Council Planning

11:59Good morning everyone and welcome to our City Council planning meeting for Tuesday, April 18th 2023. It is 10 o'clock in the morning. So thank you for all joining us. I did not receive any regrets for today. So I think we have everyone here.

12:14Welcome to staff and to Council and the public engaged with this today. So really appreciate it.

12:22Full agenda with, you know, some really tiny, tiny reports on it. So it shouldn't take too long. And I really appreciate all the work that's gone into, especially, you know, all the reports are obviously valid, but especially the comprehensive zoning bylaw update that's coming to us as well today.

12:41With that, I'd like to ask everyone to please stand as we sing okay to you as we continue just a moment of silent reflection. Thank you. And our statement of acknowledgement as well as we gather were reminded that wealth is situated on treaty land that is steeped in rich indigenous history and home to many First Nation Inuit and Métis people today.

15:07As a city we have a responsibility of the stewardship on the land in which we both live and work. Today we acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation of the initiative back peoples on his traditional territory we are meeting.

15:19Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof? Okay, not hearing or seeing any.

15:30And we're going to get right into the agenda. We have the consent agenda which the one with the one item on it for 65 Delhi Street. It's the heritage designation. Anyone like to move that counselor downer counselor.

15:47Claussen was willing to second that. Anything further on that?

15:53Alright, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against the designation for 65 Delhi Street?

15:59Hearing and seeing none. So that's unanimous. Thank you so much. That's considered passed.

16:05And we're jumping right into the items for discussion and the first one is a sign variance report for 245 Handling Creek Boulevard. So this is a staff position of this sign variance to be refused.

16:22And so staff are looking for us to confirm that refusal. And we have a delegation with us here. It's Kevin Thompson.

16:33Kevin, welcome. There's a couple pieces of correspondence as well.

16:41Kevin, so you have as a delegate up to five minutes, and I will time it for you. I won't interrupt you or give you many heads up with you, you know, near the five minute mark.

16:53I will only interrupt you if you go over the five minute mark. So don't let me do that. So you start and I will start the timer. Okay, great.

17:01Go right to you. Thank you, worship. Just wait for the presentation to be loaded up here. Start my stopwatch.

17:13Thank you, worship. And good morning members of council. My name is Kevin Thompson. I'm a partner at SV law. And we're here today to discuss our proposed sign variance application.

17:22Our proposal is for two facial signs, one on the east facade facing the handling expressway and one on the west facade facing Handling Creek Boulevard.

17:30As you can see from the two renderings here, these signs are in keeping with an opposite the two BDO signs that currently exist on the right side of the same two facades under the bylaw that was passed in 2021.

17:41There is a prohibition on more than one sign at the top story of a building with three or more stories. So if this was a two story building, just like many of the other buildings within the business park, there'd be no issue.

17:52As soon as we bump to three stories, there's a prohibition on more than one sign and that's what we're caught by BDO already has permission for two signs and we're looking to add two more to mirror and being keeping with the style and size of those two signs.

18:05There is an explicit variance process under your bylaw. And under 7.7 there are six enumerated criteria that shall be considered by staff or council on appeal.

18:15There's no dispute between us and staff that we meet B through F. There is no impact on heritage. There is no impact on residential areas. There's no negative impact on accessibility. We've complied with all prior signed bylaws.

18:27And there's been no responses from anybody opposed to this. There's only one written response from the chamber in support. None of your constituents were opposed to what we are proposing here today.

18:37So it comes down to 7.7 a which is whether the sign is compatible with urban design guidelines for building property in the surrounding area and staff correctly note that we have to look to both the commercial built form standards and policy 8.14 of your official plan in assessing whether we comply with the urban design guidelines.

18:56We have a comprehensive covering letter that sets out in detail how we conform to 8.14 of your official plan. I can come back to this in question and answer I need to move through in my five minutes to respond to the comments from staff but rest assured my submission to you we meet each and every one of these official

19:11plan policies.

19:13There are some additional guidelines as well which are not incorporated into your official plan. I've added those because we also meet those additional criteria.

19:20So just turning to the staff comments that need to respond to in the time I have left staff comment number one illuminated signs in the top story of buildings that are three or more stories and height are not permitted by the sign bylaw to maintain a non illuminated nighttime aesthetic.

19:33In addition office activity does not require nighttime way finding. So my comment in response to that is whether or not an office use requires nighttime way finding is not one of the criteria in your sign bylaw.

19:43It's a wholly irrelevant consideration when we're looking at the urban design guidelines. There's actually nothing in those urban design guidelines that discourages illumination at the third story or above.

19:53I can appreciate how we don't want to have too much illumination in the nighttime, especially near residential areas or inherited areas.

20:02That's just simply not applicable in the business park. This is the nighttime aesthetic that we're looking at in the business park. These are actually this is just south of our building.

20:10This is actually 197 hand and I'd have the address is transposed here.

20:15But you can see every single one of these buildings office use is predominantly sometimes showroom in the case of the furniture store. They are all illuminated all night long.

20:25The buildings themselves are highly illuminated. So the against the backdrop of that is what we are dealing with in this scenario.

20:33Those are actually second story signs, even though they appear to be on the third story because of the size of the parapet wall there.

20:39This is the subject property. Again, you can see the illuminated video sign in our proposed signage on the hand and side would be directly opposite that on the left hand corner.

20:48You can see how illuminated that site is at night that that's a site plan requirement for safety and security that that level of illumination is is on that site.

20:57And so our illuminated sign against that backdrop I would submit to would be negligible.

21:03The next comment is that the site plan drawings for our building did not show these signs again. I suggest that's a bit of a red herring site plans never show that level of detail.

21:12And I would add to that that our site plan was approved in May of 2020. This bylaw did not exist until July of 2014 months later. So it's very difficult to plan ahead for a prohibition that we did not know would be in existence.

21:25The next comment staffs concerned that precedent will be set. This is the big one and and with respect to staff. I'm concerned that if we if we get away from those six criteria in your bylaw, we lose certainty for the business community and knowing how and when a variance may be approved.

21:39The specter of a precedent being set could be used to deny any variance application.

21:44And that's just not how the bylaw is meant to be interpreted. There are six criteria. If you meet those criteria, you should have reasonable certainty that that a variance will be granted.

21:53And finally, a limited signs on the top stories are not supportable by staff because they're primarily for businesses do not operate during the nighttime hours. Again, the OP discourages roof signs. There's nothing about illumination in there.

22:06This is the surrounding streetscape. I'll just jump through. You can see the height of our sign is in keeping with those second story signs.

22:13We are in a provincially significant employment zone. And this is a business park. I would submit to you that I think five minutes is up. Thank you.

22:19Yep. No, thank you. I'm sorry to have to do that, but I'll put up the conclusions. That's my role. So yeah, thank you.

22:25Let me just see if there's any questions before it comes back to councils or any questions from council.

22:32Okay, I'm seeing.

22:34No, I'm seeing none. Thank you very much. Oh, it looks like I got one. Councillor Caron. Sorry.

22:39Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know it's hard between the screens and the horseshoe. Thank you for the delegation. Very helpful information, especially the visuals.

22:48Other than for marketing purposes, your illumination at night illustrations in your presentation were very illuminating. Excuse the pun.

22:59What is the purpose of nighttime illumination? Why are you asking for nighttime illumination? I mean, other than for marketing and visibility?

23:09Is there a practical purpose that is outside of those purposes?

23:15Thank you. Through the chair to council. That is the primary purpose. You're absolutely correct that what we're looking for is brand recognition.

23:22There are 30,000 cars a day that drive along the Hanlon. It's imperative for a business of our size.

23:28When we're making an investment like the size we just did in the Hanlon Creek business park and in this community, having that brand recognition, having that illuminated signage for that volume of traffic is critical.

23:39We have 27,000 square feet. We're the largest tenant in that building and we're in the business park. And it's just in keeping in my submission with the surrounding streetscape within that business park that every business has that nighttime illumination.

23:55It's not for wayfinding. We don't need that illumination. None of those businesses need that. But both all do respect to staff.

24:02There's no policy in the official plan that speaks to the requirement for nighttime wayfinding as a precondition to having that illuminated signage. So thank you for the question.

24:11I would suggest that the criteria don't speak to whether or not we need that nighttime illumination as a factor to be considered.

24:20Okay. Thank you. And Gibson. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for coming to council today. You touched on it, but it was very quickly. So hope you can slow it down for me a little bit.

24:32Second story illuminated lights permissible. Third story, not permissible. Is that correct? Yes or no?

24:40Yes. Thank you. Through them. Sure. To council Gibson. Yes. That is correct. So, and then you touched on your relative height of your building compared to the other.

24:49Quite frankly, the two stories that look pretty tall. Can you give us a sort of a distance from the ground of where your sign would be compared to the to those other two story buildings? I'm just trying to sound seems to be pretty comparable in terms of sight lines.

25:03Thank you through the chair to councillor Gibson. Our signs will be 11.4 meters off of ground. I don't have an exact number for the 197 and 195 Hanlon Creek. They're about 10 meters.

25:14So we are slightly higher. But visually when you're looking from the hand that are from the creek, you our eyes can't necessarily see that difference.

25:21I agree. So I guess the conundrum here is yours is third story whereas theirs is technically the second story. Okay. Thank you.

25:30Great. Seeing nothing further. Thanks for your delegation. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

25:35Okay, it's back to us. And so I'm looking for I'm looking to see if anyone would be willing to move the staff recommendation.

25:48Seeing none. So it looks like I'll have another motion to come to the floor, which is councillor or work please.

25:56Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I circulated a motion yesterday.

26:02But I was not aware that all the other signs were illuminated. So I've modified the motion. The clerks should have just received one.

26:09And that's correct.

26:13So it reads that the SV law faces sign with a maximum sign face area of 7.8 square meters located on the top third story a left side of the building facade facing the Hanlon expressway East elevation be approved.

26:25And to that the SV law faces sign with a maximum sign face area of 7.8 square meters located on the top story a left side of the building facade facing Hanlon Creek Boulevard West elevation be approved.

26:38And I believe councillor Goller will second. And if I could just speak to it for a moment, the reason that I feel it's appropriate. It is true that when you're you're coming across layered on the overpass, the elevation is very, very similar.

26:52And if you compare to the type of signage in the adjacent building, it really is in keeping so it's not setting a precedent for other parts of the city. It just isn't keeping with what what their neighbors have.

27:03So I want to put that on the floor for my for council's consideration.

27:08Okay, thank you. It's been seconded so by Gower as you mentioned, okay, and now we're speaking only to the motions on the floor. Is there any questions? Okay, I got all to then Quran.

27:23Thank you, Mayor Guthrie through you to staff. I'm somewhat ambivalent on this one I have to admit and I was wondering if staff could please reiterate their concerns.

27:32I've heard some comments about climate change about light pollution. I know that we're very concerned about race to zero. I'm also concerned about pressing light pollution. So I think I need to hear it from staff.

27:45What are the issues that we believe could be challenges for us moving forward with other areas of the city or perhaps other similar signs.

27:56Through the mayor to council.

27:58So, yes, when the sign ball was amended in 2021, there was a holistic change and taking a look at what we wanted our city to look like visually from the signage perspective.

28:07Certainly the number of signs that were permitted on a building was looked at and absolutely in illumination was looked at.

28:13We are trying to go race to zero and trying to do those targets and that not only the city's, you know, 3% of the pie has to do something, but the community as well.

28:21And as a result in the sign by law, the illumination was removed from from these.

28:27You know, if it was a hospital, we get it, you're trying to find get there at night.

28:31But a law office, perhaps not, not so much and a signage to be illuminated in our opinion is not required and goes against some of the other policies that we're trying to achieve as a city.

28:43And Karan, please.

28:46Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to Castro work for the alternate.

28:52Motion I was going to support the first clause regarding the third story signage for all the reasons that have already been expressed.

29:01The illumination for me was the key one that I was sitting on. And I believe in the discussions on the third story that the other major reason was migratory birds that birds flying at a certain height.

29:16Light is interrupts their migratory patterns. And I just sent an article via email to my colleagues about that that height of illumination.

29:27The illustrations from the delegate for me.

29:31I spoke volumes, because I did go drive that stretch at night and I saw the level of light pollution. I had incrementally been unaware of how much illumination is facing our our handlin expressway from the business part.

29:5045 illuminated signs doesn't make it. Okay.

29:55You know, 45 wrongs doesn't make a right.

29:59We've got a light pollution problem. And even 1st and 2nd stories are contributing to that problem.

30:07The delegate, while I respect our local business. Absolutely. This is an excellent local business.

30:15I've said that the market marketing is the primary reason for the illuminated signs at night, but that's not Council's role. Council's role is not to provide the billboard for marketing along the handlin.

30:30I think we have other considerations, aesthetics climate change, but for me it's about migratory birds and there's enough research to show that it is damaging to those populations and we are a bird friendly city.

30:44So I have to vote with those values. So I would like to put an amendment to the amendment or put an amendment to the motion to reinsert the words non illuminated to counselor or works motion, which is the original wording that was circulated via email.

31:03I need to see if there's a second or 1st.

31:06And their counselor all 2nd.

31:10Okay, we're speaking now only to the amendment. Does anyone need questions on that? I really think it's quite clear everybody.

31:18Okay, so how would I call the vote?

31:21Oh, Councillor work to do you have to question this or can I call the vote?

31:26Well, I just had a question with relationship to how we define stories in the handlin business park because I've asked this question before right there's a 3 story maximum.

31:36In certain parts of the handlin business park, but the height of the story is not defined.

31:42So it's an important consideration when we say you can on a 2 story, but you can on a 3 story, but we don't define the heights because based on if it's a warehouse height, it'll be higher, etc.

31:54So just for the.

31:56You know, just in terms of fairness and just to be sure we're understanding the difference between a 2nd story and a 3rd story and whether it should be illuminated or not.

32:05There's a lot of gray in that area in the handlin business park. So I'm just wondering if staff want to comment on, is there a definition? Is there a height to a story in the handlin business park?

32:16Through the mayor to Councillor or Rourke a story is defined as a floor. So there isn't actually a height tied to it.

32:28So, yes, the warehouses, they are taller with 1 or 2 stories, whereas a office building.

32:37Generally could be have the same height as a 2 story warehouse, a 3 story office building.

32:45So, through you, I just offer that for consideration so people are aware that the.

32:49It's not as clear as in a residential area.

32:54Councillor, thank you. Mayor Guthrie hearing from from Councillor O'Rourke. I think that there's 2 issues here. 1 is the principle of the sign and whether the sign should be there and illuminated.

33:08The other is a question of policy, which I think I just heard that we need to go back and review our definition of a story and tight in with regards to signs.

33:18I don't want to really want to deal with that one in terms of a singular sign. I think the decision in front of us right now is whether this sign should be approved or not.

33:27So, I think the issue is 1 that I'd suggest has to go back for careful consideration because especially with bill 23 coming in, if we don't define certain certain height standards, we could be challenged throughout the city on on some of these issues.

33:46So, that makes sense.

33:49I mean, I think the word 3 goes beyond say they conventional 8 to 10 feet, but is actually the height of the of a Walmart warehouse.

34:05Okay.

34:06I'd like to, oh, I'm sorry. Councillor Caron the mover of the amendment. Go ahead.

34:11our sign by law, not our sign by law, our light by law. It's my understanding that we do have an upcoming review of

34:19light pollution in the city as a whole,

34:22not just signage, but in our efforts to become a bird-friendly city,

34:28turning off lighting in vacant office buildings at night during spring and fall migration,

34:34the searchlight that's happening downtown that's interrupting migration patterns.

34:40When is that taking place and perhaps this discussion is better left there?

34:45Because we have a bigger problem than just this sign and I don't want our bigger problem to weigh down this discussion.

34:56Through the chair, I've asked General Manager Doug Godfrey to come down and respond to that.

35:00Thanks, Doug.

35:04Through the chair to Councillor Caron, we have started that light trespass review.

35:11It will be conducted this year and we hope to report back to council early next.

35:20Okay, thanks.

35:21So,

35:24I'm trying to find a middle ground here, Mr. Mayor.

35:27I'm okay with an illuminated sign

35:32outside of the spring and fall migration.

35:34And I'm

35:37just trying to craft in my head how we do that weather.

35:41Actually, you know what?

35:42Let's keep the amendment as is non-illuminated and we can talk later about

35:48partial illumination during the light trespass review.

35:53That may mean that SB law goes ahead and installs an illuminated sign, but just

36:00keeps it turned off until we can have a more fulsome review of the impact that it has.

36:08And we'll leave it to the bylaw review.

36:13Okay.

36:15All right.

36:15Thank you, everybody.

36:16I'm going to call the vote on this amendment to have it as non-illuminated.

36:20I will not be supporting this amendment at all.

36:23Okay.

36:24So all in favour of the amendment.

36:29Three, Karan,

36:32Katen and Alt.

36:33So that amendment fails.

36:35We're back to the main motion.

36:38And can I look to call the vote on that?

36:40Looks like I can.

36:42So I will do that.

36:45All in favour of the main motion to approve.

36:48Sorry.

36:49Yeah, fine.

36:49Show hands too late now.

36:51All in favour of that.

36:53Let me see the hands.

36:56Okay, it's unanimous.

36:59Thank you.

37:01Thank you to our delegation.

37:02I do have a follow up question on this matter just for curiosity sake.

37:08Is this something that staff is looking at?

37:14Or something like this in the future to never come back to us?

37:25Through the mayor.

37:25So the signed bylaw that was brought forward in 2021, if staff recommends

37:30refusal of an application, there's the option to come to council.

37:35I understand that.

37:36But in a could we could we in the future, like maybe discuss on how

37:43such a process like this for something like this in a business park

37:47could be amended?

37:49Because to me this to me personally, I just doesn't seem like this really

37:54needed to get to this point in a process.

37:57As you can see by unanimous vote of council on the subject matter, it

38:01doesn't seem relevant really for this particular site, especially in employment

38:06lands, that's something like this would have to continually trigger an appeal

38:10process to come to council.

38:13So is this something that is being considered through delegated authority

38:16or an actual change?

38:18Or is it is just the first time it's come up and because it's the first time

38:21it's not triggering anything for you to consider having to bring forward to

38:25council to change it in the future?

38:27We can take that back.

38:29Mayor Guthrie and take a look at it, but we were following the directions.

38:32Other proof signed very well.

38:33Yeah.

38:33No, no, you absolutely were absolutely.

38:37And the process did the right thing.

38:39But sometimes in processes such as this, it illuminates it.

38:44It's illuminating to see that, you know, maybe we've maybe we got something wrong.

38:49So I'll leave that for a conversation outside of this.

38:54Thank you for the follow up.

38:57OK, we're moving on to the next one.

38:59We got a couple presentations here from our staff on the sustainable

39:04development checklist.

39:06So we'll move it over to you.

39:32Hey, good morning, mayor and members of council.

39:36There's a presentation.

39:37My name is David DeGroote.

39:38I'm a senior urban designer with the city of wealth, and I'm here today with

39:42Rory Templeton.

39:43He's a landscape planner with the city as well as well as other staff.

39:48And we're happy today to present the sustainable development checklist.

39:55So the purpose of this report and presentation is to provide council with

39:59a recommended sustainable development checklist for new site plan approval

40:03applications. And staff are recommending this report in response to a couple of

40:08things, including bill 23 that was recently passed by the province and the

40:14Ministry of Municipal Affairs letter dated February 28th, 2023, which is

40:19attached to the staff report.

40:22The sustainable development checklist will ensure that the city of wealth can

40:25maintain its existing requirements related to sustainable development through

40:29the site plan approval process and establishing the checklist creates

40:33clarity regarding the city's sustainable development expectations for develop

40:37for the development community through the site plan process while allowing for

40:41appropriate flexibility.

40:44It is a placeholder document given the changing regulatory environment for

40:48planning. And I'll talk a little bit about next steps later in the presentation.

40:55So moving on to sort of where this is coming from, the planning act identifies

40:59the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support

41:04public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians as a matter of provincial

41:08interest that councils shall have regard to.

41:11And that's in section two of the planning act.

41:14The province has through bill 23 made a number of changes to the site plan

41:18approval process. In general, they narrow the scope and generally remove

41:24regulation of exterior design from site plan approval process with some

41:27exceptions by notable exception that we're here to talk about today is

41:33exterior elements related to sustainable design.

41:37And that's also confirmed in the, in the letter that's attached from the

41:40municipal affairs and housing.

41:42The city of wealth at our level has already acknowledged the need to develop

41:46a sustainable development checklist through the natural heritage action plan,

41:50which was approved by council in 2018.

41:53And it was also referenced in the urban design action plan, which was also

41:56approved by council a little bit earlier.

41:59This checklist is an important first step to implement the direction and to

42:03respond to bill 23.

42:07It also is an implementation tool for the urban design, sustainable development

42:10and urban forest policy policies of the official plan.

42:14And I would also note that there are many municipalities with similar

42:17standards or sustainable development programs throughout the province.

42:24The sustainable development checklist before you works in tandem with the

42:27comprehensive zoning bylaw and supports key objectives related to sustainability,

42:33especially in regards to tree planting, to bird friendly design, to walk ability,

42:38et cetera, which given their nature are less suited for regulation through the

42:41comprehensive zoning bylaw.

42:44Other items such as bicycle parking and EV parking are being proposed to be

42:48addressed through the comprehensive zoning bylaw, which she'll be talking

42:50about a little bit later today.

42:55So again, turning to the checklist overview, the performance measures of the

43:00checklist are consistent with current site plan pro site plan requirements

43:05related to sustainable development prior to bill 23 coming into force and effect.

43:09So really what we're doing here is we're writing down this, the, the items that

43:14we typically ask for through the site plan process related to sustainable

43:18development that we have been asking for.

43:21Applicants will be required to conform where applicable to the sustainable

43:24development checklist as they move through the site plan process.

43:27Our flexibility has been implemented into the checklist as well.

43:34And if approved by council, the, we would start applying this as of May 1st of this

43:38year. The sustainable development checklist contains a total of 16 performance

43:45measures that are divided up into five categories, which are listed there on the

43:49slide. These sustainable development categories and performance measures were

43:54selected again, as I said, based on the current existing site plan technical

43:58requirements and no new technical requirements have been added as part of

44:02this checklist. However, it's important to note that there are some placeholders

44:06in there. There, there, there's at least one category that doesn't have anything

44:10other than a description under it. And really this is a placeholder as, as we

44:15develop a more wholesome checklist through the sustainable city master plan,

44:19which is, which is part of the strategic plan. And staff expect that through that

44:24process, this checklist may be expanded or identify other technical requirements

44:29and other optional items. So moving forward, again, this is a bit of a

44:36placeholder as we, as the city moves forward with the sustainable city master

44:42plan, which is an action item under the strategic plan. The checklist will, will

44:50allow us to get a sort of a baseline data of how things are working to test the

44:55checklist and allow for a more wholesome and informed engagement as we move

45:01forward with a sustainable city master plan. And comprehensive community

45:05engagement will be undertaken through that master plan. So with that, there are

45:12two recommendations, one to approve it and one to direct staff to implement the

45:18checklist through the site plan approval process. And that's the end of my

45:22presentation. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

45:26Thank you so much. Let's see if there are any questions. Okay, Karan and then

45:32Guller, please.

45:34No questions. Just, I'm so glad to see this coming before council. As most of you

45:39know, at a lot of planning applications, I am regularly lamenting the energy

45:45letters that come in and the fact that not enough of a checklist is available

45:53about what our expectation expectations are as a council and as a community. And

45:57so thank you staff for bringing this forward and I'm happy to put it on the

46:01floor.

46:02Yeah, and councillor Allt will second it. Councillor Goller questions. Yes,

46:08through your worship. Thank you for, for putting this checklist together. I'm

46:13really excited in particular the ecology and biodiversity section now so that I

46:18understand the teeth that this have. For example, EB one asks that three

46:23planting areas and soil volumes are in conformance with the city's three

46:26technical manual. What happens if we get a checklist back and and it says that

46:32they're not able to to meet this? What what are the teeth in this to compel

46:35people to actually comply with items in the checklist?

46:39Through you, your worship. The it's a bit of a it's a bit of a moving ground with

46:48some of the changes of bill 23. So acknowledge that at the beginning of my

46:52answer, but the province, if you read the changes to bill 23 and including

46:57sustainable development, still an element for the city to comment on and and

47:03taken together with that letter from from the ministry, you know, having

47:08trees that work and and that are going to grow and be successful is something

47:13that we can review and and comment on as part of the site plan approval process.

47:17So there is some flexibility to have that debate a little bit with the

47:22developer in there, but we have now clear standards and a way forward to move

47:27forward. So I mean, it comes down to the site plan approval process and taken

47:31together that application process. OK, OK, no, thank you for that. But to be

47:36clear, does that give you grounds to deny application that is not conforming or

47:42is it more about this is what we would really like to see in wealth? We hope

47:46that you do it out of the goodness of your your heart.

47:52Premier Guthrie to count sir Gowler. If it's the way the changes to the

47:58Planning Act work for sure on municipal boulevards, we can require it. We can

48:02deny an application if they don't provide it there on their internal site. If

48:05they don't provide the trees, the landscaping, we're not in a position to

48:10do that to deny it at this time. OK, OK, thank you for that clarification.

48:14I'm still very excited that at least these are here in an accessible way so

48:19that the expectations from the city are clear to developers. Thank you.

48:25Councillor Chew and then boost it all.

48:28Through you, Mr. Mayor, nice to finally meet you. It's nice to have another

48:32urban designer come on board on the Council chambers. I just want to say

48:37this is really great work and this isn't as rigorous as the Toronto Green

48:41Standards, but I do think this is an important step in helping applicants set

48:45expectations for what our city standards are. It also helps us build

48:49a social relationships with applicants to set expectations and provide an

48:54educational component throughout the process. I know a lot of landscape

48:57architects and design practitioners, they already have built in standards that

49:01they use within their firms. And I think having this additional piece as

49:06part of their toolkit could be very helpful. And then I would encourage

49:11staff as well to consider any opportunities to do similar work in

49:16house as well for future urban design excellence.

49:23And boost it till please. Thank you. And through the mayor, can you remind me

49:28in a development application process? I know there's the public process.

49:33Is the site plan information publicly accessible? What I'm wondering is just

49:38that accountability if there's a development happening in my area that I

49:43am able to see the site plan, the sustainability checklist and is there

49:47public information to this development meets meets doesn't meet? Is that

49:53publicly available as they go through the process?

50:01Through the mayor to Council, who's a tell. So the site plan process is not a

50:04public process. So it's an internal process through staff. As David DeGroote

50:10mentioned that we are going to be monitoring this as we come up with the

50:12city sustainability plan and we'll be keeping our own metrics on this to see

50:16where we're conforming and where we're not. And then that'll help us inform a

50:19future city sustainability plan as well. So we'll be keeping our internal

50:23metrics on the conformance rate. Just a supplemental. Does it come? Does it come

50:29to Council at some point as well around development and meeting the

50:36sustainability checklist kind of objectives? So at this point, we haven't

50:41actually even talked that far, but it will be included in information as we do

50:45the city sustainability plan. So it will be available in some format. As of

50:51April 6th, we have additional reporting requirements that we will be bringing

50:54to Council quarterly through information reports on site plan approval

50:58timelines. And then we're taking a look at if there's any other information we

51:02provide to the province on some of those timelines as well. But we that just came

51:06out on the 6th and we're not through that review yet. Just finally, just around

51:11that accountability process and in site plan. I know it's a staff process, but

51:17it would be great in developing community and that, you know, obligation and,

51:21you know, commitment to align with the city sustainability goals to have

51:28access, public access to that information. I'm thinking about, you know, the

51:32development application process. I can look at things just to consideration that

51:37as a resident, it would be great to advocate for a development that meets

51:42those criteria. Thank you. Okay, I just have a few questions then and then I'll

51:50look to call the vote. So my first question is actually just dovetailing

51:54into a little bit further where Councillor Boosentill just brought up and it was

51:58just asking how is this going to, is this going to, we know how we have our

52:08energy, I'm sorry, applicants for applications that come forward. There's

52:13usually like an energy sort of checklist that's usually attached to

52:17applications, whereas this is not. So is this something that could be considered

52:27through staff when you're working with developers before the application comes

52:31forward, that something like this could be included at the application stage?

52:41Through Mayor Guthrie. So the checklist will be part of the site plan

52:48requirements. We focused it solely on site plan. So as part of their pre

52:51consultation when they come in for site plan, it'll be identified as an item

52:54that they're to complete and provide back to us. You know, we do have a 60 day

53:00turnaround as mandated by the province and it was mandated that that process for

53:05site plan just maybe follow up on Councillor Boosentill's question that it be

53:08direct, it be run by staff and not Council. So but yes, we will provide the

53:14information at the precon stage, but not at the zoning stage. That level of

53:19details is not required at zoning. Okay. And then the letter from the ministry

53:24also indicated that they are looking to work with municipalities in coming into

53:30the summer of this year to potentially find ways of moving things from sort of a

53:36checklist stage into maybe changing the Ontario building code to make it have

53:42more teeth that has to be adhered to. Has our staff reached out at all or have we

53:48considered as a city of Guelph to officially ask to partner in that review

53:53stage? So we have a place at the table with our views.

53:58Mayor Guthrie, we have we have not reached out since we received the letter of

54:02February 28th. Okay. Are you thinking of is Guelph thinking of putting up its hand

54:11to say we would love to give input on that in a more formal partnership type of

54:17style or and I know there's staffing capacity. So I acknowledge that right

54:21off the bat. Or is it something that maybe when the ERO opens up that would be

54:26more of a commenting option for us?

54:31Mayor Guthrie, certainly for when the ERO comes out, we definitely would if it's

54:35through that process. But we can take it back and maybe take it back to some of

54:39our other bodies that we interact with and have some further conversations as

54:45well. Okay, great. And I guess if anyone's my last kind of a last comment slash

54:51question, if anyone at all was concerned about this, even within the development

54:56community, it's like, oh, you know, here's another checklist or something like

54:59that. I mean, it's really a mute point because you still have to be adhering to

55:07the accountability of the timelines that are imposed on municipalities.

55:11Anyways, regardless of this checklist or any other items that are required for

55:15site plan, there's now timelines embedded that have to be met. Is that

55:20something that you would agree with that you've heard from developers or others

55:25that might have been concerned with this being added?

55:30Mayor Guthrie, so that that is correct. And as Mr. DeGroote mentioned, that

55:34it's really a summary of existing policies and practices that we already have.

55:38We haven't gone above and beyond our standard practices. So it's a summary of

55:41here's our bird friendly design guidelines. Here's our tree planting

55:45manual. Here's our lighting policies. So it's a combination of everything handy

55:49in one place. So the hope for us is that it actually makes it easier.

55:53Yeah, thank you for highlighting that. I appreciate it. Okay, that was that was

55:57it for me. And I was about to call the vote. But do you have something more to

56:00say, Councillor Chew?

56:03Through you, Mr. Mayor, just very quickly, I think the whole point of this

56:07checklist is to set an expectation. I know a lot of municipalities, especially

56:11in the GTA, they already have stuff like this in place. And I don't think it's

56:15cumbersome to have it as an additional piece in the conversation during site

56:21plan. I think planning staff, it's really about building relationships and

56:25rapport and also setting expectations so that when things come forward,

56:29like it's already agreed upon, there's consensus. So it doesn't have to be

56:33contentious like it is traditionally here. And we're really just moving forward

56:38to the 21st century of planning here in Guelph. And I'm really excited to have

56:43this put forward. And I hope everyone can consider it from that viewpoint as well

56:46from educational piece that staff are able to provide with their knowledge and

56:50expertise.

56:53Great, thank you. Totally agree. Well said. Thank you. Okay, I'll call the vote then.

56:58Is anyone against the sustainability checklist? Seeing no hands go up. So

57:03that's unanimous as well. Thank you to staff for also thank you for staff for

57:09bringing us forward when you did as well. Nice to get that done. So thank you

57:12very much. Okay, we are going into this itty bitty report called the

57:20comprehensive zoning bylaw and companion official plan amendment. We're going to

57:25have. See here.

57:30Well, what I'll do everyone just want to give everyone sort of a heads up. Let's

57:34let's move ourselves through. Actually, let me just get off the mic for one

57:37second. Got to confer with the clerks. I was just conferring just to try to

58:05manage time as we go with the presentation and with the delegations

58:11just to give everyone enough of a heads up about break time or things like that

58:15to consider. So may I just ask, do you have an idea how long the staff

58:20presentation is in its entirety? For years of work? Should I give you five

58:26minutes? Can we can we ask for 25 please? Oh yeah, you could use whatever you

58:31want. Yeah, I just wanted to know what it what it what it is. Okay, so I think

58:35what we'll do folks, I just want to give everyone a heads up. I'm trying to make

58:38sure things work out well here. So let's let's do the presentation and and then

58:44right away into our delegations and get those out of the way. And then

58:49depending on the time right there, it may be a natural time and maybe though,

58:52okay, we've heard everything take a break. People can grab a lunch or a little

58:56bite to eat or whatever. I mean, come back and just kick right into it. Or if

59:00there's a little bit of time, we could do a little bit of some questions before

59:02we take a break. But I would say around sort of 1145 range as a sort of a

59:09heads up to everybody. That's when we'll start to really look at having a hard

59:13break. So we can all just take a moment. Okay, so I just wanted to say that out

59:17loud so everyone knew in advance. So with that, I'll call upon our staff to

59:22kick us off with this this great report.

59:27All right. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie and good morning, everyone. So we're

59:31definitely excited to be here today to bring forward the comprehensive review

59:35of the zoning bylaw as well as the companion official plan amendment for

59:38decision. As I start, I want to thank staff, Abby, Watte in particular, and

59:44you'll see a Pethro staff throughout the audience today, including a chunk of

59:48them in row three who've all been working hard to bring this forward. Based on

59:53the number of pages, you know, it took a whole team to bring this forward and it

59:56was not just a few people sitting up here. So we'll walk through some of the

1:00:01changes that were raised at the public meeting in July. And we have done a lot

1:00:06of further consideration of those. In some cases, we were able to add additional

1:00:10changes. And in some cases, it was our professional opinion not to make those

1:00:14changes. And in some cases, the changes were in alignment with previous

1:00:19decisions and recommendations of staff. We do recognize that there was a lot to

1:00:24read. And we tried to make it easy as possible by including a red line revision

1:00:29of changes made that hopefully was a quick reference guide to what was what

1:00:34was changed. Attachment five is a summary of council and community concerns,

1:00:39along with staff comment on those individual items that were raised.

1:00:43Attachment six to 13 are individual reviews, some of the topics that were

1:00:48raised at the July public meeting. And we have completed a thorough review on

1:00:53those topics that were raised in July. For example, attachment six driveway with

1:00:58review and recommendations summary is 25 pages. It includes comparisons with

1:01:05other municipalities, comments from our advisory committees, images, photos and

1:01:10other policies that help form our recommendation, including our policies on

1:01:14stormwater, urban forest, tree canopy, transportation and our council's

1:01:20commitment to the race to zero, all of which help inform our recommendation that

1:01:25we put forward to council. We have previously shared that the current bylaw

1:01:32is from 1995. And in 1995, our population was 95,000. The current bylaw as is in

1:01:40front of you today, I think is progressive. It shows a lot of insight and

1:01:44foresight, and will help us grow our community to 2051 and 208,000 people. So

1:01:51go from 95,000 to 208,000. The parameters are set out within this bylaw.

1:01:57Abby and our team have researched zoning trends, have reviewed council approved

1:02:02policies and master plans and have produced a very friendly user friendly

1:02:07document. I know we're going to get fixated on a few issues and that's okay.

1:02:11But there's some really good regulations in the bylaw and you know some of the

1:02:16councils have asked us what we're particularly proud of. And some of those

1:02:20items are EV chargers, bike parking, urban agriculture, additional housing

1:02:25permissions on individual lots. We put in zoning for stacked townhouses and back

1:02:30to backs that come to council regularly. We have permissions for supportive housing

1:02:38and we've provided three unit demonstration plans to show what those can

1:02:41actually look like to make it easier for the reader and the community. Through

1:02:47this document, we've also pre zoned a lot of land. This should result in fewer

1:02:51site specific applications, but we've made it very clear what our design

1:02:55expectations are as part of that pre zoning. And there has been some pushback

1:03:00on the design expectations that are in there. But we do want to make it clear

1:03:05that if you're pre zoned, these are our expectations because you can go right to

1:03:08site plan if you choose. And that's a time saving option that we've given the

1:03:13development community through this. The end of exclusionary zoning was

1:03:18introduced in July. We were ahead of the province on that on that forefront. And

1:03:24we're looking at ways to see how we can gently increase our housing choice,

1:03:27supply and options in all parts of the city without fundamentally changing the

1:03:32way those neighborhoods look and feel. While the end of exclusionary zoning is

1:03:38not the silver bullet to resolve the housing crisis, it does help along the

1:03:43continuum of housing. Part of wealth's vision is that we are leaders who shape

1:03:48tomorrow. We tackle local and global challenges through innovation, art and

1:03:52action. And we're committed to inclusive prosperity because together we're

1:03:56stronger. We have used these words in our review of the comprehensive zoning by

1:04:01law and the draft by law reflects this vision. Leveraging smart zoning reforms

1:04:09and pre zoning can unleash housing supply to help meet the needs of current and

1:04:14future residents. We are at a unique crossroads in time today. We have the

1:04:20opportunity collectively to reimagine how we want to experience her city and

1:04:26how the city's form can help enhance her relationship with each other. Council has

1:04:31made purposeful decisions to ensure we become a healthy urban climate resilient

1:04:36city of 208,000 in 2051. I'm fully aware we're about to have some conversations

1:04:50on parking and we will we will go through those. We have provided our staff

1:04:54recommendations and our supports for those. So we are hoping that we can move

1:04:58through them quickly. You have staff's recommendations and documentation in

1:05:02front of you. So with that, I will turn it over to Abby Watts and to go through

1:05:11the zoning by law. And thank you, Abby.

1:05:16Great. Thank you, Krista. Good morning, Mayor Guthrie and members of council. We

1:05:20are pleased to be here today to present the comprehensive zoning by law and

1:05:24companion official plan for amendment for decision today. The zoning by law review

1:05:32was initiated in 2019 and has been a multi year project involving multiple

1:05:37touch points with council stakeholders and the community. The zoning by law

1:05:41consists of five phases and a decision today on the proposed zoning by law

1:05:45completes phase four of the project. Phase five is implementation of the new

1:05:50by law, including updating the city's website, finalizing the interactive

1:05:54components of the by law and staff training. The project was initiated in

1:06:01January of 2019. Some background on the project. We released two discussion

1:06:06papers in October of 2019. That was the comprehensive zoning by law review

1:06:11discussion paper and the Gwell parking standards discussion paper prepared by

1:06:15IBI group. Staff also worked with IBI group to provide an additional council

1:06:20parking workshop in April of 2021. The additional residential unit review was

1:06:26brought forward to council and approved in December of 2020 in 2020 to in order

1:06:31to comply with provincial legislation and changes made under bill 108. The first

1:06:37draft of the new zoning by law was released in November of 2021 and

1:06:41included community consultation. The second draft of the by law was released

1:06:47in July of 2022 with the public open house and statutory public

1:06:52meeting at council. Since the public meeting, staff have been conducting

1:06:56additional community engagement, meeting with stakeholders, conducting

1:07:00additional studies to ensure we have up to date information and finalizing the

1:07:04zoning by law text and mapping. The existing zoning by law is from 1995 as

1:07:11mentioned a couple times, which means it's been 28 years since it's been

1:07:16comprehensively reviewed. The zoning by law is required to be consistent with

1:07:20provincial policy and conform to the official plan. Since the zoning by law

1:07:25was last comprehensively reviewed, the official plan has been reviewed a number

1:07:30of times. It was updated in 2001 through the through OPA 14, 2009 through OPA 39,

1:07:392010 through OPA 42 and 2012 through OPA 48. Substantial policy reviews for the

1:07:48official plan were completed in the 2006 commercial policy review and the 2018

1:07:53commercial policy review update. The St. Patrick's Ward land use study was

1:07:59completed in 2004 and the Guelph Innovation District secondary plan in 2014.

1:08:06The zoning by law has not been updated to conform with any of these updates to the

1:08:10official plan. So the proposed zoning by law is catching up on a lot of previously

1:08:15approved policy and direction and it implements regulations that support these

1:08:19directions, policies and land use designations. The proposed zoning by law is

1:08:24also a key document that will support the achievement of housing targets for the

1:08:292031 housing pledge. Since the notice of decision meeting was circulated to the

1:08:34community on March 23rd and the release of the final zoning by law on March 29th,

1:08:39the city has also received a decision on official plan amendment 80 from the

1:08:45province. OPA 80 updates the official plan to conform with provincial plans and

1:08:49policies and conform to a place to grow. The province's decision on OPA 80 was

1:08:55received a week ago today. The proposed zoning by law does implement a

1:09:00substantial amount of the official plan with the exception of the recent OPA 80

1:09:04changes and staff continue to recommend approval of the zoning by law, which is a

1:09:09large body of work that has taken a number of years to complete. OPA 80

1:09:13implementation is on the city's work plan and a future update to the zoning by law

1:09:18will implement these changes. The new zoning by law will repeal and replace the

1:09:22existing 1995 zoning by law in its entirety. Since the statutory public

1:09:29meeting in July of last year, the province also released bill 23 and changes to

1:09:34the planning act. Changes made to section 41 of the planning act now limit the

1:09:39review of exterior design through the site plan process and changes also exempt

1:09:44developments of 10 units and less from the site plan process. However, provincial

1:09:49policy or provincial interest under section two of the planning act and the

1:09:53provincial policy statements still apply and section 34 of the planning act

1:09:58allows us to continue to regulate the construction of buildings and structures

1:10:02through the zoning by law. This includes the type of construction and the height,

1:10:07bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, character and use of buildings or

1:10:12structures, the minimum lot, frontage and depth and building coverage. This also

1:10:18includes regulating the minimum elevation of doors, windows and openings and

1:10:21buildings or structures, parking and loading, the minimum size of land,

1:10:27density and height of buildings. Go ahead too quickly. Additional regulations

1:10:35have been added to the zoning by law, including regulations for drive aisle

1:10:38width, screening and location of rooftop mechanicals, active frontage

1:10:42requirements, principal entrance requirements, maximum building setbacks

1:10:47and all these elements were previously reviewed through the site plan process.

1:10:52Adding these regulations to the zoning by law ensures that staff continue to be

1:10:55able to address these aspects through the development process. And the zoning

1:11:00by law has also undergone an outside peer and legal review through this project.

1:11:06So some key highlights to the new zoning by law include conformity, substantial

1:11:11conformity with the official plan. And it conformed with the official plan on the

1:11:16date the notice was provided to the community. The proposed zoning by law

1:11:20also aligns with other city plans such as the transportation master plan,

1:11:24urban forest management plan, store, modern master plan, energy and climate

1:11:28change initiatives and the race to zero. This by law is one of the first

1:11:33hybrid form based by laws in Ontario and we're very proud of the overall look

1:11:37and usability of this by law. It includes charts, illustrations and notes

1:11:42to add clarity to the regulations and make the document as user friendly as

1:11:45possible for the public. With a zoning by law that's 28 years old, there are

1:11:54a number of outdated regulations and uses included in our by law. The proposed

1:11:59zoning by law modernizes regulations and ensures alignment with other

1:12:03municipal practices. A number of uses have been updated and simplified.

1:12:08Vehicle parking regulations have been reviewed and updated. Bicycle and

1:12:12electric vehicle standards have been included as well as adding flexibility

1:12:16for home occupation regulations. We've also reviewed committee of

1:12:21committee of adjustment decisions and made changes where continuous issues

1:12:26were arising. The proposed zoning by law carries forward recent approved

1:12:31development applications. And in addition, the by law includes transition

1:12:35provisions to ensure existing applications will continue through their

1:12:40process without needing to meet the requirements of the new by law. These

1:12:43transition provisions give applicants two years to complete their application

1:12:48and in some cases five years where it's a multi-phased development. In addition,

1:12:56the proposed zoning by law zones the city's natural heritage system for the

1:13:00first time and ensures no new development is permitted within these areas. It

1:13:05adds bicycle parking requirements citywide and introduces electric vehicle

1:13:09parking. It eliminates exclusionary zoning, permitting a variety of housing

1:13:13types within residential areas and opens up infill opportunities, encouraging

1:13:18a range and mix of housing types. New mixed use zones permit a significant

1:13:25amount of residential within the city's nodes and intensification corridors,

1:13:28encouraging walkable mixed use neighborhoods. The by law includes minimum

1:13:33landscaped open space and buffer strip. Requirements to ensure green space and

1:13:38provide opportunities to plant trees. And the by law has also been updated to

1:13:43meet provincial accessibility standards. And in the case of accessible

1:13:47driveways, the permissions go above and beyond what AODA requires and allows

1:13:52more flexibility than most municipalities do. Community engagement was a large

1:13:59component of this project undertaken with each phase. Feedback has been taken

1:14:04into consideration to inform changes as we've moved throughout this project.

1:14:09Community engagement has included information sessions, workshops,

1:14:13open house, staff, staff office hours, consultation with council advisory

1:14:20committees, including the planning advisory committee, the accessibility

1:14:23advisory committee on multiple occasions, stakeholder meetings, including

1:14:28attending the city's liaison meeting with wealth home builders and developers,

1:14:32ward meetings and other special interest group presentations. We've mailed a

1:14:39postcard to every property within the city to advise them of the project. And

1:14:43we have over 250 people who have requested to stay informed of this

1:14:46project to date. We've received over 660 comments from the public and there's

1:14:52been over 3,900 visits to our project website. So we heard from council at the

1:15:00statutory public meeting that we need to review and consider a number of key

1:15:04aspects of the zoning bylaw before bringing it back to council for a

1:15:07decision. This included consideration for formalizing the current driveway with

1:15:12exemption criteria for semi-detached and on-street townhouses, reviewing the

1:15:17shipping container regulations with the community and considering removing the

1:15:20maximum number of containers permitted on a lot, permit supportive housing as of

1:15:26right within the city. We heard encouragement for the gentle density

1:15:32within residential neighborhoods and support for removing exclusionary

1:15:37zoning, but an interesting guidelines for three unit buildings that demonstrate

1:15:41how they would fit within the context of existing neighborhoods. Council

1:15:45requested an update to the 2019 off-street parking study for multiple

1:15:49residential buildings. We were asked to consider removing the parking

1:15:56adjustment area from the Gordon Street Intensive Occasion Area and to

1:15:59consider increasing visitor parking in the parking adjustment area for

1:16:03apartment buildings and mixed use buildings. And finally, we were asked to

1:16:06review home occupation provisions. So staff have gone back and a paper has been

1:16:12written on each of these topics to provide a thorough background review of

1:16:17each issue and additional rationale for staff's final recommendations. These

1:16:22papers have been included in the staff report as attachments for your

1:16:28consideration. So staff have updated the bylaw to allow supportive housing as of

1:16:34right in any zone that permits residential uses in the city, as well as the

1:16:38neighborhood institutional zones. We've also reviewed and updated home

1:16:42occupations to simplify the regulations and allow them within accessory

1:16:46structures and additional residential dwelling units. So for driveway with

1:16:54recommendations, staff conducted a cross departmental review of the driveway with

1:16:59issue and have included a paper that outlines the background information,

1:17:03existing policy, other municipal practices and highlights the goals and

1:17:07objectives of approved city plans. And this is attachment six of the staff

1:17:11report materials. The driveway with review has included staff from a number

1:17:16of different departments, including engineering and traffic, forestry,

1:17:21planning and urban design, zoning, corporate energy and climate change,

1:17:25operations and accessibility. Based on this review, staff continue to

1:17:30recommend that the zoning bylaw maintain the 50% landscaped open space

1:17:35requirement in the in the front yard. This is to ensure adequate area to

1:17:39park in a driveway while maintaining landscape space to provide for storm

1:17:43water management, allow for street trees and provide opportunities for on

1:17:47street parking. Staff are also recommending that the existing permission for a

1:17:52walkway continue to not permit parking on it. This walkway is to be 1.5

1:18:00meters from the nearest foundation wall and is intended to provide pedestrian

1:18:04access to the front door of a house. As you can see on the the illustration

1:18:08provided on the slide. This walkway provision does not provide adequate

1:18:13space to park a vehicle and allowing parking in this area would not solve any

1:18:17additional parking needs. Through our review staff are also recommending

1:18:23that opportunities to remove winter on street parking restrictions be

1:18:27investigated through the citywide parking review, which was identified as

1:18:31an action in the transportation master plan. The citywide parking review could

1:18:37establish a policy and regulatory approach to on street parking. It is

1:18:41suggested that this review also consider opportunities for city owned

1:18:45parking lots within neighborhoods. Staff recommend that the current suspension

1:18:49on a on enforcement be extended until the on street parking review is complete.

1:18:55Year round on street parking would provide opportunities to address the

1:18:58parking issue while maintaining our streetscapes, street trees and

1:19:02landscaped areas intended to address stormwater management on site. It would

1:19:06address individual needs that vary over time and from household to household

1:19:11instead of permanently impacting our streetscapes and plant infrastructure

1:19:15throughout the city. Staff have provided alternative options requested by

1:19:19council but are not supportive of these changes to the bylaw. Through

1:19:26consultation with the community and the accessibility advisory committee, we

1:19:29heard the need to ensure individuals using mobility devices are provided with

1:19:34with adequate driveway width. To address this issue, staff have added a

1:19:39definition for accessible vehicle and added as a right permission for an

1:19:43accessible parking space on smaller lots. This regulation allows a type A

1:19:47accessible parking space, which is 3.4 meters wide and has a 1.5 meter access

1:19:52aisle. The intent of this regulation is to accommodate an accessible van with a

1:19:57side lift and to provide pedestrian access with a mobility device to the

1:20:01front door of the house. Parking would not be permitted on the pedestrian

1:20:05access aisle. In our review of other municipal practices, Guelph would be

1:20:10the first to include include this type of accessibility exemption in the zoning

1:20:14bylaw. In response to parking directions provided at the public meeting,

1:20:22staff worked with BA Group to conduct an additional updated parking

1:20:26utilization study late in 2022. Parking studies were conducted for 14

1:20:32multi-residential buildings, the majority of which are within the Gordon

1:20:35Street Intensification Corridor. Six of these sites were studied in 2019 as

1:20:40well, so we could also compare the data from the two studies. Based on the

1:20:46results of the data collected in the 2019 and the 2022 parking studies, staff

1:20:51are not recommending changes to the proposed parking adjustment area within

1:20:55the Gordon Street Intensification Corridor and are not proposing to increase

1:20:59visitor parking rates for apartment and mixed use buildings within the parking

1:21:02adjustment areas. The 2022 parking study conducted by BA Group confirmed that

1:21:10resident and visitor parking demand is not constrained by parking supply at any

1:21:14of the surveyed sites. The parking study also confirmed that parking needs

1:21:19vary based on the geographic area of the city, supporting the geographic

1:21:25approach to parking in the proposed zoning bylaw. Results from the studies

1:21:29sites indicate the lowest utilization rates within intensification areas and

1:21:33increased utilization as you move further away from these areas.

1:21:38BA Group has prepared an updated parking memo included as attachment eight to

1:21:42the staff report, and we also have BA Group with us virtually today to respond

1:21:46to any questions that council may have on the parking study results.

1:21:56Staff also confirmed that accessible parking rates have been updated to align

1:22:00with the AODA requirements. And the proposed zoning bylaw has also been revised

1:22:05to ensure accessible parking spaces are not reduced within our parking

1:22:08adjustment areas. This means the number of accessible parking spaces

1:22:12required for development is consistent across the city.

1:22:21Staff also worked with Grinham Architects and stacked architecture should

1:22:24develop three unit demonstration plans, which are included as attachment 12

1:22:28to the staff report. Plans have been developed for three building types,

1:22:32including triplexes on street townhouses and apartment buildings.

1:22:36These plans take into consideration building code requirements, the proposed

1:22:40zoning regulations, existing neighborhood compatibility and other site plan

1:22:45considerations such as stormwater management, access and accessibility.

1:22:51The plans also provided an opportunity to test out the zoning bylaw regulations

1:22:55and ensure development is feasible on standard residential RL1 and RL2 lot sizes.

1:23:02This document will continue to be available as a guide for prospective

1:23:06developers or builders looking to create three unit buildings in the future.

1:23:13So out of this review, the three unit demonstration plans highlighted some

1:23:17some required revisions to the proposed zoning bylaw.

1:23:20We've added a definition for triplex and we permit a triplex within the RL1

1:23:24and RL2 zones. We've also revised the definition of apartment building to

1:23:29permit secure elevator access directly to dwelling units, which eliminates the

1:23:34need for common areas on each floor.

1:23:37It provides exemptions for visitor, bicycle, electric vehicle and barrier

1:23:42free parking for these developments to make them feasible on smaller lots.

1:23:46And it includes minimum landscaped open space requirements to ensure green

1:23:51space opportunities, green space opportunities for planting trees and

1:23:56obviously managing stormwater on site.

1:24:01And finally, shipping container review.

1:24:05So following the statutory public meeting, we invited the shipping container

1:24:09community to participate in a workshop and review the proposed regulations.

1:24:15Staff also met with business owners and other business owners and were

1:24:19invited to tour industrial and service commercial sites to get a better

1:24:22understanding of how shipping containers are being used within the city.

1:24:26Based on these discussions, we have revised the shipping container regulations.

1:24:32We've added a shipping container definition for clarity.

1:24:37They are permitted as outdoor storage and service commercial, industrial, mixed

1:24:40business, utility and park zones.

1:24:44Permissions have also been added for shipping containers as occasional uses

1:24:48to encourage more innovative uses for a specified period of time.

1:24:53And the overall maximum number of shipping containers per lot has been deleted.

1:24:59We've also deleted the maximum size of shipping containers.

1:25:04Shipping containers are proposed to be regulated as outdoor storage, which would

1:25:08ensure they are placed inside and rear yards.

1:25:10They provide visual screening and are located outside of buffer strips, natural

1:25:15areas, parking areas and fire routes.

1:25:18Permission has also been added to use shipping containers as storage facility use.

1:25:26Shipping containers converted to buildings continue to be regulated under the

1:25:29building code and when used as a building material would be required to comply

1:25:34with the regulations of the applicable zone.

1:25:37The proposed regulations were circulated to the workshop attendees to ensure

1:25:41they were satisfied with the proposed regulations and staff received positive

1:25:46feedback from this group.

1:25:50So finally, there is an official plan amendment proposed as a companion piece

1:25:55to the zoning bylaw.

1:25:57And this is to address land use designations on specific properties to

1:26:01better reflect the existing built form that exists there today.

1:26:05This amendment will ensure that lands with existing buildings do not lose their

1:26:09current development permissions.

1:26:12And since the statutory public meeting and exemption from maximum density has

1:26:16been added to the official plan amendment to address the low density housing

1:26:20with three units or less.

1:26:24So this concludes my presentation.

1:26:26I've included the recommendations on the slide before you.

1:26:36So thank you, Mayor Guthrie and members of council, just to provide some

1:26:40close and comments.

1:26:41So as you can see, there's been lots of work put forward over the last four

1:26:45years to bring this comprehensive zoning bylaw to council and the community.

1:26:50The zoning bylaw is one of the city's key documents and implements many of our

1:26:55master plans as well as the vision established in the official plan.

1:26:59The zoning bylaw turns recommendations and policies into regulations.

1:27:04The zoning bylaw is aligned with our strategic plan priorities.

1:27:08The new bylaw will help businesses succeed, will assist in designing a sustainable

1:27:12city, will help adopt clean transportation options and will help and will

1:27:17help increase the availability of housing to meet the community's needs.

1:27:22The city hasn't completed a comprehensive zoning bylaw review in 28 years,

1:27:27and that's a long time.

1:27:28And there are many changes proposed to align with our new vision for the city.

1:27:34You've heard from our staff that we wanted to create a modern zoning bylaw

1:27:37that is user friendly.

1:27:39We know that community members need to understand and finding, find the

1:27:43information in the zoning bylaw.

1:27:45With a new updated zoning bylaw, we would see less site specific amendments

1:27:49at council.

1:27:50We've simplified uses, meaning that we combine similar uses to provide greater

1:27:55flexibility and easier, easier administration.

1:27:59We've introduced flexible zones that permit a number of building types and

1:28:02introduce mixed zones and introduce mixed use zones.

1:28:07All of this will help streamline the development review process.

1:28:12The zoning bylaw reflects modern zoning and implements direction that you have

1:28:16council has given us, including our net zero targets and our tree canopy targets.

1:28:22We need to have policies for parking and driveway wets that will allow us to

1:28:26achieve council's direction.

1:28:28Without having provisions in the zoning bylaw that will help us get there.

1:28:32We will have a difficult time achieving the direction that council has given us

1:28:35for these goals.

1:28:39We have responding to these specific issues and have attachments that have

1:28:42demonstrated our thorough review.

1:28:44Staff have put forward their best professional professional recommendations

1:28:49and implemented best practices.

1:28:51As requested at the public meeting in July, we've incorporated the feedback

1:28:55where we felt it was appropriate or where staff do not agree.

1:28:59We have provided alternatives based on the comments we have received.

1:29:04This bylaw has been developed in house with some specific report from specific

1:29:08support from consultants, such as on the parking issues.

1:29:12It has been a truly collaborative project pulling expertise from our policy

1:29:16planners, development planners, urban designers, landscape, environmental

1:29:22and heritage planners are mapping and GIS experts and technical staff, the

1:29:27parks planners and many other departments throughout the city, such as building

1:29:31and zoning, engineering, economic development, transit, bylaw and compliance,

1:29:36as well as finance.

1:29:37We know there are some requests to delay this bylaw until after we've incorporated

1:29:41the changes that came from the province last week with our OP update.

1:29:45We do not support the request for this delay.

1:29:50We have a year to bring the zoning bylaw updates to implement the OP changes,

1:29:54and it will take us a bit of time to review the changes from the province

1:29:57and then update our policies.

1:29:59We do intend to report back to you shortly with these impacts.

1:30:03So meanwhile, moving this comprehensive zoning bylaw forward, up zones,

1:30:07properties and exclusionary zoning opens up supportive housing and generally

1:30:12creates more housing opportunities for the current and future residents of

1:30:16Guelph. With that, Mr. Merrill, I'll turn it over back to you.

1:30:22Great. Thank you very much.

1:30:26It's kind of like a kind of like a turkey dinner.

1:30:29You know, it takes a long time to prepare that I just eat it all in like 20

1:30:32minutes in three years of like preparing this, right?

1:30:36And then it's then it your presentation just sums it all up in like 25 minutes.

1:30:40So I just want you to know it's it's it's great, great work and great presentation.

1:30:45Thank you very much.

1:30:48Let's go to our delegations, which we actually have three.

1:30:53One video, one in person, one over the phone.

1:30:56And so we'll kick into that and five minutes for

1:31:01the delegations time limit as well.

1:31:04Now, Dana Gilbert looks like to be the first and it says by video here.

1:31:10All right. I think the video is coming on.

1:31:17Yep. And can you hear me OK?

1:31:21Hey, yeah, we can hear you fine as well.

1:31:23Thank you very much for for joining us.

1:31:26And as soon as you're ready and you start, I'll start the timer for you.

1:31:29OK, up to five minutes. Go right ahead.

1:31:32Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, your worship and members of council.

1:31:36I really appreciate the opportunity to delegate in front of you today.

1:31:39I also thank planning staff for all of their work they did on the comprehensive by law.

1:31:44It seems very, very thorough and overall a very good job.

1:31:50What I wanted to delegate specifically on today is our site.

1:31:54For some of you, you would have seen me before.

1:31:57For others, we have a five acre site in the city of Guelph

1:32:02that is owned by the University of Guelph, where we have a partnership

1:32:05through a ground lease to provide very much needed student housing.

1:32:09The address of that is 601 Scottsdale.

1:32:12We obtained zoning approval last year in March of last year

1:32:18that permitted the use of not student housing, but

1:32:23resident residential suites is how it was defined last year.

1:32:28We went through a public, obviously, process and community consultation

1:32:33where council unanimously approved the use within the existing

1:32:38holiday in building and a conversion and a retrofit of that building

1:32:43to provide much needed student housing.

1:32:45Also, at that during that public process, we received unsolicited

1:32:50letters of support for this site to be specific for student housing.

1:32:56For those that don't know, it's founded by Stone Road, Scottsdale and the Hanlon.

1:33:02And a lot of people felt that the support of which for this location

1:33:07would then free up a lot of much needed, low rise, single family homes

1:33:12to an area that is specific for students.

1:33:16Our first phase provided 177 beds on that one acre, one and a half acre parcel.

1:33:24And we are moving towards phase two, which will provide 800 beds

1:33:29and new beds of student housing and much needed as the city of Guelph

1:33:33currently has a 12,000 bed shortfall of much needed student housing.

1:33:39One of the things in our partnership with the University of Guelph is that we can

1:33:43only lease and rent to University of Guelph students.

1:33:47And so it is a direct support of the university itself.

1:33:52We submitted many letters and we've been involved in this comprehensive

1:33:56bylaw process both last year.

1:33:59We've submitted one on March 3rd and then again, we attached it on the 13th.

1:34:05I'm not going to take you through every single one of those comments

1:34:08and of those detailed comments, but during this delegation.

1:34:13But what our request is is that those that council considers those site

1:34:19specific changes that we've outlined in those in those letters

1:34:25for us to move expeditiously through the approval process.

1:34:32The use has already been approved on this site.

1:34:36The the use for student housing has already gone through a public

1:34:41consultation process with phase one.

1:34:45And we would request that the zoning bylaw reflects that as well as

1:34:50that OPA 80 and I understand why OPA 80 isn't reflected in the current

1:34:57zoning bylaw or comprehensive bylaw in front of you.

1:35:00But in terms of the height permissions, the density permissions, etc.

1:35:05is also site specifically considered so that we can go to a site plan

1:35:12specific process to move

1:35:16on and provide student housing as expeditiously as we can.

1:35:21And that in a nutshell is my delegation.

1:35:26So I'm talking specifically about our site at 601 Scottsdale

1:35:31and consideration of a site specific changes made to this comprehensive bylaw

1:35:35as well as a companion OPA to bring it up to date with OPA 80.

1:35:43OK, thank you very much.

1:35:45So let's stop the clock there and just ask if there's any follow up question

1:35:51for the delegation.

1:35:53Karen, please.

1:35:56Yes, thank you, three, Mr.

1:35:57Mayor, I just want to make sure that I understand whether or not I may be in

1:36:02conflict because I do work in the student housing

1:36:06portfolio at the university.

1:36:08So I just have a questions of the delegate related to me understanding

1:36:12whether I need to declare conflict.

1:36:14Miss Gilbert, do you work for the university or you work for forum asset management?

1:36:22Through you, your worship in Casa Crom.

1:36:24Thank you for that. I guess I didn't fully introduce myself.

1:36:26My name is Dana Gilbert.

1:36:27I'm managing director at Forum Asset Management.

1:36:30The lands that we are speaking about are owned by the University of Guelph.

1:36:34And so we are we have a ground lease on the lands, but we are we are a private developer.

1:36:41OK, so that ground lease has existed for decades.

1:36:45That is a ground lease that is a long term land lease

1:36:50that carried on with the holiday and that is not that is the building itself,

1:36:56the building and all the assets and the new building that you're proposing

1:37:00are not University of Guelph assets.

1:37:02They are they're private for profit development.

1:37:07Through your worship, Councillor Caron, that's correct.

1:37:10So the ground lease hasn't lasted for however long.

1:37:13We've redrafted that ground lease on the purchase of the holiday in,

1:37:16which happened in August of 2021.

1:37:19So we had a different ground lease executed with the University of Guelph.

1:37:24And so but the university

1:37:27the holiday in or the previous holiday in, which now is lovingly known as Alma,

1:37:33which is our brand of student housing within it, is owned by forum asset management.

1:37:39And as we move forward to phase two, we'll be the same.

1:37:44OK, and you talked about a partnership as part of your presentation.

1:37:49You have a partnership with the university other than the fact

1:37:52that the university is technically the owner of the land.

1:37:55What is that partnership?

1:37:57Are they managing?

1:37:58Are they involved in administration?

1:38:01Are they filling them?

1:38:02Are they like what is that partnership look like other than land ownership?

1:38:07Effectively, it's land ownership at this time.

1:38:09I use the word partnership as well, because we do house their students

1:38:12and the amenities, etc.

1:38:15that are being provided in phase one and then eventually phase two.

1:38:18We have great relationships with the faculties where we are

1:38:21partnering on how we can incorporate different student life or lecture, etc.

1:38:26They very much are our partner.

1:38:28But in a legal standpoint, it is land ownership.

1:38:32And those partnerships with faculty are in place

1:38:35now or that's a future vision.

1:38:39We are exploring them now as the construction of the West side

1:38:45is just finalizing itself.

1:38:47And so, but there has been students that have lived there since October

1:38:51of last year or November of last year.

1:38:53And so we are continuing to have obviously conversations

1:38:57and relationships about potential partnerships.

1:39:00We've had the real estate and the Lang School of Business

1:39:03through the property.

1:39:05We've provided different lectures and provided the opportunity

1:39:08for students to learn within each of those amenities

1:39:11that we offer within phase one as well.

1:39:13And hope to continue those types of faculty partnerships such as

1:39:17the agricultural, the agricultural program, the hotel and hospitality.

1:39:24Obviously the real estate and so any kind of relationship

1:39:28that we can foster to assist students that are not

1:39:32only living on our lands, but also giving that kind of connection

1:39:35to the main campus and those faculties as well,

1:39:38fostering those relationships throughout.

1:39:42Okay. Thank you.

1:39:43That helps.

1:39:44And then just one final question just about just again,

1:39:48I need to take it in and turn off my screen and decide if I'm in conflict.

1:39:53For asset management has no direct relationship with the university.

1:39:58It is a North American company that is a for-profit developer.

1:40:02Is that kind of a definition of what form asset management is?

1:40:06You're a for-profit developer in North America.

1:40:09Is that correct?

1:40:10That's my understanding from your website.

1:40:14Through you, your worship and Councillor Caron, that is correct.

1:40:18Okay. Thanks.

1:40:20That helps to clarify.

1:40:21I'm just going to turn off my screen, do a little bit of thinking,

1:40:23and then Mr. Mary may come back with the presentation.

1:40:26I may come back with a pecuniary interest.

1:40:30Given that this is a comprehensive zoning bylaw exercise,

1:40:34it may not be necessary, but I'll get back to you.

1:40:37Just need to go back to my legal opinion from a year ago.

1:40:42Okay. Thank you so much.

1:40:43And to stay with us, Dana, because Councillor Allt has a question as well.

1:40:48Thank you very much, Marigot 3, through you to Ms. Gilbert.

1:40:53First off, I just need to clarify.

1:40:54There is no amendment in front of us with regards to 601 Scottsdale at this point.

1:41:00Is there?

1:41:02There is not.

1:41:03We submitted through you, sorry, through you, Mayor Guthrie and Councillor,

1:41:09thank you for your question.

1:41:10There is not an amendment right in front of you at this time.

1:41:14However, we've provided some very detailed comments about revisions

1:41:20that we would like to be considered in this comprehensive zoning bylaw

1:41:25as well through a companion OP at this time.

1:41:31Thank you.

1:41:32Two questions that I think are of significance

1:41:35and I hope that you can put some appropriate context on these.

1:41:41I'm struggling, first of all, with the density that you are suggesting.

1:41:45800 students in that area where we have a seniors residence,

1:41:48multiple townhouse developments, a number of other apartments strikes me

1:41:52as being quite excessive in that area.

1:41:55I was wondering, first of all, if you could comment on that.

1:42:00Through you, Your Worship, Councillor,

1:42:03this is a site that is bounded by major arterial roads and highways.

1:42:09The other thing is just to the east of it is the most major mall

1:42:15that provides retail outside of the downtown core itself.

1:42:21All of the amenities along this street is an area to which people come

1:42:27on a day to day basis to service their everyday needs,

1:42:32as well as their larger needs as well.

1:42:34It's very well serviced by transit.

1:42:37There is direct bus access to directly to the university

1:42:43and then directly to downtown as well.

1:42:46Students need a place to go.

1:42:50And what is happening and what we're seeing is that we are seeing lineups

1:42:54in single family residences because the University of Guelph

1:42:58on campus doesn't have enough student housing, but also now you have people

1:43:02investing and buying up single family residences to service students.

1:43:08On this location, you've also got a major series

1:43:11highway that gets students and their parents in and out of Guelph

1:43:16efficiently and effectively.

1:43:18It's not even 200 meters away.

1:43:21And so when we went through this public consultation process last year,

1:43:24as I said, we had unsolicited support of letters of support

1:43:29from the community saying this is the exact location that you should be

1:43:33putting students as opposed to taking housing from others,

1:43:38whether that be other apartment buildings, whether that be single family

1:43:41housings and that now allows and addresses the housing crisis

1:43:46that we're dealing with for other demographics and population.

1:43:50So in terms of the density itself on this particular site,

1:43:56when you look at the density that's been contemplated in a lot of official plans,

1:44:01not just in Guelph, student housing is defined as residential,

1:44:06but really student housing has different needs because that demographic

1:44:09has different needs the same way that supportive housing has different needs,

1:44:12the same way that families have different needs, etc.

1:44:15When you broadly define something as residential,

1:44:18you don't factor in the everyday living experiences or needs of those people.

1:44:23And so students live in smaller space.

1:44:27And so when you're defining by unit, that unit isn't a thousand square foot unit.

1:44:33It's a smaller space to make sure that students, both internationally and

1:44:40demographic domestically, have a place to live together with and conform

1:44:46a student campus almost that has community and like-minded people

1:44:52living in the same lifestyle and in that transitionary form as a young

1:44:57professional entering into adult life.

1:45:00And now instead of dispersing them throughout the city,

1:45:03they have a specific location that they can identify and create a self

1:45:07as placed in community for themselves.

1:45:09So the density itself is more to ensure that we have housing for students.

1:45:16And as I said, Guelph currently right now is the most under-supplied

1:45:23university in all of Canada and it's currently lacking 12,000 beds and

1:45:31continuing to increase.

1:45:33Dana, sorry to interrupt.

1:45:36Just we had staff wanted to just jump in for a second.

1:45:38And I know that Councillor Allt has a second question.

1:45:42And I just just before I go to staff, I don't know what they're going to say.

1:45:45I just want to be careful that we don't like turn every single correspondence

1:45:49that we have in front of us, which is a lot, into a almost like almost viewing

1:45:56them and feeling it like it's an application process.

1:45:59Right.

1:45:59So, so, you know, your question, Councillor Allt precipitated the response

1:46:05from this delegate because it's almost a question that should normally land

1:46:09in more of an application process in my view as the chair.

1:46:13But let me go to staff.

1:46:15I don't you go ahead.

1:46:17Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:46:18And to that, I was going to say, Ditto, the Official Plan Amendment for this was,

1:46:24you know, provided to us by the province on Tuesday for the height and densities.

1:46:29There it this is a site specific request that is before you today.

1:46:34That's not how we have looked at the comprehensive zoning by-law as a whole.

1:46:37Once we update the zoning for the OP based on the minister's comments,

1:46:43the OP policies will be in place.

1:46:45But there's still appears certainly to be some site specific provisions that they

1:46:49be asked for above and beyond this.

1:46:52From our view, this was not a time or place to look at this.

1:46:55They can come in with an individual development application to do site

1:46:58specifics and we will update the OP policies as we move forward.

1:47:05OK, thank you for that context.

1:47:07And Dana, just stick with us.

1:47:08Councillor Allt did a secondary question.

1:47:10So go ahead, please.

1:47:11Actually, with comments from staff, which were similar to where I was going to go.

1:47:16I don't think I have any further questions.

1:47:17Marigrath, we thank you very much.

1:47:20OK, thank you.

1:47:21So I do have a clarity question.

1:47:23It's just very much a yes or no for myself.

1:47:26So the changes from the province, I'm sorry, last week,

1:47:30did change things in this particular site?

1:47:34Staff. Is that right?

1:47:37Oh, I'm sorry.

1:47:37Yes, not to step back.

1:47:39Thank you. I shouldn't have done that.

1:47:41I started going back and forth with the staff.

1:47:42It's just to you, Dana, our delegate.

1:47:44Sorry. So I just got the answer to that.

1:47:47That's fine.

1:47:48But your request for anything to do with the current zoning that's in front of us

1:47:53right now would have to take into consideration the changes that came in

1:47:58from the province last week.

1:47:59Would that be correct?

1:48:02Mayor Guthrie, your worship.

1:48:05Yes, partially.

1:48:08Yes, OK.

1:48:09And we did hear, I think, in the presentation that it looks like those

1:48:13site specific issues and also zoning issues that need to be updated

1:48:16are going to be coming back to us at some point soon.

1:48:19Correct? Just to staff to kind of close us up.

1:48:21Yeah, any heads nodded?

1:48:22OK, that's important, I think, for sure.

1:48:25Because I mean, hey, look, everything you said, you know, fully fully appreciate

1:48:30for sure, especially around the student housing, for sure.

1:48:35There's heads nodding in here on that as well.

1:48:36So that's good. OK.

1:48:38So is there any other further questions on this particular one?

1:48:40No. OK.

1:48:42Dana, thank you very much for joining us and in your information.

1:48:45Really appreciate it.

1:48:48OK. Thank you so much.

1:48:50OK, you're welcome.

1:48:51We're going to move right along then.

1:48:54We actually don't have two more.

1:48:56We only have one more and lucky for us, it's John Lawson, who's in person.

1:49:02So he's coming on down here and I'll get my clock ready for you here, John.

1:49:16And welcome. And whenever you start, I'll start the timer for you. OK.

1:49:20Oh, it's OK. OK.

1:49:28OK, thanks.

1:49:30Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie and members of council.

1:49:34My name is John Lawson and I'm presenting on behalf of the Old University

1:49:39Old Neighborhood Residence University, Jeepers, Creepers.

1:49:43I'm not going to start over again.

1:49:45It's a mouthful anyway.

1:49:46We always call it UNRWA, but Old University Neighborhood Residence Association.

1:49:53And while we in no way say we can represent the area,

1:49:57I think we've got a pretty good sense of of our neighborhood.

1:50:02And I think we can safely say that our neighborhood in the Old University area

1:50:06is a prime area already for redevelopment.

1:50:11And we first see that this will only intensify.

1:50:15And needless to say, this is causing some degree of anxiety

1:50:19on in many parts of our community and our neighbors.

1:50:23I'm wondering if the essential character of our neighborhood will change.

1:50:28Just last week, I had a series of long conversations with an individual

1:50:33who was very distraught with a severance beside him

1:50:37and the prospect of a very large two story home overshadowing his bungalow.

1:50:43And before making some specific comments on the bylaws coming before you now,

1:50:47I wish to just have a couple of general comments.

1:50:51First, we have a I have a great deal of sympathy.

1:50:54We have a great deal of sympathy for you as a city council and city staff.

1:50:59Changes and edicts from the province have come fast and furious at you,

1:51:04often meaning that careful planning and citizen consultation

1:51:09has been overturned or at least been and has sent people scrambling.

1:51:14On the other hand, kudos to you, Mayor Guthrie,

1:51:18recognizing the urgency of the housing crisis that we face in the city.

1:51:23Your proposals regarding homelessness and now in regards to amendments

1:51:29to these bylaws are trying to address a real real crisis in the city.

1:51:36And your willingness, Mr.

1:51:37Mayor, to along with our city councilors down in Karen to come

1:51:42and engage our community on this very challenging topic.

1:51:47On May the 30th, we're very much looking forward for you coming

1:51:51and engaging with our community and thank you for that.

1:51:56What we would today urge city council is as you consider these

1:52:01to be able to step back as well and look at the whole picture

1:52:04and explore those age those areas where you can offer some controls

1:52:10and building broad public support for intensification

1:52:15so as to protect some of the essential character of our neighborhoods

1:52:19while we intensify and we do not in any way

1:52:25object to that.

1:52:27Here are some suggestions in our old university neighborhood.

1:52:31Many student rent there are many student rentals with absentee landlords,

1:52:35some of whom have no interest and commitment to our neighborhood.

1:52:40And for them, it's just an investment.

1:52:43And at the very least, we urge the city council to explore

1:52:47licensing of landlords and smaller rental properties

1:52:51so that the city has some sense of rental stock as a whole across the city

1:52:57and some basic standard of operation.

1:53:00While some of these rentals are mom and pop operations,

1:53:04others are very large businesses and need city oversight,

1:53:08especially as we foresee and indeed hope for more rental stock within our areas.

1:53:14Second, we urge the city council and staff to look at possible ways

1:53:18of implementing urban design guidelines

1:53:22that in some ways will protect the unique character of not only our neighborhood,

1:53:27but others as well as things intensify.

1:53:31The attractive triplex design that was pointed out a few minutes ago

1:53:36in your addendum to the bylaw package, I think would be welcome

1:53:39in many areas of the city and including ours.

1:53:42The danger is that without some basic design guidelines,

1:53:46we have a hodgepodge that could erode and fracture community

1:53:52and and our neighborhood.

1:53:54And finally, as intensification proceeds, the goals of the city

1:53:59for a 40 percent tree canopy will be challenged.

1:54:03And we're already blessed with a very generous tree canopy in our neighborhood,

1:54:08which makes it very attractive to all of us.

1:54:12And we are very gratified to know that coming before the city council

1:54:16will be a tree protection bylaw and we commend you for this work.

1:54:21In short, our message is, please think outside the box

1:54:24so that you can consider complimentary bylaws and guidelines

1:54:30that will protect neighborhood character,

1:54:33even as necessary, intensification takes place.

1:54:38Great. Very much. Great.

1:54:39No, perfect timing.

1:54:41Thank you very much for your your delegation.

1:54:43And let me see if there's just a follow up for you. OK.

1:54:47And there isn't, but we appreciate you hanging out with us.

1:54:50I'm already waiting for that moment. OK. Thank you.

1:54:52Thank you very much.

1:54:55All right. Just let me confer with the clerks for a moment, everybody.

1:55:05So I think what I'll do is I think I'd like to

1:55:10I think I'd like to take a break.

1:55:14A hard stop rate at noon. OK.

1:55:16So just so everyone has has the heads up on that.

1:55:20And so what I'd like to do is I'm sorry,

1:55:24I just need to confer with the clerk one more time from a procedural point of view.

1:55:27OK. Could I have someone at least at this point move the recommendations

1:55:40that are before us to officially have it on the floor?

1:55:43Alt and Bucitil will move in second that for us.

1:55:48So that's great.

1:55:49And then I just want to really make sure that everyone understands

1:55:54the flow of this because I want us to be, you know, efficient and effective

1:55:59with our time, not only as the decision makers, but for everyone else as well.

1:56:04And I already see heads nodding on camera and in person.

1:56:08So that's great.

1:56:10I just want to make sure that it's a little nudge of a reminder.

1:56:14You know, this is a decision moment now.

1:56:16We've had three years, right?

1:56:18And we've had multiple conversations, open opportunities with staff

1:56:24to be able to understand what their positions are.

1:56:27And I have been made aware.

1:56:32I have been made aware of motions that are coming forward.

1:56:38And so is everyone else. Everyone knows.

1:56:41So I'd just like you to understand that staff, as they rightly said

1:56:45in their presentation, I think it was Krista, they indicated that

1:56:49their positions are already known.

1:56:51There's really no, there's nothing necessary here for questions really

1:56:57of, well, what does staff think?

1:57:00Because unless something completely new flies on the floor,

1:57:03which is our open process to be able to do that, you should know staff's position.

1:57:08And we all probably know to a certain extent what our own positions are as well.

1:57:14And I think if we move into this moment with an opportunity to think about that,

1:57:18it will make us go through things a lot quicker.

1:57:22Just like I do at budget time, I talked to staff in advance

1:57:25and felt it was necessary for me to understand, hey, give me the heads up

1:57:29on sort of what the motions are, which everyone kind of knows.

1:57:32So I'm just going to go through them.

1:57:34OK, I'm just going to go through them.

1:57:36And we're just going to do one theme at a time.

1:57:39OK, so when driveways come up, because I know it's a theme,

1:57:43we'll talk driveways.

1:57:44And then when we're done with driveways, let's just move on to whatever the next one is.

1:57:48OK, you know, I got one about things that are over three plexes, four plexes or whatever.

1:57:53We'll say that one to the end or whatever.

1:57:55But when we get there, it just gets there and it's just done.

1:57:58So I'm just going to wade through them.

1:57:59And then at the end, of course, we'll say, is there anything else?

1:58:02Of course, there'll be an opportunity if there's anything else that has been missed.

1:58:06OK, so with that, with the motion on the motions on the floor,

1:58:11what I'd like to do is

1:58:14just start start going through this pile here that I was given from staff.

1:58:20So thank you very much to staff.

1:58:23Let.

1:58:24Councillor Downer, would you?

1:58:26So just sort of a point of order here.

1:58:29Can we do questions of staff?

1:58:31Yes. No, no, no. Yeah. Sorry.

1:58:32I'm going to do that. That was my fault.

1:58:34I'm going to go questions based on the theme of the motion that will be right

1:58:38in front of us, so we're not jumping all over the place.

1:58:41So if that's OK, so in other words, I'd like to

1:58:45unless there's overarching questions that you needed beyond the motions.

1:58:51Yes, I had a couple.

1:58:52OK, well, just make it an open moment here for any questions.

1:58:56And then we'll move into the motions as I normally would do. OK.

1:58:59So go ahead, Councillor Downer, and then I'm going to go, Councillor Oror.

1:59:05So the questions I had right now, we're just sort of just on the last delegation for

1:59:11for I just want to clarify with staff around the licensing.

1:59:16We had asked for report back on licensing

1:59:21a while ago and that coming this year, or is it early next year that that report

1:59:25is coming back of licensing of rental properties?

1:59:33Yeah. Sorry.

1:59:59Through you, Mayor Guthrie, to Councillor Downer, the short term rental

2:00:04process was approved by Council will be implemented in July 1st.

2:00:10Long term rentals, there was a motion by Council to take a look at long term

2:00:18rental licensing and I turned that over to Crystal Walke, but that is on the work.

2:00:24Yeah.

2:00:26Through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor Downer, so it is on our work plan.

2:00:29And what we're doing is we're having to relook at what we had anticipated to do

2:00:33based on regulations of three units as of right.

2:00:36So it's not quite as minimal of a task, perhaps as it was before.

2:00:41It's city wide and it's a large process.

2:00:43So is it registration or licensing?

2:00:47And those are what we have to look at in 2024 was our timeline for that

2:00:52based on the amendments that have come through.

2:00:55OK, thank you. So that is coming back.

2:00:58And but you'll be looking at.

2:01:01With this new with the three units now, well, primary plus two.

2:01:05OK, great. The other one around the urban design guidelines, because I had asked

2:01:10that question for three.

2:01:13Try what what is now triplexes and small apartments in the lot when this came before.

2:01:20And I really appreciate the demonstration plans that we have for those.

2:01:25I mean, that's really helpful.

2:01:27But but as far as putting any kind of real guidelines to those other than

2:01:32providing those to developers of those properties, is there anything we can do?

2:01:38Do or are there already things within this guideline and other tools?

2:01:43I think you should have referenced this earlier and through the presentation

2:01:48that that we've tried to because we can't because Bill 23 took away that the design

2:01:54and some of the design guideline work. Is this.

2:01:58Is there anything else that we can do or any tools that we have in this?

2:02:07Through America, three to counselor downer.

2:02:09So the regulations that are built into the zoning by law do

2:02:14provide some standards.

2:02:16So in terms of setbacks, landscaped open space requirements,

2:02:20overall building height, location of parking areas, that's kind of all built

2:02:24right into the zoning by law.

2:02:26So their development permissions are the same as a single detached dwelling.

2:02:33For the America, three, if I can add to that,

2:02:36with the changes to Bill 23 and 10 units or less,

2:02:42urban design guidelines are not applicable for anything less than 10 units going forward.

2:02:48Yes, but the question was sort of are there other tools

2:02:52other than the urban design guidelines that we're going to be using in order?

2:02:55Like the checklist we just had some of that is around

2:02:59the sustainability checklist we just do, but I guess they're just

2:03:03their guidelines are not regulations.

2:03:06OK, that's correct.

2:03:08Thank you.

2:03:10Or work, please.

2:03:14Thank you, Marigot, three, three, you to stuff just in response to the first

2:03:19delegate and also the letter or correspondence number 40 by Miss Costello.

2:03:24There we've had a couple of questions around

2:03:27changes in OPA 80 and will they be updated in the zoning by law?

2:03:33So I'm just wondering, like, what is the process, right?

2:03:36So we know that there were some changes as late as last week.

2:03:41If we approve the comprehensive zoning bylaw today, as amended or as presented, we'll see.

2:03:49What's the process then to modify the zoning by law

2:03:53to then reflect some of the changes in OPA 80?

2:03:56So I'm just I'm trying to answer several of the letters that we received

2:04:00and just to understand that that will come.

2:04:03Is that correct?

2:04:05Through the through the mayor to councillor O'Rourke.

2:04:08So this comprehensive zoning bylaw actually does incorporate

2:04:14quite a few changes that are already in OPA 80,

2:04:19but not all of them.

2:04:20And so as we we don't want to be doing legislation on the fly,

2:04:25but we do have a year to get those changes in from OPA 80 into our comprehensive

2:04:31into our zoning bylaw.

2:04:32And so we'll be doing that over the next year

2:04:35and looking to bring that back to council.

2:04:38Great. Thanks very much.

2:04:42Just as a follow up on that, it doesn't mean it will take a year.

2:04:46It means as like some of them are site specific changes, right?

2:04:49So if some of them are easier to implement, you will bring those forward as you go.

2:04:55And if some of them are more complicated, then it will take time.

2:05:00Free. Perfect.

2:05:03Hey, well, why don't we why don't we see about

2:05:08getting through at least one here? OK.

2:05:12So this will be a test.

2:05:15See if the soup gets cold or not.

2:05:17Um, OK, this one happens to be on the top here and it is has to do with.

2:05:24Attached garages.

2:05:25It's councillor Billings.

2:05:26Is she yes, councillor Billings is here.

2:05:31Councillor Billings, go ahead.

2:05:33I think clerks have things ready as you speak to them.

2:05:36But I will be looking for seconders like right away

2:05:41before we have huge, you know, five minute speeches on things.

2:05:44So go ahead, councillor Billings and.

2:05:48See if we've got to.

2:05:50Well, do you want there?

2:05:52You speak you speak to it and see if I have a seconder.

2:05:55OK, well, this is an amendment that I'm moving, so I would need a seconder to speak to it.

2:06:02Boosetil will second it.

2:06:05OK, so what this is is under the maximum with of attached garage

2:06:10and also maximum residential driveway with, but I'm only focusing in on

2:06:16the semi detached dwelling under RL to.

2:06:20So there were a few comments in our in the correspondence

2:06:24and what it is is essentially.

2:06:28If you have a 12 meter lot, you are allowed to have your six meter

2:06:34garage and your and your six meter driveway.

2:06:37However, if you go under that, then you are subject to.

2:06:42Five meters again, I'm only speaking to RL to and the single detached dwelling.

2:06:48I'm not touching the semis or the duplexes or or anything like that or the townhomes.

2:06:55And what this would do this amendment, what it would do is

2:06:59as a number of builders have said, this eliminates the possibility

2:07:04of the much desired two car garages on house products on lots less than 12 meters.

2:07:09So this focuses on the lots less than 12 meters.

2:07:13So you can technically say you have a lot that's 11 meters or 11 and a half meters wide.

2:07:19You can actually put in a two car garage, but not if you're only allowed five meters.

2:07:26So what this amendment does, it allows the two car garage

2:07:30and it's in keeping with staff's direction of maintaining the 50 percent

2:07:36landscape area in the front yard.

2:07:39So you can't go over the 50 percent.

2:07:41However, it does allow you to put in the double car, I'm sorry,

2:07:46the double car driveway and the double car garage.

2:07:49And then that way, the builders don't have to go to committee of adjustment

2:07:53for a variance and it was timing and money.

2:07:56So that is my amendment.

2:08:01OK. And I call the vote on this then.

2:08:05Looks like I can. Yes. OK.

2:08:08I'll call the vote on this amendment.

2:08:10Is anyone against this amendment?

2:08:14OK, that's unanimous.

2:08:15It's approved. We're going to move on.

2:08:19Now, is that it for you, Councillor Billings,

2:08:22because I had like two, three printed off here.

2:08:26No, that was just working out the wording with staff or the OK.

2:08:31And so it was just so I'm done with respect to the double car garage issue.

2:08:38OK.

2:08:40OK, thank you so much, everybody.

2:08:46We've got a couple minutes left here to think we can handle

2:08:49a driveway width in two minutes.

2:08:53Sorry, a little bit of levity there.

2:09:00Well, you know what? I'm just going to I'm going to stop it there.

2:09:02I'm going to make an executive decision.

2:09:04There you go. We're going to stop it there.

2:09:06It's one minute to 12.

2:09:08So why don't we call come back here for 12 30.

2:09:11OK, I've just over half an hour and and get

2:09:16ready and ready to go.

2:09:17We'll just keep moving through all these ones and and get her done.

2:09:19OK, thank you so much, everybody. Take a break.

2:42:33I'm just going to give a one to two minute warning here.

2:42:36And then we're going to be back on and just to so those,

2:42:39especially those on line, if they can put on their cameras,

2:42:43just just just so I can acknowledge that you're with us.

2:43:41All right, I'll call the meeting back to order then, please.

2:43:44Thank you so much.

2:43:45Before we go any further, I need to ask Council

2:43:50to look to approve a confirmation or an acknowledgement

2:43:55of a mistake that I did in the last motion.

2:44:00When it came up on the screen,

2:44:03I only said that we were talking about garages

2:44:07and Councillor Billings rightly only talked about garages.

2:44:11But on the screen, there was motions in regards to driveway widths.

2:44:19And that was not what we were talking about.

2:44:21And that's not what we I think any of us at all

2:44:26were thinking about voting on at all.

2:44:29So I am stopping right now.

2:44:32And I've been in the break.

2:44:34I asked the the clerk to write up a motion that you can see on the screen here

2:44:39that says that City Council confirms that the previous vote

2:44:42included only the clause one of the displayed motion.

2:44:46And that's only in regards to the garage.

2:44:49OK, so that way we're just clear before we go forward for any clarity.

2:44:56OK, we will go to

2:45:00driveway widths separate, completely separate.

2:45:03Councillor All willing to do that.

2:45:04Councillor Goller is willing to second that.

2:45:07I don't think that's pretty self-explanatory.

2:45:09Is everyone good with that? OK, good.

2:45:11I'm going to call the vote.

2:45:13Does anyone disagree with with that motion?

2:45:18All right, that's unanimous, confirmed, clarified,

2:45:22acknowledged for the record, so let it be written, so let it be done.

2:45:27OK, so let's move on.

2:45:28I'm going to try to keep with the theme of parking

2:45:34because I just want us council to know

2:45:38that there is a parking consultant here that worked on some of the stuff.

2:45:42If underline the word if, if there needs to be any questions to the consultant.

2:45:48OK, and so I just want to get through that that moment right now.

2:45:53Councillor O'Rourke, I got yours in front of me, if that's OK with you.

2:45:57Put you on the spot. So your head nodding agreement.

2:46:00There's a few from you, which is fine.

2:46:02The one I have is the one that says that the parking adjustment

2:46:07PA along Gordon Street and then up to Vaughan Street.

2:46:11So that's the first one that is going to come up on the screen.

2:46:15Margarita, actually, since we're talking about garages,

2:46:18I have one about garage projection if you want to do that one.

2:46:22And then I have others for apartment parking.

2:46:27But if you wanted to stay on just the garage and then do driveway with,

2:46:31we could do the parking later, the apartments later.

2:46:36Well, the consultant is here and staff have indicated

2:46:38there's some timing with the consultant that I'd like to try to make sure we stick

2:46:42to just recognizing the time constraints for the for that.

2:46:47If you don't mind, I'll just continue with parking if that's OK.

2:46:50Sure. So then the motion that should come up was circulated last week.

2:46:55So it's not on the screen there. Is that OK?

2:46:58No, that's not the one.

2:47:00OK, which one would you like?

2:47:02The one I would like is the table five point three, row two, be amended.

2:47:08OK, for the first 20 dwelling units.

2:47:10So essentially what the motion is is for the exterior of, you know,

2:47:16excluding the downtown for all the suburban areas that we keep the current

2:47:21apartment parking requirements.

2:47:25OK, great.

2:47:27Let me just see if there's a seconder for this.

2:47:30Councillor Chew has told me that he would second.

2:47:33OK, perfect.

2:47:34And did you want to say anything further on that one before I call the vote?

2:47:40Sure. I mean, I think that given our growth rate, given the experience of many

2:47:45of our constituents in terms of overflow parking, given the cost of housing

2:47:49and apartments and condos, I think it's premature to reduce parking

2:47:53minimums for apartment buildings outside the downtown core.

2:47:57We know that on street parking complaints account for 30 percent or 29.6

2:48:02percent of our bylaw calls.

2:48:04We heard from staff that we're going to at some point consider city owned

2:48:07parking lots and residential neighborhoods.

2:48:10And I think that before we look at the capital and operating costs of doing that,

2:48:14we should make sure that apartment buildings have sufficient parking for residents.

2:48:20Thank you.

2:48:22All right, would it be OK if I called the vote then on that?

2:48:27Don't see any questions.

2:48:29OK, I would have comments on this at all.

2:48:33No, OK, I'll just I'll just call the vote then.

2:48:36OK, is anyone against this one?

2:48:43OK, it looks like only three myself, alt and downer.

2:48:48So that passes.

2:48:50All right, and right back to you, Councillor O'Rourke, you want to keep moving along.

2:48:53Which what's the next one you want to do?

2:48:55The next one is on garage projections, Mayor Guthrie.

2:48:59OK.

2:49:00So as it stands, the comprehensive zoning bylaw is proposing to restrict

2:49:06garage projections so that they can the garage cannot extend beyond the face

2:49:11of the dwelling.

2:49:12Two of the letters that we had in our packages talk about the constraints

2:49:16then to living space.

2:49:18And so while I understand there's a concern about having a garage projection

2:49:21that is far beyond the front wall of the building.

2:49:24So my initial inclination is just to say remove the restriction altogether.

2:49:29I do know there's a concern about what used to be called snout houses.

2:49:33So I am proposing to remove the porch requirement, but still allow

2:49:38maximum two meter projection, which is a standard zoning bylaw regulation in Ontario.

2:49:43So that motion is that Section five point eleven point two be amended as follows.

2:49:49Within residential zones, attached garages are permitted to project a maximum

2:49:53of two meters beyond the main front wall of the first story containing habitable

2:49:58floor space oriented toward the front lot line or exterior side lot line

2:50:02abiding a street line for single detached dwellings and semi detached dwellings

2:50:07in downtown zones attached garages shall not project beyond the main front wall

2:50:11of the building.

2:50:14Thank you. Is there a seconder for this one?

2:50:20Richardson looks like online there.

2:50:22OK. How about a question or comment from Councillor Downer, please?

2:50:29I don't support I'll just I don't support the amendment.

2:50:35I mean, we don't have urban design guidelines anymore and a lot of things.

2:50:39So but I mean, this is something that's really important.

2:50:42Something Jane Jacobs talked about many years when we had so many projecting

2:50:46garages that, you know, the eyes on the streets aren't there because the garages

2:50:50are in the way and doors are recessed.

2:50:52So it's it's that eyes on the street.

2:50:55It's an urban design guideline when you look down a street.

2:50:58You want to see houses, not garages.

2:51:00I mean, and, you know, I understand that there's got to be other ways to accommodate

2:51:05that extra space.

2:51:06So I I'm just not going to support it.

2:51:07It's something that

2:51:09um, many urban designers have been wanting to do for, you know, incorporate for years.

2:51:17Thank you, Councillor.

2:51:18Alt, did you have a question or comment?

2:51:19Yes, thank you very much.

2:51:20It's very similar to to Councillor Downers and I did see staff nodding.

2:51:25I was wondering if staff could please comment on the concerns they might have

2:51:29with regards to issues associated with eyes on the street.

2:51:32And also, I I'm not certain, but I my gut feeling tells me that there are

2:51:37challenges with stormwater maintenance on this as well,

2:51:41because we're just not able to put more into the ground.

2:51:44So I'd love to hear from staff on this place.

2:51:51Staff's position is in the proposed bylaw that we support the

2:51:55non projection of the garage.

2:51:57That's where staff stand for what Councillor Downer absolutely said.

2:52:01As far as safety, it's a septed issue as well.

2:52:03And it's the community look and feel and how how the design of the street and how

2:52:08when you walk up the street, how it feels and looks.

2:52:10So our recommendation, the report is our opinion.

2:52:16Thank you.

2:52:16I think her on her hand up and then back to the mover.

2:52:20Yes, thank you.

2:52:21Actually, my comments that were captured by by my colleagues that the two meters

2:52:26could go to the back of the property.

2:52:28This is an urban design issues.

2:52:29This is the only way we can control it.

2:52:31And just that staff's recommendation in this report comes out of a huge

2:52:38community consultation.

2:52:39And we heard this in the community that that how we plan our cities does

2:52:44does matter and those safety concerns, eyes on the street and aesthetics were

2:52:48were a factor in how people experience their their residential environment.

2:52:56Thank you. And to the mover, please.

2:52:58Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:52:59I just say my neighbourhood's got lots of lots of garages that have a projection.

2:53:04I work in my front room that's got a huge window.

2:53:07I see people go by on the sidewalk.

2:53:09The two meter garage projection is not egregious.

2:53:13What I think is overly prescriptive is requiring no projection at all.

2:53:17And then, you know, we don't like the cookie cutter houses, but there we're

2:53:20going to say exactly how all the houses should look.

2:53:23That if you've got a garage projection unit porch,

2:53:25I think that adds cost, actually.

2:53:27And I just think that we have lots and lots of neighbourhoods

2:53:31where there is a garage projection and there's ample eyes on the street.

2:53:35And there are lovely neighbourhoods.

2:53:39OK, thank you.

2:53:41Anything further?

2:53:43OK, I'm going to call the vote on that then.

2:53:48All. Is there anyone here that is against the motion that is being provided?

2:53:58So it's myself and Alt and Colosson and

2:54:07Busatil and Downer and Kate and Coran.

2:54:12So that fails. Back to you.

2:54:15Would you like to move anything else, Councillor O'Rourke?

2:54:18No, I'm your grassroot. That's it.

2:54:21OK, thank you so much.

2:54:23Just let me confer with the clerks, please.

2:54:47OK, well, why don't we go to?

2:54:49What about your I'm sorry, you just did the garage one, right?

2:54:52I'm sorry, that's right.

2:54:53I was going to say I was going to go back to you.

2:54:56OK, well, why don't we do?

2:55:01Let me just see if there's anything more on parking here for a moment here

2:55:17with the consultant here still standing by.

2:55:19I guess we'll go to Councillor Caton.

2:55:23Did you have a question through you to the consultant?

2:55:31So I was just running out for the three unit

2:55:34proposal for the resident residential.

2:55:37I know that we had it said that

2:55:41due to the size, there wouldn't be a requirement for accessible parking

2:55:45as a part of that.

2:55:46And I was just wondering is there a possibility for the city to provide

2:55:51permit accessible on street parking for

2:55:55disabled people who potentially are going to move into those units

2:55:58because I know that it's hard to get that parking on site afterwards

2:56:02if there's not enough space dedicated for it.

2:56:20Good afternoon, Councillor.

2:56:20I just Michael Jolinar from Be a Group.

2:56:22I'm the consultant to the mayor and Councillor Caton.

2:56:26I wasn't my scope with the parking work was simply for multi unit residential

2:56:31buildings. I did not assess the three unit buildings and accessible parking.

2:56:37It was outside of my scope.

2:56:38I don't I don't have anything to add there.

2:56:41OK, so then my mistake, I will ask staff that question.

2:56:45Well, we can wait before I go to Councillor Gibson for his motions on on driveways.

2:56:51What would stick on this topic because you brought it up?

2:56:53Let's get it answered for you right away.

2:56:55So staff three three units,

2:57:00triplexes, things like that, the parking requirement for accessibility.

2:57:03Can you help with that answer?

2:57:06Through the mayor to Councillor Caton.

2:57:08So on the demonstration plans, we showed an accessibility parking space.

2:57:12But under the building code, it's not required.

2:57:14So when it goes through for building permit, because there's no site plan process,

2:57:19it's not a requirement.

2:57:23I understand that.

2:57:24I was just wondering in the case of someone moving into those spaces,

2:57:28is there a way for the city to provide accessible on street parking?

2:57:33Is that something that we can do?

2:57:42I do I do believe I might need some clarification to look a little bit further.

2:57:46But I do believe we have provided a spot to someone previously in that situation.

2:57:51So we would have to look on an individual basis.

2:57:54Great. Thank you very much.

2:57:57Great. Thanks, Councillor Caton.

2:57:59All right, let me throw it on over to Councillor Gibson.

2:58:02And I got a few from you here as well or don't just to.

2:58:07So go ahead and figure out which one and the clerks can kind of follow along

2:58:13to put the right one up on the screen. OK.

2:58:15Yeah, thank you, through Mr. Mayor.

2:58:16I actually just submitted the one one motion is specific to the driveway width.

2:58:24All that's all that I circulated to staff and to Council.

2:58:28So I'll walk through it.

2:58:32Seconded by Councillor Goller. Thank you very much.

2:58:35Essentially, what this does is it does not go to the five meter minimum

2:58:40maximum driveway with that residents are currently not being is not being enforced.

2:58:45This is simply a subtle adjustment to the existing bylaw around semi-detached

2:58:51and on street townhomes only.

2:58:53And I want to say that again, semi-detached and on street townhomes only.

2:58:57This is not this is not speaking to a single detached homes.

2:59:01So in the case of the semi-detached dwellings,

2:59:05currently the bylaw states 50 percent or five meters, whichever is less.

2:59:09In the case of the minimum lot size in a semi-detached dwelling of eight meters,

2:59:14that allows someone to have a four meter driveway less than five.

2:59:19What this bylaw states is what this amendment states is that by going to 60

2:59:22percent, that that specific homeowner would now be allowed to have a four

2:59:27point eight meter driveway or point eight meter expansion of their driveway.

2:59:3280 centimeters, additionality on that one property.

2:59:38This is essentially wrapping our arms around what I would say about 85 percent

2:59:43of the people who are currently in harm's way of this bylaw.

2:59:46They've done a decorative walkway down the side of their driveway.

2:59:49They're not allowed to park their car wheels on it.

2:59:52It's permitted to be there, but they're not allowed to use it for parking.

2:59:54This would allow most of those people to get their vehicles off the road

2:59:58in the case of those minimum lot frontage units.

3:00:01So the eight meter wide semi-detached home.

3:00:04Secondly, when it comes to the on street townhouses, the minimum lot

3:00:08frontage for an on street townhouse in our city is six meters.

3:00:12So that bylaw would equate to 50 percent or five meters, whichever is less.

3:00:15In the case of a six meter wide home, that's a three meter driveway.

3:00:19And that's where a lot of the problems are in Ward one, two, four, six, a lot

3:00:24of households of, you know, just making ends meet, have expanded their driveway,

3:00:28put in a decorative walkway down the side, but have been caught.

3:00:31Through enforcement, because they put two wheels or parked half a car

3:00:37on that decorative walkway and they found themselves going to court.

3:00:40In this case, I've asked for 65 percent of the lot frontage or five

3:00:44meters, whichever is less.

3:00:45But in the worst case scenario, we're talking about a 3.9 meter driveway.

3:00:50So 90 centimeter expansion or relaxation of the bylaw, three feet,

3:00:55which would allow two compact cars to get off the road.

3:00:58And if you want to hear the math, the compact car, average width

3:01:00of the compact car is 5.2 feet.

3:01:02This would allow them to put two cars off the street in their townhouse

3:01:06driveway while still allowing two feet in between the vehicles and not being

3:01:10out of compliance with the bylaw.

3:01:13This is I've heard the concerns around council.

3:01:15This has been we've been five years at this now of relaxing the bylaw.

3:01:21And I'm trying to accommodate the voices around the horseshoe

3:01:23that do not want to see five meters for every single house in the city.

3:01:27And I acknowledge that.

3:01:28And so this is a subtle expansion or relaxation of the bylaw

3:01:31to really try and accommodate quite frankly.

3:01:35I'll use myself as an example.

3:01:37My wife and I bought a home in this town 12 years ago, 13 years ago now

3:01:42for under 400,000.

3:01:43And we got a single detached house for that price.

3:01:46Today, my wife and I, 10 years later, the family coming in behind us

3:01:51are paying 800 to $900,000 for a center row townhouse.

3:01:54They're being given essentially one parking spot and they're being asked

3:01:57to make ends meet.

3:01:58They've probably got twice the mortgage we ever had three times the mortgage

3:02:01we ever had and with far less space to do it.

3:02:05So this is this is this is absolutely a housing affordability issue.

3:02:10This is supporting homeowners.

3:02:12I just going door to door on my word, this is absolutely a new Canadian issue.

3:02:17This is absolutely a first time home buyer issue.

3:02:20This is absolutely a multi-generational housing issue.

3:02:24And so I thank Council for the conversation we've had over the last five years.

3:02:29I think it's the will of Council to support this this type of housing type.

3:02:34And I will leave my comments at that.

3:02:36Thank you.

3:02:38OK, thanks so much.

3:02:39It's been moved in second.

3:02:40And I'm going to go to Council or all please.

3:02:43Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

3:02:44Just a quick question to staff or perhaps it's to

3:02:48as I'm listening through this, I've heard that we have clearly

3:02:52been somewhat effective with the suspension of enforcement.

3:02:56And my question is if this were to pass, what would happen to the suspension

3:03:00of enforcement and what impact would that have on any reviewed

3:03:05strikes me, it would make a review moot, but I could be wrong on that as well.

3:03:11Street parking review of on street parking.

3:03:19Sorry, to you, Mayor Guthrie to Councillor All.

3:03:26The we would conduct the review as per normal where we're committed to doing that.

3:03:32The suspension would just continue as it is now.

3:03:37And I guess that's the bit of the conundrum.

3:03:39Why would we suspend it if we've changed the bylaw?

3:03:46Through you, Mayor Guthrie to Councillor All.

3:03:49It just gives us time to to do the review and to report back to Council.

3:03:55Thank you.

3:03:57Anything further on this before I call the vote, including comments,

3:04:00Councillor Kerr on, please.

3:04:03And then can I take this, Mr.

3:04:05Mayor, as I won't come as any surprise that I can't support the amendment.

3:04:11And yet I have sympathy for that particular built form in that particular area,

3:04:17where the design of that plan of subdivision and that those and some of the private

3:04:22condominium driveways that were built into that that form of development

3:04:28are part of the cause of the problem.

3:04:29And I think we need to address that through built form regulations and urban design

3:04:34and more communal parking lots for the overflow of cars.

3:04:39We have garages that are not being used as garages and side by side parking is not a right.

3:04:48It and we've talked about the need to increase the urban canopy.

3:04:52So where we have a problem in one part of town or one form of development,

3:04:57it it really has unintended consequences.

3:05:01I think it is best dealt with with with a future review and not embedded

3:05:06as of right in this bylaw.

3:05:08So those are some of the reasons why why I won't be supporting it.

3:05:11And I'm happy with the pause on enforcement while we go forward and look at this

3:05:18in different areas of the city and the impact that it will have.

3:05:22I think changing it now without fully understanding the impact

3:05:28is irresponsible for council to with in the absence of information to

3:05:35and then the last bit about that is that this was a huge consultative process.

3:05:41And we heard from the community about support and we have staff's recommendation

3:05:46in the report.

3:05:47I think we need to stick to to the input that we received on this one

3:05:51until we have a further review.

3:05:54OK, thank you.

3:05:55Thank you very much over just like to Councillor Pusantil.

3:05:59Then I'll call them.

3:06:00Oh, no, I'm sorry.

3:06:01If you don't mind, Councillor Pusantil, I did say, Kate and then over to you.

3:06:05Then I'll call the vote.

3:06:06Go ahead, Councillor Kate and sorry about that.

3:06:08Of course, through you, I just had some comments because originally,

3:06:13when I first heard about this before, I was on Council, I had a knee jerk reaction

3:06:16for the environment and things.

3:06:17And I understand where Councillor Caron is coming from.

3:06:20But after walking around in Ward One and actually seeing the neighborhoods

3:06:25and who's impacted, it's all smaller townhouses.

3:06:29And we've got a lot of very, very dense areas where there really isn't a lot of

3:06:33other options.

3:06:34Like even the on street parking is very, very limited and there's no local

3:06:39parking lots nearby.

3:06:40We don't have transit that goes into those areas.

3:06:43So we're basically creating hardship.

3:06:46And one of the things that we're trying to do as a part of our

3:06:50strategic plan is to make life more affordable.

3:06:53And when you've got a lot of families that are all living in these small units

3:06:57and we don't have any other options for them to get around, we don't have

3:07:00walkable communities for them right now.

3:07:02We are creating these hardships.

3:07:03So I think that this will help alleviate that until we can get the structures

3:07:08together.

3:07:09Thank you so much.

3:07:12And Councillor Pusantil.

3:07:14Thank you.

3:07:14I was going to say something similar to Councillor

3:07:16Kate and that walking around Ward for a lot of conversations around

3:07:22two cars on the driveway.

3:07:23And the comment about the garage, these are small in the one street.

3:07:27I'm thinking of in particular, that are row townhouses and the

3:07:31garage is where they keep their garbage bins, their municipal garbage bins.

3:07:34There's no other place other than pulling it into the house to have a

3:07:37garbage, a garbage bin there.

3:07:39And on street for this one particular neighborhood, they're competing with

3:07:43Conestoga College students that park on street.

3:07:45There is no availability of on street parking.

3:07:49But that's from my perspective and my experience in Ward four.

3:07:53And the type of housing really attracts young people that are entering that

3:07:58are trying to make ends meet and so on.

3:08:01Can I just get clarification?

3:08:03Because I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear the parking study is underway now and

3:08:10parking study is underway now.

3:08:12And just when is that anticipated?

3:08:15Because I think I'm okay to say that we won't enforce it, but not if it's

3:08:20going to be another five years or things like that, because people need

3:08:23some kind of a remedy.

3:08:25Just the timeline on that, please.

3:08:29It's you, Mayor Guthrie to Councillor.

3:08:32But still it's 2025 on the work plan for engineering and

3:08:37transportation, by understanding.

3:08:40Sorry.

3:08:40Thank you.

3:08:41Just 2025 is the work or it's coming to council in 2025.

3:08:48It's on the work plan to start in 2025.

3:08:51I'm going to go through.

3:09:00Perfect.

3:09:02Uh, I have, uh, three, four more people, but, but the fourth, I'm going to end

3:09:09with the mover.

3:09:09Okay.

3:09:10So I'll go, uh, or work and then alt and then billings and then back to the

3:09:16mover and, uh, I'll call the vote then go ahead, uh, go ahead, please.

3:09:24Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

3:09:25Uh, just a couple of comments, uh, and I, I think, uh, Councillor Gibson for

3:09:28bringing this forward.

3:09:30One of the first conversations I had when I was door knocking in 2018 was with

3:09:34a gentleman who lived in a townhouse.

3:09:36Uh, he and his wife were shifts.

3:09:38They had just, you know, put a little walkway up alongside the driveway, uh, so

3:09:42that they didn't have to shuffle the cars when one came home late and another was,

3:09:46was leaving early.

3:09:47And he was really distraught by the size of the fine for having parked on his

3:09:52walkway.

3:09:53And he said to me, he said, it's two weeks pay.

3:09:56And he was practically in tears.

3:09:58So there are a lot of people who are just getting by, who are just trying to get

3:10:05to work and pay the mortgage.

3:10:08And having that little walkway there, uh, doesn't make the ground any less

3:10:14permeable.

3:10:15If it's there as a walkway, it makes no difference whether you put a tire on it

3:10:18or not.

3:10:20And some people do actually quite a lovely job.

3:10:23And in a lot of instances, they, it's quite decorative.

3:10:27They can have trees.

3:10:28It's often the two townhouses side by side will have sort of a common front yard.

3:10:33Um, so the permeability piece, I understand, but I don't buy completely because

3:10:38you can also put a concrete patio in your backyard and we don't have any

3:10:41restrictions on that.

3:10:43So the other reason why I think this is an important amendment is if you drive up

3:10:48Edinburgh or, you know, you see townhouses on arterial roads, those folks actually

3:10:54can't get out and shuffle the vehicles if they're one behind the other, because

3:10:59they're on an arterial, it just makes things really difficult.

3:11:02So I think that if we wait, we will have a massive enforcement issue because these

3:11:08wideened driveways are absolutely everywhere.

3:11:11And this would help us get our arms around that.

3:11:14And at the same time, I would urge people before you widen your driveway, check

3:11:18the bylaw, it can be quite costly.

3:11:21So thanks, Mayor Guthrie and thanks, Councillor Gibson.

3:11:26Yes.

3:11:27And thank you for your comments.

3:11:28I believe I said, um, alt and then, uh, buildings.

3:11:32And then I also saw a caller's hand go up.

3:11:36Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

3:11:37Um, in the past, I have not supported this, but, uh, perhaps surprisingly, some

3:11:42of my colleagues, I'm actually going to support this.

3:11:44And I'm going to support it because I think that, uh, Councillor

3:11:47Kate and actually made some very effective arguments on, uh, on the

3:11:50differences that we recognize within our community.

3:11:53Um, I'm going to steal a line from William Lyme, the Kenzie King, and its, uh,

3:11:58enforcement, if necessary, but not necessarily enforcement, I suppose.

3:12:01But the real challenge here is, is that, uh, I as a, um, as a councillor for an

3:12:06urban ward need to make decisions for those living in the suburbs as well.

3:12:10And, and I think we as counselors are supposed to do that all the time.

3:12:13That's why we've put a library in for all of the community, a south end

3:12:17rec center, and even why we have a bus system.

3:12:19We might not necessarily use any of them.

3:12:22We might not necessarily live in the suburbs, but we need to recognize that

3:12:26we are building and growing a whole city.

3:12:29Um, I'm not holding my nose.

3:12:31I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

3:12:33I have concerns with groundwater.

3:12:36I have concerns with aesthetics and I have concerns with, uh, the challenges

3:12:41that we have in a society that is very much automobile dependent.

3:12:45So for this, uh, uh, I'm doing a complete about face.

3:12:51Okay.

3:12:51Thank you.

3:12:52Uh, Billings, then Galler, then we're going to go back to the mover and then

3:12:56we'll, we'll look to call the vote.

3:13:00And for you, uh, Mr.

3:13:02Mayor, and that is councillor Gibson is dealing with table, uh, 5.10.

3:13:07So that was going to, that's my amendment of which the amendment you already

3:13:12moved that council voted on.

3:13:14So do you want me to move the amendment now?

3:13:17Under table 5.10, or do you want me to do it after you deal with this issue

3:13:23with Councillor Gibson's motion?

3:13:31Just, can you dumb that down for me?

3:13:34What's going on here?

3:13:36So the second clause that we voted on when I moved those two amendments, it's

3:13:41really an amendment to table 5.

3:13:44So let me just interrupt Councillor Billings.

3:13:47I'm asking you, do you want me to do it later?

3:13:52Was Councillor Billings in the room when we took the vote on that confirmation?

3:13:57Did you maybe so Councillor Billings, just let me ask you a question.

3:14:00Sorry, it's difficult with you not being here.

3:14:03So I apologize with the delay, but, um, your motion when it came up before our

3:14:09lunch break had, um, we were only dealing with number one of your motion, which

3:14:15just had to do with the width of a property and then allowing a double garage.

3:14:20Um, on the screen, though, there was a bunch of other motions that actually had

3:14:26to do with exactly what we're talking about now.

3:14:29And we realized that we had accidentally from a, from on the screen perspective,

3:14:34we actually looked to be, we seemed to be looking to support all those changes

3:14:40for driveway widths.

3:14:42When we came back after lunch, we had a confirmation vote that was unanimous.

3:14:49To only confirm the number one, the first and only portion of the motion

3:14:55that came up on the screen for you, only to do with the double garage issue.

3:15:03Were you missing maybe for that motion?

3:15:07No, I, I wasn't.

3:15:08That's not my issue.

3:15:09Everything you said, my issue is there was only a second clause to that.

3:15:15And that second clause relates now to the driveway with under table 5.10.

3:15:22And that's what counselor Gibson is dealing with is driveway with under table

3:15:285.10.

3:15:29So my question was, do you want me to move that second clause now as an amendment?

3:15:33Or do you want to deal with it after we vote on counselor Gibson's motion?

3:15:53Yeah, the clerks and I conferred, we agree on after.

3:15:58Okay, so then my comment speaking to the motion then is because of the exemption

3:16:05that's in place now, I can, I can tell you it has been a welcome to reprieve not to have

3:16:10all the calls and emails regarding the driveway with because it is, it is a big

3:16:17issue for ward four.

3:16:18And I just wanted to thank counselor Gibson for, for bringing this matter forward.

3:16:25Okay.

3:16:25Thank you for sure.

3:16:27Counselor Guller, it looks like counselor Downer wants to jump in one more time and

3:16:32I will go.

3:16:34Oh, okay.

3:16:35My fault.

3:16:35My apologies.

3:16:37Guller and then Downer for the first time and then back to the mover.

3:16:43Thank you for your worship.

3:16:45I am happy to be be supporting this motion.

3:16:48I think we have many issues that impact a subset of our community that

3:16:56happen to live in lots that I think unfortunately they were not designed

3:17:00appropriately to accommodate the lifestyles of our residents.

3:17:05And I wanted to clarify as part of those of my comments that the review of

3:17:10on street parking is not going to be a solution to this issue.

3:17:15We're not suddenly going to be able to create more parking spaces on Cullen Crescent

3:17:19or those other parts of the city.

3:17:21We I'm looking forward to regulating on parking throughout the city of Guelph.

3:17:26But even if we were to do that, it's not going to create more spots on many of the

3:17:30neighborhoods that are impacted by the driveway with under restrictions on

3:17:36parking on those walkways.

3:17:38Thank you.

3:17:40Thank you.

3:17:42Downer, please.

3:17:44So just a question through you, Mr.

3:17:46Mirage staff.

3:17:47So my understanding is that the concern was for the changes that any other kind of

3:17:54reduction in these regulations would compromise stormwater management on

3:18:00private property and the survival of trees planted and trees canopy.

3:18:06Is that what I was heard through Mr.

3:18:09Mayor to Council.

3:18:12Downer, that is the concern.

3:18:13If it's 3.9 meters, I believe that was the 65% calculation that these 1.1 meters

3:18:20for stormwater infiltration as well as a tree.

3:18:23As well as a tree and we know we need 3 meters for a tree to survive healthly.

3:18:27Okay.

3:18:29So I think Brent Hoderian said it well last year.

3:18:33Guelph is not as green as it thinks it is.

3:18:35We had an opportunity with the Zoning By-law to fix that.

3:18:40These wrongs do not make rights.

3:18:43So anyway, he did point that out when we talked to him and when we had him in as a speaker.

3:18:49We're compromising the survival of trees.

3:18:54You can plant them, but they're not going to survive.

3:18:57And we're compromising stormwater management in the city of Guelph if we approve this.

3:19:03So I just I'm just quoting him what he said to us.

3:19:07We're not as green as we think we are.

3:19:11Okay.

3:19:12Thank you for your opinions.

3:19:13And now I will go to the mover.

3:19:18Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

3:19:19So notwithstanding those comments, I acknowledge that that's a concern.

3:19:23That's been a concern for the last 5 years since we paused enforcement.

3:19:27And I'm happy to say that the sky hasn't fallen on residential neighborhoods to date.

3:19:33So that being said, what I I acknowledge that the on-street parking study is coming.

3:19:39And for the next 2 years, there'll be a continued pause on enforcement.

3:19:41But I'm not here to defend the defense lists like some people have done an egregious job of

3:19:46paving over a lot more of their front yard than they should have.

3:19:49They're putting 2, 3 cars up on it.

3:19:51That's not what this is about, even though sometimes it's being characterized as that.

3:19:55What this does today is it probably lets hundreds if not thousands of residents know

3:20:02that the pressure's off.

3:20:04Like they can relax a little bit that as soon as this enforcement comes back,

3:20:08that walkway that they're putting their second car on, they're going back to court.

3:20:11And the court charges up to $1,600.

3:20:14I've interviewed seniors over this.

3:20:16I've I've interviewed new Canadians over this.

3:20:19This is a real issue on the ground.

3:20:20And in Ward 1, it was up to 150 or 160 homes were being taken to court over over over that

3:20:27specific issue.

3:20:27So what this does, the extra three feet on the six foot six meter wide is just gives

3:20:33those people a breath and gives those people peace of mind that it's not coming,

3:20:39that that inevitability of, oh, as soon as someone calls on me, I'm going to court.

3:20:42That's gone.

3:20:43Now, the rest of them that are widening their driveway beyond that,

3:20:47that gives them the the on street parking study gives them two years.

3:20:50No, it is listen, you better get it in order because this enforcement is coming back.

3:20:54But for the meantime, everyone take a breath.

3:20:57Residents can go back to peace of mind and we don't have neighbors calling on neighbors.

3:21:02And and it just settles the issue.

3:21:04So again, thanks for everyone who spoke and support.

3:21:08And it's been a good conversation.

3:21:10It's been six years.

3:21:12I'm glad it's I'm glad it's coming to a close.

3:21:14Hopefully today.

3:21:17Okay.

3:21:18My comments are quick and I'll call the vote.

3:21:21So I was going to ask about the risks just out loud, even though staff had already been

3:21:26very clear about it in the reports and I wasn't going to do it, but counselor downer did it for

3:21:29me.

3:21:30And I just actually want to fully acknowledge those risks exactly as counselor downer said.

3:21:37At the same time, though, I I do believe that this is for for me.

3:21:43This is a moment to try it as is proposed in this amendment over the next maybe five years

3:21:49because we're going to be looking at always updating things anyways.

3:21:52I would like to see the results of something like this to actually get an idea of how it

3:21:58can move forward or not.

3:21:59And we can amend in the future if necessary.

3:22:02But yeah, I will be supporting this and I I cannot say I mean each of you are giving the

3:22:07you know the lens of in my word in my word in my word.

3:22:10I mean it was it was just becoming a major issue in Ward 4 when I was the counselor there

3:22:14where both Linda and Christina are now I'm sure they're hearing about it.

3:22:19But now you know, as the mayor like I hear it everywhere across the entire city how much

3:22:26of a difficult situation this is.

3:22:29And it's extremely punitive.

3:22:31It's extremely punitive on someone's own property.

3:22:35It just it just rubs me the wrong way.

3:22:37And I'd like to just see this.

3:22:39Yeah, be put to be put to rest.

3:22:41And so again, I think Councillor Gibson for for bringing this forward as well.

3:22:48Okay, with that, I'll just call the vote then.

3:22:49So I'll just ask it in this in this way.

3:22:53All those not in favor, please raise your hand.

3:22:59Okay, so all those not in favor.

3:23:01So it's Karan and downer.

3:23:04Okay, so that passes.

3:23:07And by the way, Councillor Katelyn is on and she is in favor.

3:23:11She did let me know just so her screen isn't on but but she's there.

3:23:15Okay.

3:23:16And so let me go to you, Councillor Billings, because of the the other part of the of your

3:23:22motion then, which I had ready to go.

3:23:27It's the bottom one that it's the second clause that Dylan had put up before Mr.

3:23:33Yeah.

3:23:34And it's still dealing with the same table.

3:23:37Table 5.10.

3:23:41Yeah.

3:23:42Okay.

3:23:43So can you just explain that for us?

3:23:45So if well, it's an amendment.

3:23:48It's an amendment.

3:23:49It's an amendment.

3:23:50So I need a seconder.

3:23:53Yeah.

3:23:54So it's in relation somewhat.

3:23:55So yeah.

3:23:56Okay.

3:23:56Go Gibson will second.

3:23:58Go ahead.

3:23:59Okay.

3:24:01Oh, I just lost it.

3:24:02Okay.

3:24:03So it it falls in line with the amendment that we did a while ago.

3:24:12And so what it means.

3:24:16I'm just scrolling here to to try to find it because I had lost it.

3:24:20So with the the width of the attached garage, which we supported that amendment.

3:24:26So now you can have a double car garage, which takes up five and a half meters under the

3:24:32maximum residential driveway width for and again, I'm only under row two zone RL two single

3:24:42detached that the amendment only pertains to the single detached.

3:24:48And so what it means is you can build your double car garage and it'll be five and a half meters,

3:24:54but then the driveway in keeping in line with the garage should be five and a half meters as well.

3:25:01However, how the zoning is written right now, it just says max of five meters.

3:25:07So the amendment again does the two things so that the driveway can be in line with the garage.

3:25:13And it also maintains that 50% landscape area in the front yard.

3:25:19So not going over 50% and you still have the room for landscaping and trees and such.

3:25:25And again, if we don't support this, then builders would have to go to community adjustment

3:25:30because the driveway wouldn't line up with the garage.

3:25:34Okay, I understand now. So yeah, thanks Councillor Downer. She said it better than I.

3:25:42Okay, so because of what we did with Councillor Billings first one, we have to also say, well,

3:25:48the driveway can also match what we did. If we don't do it, then it's going to be a smaller

3:25:53driveway as they go up to a larger garage. So I get it.

3:25:57That's correct, Mr. Mayor. All right, perfect. It's been moved and seconded.

3:26:03I don't think I need to really ask. We're good here. I'm going to call the vote. Okay. All right.

3:26:08All those not in favor of this, raise your hand.

3:26:12Okay. Quran is not in favor. Okay. So that passes. All right. Nothing further from you,

3:26:22right? Councillor Billings. Oh, that's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you.

3:26:29All right, we're going to keep moving here. Why don't we do Councillor Downer?

3:26:38You have one, I think you and Councillor Quran had one that wanted to bring forward.

3:26:45I'll turn the mic over to you. Okay. Councillor Quran has.

3:26:48Oh, Councillor Quran. Okay. I'm so sorry. Councillor Quran, do you want to bring it forward?

3:26:52Sure. I will just get clarification from Ms. Watts as well, because you saw the dialogue that

3:26:59went back and forth on that. The intent here is to address the three bedrooms. We previously

3:27:07had a regulation that accessory units within a primary dwelling were limited to two,

3:27:15and an additional residential dwelling unit is also limited to two. The new had three.

3:27:25And I think we can all agree that there are places where that, in a larger primary dwelling unit,

3:27:31where that can happen. But there's also in townhouses, semis, and small cottage dwellings

3:27:38where an accessory unit with three bedrooms usually means it's the living room or dining

3:27:42room that's being converted. So the intent here was to remove the three bedroom reference,

3:27:49but to allow for the full use of a basement for an accessory dwelling unit, where that's

3:27:57appropriate. So the back and forth in questioning with staff about an appropriate motion was

3:28:07the result of the motion, the recommended motion amendment that I sent to clerks for your consideration

3:28:17this afternoon. And that, I just want to clarify that the intent and the solution is what is being

3:28:26proposed with Abby and that the removal of that regulation will accomplish that.

3:28:34Sure. We'll go to her and it is just to confirm it is seconded by Councillor Downer. So it's

3:28:41just she's on the floor. And oh sorry, go ahead to the mover. Yeah, and the other thing, while

3:28:47Abby's coming up to the mic, that what we didn't get in this email exchange regarding this removal

3:28:55of this clause was whether staff were in support or whether staff had any concerns about that. I

3:29:02know with some of the other one staff came out and were very clear we do not support this.

3:29:06I didn't see a comment from staff that they are not in support of this recommended of this

3:29:14motion and just wanted to ensure they had an opportunity to comment whether there were

3:29:19any concerns with it. So through you, America, through you to Councillor Kerron, this motion will

3:29:27remove the permission for three bedrooms within a basement additional residential dwelling unit.

3:29:33That's the only situation where we added three bedrooms through the proposed zoning bylaw.

3:29:40Staff originally in 2020 proposed three bedrooms for additional residential dwelling units.

3:29:51And so this is why based on the request at the statutory public meeting, we've included the

3:29:56three bedrooms in the proposed bylaw. Thank you. I hope you don't mind I'm just going to jump in

3:30:05because I need clarity here. Maybe everyone's thinking what I'm thinking or maybe I'm the only

3:30:09one is if what if what Councillor Kerron and Downer are proposing passed, could that mean there could

3:30:22be four bedrooms in the basement? Because it says the additional dwelling unit can take up the entirety

3:30:29of the of a basement instead of a percentage. Like right now there's like a percentage of the

3:30:34basement, right? Or some kind of a portion of square footage based on the like I believe I'm

3:30:42saying the right things. Could you could you dumb it down for me? Sure. To you Mayor Guthrie, additional

3:30:48residential dwelling units are limited to two bedrooms and so that applies for any ARDU. This

3:30:56section here that we're looking at right now allowed for three bedrooms in the basement. So it was an

3:31:00exemption from the two bedrooms. So what okay I'm going to go to the mover. What are you trying to

3:31:08what are you trying to do here? Like again just dumb it down for me and probably others. What is the

3:31:14what is the purpose of this motion? The purpose of the motion is to remove the three bedrooms from

3:31:20the regulation. And you know one of the reasons for that is we have the new accessory dwelling unit

3:31:27in as a detached form of housing. And we have the new regulations encouraging the conversion of

3:31:37basement apartments. We have accessory dwelling units now allowed in semi-detached and townhouses.

3:31:44So we've had a lot of density added through new accessory dwelling unit legislation. And I'm in

3:31:52support of those but we haven't measured the impact. We've done it all bang bang bang bang

3:31:58and we don't have enough information to add another bedroom to add that third bedroom. I think we need

3:32:07to see what the impact of all this additional density that we've already added is going to be

3:32:13and come back maybe three four years come back and say you know what it hasn't had the impact

3:32:17that we expected that it might. And then I would wholeheartedly support three bedrooms but I can't

3:32:23support three bedrooms now because we have no way of knowing what the impact of all this additional

3:32:29density and our dues will have on existing sites. I need more information. I need evidence that there's

3:32:36no there's no impact before I can go to three bedrooms. Okay okay you've made it very clear for

3:32:41sure. I'm going to go to the seconder just to pipe in as well and then I'll open it up for questions

3:32:46only on the proposal in front of us okay. So to the seconder and then open up for questions.

3:32:53So for me it's about consistency so we have if you're put your ADRU anywhere else on the behind

3:32:59your house or beside your house or in your attic or wherever it's two bedrooms. And this is owning

3:33:07bylaws coming forward and saying okay it's but you can only have two bedrooms everywhere else and

3:33:14now it's only it's three in the basement. And the reason it was two bedrooms through that ADRU

3:33:20the additional residential unit process was in part because of the mostly because of the the

3:33:28public input we had regarding this issue. So that was it was in response to public input around this

3:33:35issue and mostly the area and why you heard from the Maclderay community the area surrounding the

3:33:41university and what what the additional rooms so you can have if you allow this you can have three

3:33:47five four you could have nine nine in this case nine people living with cars on on these sites and

3:33:56on in houses and it's significantly and people can say oh that's not going to happen. Well we have

3:34:02investors in wealth at own 30 houses in our area so it is going to happen and it becomes a real

3:34:09becomes a significant problem in neighbourhoods. So this is just something to help help with that

3:34:15issue and responds to the letter from the Maclderay community. Okay okay thank you. All right I so I'm

3:34:23just going to confirm with the clerks for a second everybody yes okay so the clerks just want councillor

3:34:34Koran to confirm that the motion that's coming up on the screen is the one that you're we're just

3:34:41making sure we're on the right topic. Yep okay great thank you. Just before I go to questions everybody

3:34:53oh it looks like I'm going to go to staff but just before I go to staff in 2020 staff said that we

3:35:01should have gentle density and allow three bedrooms and basement apartments. We said no they're saying

3:35:08to do it again okay so that is their position. This is an alternative position which is totally fine

3:35:15but I just want us to not be like and what's your position they we know their position

3:35:21we've known it for three years so Christa over to you. Thank you Marika three and just to provide

3:35:27clarification on the two bedrooms the three bedrooms and perhaps why it's not clear from the

3:35:31motion so what is missing from the well the motion is correct but what it has done is removed the last

3:35:38part of the sentence of that specific provision that says and may contain three bedrooms so it

3:35:44stops before that so that's this the clarity around the bedroom issue. Yep okay anything new

3:35:51questions that are required of this motion I'm going to go out there. Thank you very much

3:35:57through you Mr. Mayor to staff I have no real problems with the motion per se and the direction

3:36:04of it. My concern is actually with the word entirety. I think it's it it flags something

3:36:12and I'm not certain that we necessarily wish any basement to be the entirety. There are there is

3:36:19infrastructure and other challenges in many basements. There's one even comment on that please.

3:36:26Through you Marika three to Councillor Allt this is the existing language that was approved in 2020

3:36:32and the intent was to allow people to utilize the space in their basements. We were running into a

3:36:38lot of issues where the 45% was causing issues for bunglows so the entirety of the basement

3:36:45there'll be mechanical rooms and some some floor area discounted from that but it just reduces the

3:36:50committee of adjustment requests. Thank you I'll tell my wife I can still sleep behind the furnace.

3:37:06Caller please. Thank you through your worship but just to be absolutely clear because I think I do

3:37:12not support this motion but I just want to make sure through staff if we were to approve this then

3:37:17people could use the entirety of the basement but only up to two bedrooms. If we vote this motion down

3:37:25then people could use the entirety of the basement up to three bedrooms. Is that is that clear? That's

3:37:32correct yeah. Thank you so that's that's for clarity. So I will not be supporting this. Sorry can you

3:37:39say that one more time? Yes. If you support this what? Then you can have the entirety of the basement

3:37:44up to two bedrooms in that unit. If you vote this down then you can still build the entirety of the

3:37:51basement up to three bedrooms. So to support gentle density density I will be voting against this motion

3:37:58that limits basement units to two bedrooms as opposed to the three bedrooms that staff are

3:38:04recommending. Thank you. Okay thank you and and O'Rourke I think and then I think Claeson. Yep.

3:38:11Thank you Mary I got three through you to council. I had the same question as councillor

3:38:16Caller and while I initially supported the two-bedroom limit for a basement apartment I've

3:38:22heard from lots of folks in my church who work with immigrant families who are desperately looking

3:38:27for three bedrooms and so especially in a in a big home where this works I know I've changed my

3:38:36perspective on this and I won't support the the motion I do support this staff recommendation in

3:38:43this case. Okay thank you. Claeson is next and then I did see Koran. Not to drag this out but for my

3:38:54own clarity does this mean that currently we can't have three bedrooms in basement apartments?

3:39:01So they're okay okay thank you. So let's be let's be really clear staff came three years ago and said

3:39:08we should allow three bedrooms and apartments. Council voted that down which is there right they

3:39:13voted it down because we were doing the new zoning update staff said we really got to do the three

3:39:19bedrooms again so that is their recommendation so that is embedded in the zoning bylaw today to do

3:39:26three. This amendment says no let's go back not allow three okay so if you vote for the amendment

3:39:37what you're saying is you want to limit it to two vote against it then you're saying you agree with

3:39:42the staff recommendation to allow three. Go back to you. Okay thank you that's that's the clarification

3:39:48I was looking for and then as a follow-up and I'm sorry I'm not super familiar with planning stuff

3:39:54yet so in those in a basement apartment would there be requirements for common spaces like kitchen

3:40:01living room area on top of those bedrooms like you wouldn't be converting a like what should be like a

3:40:06living space into a bedroom? Yeah through Mayor Guthrie to Council Claeson there's there's a lot

3:40:14of requirements around it including even building the bedroom sizes so it's not every property

3:40:20can have three bedrooms as a right it depends on the size and the makeup and exiting and windows and

3:40:25yeah a lot of factors go into it so not every house can have a basement apartment depending on

3:40:31grades and everything else as well. Thank you. Great I'm just going to go to uh Kate who has a

3:40:38statement and uh then I looks like I can go back to the mover Karan for a final statement before I

3:40:44call the vote. Through you Mr. Mayor um I I know that the focus has been on students but I know a

3:40:54lot of families that um can't really afford a lot of the units that are there currently and they've

3:41:01got multiple children so limiting basement apartments to just two bedrooms is really reducing the amount

3:41:08of space that single parent families and none of the people can actually afford to live in so um

3:41:16I'm not going to be supporting it for that reason. Okay thank you and back to the mover please.

3:41:23Yeah thank you just to and gentle density absolutely uh families with children absolutely

3:41:29primary dwellings can have four or five bedrooms um I'm I just want to respond so that there isn't

3:41:35an impression that I'm not in support of that additional density in our in our uh our residential

3:41:40neighborhoods um three years ago we didn't have the backyard uh detached single uh uh entity

3:41:49arduous we've added that so we have two bedroom uh accessory detached dwelling in the backyard

3:41:56including townhouses and we have a primary dwelling it could be five six bedrooms and now we would

3:42:03have a three bedroom accessory units again uh the intensity of what could happen the unintended

3:42:10consequences could be anywhere from 10 to 12 persons on a single family lot with cars um and

3:42:18again it's it's just unintended consequences I would be willing to support three bedrooms at a

3:42:22later date but with the additional single detached dwellings in backyards we do not have a measure

3:42:28of the impact of that so I think I think it's just premature that's all um it may come back in the

3:42:33future and I'll support it wholeheartedly just not right now. Okay thank you to the mover okay I'll

3:42:41just have very quick comments they won't be shocking to anybody I think the decision um three years ago

3:42:47has um was was wrong at that time um and uh in my view hearing even some of my colleagues talk about

3:42:55some of the uh comments that they've had from people I believe it's contributed to some of the

3:43:02housing crisis that we've had in the last three years uh we are in a housing crisis and we need

3:43:06to be able to give people options this is an option especially uh exactly as Councillor Caton

3:43:14articulated very well with all the different types of people that may be looking for those types of

3:43:20units uh Councillor O'Rourke same type of commentary uh about refugees immigrants that are coming

3:43:27families single parents whatever it is individuals that are looking for these these types of options

3:43:32and I think the the argument I would just say uh respectfully against Councillor Caron

3:43:38or others in regards to let's see how the tiny house thing does in the backyard

3:43:42well tiny houses are like 200 to 300 thousand dollars they're not cheap but you know what redoing

3:43:50your basement into an apartment for somebody you know maybe I don't know 60,000 80,000 I don't know

3:44:00depends how much garage sale stuff and kajiji stuff you buy but you know you can do it for

3:44:04pretty cheap it's not 200 300 thousand dollars so we're we need to be able to offer um people choice

3:44:12when it comes to how they can live in this city and this is yet another choice and I'll just repeat

3:44:19what staff said three years ago this is gentle density this is exactly what we want so I obviously

3:44:26will not be supporting this uh this uh this motion uh but I fully appreciate why Councillor Downer

3:44:35and uh Caron are bringing it forward especially I do recognize uh based on some of the commentary of

3:44:41the people that are in their ward that have concerns but I I do believe as Councillor

3:44:47Alt said in the last uh motion about driveway widths we're here to try to help as many people

3:44:51across the entire community not those that have risks maybe only or fears only in one little area

3:44:59so with that I'll call the vote those that I'm going to ask uh those that are against this

3:45:05motion to please raise your hand so that's myself Gibson, Klosson, Alt, uh Gawler, Boussatill,

3:45:16Chiu, Katen Richardson, Billings, or Rourke. Okay thank you so that's been settled I appreciate

3:45:26that let's keep moving along why don't we just go to why don't we go just go to mine um that should

3:45:36be I think pretty easy um so do you have mine ready that you can put up on the okay I can't I

3:45:43guess I can't officially uh put it on the floor but I think Councillor Goller mentioned that he

3:45:48would be willing to do that and I'll look around the room or the screen if there's a seconder um

3:45:53it's that staff consider as of right permissions for greater than three units

3:45:57per property within the low density residential uh designation and to report back to council with

3:46:02options and recommendations by the end of Q1 2024 is there a seconder for for that you can't second

3:46:10the motion that you table Councillor Goller is there a seconder for that uh Gibson will will

3:46:16second that thank you so if I could just give a little bit of a preamble uh I was you know hot to

3:46:21trot to come on in here and say let's let's make four plexus ready to go right now um I think I

3:46:29think personally that's probably the right decision at a minimum but in consultation with staff prior

3:46:35to me wanting to come and try to do that they mentioned there's like there's a lot to consider

3:46:40there there's an engagement part there's parking or non-parking or there's setbacks or there like

3:46:47there's just there's amenity space there's all this kind of stuff that was done very thoroughly

3:46:55if I could add around the uh demonstration of a triplex or three units that similar type of

3:47:02consideration should be given to anything over and above three uh so in hearing staff's feedback

3:47:10I agreed which is why I'm not coming in to just say let's do it that they would prefer to have

3:47:16the time in the runway to do the proper engagement and discussion and review on something over that

3:47:22that is why this motion is here today so it's something that could come in the future maybe

3:47:27if this motion passes for some staff to review it um and that's that's my position I won't go

3:47:32any further that's that's what it is so is there any questions on this at all by anybody before we

3:47:37move forward I'll go down her first and then Guller and Gibson so I have an amendment um yes so

3:47:46my amendment is to change it to Q1 2025 um for this there's a seconder for that Guller

3:47:57Guller will suck and I'll just tell you why one thing one thing is around staff capacity I mean

3:48:03they're going to have to deal with the next year they're dealing with bill 23 they're going to come

3:48:07back with all the changes in OP 80 I mean there's a lot of work to be done uh in staff for staff

3:48:15right now so let's let's give it time let's give it time to see how these triplexes um start rolling

3:48:21out and have some experience with the triplexes that we're implementing now before we start looking

3:48:27at moving to for practice so I I'd like to see a two-year window instead of a one-year window

3:48:32for that to come back okay questions on this before I continue Guller just on the just on this

3:48:40amendment that's on the floor okay uh through 20 25 uh through worship to staff um I I'm quite

3:48:47eager to see more than more than three places I think three places are are the right direction

3:48:52but regarding the timing can you please speak to us a little bit about what it would be like to come

3:48:59back at the beginning of 2024 versus 2025 yeah so so just to be clear could you come back Q1 2024

3:49:11with enough data for us or is that additional you're required um through the mayor to Councillor

3:49:18Guller so I think we can look at it and come back in 2024 we've done some started our research on it

3:49:23and we'll continue to do that um as we move forward if if it gets derailed because of

3:49:29more changes to the planning act or or other items that we have to implement first we'll report back

3:49:34to council on a delay if there is one okay okay well with that information uh I will be voting

3:49:40against uh this amendment thank you okay thank you again only questions on the amendment

3:49:47questions on the 2025 horizon go ahead um I think through you mayor got three to staff does this

3:49:54line up with the parking permit like the research that we're doing on about on-street parking through

3:50:02the mayor to Councillor Castern it would be in advance of that so we wouldn't have any data

3:50:08to understand what the impact of the triplexes would be on on-street parking and no time to

3:50:15implement potentially like permitted parking for example during the winter that is correct thank you

3:50:21okay thank you uh back to the mover I'm sorry I'll vote with the question I'll first and I'll go back

3:50:26to the mover of the amendment so it's a Rourke yeah go ahead oh you're uh you're muted Dominique

3:50:36sorry about that through you to staff um

3:50:41I kind of like the additional time especially in light of Councillor Castern's remarks or I'm

3:50:47just wondering say there was there all kinds of lot sizes in the city say there was quite a large lot

3:50:54and somebody wanted to put a fourplex or something else on it could they still just do a regular

3:51:00development application and come to council and ask for that so saying it's three today we'll look

3:51:07at it it'll come back in 2025 but if somebody wanted to do a fourplex or more in the interim

3:51:13they could still come to council right through Mayor Guthrie to Councillor O'Rourke that is correct

3:51:21okay thanks thank you I'll go back to the mover okay yeah so I just want to say this respectfully

3:51:28though where has the direction come from to do direction on four or more plexes

3:51:35council hasn't directed staff to look into that yet so I'm just sort of where has that direction

3:51:41come from you just said that you've already done some research I'm just sort of like I didn't know

3:51:46about that it's it's in the motion and there's an attachment in the staff report with a demonstration

3:51:52plan of four units oh you've only done the demonstration plan for four plex you haven't done

3:51:57because the motion is more than four plexes even it's like it could be six plexes that's what

3:52:02is intentioned the motion is for more than three we have just done four at this point in time and

3:52:10that's all we we commit to bringing back is information in January 2024 oh so you've only

3:52:15committed to bringing back information on four plexes in 2024 so given that information I think

3:52:22I support my motion even more because I think the motion is looking at you know four plexes five

3:52:29plexes six plexes is that not your intention mr. mirror I think yes it is staff have indicated to

3:52:34me that there are a lot sizes that could definitely accommodate more than four and so the current

3:52:42zoning as of right proportion would limit then the ability for people to actually do more than three

3:52:50I I'm not questioning that because I was supporting looking at that but I'm just saying

3:52:56staff have only committed to looking at four for next year it's a good let's look up more than if

3:53:02if you want to look up more than this have another year thank you okay so I am not in favor of the

3:53:11amendment because the very first question from councillor Goller was could you do it by 2024

3:53:17and the answer from staff was yes and so just like the last motion that we just had which is

3:53:23about offering people choice and we are in a housing crisis if we have more choice presented to us in

3:53:30a year I would I think that compels us to get choices quicker and sooner so that we can try

3:53:38to address the crisis that we're in so I would I would ask that since staff said they can do it by

3:53:442024 that you we go with what staff are saying so I'll call the vote on the amendment for 2025

3:53:53all in I'll just say anyone against anyone against it raise your hand

3:54:00so Gibson myself and galler and Richardson okay so that fails thank you you got that clerks

3:54:10clerks you got that okay four people against uh no no no hold on no no no hold on who are you

3:54:23mr. mayor I've got four I may have asked the wrong questions and I may what did I say I'm so sorry

3:54:28what did I what did I say um what how did I call the question did I call the question

3:54:32against or or for I can't remember mr. mayor when you called the vote you asked members of council

3:54:37indicated they were voting against and we have four members of council who voted against the

3:54:41amendment to the amendment so it passes that's correct that's right the amendment is carried I just

3:54:46wanted to make sure that you you caught though the four names that I set out yes we're good I have

3:54:51mayor got three councillor Gibson councillor Goller and councillor Richardson it's voting

3:54:55against that's right that's right so the the amendment passes it is now up to 2025 okay so now

3:55:01it's back to the main motion and we'll call I'll call the vote then as amended okay so is anyone

3:55:07against that okay that's unanimous so perfect thank you very much staff are you clear on that then

3:55:15the motion has passed but with the amendment of up to 2025 okay we're done that one okay um I got

3:55:30another one here councillor Goller I think about the these are staff to investigate opportunities for

3:55:39removing winter on street yep did you want to bring that one forward uh yes your worship if I could

3:55:45ask staff to put this up on on the screen and I am looking for for a second there uh on this okay

3:55:54let's get Gibson put up his hand so let's have investigate opportunities to remove winter on

3:56:01street parking restrictions throughout the the city as part of the parking review review that has

3:56:08been identified and is it's underway I just wanted to make sure that that this was included and this

3:56:13is particularly important as we consider more density and more units um in um in a low density

3:56:24residential lots I think we are creating a new hardship to to residents the way that we manage

3:56:31our winter control compared to other neighboring municipalities thank you so I'm just going to

3:56:37go questions for staff on that I'll start with Alton and Gibson thank you Mayor Guthrie through

3:56:42you and I think it might be a couple of staff members that need to comment on this my perspective

3:56:47on this comes from being on a living on a street where we do have a year round 24 hour parking

3:56:53and there are some pluses and some challenges as well as a consequence I think that I would like

3:56:59to hear from engineering to comment on uh what the impact will be on traffic engineering of this

3:57:06similarly I'd like to hear from bylaw as well on uh on the benefits of this uh there's it this is one

3:57:13of those laws of unintended consequences because I'm pro 24 hour all year park and I just want this

3:57:19one done right so uh Councillor Alton I'll go right back to you my concern with that question

3:57:26is that's exactly what the motion is asking for the information to come back like you're asking

3:57:30engineers and people to give you feedback on what potential consequences could be but that's

3:57:35exactly what this motion is asking for the report to come back on I probably misread the darn thing

3:57:41I thought it said we're going to have it now no no it says for staff to investigate opportunities

3:57:47there you go can we have the motion back up please oh hold on Councillor Downer is actually

3:57:55raising a good a good a good comment that I just caught I would almost say that I would rather get

3:58:00us through any amendments of the main motion first so Councillor Goller if you don't mind

3:58:07would you be willing to remove your motion at this time as long as it comes back today your

3:58:12worship yeah yeah you're good next winter no I was kidding Councillor Gibson are you okay

3:58:16removing your seconder okay then I have to formally ask all of council is it okay if I remove that

3:58:21is anyone against that no seeing nothing okay so I'll come back to you but thank you Councillor

3:58:27Downer for raising that this is kind of after the fact type of questions in fact I could almost

3:58:32argue that my motion that you amended was almost kind of an after the fact motion as well so yeah

3:58:38sorry about that that's my fault okay is there anything then my main question though is because

3:58:43I've gone through everything is there anything that strictly is about any amendments further

3:58:49to what's in front of us Councillor Goller your worship in response to some of the the

3:58:54letters from residents I have moved one more motion I sent it out to my council colleagues today

3:59:01and I'm yeah it's for additional residential dwelling units at present there are three

3:59:08restrictions on their size one it's a percentage as compared to the main property the main house on

3:59:14the on the lot the second one is a percentage as opposed to the amount of open space that is available

3:59:20and the third restriction in place is an absolute limit of 80 square meters I am asking through

3:59:28this motion to remove that limit of 80 square meters as a maximum which is about 860 square feet

3:59:36so that if your house is big enough say say you have a larger unit with a larger backyard I would

3:59:48like us to still hold to the other limits the the percentage as opposed to the size of the main home

3:59:54the percentage as opposed to the amount of green space in the in your backyard but I think this this

3:59:59arbitrary limit on the size is not helpful to to helping us provide homes for families here in

4:00:07Guelph I think I look Councillor Gibson rose his hand to second it so questions on this I'll start

4:00:14with a downer please so I just sort of my my concern about this is that additional residential

4:00:22units are supposed to be subordinate to the primary unit so in this situation you could have

4:00:32is that he's he's still saying that the 45 we've let the mover explain one more okay I see a

4:00:38maximum of 45 so that still stays the same yeah but these could be of any size then with the

4:00:48but still be subordinate okay why do we have the maximum of 861 square feet for

4:00:58for these three America three to Councillor Downer the 80 square meters is really related to

4:01:07the two bedrooms so it sort of aligns the two bedrooms with the overall size it was carried

4:01:16forward from the previous accessory apartment regulations in 2020 there were some staff recommendations

4:01:23um to remove it at that time um but it did uh it did end up in our current bylaw

4:01:32great thank you I still think we're we're looking at almost building even with big houses you're

4:01:38looking because the 45 percent includes the basement right it's not like a house listing where you

4:01:45you you don't include the size of the basement the size of the house like so if I have a thousand

4:01:51square foot bungalow that's known as a thousand square foot bungalow it's actually 2000 square feet

4:01:57because you're including the basement in the size of the house right the 45 percent of that

4:02:042000 is actually it whereas that same house would be listed for 1000 square feet because real estate

4:02:10agents don't count the basements no the size of the main home a maximum of the 45 percent of the

4:02:18size of the main home so I'm just I'm still to you America 3 to counselor downer so the 80 square

4:02:25meters um is only applied to the detached ardu and not to um an ardu within the primary dwelling

4:02:33well I understand that but that 45 percent of the size of the main home the size when you

4:02:42calculate the size of the main home if it's a thousand square foot bungalow by what normal

4:02:48people would call a thousand square foot bungalow that it's you're actually including the size of

4:02:53the basement so it's I'm just saying when you list a home and you live in a bungalow and it's

4:02:58thousand square feet that's just the size of the main floor they don't include the basement in the

4:03:03size as for in the in the case of adri use we include the size of the the size of the basement

4:03:11so it's actually a 2000 square feet if the basement's the same size so that's 45 percent of the 2000

4:03:19so basically the that you're as long as it could be almost the same size I could build something

4:03:25pretty much the same size as my bungalow in the backyard is what I'm saying and it you'd still

4:03:32be able to be no more than 30 percent of the yard but I understand but but you would still have

4:03:37I could still have basically two houses almost the same size yeah that that is correct yeah yeah

4:03:48so I'm not so we're already at quite a that's a good size already so I don't I don't see that we

4:03:55need to go any bigger on these on these adri use in backyards and they're quite they can be quite

4:04:00tall as well we have there's ones in our not far around close to us that are significantly tall

4:04:07so I'm not going to support this I think this is a good way to control it and let's see how

4:04:12this works out we've had some built let's continue to see how this is playing out now and then we

4:04:16couldn't maybe amend it a couple of years or years okay thank you I'm just going to make a comment

4:04:23before the vote then oh and I did see Councillor O'Rourke saying I'll just make my comment now

4:04:28you know I've been talking to a lot of people about looking to build tiny homes and especially

4:04:34for aging parents and a couple of the families that I've been talking to they actually have

4:04:40mentioned to me that the size limitation has been a problem especially from an actually an

4:04:47accessibility point of view needing to have sort of wider spaces inside of these to accommodate

4:04:53wheelchairs and things like that walkers and etc as as aging people are looking to live in these

4:04:58types of places so I do think I do think we should make them allowed to be bigger and if I could just

4:05:08ask maybe one question then back to Abby if you don't mind can I just get clarity one more time

4:05:14in your response to Councillor Downer you said that the original recommendation from staff was to

4:05:22not have that in there but then council said no we want to limit the size so is what Councillor

4:05:29Gowler is suggesting actually moving us back to what staff recommended originally sorry I just

4:05:43need a minute I think I responded to Gowler the other day with this information your reply was Monday

4:06:02at 10 39 a.m. yeah so um originally we did recommend removing the 80 square meters but it was

4:06:16through community consultation and a concern with the overall size of detached structures that it was

4:06:22added back in for the decision meeting in 2020 it was added back in on whose suggestion staffs or

4:06:30a counselor on staffs recommendation okay I just needed clarity thank you thank you very much

4:06:37um well actually just before I go back over I do have a follow-up then

4:06:43would you say that on staffs urging to change it at that time was was based on I guess it was

4:06:51based on engagement at that time before any of them were allowed so I guess I'm saying a comment

4:06:57but the fact that they're allowed now people are getting used to them the commentary that I just

4:07:02gave about trying to have more space for for people to be able to live in in these homes

4:07:08I think is is valid but you know where I'm going on this so who had an extra an extra question I

4:07:13think was a a Rourke and then to Kate please and then I'll go back to the mover and I'll call the

4:07:19vote thank you Mirgoth through you to staff you know sometimes it's uh all the regulations together

4:07:30right so it's the maximum 45 percent of the size of the main home and no more than 30 percent of the

4:07:38yard and then there's a height restriction right so are these and and and are they you need to meet

4:07:49one criteria you need to meet two three like can you help me understand um how that works

4:07:59you probably explained it on ARD unite and I can't recall through you Mirgoth three to

4:08:04counselor work you need to meet all of the requirements so it's the lesser of all all three requirements

4:08:13okay so if you have a great big yard and you can accommodate something that's slightly bigger

4:08:18it's still no more than 30 percent you still have your maximum height so those are sort of natural

4:08:24constraints around that the size right and it becomes appropriate to the lot and the main building

4:08:31would that be a fair fair to say through you Mirgoth three to counselor wrote a work for the 45

4:08:39percent of the floor area and the 30 percent yard coverage it is with within the context of the property

4:08:46okay um thank you I think I can support that thanks thank you um uh

4:08:58kateen uh I believe had a question and then busatil thank you through you mr. mayor staff um

4:09:06so in in like the the largest worst case scenario what kind of negative impact would this have

4:09:16like so you had a very large estate house like what's the worst that's gonna happen it's basically

4:09:22my question um you got three to counselor kateen every size of lots different and so we'd have

4:09:42to take a look at it but the 30 percent um of the yard coverage is would be the the maximum then input

4:09:49and the height requirements are there you know there is alternatives that they can go through if

4:09:54they want to line amendments such as a committee of adjustment process um but the 80 square meters is

4:10:00the cap right now if that's removed then it's based on really the size of the the lot um if you have a

4:10:07large large property you can put in a bigger unit but right now it's also two bedrooms so you'd have

4:10:12some bigger common space or bigger bedrooms as well in your design so the the amount of

4:10:21lots that this would impact would be would you imagine probably small it's not going to be a

4:10:28huge amount of places that are going to be able to have something that much larger in their yard

4:10:33anyway from regatha reed a counselor kateen there's some uh larger lots in the city of gualph

4:10:41especially in some of the older neighborhoods that then could have a larger accessory residential

4:10:45dwelling unit in the rear okay thank you thank you uh looks like i got busatil to wrap us up and

4:10:53then back to the mover and then i'll call the vote thank you and through you uh mr mayor just

4:11:00what i heard from the staff in response to councillor downer's question is the calculation

4:11:04of the 45 percent it's floor area not the footprint of the uh the residents and so there is the

4:11:12potential that it could uh be quite large is that correct that is correct the original bylaw had

4:11:21the calculation of all floor areas so that was included from the beginning okay thank you to the

4:11:28mover and then i'll call the vote oh yeah sorry yeah go ahead we'll go to councillor downer

4:11:32i'm going to add sort of based on that too this from the street this or from you know the neighbors

4:11:37back here i this this will not look subordinate to the main dwelling because you're including

4:11:44the square footage of the basement and the main floor and it it will be the same size it could be

4:11:51potentially be pretty much the same size as the footprint of the main dwelling so if you

4:11:56got a bungalow you could basically have another bungalow in the backyard i just want to make sure

4:12:01we understand what we're all approving by going larger and you could still have 30 but it would

4:12:06you could have something that looks from the street or from if it's as something that's almost

4:12:12the same size okay thank you to the mover thank you through your worship um i just wanted to encourage

4:12:22my my council colleagues to to support this as we look to build alternative housing opportunities

4:12:29here in the city i feel that this restriction helps us get there and you know to the environmental

4:12:35concerns i i have a a backyard unit and we put it on on screws so so it doesn't impact the water

4:12:44infiltration there is there's a bit of gravel underneath the unit so i think there are ways to

4:12:49build additional dwelling units and still take care of of the environment under our water

4:12:55filtration system thank you worship okay thank you okay i'll call the vote then is uh i'll be

4:13:01very clear this time so even i remember okay all those against this raise your hand

4:13:09all right so we got busitil and richardson and downer and karan and alt

4:13:16oh and quasim okay gotta raise that hand for me so i can really see it and quasim so that is six

4:13:27okay so that passes okay um anything else from anybody at all no okay so how about i call the

4:13:41vote then on the main motion as amended all right um i will call the vote then on that now

4:13:51so is anyone against the main motion as amended oh well if you just on the last vote on the on

4:14:01the order no this is it so she was maybe linda would talk sorry i thought i heard you say that

4:14:07the motion passed and i thought it failed with a vote of six sorry i'm it's seven six oh it's seven

4:14:15six there was six against seven four i didn't hear the other thank you oh i thought you okay yes

4:14:28if we need comments i'm happy to do that i was right in the middle of calling the vote

4:14:32as amended we were there okay councillor gibson or with comments thank you i i want to just because

4:14:40i bit a bit of a stickler on this file and staff know i just want you to know that it's never

4:14:44personal right and i hope that you felt that from me and i know that we've taken opposite views on

4:14:50this driveway issue but thank you for your consistency and uh and appreciate just having two

4:14:55opposite opinions and um just want to make sure that i still think you guys did a terrific job

4:15:01on the entirety of the zoning bylaw so thank you great thank you i liked seeing the staff's head

4:15:10nodding in agreement there all right could i could i just ask to see the motions on the on

4:15:18this place so we're all on the same page about what we're sure i'll ask the clerks to do that

4:15:23for those online there it was just being asked us to kind of throw everything up on the screen

4:15:27there's probably several right is there a couple pages i'm imagining or

4:15:38through through you mr. mayor that's the second resolution there that will be noted as as amended

4:15:43okay good capture the variety of resolutions that were passed today okay and i believe although

4:15:47i'm having trouble just pulling it up here that one of the resolutions passes an amendment is likely

4:15:52actually a number five on here as well it was yes port back that that that was mine um which i even

4:15:58i acknowledge should have been sort of a separate one so yeah it should be a number five so voting

4:16:03on the main motion as amended it's number two on screen as amended plus that resolution number five

4:16:08and then any additional votes that take place will just be a standalone stand alone perfect

4:16:12yep okay thank you councillor goller all right with that i will call the vote then as amended

4:16:21so is anyone against and that is unanimous which is a very nice gift to our staff that have worked

4:16:30so hard on this so thank you very very much to staff really appreciate it um and community

4:16:40and engagement and my colleagues we really appreciate it okay um now we had an extra one

4:16:49that i was saying i was going to save oh that was the parking one right for winter winter parking

4:16:54right okay go ahead to table that now yep uh through worship i'd like to move a motion directing

4:16:59staff to consider the the removal of the overnight winter parking restriction as part of the um

4:17:08yep and if i have a seconder from councillor gibson okay perfect so it's exactly what we

4:17:13were going to do before where i accidentally placed it so it's in the right spot now and

4:17:17i remember interrupting very rudely i'm so sorry councillor Allt was who was in the middle of a

4:17:22question so i'm sorry and then and then councillor downer reminded me so councillor Allt right back

4:17:26to you do i want to go back to where we left off yes if everybody has read it properly i hope

4:17:31everyone will vote for it will you that's my question yes yes absolutely any other questions on

4:17:36this okay councillor gibson thank you so by the reasoning for seconding it and and having

4:17:41another floor is because i did want to ask a question so it's my understanding that there are

4:17:45two primary reasons why we allow we don't allow for on-street parking in the winter that's a snow

4:17:51removal so when we have to do residential plots but also kind of maybe a secondary thing as the

4:17:55snow banks build up the streets tend to get narrow so there's that consideration as well

4:18:00in the case of this winter i can count on one hand how many times we did a full residential plow

4:18:06but would staff so maybe you can simplistically say oh we only need a ban on on-street parking

4:18:11for five to six days of winter generally but do staff and will staff consider like

4:18:17house staff house no accumulates in the width of roads is there is there a metric that we could

4:18:21put in place to say to residents say no based on our assessment we're now believing that the

4:18:29residential streets have been constricted by 20% due to snow banks therefore we have to implement an

4:18:35on-street parking ban is there is there measures and metrics that we could do in those cases i know

4:18:41this is presupposing any kind of findings but i'm just asking out of curiosity you're asking if

4:18:45they're going to take that kind of stuff into consideration as they look at opportunities

4:18:49that's your question thank you through you maric got three to councillor gibson yeah staff would

4:18:54be looking at that as part of the as part of the review we do have the minimum maintenance

4:19:01standards now that we have to maintain and plow at certain times the the streets as well as maintain

4:19:08roadway widths for emergency vehicles and the like so that yeah we would be looking at that okay so

4:19:14based on that i'm happy to support and i think it's important that we at least answer the question

4:19:17because it's being asked of us from from residents so thanks for that great anything more on this

4:19:27yeah sure councillor Klassen sure thank you um i can i just get a point of clarification on the

4:19:31motion um so as like i just saw in our our zoning bylaw that we had a recommendation

4:19:38to investigate on-street parking um in the winter time does this just bring it forward

4:19:46through through your worship this this makes sure that it's not just on-street parking year round

4:19:51but it is also specifically looking at our our ban because we could have a recommendation

4:19:56come back that does not necessarily address the overnight winter ban as part of on-street parking

4:20:05okay and then so another clarifying question is the motion time bound

4:20:12or is it just as part of our parking bylaw like the review happening next year

4:20:20through you mayor got three to councillor Klassen the intent would be to review it as part of the

4:20:242025 on-street parking review difficult question is there any opportunity to bring that review of

4:20:34the ban forward um just because this is something that we've heard a lot about and i know that it's

4:20:41you know part of a greater problem i understand that you know looking at something under a microscope

4:20:46requires you know but it's just something that we hear hear a ton um just just just asking

4:20:54through you mayor got three to councillor Klassen it would be difficult to bring it forward

4:20:57based on our work plans and everything like that council does have the authority to make changes to

4:21:01the on-street parking regulations at any time but for our review for us to understand the impacts of

4:21:07it it would take time and we're recommended 2025 okay thank you just so you know councillor like if

4:21:19you ever were like okay i like this timeline fine 2025 but if you i mean if you wanted to be like

4:21:26i'd really like this to be done earlier you have the right to ask to see if it can go on an agenda

4:21:31in the future however knowing that staff are looking to to to implement something in 2025 it is

4:21:38you know it's probably kind of lined up appropriately as staff have said with their work plans so okay

4:21:46but yeah sure i just i feel like there's been a number like this has been a problem for a number

4:21:50of years and i feel like we're going to go through another winter with it and i just wonder if it's

4:21:56something that we could either have like leniency on or partial ban or we could you know rather than

4:22:02having it all winter long we could have an exception for you know i'm not sure i'm not sure what the

4:22:10language should be but maybe it just needs to wait then yeah i think because this motion is tied

4:22:15into that overall parking study that's going to be done it's sort of a what you're bringing up is

4:22:20almost a separate operational request so outside of this meeting like talk to staff and figure out

4:22:26if there's something that could be done if they don't agree with something you could always talk

4:22:29to your colleagues and we could we could look at implementing something as a pilot project or

4:22:33something like that over the next couple of years prior to that but those questions is kind of outside

4:22:38the scope of this motion but they're not they're not disregarded no thank you thanks for the clarification

4:22:43yeah just talk to staff for sure okay is there anything more on this motion then okay i will call

4:22:50the vote then is anyone against this motion okay that too is unanimous so thank you i just need to

4:22:58ask um a question please of staff so on on this that was given to me there was like kind of three

4:23:05other potential uh motions with the first one being the one that councillor Goller just brought

4:23:11forward the other two were that the citywide parking review be initiated in 2024 now again i

4:23:22wasn't given i this came from nowhere this is just landed on my desk but we've been hearing

4:23:28that it's starting in 2025 right so we're good right like this isn't here for any reason through

4:23:35you were a bit confused because i'm not actually sure what that is or where it came from

4:23:41sure hey i just sat here and to you marica three just to add a little bit of clarification

4:23:47sure go ahead um so that was in response to the driveway with um issue so if uh staff are making

4:23:54a recommendation that if driveway what driveways aren't wide widened then um the uh study be pushed

4:24:02to 2024 um to sort of deal with that issue earlier okay and then so the third and final one that's on

4:24:09here as well does not need like you don't need that initiated i just want to make sure i'm not

4:24:14missus like okay perfect okay that's great okay um it looks like that brings us to a close

4:24:21and so again thank you very much to everyone involved uh we have councillor uh would you

4:24:28mind bringing the bylaws forward for me thank you mayor Guthrie um uh motion 5.3 uh sorry motion

4:24:375 the bylaws numbered 2023 20 70 50 75 1 2023 27 90 and 2023 27 93 are hereby passed

4:24:50and councillor Busuttil would you second please thank you thank you very much that's great any

4:24:55question interrupts from mr mayor i just want to clarify those those bylaws will be as amended

4:25:00based on that's fair enough that's exactly what i said yeah all right thank you anything on the

4:25:07bylaws okay i'm calling the vote anyone against those bylaws all right thank you um i have no

4:25:15mayor's announcements which everyone is always thrilled about so uh that means we're at adjournment

4:25:20who would like to move adjournment for me chew and billings will move in second adjournment is

4:25:26anyone against adjournment no fake hands going up here we're all unanimous on that too all right

4:25:32everyone have a great rest of the day thank you very much for sticking with us and again thank you

4:25:35to staff take care bye