Council Planning

1:11Okay everyone, this is your 32nd warning before we start.

2:10Okay, good evening everyone.

2:11Thank you very much for sticking with us

2:14and thank you very much for giving us a little bit

2:18of a delay.

2:19Our last meeting did run way over time

2:20so we just need that extra few minutes

2:22and so we appreciate that.

2:24It is our planning meeting.

2:26It is Tuesday, October the 17th, 2023

2:29and I'm calling the meeting to order here

2:31just about 10 minutes after six.

2:34With that stated, I would like to ask all of you

2:36if you can to rise as we recognize and sing okay to.

4:08Well thank you very much everyone

4:09as we continue just a moment of silent reflection.

4:23Great, thank you in our indigenous territorial

4:25acknowledgement.

4:26As we gather, let us, excuse me, take time to reflect

4:29on our privilege to live and work in Guelph,

4:31a city built over rich indigenous histories.

4:34We're guests here and we should reflect upon

4:36the responsibility to care for this land,

4:38the people who live here today

4:40and the generations to come.

4:42If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation

4:45we should take pause and make those decisions

4:46with intention and gratitude.

4:49This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands

4:52and a place of refuge for many peoples over time

4:55but more specifically the Anawandarak

4:57and the Haudenosaunee and this land is held

5:00as the treaty lands and territory

5:02with the Mississaugas of the credit first nation.

5:05Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track

5:09and is part of the Longestablish traditional hunting ground

5:12for the six nations of the Grand River.

5:14Many first nations, Inua and Mady peoples

5:17who have come from across Turtle Island

5:19call Guelph home today.

5:24And with that, is there any disclosure

5:25of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof

5:29for the items in front of us?

5:31Counselor Koran, I see your hand, I'll turn it over to you.

5:37Item 4.1, 716 Gorst Street.

5:41I need to declare pecuniary interest as the proposal

5:45has the potential for a direct impact on my employment.

5:51Thank you.

5:52Just so everyone knows then,

5:53Counselor Koran during that time,

5:55we'll have her camera off and won't be engaged

6:00in anything to do with the discussion for that.

6:02And so I'll make sure of that as well.

6:04Thank you, Counselor Koran.

6:05Anybody else seeing and hearing none?

6:08So I'll consider that matter closed.

6:12We have the consent agenda in front of us here.

6:14So let me hit us off with 131 Ontario Street,

6:18the notice of intention to designate.

6:22Does anyone need to pull that?

6:24Nope, okay, great.

6:26And 33 to 35 James Street West,

6:28the proposed demolition of the heritage structure,

6:32designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act.

6:36Anybody on that one?

6:38Nope.

6:40Oh.

6:42Counselor Billings, you're moving the consent, aren't you?

6:45I'm moving consent.

6:46All right.

6:47Who wants the second consent for me?

6:50Richardson will do that for us.

6:52Anything further on those?

6:54Hearing seeing none, I'll call the vote.

6:57Is anyone against consent?

7:01Okay, nobody, that's unanimous.

7:03Thank you so much.

7:05Now we're into the public hearing of applications

7:09under the Planning Act.

7:12This section allows people to speak

7:15no more than 10 minutes, okay?

7:19And so you will hear a chime

7:22if you're a delegation to this

7:24at the nine minute and 30 second mark,

7:27giving you the warning before the floor opens up

7:31underneath you or we hang up on you.

7:33Now it's getting, we'll give you a nice little warning,

7:35but 30 seconds is the warning that you have.

7:38The first one is on 331 Clare Road East.

7:43This is a zoning bylaw amendment.

7:45We're gonna first have a presentation from our staff,

7:48Kelly McCormick, who is a senior development planner,

7:52and we have one delegation signed up to this one already.

7:56And so at this time, I will turn it over to you, Kelly,

7:59and go right ahead.

8:02Excellent, thank you.

8:03Good evening, Mayor Guthrie, members of council,

8:06staff and members of the public.

8:08My name is Kelly McCormick,

8:09and I am a senior development planner for the city,

8:12and I am reviewing the zoning bylaw amendment application,

8:14the city received from MHBC planning

8:16on behalf of the owner 2488995 Ontario Limited

8:21for the property, musically known as 331 Clare Road East.

8:25The proposed application seeks to permit the development

8:27of eight stacked townhouse blocks

8:28consisting of a total of 136 units.

8:32Tonight's meeting is a statutory public meeting

8:34required under the planning act.

8:36No decision will be made on tonight's application.

8:39And so I will now introduce the application

8:41and the subject lands.

8:44The subject site is located on the south side

8:46of Clare Road East across from Tolton Drive.

8:48The site is rectangular in shape

8:50with approximately 171 meters of frontage

8:53along Clare Road East.

8:55It is approximately 1.65 hectares in size.

8:58The site currently consists of vegetation,

9:01a detached accessory structure,

9:03and a vacant two-story stone dwelling,

9:05which is listed under part four, section 27,

9:07of the Ontario Heritage Act,

9:09and the city's municipal register

9:10of the cultural heritage properties.

9:14Since the public meeting staff report was prepared

9:16for this application,

9:18a heritage attributes and designation recommendation

9:20was presented to Heritage Guelph

9:22at their meeting on October 10th for the site.

9:26Heritage Guelph supported the heritage attributes

9:29as outlined in the associated staff report

9:31and recommended council give notice

9:33of its intention to designate the subject property

9:36pursuant to part four, section 29,

9:39of the Ontario Heritage Act.

9:41Report recommending council publish

9:43its intention to designate the property is being prepared

9:46and will be brought forward to council next month.

9:49So in terms of the land uses surrounding the site,

9:51immediately to the north across Clare Road East

9:54are single attached dwellings and townhomes.

9:57Immediately to the east is a large residential lot

10:00with frontage on Clare Road East and Kilkenny Place.

10:04Immediately to the south are two large residential lots

10:07which frontage on Kilkenny Place,

10:09one of which contains lands

10:10which form part of the city's natural heritage system.

10:13And then to the west is a large residential lot

10:15with frontage on Clare Road East

10:17that contains and abuts lands

10:18which form part of the city's natural heritage system.

10:23All right, so the property is designated

10:25medium density residential in the city's official plan.

10:28This land use designation is intended to provide

10:30a variety of medium density residential housing forms

10:32and types, including multiple unit residential buildings

10:35such as townhomes and apartments.

10:40All right, so the subject lands

10:41are annexed from the township of Pushland in 1993

10:44and are currently zoned agricultural A2

10:47under the township of Pushland Zoning Bylaw.

10:50Under the 2023 comprehensive zoning bylaw,

10:53the subject lands are zoned urban reserve, UR1.

10:56This zone permits conservation uses

10:58and legally existing uses buildings and structures.

11:03Under the 1995 zoning bylaw,

11:05the applicant has requested to change the zoning

11:07to a specialized residential townhouse zone, R3A.

11:12The specialized regulations proposed for the zone

11:14include a minimum lot area of 120 square meters per unit

11:18whereas 150 square meters per unit is required,

11:22a maximum density of 85 units per hectare,

11:25whereas 16 units per hectare is permitted,

11:27a minimum private amenity area of nine square meters

11:30per unit and specific regulations

11:32to clarify the location of private amenity areas,

11:36whereas 10 square meters per unit is required

11:38for above grade units and 20 square meters per unit

11:40for ground level units.

11:44Furthermore, a maximum of 24 units in a row,

11:47whereas a maximum of 12 units in a row is permitted

11:49and whereas a maximum of eight units in a row is permitted

11:51where units are adjacent to a public street.

11:54The driveways associated with the units containing garages

11:56to contribute to the visitor parking requirements

11:58for those units and the inclusion of a severability clause

12:02to ensure the site-specific policies

12:03apply following condominium registration.

12:07All right, so under the 2023 comprehensive zoning bylaw,

12:11the applicant has requested to change the zoning

12:12to a specialized medium density residential stick zone,

12:15an RM stick zone.

12:18The specialized regulations proposed for this zone include

12:22a minimum private amenity area of nine square meters per unit

12:25and specific regulations to clarify the location

12:27of private amenity areas

12:29whereas 10 square meters per unit is required

12:31to exempt the zone from the minimum exterior side

12:34and rear yards from private streets,

12:36back of curb or sidewalk or a lot line

12:38whereas the minimum exterior side yard

12:39of 4.5 meters is required

12:42and an amen rear yard of 7.5 meters is required

12:44from private streets, back of curb or sidewalk or lot line.

12:48Termit surface parking be located anywhere on the subject lands

12:50provided to set back three meters from the front lot line

12:53whereas parking spaces are required to be located

12:55in an interior side or rear yard

12:57and set back three meters from any lot line.

13:01Termit dryways associated with units containing garages

13:04to contribute to the visitor parking required for those units.

13:09To permit more than 75% of parking spaces

13:11be provided as surface parking spaces

13:14whereas a maximum of 75% of parking spaces

13:16are to be provided as surface parking spaces.

13:22To exempt the zone from the long-term

13:24bicycle parking requirements

13:25whereas one long-term bicycle parking space per unit

13:27is required for each unit

13:29where individual garages are not provided.

13:32To exempt electric vehicle parking spaces from the zone

13:36whereas a minimum of 20% of the total required parking spaces

13:39are to be provided as EV parking spaces.

13:42Termit 10% of the total required parking spaces

13:45be provided as design electric vehicle parking spaces

13:48whereas a minimum of 80% is required

13:51and to include a severability clause

13:52to ensure the site specific policies

13:54apply following condominium registration.

13:57So in terms of the proposed development

13:59the applicant is proposing to construct

14:01eight townhouse blocks consisting of a total of 136 units.

14:04A portion of the existing two-story stone dwelling

14:06that is listed in the city's municipal register

14:09of cultural heritage properties

14:11is proposed to be demolished

14:13along with the existing foundation.

14:15The remainder of the dwelling is proposed to be retained,

14:17conserved and relocated to the central common amenity area

14:20atop a new foundation and used for amenity purposes.

14:24Access to the site is proposed on Glare Road East

14:26directly across from Totendrive.

14:30A total of 198 parking spaces are proposed

14:32including 40 garage parking spaces

14:34and 40 driveway parking spaces

14:37and 118 surface parking spaces,

14:3920 of which would be provided as visitor

14:41including six accessible parking spaces.

14:45Two different townhouse unit types

14:47are proposed for the development.

14:49The four blocks facing Glare Road East

14:52will include integrated rear garages for each unit

14:54which are accessed from the internal private road

14:57with primary entrances and front porches

14:58for each unit facing Glare Road East.

15:02And then the four blocks along the southerly portion

15:04of the site will be traditional stacked townhouses

15:06with the primary entrances facing the internal street.

15:11Staff's review of this application

15:13will address the following issues,

15:14evaluation of the proposals conformity

15:16to the 2020 provincial policy statement

15:18and a place to grow growth plan

15:20for the greater Golden Horseshoe,

15:22evaluation of the proposals conformity

15:24with the official plan,

15:25review of the proposed zoning

15:27including the need for specialized regulations,

15:30review of the proposals land use

15:31and built form compatibility

15:32with adjacent established land uses,

15:36review of the proposed site layout,

15:38built form, parking, pedestrian connections,

15:40cultural heritage resource conservation and site servicing,

15:45review of supporting documents

15:46submitted with the development application,

15:48review how the proposed development addresses

15:50applicable sections of the community energy initiative update,

15:54review alignment with the city's affordable housing strategy

15:56and address all comments and issues raised

15:58during the review of this application.

16:00Once the application is reviewed,

16:01a staff report with recommendation

16:03will be considered at a future council meeting.

16:05Any issues raised at tonight's public meeting

16:07will be noted by planning staff for future consideration

16:09as we continue to evaluate and review this application.

16:12And if anyone in attendance tonight wishes to stay informed,

16:16please contact planning services via email

16:18at planning at gulp.ca.

16:20Thank you very much.

16:21And I would be pleased to answer any questions

16:23that I understand the owner and applicant

16:24are here as well tonight.

16:27Great, thank you so much for the staff presentation there.

16:31What we'll do is we'll just quickly move

16:33to the signed up delegation

16:36and we'll save any questions until after that's done.

16:40So it looks like we have Emily Elliott.

16:44Are you in the room?

16:46Yes, welcome.

16:53And Emily, I don't know if you heard earlier,

16:57but you have no more than 10 minutes if you need it

16:59and you'll hear a chime at nine minutes and 30 seconds

17:02just giving you the warning, okay?

17:03And then just stick around

17:04if there's any questions afterwards,

17:06I'll turn it over to you, go ahead.

17:07Okay, great, thank you.

17:09Good evening, Mayor Guthrie and members of council.

17:11My name is Emily Elliott and I'm with MHBC planning

17:15and we're the applicants with respect

17:16to this Stoning By-law Amendment application

17:18for 331 Clair Road.

17:20Thanks to Ms. McCormick for providing a thorough presentation.

17:24Ms. McCormick provided a very accurate

17:26thorough overview of the application.

17:28So I'll try to be brief when describing things

17:32through my delegation tonight.

17:34So can we please move to the next slide

17:36or can I do it with us?

17:38The green arrow, thank you.

17:40The subject lands are located in the south part of the city.

17:43They're on the south side of Clair Road east

17:45between Victoria Road south and Gordon street.

17:48They're presently contain a stone house,

17:51an accessory building and some vegetation.

17:53The existing buildings on the site

17:55are currently vacant.

17:57The lands have an area of 1.65 hectares

18:00and there is existing municipal services

18:03in the vicinity of the site

18:04that can service the proposed development.

18:07And the site also has access

18:08to existing public transit infrastructure.

18:11The site is surrounded by residential uses,

18:14including the Westminster Woods subdivision

18:16on the north side of Clair Road

18:19and large residential lots to the east, south and west.

18:23There is an existing elementary school

18:24within the Westminster Woods subdivision

18:26and there are parks located to the north

18:28and the west of the site.

18:30These sites also located proximate to commercial uses

18:33at the intersection of Gordon street and Clair Road.

18:39I'll now provide a brief overview

18:41of the concept plan for the development.

18:43So as noted, the proposal is to develop the site

18:46as a stacked townhouse development.

18:48There's a total of 136 units

18:50within eight stacked townhouse blocks

18:53and there are two different types of units proposed.

18:56The four blocks along Clair Road are stacked townhouses

18:59which have a main front entrance that faces the street

19:02and an integrated garage and driveway at the rear.

19:05There are 40 of these units within four blocks

19:08and I have renderings of those

19:09that we'll see in the next couple of slides.

19:12The units at the rear of the site

19:13are the more traditional stacked townhouse built form.

19:16They do not feature garages

19:18and they're oriented toward the internal roadway.

19:21The site has access from Clair Road

19:24and the location of the access is aligned with Tolton Drive

19:28and parking for the proposed development

19:30is accommodated through surface parking spaces

19:33as well as garages and driveways.

19:35There are 198 spaces including 118 surface spaces

19:39and 40 garage spaces and 40 driveway spaces.

19:45The proposed development features

19:46a large central amenity area

19:48that's been designed to accommodate opportunities

19:51for a range of different recreational uses

19:54including a play structure or a seating area.

19:57Details regarding the specific programming

19:59of the amenity area will be determined

20:01through the site plan stage.

20:03There's also a significant landscaped area

20:05within the site that's centrally located.

20:08This provides opportunities for additional landscaping

20:12as well as to provide a walkway through the site

20:15and it also serves to break up the surface parking area.

20:18Pedestrian circulation has been considered

20:20through the design,

20:22including the placement of walkways and sidewalks

20:24such that residents will have access throughout the site

20:27including to the amenity area and to Clair Road.

20:31The existing house on the site is proposed to be relocated

20:34from its current location to the central amenity area.

20:38The house is currently listed

20:39on the city's municipal heritage register.

20:42So the relocation to the amenity area

20:44offers an opportunity to preserve the house

20:47and adaptively reuse it

20:48thereby ensuring that it's conserved for the long term

20:52and maintained.

20:53The location of the house was considered

20:55through the design of the concept plan.

20:58The proposed location was determined such

21:00that it would be aligned with the driveway

21:02and maintain visibility from Clair Road

21:05and also located so that it serves as a focal point

21:08for the development both visually

21:11and within the amenity area.

21:13The proposed development, as I mentioned,

21:16will be serviced by existing municipal infrastructure

21:20and the grading strategy is to match perimeter

21:23and road grades.

21:25The site is supposed to be developed

21:27as a condominium community.

21:29That means that managing maintenance of the community

21:33will be the responsibility of the condominium corporation.

21:36So this includes all landscaping and snow removal

21:38as well as maintenance of the amenity space

21:40and the relocated building.

21:43The stacked townhouse built form of development

21:46contributes to the provision of housing

21:48to address the missing middle.

21:49It's a medium density development

21:51that's of a compact built form

21:53and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

21:55It offers housing choice within the community

21:57and also includes two different housing options

21:59within the site.

22:02The next couple of slides illustrate conceptual renderings

22:05of the development and in each case,

22:07the final design including material selection

22:09will be determined through the site plan process

22:11in coordination with staff.

22:13The intent is that the design of the entire development

22:16will be cohesive and compatible with the community.

22:19So this is the rendering of the stacked townhouse

22:23that has internal garages

22:25and this would be a view from Clair Road.

22:29So this rendering illustrates the intent

22:31to have doorways at the front and front porches

22:35as well as walkways connecting to a sidewalk.

22:39And you can see that there is private amenity area

22:41in the form of balconies for each of the units.

22:44There's also space between the block of units

22:48and the street to allow for some landscaping.

22:51The intent here is to achieve a very visually appealing

22:54and active streetscape.

22:57And this next slide is the rear of those units.

23:03So you can see how the integrated garages

23:05are included for each unit.

23:07And you can also see the private amenity spaces

23:10the rear of those units.

23:14The next two slides show the elevations

23:16for the stacked townhouses

23:17that are the more traditional built form.

23:20And so you can see that these are oriented towards

23:24the private driveway within the site.

23:27And there is private amenity space for each of these

23:30in the form of a balcony or a sunken terrace

23:34for the lower level units.

23:36And that's just another image of those stacked townhouse units.

23:40And you can see that there's also the ability

23:42to provide landscaping between these units

23:45and the internal driveway.

23:50So the next few slides go over the policy

23:52and zoning framework and Ms. McCormick did provide

23:54a good overview of that.

23:55So I'll be fairly brief.

23:58So the subject lands are within the built up area

24:00and they're designated medium density residential.

24:03This designation allows for a maximum building height

24:05of six stories and a density of 100 units per hectare.

24:09The proposal is for a multiple residential development

24:11that has a density of 83 units per hectare.

24:14So the proposed unit type height and density

24:16are all permitted by the official plan.

24:18And the development has been assessed

24:20in the context of the development criteria

24:22for multi unit residential buildings and intensification.

24:25And it does meet those criteria.

24:28So in terms of zoning,

24:30there was a good overview of that previously.

24:32So this proposal seeks to rezone the subject lands

24:36to a specialized cluster townhouse zone under the 1995 bylaw

24:41and a specialized medium density residential zone,

24:44residential six zone under the 2023 bylaw.

24:48The 2023 bylaw is still under appeal.

24:51So the site specific provisions are subject to changes

24:55that bylaw moves through the appeal process.

24:58So this slide includes a really brief summary

25:01of the site specific provisions to the 1995 bylaw.

25:05The first two are related to the density.

25:08So the density would be 85 units per hectare

25:10and a minimum lot area of 120 units.

25:13And that implements the density

25:15permitted by the official plan.

25:17We're also requesting for a minimum private amenity area

25:20of nine square meters per unit,

25:21as well as some specific regulations related to that.

25:25And that's to clarify the type of amenity,

25:29private amenity space for stacked townhouse units.

25:32We're also asking for 24 units in a row.

25:35And that again,

25:36is to just reflect the stacked townhouse built form.

25:39We're also requesting that the driveway parking spaces

25:42for the stacked townhouses that feature garages

25:45be recognized as visitor parking spaces

25:48for those units only.

25:50And that is to a fairly typical approach

25:53to provide visitor parking spaces within a driveway

25:56and within the large central parking area.

25:58There's 28 visitor parking spaces

26:00that can be used by any resident

26:02or visitor to the development.

26:06And finally, there is the severability clause,

26:09which is really just to ensure

26:10that the regulations are applied to the site as a whole

26:14through any future applications.

26:16I would also note that as Ms. McCormick noted,

26:19there are site specific requests

26:21related to the under appeal 2023 bylaw.

26:24And we did provide an analysis of those

26:26in the planning justification report

26:29that we provided in support of the application.

26:31And I haven't gone into a great deal of detail this evening

26:34because as I mentioned,

26:35those provisions are all under appeal subject to change,

26:38but we'll continue to work with staff.

26:41So prior to filing the zoning bylaw amendment,

26:43we did have a pre consultation with city

26:45and we filed all the reports required

26:47for a complete application.

26:48And we had a neighborhood meeting as well

26:50in advance of the application.

26:52So in conclusion,

26:54the subject lands and the proposed development

26:57are consistent with the provincial policy statement

27:00that conform to a place to grow

27:01and represent intensification in the built up area.

27:04They conform to the Guelph official plan,

27:06the proposed use height and density are permitted.

27:10That's it.

27:11Perfect.

27:12You can read the rest of my conclusion.

27:13Permitted, period.

27:15Yeah.

27:16Well done, well done.

27:17Thank you.

27:18We knew where you were going there, so that's okay.

27:21Thank you for your presentation.

27:22Let me see if there's a question at all.

27:24I'll go to, which makes sense here,

27:26ward six counselor with the first question.

27:28So counselor work.

27:30And then a Kate after that.

27:32Thanks very much, Marigoth three.

27:34So I'm not going to complain about density or parking

27:36because I'm thrilled that this is coming to fruition.

27:40I do have a question though.

27:41This is really close to the intensification node.

27:44There will be eventually really great bike lanes.

27:47So help me understand how the exemption

27:51from the bike parking works in that space.

27:55So it's going to be the proposal is one bike space

27:58per dwelling if they don't have a garage, right?

28:02So can you help me understand

28:03like you've got a family living there.

28:04They only have one bike space.

28:06And we're saying they need less parking

28:07because they're in this area

28:08with all existing transit and bike lanes.

28:11So why the significant reduction in the bike parking?

28:15There's a few, a couple of things.

28:19Part of it is the status of the 2023 bylaw is not enforced.

28:23So just for simplicity, it was, you know,

28:27not included in the application.

28:29There will be a bike parking provided on the site.

28:33But we think we can figure out what's appropriate

28:36through the site plan application process

28:39in terms of the type of parking spaces

28:41and the location for them as well.

28:42So the bike parking spaces have,

28:45we're requesting just an exemption of them

28:47so we can work through that at the site plan stage.

28:50Okay, thanks.

28:52Through you, Mayor Guthrie, I've got a few more.

28:54Similar question with respect

28:56to the exempting electric vehicle parking spaces.

28:59So you're asking for 10% instead of 80%.

29:04How does this translate for people?

29:05By 2035, you can't even buy a gas-fueled vehicle anymore.

29:10So what's the impact on the residents?

29:13Right, and through you, Mayor Guthrie.

29:15There's a similar response in that

29:17the bylaw requirements are under appeal and subject to change.

29:22And so this is something that we think

29:24we can work through at site plan with staff

29:26and provide appropriate electric vehicle parking

29:31to satisfy the requirements of the future residents here.

29:36Okay, and I'll ask staff what that means

29:38if that's an undertaking from you or how that works, okay?

29:42Mayor Guthrie, just two more.

29:44I'm looking at the play amenity area

29:48and it's in the middle of the parking lot, right?

29:50So if you're a kid or a young family in this area,

29:54there won't be anything around you for quite some time, right?

29:57The rolling hills piece, it still needs to come together.

30:00And so if you're young and you need to cross,

30:04you have to cross the parking lot

30:05to get into that play area or cross Clear Road, right?

30:10So have you considered, would you consider

30:13shifting that landscaping around

30:15so that there is a way for people

30:16to get to the play structure and the building

30:19in a way that is a little bit safer

30:21and not having to walk through the parking lot?

30:24And again, through the mayor,

30:25we can look at appropriate pedestrian connections

30:29through the site plan process to ensure

30:31that there's safety to get to the amenity area.

30:33Great, and then my last question through you, Mayor Guthrie,

30:38what are the, how does it work

30:41when you're anticipating the required connection,

30:43pedestrian connection for future connectivity?

30:46So how will this piece,

30:47you're the first piece of the puzzle really on that

30:51south side of Clear Road, how will that connect?

30:55Where are the opportunities?

30:56Where do you leave apertures to connect

30:58to other developments that will come in around you, right?

31:02So again, so that people can,

31:04Councillor Caron says this all the time,

31:06run to a friend's house, et cetera.

31:07So how do you forecast this piece

31:11will fit into the larger hole?

31:13And through the mayor, there is a sidewalk,

31:16there is no sidewalk currently on Clear Road

31:18at this location.

31:20So this development will include

31:22a sidewalk connection along Clear Road.

31:23So that's the kind of the first piece

31:25of the puzzle, I think.

31:26And then through future applications for surrounding land,

31:30something that could be considered,

31:32but at this point, there are no applications

31:34on adjacent land.

31:35So we have not accommodated any connections

31:40to a future development.

31:41Okay, great.

31:42And Mayor Guthrie, if I could just have one more question

31:44through you to our delegate.

31:47You're asking for minimum private amenity area

31:51to be half of what is required

31:53for the stacked towns above grade.

31:58Can I ask you what the justification is for that?

32:00I understand, you know, one less meter for the below grade,

32:03but why half of the minimum private amenity area

32:08for the stacked towns above grade?

32:12Through the mayor, I'm just double checking that.

32:14I believe that the reduction is,

32:23the 10 square meters applies to stacked townhouses

32:26above grade and the 20 square meters applies

32:29to stacked townhouses at grade.

32:32So it is a minor reduction to the private amenity area

32:36for the stacked townhouses.

32:39Okay, great.

32:40Thanks very much.

32:41Thank you.

32:42Thank you, Councillor Katelyn.

32:45Thank you through you, Chair, to the developers.

32:49So I was just wondering, and I know first off

32:52that this is not a part of the Ontario Building Boat,

32:54so I know you're not required to do this,

32:56but I'm just wondering,

32:57are any of the units entrances wheelchair accessible?

33:02And through the mayor,

33:03that's something that we can look at

33:04through the site plan application.

33:07Great, thank you very much.

33:07I haven't got to that level of detail.

33:09Thanks.

33:11Okay, great, are there any further questions?

33:15Okay, no, except for me.

33:18Just wondering, all developers are gonna be upset

33:22that I went to Copenhagen for a week

33:24and I saw how they do stuff

33:26and now I'm gonna start asking.

33:27So in a development like this,

33:31to kind of create community within that development,

33:33they would offer like an area where there could be

33:36that common amenity space could also be

33:38like a community garden.

33:40Is that something that you would consider doing in this

33:43because of the community that's there to provide for them?

33:46Or is that something that you would always leave up

33:48to the Condo Corp after it's created?

33:49Like at what point could you try to maybe provide that

33:53as something that land or that area for them to use

33:58for community garden space?

34:00The initial programming of the amenity area

34:02will be determined at the site plan stage.

34:05So it's something we can think about.

34:06Okay, think about that one.

34:07Let that grow on you.

34:10And then, yeah, sorry, my other question was just around

34:13the electrical vehicles as well.

34:17It just seemed, I'll just blunt about it,

34:19it just seemed like a pretty big drop from 80% down to 10.

34:23It just kind of hit me a little bit.

34:24And I didn't talk to Councillor O'Rourke at all,

34:26but I was just thinking kind of the same thing.

34:29We're only like 10 years away basically

34:31from when cars in Canada are gonna all be electric

34:35and just trying to think of the future residents there

34:37a little bit.

34:38It's always easier to implement these things

34:40when the grading is happening,

34:42when the digging is happening.

34:44It's always easier to lay that pipe or lay that line

34:47or lay that electrical at that point.

34:49But I respected your answer.

34:52I just wanted to just say that out loud

34:54before you walked away as well.

34:55That if you could look into that a little bit more,

34:56I think that's fair.

34:59As well.

35:00Okay, thank you very much.

35:02There's nothing further.

35:03I appreciate it.

35:04Thank you.

35:05So Council, what happens next is

35:06because this is a statutory meeting,

35:09we have to just allow anybody else,

35:10if they would like to just have a conversation about this

35:12to give us their thoughts for a moment.

35:15So you're gonna see a number come up on the screen here,

35:18folks, I'll just say it out loud.

35:19519-837-5603.

35:24Again, that's 519-837-5603.

35:28If you'd like to call in,

35:29if you're interested in this development

35:31to give your opinion, our clerks can answer you there

35:35and put you on hold.

35:36We're gonna just ask in the room here,

35:38is there anyone else that wanted to delegate

35:39just to this particular one?

35:42No, okay, thank you.

35:43So we are gonna take a break for about four or five minutes

35:46or so just to see if someone does call in on this.

35:49And we'll come back to you in just a few moments

35:51to see if there's anyone else, okay?

39:53Okay, everyone, I'll just call the meeting back to order.

39:55We did have someone else call in on this one.

39:59And so the name is James Nagy.

40:04And James, I believe you're on the phone.

40:09Oh, okay, not yet.

40:10Clerks are just, okay.

40:14Hi, James, it's Mayor Guthrie, can you hear me okay?

40:19And James, if you hit star six on your phone,

40:23you'll be unmuted, star six.

40:33Hi, James, thank you very much for joining us.

40:36You have up to 10 minutes if you also need it

40:40on this particular site.

40:42So I would welcome you to give your delegation now.

40:45Thank you.

40:47Thank you.

40:48Overall, we're pleased with the concept

40:51of developing this land.

40:53We do have a couple of questions

40:54and they revolved around the balancing lands

40:58that surround it and the development

41:00and how they fit in along with this development.

41:04And Mr. Rourke made some very good comments

41:08about connectivity and how it all fits together.

41:11And we'd like to know, you know,

41:13if we're developing the lands that are around it

41:15and it will happen within, you know, in the near future,

41:18hopefully, how do the road connections, sewer connections

41:22and how does that all come together?

41:26We'd like to make sure that engineering

41:28and planning look at that as a whole.

41:30We've already had that type of conversation.

41:32So we know that's on the front of their mind.

41:36This plan does not offer any trail systems.

41:39They've reduced all the setbacks,

41:41but again, the zoning does sort of permit that

41:45if you look at what our targets are for zoning.

41:49I totally agree with your comment,

41:52Mayor Guthrie, with respect to EV charges.

41:55If they're not going to install the charges at this point,

41:57they should at least put in the conduits

41:59so that in the future that they can allow that

42:02because that is going to be the future.

42:05And you're right, to dig it up later on

42:07is going to be extensive, if not impossible.

42:10And it's going to be a burden to the owners down the road.

42:13So they should recognize some form of input costs

42:19there to make sure that that's addressed.

42:21With respect to the house that they suggest they're moving,

42:27I don't know what the measurement of it,

42:29but it looks like it's a fraction of the size

42:32of the existing house.

42:34I don't know if it's protected,

42:37do they need to remove and keep it with the same size or not?

42:42But that's your call,

42:44just something to bring in front of council for consideration.

42:50And with respect to, we live at one tail canyon,

42:54we side onto this property.

42:57This proposal lasts for a very minimum sidewalk.

43:04And I'm okay with that,

43:05but then I would like to see a fairly large privacy wall.

43:09And I'm sitting with Steno Carniello right now,

43:10which is the neighbor behind,

43:12he would like to see the same with not just five or four

43:17or five foot pine trees,

43:19we like to see substantial privacy trees

43:22that do protect the privacy that we've enjoyed for 25 years,

43:26until such time as we do develop.

43:29We encourage the development,

43:30we're not trying to hinder it,

43:32but we'd like to see these things recognized.

43:36And another concern would be the stormwater.

43:40You've got a lot of runoff.

43:41I don't think they have enough parking spots,

43:43but that's with people doing walkability community.

43:49Iraq made a very good comment about bicycles.

43:51You can't just say, yeah,

43:52you're gonna have one per household

43:54when you've got two, three kids.

43:57So I think that needs to be looked at.

43:59And then where's all that runoff gonna go to

44:02and how is that stormwater gonna be addressed?

44:04All these things are gonna go through the planning system

44:07as you move forward.

44:08I just wanna bring them to attention

44:09that these are concerns we have,

44:11but more so or most importantly,

44:13we'd like to know how we can take this as a whole community,

44:18because together collectively we have about 30 acres.

44:21And that's pretty much all I've got to say.

44:22I like the plan.

44:24It's high density.

44:25There's no question about it.

44:27And as long as it's done respectfully,

44:29we should be good with it.

44:30But how does it fit in with the rest of us?

44:33Does it respect us?

44:34Or is it told to me to come through to service us?

44:37Where's the access coming off from Clair Road?

44:40Where did buses, is there any bus indents

44:43where buses can pull over?

44:45They go over in front of food basics.

44:47They park right on Clair Road to have their breaks

44:49because they're not allowed to pull off to the side.

44:51And it's a traffic jam.

44:53We have an opportunity here to have, you know,

44:56a place where a bus can pull over and things like that.

44:58Make sure that the flow of traffic is continuous.

45:02I think we need some light somewhere between Farley

45:07or not Far, I think it's Farley,

45:08but somewhere along this corridor,

45:13from Dallin to Victoria to calm traffic

45:16because you're gonna have, by the time this thing all develops,

45:20there can be a lot of housing units in this area.

45:23So all those things are top of mind to us.

45:27But overall, good plan, good presentation,

45:31but there is still work to be done.

45:33And I wanna thank you and Council for your work.

45:37Okay, thank you very much, James.

45:38Let me just see if there's a follow-up.

45:42Okay, there isn't.

45:43Thank you very much for calling in.

45:44We appreciate it.

45:46Thank you.

45:48Okay, so Council, it's back to us

45:51before we go to any questions.

45:53Can I at least just get the motion

45:55to receive this application on the table for us?

45:58Claes and an Ault will do that.

46:00Thank you very much.

46:01For anyone listening or in the room or watching this later,

46:05this moment is not us approving or not approving something.

46:08This is just us formally accepting the application

46:12in that goes back to staff.

46:14But this is a time for anything else for Council

46:18to let staff know that has not already been stated.

46:23So anything new, feel free to jump up

46:26and say what you wanna say at this time.

46:28I'll go O'Rourke, Chu and then Claeson.

46:33Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

46:34I don't actually have questions for staff.

46:35I've just got comments.

46:37So I'm happy to see this project moving forward.

46:39It had an OMB decision a number of years ago.

46:42I think when it was still called the OMB, believe it or not.

46:45And this is the right place for that kind of density.

46:47They are existing services.

46:49There's transit on this road.

46:51There's good walkability to all those services.

46:53And I know the folks in Dowland Drive,

46:56they really do walk to whatever it is

46:58that they need as much as possible.

47:01So I really appreciate that.

47:03I would have been okay with more height there,

47:05but you do you appreciate that you did the community meeting.

47:09And I love the protection of the farmhouse.

47:13So I know that Heritage Guelph has expressed some concerns

47:16and people aren't too sure,

47:17but Reeds has done an excellent job preserving farm homes

47:22in the Westminster Woods subdivision.

47:24And I really look forward to seeing how that's converted

47:27into an amenity space.

47:29I think that is lovely.

47:31My concerns, remaining concerns are

47:35that minimum private amenity area

47:37for the stacked units that are above grade.

47:39It's actually half of what our bylaw says.

47:45And the reason I say that,

47:46it won't be easy to access green space there

47:49for a very long time.

47:50They'll have the development or the play area in the middle,

47:54but until all of Rolling Hills is developed,

47:58it's a heck of a walk to the Park at Dowland Drive.

48:03And they would have to cross Claire Road

48:04to get to any other green space.

48:06So little concerned about that.

48:08The lack of visitor parking and the concept of sharing,

48:13we talk about parking a lot.

48:14People have shovels and sports equipment

48:19and things in their garage or another vehicle,

48:21or they work in trades and they need two vehicles.

48:24So I will leave it to staff to parse that out.

48:28The bike parking, the low bike parking is a concern

48:31and we don't have any input at site plan.

48:34But if the promise of this,

48:37living on a main arterial road

48:39is that you can bike or take tram,

48:41then we really need for people to be able to have a bicycle.

48:46And I think one per unit is too low.

48:48There is a reference and same on the vehicle chargers.

48:51There's a reference to the school being there

48:53and walkable and that's all true.

48:55We have to acknowledge that the kids currently living

48:57in the Dowlands subdivision are bused to Court Wright Hills

49:00because the schools are quite a capacity.

49:03So yes, there's a school there.

49:05Residents won't necessarily be able

49:06to send their kids there.

49:08So overall, really happy to see this moving forward

49:13and really look forward to seeing what the end result is.

49:17Thank you, Councillor Chew.

49:19Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

49:21First of all, I just wanna applaud the applicant

49:23for working with the residents and for this design.

49:26It's actually quite well done.

49:28And I think we have to acknowledge

49:31when there is a lot of intentionality put into

49:34curating a development that meets

49:37some of our residents' expectations.

49:39I really like the relocation of the farmhouse.

49:42I know there are some concerns about whether or not

49:47that would do any damage to the existing structure,

49:50but I think it serves as a nice gateway

49:52towards the Tolden Drive and towards Westminster Wood School.

49:57I do have a comment and I'm just basing this off

50:01of my initial look at things.

50:04I know this is a specialized medium density residential,

50:08but just through the zoning change,

50:10I think maybe there can be opportunities

50:13to consider pushing the frontage closer

50:16towards the property line, maybe even just for one meter.

50:19That way you can consolidate the landscape area

50:23and central money space.

50:24And I think that extra one to two meters,

50:26it would actually do a lot of wonders for you

50:29if you wanted to consider future programming opportunities,

50:32like the mayor had mentioned with community gardens.

50:35I think if there's any opportunity to utilize

50:39your square footage to consolidate the landscape area,

50:43it would serve for a better function in the space.

50:46And I just make that note because there are exemptions

50:51towards the rear setback.

50:53So just because we are doing a zoning by law change,

50:58perhaps we can be a little bit creative

50:59and more tactical when we're analyzing

51:03the site plan as a whole.

51:04So overall great development.

51:06I appreciate the use of Lumion.

51:08It really shows the materiality,

51:11which is a great choice, I think, for this area.

51:14So well done and thank you so much

51:16for putting this forward.

51:19And Kossin, please.

51:21Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

51:23I have a question with regard to the caller who called in

51:28Mr. Negi.

51:30He asked about the reduction of the heritage building

51:34on the site in size.

51:36And I just wanted to confirm if that was true,

51:38if the house size is being reduced.

51:44Through you, Mayor, to the Councillor.

51:45So yes, the heritage impact assessment that was submitted

51:49and reported on at Heritage Guelph on Monday

51:53does have the rear portion, the rear addition,

51:55I removed as part of the proposal.

51:59Okay, thank you for that.

52:00And just a comment really.

52:03I really liked the integration of the stone building

52:07into the design.

52:08I really liked how you can see it from the street as well.

52:11I think it's a really good nod to the heritage of the area

52:15while still reflecting a modern Guelph.

52:18And the design is really nice.

52:20And I think it's so important,

52:22as we're looking to the future,

52:24to be able to integrate the past into these developments.

52:27And I am appreciative of the adaptive reuse

52:30that's been integrated here.

52:31So thank you for that.

52:35Hearing nothing further is, oh, sorry,

52:38Councillor Caron first before I call the vote, go ahead.

52:42I thank you.

52:42Just also comments regarding the heritage resource

52:47back before the OMB hearing.

52:49I know we talked a lot about it remaining in situ.

52:52I know a lot of work's been done

52:53in terms of the heritage impact assessment.

52:55So I want to respect all of that.

52:58I'd like staff to consider that when this comes back,

53:02that there are conditions specifically related

53:05to the retention.

53:06Moving the stone house comes with risks.

53:10I think one of my fellow Councillors commented

53:12that REEDS has an excellent history

53:14of incorporating heritage buildings

53:16into their subdivisions.

53:18I don't dispute that.

53:19Some are replicas and in some cases

53:22we've had buildings destroyed through vandalism or fire

53:27before development was able to take place.

53:29So a condition to provide, say fire safety systems

53:37to ensure that the building stays intact

53:39prior to development, conditions related to rebuilding

53:45if something happens during the risk of moving.

53:49So if staff could consider those as potential conditions

53:53in the zoning, whether that's a zoning,

53:56I know we do conditions on all kinds of things

53:58about net zero and recycling materials.

54:03Also, I believe we have a standard clause

54:05about recycling building materials.

54:06So with the summer kitchen, there's really good stone,

54:09field stone and granite there

54:10that could be incorporated into landscape feature as well.

54:13So if staff could consider some of those conditions,

54:16if we're going to do an adaptive reuse,

54:18let's do a great job of it.

54:21And thank you to REEDS for incorporating it into the plans.

54:26All right, thank you.

54:28All right, before I call the vote,

54:30I'll just say ditto to Councillor Chew

54:34and Councillor O'Rourke's commentary there.

54:37It does look great.

54:39Wish there was maybe a bit more density,

54:42but that's just me.

54:43But I appreciate you coming forward.

54:46I'm sure it's gonna come back good.

54:48So thank you very much.

54:49It's nice to see this come together finally.

54:51So I'm looking forward to it.

54:53With that, I'll call the vote then

54:55on just receiving the application at this time.

54:58Is there anyone against that?

55:01And I hear and see nobody against.

55:03That's unanimous.

55:04So thank you very much.

55:05And again, thank you for coming and delegating

55:06and look forward to having this come back

55:09as soon as possible.

55:11All right, we're gonna go to our next one.

55:15And this is 55 Baker Street,

55:19which includes 152 to 160 Wyndham Street North as well.

55:24Lindsay, it looks like that.

55:26Lindsay, you're up there is gonna be doing our presentation

55:31on behalf of the city.

55:33And we have a couple of delegations here as well.

55:38This is a pretty big moment for our city.

55:41This application, this is something we've been waiting

55:44a long time for as well.

55:46So Lindsay, over to you.

55:50Good evening, Mayor Guthrie, members of Council,

55:52staff and those watching from home or here in person.

55:56My name is Lindsay Sula-Dickey

55:57and I'm a senior development planner with the city.

56:00I'm gonna be reviewing the application,

56:02the zoning bylaw amendment application

56:03for 55 Baker Street, 152 and 160 Wyndham Street North.

56:08This is the statutory public meeting

56:10for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment application.

56:13So tonight is just the public meeting.

56:15There is no, there are no decisions being made

56:17on the application tonight.

56:21The city has received a proposed zoning bylaw

56:23amendment application submitted by GSP Group

56:26on behalf of Windmill Development Group Limited

56:29to facilitate the development of two 15 story

56:32mixed use towers containing 353 residential dwelling units

56:36with grand floor commercial, underground parking

56:39and a future stacked townhouse block.

56:42The city has been working with Windmill Development Group

56:45on the Baker District Development Project.

56:47We worked with Windmill to create the final plan

56:49for development in the Baker District

56:51as per the 2021 Urban Design Master Plan

56:54and that we each took on different aspects

56:56of the project moving forward.

56:58Windmill owns and, sorry,

57:01Windmill will own and develop the private residential

57:03and commercial unit and the city is building

57:05the public Baker Library, Urban Squares and Parkade.

57:09We've completed the planning and approval process

57:11for the library and the parkade

57:13and both are currently under construction by the city.

57:15And we continue to work with Windmill

57:17on coordinating the public, private components

57:19of the project.

57:20The city will retain the lands at Windmill Square

57:22and Library Square for Urban Public Squares.

57:25However, this is not material to this application

57:28and plans are in alignment with the Urban Design Master Plan

57:30that Council approved in 2021.

57:34This application should focus on the requested

57:36specialized zoning regulations

57:38for the private development components

57:39of the Baker District Development Project.

57:49The subject lands are located on the south side

57:51of Woolwich Street between Baker Street

57:53and Windmill Street North.

57:55The subject lands are approximately 1.08 hectares in size

57:59and have frontage along Park Lane North,

58:02Baker Street, Wyndham Street and Chapel Lane.

58:05The subject lands are currently vacant

58:07with a portion under construction for the public library

58:09proposed as part of the Baker Street

58:11Redevelopment Project.

58:18The subject lands are designated as mixed use one

58:21in the downtown secondary plan.

58:23Permissible uses within this land use designation

58:25include retail and service uses,

58:28multiple unit residential buildings

58:29such as apartments and townhouses and institutional uses.

58:33The mixed use one land use designation requires

58:36a minimum floor space index of 1.5

58:39and encourages or requires the creation of active frontages

58:42by locating retail, service and entertainment uses

58:45on the ground floor of buildings.

58:55The subject lands are currently zoned specialized

58:57downtown one or a D1-29 zone according to zoning bylaw 1995

59:0214864 as amended.

59:05And they are also zoned a site specific downtown one zone

59:08or D1-22 according to zoning bylaw 2023-2020790

59:15as amended.

59:22The purpose of the zoning bylaw amendment application

59:25is to establish site specific zoning regulations

59:28in the 1995 zoning bylaw and the 2023 zoning bylaw.

59:32So I'm first gonna go through the 1995,

59:37the specialized regulations requested

59:38to the 1995 zoning bylaw.

59:42But to be mindful of time,

59:43I'm gonna go just touch on these very quickly

59:46and the applicant will be going through them in more detail

59:50and they're also listed in more detail in the staff report.

59:54So the applicants requested a number of specialized regulations

59:57to the 1995 zoning bylaw and these include

1:00:01to permit a building height of 15 stories

1:00:05where a section 632311 of the zoning bylaw defined area map

1:00:1067 permit a building height of three to six stories

1:00:13on a portion of the property.

1:00:15To permit a building height of three to four stories

1:00:17on a small portion of the property

1:00:19whereas section 632311 of the zoning bylaw

1:00:23defined area map permits a building height

1:00:24of five to 15 stories.

1:00:27To permit a maximum exterior side yard set back

1:00:29of 17.5 meters in an active frontage area.

1:00:33To permit a floor plate ratio of one to eight to one

1:00:37for the North Tower and two to three to one

1:00:39for the South Tower.

1:00:41To permit a minimum step back of six meters

1:00:44for all portions of the building above the second story

1:00:47when measured from the building face

1:00:49of the first story facing a street.

1:00:51To permit a tower separation of 23 meters

1:00:54between any portion of a tower

1:00:55above the 12th story of a building

1:00:56and any portion of another tower above the 12th story.

1:01:01To permit off street parking to not be located

1:01:04on the same lot as the use requiring the parking.

1:01:13To permit a parking ratio of 0.75 parking spaces

1:01:16per dwelling unit whereas the zoning bylaw currently

1:01:20requires a minimum of one parking space per unit.

1:01:23To permit a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces

1:01:26per dwelling unit for units that meet the Canadian mortgage

1:01:29and housing corporations definition of affordable housing

1:01:33and to allow for an above ground transformer

1:01:35to be within the sight line triangle.

1:01:45So now I'm gonna go through the proposed zoning

1:01:48to the 2023 zoning bylaw.

1:01:51So the applicant has requested a number of regulations

1:01:54to the 2023 zoning bylaw through a site specific

1:01:58downtown one zone.

1:02:04And once again, the applicant will go through these

1:02:06in more detail so I'll be quick when I list them off.

1:02:10To permit stacked townhouses as a permitted use

1:02:14whereas the stacked townhouses are no longer permitted

1:02:18in the downtown in the 2023 bylaw.

1:02:21To permit a building height of 15 stories

1:02:25on schedule B-4.

1:02:26To permit a building height of three to four stories

1:02:30on schedule B-4 of the zoning bylaw

1:02:33which shows a building height of five to 15 stories.

1:02:36To permit a minimum building height of three stories

1:02:38over the future development area of the site.

1:02:41To permit the placement of a building

1:02:43with a maximum height of 15 stories in an area

1:02:47which permits a park or open space.

1:02:49To permit a maximum exterior side yard of 17.5 meters

1:02:52in active frontage area.

1:02:55To permit a floor plate ratio of one to eight to one

1:02:58for the North Tower and two to three to one

1:02:59for the South Tower.

1:03:02To permit a minimum step back of six meters

1:03:04for all required portions the building

1:03:05above the second story measured from the building face

1:03:08of the first story facing the street.

1:03:10To permit a minimum tower separation

1:03:12of 23 meters between any portion of the tower

1:03:15above the 12th story of the building

1:03:16and any portion of another tower

1:03:18above the 12th story of the building.

1:03:20To permit off street parking to not be located

1:03:23on the same lot as the use requiring the parking.

1:03:27To permit a minimum depth of 0.2 meters

1:03:29between the grid and the structure

1:03:31for an underground parking structure

1:03:33located in accordance with 5.2.4A.

1:03:37To permit a parking ratio of 0.75 parking spaces

1:03:40per dwelling unit.

1:03:42And to permit a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces

1:03:45per dwelling unit for units that meet

1:03:47CMHC's definition of affordable housing.

1:03:51To permit an accessible parking rate

1:03:52of two accessible parking spaces

1:03:54plus an additional 0.74%

1:03:58with all type B accessible parking spaces.

1:04:00To permit a minimum width of a parking aisle

1:04:02providing two way access to be six meters.

1:04:07To permit compact parking spaces

1:04:09and to permit above ground transformer

1:04:11to be within the sight line triangle.

1:04:19The applicant is proposing to develop the property

1:04:22with two 15 story mixed use towers

1:04:24with grand floor commercial space,

1:04:25underground parking in a future development area

1:04:28featuring stacked townhouses.

1:04:31A total of 353 residential units are proposed

1:04:34across the two towers and 529 square meters

1:04:37of commercial space on the ground level of the towers.

1:04:40Within the north tower 179 residential units

1:04:44are proposed consisting of 110 one bedroom units,

1:04:4768 two bedroom units and one three bedroom unit.

1:04:51And within the south tower 129 one bedroom

1:04:54and 45 two bedroom units are proposed.

1:04:56And there are a total of 267 parking spaces

1:05:00for residents of the towers provided underground.

1:05:04And that is shown on the conceptual site plan

1:05:08which is in front of you.

1:05:10So that concludes my presentation.

1:05:13Staff are gonna, the next steps in the process

1:05:15would be for staff to complete a formal review

1:05:17of the application and come back to council

1:05:20with a decision on the application.

1:05:22And so if there's anyone watching at home

1:05:25or in person here, if you wanna stay informed

1:05:29on the application and be informed

1:05:31of when this application will be brought back for decision,

1:05:33if you could email planning at gulf.ca

1:05:36and provide your full name and either email

1:05:40or mailing address.

1:05:41And that concludes my presentation.

1:05:42I'd be happy to answer any questions.

1:05:46Great, thank you again for that.

1:05:49And as normal, we'll just go to the delegations first.

1:05:52I'm sure we'll have a few questions for you after that.

1:05:55But let's start with Hugh Handy, who is here in person

1:05:59and Stuart Cooper here.

1:06:03Oh yeah, okay.

1:06:05Coming along with you.

1:06:07Are you doing separate presentations or are you together?

1:06:17We've probably telegraphed it

1:06:18but we're gonna do the presentation together.

1:06:21Okay, so I just wanna be really clear.

1:06:23So I'm fair.

1:06:25Both of you in 10 minutes.

1:06:27Correct. No more in 10 minutes.

1:06:28Okay, that's good with us.

1:06:31I will mute and whenever you're ready to go,

1:06:33the clock will start.

1:06:35And again, you'll hear the chime at nine minutes

1:06:36and 30 seconds if need be, okay?

1:06:38To give you the warning, go ahead.

1:06:40Thank you.

1:06:41Mayor Guthrie, my name is Hugh Handy

1:06:43and I'm vice president and a land use planner with GSP group.

1:06:47I'm here with Stuart Cooper,

1:06:49who is a development manager with windmill developments.

1:06:54Tonight, as you had mentioned, Mr. Mayor,

1:06:58members of council, staff, ladies and gentlemen,

1:07:00we're here to present to you at a formal zoning meeting

1:07:06related to the Baker district.

1:07:08And that's quite exciting for the city,

1:07:10being in the center of the city

1:07:11and a large redevelopment project.

1:07:16I also have with me in the audience

1:07:18our architect, Megan Torza, who's with DETA architects.

1:07:24One of my planners, Charlotte Balak,

1:07:26is also sitting in the audience.

1:07:28And so we hope to answer any questions of you this evening.

1:07:31And of course, this has been before the public,

1:07:35not in this form, but before.

1:07:37So I'll pass it over to Stuart.

1:07:39Thanks, Hugh.

1:07:40Good evening, Mayor Guthrie,

1:07:41Mayor, our council members.

1:07:43So I'm just gonna take a quick opportunity

1:07:45to speak on behalf of Windmill.

1:07:47As you mentioned, Windmill is the development manager

1:07:50on the Baker district.

1:07:52And Windmill, as a company,

1:07:53has over 20 years of development management experience.

1:07:58We're focused on creating happy, healthy communities.

1:08:01And one of the ways that we do that

1:08:03is through the One Planet Living Framework.

1:08:05So Baker district is actually the second endorsed

1:08:09One Planet Living Community in Canada.

1:08:11And what does that mean?

1:08:13The One Planet Living Framework is essentially a means

1:08:17to introduce features including sustainable infrastructure

1:08:22that, for wealth, helps address climate initiatives.

1:08:26So that comes in the form of, for this community,

1:08:29we're pursuing zero carbon per Canada Green Building Council.

1:08:33So that includes no fossil fuels for the project.

1:08:35It's all electric building, no natural gas.

1:08:39We use a high performance building assembly

1:08:41for the project.

1:08:42We use energy efficient appliances and HVAC systems

1:08:46and high efficiency windows to promote energy efficiency.

1:08:50We also have 20% EV compatible parking stalls

1:08:54and then 100% or the residual 80% provision for EV.

1:09:00Beyond that, we also have water efficient fixtures.

1:09:03We have sustainably focused materials for the design

1:09:07in terms of the interiors and for the rest of the project.

1:09:11We promote multi-modal transportation options

1:09:13and extensive transportation demand management plan

1:09:18to help that promotes ride sharing, transit,

1:09:22and as well additional bike infrastructure.

1:09:26These all produce and provide alternative,

1:09:28less carbon intensive means for transportation.

1:09:33I think as we'll get into,

1:09:34we are also promoting a lower residential parking ratio

1:09:39for this project.

1:09:40And we've also agreed to, as part of the TDM package,

1:09:43to participate in travel surveys

1:09:44and post occupancy parking utilization studies

1:09:47to help the city more broadly

1:09:48in terms of understanding parking demand

1:09:51for downtown residential projects.

1:09:54Just mentioned that we've been working with the city of Guelph

1:09:56on the Baker District redevelopment since 2018.

1:09:58So it's been a longstanding effort,

1:09:59I think as everyone here knows,

1:10:02and as Hugh's gonna get into it is a mixed use

1:10:04development project, residential retail,

1:10:07and then part of the broader district

1:10:09in terms of the community library and urban squares.

1:10:17And I'd just like to say that we've been working closely

1:10:19with our consultants and with city staff.

1:10:21So we're excited to be here

1:10:23and look forward to any questions you have.

1:10:25So I'll hand it over to Hugh.

1:10:28Thanks, Stuart.

1:10:31As mentioned, as part of the development,

1:10:35there was an urban design master plan,

1:10:38which was completed in 2021,

1:10:40that looked at a number of elements to the project,

1:10:43including how public space would work,

1:10:46that this would really be a community hub,

1:10:48physically, socially, and environmentally connected

1:10:52within the downtown,

1:10:54that it would increase visitation

1:10:56in the residential population.

1:10:59And that is the basis of the urban design master plan,

1:11:03which was really the master plan

1:11:04for this future community within the downtown.

1:11:10Our initial application for site plan was submitted in 2021,

1:11:15revisions made in 2020, between 2021 and 2023.

1:11:19We've worked in conjunction with the city staff

1:11:25on a collaborative basis to ensure the principles

1:11:29of the urban design master plan were brought forward.

1:11:32And that is really the basis of the application

1:11:34that's before you this evening.

1:11:38The proposed development, as Lindsay has indicated,

1:11:42is two 15 story towers that will be mixed use

1:11:45with underground parking under both towers and the squares.

1:11:49So really everything that's there will be part of that.

1:11:54The North Tower is in pink,

1:11:56South Tower is in yellow,

1:11:59Central Library is in brown, public spaces,

1:12:03the Windham Square is out logically on Windham Street

1:12:09and the Central Library space is sort of spills out

1:12:14from the library.

1:12:16There's commercial spaces, we've mentioned 353 units,

1:12:21commercial space on Baker,

1:12:23commercial space on Windham Street.

1:12:25There's private amenity areas as part of balconies

1:12:28and terraces with the development.

1:12:32And as Lindsay has also mentioned,

1:12:35267 parking spaces under the towers.

1:12:40There is just for information of council

1:12:42and as council be aware, there's parking under

1:12:45the Guelph Public Library to the tune of about 154 spaces

1:12:49under that building as well.

1:12:54The North Tower, just to break this down,

1:12:56there's 179 residential uses, mostly one in two bedrooms.

1:13:00There's a three bedroom right now,

1:13:01but obviously things are being finalized

1:13:05through the site plan process and building process.

1:13:08174 units under one and two bedrooms

1:13:12under as part of the South Tower.

1:13:16The North Tower will feature gym amenity,

1:13:19kitchen party room amenities and outdoor terrace

1:13:22on the second floor overlooking Windham Street North.

1:13:26The South Tower, there'll be co-working amenity

1:13:29on the ground floor, kitchen party amenity space,

1:13:32and again, a second floor overlooking

1:13:34the library urban square.

1:13:37The two urban squares will provide shared amenity space

1:13:40for the residents of the site and the greater community.

1:13:42That was one of the goals that this would be a site

1:13:45that would be not only for the residents,

1:13:47but part of Guelph's fabric in the downtown.

1:13:52Both squares will have soft landscaping and seating

1:13:57and spaces for programming for both the library

1:14:01and the broader community.

1:14:03The new central library as council and the public

1:14:05will be aware is under construction as well

1:14:08at the south end of the site and part of the fabric

1:14:12and part of this development.

1:14:17The zoning bylaw amendment required before you this evening

1:14:20is really, as I mentioned, the basis

1:14:23for this evening's meeting obviously,

1:14:25but through the site plan process,

1:14:27these regulations have been discussed with staff

1:14:31and as part of our architect and vision as Windmill,

1:14:36as development as part of this moving forward.

1:14:41As Lindsay had mentioned, I'll go through some of the,

1:14:46and maybe just to highlight some of the things,

1:14:49for instance, the urban square.

1:14:52There's a setback of 17 point,

1:14:54this is the third bullet down, 17.5 meters

1:14:58with an active frontage.

1:15:01As part of your downtown secondary plan,

1:15:03zoning bylaw, the idea is to activate frontages

1:15:06on the main roads and arterials.

1:15:09To achieve the urban square,

1:15:12the activity needs to move back.

1:15:15So that is really an explanation of one of the regulations

1:15:20within the development to say that

1:15:24we've tried to accommodate a number of different aspects,

1:15:27including creating towers that will meet

1:15:32the transitions within the site to the library at the south,

1:15:37stepping down the building somewhat

1:15:38in order to relate to the library and then at the north

1:15:43for future stacked house developments,

1:15:45trying to step that down as well.

1:15:47So there's an idea and which urban design trying to,

1:15:53what is the pedestrian experience?

1:15:54There's obviously going to be a tower in the sky,

1:15:58but there's also what does it feel like

1:16:00at the base of the buildings?

1:16:01And so some of these regulations,

1:16:03I'll let our architect come up if there's specific questions

1:16:07and rather than repeating the number of things

1:16:10in front of you and looking at my time of one minute

1:16:13in 21 seconds, I'm cognizant of that as well.

1:16:18There is parking regulations, part of this,

1:16:21was a traffic impact or parking impact study done

1:16:25that was peer reviewed.

1:16:27So our consultant WSP looked at it,

1:16:30BA group peer reviewed it to ensure

1:16:32there is enough parking on the site.

1:16:34And so that is looking at a 0.75 ratio.

1:16:38We believe that is adequate, especially in the downtown.

1:16:41There are a number of aspects of ensuring that people

1:16:48do not use their cars.

1:16:49And ultimately there's a developer in front of you

1:16:52that is seeing the shift in that

1:16:55and as part of this development, we believe

1:16:58it's an appropriate standard to achieve.

1:17:04As I said, I'm happy to answer any other questions

1:17:07of our team with our team here,

1:17:11but we look forward to the discussion this evening

1:17:14and to bringing this development

1:17:15out of the ground in the near future.

1:17:17Thank you.

1:17:19Great, thank you very much.

1:17:21So start with the class and then downer please

1:17:23for questions.

1:17:26Thank you, Mayor Guthrie and through you to the delegates.

1:17:30Thank you for the presentation.

1:17:31And I did have, I wasn't ready to go first.

1:17:35So I did, I actually had a question about

1:17:38Wyndham Street and the square on Wyndham Street.

1:17:41So one thing that, and I'm sure that you're working

1:17:44and in hand with city staff on this one,

1:17:46but one thing that I, I talked to a lot of businesses

1:17:48downtown and you spoke a little bit

1:17:50at the end of your presentation to like, you know,

1:17:52the feel and look of what Wyndham Street will be like

1:17:55and that square, how, you know, from early drawings,

1:17:59I know that it's so early in the process.

1:18:01I just, I wanted to understand a little bit better

1:18:03about what that's going to be like on Wyndham Street.

1:18:08Oh, sorry. Yeah.

1:18:09Through you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:18:10So happy to speak to that.

1:18:11And as you mentioned, in the exception,

1:18:15I think for, for this project is we're actually,

1:18:18as you mentioned, we've done close to two years

1:18:20of site plan work closely with city staff.

1:18:23So we've worked very closely with Urban Design

1:18:26with landscape to really flush out what the look and feel

1:18:30of these urban squares is going to be.

1:18:33So it's going to be a mix of really areas

1:18:37that can be multifunctional.

1:18:39I think specifically urban square, you know,

1:18:41we've anticipated for again, working closely with staff,

1:18:44you know, future programming uses for that space.

1:18:48And that moving over to Wyndham Urban Square,

1:18:50there's a mix of seating.

1:18:51It's open space to, you know, being very conscious

1:18:54of accessibility in terms of making sure

1:18:56there's no choke points, making it very free flowing

1:18:59and kind of lost on the plan view.

1:19:02But that frontage of the podium of the North Tower

1:19:06is intended to all be retailed to really animate that space.

1:19:09So it'll be a mix of public space that also interacts

1:19:12with the private uses that kind of frame that space.

1:19:15And then as you said, it steps back

1:19:17and then transfers into the tower form.

1:19:20So it's going to be a mix of hardscape

1:19:21and landscape as well.

1:19:22So I think there was a lot of thoughtful comments

1:19:26that came from staff through that process.

1:19:29Yeah, so I hope that gives you a sense.

1:19:33Great, thank you.

1:19:34You answered my next question,

1:19:35which was where the commercial would be.

1:19:37So just because the drawings are a little bit small

1:19:39and I didn't see exactly.

1:19:40So thank you for that.

1:19:42I did have a question because I think I read that 12%

1:19:47of the units will be affordable.

1:19:49And I just, I wanted to ask if at this point

1:19:52you have any more information about that

1:19:54or is that too early in the process?

1:19:56Yeah, so at this point,

1:19:58there's a commitment on behalf of Windmill

1:20:00to the city to explore providing up to 12% affordable housing.

1:20:04At this point, we're still working collaboratively

1:20:06to understand how we can provide that

1:20:09in terms of appropriate units.

1:20:11We're still working through costing as well on our side.

1:20:14So just trying to find what that appropriate amount

1:20:17that we can deliver in a meaningful way.

1:20:20Okay, thank you.

1:20:21And maybe this is just because I don't understand the process.

1:20:23So maybe this is a staff question for later,

1:20:25but how do you connect about that?

1:20:27Like once you've like completed your planning

1:20:29and you have an idea of how much actually you'll get,

1:20:32like where in the process will you end up

1:20:36with that final number?

1:20:38Yeah, absolutely.

1:20:40So in terms of part of it is working towards

1:20:43the appropriate definition for affordable housing,

1:20:45which as was listed up there,

1:20:47is right now is the CMHC definition of affordable housing.

1:20:50And then through that,

1:20:52we're still working on, again,

1:20:54the costing for the project and that determines our price

1:20:58for units and then finding basically what units

1:21:01and what unit size we can deliver that'll align for that.

1:21:05So I think it's, my recollection is at that time of sale

1:21:09is actually when we qualify

1:21:11for that affordable housing destination.

1:21:17Okay, thank you.

1:21:18And I think that's it for me.

1:21:20Thank you.

1:21:21Great, thank you.

1:21:22Downer than Bucitil.

1:21:24Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:21:26It's great to get to this point.

1:21:28It's really exciting, really from the first announcement

1:21:33of our partnership.

1:21:34So I'm excited that you're here tonight.

1:21:37One of the things I was going to ask,

1:21:40not about the development myself,

1:21:41but about the piece that's not being developed.

1:21:43So the future development area,

1:21:45can you just tell me a bit about that

1:21:47and what are the plans for that?

1:21:50Yeah, through you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:21:52So at this point,

1:21:53we've identified it as a potential development site

1:21:56and as the UDMT spells out,

1:21:59it's contemplated as Stacktown houses.

1:22:01So we protected for that use as part of this application.

1:22:06It's going to be in the future,

1:22:08a separate site plan application.

1:22:10So right now we have two active site plan applications

1:22:12for the North Tower, South Tower respectively.

1:22:15We haven't filed anything for the South Tower,

1:22:17or sorry, for that potential development site yet.

1:22:20So at this point,

1:22:21don't have any further information on it,

1:22:23but at this point it's just reflective.

1:22:25Okay, so you're possibly Stacktown houses on that area.

1:22:28Okay, that's nice across from there.

1:22:32The other thing I would like to know,

1:22:33so what is your timeline for shoveling the grounds

1:22:36on this project?

1:22:37I know you'll have to come back for final approval yet, but...

1:22:41Yeah, so in terms of construction timeline,

1:22:44at this point,

1:22:46we've been working towards a launch in the new year,

1:22:50and then we would have to work towards

1:22:52our construction finance timeline.

1:22:54Roughly we're looking end of 2024,

1:22:57but that is subject to a number of factors,

1:23:00but that's what we're actively working towards

1:23:02at this point.

1:23:03Great, thank you very much.

1:23:07Great, Pusatil please.

1:23:08Thank you, and through the mayor,

1:23:09thank you for the presentation.

1:23:10I have a question in your document here.

1:23:14There is reference to off-street parking spaces,

1:23:18and I followed that,

1:23:19and then in a couple of sections it says,

1:23:21to allow off-street parking to not be located

1:23:24on the same lot as the required use.

1:23:29I get where it is.

1:23:30Can you explain that?

1:23:31I'm trying to picture,

1:23:32so you have a development

1:23:33and you have some on-street parking.

1:23:35Where will this other off-street parking,

1:23:41I'm not sure I understand exactly

1:23:43where the off-street parking will be moved to?

1:23:48Through your worship to the councillor.

1:23:51So the regulation is put in there.

1:23:54Obviously there will be part of the building,

1:23:58there will be parking under there,

1:24:00under the building,

1:24:01but any visitor parking would be located

1:24:04on a separate parcel as part of the library,

1:24:07so that that would be the reason

1:24:09we put the regulation in there

1:24:11to allow that parking to be located

1:24:14in a different location, and the regulation.

1:24:17Sorry, just to be clear then,

1:24:18so it would be a designated visitor parking

1:24:22in the library parking, is that correct?

1:24:24It would be so that visitor parking

1:24:26does not have to be supplied on the site,

1:24:28the private site,

1:24:30that there would be parking allowed on an adjacent site.

1:24:35It's not assigned,

1:24:36but that's the purpose of the regulation.

1:24:39So it would be not assigned but counted, is that correct?

1:24:42So those spaces would be counted as visitor?

1:24:45No, it would be off-site,

1:24:47like so parking would not be permitted on the site.

1:24:51And I can add to that as well.

1:24:53So in terms of our parking discussions with city staff,

1:24:58in terms of we have a residential rate,

1:25:00we are keeping the visitor rate per the bylaw,

1:25:03but we are working with staff on a payment and lieu agreement

1:25:07that basically, my understanding from the downtown master plan,

1:25:13the city is going to be taking an initiative

1:25:14to develop a PI out bylaw.

1:25:17So we are kind of ahead of the curb

1:25:19and working with staff to address that for visitor parking.

1:25:22So it's huge suggesting it's,

1:25:24conceptually it could be in the library,

1:25:26but it's really just to accommodate off-site,

1:25:29that's the agreement that kind of rounds out

1:25:33that consideration.

1:25:35Thank you.

1:25:37Thank you.

1:25:37Councillor Chew is next.

1:25:40Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:25:43Yeah, great presentation.

1:25:44Thank you for doing this.

1:25:46I just caught onto one of my colleagues,

1:25:49some of your comments from my colleague.

1:25:51I was just wondering,

1:25:52you guys are looking at payment and lieu

1:25:54to kind of offset some of the physical parking spaces

1:25:57that you may not be able to accommodate.

1:26:01Are there further discussions of staff

1:26:03on how you can continue to look into TDM measures?

1:26:06I know you guys have been very generous so far,

1:26:08but is that conversation ongoing for you guys?

1:26:11And is that something you could consider potentially?

1:26:15Yeah, so through you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:26:17In terms of the TDM, so as you mentioned,

1:26:20I'll kind of give the longer answer.

1:26:22We worked closely with our transportation consults

1:26:25through the ESP and through a peer review process

1:26:27with VA Group and closely with staff

1:26:29on developing the TDM package that's with Baker.

1:26:33So at this time it is concluded,

1:26:36but I would say for my personal experience,

1:26:38it's the most robust TDM that I've participated in

1:26:41in terms of the privilege

1:26:44for the bicycle infrastructure.

1:26:46We're also looking at rides,

1:26:47sharing for EV bikes as well as EV vehicles.

1:26:51We're doing a contribution for any units

1:26:54that are not purchased with parking

1:26:56that they'll be receiving a mobility credit

1:27:02as well, a contribution to a transit pass.

1:27:05So we feel like we've really tried to be pretty fulsome

1:27:07and really intentional about this idea

1:27:12of working towards a lower ratio,

1:27:13but truly providing means to facilitate a lifestyle

1:27:17without a car.

1:27:20And just one quick follow up, Mr. Mayor.

1:27:23Yeah, I think that's great.

1:27:25Thank you for mentioning all those measures.

1:27:28I think if we can continue the ideation

1:27:30throughout this whole process,

1:27:32just without any commit, necessarily any commitments,

1:27:36I think that would be great for discussions internally.

1:27:39And I think that would be appreciated as well,

1:27:40because the TDM measures are essentially a tool

1:27:44for us as well in how we negotiate cash and lieu

1:27:47and all those other measures, right?

1:27:49So if you can continue the discussion internally,

1:27:52I think that would be great.

1:27:53Lee, appreciate it.

1:27:57I got Councillor Roark next.

1:27:59Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:28:00Through you to the delegates,

1:28:03can you refresh my memory?

1:28:04I feel like I should know this.

1:28:06Are these buildings purpose-built rental,

1:28:08or are they condo?

1:28:12Yeah, so through you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:28:14At this point, we are proceeding with the North Tower,

1:28:17which is, it's gonna be a phase development.

1:28:19So the North Tower to lead

1:28:21with the underground garage followed by South Tower.

1:28:23So at this point, we're proceeding with North Tower

1:28:27as condo and then still considering the South Tower

1:28:30for condo or purpose-built rental.

1:28:33Okay, so through you, Mayor Guthrie, to our delegates.

1:28:36So in the condo, are some of those units,

1:28:40CMHC affordable condos as well?

1:28:44So in terms of the provision of the affordable units,

1:28:47so it was 12% across the whole unit portfolio.

1:28:52So that is part of the consideration in terms of

1:28:54whether it would be for the condo

1:28:56or for the purpose-built rental.

1:28:58At this point, we haven't made any decisions on that yet,

1:29:01but it is being considered across both towers.

1:29:04Okay, so it's not something I forgot,

1:29:06it's just not baked quite yet.

1:29:08Great, thanks.

1:29:11Great, thank you.

1:29:12I don't see any further questions,

1:29:14except for me, just really simple.

1:29:17So what's it currently zoned for there for height?

1:29:24Simple question.

1:29:2523 stories there or is it in the view corridor?

1:29:28No, well, there's the view corridor

1:29:29through the center of it.

1:29:31Yeah, but these two towers are not in the view corridor.

1:29:34It would be 15 stories, like permitted in-

1:29:36No, I know you're asking for 15,

1:29:38but can you do 23?

1:29:46Good question.

1:29:49Oh, sorry, okay, sure.

1:29:51I'll just, I need the answer before I continue with-

1:29:54Yeah, that's fine.

1:29:55My question.

1:29:56Through the mayor, so through official plan amendment 80,

1:29:59the province allowed up to 23 stories,

1:30:02that's through the official plan.

1:30:04So our zoning didn't,

1:30:09isn't 100% in alignment with OPA 80

1:30:13because due to the timing of OPA 80

1:30:15coming into full force and effect

1:30:17and the comprehensive zoning bylaw.

1:30:19So the zoning bylaw does allow the 15 stories.

1:30:21However, they are asking for some,

1:30:24because of map 67 in the 1995 bylaw,

1:30:27and then I think it's scheduled before

1:30:29in the 2023 bylaw, the way it's set out.

1:30:33I have it in front of me,

1:30:34but it's, yeah, it's kind of like on a different,

1:30:37different heights on a different angle.

1:30:38So that's why, and the buildings are more rectangular

1:30:43rather than triangular, as shown on map 67.

1:30:45That makes any sense, but-

1:30:47Sure, absolutely.

1:30:49Especially when you said scheduled before,

1:30:51I knew exactly what you meant by that.

1:30:52Or 67.

1:30:53Yeah, yeah.

1:30:55Yeah, so that's why they have asked

1:30:56for those specialized regulations

1:30:58because there are portions of the towers

1:31:01that are higher or lower and don't exactly align with map 67.

1:31:05But as the applicant has mentioned,

1:31:07they are not within the view corridor.

1:31:09So there's no specialized regulation

1:31:11being asked for to the view corridor,

1:31:13but it's just to be in alignment with this,

1:31:17the schedules in our defined area maps.

1:31:20Okay, that was really clear.

1:31:23It was actually, it was good.

1:31:26Okay.

1:31:28I'll just, yeah.

1:31:29You probably know where I'm going on this.

1:31:32Can we go higher?

1:31:33Yeah.

1:31:34So let me just give some context to my question, okay?

1:31:38So, and I'm picking it up because of councillor O'Rourke's

1:31:43question and councillor Clauss's question

1:31:45about affordable housing, okay?

1:31:47So I don't know if anyone's heard about this,

1:31:48probably you have, because you live in the planning world,

1:31:50but, and I know it's all site-specific, okay?

1:31:53I know, but did you hear what Kitchener council did?

1:31:57Like, I don't know, a month ago or something.

1:31:59There was a proposal, the developer was standing

1:32:01at the podium just like you are.

1:32:03And in the moment, a councillor said,

1:32:06you know, if we gave you more height,

1:32:08would you be willing to give some community benefit to that?

1:32:10And the developer walked up to the microphone and said,

1:32:12let's do it.

1:32:13That's an exact quote.

1:32:15And they gave, I think, 10 extra stories to a building.

1:32:18I'm not suggesting that here,

1:32:20but that's what they did in Kitchener.

1:32:22And in return for that, they got almost 12%

1:32:26more affordable housing units in that development.

1:32:30So I guess I'm just wondering why, if it's 15,

1:32:34I know that we're basing on this map stuff I just heard,

1:32:36which I totally respect and agree with.

1:32:38But I'm just, really, my question comes down to,

1:32:41if something is zoned for 23 stories,

1:32:43if it's allowable, why you wouldn't go higher?

1:32:47And so, yeah, that's my basis.

1:32:49So there is not, not just just wondering

1:32:53why you're not going higher, if it's allowed,

1:32:55or if it's feasible.

1:32:56If it's not, I'm totally fine with that.

1:32:58But I'm just trying to figure out

1:33:00why you wouldn't want to do that.

1:33:02And maybe we could all win at the end of the day,

1:33:05especially with some more affordable housing.

1:33:07Thank you, Worship, for the question

1:33:09and sort of the joint answer to get to your answer.

1:33:15Part of the, I mean, nobody was probably more surprised

1:33:19than me to see 23 stories in the downtown,

1:33:23having been in front of you for the 23 story proposal

1:33:27previously.

1:33:28There is some history to this site

1:33:30from a standpoint of the urban design master plan

1:33:33and sort of taking this through.

1:33:36Lindsay's explanation of the height is really,

1:33:40kind of how we had to look at this

1:33:42and molding the development.

1:33:45So there is kind of where we got here

1:33:48and mid-process and OPA 80 is more recent.

1:33:52You're right in terms of what you've heard from Kitchener

1:33:55and looking at some of the things on a site

1:33:59where you can have that balance.

1:34:02And some of this comes down to parking

1:34:05and ultimately a market.

1:34:07I know like, I wanna see us get,

1:34:10I know you've had the debate in the downtown about parking

1:34:15and not even going as low as we're proposing.

1:34:19So maybe to get to the short answer to it,

1:34:24maybe we need to consider that further.

1:34:26Obviously this is a public meeting for comment,

1:34:29but I think in terms of where windmill is going,

1:34:33we may be at the conclusion.

1:34:37Yeah, I think just to add onto that

1:34:39I think that was well said to you.

1:34:41I would certainly agree broad brush stroke

1:34:43that more density gives us more opportunity

1:34:47to explore community benefits, whatever form those take.

1:34:51I would say from this project specifically,

1:34:54and as you noted each project is different,

1:34:56different constraints.

1:34:58Baker District is a downtown site,

1:35:02tight site, constrained site, lots of challenges.

1:35:05And particularly the challenge with additional heights

1:35:08would be the underground garage and the constraint

1:35:11you have in terms of,

1:35:13it's not a very efficient underground,

1:35:14I think as everyone can tell from the site plan,

1:35:16kind of looks like a K, it's difficult to lay out.

1:35:19There's bedrock, the water table considerations.

1:35:22So, you know, reducing parking would potentially afford

1:35:27us the opportunity being respectful of the process

1:35:29that we've gone through, but just responding to that.

1:35:33Yes.

1:35:34No, fair.

1:35:35I just thought I'd throw it out there

1:35:36and you're right about the parking.

1:35:38We even are experiencing that on our side

1:35:40with the library and whatnot.

1:35:42So we get the constraints there too.

1:35:45Okay, that was my only question.

1:35:46I just thought it would just bring it up.

1:35:50We had similar questions with other developers

1:35:53not even in the downtown and on Woolwich Street

1:35:56there was a developer there

1:35:57and we wondered why it wouldn't go higher there.

1:35:59And so we sometimes have these questions about density

1:36:02just to see if it's allowable,

1:36:04why there isn't that opportunity

1:36:06to go there, especially in the housing crisis

1:36:08that we're in to see if there's more availability of units.

1:36:12So that's, you've answered the question fine.

1:36:14I just want you to know it's not that you have

1:36:16to satisfy me anyway, but it's totally a great answer.

1:36:19I appreciate it.

1:36:21Well, thank you, Mr. Marin.

1:36:22I know city staff is obviously probably looking

1:36:24at the implementation of 23 stories in the downtown

1:36:28and how that impacts various areas

1:36:32when you just take the paintbrush out is one thing

1:36:35when you get down to the fine fabric of it

1:36:38where does it make sense?

1:36:39And so I think those are all parts of the discussion

1:36:44that we're happy to, you know, we've received the message

1:36:46if there's things that as this moves forward back to council

1:36:50and we'll see where the discussion goes.

1:36:53Great, no problem.

1:36:54That was my only question.

1:36:55So thank you very much

1:36:57and thank you for your delegation

1:36:58for doing it jointly.

1:36:59We appreciate that.

1:37:00Thank you.

1:37:02Oh, sorry, Councillor Billings, are you waving there?

1:37:04I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.

1:37:05I'm trying to juggle a bunch of stuff there.

1:37:07My apologies.

1:37:08Go to Councillor Billings next.

1:37:10Question through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:37:12And it was about the parking.

1:37:15So 0.75 of 353 units.

1:37:21That's around 265 and you're proposing

1:37:24to put in 267 parking spots, but no visitor parking

1:37:31except for maybe the PIL program.

1:37:34So then why are you asking for 0.5

1:37:38for affordable housing parking spots

1:37:40when you already have the 267 spots

1:37:45which would accommodate your request for the 0.75?

1:37:49Is it because you want to reduce the amount of PIL

1:37:52that you would have to pay for visitor parking

1:37:54or why are you doing this?

1:37:57Through you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:37:58So in short, no, it's not a means to reduce the PIL.

1:38:04The 0.5 is a recommendation that came

1:38:09through the peer review process with VA Group,

1:38:11the peer reviewer that was retained.

1:38:14So we've endorsed that.

1:38:15And it's really a means to provide some flexibility

1:38:18in terms of if we want to explore one of the avenues

1:38:23that we can explore through the affordable housing

1:38:25is if we were to look at large units,

1:38:30splitting them into smaller units,

1:38:33that would afford us the opportunity

1:38:34to lower purchase price,

1:38:36get into that affordable territory.

1:38:38But again, given if we add units,

1:38:41it would increase the parking demand at the 0.75.

1:38:45So the 0.5 does give us also flexibility

1:38:47to explore creating additional units

1:38:51within the same parking framework of the 267 stalls

1:38:55that we can fit in the underground garage.

1:38:58So you're not thinking at all

1:39:00to lower the 267 parking spots?

1:39:04No, if anything, just with regards to the PIL,

1:39:08the way that we've been exploring it is that

1:39:11in the event that we were to sell less than the 267 stalls

1:39:15as residential parking,

1:39:17there's an avenue to revisit that

1:39:18and look at providing visitor parking on site.

1:39:22But the intention is that, again,

1:39:25the 0.5 was more to accommodate,

1:39:28give us more flexibility when exploring

1:39:30affordable housing options.

1:39:32Okay, that makes sense, thanks.

1:39:35Okay, thank you, Councillor Blanks.

1:39:36All right, that's it.

1:39:38Thank you very, very much.

1:39:39Okay, we had nobody else signed up formally,

1:39:45but here we go.

1:39:46Clark's just gonna throw this number up on the screen.

1:39:49It is 519-837-5603,

1:39:51837-5603,

1:39:54519-837-5603.

1:39:58If you would like to also give your thoughts

1:40:00on this application, feel free to call in.

1:40:03The clerks can line you up to speak to us if necessary.

1:40:06And while we're waiting for that,

1:40:08is there anyone in the room

1:40:10that wants to speak to directly to this one?

1:40:13No, okay, great.

1:40:14So we'll just wait to see if someone online

1:40:17wants to speak to this one.

1:40:19So we're gonna take about a three-minute break,

1:40:21just for a second here,

1:40:22for three, four-minute break,

1:40:23just to wait to see if anyone calls in,

1:40:25and then we'll come back, okay, thank you.

1:43:52All right, this is your 30-second warning, everybody.

1:45:12Okay, I'd like to call the meeting back to order, please.

1:45:16And before we go on with anything further,

1:45:19could someone please move receipt

1:45:20of the application for me, please?

1:45:22Richardson and Ault, thank you very much.

1:45:26That's great.

1:45:27Okay, you're gonna hear me as a broken record

1:45:31every single time, but you can do questions

1:45:35and comments at the same time for this.

1:45:39Please do not bring up comments or any questions

1:45:42if they've already been brought up by people, okay?

1:45:45I've got to keep moving things along.

1:45:48I'm gonna start on the screen first.

1:45:50I saw a couple hands go up.

1:45:51Who was it?

1:45:52Guller, did you have your hand up?

1:45:55Okay, I'll start with you.

1:45:56Go ahead.

1:45:58Thank you for your worship.

1:46:00I'll be quick, just a comment,

1:46:02encouraging our staff team to work with proponents.

1:46:06I'm very excited that they're looking at

1:46:08possibly 12% of the units being affordable.

1:46:11If there's any way that the city could encourage them

1:46:13to increase that number,

1:46:15being by allowing more units

1:46:17by going up a couple more stories,

1:46:19I think we should jump another opportunity.

1:46:21And I look forward to seeing more developers

1:46:25bring this forward.

1:46:26If every application came forward

1:46:27with 10% affordable units,

1:46:30we would not be in the problem that we're in as a city.

1:46:32And we would not have had to have the meeting

1:46:34that we had just before this one

1:46:36to address the shortage of housing here in the city.

1:46:40Thank you, Your Worship.

1:46:42Thank you, Councillor.

1:46:43Anything else further from a question or comment on this?

1:46:46Don't see anything else?

1:46:48Nope, okay.

1:46:51Giddy up.

1:46:53I'll call the vote.

1:46:54Then you want against receiving this application?

1:46:58It's unanimous.

1:47:01Thank you very much.

1:47:02We'll see you soon, whenever soon is.

1:47:06Okay, let's keep moving along folks.

1:48:06Councillor Downer just told me to smarten up.

1:48:08Thanks, Councillor.

1:48:11I deserved it.

1:48:14All right, we're moving right along 716 Gordon,

1:48:19716 Gordon Street.

1:48:21The official plan and zoning bylaw decision.

1:48:25And this is a decision.

1:48:27Unlike the other ones where we're just receiving,

1:48:30this is decision.

1:48:32This means that the delegations only have five minutes.

1:48:36You'll hear the chime at four minutes and 30 seconds.

1:48:39And that would give you the 32nd warning.

1:48:41We have three.

1:48:43I believe they are all in person.

1:48:45And forgive me if I don't say your name correctly.

1:48:49Mauricio Fernandez, am I saying that right?

1:48:53Okay, thank you.

1:48:54You're first.

1:48:56And then Georgia Mason, is Georgia Mason here?

1:48:59Yes, I saw you on the way in.

1:49:00Thank you, Georgia.

1:49:01And Bill Mungle, I did see you Bill.

1:49:03So thank you, I see you all here.

1:49:06Mauricio, welcome.

1:49:08And I'll turn the microphone over to you.

1:49:10Go right ahead.

1:49:13Good, yeah.

1:49:14Hello everyone, I'm Mauricio.

1:49:15I'm the economic student at the University of Guelph.

1:49:18Came here a few weeks ago for the parking master plan.

1:49:23And I live in the South end, so it's close to home.

1:49:27I'm here to speak in favor of the development basically.

1:49:30I think this development is all perfect.

1:49:32Definitely not.

1:49:34I wish there were more units, I wish it was taller.

1:49:36I wish, yeah, less parking, especially considering

1:49:39this is right by the University campus.

1:49:42This is a four minute walk from the UC,

1:49:4415 minute walk from anywhere on campus.

1:49:46And most existing universities,

1:49:50senior residents on campus have little parking

1:49:53or no parking at all, with exception of the one

1:49:56on the west end, that's some parking.

1:49:58But other than that, they all have little parking.

1:50:05I wish there was more mixed use of more commercial areas

1:50:09engaging with the street.

1:50:11Things that could improve, more bike parking,

1:50:14more emphasis on building beautiful.

1:50:16So it's just the same land, modernized boxes.

1:50:21It could be better.

1:50:23However, we're in a housing crisis.

1:50:25And the only way of fixing it is building more housing.

1:50:28And in dense walk-in neighborhoods,

1:50:30student rooms in Guelph go for $1,000 a month.

1:50:34I don't know how I'm expected to look for that,

1:50:37but it is, and it shouldn't be.

1:50:41The nine housing projects based on aesthetics,

1:50:43feelings on the SARTO appeal

1:50:46to politically active landlords,

1:50:47a profit of this housing crisis is unacceptable.

1:50:51It's easy to talk about the use of housing supply

1:50:55and density while your house is fully paid off,

1:50:57$2 million, and the tax payer subsidizes you

1:51:02because we have seen the maps from urban tree.

1:51:05Most of the tax, most of the tax, tax, tax revenue

1:51:09from the city comes from downtown

1:51:11and the dense areas of downtown.

1:51:14In Guelph, like most cities in North America,

1:51:19we may not be safe in building

1:51:21car dependent, low density neighborhoods,

1:51:22say, Stroyd or Farmland,

1:51:25concentrated with climate crisis,

1:51:27and put many cities at the verge of a fiscal crisis

1:51:30due to a low tax base and too much infrastructure, basically.

1:51:35It's like for us to reverse back to low density,

1:51:37Serbia and build back great dense walk-in neighborhoods

1:51:41that are close to where people wanna go

1:51:44and where people need to go.

1:51:463D preservation and nature preservation

1:51:49is always important.

1:51:50This is why we need to build more dense walk-in neighborhoods.

1:51:53It was the low density Serbia

1:51:56that destroyed the Farmland and destroyed the forest

1:51:59that we don't have anymore.

1:52:01All of the southern developments,

1:52:04they used to be Farmland and they used to be forest,

1:52:06they're not there anymore

1:52:07just because we build more suburbs.

1:52:11If you have nature, don't pay for it.

1:52:15Preserving adequate noise levels is important.

1:52:17So why we need dense walk-in neighborhoods

1:52:19and increased housing supply

1:52:21close to where students need to go?

1:52:24The biggest source of noise in your city

1:52:26is high-speed highway traffic.

1:52:29And the only way to reduce it is with dense walk-in neighborhoods

1:52:32that allow for car-free living and car light living.

1:52:35So you have less cars on the road, less noise,

1:52:37less noise from the tires.

1:52:40It's a simple equation.

1:52:42Mass civilization was a great mistake.

1:52:45The land that we farmland and touch forest

1:52:47has now become an also stable place,

1:52:49a financially stable place for single-family homes

1:52:52with deadly vehicles running around

1:52:55and massive, massive parking lots are in there.

1:52:59To reverse this, we need to build back dense walk-in neighborhoods

1:53:02in those places where many infrastructure exists

1:53:05and where people wanna go.

1:53:07And campus fits that definition perfectly.

1:53:11To this end, this development application

1:53:14is a good step in the right direction.

1:53:17It's not perfect, of course.

1:53:19I wish it was better.

1:53:21However, for these reasons,

1:53:23I believe city council should approve this

1:53:25while we're on campus, 1,000 bedrooms right on campus

1:53:30so that we can build a much needed student housing

1:53:33and help make Guelph a more financially stable

1:53:36and more environmentally sustainable city.

1:53:38Thank you.

1:53:39Great, thank you very much for your presentation.

1:53:42And let me just see if there's a follow-up question for you.

1:53:46There is not, so thank you for coming though

1:53:48and thank you for taking the time, we appreciate it.

1:53:50Thank you.

1:53:51All right, and Georgia Mason is coming up next.

1:53:55Bill, you're in the wings there.

1:53:59Georgia, thank you so much for joining us.

1:54:00The clock will start whenever you're ready,

1:54:02so go right ahead.

1:54:04Okay, thank you.

1:54:05So the Mayfield Residence Association

1:54:08has sent all of you detailed written concerns already,

1:54:11but this evening I'll just present our main points

1:54:15and give you a view from Evergreen Drive,

1:54:17the residential street next to the site.

1:54:20I want to emphasize first

1:54:21that we're not a bunch of nimbies.

1:54:23Like Maurizio, we know how tough it is for students

1:54:26to find affordable decent housing near campus.

1:54:28This is a real problem that needs solving.

1:54:31Personally, I also live in a heritage mid-century house

1:54:35and had been worried about how the winds generated

1:54:38by the new building would treat our peculiar roof.

1:54:41And the heritage and wind reports generated this spring

1:54:45were very thorough and very reassuring,

1:54:47and I thank you sincerely.

1:54:49And for all of us, we went through an OMB appeal

1:54:5310 years ago, as you know,

1:54:54and we respect the decisions made there.

1:54:58We saw at the time that we were listened to

1:55:00and that the process was formal and transparent.

1:55:03And furthermore, although we went wild about the rezoning,

1:55:06we did get a few concessions based on member Denhouse's

1:55:10recognition and his citing of precedent

1:55:13that special considerations are needed

1:55:15when very high density housing is placed near low density.

1:55:24But fast forward a decade,

1:55:26and in February, we were invited to a neighborhood meeting

1:55:29by the developer held at your request.

1:55:32Just two topics were covered at this meeting.

1:55:35One was a strange bid to change what a unit meant,

1:55:39and the other was what it would be like to live in this building

1:55:41with many images of glossy sports facilities.

1:55:45So it was a pretty weird evening.

1:55:48And over the following weeks, however,

1:55:51as we compared the old approved plan with the new plan,

1:55:56we discovered three worrying changes

1:55:58that were not mentioned at all at this meeting,

1:56:01let alone raised for discussion.

1:56:04First, in the original OMB approved plan,

1:56:07balconies and openable windows were avoided

1:56:10explicitly to control noise,

1:56:12but in the new plan, there were now three open

1:56:15sort of party terraces overlooking our houses.

1:56:19Second, in the original approved plan,

1:56:22the service road along the east of the site

1:56:25was set back eight to nine meters

1:56:28from the border with Evergreen Drive.

1:56:31But in the new plan, that service road

1:56:33is only three to four meters away.

1:56:36And to accommodate the movement of this road

1:56:38closer to us, 45 trees are being cut down.

1:56:42And this brings me to the third difference

1:56:44or the third change.

1:56:46The original plan approved by the OMB

1:56:49preserved the Evergreen Trees that our street is named after

1:56:54and that were there before the street was built.

1:56:56This is a stand of Evergreens

1:56:58along the west side of Evergreen Drive

1:57:01and they're now about 80 years old.

1:57:04For us, this beautiful strip of woodland

1:57:06provides shade in the summer

1:57:08and is home to foxes, merlins, flickers and more.

1:57:12And the developers had recognized it as a natural sound

1:57:15and visual barrier between the neighborhood

1:57:17and the development.

1:57:19But in the new plan, essentially all the trees,

1:57:22their side of the property line are now being chopped down.

1:57:26So of the 45, that includes all 33

1:57:29of the large decades old Evergreen Trees

1:57:32that are now theirs.

1:57:35This is despite the city's own policy

1:57:37aiming for a well-treated gulf, an urban canopy

1:57:42in which mature trees are recognized as especially valuable.

1:57:46And it's also despite the new plan terraces

1:57:49making a natural sound and visual barrier

1:57:52even more important than it was before.

1:57:56As well as these three specific concerns,

1:57:58we're unnerved by the impactful ways

1:58:00the plans for this site have shifted and drifted

1:58:03since the OMB decision

1:58:05and the ways in which we had to figure this out for ourselves.

1:58:08It feels to us as though developers can win an OMB decision

1:58:12and yet still want and push for more and more

1:58:15with city stimp simply conceding

1:58:17with no meaningful public consultation.

1:58:20The service road should be moved several meters back westward

1:58:24as in the original plan.

1:58:26The mature stand of trees should be left intact

1:58:29as a valuable part of the city's urban forest

1:58:32and there should not be open terraces

1:58:33especially if these trees are to be destroyed.

1:58:37So we ask that the application is denied

1:58:39in its current form.

1:58:40Thank you very much.

1:58:42Thank you very much.

1:58:43Oh, so this is where I get to jump in

1:58:52and just to say we don't allow that in here at all.

1:58:55So just from our procedural bylaw for decorum,

1:59:00we just don't allow any of that at all.

1:59:02So I'll let that one go this time

1:59:04but please don't do anything more.

1:59:06And the reason why we do that is just to allow differences

1:59:09of opinions in this room.

1:59:12It's important that we have someone come before you,

1:59:16someone that might come after you

1:59:17and differences of opinion have to be free flowing

1:59:20without sort of any of that as well.

1:59:22So please just don't do the hooting hollering

1:59:26and keep decorum if you don't mind, please.

1:59:27Thank you.

1:59:28But please don't go anywhere.

1:59:29Thank you for your presentation.

1:59:31Let me see if there's a follow up question

1:59:32for you from anybody, okay?

1:59:34There isn't, so thank you very much.

1:59:36I appreciate it.

1:59:37And we have one more, Bill Mungle is here.

1:59:41Come on down Bill.

1:59:50And thank you Bill for coming

1:59:51and I'll turn it over to you whenever you're ready.

1:59:56Your Worship, Councillors.

1:59:57I'll be speaking also in favor of a refusal of this application.

2:00:03This is a file where it may be helpful

2:00:05to quickly review the history of the site just quickly.

2:00:09The developer's application was refused by the city

2:00:11in 2011, was appealed to the developer to the OMB.

2:00:14City and Mayfield Association residents defended the appeal

2:00:18at a lengthy hearing, which was essentially won

2:00:21by the developer in 2013.

2:00:23So the table was all set for the development to proceed

2:00:27with some 1,200 students about to be housed,

2:00:30but then nothing happened for a decade.

2:00:35Whatever accounts for this lapse of the next 10 years

2:00:38is something only the developer can explain.

2:00:40But had they started construction in 2013,

2:00:43it's fair to say this would have had quite a positive effect

2:00:46on the local rental market.

2:00:48So 10 years on, the developer seems to realize

2:00:51that maybe they aired and delayed,

2:00:52and now they want to realize on their investment

2:00:55and then some to make up for a lost decade.

2:00:59So they returned with this similar application,

2:01:02adjusted slightly for a different interior design,

2:01:06and had they left it at that,

2:01:08the neighborhood probably, I'm guessing,

2:01:11would have rested content given the finality

2:01:14of the 2013 OMB decision,

2:01:16and you probably would not even have

2:01:18any delegations here tonight.

2:01:20But this developer's come to an instinct

2:01:22to ring every last dollar out of this site

2:01:26by making some quite unnecessary changes

2:01:29in the current application.

2:01:30As George has summarized pretty well.

2:01:32By adding the inexpensive amenity

2:01:35of three large rooftop terraces or party patios,

2:01:39each featuring a bar, barbecues, lounge seating,

2:01:43and games courts, they could justify

2:01:45both higher rents and condo sales prices.

2:01:48By making the footprint of the buildings larger,

2:01:51they could justify removing most of the trees

2:01:54that would have been retained

2:01:55in the original application from 2010.

2:01:58If approved by you tonight,

2:02:01both these changes will significantly impact

2:02:03the adjacent residential neighborhood,

2:02:05and especially from the noise

2:02:07from the third floor rooftop patios.

2:02:10Your approval today would also set

2:02:13a very impactful and harmful precedent

2:02:16regarding the same developer's days in,

2:02:18just down the road at 785 Gordon.

2:02:21There, the developer proposes not just three,

2:02:25but 21 terraces, plus 60 balconies.

2:02:30And that site surrounded by residences on not one,

2:02:33but three sides.

2:02:35By the adding of terraces to 716 Gordon,

2:02:38the developer is counting on your approval

2:02:41of this precedent to support its days in application.

2:02:46And your approval will also undermine your own staff

2:02:49who are presently involved in a tribunal-ordered mediation

2:02:53of the developer's days in proposal.

2:02:56The city regulates noise from restaurant and bar patios,

2:03:00taking care to avoid impacts on residential properties.

2:03:04Why couldn't the city also regulate bars and patios

2:03:07on residential terraces as not this already

2:03:10been researched thoroughly by the city?

2:03:13Even the developer's own planners, GSP, who just left,

2:03:17wrote in their initial planning justification report

2:03:20that balconies, much less terraces,

2:03:23would be inappropriate on this site.

2:03:26Even the infamous student residences at Chancellor's Way

2:03:30don't feature outdoor party patios,

2:03:33but with the noise from the terraces,

2:03:35716 Gordon will become an even more infamous

2:03:39Chancellor's Way East.

2:03:41Now, the city fears that its refusal

2:03:44will result in yet another developer's appeal

2:03:47and yet another long delay

2:03:48before bringing these units to market.

2:03:51But please think through this alternate scenario.

2:03:55A city refusal could be coupled with the city's invitation

2:03:58to the developer to return in a few months

2:04:00with a slightly revised application

2:04:02that would simply delete the party patios

2:04:05and save the landmark evergreens at the rear of the property.

2:04:08Council approval would undoubtedly become forthcoming

2:04:12over the winter and construction would begin

2:04:15well before the spring.

2:04:17Clearly, the developer would be foolish

2:04:19to appeal any refusal of this application

2:04:23as that would tie up their financing for far longer.

2:04:26Why?

2:04:27Because appeals take close to a year to schedule

2:04:29at the tribunal because appeals are expensive

2:04:32and because the outcome is still uncertain for the developer.

2:04:36To protect neighborhoods from nuisance noise,

2:04:41the city must be resolute and refuse this application.

2:04:45Thank you.

2:04:46Great, thank you, Bill.

2:04:48And just before you go away,

2:04:49just to see if there's another follow-up question.

2:04:52No, you can go away then.

2:04:53Oh, yep, sorry, Councillor Downer has one.

2:04:56So through you, Mr. Mungle,

2:04:58is it your understanding that these terraces then

2:05:02have licensed patios, like at the license,

2:05:06they're an actual licensed commercial bar?

2:05:09It'd be an event-related permit.

2:05:13That is in the...

2:05:14For permits.

2:05:15Yeah, it is in the Planning Justification Report

2:05:17that the developer submitted, yes.

2:05:19Okay, thanks.

2:05:23Great, that's it, thank you, Bill.

2:05:25Thank you very much.

2:05:27Oh, sorry, Councillor Billings,

2:05:29did you have a question for the delegate or?

2:05:31Yeah, just real quick.

2:05:32Through you.

2:05:33Okay, go ahead.

2:05:34The first delegate mentioned that there was a meeting

2:05:38with the neighbors and the neighbors had concerns.

2:05:41Was there any follow-up with the neighbors

2:05:44and their concerns with the developer since then?

2:05:49Well, I'm not sure if Bill was at that meeting.

2:05:52We can ask Bill,

2:05:52were you at that first meeting as well or no?

2:05:55I was, yes.

2:05:56Okay, are you able to answer, Councillor?

2:05:58I wasn't invited, but I went anyway.

2:06:00Yeah.

2:06:01I'm not, I can't speak to whether the adjacent residents

2:06:06were contacted for follow-up.

2:06:09I didn't hear any mention of that in the meeting though.

2:06:12Okay, thank you.

2:06:13Thank you.

2:06:16Okay, Councillor Chew has a question.

2:06:19Thank you, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Mungle.

2:06:23I'm just trying to understand if you don't like the terraces,

2:06:29what alternative uses do you see in that area

2:06:33if you could have it your way?

2:06:35On the location where the terraces?

2:06:38Where the three terraces are.

2:06:40I don't know, haven't thought about that, frankly.

2:06:45I would suspect a green roof might be a useful alternative.

2:06:49Okay, thank you.

2:06:52Great, I'm seeing and hearing nothing more.

2:06:54Thank you, Bill.

2:06:55Thank you very much.

2:06:57Okay, it's back to us, Council.

2:07:00And so before we begin,

2:07:02would someone at least be willing to move the recommendation

2:07:04and second it please to put it on the floor?

2:07:10Yep, Councillor Work, thank you.

2:07:12Seconded by Councillor Richardson, thank you.

2:07:14And how about we start with just questions at this time?

2:07:17So I'll start with Downer and then Boussatil.

2:07:21Yeah, I have a few questions that through you, Mr. Mayor,

2:07:25staff, so the terraces,

2:07:28are terraces allowed in the Zoting By-law regularly?

2:07:31Like we have the, I guess,

2:07:32because we have them at downtown Tri-Cars.

2:07:35So they would normally be allowed.

2:07:40Is that what, in a regular apartment building,

2:07:43is that, what am I understanding?

2:07:47Through you, Margarita, Councillor Downer, that's correct.

2:07:50Generally a rooftop terrace is exempt

2:07:53from being considered a story

2:07:57or considered part of the building height,

2:07:58as long as it has a very minimal access point to it.

2:08:04So it's generally not considered part of the building

2:08:07and generally permitted.

2:08:09And through the zoning, can we say

2:08:13that there would be no licensing,

2:08:16liquor licensing, alcohol licensing on the terrace

2:08:20in this use for this amenity?

2:08:31Through you, Margarita, I don't believe

2:08:33that that's a considered zoning issue, right?

2:08:36It's a separate process to acquire a liquor license.

2:08:40Okay.

2:08:44Is it possible, if this is approved,

2:08:47that at site plan, there can be a way

2:08:50to develop the terraces so that there are high barriers

2:08:54along the side, glass barriers,

2:08:55or some kind of wooden barriers that would block,

2:09:00I would think create blocked noise

2:09:02and safety issues from my perspective.

2:09:05It's one of the reasons why they don't put

2:09:07balconies on student housing.

2:09:10So how can we make it safer

2:09:12and reduce any noise over spilled to the neighborhood?

2:09:20That can definitely be part of the consideration

2:09:23through site plan.

2:09:24Through the site plan, right?

2:09:25So that's not something we can do here.

2:09:29How many trees, so my understanding is

2:09:33that you've recommended approval

2:09:36based on the modifications that were,

2:09:40and that the developer is not completely in agreement

2:09:44with these modifications.

2:09:46I've seen a letter that they're not in agreement.

2:09:49Is that the case?

2:09:52Through you, Margarita,

2:09:53I'll through you to Councillor Downer.

2:09:54That's my understanding as well.

2:09:56So we have recommended a six meter landscape buffer

2:10:00along the Easterly property line

2:10:02to both possibly save a few more of the trees,

2:10:06definitely not all of them,

2:10:07but also provide a better opportunity for replanting

2:10:10and better quality landscaping along that side of the site.

2:10:14Okay, so the developer is not in agreement.

2:10:16So they could appeal anyway,

2:10:18whichever way we go on this.

2:10:22Yes, the developer would have the right to.

2:10:24So how many trees are we gonna be saving

2:10:26with the six meter?

2:10:27I noticed the urban design thinks that one is,

2:10:30their preference is 7.5, but the six meters is,

2:10:35I think how many trees would we be saving on that?

2:10:40What would happen is at site plan,

2:10:42revised a tree preservation plan would be submitted,

2:10:46and we'd know from that.

2:10:47We don't have an exact number at this point.

2:10:51The noise report that is referenced

2:10:56for the noise impact study,

2:11:01there was seem to be some confusion

2:11:02some of the correspondence from the neighborhood

2:11:06that the noise impact study was from the terraces

2:11:09to the neighborhood, but actually it's from traffic

2:11:13to the amenity area.

2:11:14Is that the case?

2:11:17Terraces.

2:11:18That's correct.

2:11:19In order to meet our city noise guidelines,

2:11:22essentially we have to ensure that the amenity areas

2:11:26meet minimum requirements to not be too noisy

2:11:32so that there are acceptable places for people to use,

2:11:36essentially.

2:11:37So the noise would be offsite noise onto those spaces.

2:11:42Okay.

2:11:43There's also been some requests for delay.

2:11:46My understanding is that we need to make a decision tonight

2:11:51because we're in the provincial timeline

2:11:55and that it can't go any longer.

2:11:56Is that my understanding too?

2:11:58That's correct.

2:12:01We're at the end of the timeline tonight.

2:12:04Okay.

2:12:05Is there any opportunity in site plan

2:12:07to move the service road further away

2:12:09in order to create, make sure that six meter buffer?

2:12:15It's definitely that something

2:12:17that can be considered at site plan.

2:12:19It's not something that can be required at site plan.

2:12:26Okay.

2:12:27Those are all the questions I have,

2:12:30but Mr. Mayor, I have an amendment when the motion comes.

2:12:35Now?

2:12:35Yeah, sure.

2:12:36Okay.

2:12:37So a number of the issues,

2:12:38and I sent it to staff earlier.

2:12:40I just have to find it now.

2:12:42A number of the issues are related to,

2:12:45if staff could put it up on the screen,

2:12:48it's related to site plan.

2:12:50A number of the issues that we've heard are dealt

2:12:53with at site plan.

2:12:54They're not dealt with through the zoning bylaw.

2:12:57And I, city council has delegate site plan approval

2:13:02to city staff.

2:13:05In the past though,

2:13:06when there's been a number of issues at outstanding issues

2:13:10from a site plan perspective,

2:13:12council has requested that the neighborhood

2:13:16be allowed to come and view and provide feedback

2:13:20onto this site plan.

2:13:22And so that's the motion I'd like to move for this one.

2:13:25Richardson is seconded.

2:13:27Richardson is seconded.

2:13:28That's the motion I'd like to move for this one.

2:13:31It doesn't take that delegated authority away from staff.

2:13:34And it's, you know, it usually in the past involves

2:13:37staff contacting the lead person of that neighborhood group

2:13:40and inviting them in to view and provide feedback

2:13:44on the site plan.

2:13:45And this is what we've done in the past

2:13:47on situations like this.

2:13:49So if this is approved,

2:13:52I would like to have that stipulation put in.

2:13:57Sounds good.

2:13:59Okay. We're good.

2:14:00It's been moved and seconded.

2:14:03Maybe you'll just ask a quick question to staff.

2:14:05Krista, is there any, any issue with that?

2:14:07Do you find a collaborative approach?

2:14:12Through the mayor, we have no concerns.

2:14:13It's only been a past practice in the past.

2:14:16And we're happy to entertain it,

2:14:18recognizing that all input may or may not be considered,

2:14:22but we will certainly give the residents an opportunity

2:14:25to know exactly what's proposed.

2:14:29Well, then I'll, okay.

2:14:31I was going to call the vote on this amendment,

2:14:33but Dan Gibson, Councillor Gibson is first.

2:14:36Go ahead.

2:14:37Just a question to staff.

2:14:39I'm sure it's happened.

2:14:40I just don't recall the last time it happened.

2:14:43Can staff give me some examples when we've used this file?

2:14:47Again, I'm not, I'm not opposed to it.

2:14:48I just trying to remember the last time

2:14:50we did something like this.

2:15:00So offhand, so I don't know all of them,

2:15:02but definitely this site in the past,

2:15:06we've contacted the neighborhood group

2:15:08when a site plan submission has been made

2:15:09and neighbors have come in and viewed the site plan.

2:15:17Okay. But I mean, it was just,

2:15:19I just heard it a few times that it's past practice to do,

2:15:22but we can't recall when we've done it.

2:15:25Well, definitely for this site several times in the past,

2:15:29there's been several site plan submissions

2:15:31previous to this application where,

2:15:33where neighbors came in offhand.

2:15:37I can't think of any other sites off the top of my head,

2:15:39but I also believe that there's been several others

2:15:43in the past.

2:15:46Okay.

2:15:49Great. Thank you, Councillor.

2:15:50Yeah, I can't put my finger on exactly one,

2:15:53but I remember a few over the years too.

2:15:57Usually when there's,

2:15:59it's a good collaboration really at the end of the day.

2:16:02So, okay, I'll call the vote on this amendment then.

2:16:07Oh, sorry, you had a question on this amendment.

2:16:08I'm so sorry. I thought you were on the main motion.

2:16:10I'm so sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.

2:16:11No, thank you. And through the mayor to the staff,

2:16:13just to clarification, I'm sure I've heard this,

2:16:15that the site plan comments can be considered,

2:16:19but are not required.

2:16:20And my understanding is that they're not appealable either.

2:16:24Is that correct?

2:16:30That's correct.

2:16:31We would definitely welcome neighborhood feedback,

2:16:34but the site plan is not appealable by the neighborhood.

2:16:42Okay. Well, let me just call the vote on Cathy's motion.

2:16:46Okay. Is anyone against that?

2:16:49No, that's unanimous then.

2:16:51So that, thank you, Councillor.

2:16:54Let me go to, I think I have,

2:16:58going back to my main list, Boussatil was next.

2:17:01Then O'Rourke was next.

2:17:03And then I believe Claeson and Ault.

2:17:05Okay.

2:17:07Thank you. And through the mayor,

2:17:09just a question for the staff.

2:17:11The delegation spoke about the OMB,

2:17:14and that, you know, it's been a number of years,

2:17:16a number of iterations and so on.

2:17:18Can you just comment on whether or not this new plan

2:17:22still conforms to the expectation

2:17:25and the intent of the terms of the OMB decision?

2:17:35Through you, Margarita, and Councillor Busuttil.

2:17:39I would say that the proposal is generally in keeping

2:17:43with most aspects of the original OMB decision.

2:17:48The building has changed a number of times

2:17:53since the original application, the OMB decision,

2:17:56and through several earlier site plan submissions.

2:18:00So the building has changed.

2:18:01One of the key differences, I would say,

2:18:03is the driveway entrance on the Easterly side.

2:18:07Previous iterations had more of an internal driveway

2:18:11through the building.

2:18:13And I think that's the most significant change,

2:18:18which then affected that landscaping

2:18:21along the Easterly side of the site.

2:18:22But generally, it is more units,

2:18:26but the same number of bedrooms,

2:18:27a very similar number of parking spaces,

2:18:31and similar amounts of amenity area.

2:18:33Those types of considerations

2:18:35are all relatively the same.

2:18:37Thank you.

2:18:38And my second question is,

2:18:39I see a lot of student residents,

2:18:41but this is a rental residential building.

2:18:45Who occupies it, whether it's seniors or whatever,

2:18:49is immaterial.

2:18:50It is not a designated institution for students.

2:18:57Yes, through you, Margarita,

2:18:58Councillor Busuttil again.

2:18:59That is the case.

2:19:01Staff have recommended that the site

2:19:03just be considered an apartment building

2:19:05because whether the future tenants,

2:19:09our students or not,

2:19:11is not a planning consideration for the site.

2:19:16Thank you.

2:19:17And it's probably not a planning consideration,

2:19:18but do we know the type of ownership for this?

2:19:21Is it condominium?

2:19:22Is it, do we have that information?

2:19:28At this time, we expect that the site would be rental,

2:19:31but whether there's a condominium aspect to it or not,

2:19:35hasn't been determined yet,

2:19:37and we don't often know that that's the case

2:19:41until an application is at site planner

2:19:44or even after sometimes.

2:19:46Thank you.

2:19:48Thank you for your questions.

2:19:50O'Rourke, then Cossin.

2:19:52Thank you.

2:19:53Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, through you to staff.

2:19:55So at the statutory public meeting,

2:19:57I asked the proponent about the grade

2:20:01at the intersection of Gordon and Stone

2:20:03and also the preservation of the trees.

2:20:05If I recall correctly, their answer was,

2:20:07any trees that are inside the property line are gone

2:20:10and anything that's outside can stay.

2:20:13Have we had a chance to take a look?

2:20:15Because when I drive past there, usually I'm driving,

2:20:19it feels like most of those trees are gonna go.

2:20:22So will there be retention of any of the mature trees

2:20:25along Gordon and Stone at all?

2:20:31So just to clarify, the trees that are on the site

2:20:36or along the frontages of Gordon and Stone?

2:20:38So also I don't know magically

2:20:41where the property line is, right?

2:20:43So when you're at Gordon and Stone,

2:20:46there are a bunch of mature trees

2:20:47that have had all this tree protection

2:20:49for 10 years at least, right?

2:20:51And some are failing, but some are still appealing

2:20:55and add to the context of the street.

2:20:57So will any of those trees remain

2:20:59or are they are goners as well?

2:21:03It's my understanding that most of the on-site trees

2:21:06are expected to be removed.

2:21:08So I would assume most of them,

2:21:10but trees that are protected,

2:21:13I'm not aware of and if there are like any trees

2:21:19on city property, there'd be a great deal of effort

2:21:22to continue to maintain and preserve.

2:21:24Okay, thanks.

2:21:25Three, two planning staff.

2:21:28It looks like the staff recommendation reduces,

2:21:32so it's planning staff recommendation,

2:21:35reduce required off street parking of 0.54 spaces per unit,

2:21:42plus a total of 15 visitor parking spaces,

2:21:45but the proponents language was minimum

2:21:49of 15 visitor parking spaces.

2:21:51So why would staff reduce the potential number

2:21:56of visitor spaces on the site?

2:22:00So I'm looking at page four of six of the staff report.

2:22:04Says planning staff recommends some modifications

2:22:07and it is one, two, three, four.

2:22:10The fifth bullet, right?

2:22:12So it says reduce required off street parking

2:22:15of 0.54 spaces per unit,

2:22:18plus a total of 15 visitor parking spaces.

2:22:21But then when I scroll up to the

2:22:26proposed zoning bylaw amendment,

2:22:28it says revised off street parking ratio

2:22:31of 0.25 parking spaces per bedroom, right?

2:22:34So we went unit rather than bedroom

2:22:37and a minimum of 15 visitor parking spaces.

2:22:41So that the way I read it was they were saying,

2:22:44we'll put in at least 15 visitor spaces.

2:22:47And now the city is saying it's a maximum of 15 visitors.

2:22:50And I'm trying to understand the rationale.

2:22:55Through you, America.

2:22:56Through you to Councillor O'Rourke.

2:22:58So it is the case that it hasn't changed.

2:23:00It would still be a minimum of 15 visitor spaces.

2:23:03So I guess the idea there was the rate

2:23:08was being measured in a different way for the per unit.

2:23:11So it was 0.54 per unit together with a total,

2:23:15like both are a minimum.

2:23:16So a minimum of 0.54 per unit and a total of 15

2:23:22is a minimum of 15 as well.

2:23:23And that's better articulated.

2:23:25I would say in attachment four,

2:23:27where the proposed regulations are listed.

2:23:31So in attachment four, where it shows the proposed zoning,

2:23:36it does say a minimum rate of 0.54 parking spaces

2:23:41per dwelling unit and a minimum of 15 visitor parking spaces.

2:23:46So that gives me comfort.

2:23:48It's not a cap for 1,000 students.

2:23:51We're not saying maximum 15 visitors.

2:23:53No, it's also a minimum.

2:23:55Okay, thank you.

2:23:56And through you, Mayor Guthrie,

2:23:58my other sort of technical question is

2:24:00secondary vehicular access is proposed from Gordon, right?

2:24:06So a couple of years back,

2:24:08the city tried a bus only lane at that intersection,

2:24:12sort of leading up.

2:24:14And it was very, very difficult for people to navigate in

2:24:18or out from the center lane with the buses going.

2:24:22And so was that considered as part of the plan?

2:24:25So our transportation master plan, I don't like it,

2:24:29but it says eventually we're gonna go to transit lanes, right?

2:24:33And so I'm thinking about the ease of turning into

2:24:38that building at Gordon,

2:24:40if that is a dedicated transit lane.

2:24:43Has that been factored in?

2:24:50Your mic's not on.

2:24:51Sorry.

2:24:53Through you, Mayor Guthrie, to Councillor Oroarke.

2:24:55So it has, I would say that the detailed design

2:25:00of that access will be reviewed further at site plans.

2:25:06So at this stage, it's been a higher level review

2:25:12by our traffic, transportation,

2:25:15and transportation demand management staff at this point.

2:25:20They were satisfied that a location,

2:25:22an access at that location was possible,

2:25:25but the detailed design would follow.

2:25:27Okay, so I would just put that as a concern for me

2:25:29in terms of what's happening at that intersection.

2:25:34Thanks.

2:25:38Quas and then Alt.

2:25:41Thank you.

2:25:42And through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff,

2:25:44I have a question with regards to a letter

2:25:47that was sent by the university

2:25:49for the statutory public meeting.

2:25:51In their letter, they expressed a few concerns

2:25:53that they had and one, I think, was particularly around

2:25:56the naming of this type of zoning.

2:25:58I would think it was like a student residence

2:26:00or something specific to that.

2:26:02I just wanted to know,

2:26:03because there's no correspondence from them,

2:26:06I wanted to ask if you knew if the university

2:26:09had satisfied some of the concerns that they had

2:26:12with the plan?

2:26:17Well, through you, Mayor Guthrie, to Councillor Klassen.

2:26:20My understanding is that the university's concern

2:26:23was related to the original definition for the site,

2:26:27which was a post-secondary student,

2:26:31I'm sorry, I don't have it off in residence,

2:26:35and they wanted to add the term private

2:26:37post-secondary residence, so the word private in front

2:26:40to note that it wasn't affiliated with the university.

2:26:44Our recommendation is to remove that definition

2:26:46altogether and just consider the use

2:26:49to be an apartment building.

2:26:50So I haven't heard directly from the university,

2:26:54but we don't believe that that would be a concern

2:26:58in this situation.

2:27:00Okay, thank you.

2:27:03I did want to make, I guess I want a clarification

2:27:08because I think I already know the answer to this question,

2:27:10but did we ask post-statutory public meeting,

2:27:14did we connect specifically with the developer

2:27:17on our request to preserve as many of those

2:27:20mature trees as possible?

2:27:22Because it seems like, and maybe I'm referring to,

2:27:25and you can clarify for this,

2:27:27because I think Mr. Mungle referenced

2:27:29that there's actually less of the trees being preserved now

2:27:31because you've got the laneway that's on,

2:27:35that's coming out on this side of the property.

2:27:38And so it actually reduces that space even more so.

2:27:41I just wanted to clarify that.

2:27:47So under our current planning process,

2:27:51we only review the application once

2:27:54before we get it back to council

2:27:55within the required 120 days.

2:27:58So our recommendation was to increase

2:28:01the landscape buffer width to six meters

2:28:04along those easterly property lines,

2:28:06but we have not had any discussions with the developer

2:28:09about saving additional trees.

2:28:14Okay, so if I understand correctly,

2:28:16there's the statutory meeting,

2:28:17then you provide the recommendation for the buffer,

2:28:20they review it, and then they send in their draft edits

2:28:25to this meeting.

2:28:28Well, what I'm saying is that we don't have

2:28:30that back and forth process

2:28:34within the 120 day statutory requirements.

2:28:38We just have time to complete the review

2:28:41and complete the recommendation to council.

2:28:44Okay, thank you.

2:28:47Alt then chew.

2:28:50Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:28:51Mine are gonna be comments,

2:28:52so if you wish to go to Councillor Chew,

2:28:55I'll wait.

2:28:56Yeah, thank you very much.

2:28:57She had two questions.

2:28:59Through you, Mr. Mayor, I'll make this quick.

2:29:02I think I kind of know the answer already,

2:29:04but just to staff,

2:29:05I took a look at the urban design review

2:29:08that without source of the consultant on page 17,

2:29:11there's some recommendations

2:29:12on how the tarances could be better programmed.

2:29:16I was just wondering how receptive have they been

2:29:20to this review being considered

2:29:24and yeah, could you just kind of share

2:29:27just in the public realm

2:29:28that back and forth progress and dialogue, if you may.

2:29:33Through you, Mayor Guthrie, to Councillor Chew,

2:29:36we expect that dialogue to take place

2:29:39with their pre consultation for their site plan application.

2:29:43And just a quick follow up.

2:29:45There's an expectation that there'd be some kind of dialogue

2:29:47and that they'd be willing and considerate

2:29:50of some of the community needs

2:29:51based off of this review.

2:29:55We would definitely refer back to the urban design review

2:29:59and look to accommodate as many of the recommendations

2:30:01as we can.

2:30:05Thank you.

2:30:05Okay, I don't have anything more for questions on this.

2:30:08So I am back to the main motion as amended

2:30:12with Councillor Downer's additional motion there.

2:30:17So I have no questions myself.

2:30:20Some of my questions were answered.

2:30:21I did have some, but some of them were already asked

2:30:23for me.

2:30:25So we're at comments time right now.

2:30:30Councillor Allt, I did hear you say that you have a comment.

2:30:32Do you mind if I go to you first,

2:30:33just because you mentioned it?

2:30:35I don't mind at all.

2:30:36Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:30:38I do want to thank both the delegates

2:30:40and my colleagues for asking some significant questions

2:30:43and raising some significant concerns.

2:30:47I will state right off the bat, I might be alone in this,

2:30:50but I will not be supporting this motion.

2:30:53And it's not because of the setback,

2:30:56the change from eight and nine meters down to three to four,

2:30:59or the losing of the trees,

2:31:01contrary to the principle that is identified by Mr. Mungle,

2:31:04that Guelph is a tree city.

2:31:06And it's not even the terraces and the balconies,

2:31:09and I do recognize that an appropriate setback

2:31:13is good for the health and the well-being of the hood,

2:31:15and that there's a challenge in this site

2:31:17because the transition zone is virtually non-existent.

2:31:20Whether it becomes Chancellor's way,

2:31:22Easter, not who knows.

2:31:24But what really concerns me was I attended

2:31:26the University of Guelph at a time when a student was killed

2:31:31when he decided to jump off the South Residences

2:31:34at a time when alcohol was present in virtually

2:31:37every building of the University of Guelph.

2:31:41And I have a real concern with the whole issue

2:31:44of alcohol being available,

2:31:46and what for all intents and purposes

2:31:49is a student residence?

2:31:51And I'm gonna be very clear on that

2:31:52with all due respect to my colleague,

2:31:55Councillor Boussatiel and her question.

2:31:58Perhaps it is not a residence by definition,

2:32:02but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,

2:32:05it's a de facto student resident.

2:32:08And as a consequence of that,

2:32:09because kids at age 17 aren't necessarily imbued

2:32:13with a tremendous amount of common sense,

2:32:15a terrace is a dangerous place

2:32:17when you mix alcohol, young people, and Friday nights.

2:32:23Consequently, I can't support this

2:32:25because I think that what we are doing

2:32:27is that we are potentially putting kids in harm's way.

2:32:30Something the University learned about in the 1980s

2:32:33was inappropriate and something which led

2:32:35to a tremendous amount of alcohol

2:32:37being driven off campus at that point.

2:32:39And I don't wanna see a repeat.

2:32:44Chew, and then a work please.

2:32:48Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you.

2:32:52I just a few quick comments.

2:32:53I do have a bit of a different perspective

2:32:56and I like to share that perspective

2:32:58because I feel like it's often underappreciated.

2:33:03Like I come from a different generation.

2:33:05In fact, when I first came to Guelph over eight years ago,

2:33:10this was one of the first places that I stayed at.

2:33:12It was back then it was the best Western.

2:33:15And it was fantastic.

2:33:17If met the community's needs, I had a great experience.

2:33:22I've also been to your neighborhood as well

2:33:25to the delegates and the audience.

2:33:26And you guys have a beautiful neighborhood

2:33:28it's well maintained.

2:33:30I really appreciate the candor as well

2:33:32that you guys have, especially all these years

2:33:35to engage with the developers on this file.

2:33:40I do think we are in a bit of a tight situation here

2:33:44as members of council and as members of city staff.

2:33:47There are a lot of regulatory needs that have to be met

2:33:50and we have very stringent timelines

2:33:52in which we can address all these concerns.

2:33:55I just wanna give some thanks to our staff

2:33:59for having undergone this or been designed review.

2:34:03And I do wanna say to the audience here tonight

2:34:07that there are opportunities

2:34:10whether you think the expectations

2:34:12will be met completely to engage through pre consultation

2:34:15and through my colleagues amendment that was made tonight.

2:34:20I do think there are a lot of opportunities

2:34:22to really engage and consider

2:34:25what is the actual programming for those terraces

2:34:28and how do we make it viable for people

2:34:30that want to live here in the future?

2:34:32Because just from my past experience,

2:34:34I was a university student.

2:34:36I didn't party nearly as much as I maybe could or should

2:34:41but I didn't party.

2:34:46I lived in Solstice

2:34:47and I didn't necessarily appreciate

2:34:49some of the parting that took place

2:34:51but it's just something that we have to learn to work with

2:34:56and be accommodating for.

2:34:58And I know that's gonna raise a few ivows here tonight

2:35:00with those comments but like those,

2:35:03I wanna say as well,

2:35:04there are a lot of new families

2:35:06that are moving into these units

2:35:08and that it's not completely designated for students

2:35:11and while the lifestyle may be not completely the same

2:35:14as you or I because most of us we drive,

2:35:18there are ample amenities and opportunities

2:35:21for a new lifestyle in this area

2:35:24that is compatible with our values as a community

2:35:29and I do think that's something that's worth considering

2:35:31so we can have more,

2:35:33candor and pragmatic dialogue with our development community

2:35:38because if we don't get through this divide,

2:35:40like I don't think,

2:35:41I don't know how we're able to move forward

2:35:44and I know that provincially,

2:35:48it's quite a difficult situation

2:35:51that we're dealing with regulatory

2:35:53through the regulatory process

2:35:54and there are a lot of uncertainties as well

2:35:56but we as a municipality do have to take a stand

2:35:59and find a way to move forward

2:36:01so there can be some incentives for us

2:36:03to be able to work more practically

2:36:07because I think what we have here

2:36:08is really beautiful in the world.

2:36:10We have a lot of great spirit when it comes to engaging

2:36:18with our development partners.

2:36:21That's kind of how I got my start last year

2:36:24when I decided to run for office.

2:36:26I came because I wanted to save some trees

2:36:27next to the natural heritage feature

2:36:29and I didn't necessarily get my way completely

2:36:32but I was able to shape the process

2:36:35and also help bring about some new perspectives

2:36:39to my neighborhood which was well received

2:36:42but I do think there's a lot of room to still work

2:36:45through this process and I hope that we don't let our guard

2:36:48down and become apathetic

2:36:50because your voices are still necessary

2:36:53but at the same time we also have to recognize

2:36:55the new paradigm that we're living in as well

2:36:58in this environment and look contextually

2:37:01to see what are the solutions.

2:37:03I thank staff as well for that urban design recommendations.

2:37:07I hope that there's some dialogue that can be put forward

2:37:12and I just want to yield my time

2:37:14and thank you for the time for commenting here tonight.

2:37:17Of course, counselor, thank you.

2:37:19I'll go to your colleague, O'Rourke

2:37:21and then just over here to Clauss and thank you.

2:37:24And then Kate and I see you on the screen too, okay?

2:37:27Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

2:37:29So I commend the neighborhood that's been engaged

2:37:33for well over a decade and it's tough to be in these files

2:37:38and to go to trial hearings.

2:37:42It's frustrating that this builder has been able

2:37:45to build since 2013, ostensibly what is before us tonight

2:37:49with the exception of the road and the terraces

2:37:51and those things so I completely hear you when you say

2:37:54if they had just done what the OMB told them they could do

2:37:57then we wouldn't be here tonight.

2:37:59Totally understand and empathize.

2:38:01And at the same time, we desperately need

2:38:04the purpose built rental.

2:38:05We know what the context is in the province of Ontario tonight

2:38:10and we need to consider the likelihood

2:38:12that we would be successful if we turned down the proposal

2:38:15and went to an appeal and that probability is very low.

2:38:19So I don't have appetite for a delay on that

2:38:22and additional cost when the need

2:38:24for those units is significant.

2:38:28I don't believe that availability of alcohol

2:38:30combined with balconies is a planning justification

2:38:34that there are people over the age of 19

2:38:36and buildings all across the city

2:38:37and we have no control over that.

2:38:40What I think is really important

2:38:42from a policy and governance level is that staff

2:38:46have required to continue to measure

2:38:50in terms of units per hectare

2:38:52and not to create a new category with bedrooms.

2:38:56And really critical is to not budge

2:38:59on the creation of a new category

2:39:01called private post-secondary school residents

2:39:04or anything like that because we heard

2:39:06there's no way to control who can rent

2:39:08or potentially buy a unit there.

2:39:10And at risk with a label like that

2:39:13or potential payment of development charges

2:39:15and you see what the amount is in the report

2:39:17and property taxes, we cannot afford that.

2:39:20So it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination

2:39:24but I will support the application.

2:39:27I think you cross on then, Kate.

2:39:30Yes, thank you.

2:39:33This is a challenging one for me, I'm gonna be honest.

2:39:35I'm quite disappointed that there wasn't a provision made

2:39:39to preserve more of the trees

2:39:41when we specifically asked for it.

2:39:44And I appreciate the community coming out

2:39:47and sharing their fight over the last 10 years

2:39:50and being here and sticking all the way through the meeting.

2:39:52So thank you.

2:39:54On the other hand, I see a lot of potential

2:39:57in this development and I see it as an attractive place

2:40:00for students and people to live.

2:40:03And for that, I think I will support it

2:40:07because I and with Cathy, your motion,

2:40:11I really hope that we can preserve

2:40:13as many of those trees as possible.

2:40:15Thank you.

2:40:17And Kate, please.

2:40:20Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:40:22So I echo a lot of statements made by my colleagues.

2:40:26I think that my main concern here is the amount of trees

2:40:30that could be saved and how that would potentially affect

2:40:34the sound issues for the community.

2:40:37I know that it has been a long time for you all

2:40:40to be fighting this at the tribunal and now here.

2:40:46So I have a lot of empathy for your situation.

2:40:49I have less concerned about the balconies and terraces

2:40:54as being someone who still needs to be eating outdoors

2:40:59and to have outdoor socialization in the world

2:41:02where we're more cognizant of airborne viruses.

2:41:05I think that this actually adds a measure of safety

2:41:08that we would not have originally,

2:41:11but I do understand how that can be worrisome for the sounds.

2:41:15But I believe that I'm gonna be supporting this

2:41:17so that we can move it forward

2:41:20and have the additional residences.

2:41:22I'm hopeful that through the process

2:41:25that Councillor Downer has instituted

2:41:27that we can get a little bit more detail on the site plan

2:41:31to help with sound from the balconies and extra trees.

2:41:37Okay, thank you.

2:41:39Gibson, then Downer.

2:41:41Yeah, thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:41:43Great conversation, great questions.

2:41:45I guess my two comments, the first one is,

2:41:49while I appreciate Councillor Downer's thoughts

2:41:51around allowing the members of the public

2:41:53to comment at site plan,

2:41:56I was wondering why that didn't sit great with me.

2:41:58And I'm happy that the members of the community

2:41:59are gonna have that chance,

2:42:00but I guess the precedent being,

2:42:03I wish I had had that chance a few times.

2:42:06144 Watson, we proved as a three-story building.

2:42:09It came online as an eight-story building,

2:42:11went to site plan and public didn't get a comment.

2:42:15The 10-story buildings being built at Starwood right now,

2:42:17we approved them as three stories,

2:42:20went to the community of adjustments.

2:42:22We didn't get a chance to even,

2:42:23as the Councillor, I didn't even know how big they were

2:42:25until they were being built, until I asked.

2:42:28So these are special opportunities for the public

2:42:31to continue to weigh in.

2:42:34I have a little bit of power stream force quite frankly,

2:42:36I wish I had had the foresight to do this

2:42:39on a few other sites.

2:42:41So I'm thankful that staff are gonna get a chance,

2:42:43public are gonna get a chance to weigh in

2:42:45because not everyone else does.

2:42:48On the file though,

2:42:49it's important that we are focused on trying

2:42:52to support these files.

2:42:53And I understand there's some great comments around,

2:42:56just being honest with the public

2:42:57about planning justifications

2:42:59and an opportunity to turn this down

2:43:03from a planning justification perspective

2:43:04is just not there.

2:43:05Like suggesting, unfortunately,

2:43:08suggesting from a planning perspective

2:43:09that you're concerned about alcohol consumption on the site,

2:43:12that's not a planning justification.

2:43:13And I would really, really warn Councillors

2:43:17if there's six or seven of you out there

2:43:18that feel the same way, just be careful.

2:43:21That type of a vote sends a terrible message

2:43:23and ultimately would not win from a planning perspective.

2:43:27So please take care for what it is.

2:43:29But we collectively should be supporting this

2:43:32because I don't see it being overturned

2:43:35at a tribunal level from a planning perspective.

2:43:38So I think that that's an omber.

2:43:40Unfortunately to the public, it's just an honest moment.

2:43:45It ticks the planning justification boxes

2:43:48and there's not really a reason not to support it

2:43:51despite some concerns or quite frankly,

2:43:54some opposition to it still.

2:43:56So for that perspective, I'll be supporting the good

2:44:01and the bad that comes with new developments.

2:44:04Thank you, Councillor Gibson, down or then boost still.

2:44:09Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

2:44:10So I sort of think of this now more strategically

2:44:15as much as I'm not crazy about the development itself

2:44:20or some of the things around the same concerns

2:44:22that the neighbourhood has around the site plan issues,

2:44:24some of the site plan issues.

2:44:26But as Councillor Gibson has said,

2:44:29I think we have to be honest

2:44:30that there is not going to be a planning justification

2:44:33to take to the OMB to turn this down based on terraces

2:44:39or even a number of the other issues.

2:44:43We're the best opportunity is to look at those barriers

2:44:46on the terrace if they're made,

2:44:48that we can put in safety concerns

2:44:51and to deal with safety concerns

2:44:53and deal with sound concerns about sound barriers

2:44:56on those terraces is what I think.

2:44:59Strategically, I think the developer,

2:45:03because he doesn't support the six meters,

2:45:05is going to be taking this to the appealing it anyway.

2:45:08And I think we're in a better position

2:45:11to go with our own staff to defend the modifications.

2:45:14And it wasn't just the six meters.

2:45:16They have a whole bunch of other things

2:45:18that they have to do that modifications that staff put in.

2:45:21Not only that, there's the 2023 zoning bylaw,

2:45:25things that could change some of the things on this site,

2:45:28new regulations that they didn't even consider

2:45:32in their planning, in their response to the city.

2:45:36So there could be changes there as well.

2:45:39I just think that we're and the neighborhood

2:45:42are in a better position for us to support this

2:45:45conditionally as staff have asked us to do.

2:45:47So we've been asked to support this,

2:45:50but only on condition of the modification

2:45:54that our staff have requested,

2:45:56not what the developer wants,

2:45:58and what our staff have requested,

2:46:00the six meters and other things.

2:46:02And like I said, I suspect that developer

2:46:04will take this to the, what, the OLT now.

2:46:08And so I'm gonna support it based on that,

2:46:10just from a strategic perspective.

2:46:13And I really hope that we prevail with the six meters,

2:46:20that we are able to save some of those trees

2:46:23and that they create that landscaping with the understory,

2:46:27as described in the design manual.

2:46:31And I hope that the safety issues around the terraces

2:46:38and the noise concerns are dealt with at the site plan.

2:46:44I also think that as far as the light,

2:46:47the pad, there is no planning rationale

2:46:51for refusing to allow alcohol on that.

2:46:54We couldn't do that for tri-car.

2:46:55It wouldn't be a planning rationale.

2:46:58But the fact that they have to go out and get a liquor license

2:47:02every time they wanna hold a party there

2:47:03is gonna be some kind of control on that

2:47:06and how often they'll can do that or will do that.

2:47:10So I think that's gonna be a bit of an issue

2:47:13for those living there wanting to have parties.

2:47:15So it is a difficult decision.

2:47:17And I appreciate the neighborhood staying involved.

2:47:20I've had a number of conversations, as you probably know,

2:47:23in the last week with some neighbors.

2:47:26But I think strategically this will be the best way to go

2:47:29is to support it conditionally on the modifications

2:47:33that staff have asked for.

2:47:37Mr. Joe, please.

2:47:37Thank you.

2:47:38Thank you, Councillor Downer.

2:47:39Thank you.

2:47:40And I don't think I'm last anymore,

2:47:42but one of the benefits of going last is saying ditto.

2:47:45And I think Councillor Oroch and Gibson,

2:47:48Kate and Downer, Klassen all said it well.

2:47:52And so I don't have anything more to add.

2:47:54And I would agree strategically that supporting the staff,

2:47:58you know, I feel reluctant very much on this file to do this,

2:48:02but I will also have to support this.

2:48:04And I agree with Councillor Downer

2:48:05that I suspect the developer is not going to be happy

2:48:08and will appeal this.

2:48:14Councillor Chew, you went like this to me.

2:48:17I promise it's very, very, very small.

2:48:19That's like five sentences, I think.

2:48:21Okay, well.

2:48:22So I'll go ahead.

2:48:24I just wanna say as well,

2:48:25perhaps with this meeting moving forward,

2:48:28there is an opportunity to discuss in the future

2:48:33what management with the university

2:48:35could look like in the future, right?

2:48:37I think that conversation hasn't started yet.

2:48:40Now there may be an expectation that we can have,

2:48:44to have a more productive meeting when we meet

2:48:46with our town and gown and other partners.

2:48:48So.

2:48:51Thank you.

2:48:52That was a good five or six sentences.

2:48:54That's good.

2:48:55Thank you.

2:48:56Okay, I see nobody else.

2:48:59I'm gonna say something very quickly.

2:49:02And that is, I've heard a couple of times here,

2:49:06some people say things like,

2:49:07oh, I hope, no, not I hope,

2:49:09but the developer's probably gonna appeal this anyways,

2:49:14or whatever, and that could be true.

2:49:17But I wanna just end on the tone of,

2:49:20I really actually hope that does not happen at all,

2:49:24that there was a quick turnaround here by our staff.

2:49:29We have an approval in front of us here.

2:49:31Let's get shovels in the ground.

2:49:33Like let's go with what we've got here as an approval,

2:49:37and let's move forward and get a ton of people living

2:49:41in some homes.

2:49:43And I just think I would just,

2:49:49I would implore the developer listening in that,

2:49:54that you're probably about to see an almost unanimous

2:49:59vote of council other than one person's comments,

2:50:03and an agreement by staff on planning justification

2:50:08to move forward on something that's been a long time coming.

2:50:11So I hope that that sends a message that we are ready

2:50:17to put, help you put shovels in the ground

2:50:20on a very needed development site with a lot of units.

2:50:23So with that, I'll call the vote then,

2:50:26the main motion as amended, as anybody against.

2:50:32Just council or alt.

2:50:34Okay, so that passes, thank you.

2:50:36And we will continue on.

2:50:41The development charges study.

2:50:44Let me just ask Tara.

2:50:52Tara, just as you're coming down with staff

2:50:54and getting ready, I'm just wondering about how long

2:50:58you think your presentation is.

2:51:00Would this be a good moment for a little bit of a break?

2:51:03It looks like it's a natural break

2:51:05because you're getting set up with your presentation

2:51:08and everything.

2:51:08Let's do only five minutes, okay, everybody?

2:51:11So I've got nine o'clock on the dot on my clock,

2:51:14which means let's come back here for nine o' five, please.

2:51:16Thank you.

2:57:40Okay, guys, just before I call the meeting back

2:57:42to order, Tara, we just have a quick question

2:57:46that's totally off topic, but we're gonna ask it anyways.

2:57:49November the seventh is when the budget gets presentation

2:57:52gets done, right?

2:57:54Correct, yeah.

2:57:55And then what's the ninth?

2:57:56There is nothing on the ninth.

2:57:58It's like a hold.

2:57:59That date, that was a hold and it's gonna be a race.

2:58:01Am I right?

2:58:02It was a hold just in case the seventh?

2:58:03Yeah, so the ninth's gonna be,

2:58:05there's your answer, everybody.

2:58:13We will be as long as the seventh as we make it.

2:58:18It's usually a pretty long presentation

2:58:20because it has to go through everything.

2:58:22Okay, back to the agenda.

2:58:25Back to the agenda.

2:58:27Here we go.

2:58:28Everyone's had their break.

2:58:29And here we go to the development charges,

2:58:35results and background study.

2:58:38For anyone here or watching later,

2:58:42this is really to receive.

2:58:46I just wanna say that up front, okay?

2:58:48Approval is next year.

2:58:51I think early next year sometime.

2:58:53So just everyone remember that, okay?

2:58:58Thank you to staff for a lot of the kind of meet and greet

2:59:02opportunities that we had up until this moment.

2:59:05And the memo that was sent, I mean,

2:59:07just so much around this.

2:59:10So Tara looks like she's gonna walk us through

2:59:14this update of the presentation.

2:59:17And thank you very much to staff

2:59:19and we'll turn it over to you.

2:59:22So thanks, Mayor Guthrie and good evening

2:59:26to you and to members of council.

2:59:29Today is the mandatory public meeting

2:59:31for the development charge background study.

2:59:35The content for the presentation builds on the information

2:59:38that you did receive in July at the education session

2:59:42for DCs and then the special council meeting

2:59:45that we first presented the draft study.

2:59:48So tonight we're gonna explain the purpose

2:59:50of the public meeting, review,

2:59:53and then just review a few of the changes

2:59:55that have happened since July.

2:59:59Okay, so to get to this stage in the DC bylaw update,

3:00:03we went through the process shown on the slide

3:00:05which exceeds the requirements

3:00:07of the Development Charges Act.

3:00:09We take pride in trying to be as engaging as possible

3:00:12through this long-term project.

3:00:14We have found that engaging a peer review group

3:00:17has been very successful in the past

3:00:18and brings together all key parties

3:00:20that have a keen interest in the study.

3:00:22Due to the complexity of the topic,

3:00:24we need the group to be part of the journey

3:00:26and provide input over a number of meetings.

3:00:29It's difficult to engage on the DC study

3:00:31through more traditional tactics

3:00:34because of the needed baseline education

3:00:37that's needed to kind of come through it with us.

3:00:39So with that being said, it is noted

3:00:41we were last with council in July

3:00:44where we presented the draft preliminary study

3:00:49to take questions from council

3:00:51on that body of work.

3:00:52Members of the public were also invited

3:00:53to delegate at that meeting and then again tonight.

3:00:56The DC background study was released on September 27th

3:01:00in accordance with the Act 20 days prior to this meeting

3:01:04and then that brings us to today

3:01:05which is the mandatory meeting.

3:01:07The final step in this process will be

3:01:09when council approves the bylaw

3:01:12which is planned for January 2024.

3:01:15Council approval must be at least 60 days after this meeting

3:01:18and before the expiry of the bylaw on March 1st.

3:01:24This public meeting is to provide a review of the proposed DC

3:01:28and to receive public input on the proposed policies

3:01:31and charges and is a mandatory step as we've noted.

3:01:35As discussed, our process did exceed

3:01:38the engagement as prescribed by legislation.

3:01:41Council in the public has also had many opportunities

3:01:45of feedback including then the have your say engagement

3:01:49that we offered immediately following the July meeting

3:01:53and the results of that are in the report.

3:01:57Two main changes that we've made

3:01:59since the time you've seen it in July.

3:02:01First, the growth allocations for linear water projects

3:02:04were refined.

3:02:05Our consultants have updated the growth allocation

3:02:08using detailed age and size information

3:02:11to better reflect the growth allocations of these projects.

3:02:14While the impact of the changes

3:02:15on the calculated DC rate is minimal,

3:02:17the refinements are more accurate

3:02:19and strengthen the study's results overall.

3:02:21The Guelph Transit Terminal has also been added

3:02:24to the DC Capital Program using Dillon Consulting

3:02:28which is the author of the technical appendix

3:02:31for transit of the background study.

3:02:34Determine that the terminal would expand the capacity

3:02:37of the system to accommodate growth

3:02:39and therefore is eligible.

3:02:44This next section, we will review the changes

3:02:46to the rate since you last seen them.

3:02:48In July, we presented a calculated rate of 68,902

3:02:53for single and semi-detached.

3:02:55The rates now calculated at 69,300 per unit.

3:02:59The rates in this table reflect a 0.6% increase

3:03:02from the last rates shared in July.

3:03:08Nearing that rate to just single detached homes,

3:03:12the current rate today is 47,839

3:03:16and the calculated rate will be 69,300.

3:03:19It should be noted that due to the mandatory 20% discount

3:03:23from bill 23, the applied rates will be 55,440

3:03:27for the first year of the new bylaw

3:03:30with the discount decreasing by 5% each year

3:03:32to reach the full rate in year five.

3:03:35And we've talked a lot about that in the budget meeting

3:03:38so we won't dive into that more today.

3:03:42Similarly, this table compares

3:03:44the current non-residential rate

3:03:46which is $16.24 per square foot

3:03:50and the calculated rate will be 27,44.

3:03:53Due to the mandatory 20% discount,

3:03:56the applied rate will start at $21.95 for the first year

3:04:01and then decreasing each year as noted

3:04:04with the full rate going into effect in year five.

3:04:11This chart shows the DC rates

3:04:13compared with municipal comparators

3:04:16and it was first presented in July

3:04:18but at that time council requested staff

3:04:20to provide information on municipalities

3:04:22that have bylaws that will expire within a year.

3:04:25Typically when municipalities update their bylaws

3:04:28their rates increase to reflect increasing cost

3:04:31of infrastructure.

3:04:32Our consultants have assembled this data

3:04:34marking the municipalities with updates

3:04:36within this year with purple diamonds.

3:04:39This slide shows that the single and semi-detached unit rates

3:04:42for Guelph and compare municipalities

3:04:46and the municipalities are from our approved,

3:04:48the council approved list of comparators.

3:04:51Guelph's calculated rate is in the middle

3:04:54of our municipal benchmark group.

3:04:57However, there are many municipalities with lower rates

3:05:00that will update their bylaws

3:05:02which would be expected to bring their rates closer to

3:05:04or in excess of ours.

3:05:06It can be expected that with this shift

3:05:08will end up on the kind of lower end of below average

3:05:14by the time those updates occur.

3:05:20This chart shows the same information

3:05:22for commercial rates for comparator municipalities.

3:05:25Some municipalities break out their non-residential rates

3:05:27into further categories, commercial and industrial

3:05:31while Guelph only has one category encompassing both.

3:05:34Since Guelph has a single non-residential rate

3:05:37our rate is lower for commercial development

3:05:39as other municipalities update their rates.

3:05:42Guelph will remain on the lower end

3:05:44of development charts driving our competitive advantage.

3:05:49Here are the industrial rates

3:05:52for comparator municipalities.

3:05:54Guelph is currently on the lower end

3:05:56of industrial rates as well.

3:05:58The rate update with the phase

3:06:00and will bring us to the middle of our comparator group.

3:06:03The fully phased in rate will bring us more on the upper end

3:06:08compared to the middle of the pack.

3:06:11Guelph standing moved more for the industrial rates

3:06:14because the rates are a lot more similar

3:06:15across their comparators.

3:06:17Our calculated rates remain very close to average

3:06:20and as identified by the purple diamonds

3:06:23there are several bylaws that are gonna be updated

3:06:25in the coming year and so we expect those rates

3:06:28to also shift upwards.

3:06:34Okay, so under the Development Charges Act

3:06:35municipalities can impose either a uniform charge

3:06:39or an area specific charge.

3:06:41A uniform charge means that the same charge

3:06:44is applied throughout the entire city

3:06:45versus an area specific charge

3:06:47where there would be a different rate for certain areas.

3:06:51Staff committed to providing an evaluation

3:06:53of an area specific charge specifically for Claremalpy

3:06:57as an outcome of the Claremalpy secondary plan.

3:07:00Overall, after assessment we recommend proceeding

3:07:04with a uniform development charge

3:07:06rather than the specific area charge.

3:07:09The uniform rate will keep a level playing field for growth

3:07:12and provides the most flexibility for financing

3:07:15and promoting development across the entire city.

3:07:20Over the next few slides we'll review the analysis

3:07:23in a little more detail that led to that recommendation.

3:07:26This slide shows the calculated rate for a citywide rate

3:07:30applied against for the whole city for three service rates

3:07:34and so when we look at the area rate it's also,

3:07:38you need to know that the consultants have recommended

3:07:41that it would only apply to these three rates

3:07:44and not for the rest of the services.

3:07:47And so the assessment's done just on those three services.

3:07:52And so when we look at the DC related cost

3:07:57across the whole city that totals 23,459.

3:08:04And then to the right of the citywide rate

3:08:07as a calculation split out taking the class

3:08:10for Claremalpy and divided by the growth for Claremalpy

3:08:13and to arrive at that rate.

3:08:18You can see that the results show Claremalpy

3:08:20to be slightly lower than the citywide rate

3:08:23and this was surprising for staff

3:08:25and because of this we took more time

3:08:27to assess these results and worked out details

3:08:30with our consultants and our internal housing team

3:08:33to provide the recommendation of the uniform rate.

3:08:39The answer to why Claremalpy area rate is lower

3:08:42comes back to how infrastructure is built

3:08:44in a greenfield area versus an intensification area

3:08:48like the downtown.

3:08:49Growth related infrastructure is a combination

3:08:52of infrastructure built by the city

3:08:53and then local service infrastructure built by developers.

3:08:57For example, major common infrastructure

3:08:59like arterial roads, water mains and catch basins

3:09:02are built using DCs as they're needed for all development

3:09:06and then the local subdivisions then connect in

3:09:09to this big common infrastructure with local roads,

3:09:12pipes and stormwater ponds and those are funded

3:09:15by the developer.

3:09:16With Claremalpy being a greenfield development

3:09:19it has a significant amount of local service infrastructure

3:09:22that will not be eligible for DCs

3:09:25and where this infrastructure will be built by developers

3:09:27and then assumed by the city when it goes into use.

3:09:31This nuance of who pays for a certain infrastructure

3:09:35impacted the outcome of our analysis.

3:09:38This slide depicts the total local service policy

3:09:42infrastructure cost projected for Claremalpy

3:09:45with the historical actual city wide compared

3:09:48to the actual city wide infrastructure assumed

3:09:51over the past five years and you can see

3:09:53that the difference is quite significant.

3:09:57So if developers are paying for local service infrastructure

3:10:00how does that impact us in the city?

3:10:03And so the answer is that once the local service

3:10:05infrastructure is built it's assumed by the city

3:10:08and then it needs to be maintained and replaced over time

3:10:11and so it will become part of our asset inventory

3:10:14and it gets added to our infrastructure renewal costs.

3:10:17So even though assessment growth revenue increases

3:10:20as these properties come online

3:10:23to pay for additional services,

3:10:26we also the development of the greenfield area adds

3:10:29much higher cost to maintain

3:10:31and replace all the assumed infrastructure and perpetuity.

3:10:36So if the development charge rate is lower for Claremalpy

3:10:40the rate will create an advantage to build in this area

3:10:43over other areas in the city

3:10:45and a uniform rate will keep a level playing field

3:10:47for growth that is expected to have less of an impact

3:10:51on the tax rates and user rates overall.

3:10:56In addition to not wanting to create unintended incentives

3:10:59for one growth area over another

3:11:02there are also strategic and administrative considerations

3:11:04to the recommendation.

3:11:07So first is the alternative development charge

3:11:09payment agreements or front-ending agreements.

3:11:12So area specific charges are sometimes a tool

3:11:14that can assist with implementing alternative development

3:11:18payment agreements.

3:11:21If all the projects within an area specific charge

3:11:24are proposed to be front-ended

3:11:25the entire area specific DC would be used to pay back

3:11:30these front-ending projects.

3:11:32This removes the decision from staff of deciding

3:11:34which projects to fund first from DC revenues

3:11:36and be considered a benefit.

3:11:38However, area specific charges also remove flexibility

3:11:42to build infrastructure that crosses the area boundaries

3:11:45and limits flexibility to find willing partners

3:11:48in the front-ending agreements.

3:11:50Importantly having a uniform rate will not prevent the city

3:11:53from implementing front-ending agreements

3:11:56as a financing tool if it's determined to be desirable.

3:12:01So secondly, we have to consider the administrative

3:12:04or the administration of the reserve funds themselves.

3:12:08Administratively separate reserve funds

3:12:10for the services covered by the area specific charge

3:12:13would need to be set up and funds collected

3:12:16for those services can only be spent

3:12:17for those services in that area.

3:12:20This limits flexibility across all services

3:12:22but also limits the ability to move forward

3:12:25with infrastructure projects in the area covered

3:12:27by this charge.

3:12:29And borrowing between area specific

3:12:32and city-wide reserve funds is restricted.

3:12:36A uniform rate allows for more flexible resource management

3:12:39and reduced administrative burden

3:12:41as there are fewer restrictions

3:12:43on inter-DC reserve fund borrowing

3:12:46and it significantly minimizes the need for debt

3:12:50to manage cash flow issues.

3:12:58So there are four major areas of the city that are,

3:13:01sorry, I just wanna go back one slide, sorry.

3:13:04There are four major areas of the city

3:13:05that are contributing to growth.

3:13:07The Claremont secondary plan area,

3:13:09the Guelph Innovation District secondary plan,

3:13:12the downtown secondary plan area,

3:13:15and finally the Dolan quarry area.

3:13:17We don't recommend introducing a rate in one area

3:13:20without considering the intensification areas

3:13:23and it's our best policy recommendation

3:13:25to maintain equity in our rates

3:13:27for the best financing flexibility

3:13:29and to reach our development goals.

3:13:31For all of these reasons previously noted,

3:13:33we are recommending continuing

3:13:35with uniform rate for development charges

3:13:38and this has been incorporated

3:13:39into the DC background study and draft bylaws.

3:13:45So the final piece of the presentation

3:13:47that we wanna draw your attention to is the bylaw update.

3:13:52So staff are recommending a new bylaw structure

3:13:55as recommended by our consultants

3:13:57and reviewed by internal and external legal counsel

3:14:00in response to the mandatory rate phase in requirements

3:14:03introduced through bill 23.

3:14:05The proposed bylaws will include one parent bylaw

3:14:09that contains all the general provisions

3:14:11that will apply to the city's development charge regime.

3:14:16There will then be a series of child bylaws

3:14:18for each individual service in the development charge

3:14:21that specify the rates for that service.

3:14:24The objective of this approach is to build in the flexibility

3:14:27to update the rates on an interim basis

3:14:30for one service without updating them for all services.

3:14:34And so this is needed because if it's determined

3:14:38to be financially beneficial to do so,

3:14:42every time you change the rate or you update the bylaw,

3:14:45that phase in kicks in again

3:14:46and we're cut back to the 20%, reduction of 20%.

3:14:50So this is meant to protect the rates

3:14:54that don't need to be updated,

3:14:56say in the interim of the 10 years.

3:15:01So however, staff have recommended that we direct a review

3:15:06of the need for a five year interim update

3:15:08to the background study and summer all of the bylaws

3:15:11as part of the next multi-year budget.

3:15:16If this review is undertaken and it's deemed to be necessary

3:15:19to update the rates for one or more services,

3:15:21but not all of them are new bylaw structure

3:15:23will protect those rates that are fine

3:15:26and can continue on at the current or the approved rate

3:15:29at the time.

3:15:32It is important to note that this is a new approach

3:15:35evolving from bill 23 and Guelph is among

3:15:38the first municipality to consider adopting this approach

3:15:41given the timing of our bylaw update,

3:15:43which was already in progress at the time of bill 23.

3:15:47We feel it's of utmost priority to respond

3:15:50to these legislative changes as it relates

3:15:53to the mandatory lost revenues with each bylaw update

3:15:56and we need to forge new path to protect the revenues

3:15:59needed to enable new housing.

3:16:05To conclude the presentation,

3:16:07there's three recommendations before you today.

3:16:09And as the mayor had mentioned,

3:16:11the first one is just to receive the development study

3:16:15and we're continuing to take feedback through this meeting,

3:16:19but also after this meeting as we prepare

3:16:21for the final meeting in January.

3:16:25The second one is that Council direct staff

3:16:27to investigate the use of front-ending agreements

3:16:29as a growth financing tool,

3:16:31including the impact on staffing

3:16:35the impact on our credit rating,

3:16:36delegated authority structure

3:16:38and the risks and benefits of this approach.

3:16:41And then finally that Council direct staff

3:16:44to review the need of a five year update

3:16:46to the DC bylaw as part of our next budget process.

3:16:51And so I did just wanna briefly say about recommendation two

3:16:54that we've talked a lot about front-ending agreements

3:16:56in the chamber, but we're now asking Council

3:16:59to formalize the request for staff to report back on this

3:17:03with more detailed information

3:17:05on how we would actually action these agreements in Guelph

3:17:08and what it will mean to our processes,

3:17:12policies and financial capacity.

3:17:14This is needed work to get done

3:17:16and there'll be cross-functionally

3:17:17between finance, legal, planning

3:17:19and our development engineering groups.

3:17:21And it will be the focus of our work plan in 2024

3:17:26once we get past this bylaw update.

3:17:29And so then the final step of the process is in January,

3:17:32like I said, we'll be back with the final DC bylaw

3:17:36at that time for your approval.

3:17:39And any further adjustments after this public meeting

3:17:42that may warrant refinement of the study

3:17:46prior to bylaw adoption will be accompanied

3:17:48by a memo to Council at that time in January.

3:17:52And so with that concludes our presentation,

3:17:55we're happy to take questions with us today.

3:17:59We do have our finance team,

3:18:00but then also we have our consultant Byron Tan

3:18:06from Watson & Associates also here to support.

3:18:11Well, Tara and team, thank you sincerely.

3:18:14Thank you very, very much

3:18:17for kind of holding our hand all the way

3:18:19even to this moment, right?

3:18:22It's, you know, at the end of the day,

3:18:25people just see a number,

3:18:28but there is so much that goes on underneath that

3:18:32to get to that number.

3:18:34And it's complicated.

3:18:36And it's an interesting mathematical equation.

3:18:39And I think that can't be lost.

3:18:41So thank you.

3:18:43And what's to see if I can at least get the recommendations

3:18:46on the floor or Rourke and Downer will do that for me.

3:18:52Oh, there's delegations.

3:18:53I'm so sorry.

3:18:54Yes, there is.

3:18:56Just one, I have just one.

3:18:57Is that right?

3:18:59Yeah, but yes, and it's five minutes.

3:19:02But because this is a statutory meeting on this,

3:19:06we have to allow anyone to call in as well,

3:19:08but it's only five minutes on that as well.

3:19:10Thank you for reminding me, everyone.

3:19:14Let's go to the delegation then first that we know of.

3:19:18And that's Dustin Davis.

3:19:20And Dustin, I think is gonna join us by video.

3:19:25So Dustin, it's Mayor Guthrie and you have popped on.

3:19:29So thank you very much.

3:19:31Go right ahead, Dustin.

3:19:32You have up to five minutes.

3:19:34Thank you.

3:19:35Good evening, your worship, Mayor Guthrie

3:19:36and members of Guelph City Council.

3:19:39Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

3:19:42My name is Dustin Davis.

3:19:43I serve as a chair for the government

3:19:45and external affairs committee

3:19:47for the Guelph District Association of Realtors.

3:19:50Today, Jeter is here to advocate

3:19:52against the steep increase in development charges

3:19:55in the city of Guelph outlined

3:19:56by the development charge background study

3:19:58being discussed today by council.

3:20:01While the development charge by law

3:20:03isn't scheduled to be voted on by council

3:20:05until January of 2024,

3:20:07we urge council to reconsider such a steep increase

3:20:10to residential development charges.

3:20:13As this council knows, Guelph is currently facing

3:20:15an unprecedented housing affordability crisis.

3:20:19The average home prices surged to $836,000,

3:20:23a staggering 58% increase in just five years.

3:20:27For many, finding an affordable place to call home

3:20:29has become an overwhelming and very daunting task.

3:20:33The median household income in Guelph stands at $94,000,

3:20:37with families spending up to 60%

3:20:39of their pre-tax income on housing costs.

3:20:41The primary driver for our affordability crisis,

3:20:45as echoed here many times tonight,

3:20:46is the insufficient supply of homes.

3:20:49To address this issue, the provincial government

3:20:51has set a goal of constructing 18,000 new homes in Guelph

3:20:54by 2031.

3:20:55However, we are falling far short of this target,

3:20:58having completed only roughly 15%

3:21:00of our annual goal this year.

3:21:02On that note, we'd like to commend our mayor

3:21:04and supporting members of council

3:21:06for backing bold changes to Guelph's zoning bylaws

3:21:09to allow for more infill and gentle density.

3:21:12These changes will go a long way

3:21:13to improving affordability in our city.

3:21:16With respect to development charges,

3:21:18the increases outlined in the background study

3:21:20will effectively take Guelph backwards

3:21:22when it comes to housing affordability.

3:21:25According to GDR's calculations,

3:21:27the background study is proposing

3:21:28to increase development charges

3:21:30on residential units, excuse me,

3:21:32by anywhere from 38 to 56%.

3:21:36Perhaps what's more concerning is that

3:21:38some of the steepest increases

3:21:39around what we would normally say

3:21:41are the most affordable units for families.

3:21:43On semi-detached homes,

3:21:45development charges will go up $19,000.

3:21:48On multiplexes, they will go up $13,000.

3:21:51On two-bedroom apartments,

3:21:52they will go up nearly $14,000.

3:21:55These costs, one way or another,

3:21:57will get added directly to the final selling price

3:21:59of a new home and therefore passed on to the end user,

3:22:02homeowner, making it even more challenging

3:22:05to afford a home in our community.

3:22:07Moreover, development charges act as a deterrent

3:22:10to new housing supply,

3:22:12since they translated to higher construction costs,

3:22:14making it even more challenging for developers

3:22:16to create homes our community desperately needs.

3:22:20While we do acknowledge the city's need for revenue

3:22:22to support and upgrade essential services as needed,

3:22:25as well as the challenges presented by Bill 23,

3:22:28we must break a balance between generating funds

3:22:30and ensuring housing remains affordable.

3:22:33Most importantly, golf must be consistent.

3:22:36We can't work to end an exclusionary zoning

3:22:38while then piling on government fees

3:22:40to new home construction.

3:22:41We can't pass a multiplex zoning by-law

3:22:43just to turn around and add thousands of dollars

3:22:45in new costs to these new units.

3:22:47These policy decisions are seemingly at odds with each other,

3:22:52but they're definitely at odds with our end goal,

3:22:54which is to build more homes

3:22:55and return affordability to our market.

3:22:58In conclusion, the housing affordability crisis

3:23:01is a significant challenge that demands bold action.

3:23:04And as such, we urge you to reconsider

3:23:07the proposed increase in development charges

3:23:09and focus on policies that will increase housing's

3:23:11blank wealth.

3:23:12As a future success and prosperity of our city

3:23:15depends on our ability to provide affordable housing options

3:23:18for all of its residents.

3:23:20Thank you for your time, consideration.

3:23:25Thank you, Dustin.

3:23:28Sorry, Dustin, are you still with us?

3:23:32Yeah, I'm still here, sorry.

3:23:33Oh, OK.

3:23:33All right, perfect.

3:23:35Thank you very much for your delegation.

3:23:38And just wondering if there's any questions.

3:23:40I have Councillor O'Rourke, please.

3:23:44Thank you, Mayor Guthrie, through you to our delegate.

3:23:46Thanks very much for your delegation.

3:23:48So we talk about this a lot around the horseshoe, right?

3:23:51The costs of infrastructure for growth,

3:23:55they're outlined in the development charges by-law

3:23:57in quite a lot of detail.

3:23:59So does GDR and its members, is there a mechanism

3:24:03that if we said, you know what, yeah,

3:24:05let's reduce those development charges?

3:24:09Do you have a mechanism to pass those reductions

3:24:11onto the buyers, or would you sell at market rate?

3:24:16And similarly, how would you keep somebody

3:24:20from just flipping a house?

3:24:22So the first time home buyer gets the,

3:24:26first person to buy a new home gets the savings,