00:18might be one of the best cities in this whole country and this country is one of one of if not

1:00:23the greatest country in the world so it's a very high standard and one of the things that I look at

1:00:30here is how good the planning has been however and there are three parties attached to what's

1:00:37going to happen here and with these three parties I want to take them in each piece because I believe

1:00:44by acting against this motion we can perhaps help serve all three of us better so the first part is

1:00:54the issue of the developer it's clear the developer when they first came to this

1:01:02asked for the ingrass and egress through court right I was actually under the impression that

1:01:08that was what was going to happen but not was standing that that was what they asked for because

1:01:13it makes great sense in terms of selling units there etc so they would be happy if that was what

1:01:19happened and then the second instance is the residents immediately and as we heard there was

1:01:27some very good probing going on there as we heard this this division subdivision which has increased

1:01:36in densities over time not made smaller increased leaving less room for bicycles or anything else

1:01:45that that's not the only thing there's actually high density to the south

1:01:49and now I've just discovered that also is going to be through love at lane

1:01:56then there's the city's situation and that is they're concerned about what do you call it an

1:02:02arterial road and access on an arterial road well I lived at 60 arcle road until I moved here

1:02:12and they have ingrass and egress on a hill both sides of that hill or you know it's like

1:02:18it's absolutely the same sort of dimensions as it is here and there's one just going down below

1:02:24that that is another in fact I can find all sorts of precedents in the city for this kind of access

1:02:33off of court right so you know because precedent is is obviously an issue and I'm sure the staff

1:02:40here could indicate that that's always a concern but I want to look at one other precedent that's

1:02:46happening here that I don't think was properly considered in the context of all of these developments

1:02:53and that is our our low lane love at lane is only 24 feet wide it isn't you know 30 feet wide like it

1:03:02is on rixon it isn't like any of the other streets carrington or whatever else and I can't find and

1:03:08I might be corrected on this but I can't find a single instance in this city talk about precedent

1:03:15not a single instance where you will have in this instance a hundred vehicles I don't know what's

1:03:21planned for the high density how many that'll be but what you what you're going to do is dump

1:03:28that into this lane that isn't wide enough nor was it ever structured to be able to carry that kind

1:03:36of volume of traffic so the impact is going to be on us right there it's going to be on all the other

1:03:45people from this new subdivision and eventually from the high density high rise all trying to get

1:03:53through a street that isn't built for right now it's a one one lane street with it with the snow

1:04:01and even in the summer when a car park's there a pickup truck can pass with another car there it's

1:04:07basically a one lane road then now what this application deals with as has been pointed out

1:04:14by a number of you is it deals with the fact that it's reducing all of the electric and all of the

1:04:21bicycle stuff which is going to be their only alternative and just to help inform you David

1:04:28I have an electric scooter and it weighs 55 pounds the battery is not detachable

1:04:38and you're not going to carry that up sevens stairs that's for sure so and I believe one of the

1:04:45things we could easily document is how today there is a huge increase in electric and use of electric

1:04:52certainly I was getting mine so I can go down to the grocery store very easily on that instead of

1:04:58driving in and out etc anyway that's where it is what I think can be corrected by this committee

1:05:06of assessment which is a really really important thing to look at is if you've been looking at a

1:05:12project all the way along and I believe the city has and I understand why but if you believe if

1:05:19you've been looking at it all the way along and you're saying oh I'm concerned about this ingress

1:05:24and egress on court right and that's really where you're focused and where the developers focused

1:05:32all their attention and haven't looked at what is the impact on all the lives so what's that going

1:05:39to be two or three hundred people in that subdivision how many is it going to be in the high rise I

1:05:44don't know it's going to be about a hundred people where we are you look at the impact for the rest

1:05:50of the time all of us will live there and it's going to be traffic congestion brutal traffic

1:05:57congestion because you've got a road it doesn't make any sense to look at this as in that context

1:06:10especially when as I said there are numerous numerous examples of little variances that have

1:06:18happened in terms of access to arterial roads in wealth there are no examples that I can see

1:06:25that deal with this other issue so we're objecting to reducing the only means we have as residents at

1:06:33the moment to say to you to reduce this whole issue of how much traffic is traveling through there

1:06:41and if you reject the applicant what I am hoping and what I will certainly work towards in future

1:06:48is to go through whatever means and as I say this has been an iterative process

1:06:54and the staff and the city councillors and frankly the developer have all been very open and helpful

1:07:02in helping to inform me of the process but I want to try and stop this because once this is done

1:07:10it's done and this mess will have happened forever and what I'm concerned about is the

1:07:17wealth isn't that that's that's why I say in the end this is to stop this is in the city's best

1:07:24interest because the last thing you do want to do is set a precedent where people can develop like

1:07:32that onto a small road and to change the very nature of the city now I agree with higher density

1:07:42I think this is fabulous because what the heck wealth is like an island with farmland instead of

1:07:48water around it it's a beautiful place let's have it grow up I'm not against it nor do I know any

1:07:54of our residents that are but this little bit of planning doesn't work and I think it's because

1:08:01everybody's been looking at it just from the perspective of court right and whether or not

1:08:07you know we should really allow that variance not looking at increased density and nowhere to really

1:08:14put that traffic so thank you I appreciate everybody hearing I've got 25 signatures from

1:08:22residents right in the area I stopped doing it it was just in the end too cold believe me I could

1:08:28get 200 in the area and will but that's not the point the point is can we ask the committee of

1:08:35adjustment to really look at this there's some very good questions you asked but in the end I feel

1:08:42like the biggest issue the elephant in the room is that street I don't know how it happened that

1:08:49that street wasn't built and designed to carry that level of traffic and I'm not sure there must

1:08:57have been a different planner involved in those days than there is today because I'm sure the planning

1:09:03committee people who I've encountered in the city wouldn't have done that today I have no doubt

1:09:09so there must have been something different back then it's more it's a decade ago basically right

1:09:15I don't know but somehow that's been missed if you close off court right anyway I think I've hit

1:09:20five minutes I've tried to express why we're opposed to the specifics and also what in general

1:09:29there we go it's the signal right now thank you very very much for your attention to it and I'd be

1:09:36glad to talk to electric bicycle issues since I do own one thank you Mr. Chair well thank you and

1:09:46if you want to wait right there my colleagues may have some questions for you so please stand by

1:09:53committee members do we have any questions of this delegate I see pensive looks but I don't see

1:10:03anyone jumping to their microphone members fierce through you Mr. Chair to the delegate

1:10:10the issue of ingress and egress is interesting that's for sure but it's not a question here

1:10:15tonight it's not one of the variants it's being written variances that's being asked for so we

1:10:20really aren't in a position to to do anything about that that's that's it's just not on the table

1:10:26however given that and the things that are being asked for

1:10:32which ones would you say in your review would would be the ones we should

1:10:36pace pay most attention to to to relieve the issue you're most concerned about okay um I've

1:10:44written them and they are and I don't know whether I can hand these to you I think we have it

1:10:50electronically okay yeah I I quote anyway they are you know reducing long-term bicycle parking

1:10:59spaces I don't know why they're doing that and why they should zero bicycle spaces for electric

1:11:06charging and I'm sorry as I said scoot all the scooters that's another one that's used all the

1:11:13time now those are all those batteries are all locked into the bikes etc there's there's so

1:11:20there's a plethora of unit different kinds of electric vehicles you can get but to say that

1:11:26that you can remove it no that's not necessarily so and they're very heavy just the whole notion here

1:11:34of reducing any alternative means of transport is important and I guess to your other point about I

1:11:41understand egress and exit the problem is we were never how do we get an input to that how do we get

1:11:47an input before for example the high density get that comes to here to say hey what's going on how

1:11:54can we stop this because this is a travesty when you think about the number of cars through that road

1:12:01and what's going to be created it's a travesty so certainly you don't want to reduce how many

1:12:05electric vehicles two-wheeled electric vehicles can go in and out that's for sure and I would say

1:12:11absolutely say no to that perhaps in this process and I don't know the process as I said it's been

1:12:18iterative for me trying to understand what's going on and I've had two weeks to do it and I started

1:12:23a new job two weeks ago at the same time so it's been a tough learning curve but look at that and say

1:12:29how are we going to address this because this is going to be doubled as a problem and it's already

1:12:37beyond the capacity of what that street can carry so certainly don't any of the bicycle spaces

1:12:44absolutely I would say just hold firm on it no question no variance at all thank you any other

1:12:54questions for the for the delegate I have a couple the fuel indulge me you mentioned you have a

1:13:04scooter an electric scooter is that a mobility device or is that a that is a getting around scooter

1:13:12I mean I guess if you watch me walk you might consider it a mobility device but you haven't

1:13:17seen me walk there we go um no it's it's so that I can the Zares is just at the bottom of the street

1:13:26it's a perfect thing I've added a couple of baskets so I can just it just for local area things

1:13:32it's a perfect little unit that's all no I just know that my late mother-in-law referred to her

1:13:37device as a scooter which is a different kettle of fish so yes it is so thank you and there's no

1:13:44provision for those in this place but when you got stairs there's probably not a lot of people that

1:13:49would be buying those with that okay issue thank you very much for that and unless my colleagues

1:13:56have any other questions thank you very much for your presentation and I have made a couple of

1:14:02notes so there may be some follow-up discussion so thank you again are there any other members of

1:14:10the public who are in the chamber who would like to speak to this application seeing none

1:14:18madam secretary treasurer have we had any interest online mr chair I can confirm no other

1:14:23delegation requests okay at this point I'm going to turn to the committee and find out what our

1:14:31our wishes are from oh before I do that I'm going to ask the applicant if there's any

1:14:39issues that have been raised by the delegate that they would like to address through you mr chair

1:15:09I guess as far as David's concern is with someone with a scooter type EV bike I wasn't

1:15:15thinking of that myself but in terms of charging it we are roughing in all of the parking spaces to

1:15:22have charging at that location so you you're given a parking spot with your unit so you could

1:15:30charge your scooter at that location without having to take it into your unit please go ahead

1:15:41just to follow up on I as I mentioned in my presentation I was not the planner involved in

1:15:47the original subdivision so as a planner looking at this development and looking what was there

1:15:54it is obviously to balance those things and to fulfill the intent of the subdivision at the day

1:16:01of the day granted there are things that have changed intensification is even higher on the

1:16:08list nowadays but that has to be balanced and you know city staff as I said we've worked with

1:16:15city staff to look at those things and and and look at options is there any other things that we

1:16:21could do in order to not leave a legacy that is not in the best interest of the community and

1:16:29I think we've tried to look at those comprehensively okay thank you before you go we did hear from

1:16:38Mr. Rimpel about the short term weather protection and I'm wondering given

1:16:48the opinion from city staff that it would essentially just be something similar to a bus

1:16:55shelter as is seen at the ghost station is that something that you would be

1:17:00I meanable as a further condition through you Mr. Chair we I suppose given that we could accommodate

1:17:12it I know that the owner of Careview is an avid cyclist and this whole you know

1:17:21temporary bicycle weather proofing area for them he his response was don't people just put a bag

1:17:31over their seat if rains and they take the bag off and they get on the bike and ride away

1:17:36I would think that most people who use their bikes consistently to get to and from work and so forth

1:17:41are doing just that going if it rains my seat doesn't get wet the rest of the bike can get wet but

1:17:47if it was felt that it's entirely necessary it wouldn't be the end of the world if it was a bike

1:17:53sorry a bus shelter type building that we would construct I know being a cyclist myself that

1:18:02sometimes it's as you mentioned you put a bag over the seat however sometimes you're there for

1:18:11if you were there to visit someone and you were there for several hours there could be a thunderstorm

1:18:17that comes through and or or a blizzard who knows but having that little bit of weather protection

1:18:26goes a long way so I guess my question is would you be willing to consider that as a condition

1:18:38sorry as I said if staff feels that there's a dire need for this I don't think we would be opposed

1:18:46but it doesn't seem in our minds to be something that is absolutely necessary on the site

1:18:55okay thank you asked and answered yes member ross through you mr chair to stop around

1:19:03the section c of the staff report so you've said that the intent of the bylaw is to ensure that

1:19:14bicycle parking is available for those who desire it to encourage a modal shift away from reliance

1:19:20on automobiles towards more sustainable forms of transportation so that was the intent of the

1:19:28bylaw and I appreciate that that probably wasn't in the bylaw in 2016 when the okay

1:19:39however it would seem to be a matter of opinion that

1:19:44um tenants or or people who reside in the townhouses are going to use scarce closet space to

1:19:53store a bike and also their readiness or ability to walk up and down steps carrying a bike to store it

1:20:05so I guess I'm struggling a bit with whether or not this

1:20:08variance request is minor in nature it seems to me that this is a policy statement embedded in a

1:20:18bylaw related to modal split and to achieve modal split it requires decisions like this to be made as

1:20:28to whether or not ability to accommodate a bicycle and live in multifamily housing is

1:20:39is possible at the same time I hear what I think the applicant has said around trying to find a

1:20:47balance between provision of badly needed units and intensification and how do you do that and

1:20:56still provide these other important things so there's my quandary and to me going from a parking

1:21:05rate of 0.45 spaces per unit down to 2.45 spaces per unit with the proviso or the understanding that

1:21:14people could use a closet or they could walk up and down steps I'm not entirely certain that that

1:21:24addresses the the shortfall for me so I do have that as a concern that I'll carry forward in our

1:21:33discussion as a committee when we're looking at the conditions on the motion having said that

1:21:41if staff would like to add any further comment to address my concerns I'd certainly

1:21:49like to hear that. Sure through the chair to member Ross so my understanding is these bicycle

1:21:58requirements were envisioned for more high density developments like apartment style developments

1:22:05and the intention there was that you know if you have a six-story apartment building obviously we

1:22:09don't want residents to have to carry their bicycle up six stories or taking up a small elevator space

1:22:16to make it up to their unit so the intention was that they would have like a bicycle storage room

1:22:21in the bottom floor of that apartment style building of course the situations for an apartment

1:22:28building isn't exactly the same as for a townhouse development and that's why staff feel that the

1:22:33proposal here tonight is supportable if we're looking at a 55% reduction for an apartment building

1:22:40that's not something that staff would be supportive of but given the context of this specific development

1:22:46staff are confident that it meets the four tests. Thank you that's very helpful.

1:22:55Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Seeing none I'll thank you very much and I believe

1:23:03that we'll now go into committee. I'm sorry sir there's this isn't time for discussion.

1:23:10We're going to go into committee and consider this so I'll thank you very no no I'm sorry I'm sorry

1:23:16I'm sorry you had you had your time and we've asked you that's not the way I'm sorry sir I'm sir

1:23:24that's not the way the process works I'm afraid so thank you very much at this point we are moving

1:23:31into committee and committee members I'd like to know what your your indication is. Member Spears.

1:23:45As much as I'd like to make a motion about this I think if we can have some discussion which is

1:23:51maybe we can maybe we can. I'm feeling very torn here but I'm looking at item C minimum

1:23:58bicycle parking requirement and thinking I would like to not just not allow that one.

1:24:06So you're suggesting approval of the the request with the condition an additional condition of

1:24:17removing item C is that correct? I think that would do it for me because I don't see anything else there

1:24:23that's that's a problem other than there's just not going to be enough parking for those those

1:24:30devices and and that's going to be a big problem. Okay so can you state that as a motion? I would

1:24:38move that we we accept staff's recommendations in approving this application but removing

1:24:46item C which is the minimum bicycle parking requirement and just removing that altogether

1:24:53which leaves it at one space per unit. And your rationale for that is it that you don't

1:25:01consider that a minor in nature? I don't think it's minor to remove that no I think it's it

1:25:08creates big problems and I think member Ross is is quite right when she's talking about

1:25:13all kinds of people moving these these bicycles around is not practical. Okay do we have a seconder

1:25:22member Ross at this point? I'm sure we might have some discussion so let me open it up for

1:25:30discussion who would like to speak to this motion as amended member Ross? I think that

1:25:43staff have addressed part of my concern in that the clarification that this bylaw provision was

1:25:54specifically thought of in terms of high density apartment buildings and not necessarily

1:26:01stacked townhouses. So from that perspective that moderates my position on on on section C and I

1:26:13think request C for that variance. I don't know what the implications are for the applicant's

1:26:23development proposal if this is something that they have to to provide whether it's something

1:26:31that can be accommodated in the existing development application whether it requires

1:26:37significant changes. I'm saying that not because it's my business to

1:26:46have any opinion around how the applicant achieves that but rather the balancing piece

1:26:54which is to encourage developments like these to go forward and how do you balance between the

1:27:00needs of these specific goals articulated through the bylaw such as the long-term parking

1:27:07bicycle space per unit and other things versus providing density within a timely time frame.

1:27:17So that's sort of my follow-up to staff's response to my question. Thank you. Any other

1:27:25discussion on the motion in front of us?

1:27:30I don't see any. I'm just going to add my two cents and I have to say that

1:27:40initially when I saw all the the requested variances that always gives me a pause to say

1:27:48is this minor in nature and I'm satisfied that most of these are minor in nature

1:27:55not withstanding some of the comments from the public. However I do agree with both member Ross

1:28:03and member Spears that that number C is not minor in nature and that removing it as an approved

1:28:16condition is probably the best way to go and I'm sure that clever planners in their playing

1:28:26Tetris with their plan can come up with a way to go forward and I think by and large it's good

1:28:33development and it has very positive things to add to the neighborhood so I will be supporting this.

1:28:39With that are there any other questions or pardon me discussion? Oh member good fellow I didn't see

1:28:46go ahead please. No that's okay thank you chair. Am I able to ask a question of city staff at this

1:28:52point in the process? Generally I would say no. Okay that that has sort of come and gone

1:29:03but I but in the interest of a fulsome discussion I am going to allow it.

1:29:10Okay thank you chair. I think it is a straightforward question so through the

1:29:16chair to city staff in the 1995 bylaw what was the requirement for long-term bicycle parking

1:29:25in a development such as this? Through the chair and I member good fellow there were no

1:29:32minimum bicycle parking requirements neither short term nor long term in the 1995 zoning bylaw.

1:29:38Okay thank you thank you chair. You're welcome it was a little out of order but as I said I

1:29:47was happy to allow it. Did you have any questions or any additional comments that you'd like to add

1:29:54to the discussion? I think just in general that I support the the motion and where we have landed

1:30:02on this so other than that no no further comments thank you. Okay any other discussion on the

1:30:08motion before us? Seeing none Madam Secretary Treasurer would you mind calling the vote?

1:30:17Thank you chair and before we get to the vote I'll just ask for some clarification. So the

1:30:21motion that we have on the floor is to approve the variances and refusing variant C which is about

1:30:27the long-term parking bicycle parking requirement. There was four conditions that staff recommended

1:30:35and chair you might want to clarify with planning staff there's four conditions some of those might

1:30:42be related to the long-term parking or the long-term bicycle variants and I'm wondering

1:30:49we might need to remove condition two but that might be a question to ask of staff.

1:30:57Thank you so C minimum bicycle parking requirements do you mind if I just read this? Okay the applicant

1:31:07is requesting a variance to permit a reduced minimum long-term bicycle parking rate of 4.5

1:31:13spaces per unit whereas zoning bylaw requires a minimum of one long-term bicycle parking space per

1:31:20unit. The intent of this proviso is to ensure that the bicycle parking is available for those who

1:31:26desire it thus encouraging a modal shift away from the reliance on automobiles and towards

1:31:31more sustainable forms of transportation. Bicycle parking is required for stacked townhouses and

1:31:37apartment buildings to prevent the need for occupants to bring their bicycles up several flights of

1:31:43stairs to their unit. The proposed reduction reflects the ability for first floor and below

1:31:49grade dwelling units 55 percent of the units to store bicycles in their unit while only needing

1:31:55to ascend or descend one flight of stairs. Bicycle storage lockers are provided at grade for units

1:32:03on the upper stories so occupants will not have to carry bicycles up several flights of stairs.

1:32:09In staff's view this proposal reduces reduction is reasonable provided that a condition be included

1:32:18requiring the applicant to demonstrate that there is sufficient closet or storage space

1:32:23for lower units to store a bicycle provided that this can be demonstrated staff are satisfied

1:32:29that each unit would have access to long-term bicycle parking space and that proposed long-term

1:32:36bicycle parking rate would meet the intent of the zoning bylaw. Okay having read that and having to

1:32:48store my bicycle down a half story and bring it up and down from time to time I find that onerous

1:32:58and my position is still that this is yes.

1:33:10You Mr. Chair I believe that what my motion talked about C which was a comment not a condition

1:33:18and I believe I made an error there and I should have been referring to the recommended conditions

1:33:23of which there are only four and and I think what you said Madam Secretary is that we should

1:33:28remove the condition the the condition number two about indoor storage. Okay thank you that's

1:33:37the clarification I just wanted to ensure if you wanted all four conditions imposed with that motion

1:33:42or not but you're recommending that I don't think it applies that I think it's just okay

1:33:48it's the second condition that applies to the bicycle parking. Okay thank you. Is that clear Madam

1:33:56Secretary? Thank you. Okay thank you. So at this point is there any other further discussion

1:34:06seeing none? Excuse me. Oh yes please remember Spears. I'm now I feel quite confused about what

1:34:12I've proposed and I want to be sure I'm getting it right because the request has item C which is

1:34:19the minimum of point on point four five long-term bicycle parking spaces and then there's further

1:34:23staff comments about why that is or isn't a good idea and then there's a condition number two that

1:34:30says they have to demonstrate that there's space. If we remove two we are then also not approving

1:34:40the request C. So so in fact condition is that makes so condition two should be C is not approved.

1:34:51Does that make sense? So the motion from what I understand is to approve the variances but

1:34:57refuse variance C. Now variance C is the request for a minimum of point zero four five long-term

1:35:07bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit with three conditions and that's removing condition

1:35:14number two. Did I capture that correctly? Yes okay it makes sense though right. Okay.

1:35:24So just so I can surmise so it's clear to everyone that as it is variance request C

1:35:35that we are objecting to that we find that is not minor in nature that that would then impact

1:35:45the recommended condition number two. So recommended condition number two would be removed

1:35:53in your motion. Yes and and I'm just so and there's no so removing C is unconditional. There's no

1:36:01condition required it's simply not approved. Okay I believe that's the case. Member Mir. Mr. Chair I

1:36:08would like that if we approve that I think before that we need staff input to really have the

1:36:19clarity on what is feasible. I think without their input I think I will be reluctant to go forward.

1:36:28I appreciate that qualification. Thank you member Mir. That's that's insightful. I am going to turn

1:36:35to our our professional staff to a comment. Thank you Mr. Chair so I think the clarification that

1:36:46you're asking for is if condition should be removed if variance C is refused is that the

1:36:53I believe that is the intent of what clarification that member Mir is looking for.

1:36:59Yes so the way that the recommendation is worded is condition two is supposed to go hand in hand

1:37:05with variance C so if the committee is choosing to not approve variance C then there's no need any

1:37:11longer for variant or condition two so that condition should be removed if variance C is not going to

1:37:18be approved. Member Mir does that help with your consideration? Through you Chair. Can I

1:37:39please go ahead and clarify that does that elimination

1:37:47because there is no proof we have a space there or not too if we have one for everyone

1:37:55so how that is being considered because I also see that there is only one exit

1:38:04so it's all the matter of space within the area which is being defined as a restrictions for

1:38:11and requesting the variances. So does it mean that there is no problem in having that C removed

1:38:27because your inputs were based on accepting that variance that there was no possibility of the

1:38:34increase that's the very basis why you accepted the variance or projected your variance so how that

1:38:47now I don't know I'm not clear but what I'm saying is you reviewed based on that

1:38:55and allowed that variance because you thought there is no way it can be

1:38:59higher than that within those dimensions which we have. Through the Chair to Member Mir so the idea

1:39:08was supposed to be that staff would be supportive of the reduced long-term bicycle parking and in

1:39:15lieu of that there would be a condition requiring similar dimensions but in the actual units themselves

1:39:22so if variance C were to be refused and condition 2 left in then that would require that the developer

1:39:28provide extra long-term bicycle spaces on the ground level as well as space within the units

1:39:36which goes above and beyond the standard requirements of the bylaw so for that reason if the committee

1:39:40is considering removing variance C then I think it's unnecessary to keep condition 2 in

1:39:46but as written in the staff report staff are supportive of variance C if condition 2 is included.

1:39:54Okay thank you. Any other questions or discussion on this? Okay I think we've had a good discussion

1:40:06on this and I will ask the secretary treasurer to at this point call the vote. Madam Secretary Treasurer.

1:40:15Thank you Chair. Committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

1:40:20motion and I will repeat that so that's approving variances A through L with the exception of variance

1:40:30C so refusing variance C and also in terms of the conditions approving three conditions the

1:40:38removal of condition and not including condition 2. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Goodfellow.

1:40:49In favor. Member Mambrenio. In favor. Member Meir. In favor. Member Ross. In favor. Member Spears.

1:40:59That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved with the

1:41:05conditions as listed. Madam Secretary Treasurer I believe that call

1:41:13comes to the end of our agenda for this evening. Do you have any announcements?

1:41:18Mr. Chair I don't have any staff announcements. I have one comment that I'd like to make and that is to

1:41:28thank your deputy Jordan who has done a wonderful job over these past few years and we will miss him

1:41:36but I think I'd be remiss in not welcoming your replacement so I just wanted to publicly say thank

1:41:46you and welcome. With that Madam Secretary Treasurer I believe that concludes our business for today and

1:41:55I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn. Member Ross. Seconded. Member Mambrenio. All in favor.

1:42:07We stand adjourned. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. We'll see you next month.