We're not live yet. We are now. Thank you. Okay. Welcome everyone for the planning and strategic initiatives committee for August the 10th. Um, I'll confirm if there are any disclosures of peer interest and general nature thereof. Seeing none, proceeding to the consent items. Can I get a mover, Council Chapman? Oh, go ahead. >> Well, I'm happy to move it, but um I'd like to take out 3.2, please. >> Okay. 3.2. Do you have a question? >> Yeah. Do you want me to go ahead? Um, my question for staff or staff. Oh, >> typically we take a vote to item out, but I think we're okay. Yeah, >> that's fine. We're already midway. >> Okay, thank you. Um, so my question, I had a couple questions. First of all, um, was this lens not adopted back when we declared a climate emergency in 2019? And then again in wasn't it um direct wasn't staff directed in was it May this year to March or May sorry to yeah March May sorry um to also introduce or to adopt this um you know the idea of a lens to to to apply to any um anything that the city does any decisions that we make. >> Yes. Through you chair to the counselor. I can't speak specifically to the 2019 declaration. I would uh agree that as this subcommittee of the advisory committee have come forward. They have brought these this request for uh when there is the regular review of the council template that a climate lens be brought to the work and specifically a greenhouse gas emissions um perspective or lens. And I would say yes in in their May report they had some idea and some recommendation get did come forward as they worked through their work plan over the last two years they've kind of refined what they in you know envision for uh a a new template for council and so they understand that as their term comes to a close they want to to park this request with staff to consider as part of the regular review process this framework. it isn't currently a part of our council template and that's really what they're seeking is that it potentially be considered as part of our current template. So while there have been threads in the past of the request, they haven't been yet embedded and I think that that's really the thread that they're carrying through and and placing before you today. >> So if we approve this, it doesn't mean that it's actually integrated into the template. So what's the process from here forward? >> Yes. So through you chair my understanding is that you know regularly uh staff review that council template and so when that review happens I believe it's typically led by clerks uh clerks has taken under advisement that they will you know make this consideration as they review other you know kind of templates that they might include that aren't currently included. So it will be something you know staff will take into consideration when that regular review will happen. So it could be months, years. >> I don't know off offhand. I think I would have to defer to um you know to the team that would be leading the work. >> Right. Okay. Um my other question is it seems to focus primarily on the corporate um gas greenhouse gas emissions. Does it extend beyond that into the community? >> Yes. Through you to uh through the chair to the counselor. Yes. I think you know reports that come uh to council are both corporate and community focused and so we are monitoring both community and corporate GHGs and so I would say yes both scopes of greenhouse gas emissions are on the radar and and embedded in this request from the committee >> and can you share any um indicators that might be used um to do this assessment? I know it's not wouldn't be finalized at this point, but just to give us an idea of things you'd be looking for. >> So, corporately, we have about 20 indicators that we regularly report on around Earth Day. And that report will come again in April and came this last April. And for council, all of the KPI that we monitor on the community side of greenhouse gas emissions is expected at council in December. And that'll be the 2024 um data and all the KPI that they regularly report on. Okay, thank you. >> Just a question or two of my own. Um, pretty much changing the uh the current practice of having that uh climate change or greenhouse gas emission lens to all corporate reports. It outlines as no financial impact, but there would be additional staff allocation associated to this new step. Would it not? >> To your question, chair, I think it really would matter the type of framework that is utilized and across the organization, there'd likely be a variety of different templates that would be required, different formulas, data assessments. We don't currently there aren't currently many standards and and there isn't a standard that we use other than in our corporate reporting and our GHD reporting very broadly. So project specific um it will vary team to team and so to speak to the FTEES that would be required I think we really need to look at what frameworks we would be incorporating uh in order to answer that adequately. No, I appreciate that. But this is opening up to a methodology that does once you change that template in future years, we'd be looking at ensuring that there's associative data related to that empty slot that outlines what that impact for whatever item that may be related to greenhouse gas emissions. So there would be then potentially an FTE impact on that one if you're moving towards this direction. And I think you know to you as chair I think what will really matter is as you know this template is reviewed and the extent to which and the method by which uh a framework is brought in. I think that that's going to really be uh the direction and and your your answer uh it will really matter how it is incorporated if it is incorporated. >> Okay. I think it's just we would have to settle that additional information >> is required to understand the full impact. Yep. And I think that that would be part of what in a sense clerks would be reviewing at the time and I think that that's why it's important when clerks does take that work on. They um you know they would do a thorough assessment to understand those impacts. This committee hasn't done that. They're really not in a position to be able to make that assessment. >> I understand. But on a from a corporate lens and through legislative services, this is a comment uh to a legislative team more. So I think uh ensuring that we are uh more precise on that uh that financial impact and the FTE requirement would would be would be explicit related to any further recommendation associated with this template template change. Councelor Davyy. >> Yeah, thank you. I only queued in if you'll um allow me Mr. Chair just to comment to respond to you and um some of councelor Chapman's questions as well. Um, councelor stretch and I sit on the climate change uh committee and this your the questions you asked were exactly our concerns and that was part of the refinement process that the committee went through. The the original vision was to have um you know it would have been lovely to do but to have a section of every single report that reflected this and then but we realized the potential cost implications of that and really how valuable that data is or isn't. That's why this was there's some nuance here in terms of letting clerks take a look at it and our senior staff take a look at to make sure you know we address that exactly that concern that we're not doing work for the sake of work. So >> okay with that the uh consent items have been moved by councelor Chapman. All those in favor opposed that carries. Thank you. That uh resolves our consent items. We'll proceed to as advertised for uh discussion items and uh to all delegations. The city values and encourages participation and dialogue in a democratic process that occurs in council committee meetings and through written submissions and correspondence. It is important that these interactions remain respectful towards other members of the public, staff and council in case where dialogue is not respectful or a de delegate interrupts counselor staff or other delegations, makes derogatory statements about counselor, staff or others that are disrespectful or uses hate speech or language that is considered harmful or defamatory. The chair may interject and take actions, sorry, 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 maximum of 5 minutes which will be displayed on the screen in front of you. When there are 30 seconds remaining in 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 microphone will turn off shortly after that exceeded 5m minute mark. Lastly, please do not take offense if following your presentation. There are no questions from council. This is a this is council's time to really listen and reflect upon the opinions and ideas shared with us from our community members. And proceeding to as advertised public hearing matter under the planning act. This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the planning act. In accordance with the Interior Planning Act, only the applicant or owner of land affected by the planning applications, a specified person or public body and or the minister may appeal the appeal most decisions. If you do not make a verbal submission to the committee or council or make written written submissions prior to city council making a decision on the proposal, you may not be entitled to appeal the decision of the city of Kiter to the Interior Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the OOLT. To understand your rights of the appeal, if any, or for further clarifications regarding appeals, please see the Ontario Land Tribunal website. First item is 6.1 zoning bylaw amendment and uh major modifications to draft plan of subdivision. Uh as noted in the report we have Mr. Evan Whitman uh as senior planner who will be presenting first. Uh Evan when you are ready key. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Perfect. Thank you. My name is Evan Whitman, a senior planner with the development and housing approvals division. I'll try to keep my presentation brief. The zoning bylaw amendment application is for the land known as the Kitchener Green subdivision located at the former core quarry area along Blams Road and Trustler Road. The land are subject to two separate draft plans of subdivision which are being modified to reflect to reflect the proposed zoning. The subject site is located on the south side of Blames Road east of Trussler Road. The site is a former quarry and as such is currently vacant aside from existing natural areas. The site represents the edge of the urban boundary of the city. Generally, the surrounding area consists of existing and future low-rise residential areas with rural properties and farmland to the west and south. The application is for a zoning bylaw amendment only. No official plan amendment is necessary to facilitate the proposed development. The existing draft plan of subdivision was approved in 2023 along with specific uh site zone zoning provisions. The appropriate residential permissions are in place for the land for the development of a subdivision. This application is to tweak that existing sight specific permission. While the zoning map shown on the slide looks very complicated, essentially three main changes are proposed. The first is area 1 highlighted in red. This is 2091 Blooms Road. This property was not incorporated in the original subdivision and is now under the developer's ownership and will be be brought into the subdivision. This property needs a zone change to allow residential use. Second, and the primary reason for the zoning bylaw amendment is to permit a new housing typology, generally referred to as a wide lot. The existing sight specific provisions will be modified to permit a decreased rear yard but increased to the lot width of each lot. This means lots will be wider and shallower versus the current plan which allows a long and narrow lot. Lastly, there are road realignments that result in several zones being shifted. For example, more park spaces being conveyed, meaning the area zone for parks need to be revised. The existing draft plans of subdivision are being revised to account for this new housing product. The overall unit yield is generally consistent with the existing approval, but roads have been realigned to account for a shallower lot. These changes are in place for the southern subdivision being 30T18202 and only on the eastern side of 30T18201. The applications are an opportunity to comprehensively incorporate an outlier property. The wider lot housing type will bring a variety of housing types to the area as most are the more typical long and narrow lot fabric. Lastly, through the revisions to the draft plans of subdivision, additional park space will be conveyed to the city. To conclude, the applications are recommended for approval. Existing residential permissions are already in place and the zone change represents what staff believe is an improved lot fabric. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment demonstrates good planning principles and is consistent with provincial, regional, and city planning policies. Thank you. Thank you, Evan. We do have a delegation, so we will hold our questions uh up until after the delegation. Dave Riley on behalf of Kitchener Green Development. Dave, as a reminder, you have five minutes to make your presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is this on? Can you hear me? >> Yep. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Dave Riley. I am actually with SGL Planning and Design, but I'm here with my client from Kitchener Green Developments, um, also known as Madame Holmes. Um, I'm here to state that we're in full support of staff's recommendations, um, as outlined in their staff report and as, uh, Evan just summarized uh, very nicely. And I did want to just take a moment to thank staff um planning staff uh but as well as all your departments for working through with us and working and addressing comments and getting getting us here today. Um it has been a great experience working with your staff as it always is. So we're happy to be continuing um this this good working relationship and of course as we move forward with the development. Um overall, um I just wanted to say that these applications and the associated changes that Evan, uh summarized for you today, they do allow for that wider lot product and but we're still going to be able to maintain the minimum density requirements. So Evan mentioned that we're we're generally um within the same unit range and that's because we need to be uh to meet the policy requirements. Um but what is happening with this wider lots is that you're going to see more green space on the street um functionally the home is being designed um to be a little bit more attractive in that there's going to be a front window for for many of these houses. So you can have an office there eyes looking out onto the street from the house which is not something that you would typically have in the narrower lots. Um so we're happy to be working with the city to roll out this product for these lands and um we think that it's going to be very attractive uh community. Um I also wanted to just to say I've reviewed the the correspondence received on this. Um there was um um just a little bit correspondence about a road connection at the south end. Um I I just wanted to reiterate as Miss as Evan um outlined this is already a draft approved subdivision. there is no road stub contemplated to the south and there's two reasons for that. One um it goes directly into a natural zone um which is a wildlife corridor uh which we've zoned to protect that way uh in this area and uh the lands in question that are requesting a road connection to connect to them is not within the urban boundary. So I I just wanted to address that right off the bat. Um but anyways I'm happy to uh answer any questions and and uh thank you again for your time. >> Thank you Dave. They are questions of you conser. >> Thank you chair Singh and thank you for coming in tonight. I'm just curious um why the change of wide and short wide and short versus long and narrow. >> Yeah it's a good question through you Mr. Chair to the councelor. Uh so the long and narrow so um from a density perspective we did need to make some changes to the depth first of all. So they're they're wider and and shallower rather than long and narrow so that it kind of nets out in terms of density. But if you um in the staff report, if you do have that in front of you, there is a good graphic that explains visually what the difference is. And I'm just going to find the page number. It's not on a page number, but it's figure seven in the staff report. And it shows side by side the difference between a a long and narrow versus a wide lot. And you can see there's there's definitely a difference in terms of the depth of the lot. Um and we do require that um reduced um side uh rear yard depth um to to 6 mters. Um this is being done actually with a lot of research behind it that my client has done in terms of what is marketable and what people want. Um so there's benefits in terms of a smaller yard that is less to maintain. Um, but it actually because you're having a wider lot, it introduces more green space along the street. So, you're actually able to have more space between driveways, what that does is it increases the greenery. It also allows for more on street parking. And I know that has been a challenge in some areas within the city, as it is in many municipalities. Um, but we think that it's a it's an attractive design from the outside, but the layout of the home actually gets improved being wider, whereas you don't enter into a corridor where you have to pass the garage to reach the main living area. You've got a living area with a large front window looking out onto the street. And that's the idea here. That's what um my clients clientele uh would like according to their research. And from a planning perspective, we really think that this is going to uh make a big difference from a streetscape perspective along the street. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Conoritis. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair Singh, and uh thank you for for coming in. And I I like the the change that you made. I'm just curious as to how many units are we looking at that are directly impacted with this this change. >> Yeah. So, uh let me just get the number for you. So, overall this subdivision and this includes the western half of the 18201 land which is the larger subdivision. I think the overall number of units which is generally the same. Just going to find the number here. It's almost 4,000 dwelling units. Um so four um probably about half of it is changing because we're including all of 18202 and not quite half of 18201 which is the larger subdivision at the top. >> Now there are some higher density blocks within those subdivisions that are are still going to be developed for higher dens higher residential densities but in terms of the lower density housing product this is we're looking at about half. >> Okay. I'm just curious the acquisition of area one. How much additional housing are we seeing here in that portion? Let me look into the giraffe plan if you give me a moment. I think it's probably uh a little over 50 units or so. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Dave. That's everyone. Thank you very much. But before you go, I'll ask this question. I think this is uh for more clarity as everyone is uh uh intrigued by this change of rather narrow, more wider. this will likely end up having a easier effect on on street parking as well, right? As opposed to crowding close because you have a longer width of was that part of the issues related um >> yes that that's that is correct uh uh to you uh Mr. chair and and um just so everyone knows and I and I know this I've said this before but I did want to reiterate that we we did have many discussions with your transportation staff about this uh because it is a narrower right of way um 16 m from a traditional 20 meter so that it's it's a difference um but we wanted to show that it is possible to still have all your services um accommodated within that 60 m right ofway. It allows us to have wider lots to fit in. You know, there's a couple more streets actually that go in that that we needed because of the to maintain those minimum densities. Um, but the one of the benefits of doing this um not just for the housing type itself, but um and the more green space that more green space leads to larger spacing between driveways, which allows for on street parking. Um some in some cases within some neighborhoods where you intend to have on street parking um it doesn't work because a driveway gets widened for example down the road and then you lose a spot. This um the way that these houses are designed we're intending to you know have have the driveways certain space so that that doesn't happen and you maintain that certain supply of on street parking. >> Yeah that's helpful. Thank you Dave. >> Appreciate your presentation. I'll open up for questions of staff. Councelor Chapman. >> Yeah, thank you. Um I know we spoke about this a bit earlier today. Um but I had some concerns about the um things the items that have been deleted from the city standard residential subdivision agreement. So I I know not notice it that you know 2.4 is being deleted, 2.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.12. I'm not sure if that's um A and B, but um and you know, so one of them was which is 2.4 um states that sorry, I'll just trying to pull it up here. Um that the subdivider shall provide detailed design drawings and grading plans for all parks and multi-use pathway blocks for review and approval to the satisfaction of the city's director. Da da da. So, why would something like that be removed or deleted from the from the final um I guess approval? And the same with the others. I'm just reading out 2.4, but there's also the 2.6, the 4.8, 4.9, and 4.12. Evan, go ahead when you're ready. >> Sure. Just for my clarification, is that for subdivision uh the conditions prepared for 30T18201? >> Hang on. >> For which one? Sorry. >> Uh 2011 as the final three. >> Okay. So, there they're different ones, right? So, I think I pulled them out of all three of those draft approvals. >> So, if you go to the um Yeah. So go to 2011 and I think it refers to um 2.6 4.8 and 4.12 right at the very beginning of the document says standard in the first paragraph in fact under 2.1 says standard conditions 2.6 4.8 and 4.2 should be deleted. >> Yes 2.6 4.8 8 and 4.12 being deleted. Uh 2.6, oh my goodness, forgive me. I've pulled the wrong one. I have heritage resources. I can speak to 4.8. Um that one is regarding MTO land use and sign permits. Um Ministry of Transportation isn't involved in this application. It's on um BLES and Trussler being um regional roads. So MTO doesn't um need to get involved with their land use and permits. So there's no highway close by, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Uh in terms of 412, that one's about temporary access roads. Um just the way that the subdivision is being developed, that um section did need to apply to the development of the subdivision, partly due to the size. It's a bit difficult to tell um on the map, but it's a very very large area along. It's almost 2 km long, so there's ample space around to to develop it um it in an orderly fashion. So, forgive me just one second to pull up 2.6 Uh 2.6 is referring to heritage resources. As the site is a former quarry, it's currently vacant. There are no buildings on the site. So there's no heritage resource to protect. So that's why those three have been removed from the standard template. >> Okay. And then in um 202 it's it refers to 2 2.4 which I just read out read out to you and 4.9 which um I forget what it has to do with uh I'll start with 4.9. I just got to that one more quickly. It's about grant easements. Um they're required for any easements required for maintenance of encroachment of adjacent dwellings. Uh just as it's being built out, it's something that isn't applying in terms of grand easements to the development of the subdivision. um for zero lot line development specifically and this isn't a zero lot line development situation as they're all singles towns that sort of thing being proposed >> even in the more intensified areas >> uh correct there are not zero lot lines so to speak in the higher density blocks um and we're not at the stage yet to go through site plan approval with those ones so um it's a bit future looking for how those ones will develop >> okay and I guess the last one was just the 2.4 forward that had to do with the parkland. The detailed design drawings and grading plans for all parks and multi-use pathway blocks. planning staff work for it today. >> Well, I did give him a heads up. >> Yeah, forgive me for the delay. There is a park in that subdivision area. So, I'm just checking my notes if there was something we referred to previously that would not require this because there will be grading plans required through detail design that will account for everything. I'm just trying to see if there was something specific to I believe it was uh specifically around multiuse pathways as there aren't any in that area of the subdivision. There is a park that will require grading in those sorts of plans, but not a multi-use pathway. I just wonder if that should be um not removed, the 2.4 before at least >> I don't see that being problematic just as if as currently planned there's no pathway through there then it just will naturally sort of fall away so to speak so um >> and that can be addressed through the site plan process correct >> um depending on how it goes through is the subdivision if it's for lowerrise areas it may not go through site plan site plan's for the 10 units or more areas so >> um it may not come up through that element But just looking at the applicant and nodding, it seems if that's added back in and there's no pathways, it won't apply regardless. So, >> it refers to all parks for all park and and multi-use pathway blocks. So, and I guess I'm focusing on the park of it. >> And so, there's an opportunity, of course, this is a planning committee meeting. So it up until it comes back to council, >> you could have that conversation with the uh the consultant and the applicant ensuring that they're they're favorable to the direction that councelor Chapman is suggesting of taking that out >> and at that point you would have more sorry keeping it in not taking it out. Yes. Uh would you be okay with that if you just refer it to council? >> That's fine. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, we'll just refer that suggestion to council with a direction when the motion is moved that staff continue on conversing with the applicant. Okay. All right. Um I see no other questions. Can I get a mover on this item? Moved by councelor Deno. All those in favor opposed. And that carries and this will proceed to council meeting. Okay, next item up is a zoning bylaw amendment application draft plan of vacant land condominium. That's for 26 Stanley Avenue and 31 Schweitzer Street. Evan, you're up earning overtime. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. I'll reintroduce myself just for those that may have just joined for this application. Uh, my name is Evan Whitman, a senior planner with the development and housing approvals division. The zoning bylaw amendment and vacant land condominium applications are for 26 Stanley Avenue and 31 Schweitzer Street. The subject site is located on the west side of Stanley Avenue behind both Bloomingdale and Schweitzer Street. The site is currently vacant and as a result is generally overgrown. Generally, the surrounding area consists of existing low-rise residential areas with employment and commercial properties to the west. The site is large being roughly 3.5 hectares in area. The application is for a zoning bylaw amendment application only. No official plan amendment is necessary to facilitate the proposed development. The zoning bylaw amendment proposes to change the site from the R4 and the R3 zone for 31 Schweitzer Street to Res 5. The only difference between the existing zoning for the site and the res 5 zone is permission for townhouse units. Essentially, the applications are not to permit the number of units, but to have townhouse units incorporated. If the plan was to be developed as of right, roughly 100 semi- detached units would fit in the current condominium layout. This application is essentially to add around 13 units to the existing permission. No sight specific provisions are requested. A previous iteration of this plan included a request for additional height, but this is no longer part of the proposal. Staff recommend introducing a holding provision for additional archaeological assessment as well as a record of site condition, which I will touch on at the end of my presentation. This assessment is not to facilitate a connection to the cemetery. A cemetery connection is no longer part of this plan. It is important to note that this property has long been planned for residential use. Since at least 1994, the site has been designated for low-rise residential development. The proposed development consists of 62 semi- detached dwellings and 51 townhouse dwellings with eight semi- detached dwellings outside of the condominium along Stanley Avenue. The yellow areas on this figure are semi- detached. The blue is town houses and the orange along Stanley Avenue are semi- detached dwellings that are not part of the condominium. The plan is for a condominium, meaning that the internal roads are private, as is waste collection and servicing infrastructure. As mentioned previously, a connection to the adjacent cemetery is no longer part of the application. In terms of opportunity, the applications will develop a large underutilized parcel in the city that has been planned for residential development since at least 1994. The plan brings additional housing options to the area and the existing property has little intentional planting. Through redevelopment, a more comprehensive landscaping approach can be implemented. To conclude, the applications are recommended for approval. Existing residential permissions are already in place and introducing townhouse units to the area provides a mix of housing options. There are two minor changes that staff request be added to the application as they arose after the staff report was finalized. The first is the region identifying an additional servicing review to be included as a condominium condition. Well, we could address that through the site plan approval stage in the development of the road. Staff recommend adding the new condition at this stage. And the second is that while a phase one environmental site assessment was complete and concludes that no further study is needed, the record of site condition still needs to be filed with the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks. Staff recommend adding this hold um RSC requirement to the holding provision. Pursuant to section 3417 of the planning act as amended, further notice is not required to be given in respect to the zoning bylaw amendment ZBA21-019-SPB for the suggested changes. The applicant would also like to add additional visitor parking to their plan and a change of the condominium approval condition uh to unitize a portion of the parking. I will defer to the applicant to elaborate on this request. Overall, the proposed zoning bylaw amendment demonstrates good planning principles and is consistent with the provincial, regional, and city planning policies. Thank you. Okay, we'll proceed to the delegations. Uh Kristen Barill, as you know, five minutes to present. Thank you. Uh good evening. Uh my name is Kristen Barerisdale from GSP Group. Uh we are the agents acting on behalf of the property owner. I will note that u Mr. Jeff Owens and Connie Owens are here in the crowd. Uh they are the owners of New Holdings and they're happy to answer any questions that you may have with regards to the proposed development that I may not touch on or may not be able to answer. Um as Mr. Mr. Evans pointed out this is a a revision uh to the existing or excuse me the original draft plan of subdivision that was submitted to the city. Our original applications for official excuse me zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision were submitted in November 2021. Um it was intended to facilitate residential development of the site. Uh it included a a municipal road constructed to municipal standards as well as 71 residential units. 42 are of those were single units. You can see those around the perimeter of the site or the outside of the site uh with 24 semi- detached units which were proposed to be internal to the site on the island if you will in the middle. And then there were five uh townhouse blocks or townhouse units proposed at the very west end of the site closest to um Grand A. Uh through uh consultation with city staff as well as in response to some of the comments we received from the public. Uh we have presented or we submitted a revised um application to the city um based on a revised development concept. Um first and foremost the decision was made to pursue a draft plan of subdivision rather than a draft plan or excuse me a draft plan of condominium rather than a draft plan of subdivision. And I'll walk you through some of those changes. As Mr. Whitman pointed out the lots that are fronting on Stanley A have actually been removed from the draft plan of subdivision. It is eight future semi- detached lots that will be dealt with through consent application to the city. Um the biggest change that you may see on this is that we have made uh reduced the right of way. So we've gone from a standard municipal right of way of 18 meters to a private condo driveway of 6.7 m. Um similar to uh how the site was organized previously um we are providing now for semi- detached units around the outside of the perimeter. So the more lowdensity form of housing around the perimeter of the site and all of the townhouse units will be center or localized centrally to the site again on that island that's located in the middle. Uh finally there was uh some additional visitor parking that has been provided on the site. You'll see at the top leftand corner of your site uh there are some visitor parking spaces are identified. There's also some visitor parking spaces identified internal to the site um in and around the townhouse blocks. And then there is also uh additional visitor parking that's provided at the very uh lefthand side of the site, bottom of the screen. Uh as Mr. Whitman touched on, uh there is a slight change to the draft plan of condominium um that was submitted and was included in the staff report versus the design concept that you're seeing in front of you this evening. Um there was about 11 parking spaces that were added to the development concept again in response in an effort to try to address some of the concerns with regards to potential on street parking uh implications. Unfortunately, there was a misstep at our end in terms of having that reflected on the updated draft plan of condominium. Uh the condominium has been updated um and it has been submitted to city staff. Um, in addition, there has been some further discussions uh with regards to uh NEUo and they would like to unitize a portion of the visitor parking spaces um ensuring that we're providing for the minimum regulatory requirement under the zoning bylaw. As Mr. Evan touched on, there is or Mr. Whitman touched on, excuse me, there is we're proposing to reszone the site um to residential 5. We are not proposing any sight specific changes to the property. uh no changes to setbacks, no changes to the proposed height, and no changes to coverage. Uh we're proposing to implement the res 5 zoning as it stands in the current bylaw. Uh what we heard from the city leading up to this point and which was a impetus for some of the changes. Uh there was some concerns with regards to servicing as proposed in the original concept. Uh we had originally included a super pipe design that would provide for storm water management on the site. It's essentially a large holding tank. um the city was not supportive of that and uh as a result of that we moved away from that um servicing concept as well as moving away from the municipal road. Um there were some compatibility and neighborhood design considerations which again I touched on as to why the semi-units have been placed where they um have been proposed. And then there are some tree preservation and removal considerations. As Mr. Whitman touched on, there has been this site has been remained undeveloped for a large a large number of years. Uh there is an existing um stockpile of top soil along the perimeter of the site. You can see that I've circled it in red. Uh there is about a 2 m differential in that height from the top of that bank to the bottom of the bank. And that is unfortunately where a lot of the trees have accumulated over the years and grown over the years. We recognize that the tree preservation plan is proposing to remove a significant amount of trees. Um but that a lot of it is reflective of the circumstances that are on the site as well as some of the invasive species. We also heard with uh comments from city uh residents with regards to traffic on a street parking which I touched on tree preservation and protecting protection what I touched on as Mr. Whitman noted we've removed the trail connection to the cemetery and we are not asking for any changes or further changes to building height and density and that concludes my presentation for this evening. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you Kristen. There are a few questions councelor Deno. Thank you, Chair uh Chair Singh and thank you Miss Bears Mir Beersdale for coming in tonight. Um I don't Is there any park space? Uh through you, Mr. Chair, there's not any park space provided on the site itself. However, there would be a requirement to provide parkland dedication um as part of the draft plan economium and future development. >> All right. Where's the nearest playground then for the >> for you, Mr. Chair? The it's I I'm cannot remember the name of it, but it's just on the north side of Bloomingdale Road. Shaver, >> how far of a walk is that? >> I would uh probably about five, seven minutes down Stanley A. >> Down Stanley. >> Yes. >> And sorry, and I may have an old picture on Google Maps here, 26 Stanley, right? Avenue. >> Yes. >> So, right now, the picture I see is just put it's a corn field. >> Yes. >> With no sidewalk. >> Through you, Mr. Chair. It will be developed with sidewalks. Okay. Um providing access out to Stanley and then through Stanley down to Bloomingdale and Bloomingdale to the park, >> Bloomingdale Road, excuse me. >> And so is there is there space not space for like a small playground instead of having to venture five seven minutes up the up the street? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, there are opportunities to revise or look at uh further options on the site. Through discussions with city staff, it was determined that parkland probably wasn't needed on the site or should be required on the site because of the park within proximity to the site and providing for uh the parkland dedication contributions that could um be earmarked to provide for improvements to that larger park. >> Okay. I may be alone in this in this with this opinion, but I I'd like to I'd like to think that we could fit something on there on on in this development. Um, yeah, I'd like to think we can try to squeeze something in there. That's my remark and questions. Thank you, >> Councelor Davey. >> Yes, thank you, Miss Berdale, for your presentation. Uh, just wanted to confirm the one of the changes that was um spoken most about probably from the the residents in the community is the the pathway through through the cemetery. And we've heard from Mr. Whitman that that's been removed as far as the city's concerned. And I'm I'm assuming that the applicant is more than content to not have that pathway go through as well. >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um the the heights come down as well from 12.5 to 10.5. Can I ask do you know what if there will be a height difference between um the semis and the town homes? And the reason I'm asking is uh whenever I look at these developments, I'm worried about the the existing neighborhood and overlook and privacy issues. So I'm wondering if the the semis will have a lower lower height than the in then I'm less concerned about the towns because they're internal to the site. Do you know all that offhand? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, I don't know the details of the grading. There are some differentials that happen along that side of the site. However, uh we are adhering to the minimum height requirements of the zoning bylaw that would permit up to three stories. I think the intention is that they will likely be developed as two stories. They would read as two stories from the front. And again, depending on the grading, they may read as we don't, it's not a walkout lot, a sunshine lot where you may have a larger window in the foundation at the back. Um so they may read slightly taller than a two-story building. >> Okay. So, but the target is two stories from the external front. Okay. Very good. Um, and the only other part of that as well, and I'm not sure we actually have the ability to regulate this because I've been talking with our staff lately, but do you know at this point if there are any intentions to have any um, second story balconies overlooking the existing properties? Is that something that we can rule out or do you know that at this stage? >> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, we haven't gotten into the detailed design of what the units themselves will look like, but that's something that um, new holdings can consider going forward. >> Okay, those are all my questions for you. Thank you. Councelor Chapman. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, so as was mentioned in um earlier, there are 200 I don't know if the number was mentioned, but 230 trees to be removed and it also the report also stated that the arburous report um did not include compensation plantings. I wondered if there was any thought put into that >> through Mr. Chair. I believe the report acknowledged the need for compensation planting. We're not at that stage in the development where we would provide for the compensation planning or compensation planting, excuse me. Uh we recognize that there is a recommendation um from city staff with regards to providing those further details and those compensation plans as part of future detailed design. >> And do you have any idea what that might look like? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair. I believe that the city through work with city's um forestry group and uh their planning group there are some requirements in terms of what compensation plantings would entail, how much we'd have to invest, where they would have to be located, etc. We would adhere to the city's guidelines and requirements of that. >> Okay. Um it also appeared in the report that um there were there were um details lacking in the sustainability statement like there were no details of the conservation measures that were going to be um included in the in the proposal. Do you have any can you comment on that >> uh through you Mr. Chair? So the original application was submitted in 2021 um which I believe at that time the standards in terms of uh the vigor that we were preparing the sustainability statements was a bit different than it is now. It would be our expectation that we move into uh detailed site design that the city would require an update of that sustainability statement. Um, at that point once we start to have a bit more information with regards to construction of the subdivision, construction of the units, we're probably able to provide a more wholesome commentary in terms of different sustainable measures that could be employed on the site. >> And given the history of the um owners of the property, can you give us some ideas of what types of sustainability measures might be included? >> I can't at this through you, Mr. Chair. I don't have those details at this point. Um there's you know typical requirements with regards to insulation and plumbing um using high efficiency um appliances etc. Um I'm not sure at this point if there would be measures in terms of groundwater uh gray water reusage etc. But I mean all those options will be explored as part of detailed design. >> Okay thank you >> councelor stretch. >> Thank you. Um, I realize um, high performance development standards is not something that we can we can exercise because that's been removed, but I know there are several community organizations looking to um, work with developers on something like this. So, have you um or the people you're representing, owners you're representing, have have you considered at all um, looking into high performance development standards? >> Uh, through you, Mr. Chair, I'm not aware of that. that again, we're pretty early in the detailed design process. Um, Jeeoff, I'm not sure if you had any commentary. I I think we're a bit too premature at this point to get into that, but that's definitely really helpful information and noted going forward in terms of partners for future development. >> Yeah, great. Um, so some some other things that I would be curious about in in your work with that um is looking at the energy costs for the people who will live in the buildings um and looking at um we're building like so we're building code um sorry my laptop just died I had a question written out. So where building um code is, it doesn't always perform like the the internals of the workings of it doesn't always perform to building code standards. So I'm curious around the people who live there, how to ensure that um the buildings are built properly and then who would they contact about that if they had questions about that going forward? Uh through you, Mr. Chair, I think that's something that we would have to explore. The intent is that people would buy and own these homes and they'd be associated with the condominium. So, we'd have to get a better understanding as to what resources are out there for homeowners in terms of ensuring that their home continues to meet any kind of energy standards that were incorporated as part of its design. >> Wonderful. Okay. And um would you be open to conducting an energy audit? Okay. So an energy audit and if you work if you decide to partners an energy audit can be done to analys give an idea of how much the the cost will be in your um development standards and in the energy use. So it would be um helpful to know how much roughly people would be expecting to to pay and and how um how efficient those things would be for them. >> Through you Mr. here depending on those types of partnerships that are explored in the future. It's definitely something I'm sure that u Mr. Newo could uh discuss with those potential partners. >> Wonderful. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, this is really early phase as a draft plan of subdivision and related to the final design. It would really be associative to ultimately what the the floor plan and the buildout will look like. But I I agree these are good suggestions that uh future homeowners are expecting. Higher even though they're not mandated, but higher building standards and and energy conservation and uh long-term costs that are associated to a homeowner are are very impactful. And I think we all have to be good stewards. And it's encouraged by councelor stretch that hopefully uh the applicant will look at that as the overall buildup. Um that's everyone. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll open up for questions of sty. No actually sorry there are other delegations. Mary Lou Schaefer, welcome Mary Lou. We'll get the uh the podium brought down for you and you have five minutes to make your presentation. Thank you. We oppose R5 zoning for the Stanley A and Schweitzer development. This experimental concept creates too much density, higher buildings and concentration of people threaten privacy and safety for citizens in the community. The strain on aging water mane and sewer service will be catastrophic. Traffic will be gridlocked. The chainlink fence between the development and cemetery will be ineffective at preventing access to desire lines. Unlawful path passage will elevate crime. The letter from GSP states that the revised plan central centralizes town houses to address potential increased building heights. This clause is deceiving. Is that to accommodate the water table? Why did the height of the semis increase to 11 meters? Will they match the semis in the neighborhood? We request a notwithstanding clause be added to the zoning to ensure that if or when the project is stalled that the height and density is capped. Are there still only one water man and sewer line running under the Grand River to the area? There are already signs of aging. What is the plan to mitigate the additional strain this and the other developments will create? Who will bear the cost for repairs and expansion? The traffic impact study needed to meet the developer requirements was completed in October 2021. With COVID restrictions, traffic was minimal. It only included Stanley A, Schweitzer Street, and Bloomingdale Road, not Bridge Street, the main artery in and out of the area. In 23 in the 23 report, a 1% growth factor was predicted. This underestimates the actual volume of traffic. Report concluded all observed intersections. Remember that's just Bloomingdale Road, Stanley, and Schweitzer. They were forecasted to work well up to 2028. That's now less than 2 years away. Forecast for peak AM and PM traffic is 57 and 59 trips, not even one car per unit. The report states no other developments in the area. There are others such as 117 Bloomingdale Road, 71 dwellings will enter and exit on Bloomingdale Road. 67 units on Nelson that will enter and exit on Bloomingdale and Schweitzer. The expanding industrial park will add even more traffic. What are fire, police, and ambulance saying about response time for crises on this side of the bridge? With narrow roads in the development, what is the plan to mitigate liability risks when traffic flow is restricted and emergency services are unable to gain access? We urge the city and region to complete a cumulative traffic study encompassing all developments to determine actual impacts to traffic in the area. What is the plan to proactively address the gridlock? The new concept shows a private street ending on the boundary with the cemetery. This existing chainlink fence will be ineffective to block access to desire lines and deter passage for vandalism and crime. What measures are planned to prevent unlawful entry and keep us safe? Although the pedestrian connection has been removed in the revised concept, it mentions opportunities for future connections could be provided if required and or requested by the city. Why? We request a notwithstanding clause to confirm that at no time or for any purpose will the city approve a throughway from this development through the Bridgeport Memorial Cemetery. We ask that the committee and council hear our concerns and not approve the R5 zoning. Thank you. Thank you, Mary Lou. There are some uh committee members for questions. Jason Denel, go ahead. >> Thank you, Paul Singh. Uh thank you, Chair Singh. Um so I'm just curious and and thank you for coming out to express your um obviously displeasure with this uh development. What what crimes are you concerned with >> at this point in time with that amount of density and that amount of people in our small community? Uh with a um a chainlink fence being the only barrier between the subdiv or the concept the development and the cemetery. We're worried that they're going to cut their way through the fence and that will increase passage at night when there's no lights, there's no one watching. We're worried that there will be additional crime in the area. Too many people with too many opportunities to steal our bikes, to watch from their higher buildings into our backyard, watching our comingings and going so they can predict our travel patterns and know when we're not going to be home so they can burglarize our homes. Okay. Is there access to the cemetery? Now, >> there's a chain chain link fence at this point in time that butts onto that property and it has been bent because of the trees. It um it's a chainlink fence. So, it it it isn't the most sturdy of barricades between two properties. >> Okay. And and I I guess my my next question is so is there a lot of crime in the cemetery as we speak right now? >> In the cemetery as we speak, it's a very quiet cemetery. It's a very uh old cemetery, very respectful. Uh the crime is in the city or in the village. The crime is with the uh the vagrants walking around on our streets. Uh bicycles are stolen. um there are you know people walking through the park who will you know watch your house. We have seen um some of these things happen. So within the cemetery as an access point where it's dark where people can easily run in and out without that barricade it it is cause for concern. >> Okay. My last question and I should have asked the delegation or sorry the u Miss Bearsdale. Are they Do you know if they're going to be rentals or are they going to be homeowners and that's living among >> I I don't think the delegate would know that. >> No. No. And I guess yeah I'm just trying to make a point. Yeah. Okay. Miss Bearsdale if maybe later we can talk about that. Okay. All right. That's all. Thank you. >> Yeah. And uh when we have opportunity to ask of staff staff will probably have a better idea as to if they have already uh planned towards ownership models. Uh, Mayor Vvenovich, >> thanks. Uh, thanks very much, Chair Singh, and thanks, Miss Schaefer, for for coming in. Um, I'm just wondering if you've ever had an opportunity to like I'm trying to understand the concern around the cemetery. Um, and I'm wondering if you ever had an opportunity to visit any of our other cemeteries that um abut onto uh residences that um you know that that but onto the cemetery and and in fact how um in in many cases the cemetery is actually a park-like amenity that's used by by the neighborhood uh for for walks and and and so on. Um and in fact typically the there there's no higher incident of criminal activity than in other parts of the city. Have you have you ever had a chance to explore any of that? >> I have had a chance to explore much larger cemeteries uh that do have park environments. Um, in fact, there is a cemetery that used to be uh behind um central uh the central meat market and it used to have a road that went through it and now it is blocked off. With the Bridgeport Memorial Cemetery as residents and as folks who strongly oppose the walkway, our concern is the sanctity of those grounds. It's a memorial cemetery. Um, in the bylaws, we have purchased a plot in the cemetery. In the bylaws, it clearly states, and I don't I don't have them right in front of me, but it does clearly state that a cemetery is not a playground. So, children are not allowed in the cemetery. Dogs are not allowed in in in the cemetery. Cemetery access is only available is not available after dark. Those are three of the points in the bylaws of the cemetery uh that I can remember. But turning it into a a playground where there's dogs urinating on somebody's final resting place, where there's children laughing and and and playing, tripping over, knocking down old stones. Um those are all concerns when you've got a cemetery that is that uh that old and and and that sacred. >> Okay. Um, I I guess um, you know, and certainly I respect your your views and in the sanctity of of of a cemetery. I guess I would just offer up as someone who actually abuts um, one of our city cemeteries. Um, I know that it's well used by the residents that also abuted and and and people from throughout the neighborhood and others who just come there for a quiet, peaceful place to walk. And sometimes, yes, they they bring kids too and and um it's it's done in a respectful way. So, I just I just want to, you know, I I want to deal with the the the certainly be empathetic about the the issues and concerns, but I uh I I also just want to share sort of a lived experience uh with respect to that as well. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. and sharing your personal perspective as to you know obviously you residing close to a cemetery or budding a cemetery uh that helps with extra context. Um ma I'll just ask a quick question. I think one of the concerns that you laid out related to crime and I think that probably be your your your biggest uh worry. Are you associating the development saying that you worry or presume that the new occupants of this development could add to criminality in the neighborhood? >> With respect uh chairman Singh uh crime is not our biggest concern. The biggest concern is actually three-fold. Um and they all have the equal waiting. Crime is a result of density is a result of too many people in an area. The other part that is of equal concern and greater concern is the traffic gridlock that bringing all this additional dwellings, all these additional cars. Even though the study underestimated the amount of vehicles that said dwellings should bring, the bridge on Bridge Street is old. It has two lanes. traffic is gridlocked. So, if anyone on our side of the bridge is going to have an medical emergency, um it better be at 11 o'clock in the morning when there is no traffic. Um and we have seen that we have had family members who have had medical emergencies and we were very fortunate that their emergencies were not during peak traffic time. >> Okay. Well, Mary Lou, thank you for specifying exactly where your primary concerns are. So it helps me to understand and >> and thank you for your perspectives. That's all questions of you. >> Thank you. >> And next up is James Orson. >> Welcome James. You have five minutes to make your presentation. >> If you can speak as close to the mic as possible. I'm going try to raise the uh the podium height so >> Yep. >> Okay. we can hear you. >> Uh my biggest point is one of my biggest points is it's the traffic. Uh I've had two heart attacks. Had to come in by aminance and like Miss Schaefer said there. It's good thing it was off peak hours because you got to go all the way to Brazil to get around. Like why are we not looking at alternates before it becomes a tragedy? I mean we need another bridge or make that bridge wider. Do something. You've got uh over 200 people starting at Golden Windows now. You want to build this subdivision. You have another one on Nelson. You want to build another one on Bloomale. You want to put three apartment buildings. I don't know. And the walkway through the cemetery. There should be an amendment or something. That could never happen. Not that. Oh, we're going to do it later and sneak it into some meeting. No, it should never happen. I got to walk around to the store. They can walk around to the store. And uh my other biggest thing is my you probably say it doesn't pertain to this but it does. I live on Schweitzer. I have a ditch. I was told by two engineers Cory Banks and Shan um Shan Morris that when they build the subdivision behind there, they will incorporate that they're going to redo all the ditches on on Schwitzer. and they've been doing uh ser not surveys but uh marking the services and everything for the last 8 years three times every year and they've done nothing. So I don't know why they're wasting all the money. And my last thing is the is the fence deal. He doesn't have to put up a fence. Everybody else has a fence up. Why are they using my fence as their fence? That's all I got to say. Thank you. Thank you, James. I don't see any questions. Thank you for presenting. There's no questions of you. There are no questions. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. To the committee, if you have questions of staff, you can key in. Councelor Ayonitis. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair Singh. Um, the residents do bring up a valid point, but and I I think it's more intuitive to not to the developments that are causing the problem, but the bridge in itself uh for the whole subdivision. Um, are we in any forms of discussions with the region with regards to when we'll ever see, you know, an expanded bridge? Um I'm unsure of region discussions. As you pointed out, Bridge Street is a regional road, so ultimately their jurisdiction if it needs to be widened or improved in some capacity um through this development application, their comments um they didn't raise anything about uh improvements to their infrastructure. >> Okay. I would just uh I'm probably going to say this on behalf of uh councelor Davey too. I I think there's there is a concern there and I a valid one and I would hope that we you know work with uh the region and figure out how to facilitate that faster because we are going to see the developments on Lancaster Street and all that stuff. So there is going to be it's a bit of a bottleneck to begin with. I travel there quite often now. My son-in-law lives there and it's it's to be honest it's not great. >> Councelor Davey. >> Yes. Thank you. Actually I'll I'll start with that one. Thank you councelor Nitis. So the region when we contacted the region on this was the was the um like Lancaster bridge the roundabout. Were any of these part of they flag anything at all or did they just say everything as far as they can tell is going to be fine? No. So um through the chair the preparation of the transportation impact study um it was typically they're done when there's approximately 100 peak hour trips that are going to be generated. Uh with this development as it turns out through the the study that they did prepare it's under 100 for that mark. So ultimately the region didn't specifically request it from their end. It was almost a courtesy to the city to do it. Um, ultimately the TIS's they're not something used to say yes or no to development. They're looking at trips generated and what improvements need to be made based on those trips that are generated and specifically around those peak hours. So with it being 57 in the morning, 59 in the evening, ultimately it's at a level where our transportation staff um feel it won't make a a significant contribution to that existing traffic. our transportation staff or the region's transportation staff? >> Our transportation staff. The TIS did um it looked at the new accesses to Stanley and Schweitzer in our city roads, but not the the regional ones. >> Okay. I'm not sure if you're going to have the answer to this, uh Mr. Whitman, but um I recall there being a plan to just as in terms of servicing this subdivision and the question of the parkland um my understanding is there was to be or at least it's planned for new playground equipment um coming next year I believe. Are you familiar with that? Is that is that to be the case? Um off the top of my head I'm not familiar. Uh one potential limitation with the site is it being a plane of condominium though. So, it's all private um houses within the condominium. So, if it was to be proposed for public access, there'd be challenges there as there's the condominium. >> Perhaps I wasn't clear. Sorry. Um new playground equipment for the the closest local already city-owned park at uh Schaefer Park. >> Oh, apologies. Uh I'm not familiar with um potential future plans for those parks. We can consult with our parks planning team though if they have uh more information on that. >> Okay. If if you could if we could um confirm that in advance of the upcoming council meeting. And then the follow-up question to that as well since the as far as I'm concerned the walkway through the cemetery is now off the books. We also need to look at potential sidewalk along Stanley so the folks in the subdivision can access Schaefer Park. So if we could get some feedback I don't expect you to have the answer now feedback on that. Um, the questions I asked Miss Beersdale, do we have authority? I know a lot of this is is site plan, but I've been hearing more and more lately about concerns with overlook um on existing properties. So, are we allowed to put stipulations in as part of council to say, for example, no um second story balconies for any of the homes that back on Schweitzer as an example? It's a good question and ultimately we are quite limited in those sorts of design details for what an elevation of a building can look like. So through our zoning bylaw, it's not something we can quite u manage with saying you can't have a balcony so to speak. Okay. Um okay, we'll park that for now then too. Um the question the other question that came up that I do think has some validity is um a chainlink fence along um the cemetery versus a wooden fence. I believe in the past we actually have mandated a wooden fence in certain circumstances. Is that something that we can do in this instance or we can tie to the development? >> Uh yes through the chair uh through the condominium conditions that we prepared for the meeting. there is um a condition in there that would require fencing around the exterior of the condominium through the uh through a landscape plan that would be prepared. Okay. So, just to just to give uh committee a bit of a heads up, I am leaning towards um deferring approval of this application only until uh the council meeting where we'll be ratified anyway. And I'm hoping staff can engage with the region. Um well, I'll speak more in my comments, but just to give folks a heads up. Thank you. Actually, that would help the fact that you asking for deferral. Just addressing yes, speak to it. Thank you. Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. Sorry. I just did want some clarification. If we're not asking for parkland on site, um if there is going to be additional improvements in Schaefer Park and access to it. Uh but most importantly, the a lot of the things have been addressed in terms of the the cemetery and the height. The height coming down is a huge one. Um but the overwhelming thing I've heard from the residents is traffic and um my understanding is yeah you know the local streets were looked at but the real bottleneck is the roundabout and the bridge and even up Lancaster and there's a lot of development in that area and I'm not seeing a cohesive response um from the region especially and what they're hoping to do. So, I'm hoping staff can engage with the region, look at the totality of development, including the like hundreds of units that are going at the at some point going at the top of the hill where the Tim Hortons is and then getting back with a comprehensive plan on what's going to happen because I do tend to agree with the fear that if there's gridlock for, you know, two hours a day at peak times, um, and there is an emergency situation, it is a long it is a long drive around and that's something we need to be on top of. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I wanted to make sure that you you were able to specify your rationale related to the uh the deferral uh so that we can associate the remaining questions of the committee to staff related to the uh the deferral or uh giving some sort of um you know outline to staff of what additional things to look at if this is coming back. Uh so you are moving the deferral which means deferral will take precedence we'll carry through the remaining speakers but again knowing that there is a deferral on the table. Um if you have question of timing you can ask that otherwise it could be questions of staff that they can bring back towards council meeting as well. Thank you. Uh councelor Deno. >> Thank you councelor Singh. Um, can you just remind me in in regards to uh councelor Davy's uh traffic question? The TIS was done in 2021. >> Uh through the original submission, there was one done in 2021 and then when the application was revised to be a condominium, the TIS was updated in 2023, late 2023. >> Okay. So, three years ago. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mayor Vanage. >> Thanks very much. And um I just want to follow up a little more on the on the traffic issue because I do think it is a a legitimate concern there. Um and and so I guess I'm wondering if one of the things that I mean have we looked at at a staff perspective that in fact uh a more in-depth TIS needs to be done um that looks at both the the city and the the regional growth. I I understand the point that you made about uh 100 peak hour trips and and so on, but I I you know I think as councelor Davey has gotten uh has raised it needs to be looked at comprehensively with everything that's happening. So we have the other residential that's happening. We know that there's some um commercial/industrial that's happening with gold golden windows and and other lands that are that are there um that may see um you know other projects in the future. And and so it's, you know, in my mind, we need to look at that comprehensively before we we give a green light, not unlike um how we looked at it years ago from a a fire perspective. And um ultimately put conditions in um to to make sure we were dealing with it appropriately from a fire perspective as well. Wonder if you have any any thoughts on on that or particularly on on a a more in-depth TIS >> for this application specifically. Um ultimately in terms of what's allowed as of right and what's proposed today um the as of right permissions allow semi- detached dwellings 7.5 m frontage. If we took that existing condominium layout and made it all semis, it would be around 100 semi- detached dwellings. So ultimately with 113 coming in now, it's really just looking at a 13 unit difference from what we'd allow today. Um so in terms of something specific to this application, I'm not sure if a further study may necessarily be warranted, but um something more wholesome that includes the region and other things in the area possibly. But um maybe not through this specific application. >> Mr. Reedman, sorry before Mayor Vanvich, Mr. Reedman, do you want to add anything further? >> Yes, through the chair. And so as part of the official plan work, there's a separate body of work that the city's conducting which is the um mobility master plan for the entire city. Uh the region is embarking on a new um regionwide mobility master plan as well. And so that typically looks at growth over a longerterm planning horizon, looks at the major uh intersections and improvements that need to happen at a citywide scale and does capture projected growth more broadly across areas. And that's typically the study that would capture things like a bridge enhancement, um significant intersection enhancements to to improve traffic flow. And so our work is ahead of the regions and then the regions is coming uh shortly behind. And so that would inform future investments in um sort of major infrastructure works. >> Okay, I'll leave it at that for for now. Um I this does this is a an area of concern for for me and um I just think we we need to find a pathway um sooner rather than later to to look at how we might address that. Thanks. you can progress that conversation at the regional level too for us which I'm sure you will council Schneider >> thank you so much >> thank you so much chair Singh and so much of what I wanted to ask has already been asked but I I would like some comment um from fire and emergency about the response times and the challenges is cuz I think there are legitimate concerns like I I know that we we need more housing and uh it is not anti-ousing. It just it's more about safety concerns and uh I I agree with what councelor Ionitis said depending on when you go in that area uh it's challenging. There is gridlock and as the mayor said there's going to be more development up the hill and they'll have to come down and use the roundabout. Is the roundabout still of of the right size for this? So, there's just some things that uh like I I I want more housing, but I want to make sure it's it's safe for everyone who's going to be who lives in the area for sure. Thank you, >> Councelor Johnson. >> Uh there you are. >> Thank you, Chair Singh. And I want to thank everybody for their comments around the table as well about the traffic. That is an overriding concern um for us too. In fact, I don't think I've been uh in that neighborhood at any time of day. Hasn't been really really busy. So, um I appreciate all the comments on that. I did want to ask about a couple of of um other things as well. So, the park um the community park it you're saying is 5 to seven minutes away which is actually a long way if you've got a toddler and maybe another child that you're walking somewhere and you're walking through traffic etc. Um that is it's a significant distance. I really would like to see if something could be done within that complex. I think that's a lot of people living in a very concentrated area with no place to go. And I don't think I think that people will go over to the cemetery and run around. That's it's nice to think about us walking around that and that's lovely, but I think that it it should not be used as a as a playground and I am concerned uh that that may be happening. So, I'm hoping that that will be further conversations um than with the uh with the developer going on as well. The trees, I'd like to see that. Um maybe if you can come back with something before our next meeting so that we know how is this being compensated and uh what what are the plans around that? That's really important. We're trying to grow our urban um canopy by it's another 35%. I'm trying to remember off the I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but every time that we knock down large trees like this and a number of them that are are planning on coming down, we have to make up for that. I want I'd like to see the plan in place and what that will be uh whenever you come back. Thank you. That's all the questions of the committee. Just for clarity, uh Evan, you've specified that the applicant already has a draft of subdivision for that would allow for semi- detach as of right. If you can key in again. Yes. >> Uh yeah, the R4 the R4 zone that is in place for the site allows semi- detached. Uh my um reasoning here was essentially if they took their same condominium road layout and just switched the towns to semis, they could fit about a 100 semi- detached units today without a zoning bylaw amendment. >> And would that still be through a condominium or would that be through a public rightway street that would go through? >> It would be through the condominium. Um some of the concern concerns uh outlined as to um the type of fencing um I suppose park a park park space on site because it is specified to be a condominium. Do we have an avenue irrespective that if they were to proceed as of right still to require some on-site amenity for park space uh as well as additional requirements for fencing or the type of fencing uh in terms of parkland dedication there's always the option for land or cash um if they were to pursue a condominium development like this I'm um I don't want to speak for our parks planners but generally it's been taking cash is preferred in these scenarios just in terms of um having enough frontage, things like that, and not getting bogged down by the condominium development itself and having a city-owned public park as part of the condominium. Um, and then in terms of other amenities, it's through the condominium conditions where we can enforce things like fencing, compensation, planting, those things. >> So, we could do that regardless. >> Okay. Um, and even though it's preferred for the developer to do cash and loo for the parkland dedication, uh, could we as part of the site plan approval process cuz they're going to be doing this as a condominium require on-site amenity space? Could that be something that could be specified through irrespective of the zone change or not through the site plan process? Um >> could staff >> say so >> in consultation with the applicant >> uh looking at the overall needs of the community >> because of the concentration and density of the site require on-site amenity and park space. >> Each of the units that's being proposed there does have its own rear yard. So there is on-site amenity for each unit that will be there. So there is um a lower demand than otherwise. Say if it was a typical multi-residentidential building, it needed its own exterior amenity space. Everything having its own rear yard does reduce that demand for on-site amenity. There is some space on this site. It's marked for snow storage, but in the summer years it could be potentially programmed, and that's something we can explore more with the applicant. and looking at that because again a lot of the site as laid out even be it a uh town home uh these are single units as opposed to stackable looks to that they would have on-site parking as driveway as well as garage. There's still significant parking that's uh outlined that's uh for visitor far more so that's typically available in in many other areas. Um, is there a reason why they're pushing towards more significantly abundant parking space as opposed to green space? >> Um, I could defer to the applicant on that one, but my my guess may be because of the reduced right of way, it does impact on street parking. So, in terms of having visitors come to the condominium, having separated visitor parking keeps them off of the street itself and they've got dedicated places they can uh they can park for visitors without spilling out onto Stanley or Schwitzer. Could you help me out? Again, I don't have It'll take me a bit to go back at the report. Take a look. How many parkings are proposed overall with the number of 113 units? What's the overall parking um proposal based on on-site as well? Meaning driveway and garage as well as uh separate parking. Yeah, I'll have the applicant confirm. I believe each unit has a driveway and garage. So each one will have two spaces and then 47 visitor spaces are proposed and then plus the 11 additional that they presented through their presentation. So >> So 58 >> 58 visitor spaces >> additional visitor spaces. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I guess there will definitely be some more room for conversation through the uh the deferral process if that uh that gets uh supported and that would hopefully um help answer some of the questions as laid out by the committee uh with the conversation of staff and the applicant. Councelor Dave, I'm Oh, sorry. Uh councelor Deno, do you have another question staff? Okay. >> Yeah, sorry. Thank you, Chair Singh. Just a clarification, Mr. Whitman. mentioned that each uh unit will have its own backyard or rear yard. How big is that backyard? >> So, they're not uh the applicant is not requesting any sight specific provisions. So, the 7.5 m minimum would be enforced. So, at least 7.5 m long. Um and then the width is not being reduced either. So, it's for the semi- detached at least 7.5 by 7.5 and the town's at least 5.5x 7.5. Can somebody give me >> which is a standard? So 25 7.5 is 25 ft and 7.5 is 25 ft. So 25 by 25 >> a lot of room to run around. Is there is that a lot of enough room for kids to run around? It >> it's standard as is that enough room for kids to run around. >> How put an activity or put an activity setup in the backyard. Is that enough room to do that? And with a barbecue? Yeah, you could have a small patio area in a little play area would would fit in something like that. Um Okay. All right. >> Every subdivision that we're approving in Southwest has the same allocation of space, but um but again um coming back to the the deferral motion, councelor Davey. So moved by councelor Davey to defer and you've already outlined some of the detail that you would want uh staff to converse with the applicant. I'll look at staff just to make sure that Do you have full clarity on what's been asked by the committee? >> Yes. Excellent. Good. With that, deferral motion is on the table. All those in favor? Opposed? And that carries. So that will proceed to as a deferral to council meeting uh with hopefully um details advanced to the committee in in advance especially if there's some futition to some of the conversation. Thank you. That is all the items for the committee. I'll take a mover to adjurnn. Councelor Davyy. All those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Meeting adjourn. Special counsel.