Okay, I think we're going to get started. Welcome everyone to the um June 1st planning and strategic initiatives committee meeting. Um people interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitcher.ca/delegation or via email at delegation@kitcher.ca. Please refer to the delegation section on the agenda below for registration in person and electronic participation deadlines. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca. Watch now. Um accessible forms and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or an event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1866-969994. Um, first I'll start off. Are there any pecuniary interests and the general nature thereof? >> Councelor Singh. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. purchased the lands uh along Sterling and Mil Street corridor uh and two other nodes which is uh Canot and Franklin as well as uh Belmont and Highland as uh my immediate family owns property along those nodes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So if those those notes can be taken out separately so they can recuse myself on that vote. >> Okay. You'll have to remind me when we get to them. Thanks. Um any other concerns or No. Great. Thank you. Um so let's start off with the um consent items. There's one consent item. Can I get a mover? Councilor Anitis. Any questions, comments? No. All those in favor? And that passes. So next we'll get on to the um the next um points of interest. And um and just a note to for the delegations who have registered for the meeting this date. To all delegations, the city values and encourages participation and dialogue in a democratic process that occurs in council and committee meetings and through written submissions and correspondence. It's important that these interactions remain respectful toward other members of the public, staff, and council. In cases where dialogue is not respectful or delegate or delegates interrupt counselor staff or other delegations, make derogatory statements about counselor staff or others that are disrespectful or use of language that is considered harmful or defamatory. The chair will interject and take necessary actions to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment for everyone which would involve removal from the meeting. One last reminder, delegations are permitted to address council for a minute maximum of five minutes which will be displayed on the screens in front of you. When there is 30 seconds remaining in that your time, you will hear a small audio tone that will signal 30 seconds remaining. Please take that time to conclude your presentation as there will be a second tone at the completion of your time and the microphones will turn off shortly after the exceeded um five minute mark. Lastly, please do not take offense if following your presentation. There are no questions from council. This is council's time to really listen and reflect upon the opinions and ideas shared with us from community members. So, this is a public hearing matter under the planning act. Um, this is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the planning act. In accordance with the Ontario Planning Act, only the applicant or owner of land affected by the planning applications, a spec specified person or a public body and or the minister may appeal most decisions. If you do not make a verbal submission to the committee or council or make a written submission prior to city council making a decision on the proposal, you may not be entitled to appeal the decision of the city of Kitchener to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the OOLT. To understand your right of appeal, if any, or for further clarification regarding appeals, please see the Ontario Land Tribunal website. So, the first item of um on the agenda tonight is a zoning bylaw amendment application ZBA 26002AP draft plan of subdivision application um by Kitchener Trustler Holdings, Inc. and Kitchener Trustler Holdings 3, Inc. on Ottawa Street South at 2219 Ottawa Street South and 808 Trustler Road. Um we'll first have a a presentation by staff by um Andrew Panel, senior planner, and you have five minutes for your presentation. Thank you, chair. The subject property owned by Kitchener Trustler Holdings, Inc. and Kitchener Trustler Holdings 3, Inc. is located in the Laurentinian West planning community. It is bounded by Ottawa Street North, Ottawa Street to the north, Leans Road to the south, and Trussler Road to the west. all regional roads. The Mannheim Water Treatment Plant is located immediately to the east. Wilot Township is located on the opposite side of Trussler Road to the west. Planned residential subdivisions are located both north and south of the subject property. Property is approximately 13 hectares in area with notable grade changes from northeast to southwest. The property contains the Shaun House which is designated on under the Ontario Heritage Act. The lands are subject uh to draft plan of subdivision 30T22201 which was approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal in July of 2024 along with related official plan and zoning bylaw amendments. The subdivision permits 262 to 410 residential units. Key features include Prairie Crescent, which is the main street within the subdivision, as well as Falling Water Street, which is a connector street. It also features low and medium density residential blocks, uh, single detached house houses, town houses, and low-rise multiple dwellings. It also features eight live work units, an institutional block for the Shaun's house, two park blocks, a wetland block, and a storm water management facility, as well as servicing walkway, road widening, and retaining wall blocks. The applicant is now proposing minor modifications to uh both the draft plan and the conditions. The changes address topography, refinements to architecture and engineering, and updated regional road widenings. At the overall subdivision, design, unit count, and the overall housing mix uh remain unchanged. On the screen, uh we've outlined the uh requested changes to the subdivision blocks. The proposed block changes are minor and difficult to distinguish even with this overlay on the screen. Red is the OOLT approved uh plan. Green on the screen is the proposed modified plan and blue are the revised areas which are the easiest uh features to distinguish on that plan. Some modifications to the conditions have been requested by the applicant while other conditions uh condition changes have been requested by the city and regional staff. Key condition updates include removal of the developer build park requirement. Uh all parks are to be built by uh the city now. An updated noise study is required to the satisfaction of the city. Formerly this was a regional responsibility. Development charges are now payable at occupancy to reflect uh legislative changes and confirmation of uh sufficient water supply capacity is also required now prior to final approval. The 2024 OOLT decision established the zoning for the original subdivision. A minor change uh minor zoning bylaw amendment or ZBA is now requested to align with refined plans. The purpose includes accommodating ADUs, addressing grading, and responding to design updates. No changes to the proposed uh permitted land uses are included with this change. Examples of the many minor changes include increasing the maximum porch height from one to 1.5 meters, reducing the minimum lot width for external townhouse units from 9.5 to 7.6 six meters, setting sight specific parking rates for live work units to uh one uh space per unit and removing holding provision 85H uh from the block that abuts uh Ottawa Street at Trustler Road, which relates to the design of the future roundabout at this intersection. No official plan amendment is required. Development and housing approval staff suggests that the proposal represents an opportunity to support and refine a previously approved subdivision. This subdivision would deliver 262 to 410 residential units. It would conserve the Shaun House. It would establish eight live work units, develop two city parks, and preserve an existing wetland. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision modification and the zoning bylaw amendment subject to conditions. No official plan amendment is required. 199 households were notified and no community comments were received. The proposal represents good planning and aligns with provincial, regional, and city uh policies and objectives. Thank you. I'm here to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, can we hold questions for staff till after the delegation? Yeah, thank you. I should also mention that um um Garrett Stevenson, the director of development and housing approvals and Tina Malo Malone Wright, manager of development approvals is are also here in attendance for any questions. Um we have one delegation um Larry Cotzf urban initiatives and you have five minutes to make your presentation. Madame Chair, is the speaker on? You can hear me? Okay. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Great. Madame Chair, members of committee, thanks for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Larry Katsaf and I'm here as a representative of Urban Initiatives, a division of Polycore uh here in Kitchener. I'm representing the ownership group for the lands municipally known as 2219 Ottawa Street South and 808 Trustler Road. The applicants Kitchener Trustler Holding and Kitchener Trustler Holding 3. The staff report is thorough, quite explicit regarding our request and addresses some minor modifications to the draft approved plan of subdivision and a minor resoning bylaw amendment that includes the removal of a hold provision as well. We've reviewed the staff report 2026 204 and concur with the staff recommendations for approval of the applications before you this evening. By way of background, these applications represent a series of minor refinements to a plan of subdivision and zoning framework which was approved in an OOLT settlement as Mr. Panel mentioned in July 2024. Since those approvals, the applicant team has continued to advance the detailed engineering and architectural design of the subdivision. Through the process, the need for several minor adjustments u were identified to the block boundaries uh to the unit distributions and sight specific zoning uh were identified. Madame chair, I would note that the overall vision for the subdivision remains fundamentally unchanged. Most important, the approved housing range of 262 to 410 dwelling units remains unchanged. The overall subdivision structure, road network, and servicing strategy virtually remain unchanged. The approved mix of housing forms is maintained, and the existing wetland and the designated Shaun House continue to be preserved as outlined in the staff report. The applications are consistent with the provincial planning statement, conform to the regional plan and the city of Kitchener official plan, represent good planning, maintain the intent of the original OOLT approved subdivision, and will support the orderly and efficient development of the lands. The requested modifications are minor in nature and are appropriate refinements. They will facilitate the practical implementation of the approved community design. With this, we seek committee support for the applications and approval of the staff recommendations. Madame Chair, this concludes my presentation and I'm here with my colleague Grant Everly to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the delegation? Council Oduni? No. >> It appears there are no questions for you. Thanks very much. Thank you for your presentation. Um, questions for staff. Councelor Oumi. >> I actually do not have a question or a comment. I just was uh ready to move it when the time was appropriate. Let's get her done. Comments. We've got a mover. Can I have a Well, all the so be it resolved. The motion be moved by councelor Ouni. The motion is that the city of Kitchener pursuant to section 51 of the planning act RS190 chapter 913 as amended modify the draft approved plan and conditions of draft approval for draft plan of subdivision application 30T-22201 in the city of Kitchener sorry for Kitchener Trustler Holdings Inc. and Kitchener Trustler Holdings 3 Inc. in the form shown in the modification to draft approval conditions and draft plan attached to report DSD 2026204 as attachment A and that zoning bylaw amendment application ZBA260020 or OAP for Kitchener Truster Holdings and Kitchener Truster Holdings 3 Inc. be approved in the form shown in the proposed bylaw and map number one attached to report DSD 2026 204 as attachment B. All those in favor? And that is approved. That passes. Thank you. Um, next is for official plan amendment application OPA 230004. This is for 50 Bordon Avenue South um, Woodhouse Investments. And we have Eric Schneider, the senior planner, will provide a a fivem minute presentation. Thank you. Uh, good evening, chair, mayor, and members of council. My name is Eric Schneider, and I'm a senior planner at the city. I'm here tonight to make a recommendation for approval of an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment to facilitate a mixeduse development with 1,224 dwelling units. As we move to the next slide, I will first discuss the site context of the neighborhood. The site is municipally addressed as 50 Bordon A South and is located on the corner of Regional Road, Charles Street East, and City Street, Bordon A South. The site is within a protected major transit station area and is located directly across the street from the Bordon Station LRT stop. The surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of older industrial buildings and uses, low-rise residential and emerging high-rise residential. The existing building on site contains commercial uh recreation uses. The LRT tracks run directly in front of the site's uh Bordon Street frontage as you can see in the photo. On the next slide, I'll discuss the proposed concept. Uh the site is proposed to be redeveloped with a mixeduse development containing two towers of 51 and 57 stories in height. A 13story building base or podium connects the towers and contains structured parking, institutional floor space, and ground floor commercial space. A total of 1,224 dwelling units are proposed. A total of 593 parking spaces are proposed within one level of underground parking and eight levels of abovegrade structured parking within the building's podium. Private amenity space is proposed as outdoor atgrade amenity at the rear of the site. Uh that's the bottom of the site plan in the in the photo on the screen. Uh indoor spaces within the ground floor and podium and unit balconies. As we move to the next slide, I will speak briefly about the current opportunity with this application. The opportunity to facilitate a transit oriented development creating 1,224 dwelling units in a land efficient form within a protected major transit station area. Promoting promoting a high level of urban design adjacent to an ion station stop and making efficient use of land and infrastructure. contributing towards a complete community for this neighborhood and making use of an underutilized parcel of land. Moving now to the next slide. I will summarize the details of the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment request to change the land use designation to strategic growth area C within the current official plan. To change the zoning to the respective SGA4 zone that reflects the land use designation and matches the zoning and designation of the surrounding lands. to establish a holding provision in the zoning to ensure that matters related to noise, traffic, water capacity, and functional servicing are further evaluated and confirmed prior to final approval and to establish a sightspecific uh amendment in the zoning bylaw for sight specific development standards and to prohibit geothermal energy systems. staff are of the opinion that the proposed applications demonstrate good planning principles and are consistent with provincial, regional and city planning policies. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um we have one delegation and that is David Albreth from um UP Consulting. Thank you for coming. You have five minutes. Uh good evening uh uh committee. My name is Dave Galbreth. I'm the president of UP Consulting here on behalf of Woodhouse Group Investments. Uh with regards to the proposed official plan amendment and zone change application for 50 Bordon Avenue in Kitchener. Um the subject lands are municipally known as 50 Bordon Avenue which is located at the southwest corner of Bordon and Charles Street. Um and was previously the site of the Grand River Rocks uh climbing facility. The site's approximately 3/4 of a hectare in size with over 70 meters of frontage on to both of the streets. Um, as you are likely aware and as uh Eric has alluded, the broader area has been subject to considerable infilling over the past number of years responding to the location of uh properties in relation to the o uh the ion and uh the downtown uh further north. This slide shows the broader context of the site uh in relation to the ion. As you can see, it go the ion moves down Charles Street and then along Bordon Street. though it has uh uh adjacency to the station stop on both of these streets. The site's also in close proximity to a number of amenities in the downtown including the Rockway Golf Course, Kitchener Memorial Auditorium, and the Iron Horse Trail. Uh and then I would also note that by way of the Schneider's Creek rehab project, the site will benefit from uh improved active transportation connections to the downtown. In terms of the existing built form of the context, lands to the west and south are primarily used for industrial and service commercial uses. However, as I noted, uh this area has been subject to considerable change over the last number of years, including uh development activity out1 King Street, the Zar Group proposal along Ottawa Street, and the Schneider's redevelopment uh all very close to the site. Um this slide outlines the existing planning controls uh which apply to the the property. Um within the official plan, the lands are gen uh designated general industrial um with the rear portion uh designated natural heritage which corresponds to a buffer from a flood plane. Likewise, the site is zoned general industrial and existing use flood plane corresponding again to the flood plane at the back of the site. Um, as you are likely aware, over the past number of years through the Growing Together initiative, the city has identified uh and redesated many of the uh adjacent properties to SGA4, which is the purpose of the application this evening. So, the proposal itself is for a mixeduse redevelopment uh with two towers containing, 1224 units uh with commercial and institutional uses uh incorporated at the base of the tower. The tower themselves are proposed at 57 and 51 stories respectively. Uh and the current proposal contemplates nearly 4,000 square meters of institutional space uh as well as ground flooror commercial. Uh in terms of parking, uh the development contemplates nearly 600 parking stalls, which is roughly.5 parking spaces per unit. Um this slide here shows the uh the ground level site plan for the proposed development. You can see that the primary access comes off of Charles Street on the west side of the site uh leading to a centralized parking podium uh between the two towers. The towers themselves have been situated on the site so that there's virtually no overlap uh overlook between the two. Um and that was a deliberate uh design choice on this this property. There's a second um access off of Bordon Street which you can see on the right side of the uh the site plan here. And then you can see the uh the ground floor of the development will have uh institutional and commercial uses uh as shown in blue and purple. So I won't go through the details as Eric has already gone through this but uh in essence the purpose of the official plan amendment is to redesate the site strategic growth area C uh and then a corresponding zone change application to reszone the property SGA4. Uh there are a number of sight specific requests that are also being um uh advanced by this proposal. Um but I would note that at the time of the original application in 2023, it was subject to separate zoning at the time. Um so we worked very closely with city staff to uh identify uh the relief required and uh various design refinements to the process as well. Um so with that, I will conclude my delegation and I'm happy to respond to any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Um we do have one question. Councelor Nitz. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chapman. Um, Mr. Mr. Gro Galbreth is so you you're in support of the recommendation by staff. I just want to clarify that. >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Thank you. And, uh, Vice Chair Chapman, when the time's appropriate, I'm prepared to move the recommendation. >> Okay. Now, is appropriate. Well, first, are there any questions for staff? Thank you. That's those are the questions. Um any questions for staff? No. I just have one about the um geothermal prohibition. Um is there a reason for this? Sorry. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you for the question, chair. Um the reason for the prohibition on geothermal is that the region has identified it as a site with environmental threats. Um so just because of the past industrial uses on and surrounding the lands and uh groundwater contamination uh geothermal would require digging deep into the ground and it it could unsettle those things. So, it's a pretty standard requirement that the region requests um any site anytime that there's a site subject to a record of site condition like this one. >> Okay. Thank you. Um councelor stretch. >> My question um probably isn't for is isn't for staff. So, if it's okay if the um >> for the delegation. >> Um Mr. Galbreth, can you come back please? >> Um it's just about uh green development standards and if um there's any participation or willingness to participate um with the pilot project that's happening regionally >> um through the chair um I think there would be an openness to explore opportunities through that uh that process. I think once we get into more detailed design through site plan that probably be the appropriate uh opportunity to have those conversations. >> Great. Yeah, I'd love to I'd love the insight. um and reciprocal learning that could happen there. So be really interested to see you participate. Thanks. >> Okay, those are the questions. Thank you. Um so it's been moved by councelor Ionitis. All those in favor and that passes. Thank you. Next, um item 6.3, Kitchener 201, the new official plan. And we'll start off with a presentation by Rosetta Busa Bamante, director PLA of planning and housing policy. Um, and then followed by a presentation by John Zunik and Rachel Neu or Noi. Um, we'll each have 10 minutes to make a presentation. And I'll also mention while they're getting set up that Natalie Goss, the manager of policy and research is also in attendance um, for this item. And well, I'll also mention that there are we've received um 38 written submissions. I won't name everybody um but that will be included in the minutes. So we'll start then with um the presentation from Rosa Busamante. Good evening, chair, members of council, collaborators, and community members. Today marks the start of both National Indigenous History Month and Pride Month as we recognize the history and contributions of the First Nations, Inuit and Matei people, as well as the 2SLGBTQIA plus community which have shaped Kitchener as we know it today. And so it is very fitting that we are here tonight to recommend the long-term vision for an equitable and inclusive Kitchener as a thriving, connected, green, and above all caring city. As you'll hear this evening, over the last two years, we've had thousands of community conversations which have included the First Nations, grade 5 students, high school students, new Canadians, persons with disabilities, racialized groups, seniors, and many other collaborators. Their insights and lived experiences as well as their ideas, dreams, and values underpin this official plan, Kitchener 201. For many of us, it's difficult to imagine what our lives will look like 25 years from now. But the community shared vision for Kitchener 201 is one that makes our neighborhoods affordable and welcoming to all, builds our economy through opportunity and innovation, and protects our environment for future generations to enjoy. On behalf of the city's planning team, we are pleased to be here tonight to share the city's new official plan with you and the community. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Zunick and and Rachel. >> Good evening. Developing the recommended official plan has been more than two years in the making and is fundamentally rooted in Kitner's strategic plan initiative of building a city for everyone where together we take care of the world around us and each other. It is built on the values shared by the community members and over 3,000 conversations and over 70 engagement events. These values highlighted affordability, thoughtful and resilient growth, access and inclusion, safe and sustainable mobility options, and mutual care and belonging as core to a new official plan. The approach to growth endorsed by council last summer represents an intentional shift toward expanded housing options being available in all neighborhoods across the city, particularly missing middle housing. Some planning approaches taken in the past across North America have in part contributed to the challenges that we now face, including the housing supply and affordability crisis. The recommended official plan boldly addresses these challenges by planning in alignment with what the community has told us is important and it prudently links land use planning decisions within the city's control to addressing housing supply and affordability, the climate emergency, resilience in the face of global economic uncertainty and its impact on jobs here at home. The recommended official plan was shaped by over 3,000 conversations with First Nations, the community, and collaborators, and over 70 engagement events. All of these conversations from grade five student conversations, local indigenous groups, First Nations, advisory committees, and others from all parts of the city were considered. And where the conversations aligned with the big ideas and could be supported with a planning analysis, they shaped the recommended official plan. a key part in contributing a meaningful process in engaging with the community including created included creating a community working group made up of individuals from every ward. This group met with city staff on a monthly basis for 18 months and directly influenced the development of engagement activities and policies found in the recommended official plan. Rachel Noi served as one of the group's members and will share her experiences now as being part of this group. Thanks, John. Our 30 member community working group represented diverse backgrounds, needs, and viewpoints. This meant we heard wide ranging viewpoints on every topic with healthy discussions. Meetings were jointly coordinated by a city planner and a nominated member of the community working group. The city planners went the extra mile to ensure there was great engagement, provided dialin options to encourage participation when there was poor weather or people couldn't uh attend in person. Because of the emphasis on transparency, our community working group members received draft planning materials and background documents well in advance of each meeting. This meant that our time together could be structured to maximize community discussion. We were encouraged to ask questions, provide input, share ideas, and provide feedback to the planners. We also gathered feedback from our local neighborhoods so we could share viewpoints that went beyond the working group. I've been volunteering with different organizations for decades and this was the most inclusive and engagement process I've experienced and I encourage the city to continue with this process. Thanks. Creating a caring city means that it will take all of us in all neighborhoods across the city to create a Kitchener in 2011 that makes our neighborhoods affordable and welcoming to all, builds our economy through opportunities and innovation, and protects our environment for future generations to come. These big ideas inform the objectives and policies that are key to addressing the challenges that we face. This plan charts a course for the next 25 years. Kitner will continue to grow and change long after that and it will be because of the foundations laid through this plan. This is part of the nature of citybuilding. To achieve positive changes anywhere, they have to be enabled everywhere. The recommended official plan was informed by a number of technical studies. These studies helped us understand uh and forecast our population and employment needs to 201 and understand how much land we would need to accommodate it. Additionally, they evaluated how our current infrastructure from roads to the water distribution network to our sanitary sewers would be able to accommodate the projected growth in different ways and identified highle upgrades that would be required. This also included identifying the long-term operating and capital costs as part of of of a financial assessment based on how the recommended official plan plans for growth over the next 25 years. In conclusion, staff recommend that the official plan amendments be adopted and approved as they conform to provincial policies and plans and they represent good planning. I will leave you with this final video that summarizes all of the work that went into developing the recommended official plan before you tonight. Thank you. Like many cities across Canada, Kitchener is growing and with growth comes opportunity. In this moment of possibility, we can learn for a future that builds on our strengths and reflects our shared values to create a city that works for everyone. To respond to this moment, we launched Kitchener 201, an 18month journey to create a new official plan. An official plan sets the long-term vision for how the city will look and feel in the future and helps guide decisions that shape how and where we live, work, move, and connect. To create a plan that truly reflected our city, we needed to hear from everyone, especially those left out of city building conversations. The Kitchener 201 process placed you, our community, at the center right from the start. We heard from over 2500 people through 47 different engagement interactions, including the interactive block party that publicly launched the Kitchener 201 project with music, art, food trucks, and interactive displays and activities in the heart of downtown. Three speaker series events co-hosted with local organizations to share diverse perspectives from community members and local citybuilders related to our key themes. Outreach in all 10 wards including youth engagement in five schools and 16 community popups designed to meet you where you live, work, and play. a choose your own adventure activity exploring where and how we grow based on the future you want to see while also considering different lived experiences of our diverse communities. Regular conversations and workshops with our community working group and council appointed advisory committees and our engaged Kitchener platform was visited over 21,000 times. It's where we host online surveys, interactive mapping forums for community storytelling and more. These opportunities took place over four phases. In phases one and two, we introduced the project and invited people from across the city to share their ideas and aspirations for Kitchener's future. All guided by the four themes from our strategic plan. And you told us the theme of a caring city should live the heart of the new official plan. From your input, we also developed a set of shared community values. In phase three, we combined what we learned from previous previous phases with technical studies, data, and guidance of other city policies to develop the big ideas, focus areas, and approaches to growth. Together, these helped set early direction for the new official plan and helped us show where growth could happen and what it might look and feel like. We shared these ideas through interactive events, a citywide survey, and community-led conversations where you told us that the new official plan should prioritize affordable housing, vibrant, and walkable neighborhoods, climate resilience, and equitable access to local food, good jobs, and parks and open spaces. In phase 4, we brought all of this together as we drafted the new official plan. Guided by our shared values and aspirations for the future, kids 20 will help us tackle the challenges of today while building the resilience needed to adapt and thrive into the future. This will be achieved through a new city structure, designations and policies that are rooted in our shared vision of building a caring city where together we take care of the world around us and each other. And we'll need your help every step of the way. >> Okay. Um, yes, Council Johnston. >> Thank you, Chairman. >> Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Chapman. When the time is right, and I'm hoping that it is right now, I would like to uh move an amendment to the official plan. It's option 2.2.1A. West Mount is one land use with a threetory height limit in the plan and one CHL. >> So, have you shared this with staff? >> I'm sorry. >> Have you shared your amendment with staff? >> Yes, I have. And uh the clerk has that. Can you see it? We won't be voting on this at this point, but um >> yeah, when when we come back to it, I would like to uh make comments on it. >> Okay. Well, maybe we can just show it and then we'll we'll go to the delegations. Sure. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Turn my microphone. Thank you. Thank you. West man is one land use with a three-story height limit in the plan and one CHL. This option would apply the neighborhood growth area city structure element and neighbor neighborhoods land use designation to the entirety of the West Mount neighborhood. It would also identify the West Mount neighborhood as a single cultural heritage landscape. Because detailed study of the western portion of the cultural heritage landscape has not yet occurred, the list of heritage attributes included in the plan for West Mount reflect the heritage attributes for the eastern portion currently for the cultural heritage landscape only. The heritage attributes for the western portion are not able to be included in policies in the plan at this time and they have not been studied. Extending the heritage attributes from the West Mount East CHL to the Westmount West CHL will inaccurately impose heritage attributes to the area where they are not applicable. Additionally, as the heritage attributes have not yet been studied for the West Mount West CHL, it is premature to determine whether or not a three-story height maximum in zoning would be a necessary tool for conservation of heritage attributes. Additionally, this option would see the 2014 official plan Belmont urban corridor be the strategic growth area with mixed use land uses. Am I reading the wrong thing? Do I have the correct thing here? Okay. >> Sorry, I didn't hear you. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, just the motion. >> Just Okay. Okay. I'm so sorry. >> Yeah, but that's fine. I think we get the point. We saw the motion. So, we are not going to vote on it right now. We'll come back to it. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Sorry. I thought you had asked me to read it. >> Well, read the motion, but the amendment. >> Okay. I'm sorry. This is what I have in front of me right now. Sorry. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you. Um I see Stephanie, Councelor Stretch, you wanted to say something. >> Thank you. Um uh similar to Councelor Johnson, I just wanted to uh make council aware as well that the delegates that are here so they could perhaps speak to it or not to speak to it. But my recommendation um is to apply 2.2A. Um and I won't read that in the official plan. But really um so what I am asking um I'm asking for support with the approach outlined on page 26 of 2.2A. And the motion reads as follows. that city initiated official plan amendment OPA 26002 city of Kitchener uh IZ for the purpose of implementing a new official plan for the city of Kitchener be adopted in the form shown in the official planned amendment attached report DSD 2026 235 as appendix A and and is as amended as follows and accordingly forward forwarded to the province of Ontario for approval and that the auditorium neighborhood be incorporated into the new official plan with the city structure land use and cultural heritage landscapes policies as outlined in option 2.2A in report DSD 2026 235 with the exception of lands currently designated mid-rise residential and the 2020 sorry the 2014 official plan where the land use shall be mixed use A as recommended. Thank you. Okay. Again, we we'll vote on that later and um we'll come back to both of those. So, we have a full list of delegations. Um so, please keep to the five minutes that you're allotted. We'll start with Barb Trotter and Cam Trotter. Thank you for coming in. >> Go ahead when you're ready. >> Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns. Historical neighborhoods provide a sense of place and help achieve long-term economic prosperity. Proactive preservation of built heritage resources, including cultural heritage landscapes, is stipulated in the planning act and the provincial planning statement. The new 201 plan cites conservation of cultural heritage resources as essential and I have suggested that they be added under places to protect protect in section two. That change has not been made. I'm glad that cultural heritage landscapes are now listed, especially West Mount, but part of West Mount is still strategic growth area mixed use, eight stories, and the remainder is still neighborhood six stories. I therefore support the three stories of staff report option 2.2.1A. However, I do not trust that even those recommendations guarantee the preservation of West Mount. My experience is that stipulated heights are not absolute. In reality, developers apply for amendments to enable taller structures. Approval is usually granted. If saving West Mount and other cultural heritage landscapes is truly a goal, I am convinced that more stringent phrasing and removal from SGAAs are required. The staff report raises two objections. staff seem to feel that SGAA parameters must be rigidly enforced for citywide consistency. I prefer flexibility with allowances for unique circumstances which I strongly believe covers protecting heritage resources including saving Westmount. Surely the provisions of provincial legislation and this plan provide a valid rationale. Exempting listed cultural heritage exam landscapes from SGAA zoning would then be both reasonable and consistent across the city. I have two suggestions. Make a provision like section 7.2 two which says in the case of a conflict with plan policies the heritage conservation district plan will prevail. Expand that kind of absolute language to include listed cultural heritage landscapes so that their protections override SGAA or bylaw zoning. Alternatively or additionally when SGAAs are described add a clause to exempt listed cultural heritage landscapes. If I'm understanding correctly, the second object objection is that housing units will be lost if West Mount is guaranteed three stories. Units are unavailable elsewhere because transit and infrastructure have not been organized. It seems to me that this objection is based on what feels like a sense of urgency that might be a bit premature. The daunting population forecasts that underly this plan are not immediate. In fact, only very marginal regional growth is reported for 2025. The missing middle and affordable housing document calls for 500 units over 10 years, which seems a feasible period for developing other SGAAS. As of right, additional residential units could be created in West Mount by encouraging the division of interiors into apartments, but with the historical exterior maintained, as with two houses on John Street. An unalterable fact is that if you leave West Mount open to taller development now, you absolutely cannot reverse the destruction. Choosing West Mount option 2.2.1A 2.1a plus ironclad protection now keeps the door open for future possibilities perhaps decades down the road if and only if the population explosion actually materializes. Staff also mentioned the difficulty of amending the official plan, but a clause could be added to streamline the process should it become absolutely imperative to cover the entire city with highrises. In my opinion, heritage resources and especially West Mount should be among the last areas for development, most definitely not the first. My desire is for future generations to feel the groundedness and connectivity created by historical elements like Westmount that express the identity, roots, and soul of our city. Thank you. >> Oh, questions. Thank you very much. Um, I don't see any questions. >> No. >> Um, thank you for coming in. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Pierre Shauvan from MHBC. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of committee. Uh, my name is Pierre Schovin with MHBC planning. Uh I just want to take a moment to thank your staff particularly Natalie and and John for leading this charge. This is a very uh ominous task and they brought it forward and I appreciate uh certainly everything they've done uh to this point. I'm here on behalf of our client Activa Holdings Inc. and number company0000682913 Ontario Inc. And on behalf of our client, we've made previous comments uh to city staff on April 16th of this year. And I'm happy to report that a lot of our comments have been satisfied. Uh however through our review of this next draft of the official plan and I think I mentioned this at last week's meeting with respect to the Dundee North secondary plan we do remain concerned with respect to the uh parkland dedication policies and the the exclusion of trails within the calculation of parkland and specifically policy in the official plan 7.160 bracket M and it specifically excludes includes trails uh from the calculation of parkland dedication and in my experience this has traditionally always been included in the city of Kitchener as part of your uh parkland dedication. I would even say uh look at the definition of parks under your own municipal code uh chapter 270 which actually includes trails as part of the definition of parks. Um staff will certainly say that because they've excluded trails because these are often used as uh active transportation. I'm not disputing that. Certainly they are often used as active transportation, but they're also used as recreation and part of the parks uh network. Um staff will also say that it's not programmable space. That's where I would strongly disagree. Trails provide for multigenerational use. There's no barrier or or bar to entry. It unlike a sports field, it it provides recreation for everybody unlike a specific age group for a playground or or tot lot of those types of things. So people can walk, cycle, uh rollerblade, even uh sightsee and nature uh do a nature observation. So as well as even fitness along the trail. So it is part of the recreational uh component and it's a very important and integral part of your park system as uh noted in your own parks and spaces documentation and I would quote uh in part of your document it says parks foster community well-being by promoting a healthy lifestyle providing access to free or lowcost recreational and amenities such as trails. So this is an important component and I would suggest in the Dundy North community that is still before you to consider there's 11 kilometers of proposed trails in that community all of which are proposed on private lands. How does the city expect those trails to be built and expand your trail network in accordance with your cycling and trails master plan? That is really on the backs of the developers and I would suggest that's always been through parkland education. Thank you. >> Thank you for your presentation. I don't see any questions. Um, so thank you. >> Next we have Andrew Milney Milan. I will say thank you. >> You have five minutes. >> Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Andrew Mil. I'm speaking as a resident of the civic center neighborhood. Um, and I believe that all neighborhoods and all areas of Kitner need to be developed and need to be developed and intensified intelligently and in concert with the environment and in concert with the city as it has existed in the past and how it now exists. My connection to downtown started in the 90s when I attended St. Mary's High School in its former location. I'm also an engineering professor of teaching at the University of Wateroo interested in thermal fluids and design. I am not speaking as a professional engineer today though I am registered as such in the province of Alberta. I think Kitchener 201 plan has a many good ideas and goals uh weaning us off fossil fuels including including in heating protection of green spaces building walkable neighborhoods and inclusionary zoning and an acknowledgement that necessary parts of a city like heavy industry autooriented commercial and etc can be difficult to balance with the above. Overall, I think it seems like a good balance of a livable city, one that is economically viable and one that is environmentally achievable in the long term. Therefore, I think it is trying to meet the three pillars of sustainability. It also gives the city tools and makes clear in section 12 what the terms will and may mean and that when the city says they will do something, it does not mean that they will do it all the time. That said, how will the city plan for a 60 2614 ratio of more dense town home and single and semi- detached hoses with the present policy 3.7 through 310. Consider the following. Most developments inside existing neighborhoods are going to be small, less than two hectares. Therefore, they would permit only one or two housing types to be built. This is touched on by 39. But if you are going to plan for a 60 2614 ratio, do you not need to aim for this to occur in your larger developments, the ones which are over two hectares? Instead, in 310, you propose to exempt these developments by only requiring 30% of new uh of new homes to be something that is other than single or semi- detached. Please make this make sense. Please tell me how multiple large developments at 70% single and uh semi- detached add up to 14% across the city. Doing some quick math, if 50% of new developments are greater than two hectares and they build at 70% detached and semi- detached, at best you might get a mix of new buildings at 30, 27.5, and 42.5. Meaning 42.5% of new buildings would be detached and semi- detached new builds. This is assuming that you can somehow get all of these smaller builds to build on the ratio that you've stated of 60 25 and 14 or sorry 16 26 and 14. The only way I see this happening is if the intensification only occurs inside existing neighborhoods and occurs as many many more apartments, not things like stacked town homes and additional dwelling units which help meet the missing middle of housing. Given your target of 75% single bedrooms in these apartments, what we are going to have is a bunch of apartments that cannot support families in the inner city and a bunch of detached and semi- detached further out. Apartments are one of the most resource inensive kinds of dwelling to make. Detached house houses are also town homes and stacked town homes are the sweet spot in the middle. They minimize construction impact. They minimize heating and cooling impact. They minimize utility impact. They minimize transit impacts. They minimize the cost for these things as well, both for home owners and for the city. I've spoken to city councilors and planners who have complained about the fact that their own neighborhoods in which they live do not have the population density to make public transit viable. As a result, their constituents cannot use public transit. This means that people who choose not to drive or cannot drive cannot live in those neighborhoods. This also means that these neighborhoods are unlikely to have the density necessary to support local businesses, let alone local businesses in walking distance. Separately, I am also concerned about the fact the of the existing institutional lands and how they have not been listed as such in the planned doc planning document. God forbid that St. Marius closes and that the work that they do through tiny home takeout ceases. But if they do or if any of the other churches, schools, shelters downtown or any of the existing buildings like the hospital, city hall, regional buildings, KPL, DCC, Center in the Square, Kwag, Registry, St. Louis, Laurier School of Social Work, if they were to close, we'd be at risk of losing these institutions, their lands, and the services that they provide. So please align your policies much like to allow things like St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church building housing rather than losing them. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um any questions for the delegate? No, I don't see any questions but thank you for your comments. Next we have Scott Nevin. Thank you for coming in. You have five minutes. >> Thank you. Um, my name is Scott Nevin. I'm a longtime Kitchener resident. I was here about six weeks ago, but I don't think all of you were. So, I'll get to give you a little refresher. Um, I was a municipal planner for 30 years in a local municipality. Um, that was a municipality undergoing tremendous >> Can you just speak into the mic a bit more? Maybe can it be raised? >> That was a municipality with significant intensification and I supported that intensification. Um, having said that, I don't believe all intensification is good intensification and that's what I want to speak to you about tonight. Um, I do quibble with a few things in the official plan. I would like to say though that um, I led a team that brought a new official plan forward in the local municipality. I know the effort involved. Your your planners have done a really good job to get to this point. Um, and they should be commended for that. So, I have concerns with respect to the six-story height limit in neighborhoods and in West Mount West specifically. Um, the the Which one am I collecting? Top the right. Gotcha. Um, this map is from your proposed official plan. Uh, the yellow areas are essentially low-rise residential areas and they are areas in your current plan as low-rise residential with a three-story height limit. Throughout the current official plan in those neighborhoods, uh you have language that talks about maintaining the residential neighborhoods um maintaining the character and ensuring that development is compatible. That doesn't mean that they're hands off and there's no change. There is in fact change allowed, but it's managed with the idea of maintaining those stable residential neighborhoods. That's throughout the existing plan. That language doesn't exist in the new plan. It's completely gone. There's a new vision. And the new vision is we're going to have a range of housing in all neighborhoods from singles to apartments from one story to six stories. And I I think that's not necessary and I think it's inappropriate. I think you can do what you want to do without going to four, five or six story in low in the middle of low-rise neighborhoods. Um, I had tried to take some pictures of existing six-story buildings and I wanted to inject them into some low-rise neighborhoods on the streetscape and show those to you. Quite frankly, it's impossible to do. Stand on the street and try and take a picture of a six-story building looking up and make that picture work to insert into a streetscape. It doesn't work. The perspective is just wrong. So, I turned to AI, the next best thing. And I'm certainly not an expert in AI, but these next three slides give you a little bit of a sense of five and six story buildings adjacent to one or twotory buildings. And yeah, this one's a little unfair because there's no sideyards provided from the building. So the next one I asked AI to give me 25 ft and it did on one side and not in the other. But you get a sense of wow, six stories is actually fairly tall in a low-rise neighborhood. Particularly when you're zoning today for a six-story building is either 3 meters or four and a half meters. So 10 to 15 feet is the sideyard setback for a six-story building. Put that beside a bungalow in West Mount or elsewhere in the city. There are clearly impacts. Um my main concern is the overlook and and uh lack of privacy or loss of privacy. You you heard from the developer of the Bordon site 10 minutes ago. What did he say? They situated the towers to avoid overlook from one tower to the other. The developer gets it. That's what we're dealing with here. overlook and l lack of privacy. The other thing is you you take a two or four lots in a neighborhood and put in a six-story building, the activity goes up from two or four units to probably 50 units um in a six-story building. Activity level goes up, noise goes up, lighting goes up in the parking lot, wall packs on the building, uh deliveries to the building, outdoor garbage storage with smells, those are all impacts. They're not shown in these in these pretty pictures, but you and I know that they exist from these kind of buildings. Here's an example of a five-story building against a two-story building on Aberdine Road in Kitchener. Again, lots of pretty lot it's a nicel looking building, some trees. We know one of the things we lose with intensification and redevelopment is the trees. Uh they'll take a long time to to look like that in on one of these developments. I think you have options. I think you can you can look at putting those six-story buildings on the periphery of neighborhoods on the main streets where they have transit. Sorry, I'm just going to talk quickly about West Mount CHL. You've heard from a consultant that there's two CHLs, east and west. Uh well, the consultant you hired in 2014 said, "You know what? It's all one neighborhood. It looks and feels like one neighborhood. Similar attributes." Now, we've got a line on West Mount. your current consultant actually drew that line, but says the gradation actually starts on uh Aendale. It doesn't start at West Mount. So, I think you've got a question there. Um the new plan talks a lot about how you're going to conserve cultural heritage landscapes if you know the attributes. You don't know the attributes in West Mount West because you haven't studied them. Um but it says things like we're going to be concerned about the placement of dormers on buildings. Notwithstanding that, you can build a six-story building in the CHL or we're concerned about keeping the addition behind the existing building, but it can be six stories. It it seems a little odd to me. There's a disconnect there. >> Can Can you just summarize your your comments? >> Um, your staff report says that the heritage attributes haven't been studied, so they can't say that a three-story limit is appropriate. I say you haven't studied the attributes, so how can you say that a six-story limit is appropriate? I think you've got the option the staff laid out in 2.2.1A and if that's not acceptable to you then I would say adjust 7.11 to say until such time as a study has been completed for West Mount West and policies developed the maximum height limit shall be three stories prevent the loss of the attributes until you've studied them. Thank you. >> Okay, we do have a couple questions for you. Great. Um councelor Deno. Uh thank you uh Chair Chapman. Uh thank you Mr. Nevin for coming in tonight. Uh you mentioned earlier you were a a planner >> for 28 years. Yeah. >> And what where where whereabouts were you a planner? >> Uh next door city of water. I ended my career in 18 years there. >> Okay. So how did how did Waterlue accommodate your growth? >> Nodes and corridors focusing the majority of the development to nodes and corridors. uh the interior of the neighborhoods we limited when I was there and and still in effect to three stories with the opportunity for sites on the periphery of the neighborhoods to be considered for four stories. >> Okay. And I asked this question of a delegation um last time. So where what I'm hearing is growth shouldn't occur in that area in your in your neighborhood. >> Where should it go? >> Yeah. I'm actually saying I don't think six stories is appropriate citywide in the low-rise neighborhoods. I'm not just saying in West Mount very clearly. Um where should it go? It should go on the periphery. Look have a second look at those nodes and corridor opport those nodes and corridor opportunities. There are uh major streets in the city and that aren't identified in the plan for intensification. Say look at those. There there are opportunities. >> Okay. Okay. And so then how would you, you know, we want to have density equitable across the city. It can't just be located along the periphery. You know, if we want to have density, it needs to be equitable across the city. But you you don't believe that. >> You don't think it should be equable equitable across the city? I just I I'm I wonder what your definition of equitable is and why it has to be on every street in every low-rise neighborhood. Does it make sense? I've heard the argument that some parts of the city have seen development in the last 10 years and feel others should have it, so we should have it. And that's not a planning argument clearly. Um that's that's a desire. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you for your question. Um, Councelor Johnston, go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair Chapman, and thank you, Mr. Nevin, uh, for coming in. You and I have had this conversation before. So, uh, what I would like to do is if I can ask, uh, staff to comment perhaps on, uh, the CHL for the west part of water of um, excuse me, of West Mount and, uh, if we can maybe see when there could be a timeline for that or or if it's even in the scope right now. I think that that would be an important thing for um residents that are here tonight to know. >> Councelor Johnson, I think we'll go to questions to staff at the end because we've got a long list of delegations. >> Okay. I was hoping that we could do that now as it relates to this one. >> Well, I think it's going to all come up later, right? I prefer I prefer that you wait. Thanks. >> We will have that answered for you later then. >> Thank you. >> Um councelor Singh, go ahead. >> Thank you. Just want to clarify a little bit more to what councelor Deno is saying. I think uh and I think uh Mr. Nevin can help clarify his question regarding equity. >> Mhm. >> Um you specify that and you know as a planner um where development should be focused along nodes or collector roadways and is sufficient there but not in residential neighborhoods or low-rise neighborhoods. So under Kitchener 201, we're looking at a very fundamentally different way of city planning than what's done in you know many other cities or how we've done in the past which is dispersing the density across the city which allows for growth of all housing types happening across all neighborhoods. So that's the equity I think what councelor Deno was talking about. But you also made your argument regarding uh oversight and privacy. Now before I get that because I don't want us to be argumentative, I agree with you on the west neighborhood. I think there are certain neighborhoods that are very distinct in character aspect of preservation. And that's why I think having all types of housing stock can erode the housing character because of the heritage component or um just you know obviously there's a a historical context to certain neighborhoods across some parts of the city but anywhere else um why is privacy not an issue along a node but privacy absolutely should be paramount in a residential neighborhood where we want to provide a diverse range of housing stock >> a level of affordability That's a great point. Um, one of the things that it allows you to do by focusing those higher buildings, six stories, four, five, six stories on the edges of the neighborhood is you you reduce the amount of conflict. So now you go from instead of having an apartment building within low-rise housing with neighbors on both sides and neighbors behind to neighbors behind where you have deeper rear yards to help manage that separation. Imagine. So a rear yard typically six or seven meters. So from building to building now you've got 15 12 to 15 meters. As opposed to side to side you could have four meters. So you're reducing the number of times you have those side to side conflicts by putting them on the on the main roads. The other thing is your higher order transit, your better transit is on those main roads. Better service for the higher population. And I I get the idea of trying to integrate commercial into the neighborhoods. A lot of planners have tried to do that for quite some time. It's really tough. Um the the easier place to locate it is on those major or more main streets where there's more density, there's more transit, there's more activity. So there's a there's a few different pieces there. if my time allows. And the reason why I'm really pushing this is again we're we're we're talking about the change in, you know, how we plan towards a city and seeing higher densities and higher heights which we've never seen before. Um but the counterargument of what you're saying is also there's a segment of our population which may be feeling being priced out of neighborhoods or they're their lifestyle or age demographics is changing where it's not conducive but they've integrated established themselves to a neighborhood friends and family where they are being pushed out and having a higher range of housing stock that accommodates that very nature of inclusivity. So, how do we accommodate that while preserving just a threestory low-rise uh across the board and only focusing along the nodes? That's my last question. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I say again, not just focusing on nodes, focusing on corridors. Um, you know, an example for me because in my neighborhood is uh uh you not union um Glasgow. Are there portions of Glasgow that you would have higher heights than in the interior of the neighborhood and a r a greater range of uses? Sure. And I'm also I'm not arguing against the range of uses on the internal neighborhoods. If you can build a three or perhaps a four-story apartment and manage the impacts and manage the separation, go for it. But six stories, um, look at some of the examples in this city today. Um, King and Louisa, there's a six-story building. Look at the impacts on the neighbors, uh, across across the lane. Look at the lack of privacy in their yards. There are real impacts with these buildings. And you you really can't unless you have huge setbacks, which you'll never have in an urban context, you can't you can't manage that. >> Okay, those are all the questions. Thank you very much for your um responses. Um next we have Martha Stoke and Todd O'Donnell. And you're doing a joint presentation. You'll have 10 minutes. As proud residents of the auditorium neighborhood, the home neighborhood of the 2026 Memorial Cup champions, the Kitchener Rangers, we not we not only take great pride in our team, but also in our community and the future of Kitchener. Tonight we have six neighbors present who spearheaded this presentation. Todd and Tara O'Donnell, Heather Mai, Louise Jessup, Warren Stoke, and myself, Martha Stoke. Together, we have a total of 239 lived years in our neighborhood. We are also representing the voices of over 200 neighbors who have signed our petition and support our concerns that we will highlight in our presentation tonight. Many of you may also have received numerous letters from our concerned neighbors regarding these issues. All our families have invested in this community by raising our children here, operating businesses, volunteering locally, and contributing to the growth and success of our city. We are deeply invested in Kitchener's future and continued success. And at the same time, we are also supporters of thoughtful and planned city growth. >> Thank you, Martha. Yeah, we we support growth. Uh our neighborhood supports u Kitchener's vision for growth and and we're excited about Kitchener's future in our neighborhood. You know, we support transitoriented development that builds a complete and connected community. We do recognize though the need for more diverse and attainable housing options in the city. We believe every neighborhood should contribute to this growth and share responsibility. Our neighborhood supports a variety of housing forums today shown by the examples on this slide. Types of existing housing options in our neighborhood today include duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, garden suites, and low-rise apartments. Our concern tonight is not about whether growth should occur, but rather where and how that growth is planned. Our neighborhood is composed of two designated cultural heteritriage landscapes. Most homes in this historic area date back nearly a hundred years. These streets contribute significantly to Kitchener's identity, character, walkability, and quality of life. Historic neighborhoods such as ours are longterm cultural assets. Once lost, they cannot be recreated. We believe growth and heritage preservation can coexist through thoughtful and balanced planning. We believe the current proposed uh Kitchener 2051 mapping creates a bit of a misalignment between the city's heritage objectives and its transit oriented growth framework. The current proposal extends a strategic growth area designation deep into the interior of our heritage neighborhood, thus dividing it in half. At the same time, it does not align with the official plans map 4 projected major transit station areas which we have shown here uh on this slide that clearly indicates its stops at Weaver Street. We believe higher density built forms of six state stories are more appropriate along major arterial roads such as Weber Street and Ottaw Ottawa Street part of the neighborhood where transit access and existing infrastructure are better positioned to support that scale of development. The road infrastructure in our neighborhood is already strained and could not support density at this level proposed. Requested amendments. We are respectfully requesting several targeted amendments to better align with the city's transit heritage and neighborhood planning objectives. These amendments align with proposal 2.2.2A in the staff memo dated May 21st, 2026. We do have some concerns regarding the language and criteria changes on page 26 of this staff memo. This has been included. Uh I think everybody might have a copy. Uh the insertion of the word generally within 800 meters of the with the language of the official plan 2015 which does not add generally to the criteria based on the original criteria. Our requested amendments are below. Number one is revise map two city structure. Amend the designation for the area between Weaver Street and Lydia Street from strategic growth area to neighborhood growth area. Two, update map three land use. Amend the applicable land use designation for mixed use area A to a neighborhood designation for the interior heritage neighborhood area between Weber and Lydia Street. Chapter 11. Neighborhood designation. maintain a maximum building height of three stories within the interior portions of the cultural heritage landscapes of the auditorium neighborhood while directing higher density buildings toward major arterial roads and transit corridors which are only two blocks away from the interior of the neighborhood. And finally, heritage compatibility incorporate additional policy language requiring that intensification within the cultural heritage landscapes be compatible with the existing auditorium neighborhoods. This is not a question of growth versus no growth. It is a question of compatible growth. Growth and heritage preservation are not mutually exclusive. They can and should coexist. Thank you for considering our request. Now, do you have any questions? >> Thank you for your presentation. Um, there's a question from Mayor Refanovic. >> Thanks uh thanks very much Chapman and uh Miss St. Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you so much for coming in with uh uh your team that have been working on this. Clearly a lot of uh uh good work has uh gone into making your arguments. Um I know councelor stretch has uh has communicated with uh with you folks and uh has been working diligently. We've had some conversations. I know she's been working with staff. The the motion that she's brought forward, does it speak to does it address the concerns that you've raised this evening? >> Yes. Okay, great. Just wanted to confirm that. Thank you for Thank you. >> Thank you very much for that question. >> Um, next we have Greg Greg Shepard and Julia Kaso Kasos Kasowski, sorry. And you have 10 minutes to make your presentation. Uh good evening, madame chair, mayor, and members of council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. We wish to take a moment to thank the city of Kitcher planning staff and the members of council. Thank you for listening to us over the past few months regarding the concerns of of a West Mount 2015 group, a residentled initiative focused on improving the draft Kitchener 201 official plan to protect West Mount's historic character. You'll recall in our presentation in April where we explained how the draft of the Kitchener 201 proposed plan was going to split West Mount into two areas with different land use designations and further inconsistency of two different culture heritage landscapes where one of the cultural heritage landscape areas straddled two different land use designations. You've also heard from approximately 130 neighbors from the West Mount community. We're very appreciative of staff of being open to discussing our neighborhood, our neighborhood's cultural heritage, unique history. We're also very pleased with the inclusion of option 2.2.1A in the staff report, which addresses our concerns, and we hope you will support the this option as moved by councelor Johnston. Today, we want to speak to you briefly about the future of the West Mount neighborhood. West Mount was intentionally created both by urban planning and through decades of reinforcing bylaws as was established low-rise neighborhood. A community that serves like a public park and it's enjoyed by many due to the calming green tree streetscapes. Over more than a hundred years, it has developed into a stable, highquality residential area with unique identity. And that identity matters because Westmount does something important for this city that's not easily measured in planning models. It attracts people who build this community. West Mount has consistently attracted business owners, entrepreneurs, and professionals who contribute meaningfully to Kitchener's economy and social fabric. These are individuals who create jobs, lead organizations, and in many cases provide essential services such as healthc care to our residents. And we are seeing this continue today. It attracts entrepreneurs. In fact, in this room this evening, we've got an entrepreneur who lives on my street who contributes to creating jobs. His company employs almost 200 people. And he's not the only entrepreneur in our neighborhood that creates jobs for Kchner residents. Westmont also attracts professionals like like physicians relocating to work in our hospitals. Another current example is the young man who purchased the home next door to me in November. He's an emergency room physician at Toronto General Hospital and he's specifically choosing to move to Kitchener Waterlue and he chose to live in Kitchener in the West Mount neighborhood because of the attractiveness of that neighborhood and also the proximity to where he's going to work. And we want to be clear, we recognize that our city faces a real housing challenge. We do need to grow. We do need to intensify and we do need to find ways to accommodate more residents. We do see Westmount as contributing to intensification through multi-unit dwellings up to three stories and through additional dwelling units. This is where homeowners add secondary suites or nanny suites, also called in-law suites, to their homes. This approach will maintain appropriate built form for the neighborhood while also allowing intensification. And this is going to occur in parallel with the expected significant vertical intensification that's going to be occurring along the commercial uh area of Belmont A to which West Mount is immediately adjacent. Growth is essential, but growth must be balanced because cities don't succeed simply by adding more units. They succeed by attracting and retaining people who contribute to their long-term vitality. The current draft official plan risks overlooking that balance and it could fundamentally and irreversibly change the character of the West Mount neighborhood in ways that reduces its cultural heritage and ability to draw professionals, entrepreneurs, and community leaders to live in Kitchener. And if that happens, the impact will extend far beyond the West Mount neighborhood. It could mean fewer jobs across the city. It could mean fewer highly skilled professionals choosing Kitchener. and it could mean fewer health care providers serving our residents. >> The staff report relies on modeling by consultants to assess outcomes, including projections of housing and job impacts. For example, the model used by the staff in applying a three-star height limitation to West Mount is estimated to result in fewer planned homes and fewer projected jobs by 201. But thankfully, the impact is minor. A calculation shows that the three-story height limit in West Mount is predicted to result in only a 02% reduction in new residents by 201. But we would also add that these statistics respectfully suggest that the analysis is incomplete because it measures what is easy to count units and projected jobs tied to development. It does not measure what is harder to quantify like the economic contribution of people who choose to live in Kitner because of what West Mount is. Planning decisions should not rely on technical modeling. They require human judgment and an understanding of how communities actually function. The risk is that we optimize the measurable while losing what truly matters. >> And we want to emphasize that this is not about resisting change for personal benefit. The reality is that intensification is going to be gradual and many current residents, even ourselves, may not see its full impact. This is about the long term. It's about ensuring that in 2011, West Mount continues to maintain its unique cultural heritage and serve its unique and valuable role within our city. So, what is being asked? We respectfully ask for your support in adopting option 2.2.1A in the staff report because Westmound is more than just a collection of houses. It's part of the economic and social infrastructure of the city. So, please support option 2.2.1A in the staff report. Thank you kindly for your time and consideration. >> Thank you for your presentation. Um, I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you. Next, we have Dave Aston from MHBC Planning. And it says here that you've got 10 minutes because you're representing three separate properties. The actually I'm going to deal with four properties, but I'll still try and stick within that time limit. And uh the properties are if this will go back Yeah. Okay. There's four properties. There's uh 526 Lancaster Street West. Uh there's various properties on Hesh Crescent and Shirley Avenue. Uh there is 809 Wellington Street which is Christy Digital. And then there's a property in Brigadun at Strawber Road and Robert Ferry Drive. And many of these uh I spoke to at the last meeting and I just want to also acknowledge as many have uh the efforts of staff in bringing forward tonight the Kitchener 201 which is a huge effort in itself. But I also know there was a lot of effort put into followup and dialogue with those who made comments and uh that is very much appreciated uh from from our perspective uh to staff. So 526 Lancaster Street West uh the request was to extend the commercial first designation to include the entire site. The site currently is split designated at the front and at the corner is the Tim Hortons building and then if you've been there it's really in the back uh parking area. the rationale uh for this and if I may pause for a second I don't think this is the right presentation Should we go on to the next delegation? And did you find it? >> There we go. >> Okay, >> that's it. I knew it was because I knew I had my goat Kitchener Rangers uh on the introduction slide. Okay, my apologies. Thank you very much. Uh so 526 Lancaster Street. Um there's a number of points of rationale and justification. The lands in totality are directly adjacent to other commercial first lands which have existing commercial and residential uses in the area. If you look at the property, this the request would reflect all of the other properties to the north where the entirety of the parcels are designated commercial first. The site itself really is constrained to one access point. it functions as a site and so to extend the uses across the entire site are proposed. Ultimately the objective is to look at a site uh that has an opportunity for a mixeduse component uh that could include the existing commercial and perhaps a mixeduse building with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Uh the next sites relate to Hesh Street and Shirley Avenue. There's various vacant properties along the frontage of Shirley Avenue and within Hesh Crescent. Uh you recall I spoke at the last meeting with regard to the proposed designation of general industrial versus the planned uh designation now in the official plan as business park. Uh we want to acknowledge the staff alternative recommendation to maintain the existing uses on these lands. um which essentially would maintain the business park land use designations and would request that that uh recommendation or not recommendation but that option uh be considered by council. We believe that that option still does provide the appropriate level of protection for those uses within that area from any other type of conversion to use other than employment. The official plan does still contain strong policy with regard to protection and maintaining employment areas and the recognition of these lands with the existing uses would only continue to support investment opportunity and flexibility for uh development of those vacant lands within this area. So our request is that council uh move forward with option 21A as it provides great the greatest flexibility to attract employment and investment in the land and maintain that planned function of the area for the future. Uh the other is Christy Digital and uh at the last meeting you'll recall we were in discussions with city staff with regard to Christy Digital. Um the official plan at this point hadn't made any hasn't made any changes and what the request is here is to reestablish a special policy area that was included on the Christy digital lands as part of your current official plan. That current special policy area allows office standalone office uses uh which we wish to see continue on the site as that is a use on the site. We're also requesting that the special policy area protect the rights of some of the uses that are currently permitted in the business park designation. So at reestablish the special policy area, put the uh permitted uses back on some of them that are existing now such as scientific research and development and others which are opportunities on the site and uses that would complement or be incillary to that the existing uses. construction uses, repair operations, uh other ancillary and complimentary uses and automotive related uses are uses that are currently permitted on the lands and we see as uh uses that are still a good opportunity for the location of the lands relative to the Welling Street pres Wellington Street presence and connection with the interchange. Uh the last was a request uh for uh part of the brigade community u lands owned by home and construction limited and sunvest reed developments. These lands are at Strawburg Road and Robert Ferry Drive. Right now Strawburg Road ends at where these lands are located. In a review of the official plan, uh staff have added a new policy framework for consideration to establish strategic growth areas. This is provides good direction for consideration of this area as what has been referred to tonight maybe already as a node uh the city would call a strategic growth area. So there's no objection to that approach and we support adding that uh policy framework into uh the official plan as details of these lands and analysis would occur as part of future planning application. This does represent an example where you could locate that additional height and density. uh it is located at two major collector roads with access to recreational uh facilities and future trails and parks. So those are all part of the criteria that uh staff have identified in the official plan and so we'll be working with staff in the future uh looking at implementation of those policies on these lands. And that is all I have for you this evening and happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your presentation. There are a couple questions. Councelor Davyy. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I'm going to take a minute with this del. You don't mind. Madam Madam Chair, uh if I could ask uh the clerk to bring up um some amendments that I've forwarded. I'm just going to ask you, Mr. Aston, just to I want to get as much of this work behind us as we can in advance of the end of the month. I'll preface by saying I think I've come come most of the way um at least in terms of uh retaining uh existing permissions. So we'll go in order here. So 526 Lancaster. Um I know that you wanted the sorry your um the property owner wanted residential for the entire property but um what this does is it retains the existing permission for residential on the front um but does extend the commercial first the entire property. So just any comments on that other than of course that you would prefer to be residential for the whole thing. Does this does this look sorry can you see on your screen in front of you? >> Yes I can. Thank you. >> Yeah. So I just wanted to yeah run through them really quickly if I could. >> So on uh option one uh to the chair uh that generally our request was to extend commercial first on the entirety of the parcel. Um and as I mentioned this evening the intent was to uh potentially look at residential in the unbuilt portion of the property that Tim Hortons likely will remain. Um, so our request would be that residential be permitted on uh the the extended commercial first portion. Uh, I think what we could potentially look at if it's a concern of standalone residential is making sure that that's in a mixeduse building. So there's a commercial component with a residential component as even an alternative. >> Okay. But to be clear, the residential is only on the front portion right now. the rear portion is not does not is not um support residential at all with the current >> through the chair. Yes, that's my understanding as well. >> Okay. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm going to leave it like this for now. We'll move on to the next one. Um this is the the Christy digital property. I believe this one addresses Christiey's concerns in terms of current uses >> uh through the chair. Yes, that would that would cover off uh what Christy Digital would be looking to maintain the existing permissions on site and exist existing uses. >> Okay. And sorry, forgive me. I'm mixing up my properties here, but um um 525 Bingamin 355 Shirley, that's not you, correct? >> No, that is not me. >> And six Shirley is not you as well. >> No, that >> Okay. So, please move on down then to Oh, actually that would be Yeah, the final one is the hash property. uh through chair from what I can see here um this is making the change to allow for those additional uses and to the general industrial land use designation. So um >> so my understanding is retaining all existing uses but also adding general industrial. >> Yes. So in that regard that we would have no concerns with that. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Oops. Thank you. Those are all the questions for now. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thanks. >> Next, we have Heather Price from GSP Group and Grace O'Brien. Davies How is also here virtually and you have five minutes for your presentation. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, councilors, Mr. Mayor and staff. I'm pleased to be here this evening. My name is Heather Price. I'm with GSP Group and representing Schlaggel Urban Developments this evening with respect to the draft new official plan. I am joined virtually by Grace O'Brien and I will um turn the floor over to her within our five minutes and we will do our best to stay within that. Um but before I do, I want to acknowledge the colossal efforts of staff uh to get the recommendations before you this evening. Um the undertaking of a new official plan is um no small feat and the amount of engagement is truly unprecedented. Uh I have delegated on this matter before at the previous meeting. Um and I'm pleased to report that some of the issues that we flagged have been addressed in this rever revised version. However, we're here again tonight because there are a few matters that are still outstanding that are of concern and uh that's what you will hear Miss O'Brien address in her submission. Is she online? >> Thank you, Miss Price and members. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can. Maybe a bit louder. >> Okay, I'll try my So, as you can see, and as I'm sure you know from Miss Price's delegation, um, our client owns a lot of properties in the city of Kitchener and they've been actively involved in the official plan review process and it seems pretty consistent with what I've heard this evening that these discussions with staff have been very productive and especially with our client, they've resulted in a lot of modifications to the official plan that have benefited both the city and owners, but there are still quite a few outstanding issues with the proposed official plan as drafted. We think that this additional time and dialogue with the city may be able to resolve a lot of concerns. So, we're here today to request that the committee direct staff to engage in further discussions with owners before recommending that the new plan be adopted. So our firm submitted written comments which you should now have and these comments set out various concerns of our clients in quite a bit of detail. So I direct you to those for some light briefing. But our main concerns relate to the mixed juice policies including many sight specific concerns which I'll try to go through now. the complete application of presubmission consultation requirements, requirements for official plan and zoning bylaw amendments when none in these cases are actually required and some overly prescriptive environmental and urban design policies which tend to be outside of this jurisdiction of the city and in some cases contrary to provincial direction. So at a general level these particular policies are overly prescriptive and development in many But at a more sight specific level, many of the mixed policies proposed will have measurable impact on our plans. So I'll focus on three of these sight specific policies. And the first one relates to the permitted uses within the Williamsburg town center, uh the restrictive food store policy, and then last permissions for land and coffee street. So, as you can see up here, you see the Williamsburg Town Center. As I'm sure you all know, this is a budding that serves the neighborhood well. This area has many pedestrian friendly uses such as city pizza and marble crearyy. Um, but it also has existing drive-thru locations, auto repair shops, and a gas station. And all of these uses coexist together. But the proposed not permit these as if you see on slide four the proposed policy 11.48 permits exist in drive-thru facilities and other uses but it's unclear whether these uses will be permitted as part of a new higher density mixeduse redevelopment. So as a result of that, we request these uses be permitted as on whether or not they're standalone in their current standalone form or integrated in a higher density development. And our next concern relates to the overly prescriptive food store policies. So if you look at policy 11.45, uh it requires the replacement of existing food stores when a food store is proposed to be demolished as a result of the development and to maintain during the redevelopment. So this is simply just not practical. Not only does it attempt to regulate the tenants of a future development and grocery store tenants, but and that's outside the city jurisdiction, but it also requires developer to maintain a grocery store while construction of a mid to highrise building is occurring right next door. So, not only would that not result in a good grocery store shopping experience, but it would also increase the cost of construction substantially. And then just quickly, I'll go over the two properties that are currently designated mixed use A instead of mixed B. So, the mixeduse A designation only permits maximum height of eight stories, whereas both sites are currently zoned for more height. So, designating these sites as a may result in a future and it's not consistent with the designations of the surrounding properties which are mixed. So these designations of those sites should also be which permits maximum building height of 28 stories and transition to the build. So we don't issue there. >> Can you can you just summarize your points please? Hello. >> Yeah. So, we're just I think that those three concerns highlight that there are still some unresolved comments of Schlagles with the official plan and we think that further discussions with land owners could resolve a lot of these concerns. Thanks for your time. >> Okay. Thank you. We do have a question for you counceloritis. >> Yeah. Thank you, Vice Chair Chapman. Uh I just want to clarify with the written submission that was here that's been in front of us. I see that Miss O'Brien, your your your firm has put forward a recommendation and then I see GSP, Miss Price, there's there's two recommend two two uh documents here with recommendations. So, which one are you looking for? Is it the one from Miss O'Brien first? Because or because I the ones from your from GSP are a little more direct. >> Yes. Uh through you, Madam Chair. Um the recommendations from GSP group identify the specific requests that we would be seeking. Um I think in general the submission from Davies how is seeking additional time to work through some of these matters in hopes that we could find a resolution outside of asking council to sort of override staff. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. And uh I'm going to prepare to move that amendment in a later date, but I'll I'm going to forward it to the clerks because I got other amendments as well. >> Thank you. That's fine. Um, councelor Singh, you had a question. >> Yeah, counceloritis beat me to it. Um, to the advocacy that you're pointing out, you also said you need time to be able to work out some of this with staff. If the recommendation that the way you drafted, if this were to be adopted, are you still able to proceed with your consultation with staff or is this the entirety of what you're looking for? >> Three, Madam Chair, we're happy to continue to engage with staff. Um what we have tabled is what we think would be needed to address the concerns. Um but certainly open to further dialogue if there's some tweaking or massaging of that that staff would like to explore. >> Okay, that's fine. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Those are all the questions. Thank you for coming in. Um next we have Samuel Martineelo and you have five minutes. Sam Mart Sam Martineelo and I'm a resident of the auditorium neighborhood. Through this presentation, I'm asking for your support of option 2.2.2A auditorium as one land use with a three-story height limit in the plan applying the neighborhood growth area city structure element and neighborhoods land use designation to the entirety of the auditorium neighborhood that is outside the protected major transit station areas. In the following slides, the maps on the left are those linked in the staff report presented to this committee on April 20th of this year. And I have created the map shown to the right using the data provided in these maps. Per this report, as well as in the official plan, strategic growth areas across the city are all within 800 meters from an ion station, within 400 meters of the Ottawa Street Regional Intensification Corridor, or within 400 meters of the Grand River Transit frequent transit network. Additionally, areas must also meet two of the following four criteria. 400 meters from the city spine cycling network, 400 meters from community shopping centers, neighborhood plazas, and strip plazas greater than 25,000 square ft. 400 meters from a food store greater than 5,000 square ft or 800 meters from an urban center. Shown in pink on the right is the area designated as a strategic growth area, specifically mixeduse A, within the auditorium neighborhood. Shown in blue is the area within 800 meters of the Bordon and Kitchener Market ion stations as well as within 400 meters of the Ottawa Street regional intensification corridor. Despite inconsistencies at the boundaries, this largely matches the area designated mixeduse A. Shown in blue on the right is the area within 400 meters of both the city spine and downtown grid cycling network components. Shown in red on the right is the area within 400 meters of the nearest edge of the nearest shopping centers, neighborhood plazas, and strip plazas greater than 25,000 square ft. Shown in green on the right is the area within 400 meters of the nearest food stores greater than 5,000 square ft. and no designated urban centers are within 800 meters of the auditorium neighborhood. All four of these affforementioned additional criteria are overlaid on this map. The areas marked in yellow are the only areas satisfying at least two of the requisite additional criteria that are within the area proposed to be designated mixeduse A. The area in yellow to the west is additionally already contained within the Kitchener Market protected major transit station area. Therefore, the remaining area in pink does not meet the requisite number of criteria and should not be designated as mixeduse A. Given this result, option 2.2.2A, auditorium as one land use with a three-story height limit in the plan is exactly satisfied. Unfortunately, as of 10 days ago and what was shown this uh to this committee for the first time this evening, the development services department has made a significant and arbitrary change to the affforementioned criteria. This change will remove the requirement for the additional criteria previously mentioned in order to be designated a strategic growth area specifically for lands within 800 meters of an ion station. This change was made 10 days after I first informed the development services department of the previously mentioned issues during a meeting with the auditorium neighborhood association and 6 days after sending them a hard copy of my findings at their request with no response given. This is a significant departure from the requirements outlined in both the first and second draft official plans as well as what was previously presented to this committee and residents. This feels like a shifting of goalposts to produce a predetermined outcome where previously the outcomes did not meet the criteria. Now the criteria has changed to meet the outcomes. As such, I ask you to reject the development services department's proposal and support option 2.2.2A. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much for your presentation. Um, I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you for coming in. The next delegate is Kevin Mure from Zir Group. >> Welcome. And you have five minutes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of council. Uh Kevin Mure with Zer Group. Uh I'm delegating tonight on two properties that Zer Group owns. Um 1373 Victoria Street North and 1381 Victoria Street North. These are two of properties um on the south side of Victoria essentially between Nachez and Lackner. Um Zer Group has owned these properties for the better part of 40 plus years since the 1980s. Currently, there's 17 businesses on the property, a range of different commercial uses, retail, personal service, office, uh, large furniture stores, those types of things. And over the course of those 40 plus years, Air Group has invested the tune of 10 plus million dollars into investments on this property. Um, our concern, we had uh, we' submitted comments and turned first and this draft this obviously final draft uh, for adoption. Uh, the concern is that currently in the official These properties are both designated commercial. Commercial designation has a in the current plan has a broad range of commercial uses. Uh the things that are currently on the property. What's being proposed in the new official plan is um ultimately what could be seen as a downzoning once the implementing zoning comes in uh is being designated uh in the new official plan as a oriented commercial which strips away a lot of the prevented uses from the property. We did a quick scan. Obviously, we don't have the benefit of the implementing zoning at this time. Um, we did a quick scan and probably 11 of the 17 permit uh uses currently on the property may not be permitted under the policy currently. So, so we had submitted comments on this on a sight specific basis as part of the first draft, the second draft that staff put a pin in it for further conversation. Uh, we had that conversation at the end of April. There were some additional uses, a few. A restaurant was the main one that was added to the uh policy. Um our concern is still valid, I think, in the sense that we have a a property um that has 5 to 10 year leases. When those leases come up for renewal, we could be in a bind this policy and implementing zoning. Uh this is three commercial buildings on the plaza, 76,000 square feet, fully tened and they are a commercial plaza format with those types of uses. So they're not set up for the the uses that are on the north side of Victoria, which is the the space extensive, the flooring, the tile, the gas stations, those types of things. So all we're requesting as part of uh staff's consideration uh sorry, council's consideration is essentially maintaining what's currently permitted by polic on the site. So, we're requesting request in the first draft was change for these two properties to commercial first. That's the designation we think that best um aligns with what is currently permitted on the property. Um there are commercial first designations we note on the south side of Victoria uh for some of the commercial plazas have this designation. So, it's not an auto oriented commercial for the entire corridor. Some have been selected and mostly commercial plazas. So we fit into that category. So that is our request for commercial first. >> Okay. Thank you. We have a question um councelor Vanovic. >> Yeah, thank you very much and thanks Mr. Mir for coming in. So just um to be clear, what what kind of things aren't potentially going to be included that are >> the current uh just running off the top, the current property has um furniture stores, large furniture stores, which would in our mind be permitted. So pickles, home exterior, home international interior, those types of things that require a lot of space. Those would be fine. We have uh some commercial entertainment would be fine. We have some commercial education um catering to kids that type of thing. My understanding is they would not be per the policy would be permitted. Uh smallcale retail the things that fill in the blanks essentially and commercial plazas would not be permitted in the policy as I understand it. Um personal service uses some massage and and the health health side of things. We have a few in the properties right now. Those would not be permitted. So I I think it's largely it's on a commercial corridor it's a lot of these uses that fill in the blanks of the big uses I think is which which is being omitted from the auto oriented commercial uh and essentially the uh the current plan has the entire corridor as commercial so it's entirely flexible in terms of whether it's the small scale retail or the space extensive stuff in the new official plan what's proposed is essentially a distinction so properties have been selected the two categories on the north side I fully understand the auto oriented commercial unit it's next to the rail line back on the industrial area on the south side it's got a different interface it's a residential area and there are properties along the southside that have been identified and designated for commercial first >> okay thank you >> thank you um next we have councelor Davey >> yes uh thank you Mr. beer for your presentation. Uh, sorry, can you just remind me of the property addresses again? I think it was 1370 >> 1373 and 1381. So, these are >> 1381. Okay. Uh, this isn't something we're going to resolve today, but if you could follow up with me in advance of the final council meeting, I'd appreciate that. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And those are all the questions. Thank you much. Thank you very much for coming in. Next, we have Herger and you have five minutes. Greetings council. My name is Hal Joerger and I'm here to ask that densification and the mix of housing type is pursued in new large developments and particularly in green fields. Let's start with policy 310 in the context of the policies that give it meaning. Policy 310 exempts sites of two hectares or more from the requirements of policy 37. For clarity, we are talking about development on sites at least double the size of city hall or 20,000 square meters about 5 acres. Such large sites are typical in greenfield development. Policy 37 ensures that we develop sufficiently densely as we move forward. It ensures that there are a variety of build forms to suit a variety of needs and budgets. But policy 310 means that the largest sites do not have to offer a full range of housing choices. We can see the impact graphically. Under policy 37, 60% of the housing is composed of units in multi-residential complexes. But under policy 310, there need not be any multi-residential complexes. As I shared in my written submission, the housing mix permitted under policy 310 could deliver densities of about 39 residents per hectare. Such low density urban sprawl consumes more agricultural lands threatens our marine compromising our water supply consumes more energy and transportation and does not support public transit and exceeds the initial and ongoing servicing costs. I suppose we might be reassured by policy 238. It states that green field lands will achieve a density of 76 residents in jobs per hectare which approaches the needs that needed to support transit. Unfortunately, policy 239 clarifies that densities are to be calculated very differently in green fields. Much of the land in municipalities is devoted to roadways, storm water areas, and green space. If we calculate density based on people per hectare of land as opposed to simply people per hectare of residentially designated land, the overall density drops by about 50%. The commitment to plan for 76 residents and jobs per hectare could thus translate to only 38 residents and jobs per real life hectare. The costs of a kilometer of roadway piping and so forth are not reduced because some lands are excluded from the calculations. Consequently, our reassurance evaporates and we are left with the prospect of development that does not cover its own costs and existing residents subsidizing green field development. Policy 310 and 239 would conflict with aspects of the official plan's purpose, values, and envisioned shared future, which call for Oops, there it is. Inclusion and housing that is diverse, affordable, and attainable. Transit supportive communities, complete neighborhoods, including a full array of local services, stores, and amenities. responsible growth that uses infrastructure and servicing efficiently and equitability. A key piece is equitability. If we allocate our tax dollars on a per capita basis, we fail to deliver equal access to amenities and services or level of service to those in low density areas. If we ensure that all areas receive the same level of amenity and service regardless of density, then we inequitably tax some areas to subsidize others. Furthermore, why is it fair that as soon as we create a new lowdensity community, we then turn around and place more taller buildings into established neighborhoods to meet our intensification target, particularly when we simultaneously reduce the parkland allocation and green space available per person in the established neighborhoods. If density and a mix of housing types is good policy, then it has to be good policy everywhere. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Um I don't see any questions at this time. Thanks for coming in. We're going to take a five minute break. Um and then we'll reconvene. Thank you. Miss is Melissa Bowman and you have five minutes. Good evening, council. My name is Melissa Bowman and I'm here on behalf of Waterlue Region. Yes, in my backyard. We are optimistic about the city of Kitchener's draft official plan. While we think the plan could go further still, we believe this plan gives Kitchener its strongest opportunity yet to meet the growing housing needs of our community. It takes meaningful steps towards allowing more homes both in specific areas and across the city. And we hope it leads to a much greater variety of housing options for everyone. This draft official plan can help Kitchener's housing supply meet demand and to make our city more affordable and more welcoming. It's a clear attempt to align our policies with a shared vision of Kitchener as caring, connected, sustainable, and affordable. For too long, cities across Ontario have spoken about affordability while essentially restricting it through zoning, parking requirements, and lengthy approvals. This plan takes a different approach. It recognizes that if we want more affordable housing, we must actually allow it. Not in just a few select areas like downtown, but in every neighborhood across the city. And I strongly support that direction. Allowing more housing is essential for economic, environmental, and social justice reasons. When demand far outstrips supply, prices rise. We all know people who have been priced out because there simply weren't enough options. Increasing supply helps ease that pressure. Lowdensity development reinforces car dependence. Focusing growth in existing neighborhoods, especially near transit, makes better use of infrastructure, reduces emissions, and supports walkable, complete communities, offering residents real choice choices about how to move throughout our community. Additionally, single detached homes are often the most expensive option. So, offering a range of housing types in all neighborhoods expands access and opportunity. People should be able to move to opportunity and remain in the communities they love. It's also important that we allow more housing within neighborhoods, not only on nodes and corridors. Limiting density to busy streets exposes residents to more noise and pollution, and it simply won't produce enough homes to address our shortage. Restricting multi-residential housing to a few areas also reinforces exclusionary patterns and unequal distribution of housing types. I also urge caution around expanding cultural heritage landscapes. Every neighborhood is unique and that uniqueness should be celebrated, but using heritage as a blanket reason to limit housing excludes people rather than welcoming them. That is not how we honor the character of a neighborhood. Some have argued that because immigration has recently slowed, we no longer need to plan for as much housing. But the official plan is a long-term document. Immigration levels change and planning for less housing than we may need is far riskier than planning for more as it exasperates the housing crisis. And it's important to acknowledge that immigration was reduced largely because we failed to build enough housing, not the other way around. Of course, enabling more housing does not guarantee affordability on its own. It is a necessary step, but not a complete solution. As this plan is implemented, council will need to continue strengthening affordability tools so that growth benefits residents across all income levels. Seeing your beloved neighborhood grow up can feel unsettling perhaps, but this uh plan reinforces an important principle. If we want a city where everyone is welcome, then every neighborhood must share in accommodating growth. By allowing all types of housing in all neighborhoods, we ensure that each of us is welcome in every neighborhood. I therefore don't support any amendments that excludes neighborhoods from this plan. We need to stop viewing density simply as housing units, but rather as homes for people. As a personal aside, uh the building I now live in was opposed by a petition of over 400 signatures. Fortunately, the council at that time had the foresight to see the benefits that come with building up and not out, and they each voted in support of these homes. Um, I believe this plan moves Kitchener in the right direction. It lays a strong foundation for a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient city. It aligns our values with our policies in a way that many cities are still struggling to achieve. I encourage council to adopt it and to continue building on it so that the vision of a caring city becomes real and tangible for all residents. And just a couple quick comments from tonight. Um, I heard some gasps in reaction to the height of the proposed development earlier this evening, and I can totally understand that reaction, but I hope everyone who doesn't want to see more of those types of projects um support density in all neighborhoods when we lock out more housing from some neighborhoods, then a few must uh handle the rest on their own. Um, I glad I'm glad that we have neighborhoods that attract professionals and entrepreneurs. I want all neighborhoods to also attract healthare workers, ECEEs like me, grocery workers, and more. Um, and my neighborhood is not a burden because of more housing. It's better with more people, more transit, more amenities, more events, and more fun. And I'd like that for all neighborhoods. Thank you. >> Thank you for coming in, Melissa, and and for your comments. I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you. Um, next we have Dave Galbreth um from Up Consulting Limited and you have 10 minutes. >> Good evening again. My name is Dave Galbra with UP Consulting. Uh, I've got two kind of backto-back delegations. One with regards to 585 Bridgeport Street East and uh four uh 514 Lancaster. Uh and then another uh following that uh with regards to a consolidation along Mil Street. Um so I'm here uh on behalf of Five Developments this evening uh with regards to their holdings at 585 Bridgeport Road East and 514 Lancaster Street West uh which is at the south uh southeast corner of Bridge Bridgeport in Lancaster and directly across the street from uh 526 uh Bridgeport which uh Mr. Aston spoke to earlier this evening. Uh my client has met previously with the city for a pre-conultation uh meeting to discuss the highdensity uh mixeduse redevelopment of the site. Uh and uh we expect a application to be submitted in short order. Collectively the lands are approximately one hectare in size with 29 meters of frontage onto Lancaster and 120 meters onto Bridgeport. The the lands currently contain a detached dwelling as well as a auto body repair shop on the 585 uh Bridgeport portion of the site. The site is surrounded by a diverse mix of uses including residential, commercial, institutional, employment uses with uh the employment lands uh to the east of the site. Um this site uh this plan here shows the context of uh the the property. You can see the expressway and the interchange just to the south of the site. Um surrounding the property are municipally owned lands that are currently wooded um that extend from um Lancaster over to Bridgeport uh behind the site to the east there. Um this area has seen considerable uh change over the past number of years including um uh uh the development at 544 Bridgeport Road which was approved up to 34 stories. Um, our client was also involved uh in the approvals and construction stage of 528 Lancaster Street uh West, which contains an eight-story apartment building. The corridor is evolving and uh I guess I'll coin a new phrase here that it's it's become kind of a naturally occurring strategic growth area over the past number of years. Um, as part of the proposed official plan, um, the site in the broader area is proposed as a neighborhood growth area. Uh and then the site itself um with my picture kind of uh overlapping with the outline there is uh proposed to have split designations uh very similar again to the property just to the north of the site here. Um and these are commercial first with the properties uh onto Lancaster and Innovation Employment which corresponds to the 585 uh Bridgeport Road portion of the site. Um, while we recognize the intent uh of this designation and that it does support a level of growth, we believe that these designations do not reflect the sites context or the broader growth uh characteristics of the neighborhood over the past several years. Um and uh because of this we are recommending some changes uh to the proposed official plan. Um so firstly um we note uh again similar to the site just across the street that the the consolidation does have split designations currently and we would request uh staff consideration and council consideration of uh a unified land use designation across the site. As I'd mentioned previously the 585 Bridgeport portion of the site is surrounded by natural heritage features and city-owned land both on its south and east. Um and in my view that kind of forms a natural um line of where the employment land begins to the east or ends to ends east of the site um and the broader corridor along Lancaster. In addition to this, just given the um the degree of change over the last number of years in this area, we would re uh recommend consideration um or for staff to take back uh the idea of recognizing the Lancaster and Bridgeport um interchange I guess I will as a strategic growth area here. Uh and we've proposed just responding to the heights that have been previously approved mixeduse B uh designation on the site. So I will conclude the first uh delegation or part of my delegation at this point if you have any questions uh with respect to this proposal. >> I don't see any questions so carry on with the second part. >> Okay. All right. Um I'm also here this evening on behalf of the owners of 239 to 265 Mil Street. uh who I understood understand have delegated previously. Um with regards to the OP exercise, the subject property consists of uh has been consolidated and includes the properties municipally addressed as 239 to 265 Mil Street um which are uh shown on this this the screen uh in front of you here. They back on to Charles Best Park and directly across the street is the edge of the major transit station area where uh Lance had been previously as an SGA4 zone um which um would allow for uh unlimited height or heights to be regulated essentially by flight paths. Uh the the subject properties are quite deep um with certain properties shown here um uh reaching depths of up to 80 meters. Um whereas the uh neighborhood to the west of this site um which is also contemplated as a mixeduse designation are comparably much uh more narrow uh smaller parcel fabric as you can kind of see in the bottom left of this image. Um the property is also bound by a institutional property immediately to the south which is a church. Um and as I'd mentioned before, the lands across Mil Street have been contemplated as SGA4 zone. This slide illustrates the broader uh context uh applicable to the subject lands. Um the lands are immediately adjacent to the mil mill station PTS MSA boundary and approximately 700 meter walk uh or 10 or 15 minute walk uh to the station stop itself. residents uh or sorry, future residents uh of this area will benefit by um uh great local uh transit connections, act active transportation routes as well as the park in behind the site. As part of the draft official plans, city staff have proposed a mixeduse a designation for the subject's lands as well as the area to the um the south of Highland uh and west of uh Mil Street as you can see on the side. Then again on the uh across the street uh on Mil Street uh considerable more uh considerably more uh density is contemplated in that area. We believe um just given the interface with the park uh the large consolidation, the depth uh and the great access to transit as well as uh the property being um framed by an institutional use to the south that there is uh more development potential available to this site. We'd also note that in uh in comparison to lands across the street which have been historically used for industrial purposes. These uh these properties have uh single detached residences on them uh and are not likely to be as contaminated as lands, meaning they are more shovel ready. Um as part of the delegation this evening, we are re uh recommending that the uses be or subject properties be uh redesated mixeduse B in the new official plan. The mixeduse B uh designation in our opinion reflects the site's context and its role within the broader growth area surrounding the station stop. And this designation would uh continue to provide a an appropriate transition to lands further east which is also an objective of the city to ensure that um different scales of development are compatible with each with each other. So why mixeduse B? Uh the mixed use B uh designation provides a logical transition between the higher densities across the street virtually unlimited height and the uh the mixed use C uh which being the lands to the west of the site. It would allow for um the optimization of the site and creates a gradual progression in potential built form from the higher densities to the lower densities to the west. From a transportation perspective, the site again is within close walking distance of the ion station stop. um and the park and there are opportunities that are awarded by having that adjacency to a park uh to support future connections to uh to Mil Street through through the site. Um the uh the slide here shows a conceptual site plan for um the potent uh for the consolidation um with uh two towers um spaced on the site. As you can see, there's considerable space the two towers that could potentially be constructed here as well as an opportunity to allow for a new active transportation connection from Mil Street to the park which is shown on the east side of the plan. While no sight specific development application has been advanced at this point, nor uh nor is one imminently pending, the concept demonstrates how the uh the site could accommodate additional housing in a manner that that's both functional and compatible with the existing planned uh neighborhood. This uh this image here shows a conceptual rendering of the development which again um is is shown without the benefit of context but again the directly across the street higher density is contemplated. So in closing we respectfully request that council support a proposed amendment to the draft official plan uh to redesate the subject properties mixeduse B on map three um which is the land use plan um before you this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you for coming. Okay, next we have Christine Stocky from the Downtown Advisory Committee. You have five minutes. >> Mr. Mayor, Madame Chair, um, councilors, um, my name is Christine Stocky. I'm a proud downtown Kitchener uh resident. Um as part of the downtown advisory committee, we're writing to um discuss um the tree canopy targets outlined in the Kitchener 201 plan. Um, specific specifically policy 6.7A, we are strongly supportive of the city's goals of achieving a 30% tree canopy target by 2050. However, our concern is that the target is currently structured by wards rather than by neighborhoods. As written, the goal risks masking significant inequities within wards and allows communities most in need of investment to remain underserved. Um the downtown core and um uh the downtown core is the only area in the city of Kitner with a woefully underserved tree canopy of only 6.9%. It's way below 30%. Um, we're adjacent to Victoria Park, which makes the the ward look much better than it is. It's a concrete jungle in downtown Kitchener. Um the the goals um referenced and undertaken by the community canopy program have seen significant improvements since 2023 in areas including Chandler Mowit Southdale and Alpine Cherry Hill and Highland West. All of these areas have tree canopies between 10 and 15% and they were recognized and identified as areas in need of uh change. Downtown Kitchener has been forgotten. Um, the unique nature of downtown Kitchener requires far more careful and deliberate planning when it comes to um, including uh, trees and other living things uh, in our downtown core that are not um, concrete. um to address so to address the inequities um the wording of policy uh 6.70 is puzzling to us and concerning word-based targets um are allowing the canopy coverage to uh in some small areas to compensate for neighborhoods with critically low coverage potentially leaving vulnerable communities behind. The downtown core has uh currently and and when you look at all the proposed developments that are coming to downtown, a disproportionately high population growth, more visible minorities, more immigrants, uh and certainly more vulnerable citizens, all of whom could benefit from improved air quality, increased well-being, lower mental distress, improved neighborhood safety, and reduced surface temperatures. all identified in um the city's own documents as important factors. Uh planting trees is a powerful way to make cities healthier and fairer. Um and the equity portion and the fairness portion is what we would like to see um addressed. Um so the the city has engaged in an equitable guide to tree planting which includes planting you know citizens being able to plant trees in public spaces and parks and private properties with developers uh consistently asking for smaller um setbacks and uh you know increased density. There's there are no places to plant trees. So, we are respectfully asking and recommending that 6.7A be amended to state the tree canopy coverage will be 30% in each of the neighborhoods by 2050. Now, 30% in downtown is is unattainable. We're not um immune to the situation we find ourselves in. However, the the experts um are certainly well equipped to be able to come up with a plan of action that will include neighborhoods rather than wards and goals and measurable goals and attainable goals for uh for neighborhoods in need, most specifically downtown Kitchener. Thank you for your time and I uh go Rangers. I welcome any questions. >> I don't see any questions right now, but thank you. Thank you for your presentation. >> Okay, next we have Andrea Sinclair from MHBC Planning and you have five minutes. Good evening, Madame Chair, members of committee. Uh again want to thank staff for all the ongoing communication throughout this process. I'm sure this group over here is sick of hearing from me but uh between the last public meeting and tonight that ongoing dialogue has been uh beneficial and we've resolved some of our concerns from the last public meeting but uh a few still outstanding. Um with respect to 520 Bingamin Center Drive, that's an office development likely known to this council as MTE's head office. I do understand that there's going to be a further refinement to the policy to recognize that that office use will continue to be permitted but can also expand. Um and staff have confirmed that um tweaked to make it consistent with the staff report is going to happen and that satisfies MT's concerns. Um with respect to 425 Bingamin Center Drive, that's the Bingamin's proper property. Uh with the second draft they were moved to an innovation employment or innovation designation which we supported but had lost a number of their sight specific uses. Those have now been reinstated. So with respect to their property um were satisfied. There's still the concern of Bingammens and uh Cooper Developments who purchased the two properties that were severed from Bingammens. That's 525 Bingamin Center Drive and 355 Shirley. Um we would be supportive of the recommendation 21A and uh the comments that my colleague Mr. Aston made with respect to generally with respect to that corridor. Those are echoed um by my clients as well. Um Cooper uh Dominic Natalie spoke at the last meeting. He couldn't be here this evening, but he did speak quite passionately about the challenges in terms of getting leasing and getting these employers to come to Kitchener and by limiting those uses that it was going to be closing the door to business. So we think that the alternative recommendation set out in the staff report would allow them to continue the uses they have under the under the business park designation as well as the sight specific uses that they currently en enjoy without um jeopardizing consistency with the PPS and I think there is a way to achieve that and that would satisfy their concerns. And then the last um properties I want to speak to that I did speak about at the last public meeting are the two properties at the node at Hiron and Strawburg roads. The southwest and the southeast corners. These are currently recognized as a primary intensification area in the 2014 official plan. They're a community node in the current plan and they were a node in the previous official plan approved in 1994. So for 32 years, these two sites have been recognized as an intensification area within the city. They're not being proposed as a strategic growth area. They're the only community node in South Kitchener that's not being made a strategic growth area and it continues to be a down designation of these properties. Uh the southwest corner has been approved by this council for a multi-tower site up to 24 stories. The appeal of this site since the last public meeting to today has been dismissed by the OOLT. So that designation is in place. We do understand staff will now bring that property into the final version. But that further strengthens the fact that these properties should be considered a strategic growth area given the intensification that's already been approved on one of the properties. Both properties are of a substantial size that can accommodate intensification. They're at the intersection of two arterial roads. Strawburg Road is a high frequency um a planned high frequency corridor and again they've had a long-term recognition of uh being intensification areas within the city. So the uh underlying designation is um I think acceptable to our client but losing that sort of intensification priority in this continues to be a concern. I think I came in just under the five minutes with really fast talking but happy answer any questions. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your presentation. Um, we do have a question, Councelor Davey. >> Yeah, not really a question. Just wanted to were you able to see when I was getting when I was speaking with Mr. Aston, did you were able to see the suggest an amendment for um what is it? 525 to 555 Bigman Center Drive and 355. Shirley, >> I will admit from back there, I couldn't quite see it when it was up on the screen. >> Okay. So, I'll just ask the clerk if she can bring that up. It's actually got amendment number four in the list. My understanding is this does retain all of the original permissions um as requested. Just want to ensure that to the best we can on the spur of the moment here, we get this right. Looking at this, I believe this will resolve our concerns. >> Okay. If there are any major concerns afterwards, you can always contact. Thank you. >> Okay, those are the questions. Thank you. Um, next we have Peggy Nichols. And you have five minutes, Peggy. Thank you. Um, respected counselors, my name is Peggy Nichols and I'm here today to request an amendment to the draft official plans institutional land use designation. While I'm speaking on behalf of Kitchener Citizens for Liveable Development, I'd like to note that this amendment is supported by a growing number of residents and community groups including Waterlue Region Acorn, Grand River Environmental Network, Hold the Line, and the board of Old Bland Town Neighborhood Association. I'd like to start by acknowledging the tremendous work that staff have done to prepare this new official plan. It contains many principles which if implemented will make the city a wonderful place to live, work, play, and invest. We have appreciated the staff's effort to gather community input on this plan and the time they took to speak with us about our concerns and some of our ideas. Institutional land use designation is something that came to our attention after meeting with them. We are interested in institutional land use designation because it accommodates a wide range of community serving uses provided by government, nonprofits, faith groups, and the private sector. Institutional lands also provide for residential care homes and affordable housing with institutional uses being the priority. The objectives for this land use designation flow directly from the official plan's purpose, shared vision, and shared values, especially by providing lands for community and cultural facilities and fostering strong neighborhoods and comm community human connections. Policy 1195 of the draft official plan identifies the different permitted uses uh within the institutional land use designation. These can include things like community centers and sports fields, cultural facilities, daycare facilities, schools other than commercial and trade schools, hospitals and some other related uses, religious institutions, places of worship and cemeteries, long-term care facilities, and social service facilities. Now, let's take a look at where the designations are assigned. If we look at this excerpt from the proposed map of uh map of land uses, we can see red stars representing we can't yet. We can see red stars representing some of the many institutions around the city hall ion stop that would fit the designation but have not been assigned the assigned the designation including city hall region of waterlue headquarters Kitchener public library central branch downtown community center in the square registry theater the many shelters, St. Louis Adult Learning Center, Laurel Laurier Faculty of Social Work, and the many churches. There are others in other uh areas too that are undesated like Grand River Hospital. Why is it important uh that institutional designations be universally applied? We we think that institutional designation should be universally applied including in protected major transit station areas because excuse me community services that are underpinned by institutional designations are needed in every part of the city. In fact, community services are needed even more in areas of greatest intensification. We need to show that quality of life need not be sacrificed as we intensify it. Otherwise, the community will have good reason to fear intensification and advocate against it. We cannot afford to forego the affordable housing that is permitted as a secondary use on institutional lands. No other designation is so supportive of affordable housing. One would assume that rentals in a mixeduse designation would also provide affordable housing under inclusionary zoning. Let's consider an actual example. Two back-to-back churches on the very same block. Trinity United and St. Peter's Lutheran. You could say that Trinity ultimately went the route of a mixeduse development while St. Peters followed the institutional path. Under our program, a 494 unit build like the one constructed on the Trinity site could include between 9 and 24 inclusionary zoning units. When proposed in 2022, rental rates for an IZ unit started at $1,63 per month. By comparison, the Indwell and St. Peter's Church project offers 41 apartments starting at $600 a month in 2026. And the Indwell apartments include housing supports. We're still champions of IZ, but the depth of affordability and wraparound services provided for notfor-profit housing providers is in a completely different league. That is why we urge you, sorry, that is why we urge you to assign an institutional land use designation to all properties meeting the de definition of the institutional designation, including those inside the protected major transit station areas. We believe that by doing so, you will better advance the official plan's purpose, values, and envision shared future. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you for your presentation, Peggy. There are no questions at this time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, next we have Emily Elliott. Thank you for coming in and you have five minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of K committee. My name is Emily Elliott and I am with MHPC Planning here tonight on behalf of 2013029 Ontario Limited with respect to six Shirley. I'd like to thank staff for all the hard work they've done on this draft official plan, including the many conversations uh that we had leading up to the meeting tonight and to consideration of the comments, the written submissions that we provided and the previous delegation I provided to this committee. So, six Shirley is located at the southwest corner of Shirley Avenue and the recently constructed Shirley Avenue culdeac. The site is occupied by a warehouse that was originally constructed for Kaufman Footwear, but is now used by Broyal King. The lands were purchased by the current owner in 20 uh 2001 with the intent that they would be ultimately redeveloped uh as a commercial and retail campus but used as a warehouse site in the interimm. The use of the site um as a warehouse has always been considered an interimm use, but redevelopment has been delayed uh in association with the works related to the realignment of Highway 7. And that's the yellow lines you can see on the the screen. Uh and there was also a substantial expropriation on a portion of the site. So following uh realignment, these lands will really be more connected to Victoria Street um uh via the new Bruce Street extension that's planned in this area. In the current 2014 OP, the lands are within an urban corridor and they're designated commercial. Uh this recognizes that planned connection to Victoria Street. They're also subject to a sight specific policy that permits office uh to a maximum of 100% of the permitted gross floor area for the site or an FSR of.5. So essentially this policy allows for major office in addition to the commercial uses. Uh these permissions for commercial development have been in existence since 1994. So for more than 30 years. However, in the new draft of the official plan, it's proposed that the lands are to be designated general industrial, which has the effect of substantially impacting the range of uses permitted. The general industrial uh designation really allows for uh warehousing and manufacturing type uses, which is a substantial change for the long-term commercial function of the site and the vision uh of the owner. So, my reason for uh delegating this evening is to request that Oh, the last slide of my uh my presentation is missing, but that's that's okay. Um it just outlined my request for a delegation this evening, and that is to ask that council consider approval of staff's alternative uh option 2.1A that's set out in the staff report, which would maintain the uses that are permitted on the properties but not yet established. So specifically, we ask that council uh designate the site commercial first and maintain the uh site special policy area that allows for major offices. Uh and we acknowledge that the urban structure component will also need to be uh revised uh as well in order to ensure conformity. Uh and this change would maintain the long-standing commercial permission for the site. Uh this designation allows for a broad range of commercial uses and that office would accommodate a number of jobs as well. The location of this land uh is an excellent opportunity for commercial development with their accessibility and visibility uh and the future planned road infrastructure. Uh so I thank council uh and I I meant to mention uh representative the of the owner is here as well tonight if there's any questions for me or the owner. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your presentation. There's a qu uh yeah question from um councelor Davey. Sorry, >> it's me. All right. Um yeah, thank you for your presentation, Miss Elliot. If I could ask the clerk to bring up the same as there. Perfect. Uh clause number three, if you could just please give that a quick uh review, Miss Elliot, and confirm that is indeed um your client's uh intention. >> Yes. Uh that that does uh satisfy our request. I would add that this uh a new sight specific provision allowing for major office also be included uh to reflect the current uh special use permission that exists today but otherwise yes it does >> major okay I will sorry say specific major office I'll discuss that with staff after delegations thank you so much for your presentation >> thank you very much >> thank you and those are all the questions um next we have Chinten Patel Good evening. You have three. You have five minutes. >> Thank you. My name is Chint Patel. I'm joined by my partner Raman Pri Kung. Uh we're advocating today as co-owners and partners in the land along 239 Mel Street. Our site is well positioned to support new housing. It is less than 700 meters from the Ottawa Mill LRT station directly in front of the GRT route uh on and on a collector uh roadway. It also has uh dedicated bicycle lanes connecting Mill and downtown. Uh it's close to uh important amenities including the community center which is less than 100 meters uh and immediately adjacent to Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles child Charles Best Park. Uh my partners and I have owned the core property since 2022 and these lands provide significant frontage along Neil Street. Uh this is a coordinated clean site that is ready to move forward. Uh our request for a mixeduse B represents a logical and balanced planning approach. Uh the site is located within the strategic growth area and can provide an appropriate transition between higher density lands along the corridor and the mid-density neighborhood areas on the other side of the child's best park. This provides a natural buffer and transition. This site also offers a near-term housing opportunity. Uh other lands in the area may require significant assembly, remediation, and long-term planning before housing can be delivered. In contrast, our site is already assembled and capable of supporting the suitable density proposed under mixeduse B. We also want to be clear as a unified partnership it is our intention to explore inclusive uh inclusion of affordable housing. However, the mixed uh the current mixeduse a designation limits that potential and reduces what can realistically be achieved. We have heard in the other delegations today that uh for some neighborhoods there is a concern over wanting higher density. Uh unlike those areas, this density along Mel Street corridor makes sense. Uh these lands have high uh order transit access, near proximity to community uh amenities and the site that is ready for develop development and uh could also act as a balance to all these deleg uh delegation requests we've seen today. We respectfully ask council to support a mixeduse B designation for 239 to 265 mil street so that we can help deliver immediate housing, affordable housing opportunities and a wellplanned transition along this corridor. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming in. I don't see any questions. >> Thank you everyone. And our last delegation is Adrien Vantagem. I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. And you have five minutes. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, council. My name is Adrien Vincent and I am here on behalf of Strongtown's Waterlue region. We believe that a strong town is a complete, connected, affordable, inclusive, and financially resilient community. It's one where each neighborhood is allowed to grow incrementally to adapt to the changing needs of its residents. These neighborhoods offer a variety of housing types so that people of all ages, backgrounds, and lived experiences can feel like they belong without being priced out of the area. housing near jobs, services, parks and transportation opt options uh so that residents can meet their daily needs close to home. These core values are shared by the city by the residents of Kitchener and this plan has done a commendable job of uh creating policies that align with this shared vision. In particular, the intensification of the strategic growth areas in downtown along the ION corridor, the introduction of urban centers, all together make a an excellent framework to uh intensify with medium or high density uh buildings that support a strong transportation network throughout the city. And the um the official plan also recognizes that uh intensification citywide is a nec necessity in order to obtain the uh the the uh in order to obtain the the strength that the complete communities that we need uh citywide that will help uh support local businesses will uh help our transportation that we're let people use active or public transportation and will um reduce the demands of uh car traffic on our roads by enabling this public transportation. Uh where I do want to push back against some of the comments that I've heard today uh is specifically regarding our heritage districts, the cultural heritage landscapes. Uh this designation seeks to preserve the existing aesthetic of a neighborhood, but preservation and growth are opposites and the uh cultural heritage landscapes both that we've heard about today. So West Mount East and West KW odd area uh but also the the existing ones around Victoria Park or Central Friedrich. All of those are uh uh those are all situated within either fully within or connected to our strategic growth areas. And so the prime uh land in our city in the downtown area along our our transit corridor is land that we're also trying to preserve for some of the lowest density housing where they're largely single family homes that have some uh ADUs attached or uh have been split into duplexes but the uh density restriction remains where you know on one hand we want to intensify high u throughout all areas of the city. But on the other hand, we're trying to preserve quite a large fraction of our downtown strategic growth area uh at low heights. Uh I believe that neighborhoods should be as alive as the people who live in them. They should be allowed to change and grow like the rest of the city. And while the plan does allow for some growth uh in these areas, it is quite restrictive especially consider compared to even just the the neighborhood growth zones. Uh and uh one comment that we heard is that we have uh the these areas attract attract people like entrepreneurs or uh physicians. I would like uh that to not be a prerequisite of these neighborhoods. I would like that in oh 20 years when my kids are ready to buy a house that they're able to find an option that works for them as a a young uh young man entering the the workforce in order to be able to move into one of these well-connected areas. So, while I oppose the amendments that are made to the West Mount East and KW Odd heritage landscapes, I am still very optimistic about the plan overall and I believe that it is an ambitious but responsible change that will transform our city into a place where uh that works for everyone over the next 25 years. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming in and I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you for Okay. Um, next we have questions for staff. Um, so if you would like to to queue in councelor Johnston. Thank you uh, Chair Chapman. And I wanted to uh to follow up on the question that I had asked previously with regards to the um West Mount West CHL. And I'm wondering if you can answer a question with regards to um when or if we are doing a CHL there and what the timelines might be. So through the chair I'll start and then Mr. Stevenson um will supplement hopefully. So our priorities um over the next uh year and a bit um have to be starting on an archaeological master plan as it's a new responsibility that we have um through regional planning responsibilities transition. The current archaeological master plan hasn't been updated since 1989. It is a provincial requirement and so we do need to uh spend some time updating that. Um as committee is aware um there has been legislative changes to time frames for um having properties on our heritage register or listed properties um assessed for designation. That work has to be completed by the end of this year. And so that continues to be a priority. Um given those priorities um and given current staff resourcing uh and budget um for the next year or so um we don't have the capacity to undertake additional cultural heritage landscape work at this time. I would suggest that's why this recommended official plan is is important to get in place. What it does is it identifies all of the cultural heritage landscapes on map 9 of the recommended plan and has policies there that should any development applications come in under the new official plan. Because they're mapped, we can rely on the policies to require a heritage impact assessment and those development applications can be assessed from a cultural heritage perspective. >> Okay. Um, so, uh, what you're saying, or maybe what you're saying is that, um, would some of those protections be in place anyways then for West Mount West or if you can expand upon that? >> So, through the chair, the staff recommended official plan amendment um, or official plan includes uh, two cultural heritage landscapes for West Mount. the West Mount West Cultural Heritage Landscape um has a policy specifically requiring future study or acknowledging that future study is needed and that will happen um as our resources and budget allows. In the meantime, because it's mapped in the official plan, there are neighborhood cultural heritage landscape policies that apply to all neighborhood cultural heritage landscapes across the city. and we would rely on those policies to evaluate um any development proposals within West Mount West cultural heritage landscape uh should any development applications come in. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next council Michelle you I'd like to thank all the delegations for coming out tonight. There's really very interesting um presentations. Um couple of questions for staff. U Mr. Shan uh mentioned earlier um having uh greater use of trails uh in the in the uh New Dundee area secondary plan. Can you explain to me or to to to um everyone I guess the um the the the having trails if you have too many trails like what's the what's the buy off of of parks and trails? I I I think I thought there was conversation once about having so many trails in one ward in one area where that um uh um made it difficult to have more park space. Can you have both or is it like one or the other? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so Mr. Chauvin um in his delegation speak spoke specifically about using parkland uh dedication to count towards trail corridors. So, um there are some historic examples where we uh have included uh these corridors within the Parkland dedication uh allocation. Since our 2022 parkland dedication bylaw, it doesn't outright uh address the issue of trails specifically, but uh as a result of some legislated changes and some caps under bill 23 for our parkland uh dedication that we can receive through development applications, it has been our uh practice to uh require that neighborhood and community parks which form our local parks are what we obtained through uh the parkland dedication. So those are uh referenced in the in the parkland dedication bylaw as lands which can be programmed uh for a variety of different uses and active park space. Trails are identified as a passive park within the spaces document. So that is a classification of parks that exists within our document but it's one that we're not tending tending we're not favoring using parkland dedication to achieve those active transportation corridors because of the restrictions. There is an there is a cap of how much parkland dedication we can uh collect and if we utilize trails in all those cases we would then get act less active park space. >> So yeah you're compromising park space for trails some to to that's the bottom line if you went that route right >> every square meter in a trail corridor would be one square meter less of active park space. Okay, thank you. And my next question is um this is completely different. Um the current water capacity that the region is is is experiencing um is it concerns for the official plan going forward? What what there's been no conversation about this? I'm curious >> uh through you madam chair and perhaps my colleague Miss Goss will add to this. Uh I will say that the water allocation work is a separate body. There is work that's advancing this week at regional council where we're going to start to see water allocations for uh specific developments in the coming quarters. Uh and we will take direction from the region and we will be in front of council with the water allocation bylaw later this summer. Um but maybe my colleague Miss Goss will speak to the long-term planning aspects. So through the chair and I think I've mentioned this before, but it is it is important that we continue to look to 201 for our long-term planning. So as we did with the Dundy secondary plan, which was presented to committee last week and with Kitchener's new official plan being recommended tonight, we are well positioned to continue to work with the region through their water supply master plan because we have done the detailed work on population and employment forecasts. We have done the detailed work on the distribution of that growth. Um and so the region is better positioned in the city of Kitner to have that information and understand how much supply of water and when that supply of water is needed to 201. >> Thank you. Thanks for that. >> Thank you for your question. Next we have Mayor Vanovic. >> Thanks very much Chair Chapman. U I too want to uh express my thanks to all of the delegations uh here this evening um but also those who have engaged with us over the past uh couple of months um in particular um through various means email meetings and and other opportunities to uh to uh bring to light some of their issues and concerns. Two uh two questions I'd like to ask of of staff at at the moment. Um first one on the the issue of the tree canopy targets and of course um you know we don't have the the team here um from uh the department that's that's from forestry and so on that's uh responsible for that. But this notion of sort of looking at this by by neighborhoods versus by ward, I'm wondering if staff can give some reflection of that and is is that um something that really would be best referred to to the forestry area and so on that would look after this or somehow should be incorporated in uh in this document. So through the chair, what I can offer at this point is that the recommended official plan contains a policy that is reflective of uh council's approved tree canopy targets from 2022. There was no work undertaken as part of this official plan to establish those targets. It's merely reflecting the targets that are in place. We understand that um not all neighborhoods are equal in how they're designed and built and therefore we do need to be intentional with solutions to support tree canopy. Um for example, there will be an intentional need for different strategies for different neighborhoods um such as more frequent maintenance um or other techniques in some communities with aging or older trees. It is has always been our intention to um do a flyover of our tree canopy to understand its growth uh every 5 years and to use that information to um support datadriven decisions with direct planting and maintenance efforts uh in neighborhoods. I would suggest that because those targets were established through uh a specific council resolution um as an implementation item through our urban uh forest forest strategy that the appropriate time to revisit those would be the next time we revisit that strategy. >> Okay. So so through through the work that's done by that team not not not through this. Okay. Um, so I I would actually ask that um, Madame Chair, that that piece actually be referred to a tracking list so that staff are aware of it and it's something that could be um, could be addressed through that mechanism because I think it is a a legitimate concern and and one of the things I appreciated from Miss Dak's comments was the recognition that there's um, um some unique realities to to the downtown and and and so while those that percentage is low, there's also some infrastructure and and other realities that need to be considered in in looking at how best to uh to to implement that. Um the on the question that Mr. brought forward um with respect to their Victoria Street properties. Um I'm wondering if staff can can comment on that. Um and the the request seemed reasonable in terms of um sorry that's covered like it's still like you have a motion for that. Okay, I'll uh I'll leave that then. Uh those are all the questions I have. Thanks. >> Thank you. Councelor Davey, you're next. >> Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. It's just it's been a long evening. Um uh the question actually I had just to follow up on the trails. I'm still not clear on that on the the parkland and trails. So if we're dedicating all of our dedicated parkland space to actual programmable parks, how are we going to acquire trails? uh through you madam chair. Uh we would have to look at it by a case-byase basis. So uh we are doing some additional uh discussions and and conversations with our colleagues. Uh this was raised last week as part of the Dundee secondary plan. So, uh, we can provide a more wholesome answer, uh, when we bring that back in a couple of weeks. But ultimately, uh, the trail corridors, if they could serve a parkland, uh, basis, if they're part of a park or, uh, can be programmable, then we could consider them as part of a parkland. But if they are an active transportation corridor, we are uh, moving forward with only uh, giving parkland dedication for neighborhood and community parks. So programmable spaces and not passive which are the the trails, open space uh and walking paths. >> Okay. Yeah. So I'm I'm just a little confused about pardon me what constitutes an active transportation corridor and a trail and I guess the same question. How would we secure even if there is a difference? How would we secure an active transportation corridor through private property if we can't get it through Parkland dedication? uh through the chair. We would have to negotiate that through a subdivision application. >> Okay. Okay. So, and we'll have clarity on this by the time we finally approve the official plan then. >> Yes, we will report back with more. >> That's helpful. Um was my other question? Oh, my other question was I was hoping there's a couple delegates that raised it. um with respect to the two hectare clause um if a propertyy's over two hectares uh how does that fit into the dens the density plans and and fear that you know we will not have that extra density so I just wanted to ask staff if they could sort of provide a a response to that that concern by those two delegates >> so through the chair there's a policy in the recommended official plan that's actually an existing existing policy from our 2014 official plan. The existing policy generally applies to green field subdivisions and that's that's the intent under which it was written um to ensure that there's a mix of housing types. So to ensure that new Greenfield subdivisions aren't just predominantly single detached dwellings that there is a mixture of housing types and densities throughout Greenfield subdivisions. Um lots less than two hectares are generally not uh planned through plans of subdivision. generally consist of dwelling types other than singles and semi- detached uh dwellings. So this policy is not meant to apply to things more in the builtup area that aren't planned through plans of subdivision. There are also uh many other policies in the recommended official plan that ensure that there's a mix and range of housing type types permitted not only on lots but within all neighborhoods of all sizes of all types. Uh including broadening permissions through the proposed neighborhoods land use designation. um for a full range of housing typologies. >> Um okay, I I'll I'll consider that before um we ratify. Uh madam chair, the appropriate time to as you might have noticed I have several amendments to bring forward as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. We'll come back to that. Um next we have counceloritis. >> Yeah, thank you Vice Chair Chapman. And uh I'm going to continue on the theme with the the trails. Um, I guess my concern with that is from the perspective what I've seen in the last 16 years in this role, uh, the trails, in my opinion, are vastly more used than any of the parks that that we have. So, I I just want a little bit I want to make sure that we're not doing we're going down a path that I feel like it's uh gonna give us a deficit in trails. And quite frankly, I think that's quite the opposite of where the direction I want to go. So can you give me is it are I guess you're going to work on this further and give us a better uh a better uh explanation than what is what was given currently because right now I'm a little bit confused on what was what you guys have been uh presenting to us. So through the chair, the uh comments and questions from the planning and strategic initiatives committee meeting last week on the Dundy secondary plan and your your questions and comments tonight are helpful. Uh we do intend to bring back an addendum report on the Dundy secondary plan to the June 29th council meeting. Um so your questions of clarification on the parks and trails matter is helpful and we will make sure that there's a wholesome response in that report. >> Okay. Thank you. And uh Vice Chair Chapman, I also sent the clerk some amendments. So when that time's ready uh to present, I'm letting you know. >> We'll come back. Um Councelor Snider, go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair Chapman. Councelor Inonitis and Councelor Davey got most of my thoughts on the trails, but I think it's important to uh the definition of passive and active. Uh I just hope we can uh have a good discussion on that. So we'll uh bring that in because I I agree. I do see more people on trails uh sometimes in in our parks. >> Thank you, Councelor Stretch. >> Thank you. My questions piggyback a little on councelor Davy's questions. Um can you um speak to why existing institutions downtown that that were listed so um you know city hall regional buildings KPL KPL um why those those examples were left off the list or map of inst institutional lands >> through the chair um the PMTSA lands um in question were were designated through the growing together west project and as part of this were were out of scope so those lands were not revisited uh the land uses were not changed for the uh the PMTSA lands. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. And um I'd like to ask some questions um on behalf of the Old Berlin Town Neighborhood Association. Um I understand that there was an OOLT decision on the official plan and zoning amendments for 22 Weieber. Is um that a is that decision final? So through the chair, yes, that decision uh is final and binding. There's a final binding order on the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for that site. The only remaining issue outstanding uh if applicable is the appeal of the heritage permit. >> Okay. Are there um heritage matters still at the OOLT? And if so, does that influence anything in the sight specific policy proposed as part of this official plan? So, to the best of our knowledge, the appeal of the heritage permit is still with the tribunal. As this is before the tribunal, staff can't comment on any possible outcomes of an ongoing appeal. The heritage permit uh does assess matters related to cultural heritage resources and not land use or zoning matters. Um it's staff's opinion that because the OOLT's decision on the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment are final and binding um that it is appropriate to include a sight specific policy in a new official plan uh to reflect that decision. >> Okay. And given the OOLT's decision, what are the next steps in the development of this site? So, it's our understanding that the next step the landowner could take is to proceed with a fullsight plan application. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Um, I have a little bit of time, so I'll ask the questions around the language of generally. It was early on in our um in our list of uh delegates delegates. I was just wondering if you could offer some clarity or uh reason behind the the language choice. through the chair. Uh the development of the strategic growth area uh mapping on map 2 uh was really informed by the criteria that we had talked about uh and included in a number of uh previous staff reports. So kind of as a as a starting point, we set out with um a number of criteria which included proximity to ion stations, proximity to the frequent transit network, uh proximity to food stores, commercial stores, uh major trails, uh and new urban centers. So really this was the starting point for how these uh the strategic growth area city structure component was um was developed. Um I should clarify that um as part of previous criteria that were communicated um proximity to ion stations uh was almost um was a standalone criteria. So really for lands that were within 800 meters of ion stations uh they were identified as strategic growth areas because of their proximity to uh to rapid transit. So really the the language around generally speaking was really using the criteria as a starting point to build out the approach to growth that would guide growth and change and development over the next 25 years. >> Okay. Thank you. And is there um a different word choice that you think could offer more clarity when speaking to it or are you committed to generally >> through the chair? uh I think generally is is appropriate um based on kind of using the criteria as a starting point to to develop this framework um and really kind of at the highest possible level guide and direct where the city will grow and change over the next 25 years. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for your questions. Um councelor Singh. >> Thank you. uh for the committee's indulgence. I'm going to go dig deep a little bit in uh specifics to W six. So, not all the committee members may be as familiar with the uh the surrounding streets, but again to to staff um corner of Strawburg and Ottawa Street, we have the Smart Center. Uh and that's where the old Target used to be. The Target remains sitting vacant. It's been I think over a decade's time. Um currently under proposal for the smart center it's type B. Um knowing that this is a boundaried um considerable you know assembled lands and boundaried with the highway and then Strawburg and then uh Ottawa on the other end. Have we considered a higher density here just to ensure that we have some development that could possibly proceed sooner because again the plaza does uh sit more idle and uh underused. Uh that's question one. Second, if we were to give it a higher density, does that preclude the commercial on the ground floor? My understanding is a mixeduse still wouldn't enable uh quite a bit of ground floor commercial space. It's just the density above that may incentivize uh the the redevelopment of the site. Through the chair to answer the first question, mixed use B is the um most permitting land use outside of protected major transit station areas. So right now within protected major transit station areas, we offer the mixeduse C land use designation which offers of the the greatest development potential uh in terms of permissions. Uh the mix you see is um specific to protected major transit station areas. Uh in terms of introducing that that hierarchy of where the most growth is being directed to. Um so really in terms of the smart cent's property at Ottawa and Strawburg um it is proposed to have the mixeduse B land use which is the the most permitted most permissive land use outside of protected major transit station areas. >> Okay. Okay. So mix QC is primarily for the protected transportation areas whereas mix B can be outside that but depending on the zones >> through the chair that's correct. >> Okay. Does that limit them to down the road if uh depending on the development proposal to ask for higher density than what's being proposed to the official plan or would that require official plan amendment as well or because it's within the strategic growth area it's all within the same class depending on the justification that they make >> through the chair. any increases beyond the permissions of the uh the mixed use B land use designation would require an official plan amendment uh as are other policies that identify that mixed use C is only um implemented within the protected major transit station areas. >> Okay. All right. Um the other question is and I I've had some conversation with staff earlier as well. um parts of the community along Ottawa Street. Again, Ottawa Street is um you know, we're anticipated for higher order of transit. We don't know when, but again, that's the anticipation. That's why it's earmarked for strategic growth area, but there are neighborhoods that don't necessarily have frontage along Ottawa. They're protected amongst their own as a as a suburb. Laurentin Hills uh being primarily as a focus as well as Pinedale. Um why are we pushing that as a higher order um whereas there are other parts where more accessible within the Ottawa Street Quarter that's already being designated at as a higher density >> through the chair. the uh the application of the strategic growth areas component um was applied to the Laurentia neighborhood uh because some because of some of those foundational uh principles. So really in this case proximity to the hydrocord uh trail which is identified in the city as a city spine network. Um it's also in close proximity to the two grocery stores both at West Mountain in Ottawa as well as Strawburg in Ottawa. It's proximity to the grocery stores kind of on both sides of the neighborhood, proximity to other retail services, the frequent transit that that currently exists on Ottawa Street, plus the planned intensification corridor, as well as other commercial um spaces at both major intersections. So, it's really the the proximity to all those things um really lends itself to allowing for increased permissions in close proximity to to those amenities. I appreciate that and again I'm supportive of the right type of density in the right spaces madam chair just one last question but if you look at continuation so again there needs to be a continuous argument for all communities otherwise then they feel disparage as why the increase in density just in my zone and not the next if you look at the Ottawa street corridor along other side of Halman along the Ottawa street on one side you have the grocery and the retail and the other side is designated just as neighborhood for example on wilderness and Activa. Why the differentiation here and not along Laurentinian and Pinedale? Again, again not to be argumentative. I just want to understand the argument around it through the chair. So I believe um so the reference was to wilderness. Um yeah. So really using the the criteria kind of as a foundational starting point um identifying the lands that that at a high level met those criteria and were in close proximity. So the lands that were not captured uh street growth area um did not meet that high level proximity to to the auto street intensification corridor and the other amenities. >> Okay. All right. Thank you madam chair. ment. I will have a amendment as well just to be specific to the Laurentian Hills and the Pinedale neighborhood and I'll I'll make my comments associated to the the motion later. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I don't have see any other questions, but I do have a couple. I just wanted to go back to the institutional um land use designation and um could you explain again how it is that um that why we wouldn't want to protect those those properties and designate them as they currently are being used? through the chair. The institutional lands um referenced again were designated through the growing together west um project. So none of those lands within the protected major transit station areas um implemented through that project were re re-evaluated through this work. So really it's a carry forward of the uh 2024 council adoption of those land uses um within the mixeduse uh land uses that are proposed in this plan as well as the existing strategic growth area land uses that currently exist. Um institutional uses uh continue to be permitted as permitted uses. So really the land uses already allow for institutional um but specifically those lands were not reopened as part of this work. But wouldn't it by designating it them institutional, wouldn't it give them greater protection rather than just saying well it's allowed um but other things are also allowed correct on those on those lands >> through the chair uh these lands within the PMTSAs uh were were not in scope and were not reopened through this work. >> Okay. And um I had a similar question um dealing with um industrial lands. I know there are industrial areas that have been identified in the in the official plan. Um but there are other um industrial sites that um you know we talk about the need for for employment lands and industrial lands and yet we've reszoned them differently. Is is it not is there no opportunity in the official plan to to ensure that they remain industrial? I'm thinking one of the lands I'm thinking about here is the air boss built the air boss site >> through the chair. Uh the air boss site was also uh designated through the growing together west project and and received a mixeduse seat land use designation. So that was another property that was not uh re-evaluated through this process. Right. Okay. Um the other question I had is regarding 239 Mil Street to 265 Mil Street. Um I understand there's um an interest in consolid consolidating those properties and um I'm just wondering why um the request of of moving it to a a mixeduse B from an A is not being considered here. through the chair. Uh staff were in receipt of uh new materials this morning. Uh and we have not had a chance to fully review the materials in the context of of the official plan. Um we believe that it continues to be appropriate that uh any sight specific development application uh proceed through the development approvals process uh supported with appropriate applicable studies. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Mayor Vanbeck, you had a question. >> Uh, thank you. One, one other issue that I know has come up uh regularly and it is addressed uh in the document even though we didn't have any delegation, but wondering if staff can speak to it. Um, and it has to do with uh new places of worship. Um we we regularly hear from um groups reflective of uh faiths that are indicative of the um the diversity that we're seeing in in our community um these days who are struggling to find spaces. And I'm just wondering uh so that it's part of the public record um this evening that the work that staff have done to make more lands available um and how that will play out in the uh in uh in the future as as groups look to uh find uh find locations places uh where they where they can locate uh their their places of worship. uh through the chair. Um so thank you mayor uh Banana for uh raising that. This was raised recently as you'll recall through the Dundee secondary plan process. Um and we are continuing to work on that and look and look at it closer. But generally speaking, places of worship are permitted in all land uses except natural heritage system and protected employment areas. What we'd like to do is um take some time to have to explore this topic with uh different congregations and faith-based communities over the coming months um to build some relationships and understand some of the concerns ourselves um and be able to understand what we can do through the implementation of the new official plan and the and the forthcoming zoning bylaw to address some of those concerns. So that is a body of work we plan to be undertaking um you know imminently following this work. >> Okay. But the the foundation is being laid in this document and then it'll there'll be opportunity to further refine it in the in the months ahead >> through the chair. That's correct. Uh I think council is aware that um the city can choose to amend its official plan at a later date should new information or um new bodies of work come forward. So once we have those discussions and understand the implic implications further, we'd like to bring that back to council as part of a future body of work. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, councelor Deno, >> thank you. Um, what what's the definition of a heritage neighborhood? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, uh, we don't have a definition per se of a heritage neighborhood. What we have is uh cultural heritage resources that uh can be a variety of different uh different resources. So uh we could look at an individual building or a property uh that may be individually designated because of uh its cultural heritage significance. Uh we could look at a cluster of uh properties that are significant as they are as a cluster and that that's more like a cultural heritage landscape. Um and then there are uh different uh physical attributes as well like a like a heritage corridor for a significant traveled route or a previous uh significant uh transportation connection. So there's various um uh heritage classifications throughout the official plan. in terms of a heritage neighborhood uh it would have to be really explored and understood for uh what the heritage aspects are and what the cultural heritage significance is in accordance with the guidelines uh that are uh outlined by the province. So there are different neighborhoods that have different cultural heritage resources. So we have uh we have uh cultural herit sorry we have heritage conservation districts which are which are clusters of buildings that are designated and they're significant uh and they're from different periods of time. So it's not just simply age it's often the story of the community. Uh so St. Mary's Heritage Conservation District, as an example, is a post-war neighborhood representative of that period of time. Different than Victoria Park and even Civic Civic Center Heritage Conservation District, but each show a significant uh cultural heritage aspect of our city. >> So, how many do we have across the city? Like little nodes of or is it kind of hard to quantify how many we actually have? Yeah. So, we have uh we have four heritage conservation districts. We have 55 cultural heritage landscapes. We had uh just over 200 properties on our municipal register of uh significant buildings that we have reviewed for the last several years. Approximately uh up to 90 of those will be proceed forward with becoming designated properties. Uh and then we have I can't remember the number. It's in the thousands of designated properties either within a district or individually designated throughout the city. >> Okay. Thank you. And like do we have concerns if we continue to add more and more throughout the city? >> Uh through the chair. So uh heritage does not necessarily mean no change. It's a different uh layer of review. Uh cultural heritage protections are meant to preserve what's significant about a property or a feature or a landscape or a cluster of buildings or properties. Uh we have a heritage permit application process uh which is free which is required for that level of overview for changes to heritage buildings uh which happens quite frequently. We also have a uh heritage grant program. So, uh, where there may be a higher standard or a different standard for construction, the city does, uh, offer up to 50% of the cost to be paid through a grant program. So, there are some financial programs that a designated property would benefit from that otherwise would not exist. >> So, okay, essentially, it's not one sizefits-all then. >> It's not it's there's nine criteria and many factors uh that that are considered for a landscape, a cluster, a designated building. Uh yeah, there's many considerations. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, I think those are all the questions. This is your last chance. >> Um so I guess I need a mover for the the staff report and then we'll go into the amendments. Councelor Davey. >> Right. So how do I pull those out? Well, so why don't we vote on it first with removing the conflicts? You're the only one that has a a conflict, right? So, do we need to detail them? Pardon me. Okay. >> So, we need two minutes. So, we'll take a two-minut break. Okay. So, I think we're ready to proceed. Um, Councelor Dave has already um moved the staff report with the known conflicts. So, all those in favor Oh, I thought we had to vote on that first. Okay, so we'll go with the amendments first. Geez. Sorry. Sorry. >> So, we'll start off with Councelor Johnston. >> Well, I was asking for your amendments. >> Yes. that the city initiated official plan amendment OPA26 uh O2 CJZ for the purpose of implementing a new official plan for the city of Kitchener be adopted in the form shown in the official plan amendment attached to report DSD-20 2026-235 as attachment A and amended as follows and accordingly forwarded to the province of Ontario for approval and that the West Mount neighborhood be incorporated into the new official plan with a structure, land uses, and cultural heritage landscape policies as outlined in option 2.2.1A in report DSD-2026-235. Okay, thank you. Questions, Council Benovic. Okay. So, >> can I Yeah, go ahead and make your comments. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Thank you so much. >> I have right here a book. And thank you, Mr. Sheepard, for uh bringing this in. This is West Mount, the tie that binds the Twin Cities, an illustrated history of West Mount's hundred years. This is published by the University of Wateroo in 2011 and Susan Saunders Mabber, a notable, respected, and cherished resident of the West Mount neighborhood for 69 years, is the author of this book. And thank you, Mr. Shepard, for bringing this in. It really is a great book. Some of these condensed comments come from Susan's studies and historical documentation of West Mount. The century old West Mount neighborhood stands today as Canada's first suburb. and the phraseology of its 1920 1924 creation. It was noted as Canada's first detached private residential district established when Kitchener adopted Canada's first comprehensive city plan. West Mount was created in 1912 by local industrial industrialist Tommen Ryder who had established several rubber manufacturing companies including the Dominion Tire Company and the Berlin Rubber Company. These ventures significantly contributed to Kitchener's rapid expansion and earned it the nickname the rubber capital of Canada. Land ownership in West Mount shifted among many notable figures such as AR Kaufman, Eel Weber, and EF serum to name a few. Westbound's century of history is marked by several remarkable firsts achieved by the city of Kitchener during that century and one unique distinction associated particularly with the West Mountain neighborhood itself. That being Canada's first detached private residential district. These achievements represent milestones in Canadian urban planning history. accomplishments of which the city council and planning division should be justifiably proud and careful to recognize, protect, and preserve. For well over a century, West Met residents have contributed significantly to Kitchener's civic, economic, and cultural life, including leadership in industry, education, insurance, and as members of provincial and federal legislatures. They are industrialists, tech founders, entrepreneurs, profs, and physicians who care about their community and give back substantially through economic development, volunteerism, and philanthrop philanthropy. Council, I'm asking for your support of option 2.12.2.1.A. much the same as our council predecessors did 102 years ago after establishing West Mount as Canada's first attached private residential district. At the same time as Kitchener adopted Canada's first comprehensive civil city plan. The character, scope, and historical significance of this neighborhood is a key part of our city's legacy. And this legacy is inseparable from the neighborhood's physical form and planning history. Thank you to the Westm community for loving your neighborhood and spending considerable amounts of time and effort to organize, study the plan, review the history, speak with neighbors, arrange meetings, and present consistent, informed, and persistent, if I could say, communication to staff, myself, and council. And I'd like to thank council as well for your consideration and I hope support of this option. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Mayor Banvic, >> thank you very much. uh uh Chair Chapman on uh and I want to begin by thanking um again the residents for their their passion and and and diligence in uh dealing with this uh issue over the last uh number of months. Um but also acknowledge Councelor Johnson for um her passion and tenacity um and hard work on behalf of the residents uh to to make sure that their uh issues and concerns were uh addressed as we uh as we work through this process. And I mean I'll have some some comments to make about the overall process when we get to the to the final motion at the uh at the end. Uh but I will happily support um the the recommendation that uh councelor Johnson has has worked on. Um it it is obviously different than than staff's recommendation. Um and and it's important to remember and as we work through these processes. Staff has a role and council has a role and and staff's role is to to you know make um you know good professional planning recommendations that consider a variety of things. council's role is to con consider additional information that comes um before them and to uh to to evaluate that evaluate in the context of u all of the work that's happening um in a particular area and and then ultimately u making a decision and I think um when one considers the historical significance of this neighborhood not just uh for Kiter u but nationally as Well, uh I I had the opportunity a number of years ago to to participate in the uh unveiling of the of the heritage uh plaque that that speaks to uh the significance of this uh neighborhood and uh I think uh the the proposal that's before us um really works to strive to protect something that's uh in important uh for our community while also allowing for appropriate changes in development. um in on on the on the boundaries uh where uh where that makes sense and is warranted. >> Thank you. Um Council Ionitis. >> Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair Chapman. Uh I I'll keep it short and simple. Um I just want to thank all the delegate delegates that came in support of of their of their neighborhood with regards to this. Um there's definitely passion on both sides, but uh I'd be remiss to say that uh Councelor Johnson really stick handled to this this this file. And uh it it definitely definitely shows will show in the results uh and uh the support that I think you're going to see here tonight with regards to her amendment. So uh I think she did a fabulous job and I just want the community to know that as well. Thank you. Um, councelor Singh. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I think as Mayor Revenovich has already noted that I think our staff have done a good job in trying to be inclusive of all the conversations from the community to appropriately outline density across the city. Uh, that can earmark um the right type of intensification that opposes urban sprawl. And that's really what this document does do. Uh but that's not to say that you know there can't be tweaks and changes uh based on the characters of particular neighborhoods based on the consultation with individual property owners and what we're hearing from the delegation as well. Um and the delegates were able to hear me earlier. I asked questions of uh a delegation uh who you know outline differences opinion as to where the the right density lies. I am in general in support of density, especially density where it meets best. Density means that we don't have urban sprawl. density means that we have a fiscal management of our tax dollars that aligns um in a responsible way because we're not building further out roadways, new infrastructure, new community centers, new fire halls to support faraway communities where we're reutilizing investments that had already made on city lands that we already own and a better utilization of our infrastructure in general. So again, when I saw what was outlined for Belmont, I was generally satisfied with the staff's recommendation and again it aligns with overall general principles of how I see densification should lie across the city. Where my opinion changed was through councelor Johnston. She has I I think uh it can't be said uh enough of the the leg work that she's done over the last uh last 6 months or so going to each and every one of us to make us understand why in fact West Mount is uniquely different. Why it should not just be a neighborhood where we are wanting a diverse housing stock where it we can have some density of higher than three stories. why the preservation of the Westmont neighborhood in the the CHL is crucially important to the overall fabric of our community and towards I think economic development as well as some um points that have been made by the delegations. So I just want to compliment her. she allowed uh an opportunity for me to see it differently and making sure that again when we talk about diversity of housing stock in some cases and that diversity also means larger properties that diversity also means large larger housing stocks that accommodates a certain demographic of our community who are entrepreneurs who do want that larger space and ensuring they have a space in this community and are an attraction point and I'm supposing west mount can continue on being that uh that uh that lightning rod of attraction. So, just want to compliment councelor Johnston for the hard work that she's really done for community. It can't be said enough of how hard she's worked at this. >> Thank you. Um councelor Snyder, >> thank you, Chair Chapman. Uh I want to say staff have done an incredible job on this document, the engagement and uh all the work that went into this and putting it together. Uh but as counselors we have a role and that is to represent our constituents. Uh and councelor Johnson's done an amazing job of that. Uh the residents have also communicated very well and respectively with uh members of council. Uh and I am a big believer in finding balance and I find that this motion, this amendment brings that balance. So that's that. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Council Misho, >> thank you. I'm gonna not gonna echo what everyone said, but I kind of am. Thank you, Margaret Johnston. You you you did an amazing job on this. You worked very hard and we had many, many long conversations over this, but I just Sorry, Councelor Johnston. I I just want to um I just want to reflect on what a great city Kitchener is and all the great spaces that we have. And that includes the neighborhoods where everyone lives, where everyone grew up. I mean, I grew up in the East Ward with with um Councelor Schneider and and in the same neighborhood, and we just had a there was just an opening on the street that I lived on where uh the Sunbeam home has um has relocated some some of the residents to a to a sixplex on the street I lived and it was wonderful to see because the street I lived on is still just as beautiful. West Mount is a very special place. Fairmont Road was a very special place. the where we live is very special and I'm and I I really think that the work that councelor Johnson did to um protect that specialness. We can still grow. Kitchener can still grow out outside. It can grow in other areas, but I I think when you have an area like West Mount or um other cultural cultural culturally uh significant places, I think it's important to protect it because once it's gone, it's gone. So, I'm really uh I really thank Councelor Johnson for all the work she did and I thank staff for all the work that you've done and I also thank the delegations here from West Mount for all the work that you did, the tours that you did. I really enjoyed the one I was on. Um so, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Councelor Davey. >> Yes, thank you. I remember from the beginning thinking, you know, if Victoria Park neighborhood um is protected, then Westbound should certainly be protected as well. But I do want to thank staff for also including uh the answer to the question about the housing impact because I I'll be honest, I thought the impact would have been much greater um at in the report. It's uh details uh result of this motion. It's only going to be 150 homes that are potentially affected to 20. Well, we can accommodate that, you know, in one development that's closer to the ion instead of uh potentially harming the West Mount neighborhood. So I am happy to support this as well and also kudos to councelor Johnson for your work on this. >> I think those are all the comments. I will just um you know agree with what others have said. Um the delegates have you know I know put a lot of work into this and I was also on one of the tours. I actually grew up in West Mount, old not old West Mount, but the the newer side, but um thank you for for um educating us on the the history of the neighborhood and of course councelor Johnson for the work that you put into this. So, thank you. Um next we have amendments. Oh, yeah. Amendments from councelor stretch. >> Oh, we Okay, so I'll get this straight before the end of the night. Okay. So, all those in favor of the amendment and that passes. Um, next we'll go to the amendment by um, councelor stretch. Thank you. Um, tough act to follow, but um, uh, I read the, um, amendment out earlier. Would you, council, would you like me to do it again or are you clear? You can read it there. Um so what this um amendment does is it um supports 2.2A which um clearly the neighborhood is in support of. Um I just want to speak to um the residents that participated. Um there were hundreds of um participants. Um one of the delegates mentioned a petition. Um, also communication and a lot of learning happened um, through this process as a community. One of my favorite um, letters that I think in was uh, sent out to everyone described the area as a Sesame Street experience. And I thought that painted a really great picture of what it's like in the um, odd neighborhood and um, that some of the goals that we that we have for some of our neighborhoods are are what's happening in the in the odd neighborhood. And so I'd like to see um see uh this area um grow in a way that that is able to put that culture first. Um and so I think this amendment really allows for um some uh gentle density. Um there were some uh pictures or if you're familiar with the neighborhood, there are room there are already designed in some granny flat features. um, ADUs in backyards. And so I'm I'm looking forward to seeing um, some of that density happen. And I I did speak to the neighborhood um, about um, not everyone in the neighborhood being supportive of this. And um, the majority absolutely are. Um, but there were um, some people who were in support of of um, staff's recommendation. And I think um I can get behind this amendment truly because um I I don't think that it limits um development in the area. I think the the idea of having to buy a few lots to then build um a sixplex just isn't within isn't within the economic scope of developers right now. And so I think, you know, by by supporting this amendment, um we're really just ensuring that we would need to go on a sight specific or a really specific um area to really understand what is being proposed instead of a a a blanket zoning. So I'm really happy to bring this forward. I am so pleased um to have worked with the neighborhood association as well as many other um residents outside of the neighborhood association on this and um yeah have been thankful for the opportunity to work together in a collaborative way and I thank staff for supporting that collabor collaboration along the way and look forward to continued work on that. So please consider um I'd be I'd be honored for your support. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. um comments from councilis. >> Yeah, thank you vice chair Chapman. Uh I want to thank the delegates as well from this neighborhood for for coming in and expressing their concerns and uh uh initially quite frankly I wasn't prepared to to support I was prepared to support the staff recommendation with this in regards to this one. Um but again, we have another strong member on council here who who advocated for the neighborhood and uh you know worked very hard behind the scenes to get a consensus to to figure out a way to get others to support this amendment. It may not satisfy everyone and I think uh councelor uh stretch has worked very diligently to to do her best to make sure that you get the majority of folks who could be satisfied and I I think she did a fabulous job. So um she definitely uh persuaded me and so uh I'm happy to support the amendment. >> Councelor Singh. >> Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. I think uh not to repeat myself uh I think this is a similar context as the the Westbound neighborhood. Um and then once more again this if we were to go in a different direction than what staff have recommended. This is not a contradiction of staff's um you know what what they've outlined. I think this is fine-tuning a document that's going to live for the next 25 years that better defines and builds a city in a in a cohesive and a in a in a sensitive way. and what uh councelor stretch is outlining again particulars of a character where we have that personal perspective because not to take anything away from staff who have done a wonderful job in the consultation but we've walked those sidewalks we've gone up and down each driveway in those neighborhoods we understand the significance and the very unique character of what that neighborhood is and if it can help preserve that for at least a few more decades I'm sure down the road where the land economics will change and we might be able to densify that neighborhood more but for the time being I think that preservation is important. Thank you. >> Thank you Scott or councelor Davey. >> Yeah thank you. It's it's funny because the the two motions you're dealing with now they're they're not entirely dissimilar but the how they happened are councelor Johnson's was a a long slow burn I would say whereas councelor stretch faced faced more of a brush fire politically speaking um and it kind of blew up all of a sudden. So, no, my only point is to say, yeah, um, yeah, if I was a W 10 resident, I'd, you know, be happy how quickly the response was. Uh, and I think we're landing in a place that best represents, um, what what the residents of that community want, and I'm happy to support it. >> Thank you, Councelor Schneider. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chapman. Um, as a kid that grew up and went to Shepherd School, uh, I had friends on Simeon Street, Samuel Street, Mner, uh, Pandora Avenue, and man, I remember as a kid when you attend Cents and got to go to the Pandora variety, you thought you were a millionaire. So, very familiar with this neighborhood. And, um, also very appreciative of the work that you did, councelor Stretch, on this. Um, again, it's the role of council to represent your constituents and uh to do all that advocacy with the the residents with your residents and with staff. Uh, you know, the cooperation between staff and council. I think it speaks uh very highly of the way our staff work and our council work together and just the ability to have the conversations that we've had and you sharing the information uh with us. Uh, pleased me again. This is another example of finding that balance and happy to support this. >> Thank you, Mayor Verbanovic. >> Thanks very much and uh I too will be happy to support this amendment and um want to thank councelor stretch for her work and and and leadership um on this. We certainly did hear from u many residents in a short period of time. Um I I think one of the things that I I I liked was uh you know having spoken with uh folks from from both groups u the westbound group and this one is the collaboration that happened even between the neighborhoods um in uh recognizing that there were some real similarities between their respective neighborhoods. Um but but also recognizing that there were unique components to them. But the reality is the the streets that we're talking about that councilor stretch is uh addressing in her amendment um really are some of the the earliest uh streets in uh in our community um beyond the the immediate downtown. And uh I I think uh you know we heard loud and clear that uh while folks are are certainly supportive of of intensification and recognizing uh the appropriate place for that uh to to happen on the on the boundaries um of these neighborhoods. Um they uh they certainly were were looking for a little more balance in terms of how we approach this and uh councelor stretch uh you know heard that message very uh very clearly. um worked with the residents, worked with staff to come up with uh uh uh an approach that uh that ultimately uh I believe uh hopefully we'll get the support of council tonight and uh and we can move forward uh in terms of the the broader body of work that um is is really important for the the future of our city. >> Thank you, Councelor Johnston. >> Thanks. Thanks, Chair Chapman. Oh, too much cheering last night at the Ranger game. Uh, councelor Stretch, I am absolutely uh happy to support you on in this motion. I know uh frankly we kind of worked together on this because we had um you know we came at it from a very very similar angle. So happy to support you. Yours was a little more challenging in that not everybody in the in the neighborhood uh was in favor. So, I think that you've treated that with great sensitivity and uh and I really appreciate your your approach on this beautiful neighborhood. I love to walk through this neighborhood, too. And, you know, I often think about how we think about things like um our former city hall. You know, we've got our beautiful clock tower, but it's not on top of a building anymore. And we don't always know what we have until it's gone. And so it's really important to um you know preserve the heritage of these neighborhoods. So thank you so much for your work on on this and um again very very happy to support you. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Michelle. >> I'm I'm happy to support this too councelor stretch. did a great job along with Councelor Johnson and and uh you know this is what balance to me is about in a in a community and and for the constituents and the residents to come forward and and uh you know voice their concerns and be able to keep their keep their community intact and and and um and keep the heritage and the significance of it. Um I think it's great. I too along with councelor Schneider went to Shepherd School and I did shop at Pandora store once in a while as well and I felt like a queen. So, it's a great place. Anyways, I support this and congratulations, Council Stretch. >> Okay, those are all the comments. I'll just say that I will also support it and thank you for the work you put into it and to the residents for for speaking up. Um, so it's been moved by um councelor um Stretch. All those in favor? And that passes. Next, we have councelor Davey. Thank you. Um I have uh quite a few amendments uh to move at the same time. I didn't I'll be upfront and honest and not work nearly as hard as my ward eight and 10 colleagues on this. So just so there no one confuses volume with quality. Um but if I could ask the Oh, they're already up. So we can go. I'm happy to take this first list all together. Um, amendment number three, um, is that been removed? Yeah. So, amendment amendment number three is out. I have that modified separately coming up afterwards. So, it's amendments one to four or sorry, one to five. And they are all, if anyone has any questions on any of them, they are all effectively um retaining the existing um freedoms and uses of um land uses of of the existing properties that are there. So, Councelor Singh. >> Yeah, I think I generally agree with it, but there's a long list of motions. So, if you can give us a minute to go through them quickly, and I think that may be a good opportunity for many who have had a very long night and their issue has generally been dealt with with the uh the amendment. If anyone wants to leave as we're reading it, it may give them a small pause for them to be able to quietly exit. But yeah, if you can just have a minute to look through the motions. Thank you. Okay. Um, comments, counceloritis. >> Yeah. I I just want to also thank uh councelor Davey for the work he's done on this. I don't think it's anything light uh to take anything lightly that because there's a significant amount. Um, I also I also want to thank staff at some point, but uh I I know there's a lot of work and I I appreciate the work that they're doing behind the scenes with regards to accommodating these uh you know, these differences of opinion and moving forward. So, but again, I I'll probably say that again in my next comment. So, >> thank you, Councelor Schneider. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Chapman. Uh I also want to thank Councelor Davey for the work on this. uh his ward just happened to have a lot of these little idiosyncrasies in them and uh also thank staff for working together through this. Um again a a great overall document but our role is to uh represent uh some of the needs of our constituents. So uh well done councelor Davey. >> Thank you councelor Singh. >> Yeah I just want to share that uh that sentiment of uh thanking councelor Davey. I think this is really a economic development motion because it's it specifies the needs of our employer industry of the various different uh industrial and commercial landholding where ensuring that there is sense of continuity to their usage uh and at the same time there's more certainty as to their overall operation and I think that's crucially important as we look at uh our overall official plan. So good job councelor Davey. Did you want to speak to this at all? No. Okay. So, moved by Councelor Davey. All those in favor? And that passes. Thank you. Oh, okay. Two more. >> Yes. But wait, there's more. Um, so yeah, there's still two more that just had to be broken out separately. So, there is um six surely um if staff can bring that up. That was sent separately. Um or if you had the other one up too. It's whatever's easiest for you. Madam clerk. Yeah. So it's not the three in front of us, but the six surely's been revised. I sent a second. Oh, okay. And in Victoria as well. Yeah. Oh, it sounds great. Okay. Let's do Victoria first then. Yeah. >> Do you want to speak to it at all? >> Uh I think it speaks itself. just retains the um the freedoms as the delegates uh proposed. >> Okay. Um councelor Singh >> just key to say we're not going to thank you the second time once >> but I am support of this one or the next one yet. >> Councelor stretch. Um, I'll thank you a second time, but I just wanted to say I think um the the real fine-tuning that you're having to do here in listening to um the delegates and and the area you represent is really important and I think actually matches your character quite well. >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay. And the the last one, >> we move this one. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Um so moved by councelor Davey. All those in favor and that passes. >> And the last one is uh six. Shirley and Miss Elliot. We were able to add the major office clause in here as well. comes up on the screen. Oh, >> okay. Okay. So, it's it's the um high lid area. >> Yeah. In yellow. >> Any comments? No. Okay. Moved by councelor Davey. All those in favor? And that passes. Thank you. Next, we have counceloritis. You have a motion. I don't I don't think I need to read it. It's It's uh pretty well self-explanatory with regards to um dealing with Mil Street. And so we've heard I've heard enough. So, >> okay. Um, so moved by counceloritis. All those in favor and that passes. Thank you. Um, now we have councelor Singh who just left. So guess we'll have to wait. Well, I thought we were voting for I figured we were voting for both. Okay. Unless anybody would like it to be separated out. No. Okay. So, that's gone. That's done. So, now um councelor Singh, do can we at least pull up his his amendment? I think we should wait till he gets back. >> Yeah, but no, but you can. But let's let him counselor sing. Go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh the motion's before the committee and I think I've had a second to read it as well. Uh I think it just specifically talks to everything else we've said in the past earlier this evening about uh fine-tuning uh aspects of the official plan where density probably makes the most sense. Um on Ottawa Street, again this really uh identifies Laurentian Hills as well on east and west on the both sides of uh West Mount Road where they are very distinct neighborhoods and uh and uh cater to a older demographic, very senior uh residential area uh and um again overall I'm not um encouraging lower density than the neighborhood designation which still allows for six stories. It just ensures that it's not within the growth area so that we are not packing um development in where it doesn't make sense where the planning justification will need to be made with the appropriate setbacks which is within the neighborhood designation as opposed to the uh the growth area and I think one of the motions that was already taken is for um the schlaggo urban development where there does uh have ample land and the uh frontage along Fisher Holland where density makes most sense. So, it's about balancing right long density where where it's best suited and ensuring that there's a better integration into a neighborhood where the sensitivity requires and I think uh the way the motion outlines for Lenton Hills east and west identifies that sensitivity. So, I would hope for your support. >> Thank you. Did you want to comment? No. Okay. So, moved by councelor Singh and all those in favor and that passes. So, I guess now we vote on the um amended motion with the um conflicts, the known conflicts. Um can I get somebody to move it? Did we get somebody earlier? Okay, Council Davey. >> Yeah. So, we're moving it first with the known complex. Um all those in favor Oh, comments. Sorry, it's getting late. Councelor Davey, >> thank you. You're doing a great job actually, Madam Chair. Uh, no, I'd be remiss not to thank staff for the tremendous amount of work they've done and in particular, I got to thank Natalie who have bothered the last couple like thanks thank you slash apologize for bothering you so much in the last few days. Um, this really is a great document, but I think also like the tweaks we made. I really hope that the the public um the business people in the community as well uh realize that you know this council is really reflective of not only the idealism that our planning staff are tasked with bringing to us but the pragmatism that we have to sort of filter that through and to make sure that we you know we we retain some of the great parts of city that we have but we also are cognizant of the business pressures that a lot of of our our economy are facing right now. So hopefully that's the message that's being communicated um through this official plan. But again, I'd be remiss not to um acknowledge the tremendous amount of work of staff official plans. There's so much work and I really appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mary Vanovic. >> Well, thank you very much. And um I do want to take a moment to to reflect on the body of work that's that's been accomplished. council will recall that uh it was uh what a year and a half ago that um the municipality um received u responsibility for for planning and saw transferred from the region uh to us and uh we are now in in a position where we're actually the first uh of the seven lower tier municipalities in the region to be uh approving our our official plan uh this evening and then ratifying it later um in the uh in in the month and and and I say that because um I I think it's important that we recognize the immense amount of work that our staff team undertook uh in that time period to get this document uh before us to engage the community as effectively as they did to listen to voices that traditionally um have not been heard as part of the as part of the process. And we heard some of those reflections at the at the beginning of the of the evening um to to to make um recommendations that they uh felt were were ambitious uh and forwardinking uh for the for for the future of our community, but also who worked strongly with council to um respond to some of the issues and and concerns we were hearing and helping us find that that balance that ultimately is is uh is being heard um this evening. And uh I think it it would be appropriate to to to say I believe this is something that um all of you that have been part of this process should be immensely proud of. um you know it might not be the exact document that uh that that you presented before us but I think um what has collectively been achieved is is significant and and I think the fact that it has been achieved with relatively um few delegations um in in the whole yes it's been a long evening um but I can tell you we've had you know we've had other issues over my time on council um where we've had to have like two or three nights of uh of uh of input sessions from the public and uh we're we're not we're we're not there and I think because of the efforts of of members of council uh to be responsive because of the efforts of staff to uh to to work collaboratively with us um I do think it speaks to the the kind of working relationship that this council and uh and our staff uh have in in working with the community. And so, uh, I really wanted to take a a moment to to say thank you to, uh, to all of them, uh, for their for their leadership, their passion, and, uh, for getting this, uh, to, uh, to us, uh, at this point in time. So, thank you for all of your great work on this. >> Thank you, um, Council Aronitis. >> Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair Chapman. Uh, the mayor stole some of my my comments, uh, but, uh, that's all good. Um, I just I guess what I want to reflect on is and I think some of the communities that that came here today, you know, reflect on how massive and impactful this document is and uh it's it's it's it's a huge huge document and uh for the staff to to go about and go about their day and and moving coming through and and stick handling and everything else that they need to do. And you know, and again to come up with the amount of of folks that weren't really that disappointed or uh overall the the sentiment in the community is a huge testament to to the staff. So, thank you and and uh thanks for all the hard work that that you've done and to set up our city for success and for the for the future. Thank you. Next. Next is councelor Johnston. >> Thanks, Chair Chapman. And thank you so much, staff. I know what I really appreciate about you is your approach. you have been working on this document for well over two years uh with different different kinds of really um innovative activities that you've taken you know whether it was you know doing things on Gal Street or going to the market um just very creative and just different ways of actually seeking out opinions from people that maybe we don't always hear from and I'm really appreciative of your approach it's really important and and when you felt that there was um some need for some more education or or some more you know open houses you arranged them at community center so your flexibility of saying okay you know what there's a lot of questions here we need to we need to go back out in the community and have these conversations and I know that that was really uh really really appreciated I know the one that we had at Victoria Hills I think we had over 130 people crammed into that little tiny space that night but that was that was really great and that's that's your flexibility in in doing that. Um you also arranged for a walkshop as well. That was great and and to uh speed up the work on the CHL for Westbound and I'm really appreciative that was it was a lot of extra work on top of the big body of general work that you were doing for the official plan. So I just wanted to uh to say a big thank you that it doesn't go unnoticed. I think I need to bake some more cookies for you. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Um, next, counselor stretch. >> Thank you. I just wanted to add my thanks as well. It is not lost on me that you um, you know, work here with residents, grumpy counselors, um, developers of all sorts, and you take all of that feedback, you mix it together, and you try to do what's best for our community. I just thank you for being am ambitious. Um, thank you for uh biting your tongues when you don't totally agree with us and for still being willing to to uh work and figure out um um things that will work. So, um yeah, I'm I'm really proud of of this OP in this work. I'm really proud of the engagements and the way you intentionally went out to the community and tried to capture voices that aren't normally heard. I think that is fabulous and I love that it came from our planning department. Um, well done being leaders. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Council Michelle, >> thank you. I'll make this fairly short. I I just want to um uh thank you for the time you put into this. Um, this is 10 words that you had to go around and I'm sure everyone was different and every challenge you met with with uh uh professionalism and kindness and thoughtfulness. So, I really appreciate that and I and I absolutely admire your profession. I could never do it, but I really admire it. You've done a remarkable job. This is a huge body of work, and you should be very proud of yourselves. Thank you. >> Okay, finally, Dr. Doctor, sorry, Council Schneider. >> If I'm your doctor, you're in big trouble. I'll tell you that much. Uh, huge thanks to our staff on this. Uh, this is something that began in the summer of 2024 and here we are today. Um, if you go to the engaged kitchener page and and look back at the history of the project, uh, I hope that as you scan through that, you feel an immense sense of pride. I know I do as a counselor, especially with the engagement that was done on this uh the intentional engagement and and the strong desire to really go out and and hear all voices, the unique and out ofthebox engagement you did. Uh just the different ways to engage and how that was was all put together uh with framing the plan and again with the public launch. uh just incredible. Um this is an just a fantastic piece of work and it adds to your awardwinning uh programs like growing together and building kitchen or together the not forprofit housing incentive pro pilot, the community improvement project. Uh you do a lot of great work and that work uh really impacts the lives of our residents. you're you're doing great things to improve our housing stock all along the housing continuum uh w with very unique and and groundbreaking programs. So just an immense amount of thanks for all the hard work and also thanks for for being uh approachable and and listening and you know in our roles as counselors sometimes it's it's it's challenging because we we have to bring forth uh what our residents ask us to bring forth and um the the ability to uh you know have a consensus us a little bit on this and and to give and take a little bit. Uh I think it speaks very highly of both the staff and our council and I think uh together with the input of our our residents with the delegations that we heard tonight uh I think we've landed in a really good place a place of balance and I know for me a real place of pride so thank you to you and thank you council for and thank you delegates and everyone who engaged in this and was part of this project. >> Thank you. I I have nothing more to add other than thank you for the the work that you've put into this and um yeah, I think it's um a a a very comprehensive um official plan. Um so it's been moved by councelor Davyy. Um and I'm referring to the report with the new conflicts. Um, all those in favor and that passes and the remainder of the report. All those in favor and that passes. There's one information item. Um, and can I get somebody to move the adjournment of the meeting? What? Oh, sorry. I didn't see you. I just I actually just wanted to thank you uh uh councelor Chapman for chairing a uh complex meeting that had lots of moving pieces to it and I just wanted to acknowledge uh you for your for stepping in as as vice chair and uh for for the work that you did today. >> Sorry for the hiccups but we made it. >> Okay. Can I get someone to move the adjournment? Okay. Councelor Misho, all those in favor? Thank you and have a good evening everyone.