Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

September 20, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor P. Squire disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 3.3 of this Report, having to do with the property located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall), by indicating that his law office is a tenant in the Mall.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   7th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-09-01 ACE Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That it be noted that the 7th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on September 1, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   3700 Colonel Talbot Road (H-9387)

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-3700 Colonel Talbot Road

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by W-3 Lambeth Farms Inc., relating to the property located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-3(23)), Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-84h-100R1-3(23)), Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-4(36)), Holding Residential Special Provision R2 (hh-100R2-1(17)), Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100R4-6(12)), Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-100R6-5(62)), Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-100R8-4(49)), Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-100R8-4(50)), Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-100R8-4(51)), Holding Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (hh-100CC6(11)), Holding Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (hh-100CC6(12)), Holding Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision 1 (hh-100NF1(17)), and Open Space 1 (OS1) Zones TO Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-3(23)), Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (h-84R1-3(23)), Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-4(36)),  Residential Special Provision R2 (R2-1(17)), Residential Special Provision R4 (R4-6(12)), Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(62)), Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-4(49)), Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-4(50)), Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-4(51)), Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (CC6(11)), Convenience Commercial Special Provision 6 (CC6(12)), Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision 1 (NF1(17)), and Open Space 1 (OS1) Zones to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Demolition Request on Heritage Listed Property - 900 King Street

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-Demo Request Anne Eadie Stage 900 King Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the Anne Eadie Park Stage on the heritage listed property at 900 King Street, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the Anne Eadie Park Stage on the property; it being noted that the property located at 900 King Street should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest; it being further noted that clause 4.2 of the 9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage with respect to this matter, was approved.

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   1154 Sunningdale Road East (Z-9368)

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-1154 Sunningdale Road East

2021-09-20 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, with respect to the application by Mary Dann, relating to the property located at 1154 Sunningdale Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), BY AMENDING the Urban Reserve Special Provision (UR1(1)) Zone to add an additional permitted use;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of a site within the Built-Area Boundary.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall) (Z-9356)

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall)

2021-09-20 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the application by McCOR Management Inc., relating to the property located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South (Westmount Mall) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further consultation with the applicant with respect to the permitted uses in the zone and how the applicant’s request may be accommodated and to report back to a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the following communications with respect to this matter:

-    the staff presentation;

-    a communication dated September 16, 2021, from P. Lombardi, Partner, Siskinds The Law Firm;

-    a communication dated September 16, 2021, from S. Allen, Partner, MHBC Planning;

-    a communication dated September 16, 2021, from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and A. McClenaghan, Chair, London Downtown Business Association;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

3.4   250-272 Springbank Drive (OZ-9310)

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-250-270 Springbank Drive

2021-09-20 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2355440 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 250-272 Springbank Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to AMEND a policy to Section 3.5 – Policies for Specific Residential Area West Coves that would modify the height from 14-storeys to 15-storeys on the subject lands located at 250-272 Springbank Drive;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend The London Plan to create a special policy area in the Urban Corridor Place Type at 250-272 Springbank Drive to add a site specific policy to align with the Specific Residential Policy in the 1989 Official Plan, and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan;

c)    the proposed attached, revised, by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a holding Residential R9 Bonus/Office Residential Special Provision (h.R9-7.H42.B-49/OR4(2)) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a holding Residential R9 Bonus (h.R9-7.H42.*B-  ) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone;

it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential development, with a maximum height of 15-storeys (51 metres), 260 dwelling units and a maximum density of 306 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

  1.    Exceptional Building Design

the building design shown in the various illustrations contained in Schedule “1” of the amending by-law is being bonused for features which serve to support the City’s objectives of promoting a high standard of design:

-    enhanced building and site design features and a setback podium creating a pedestrian area linked to the public sidewalk;

-    buildings oriented to Springbank Drive;

-    energy efficient built form;

-    garden suites adjacent to Springbank Drive with sidewalk access

-    architectural design features on the towers that will enhance the skyline and break up the building mass;

-    the inclusion of building step backs with a variety of building materials and building articulation to break up the massing of the building; and,

-    purpose-designed amenity space on top of the parking structure.

  1.    Construction of 2 levels of underground parking;

  2.    Dedication of the Open Space Lands as a public link and to complement the adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Area along with the removal of the existing asphalt parking lot and substituting it with landscaping;

  3.    Provision of Affordable Housing consisting of:

-   a total of 28 units (14 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units) allocated towards the purpose of affordable housing;

-    a period of affordability for all identified affordable units be set at 50 years;

-    that rent for the identified affordable units be set at 85% of Average Market Rents (as determined by CMHC) for the London Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) for the calendar year of 2021 as established for one-bedroom and two-bedroom units; 

-    the identified units will be mixed throughout and not otherwise identifiable within the building;

-    rents for the unis shall be inclusive of heat and water and shall only be increased once per 12-month period;

-    that the identified affordable housing units be aligned with municipal priorities through a required Tenant Placement Agreement with the City of London; and

-    all conditions be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies.

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process:

i)    the final building design will consider incorporating bird-friendly design features; including, but not limited to, motion actuated lighting and window treatments up to the fourth floor of the proposed building;

ii)    incorporate an urban treatment between the built form and the City sidewalk. This can be achieved by landscaped tiered planters and staircases where changes in grades exist along the street. This should also include forms of public art along this street frontage, recognising the significant bonus zone that has been provided; 

iii)    avoid dark tinted vision glass in favour of clear vision glass to animate the street. 

iv)    enhanced provision of boundary fencing along boundaries that not only exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law but also has screening/privacy qualities; 

v)    ensure an access from Springbank Drive along the Thames Valley Corridor to the lands to the south be considered; and,

vi)  address the existing sanitary capacity issues. The Brookdale pumping station needs to be upgraded to accommodate the proposed density of this development;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendments meet the intent of the OMB Order to permit the development of a two tower residential development;

  •    the recommended amendments to modify the form of the development are considered appropriate and are consistent with the development framework currently approved;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Urban Corridor Place Type and Key Directions;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-family, High Density Residential and Open Space designations;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site at an important location in the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (O-9299)

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-Final Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-Argyle CIP Final

2021-09-20 Public Comments 3.5

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development and Interim Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP):

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to designate the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan Project Area pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and as provided for under Section 14.2.2 of the 1989 Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to adopt the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan;

c)    the proposed by-law amendment appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan by adding Section 14.2.2 ii) Dundas Street Corridor and Argyle Mall Area to the list of commercial areas eligible for community improvement under Section 14.2.2 ii), and adding the Dundas Street Corridor and Argyle Mall Area to Figure 14-1 to recognize the commercial areas eligible for community improvement;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to establish eligibility for financial incentive programs in the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Project Area; and,

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 20, 2021 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan Map 8 – Community Improvement Project Areas by ADDING the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Project Area;

it being noted that funding for existing CIP incentive programs will expire no later than December 31, 2023, pending a Municipal Council review of the program results to be provided prior to the adoption of the 2024- 2027 Multi-Year Budget, therefore Staff is recommending that funding for any potential incentive programs or other financial requirements in the Argyle CIP be considered through the comprehensive review of funding levels for all CIPs prior to the next (2024-2027) Multi-Year Budget;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received and reviewed the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    based on the policy analysis demonstrated in this report, the Argyle Regeneration Study Recommendations and the community engagement over the past two years, community improvement in the Argyle Core Area is desirable because of age, dilapidation, unsuitability of buildings, deficiencies in infrastructure, as well as other environmental, social and community economic development reasons consistent with the Planning Act;

  •    the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan combines the community’s vision for improvement with issues identified by staff into one comprehensive plan. Staff recommends that the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan be adopted including the financial incentive guidelines, all pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act, Chapter 14 of the 1989 Official Plan and Our Tools Section of The London Plan.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   1150 Fanshawe Park Road East - Public Site Plan Meeting (SPA21-050)

2021-09-20-PEC-SR-1150 Fanshawe Park Road East

2021-09-20 Public Comments 3.6

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Stackhouse Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property located at 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development relating to the property located at 1150 Fanshawe Park Road East:

i)    lack of privacy with the apartments facing the backyards of the residences on Howlett Circle:

ii)    concern for the wildlife in the forested area of the subject property;

iii)    concern for the possible removal of mature Spruce trees, specifically trees 17 to 21, inclusive;

iv)    concern with the lighting from the proposed apartment building shining on neighbouring properties;

v)    concern with the storage of the garbage;

it being noted that the applicant addressed the concerns relating to the trees, lighting and garbage storage;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application for the subject property;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received the staff presentation with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-09-08 LACH Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on September 8, 2021, BE RECIEVED for information.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Planning and Environment Committee convene, In Closed Session, in order to consider the following:

6.1.    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual        

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

6.2.    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual        

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2022 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

6.3.    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal(“LPAT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes, In Closed Session, from 6:36 PM to 6:38 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:40 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (2 hours, 45 minutes)

[9:32] please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension-2425. To make a request specific to this meeting please contact pack@london.ca. First matter on the agenda is disclosures of pecuniary interest and I will be disclosing a pecuniary interest on item 3.3 which is 755 to 785 Wonderland Road South Design. My law office is a tenant in that particular building and so Councillor Hopkins will be handling that matter when we come to it. Any others disclosures of pecuniary interest? There being none we’ll move on to the consent matters. Does anyone wish any of the consent matters to be pulled? I get a mover for the consent matters please moved by Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Layman. Any comments on either of the matters before I call the vote? There being none then I will call the vote on the consent matters. Can I do a hand vote then? All those in favor? Showing a hand vote? All Councillors voting in favor? Then we’ll move on to the scheduled items scheduled item number 1 is a public participation meeting with regard to a demolition request on heritage listed property at 900 King Street. This also relates to a matter that is in under 4.2 in the latch agenda so whatever the result is we’ll be approving or not approving that recommendation from the latch committee. So I just need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Layman seconded by Councillor Hopkins. There’s anything further are we still having technical problems? Call the vote if we’re not. But can I do another hand vote? All right all those in favor and all Councillors present are voting in favor. Is there a presentation on this matter? Hi there, Mr. Chair. This is Michael Gregwall Heritage Planner. I have a brief verbal presentation if you’d wish. Go ahead. I like the word brief. This is a demolition request for the NED Park stage which is located on the heritage listed property at 900 King Street. If the address sounds familiar that’s because it’s part of the main location of the Western Fair District. The property is municipally known as 900 King Street and it’s an irregularly shaped lot that’s bound by King Street, Dundas Street to the north, Egerton Street to the east, Florence Street to the south and Rectory Street, Ontario Street to the west. A map of the property can be found on Appendix A of the staff report which is on page 7. In the stage that is the subject of a demolition request is located on the south end of the portion of the map that’s identified as Queen’s Park. So it’s the gray rectangle you can see within the green area shaded as Queen’s Park. Queen’s Park and the Western Fair have been in existence at this location since the late 19th century however the NED Park stage was constructed in 1971 so it’s obviously one of the much more recent additions to the property. The stage consists of an open-air stage structure constructed of a steel frame and painted concrete block and has a shingled proof. The structure also contains some storage rooms to the rear.

[13:38] Originally it was just simply known as the Park stage but was renamed the NED Park stage in 2006 to celebrate the career of NED the community development and entertainment manager for the Western Fair Association and she held that role for over 35 years. Written intent of, written notice of intent to demolish the stage structure was submitted by the Western Fair Association on August 17th 2021 and when considering a demolition request for a building or structure on a heritage-listed property as per section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act Council must respond within 60 days and must either consent to the demolition or issue a notice of intent to designate the property essentially refusing the demolition. As per Council policy during this time the latch is consulted so that took place on September 8th and a public participation meeting is held so the 60-day period for this application expires on October 16th 2021. A heritage evaluation of the property as a whole was completed previously as a part of the cultural heritage evaluation and heritage impact assessment in 2018. That’s also linked in Appendix C of the staff report. That evaluation found that the property met the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906 for the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest however it is worth noting that the stage was not identified as a heritage attribute. So in considering this demolition request staff have reviewed the evaluation and concur with the findings of the evaluation that the stage is not a heritage attribute and the staff recommendation is to consent to the demolition of the A&E part stage with it being noted that the property located at 900 King Street should remain on the register of cultural heritage resources as the property still retains its potential cultural heritage value or interest and I am happy to take any questions. Thank you very much any technical questions from the committee there’s being none then I’ll move to public. Are there any public wishing to you know we have no presentations from the public so I just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Layman anything further I will call the vote on that we are good now to vote on closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 0. All right so I’ll turn it over to Mr. Chair I’ll move the staff recommendation is there a seconder for that Councillor Layman and of course we’ll also be approving paragraph 4.2 of the latch report along with that which also concurs with the demolition any further discussion Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you Mr. Chair and happy to support the recommendation and glad to hear that the property will still remain as a cultural heritage property just kind of curious to know why it’s being demolished though. Staff can you answer that? Sure through the chair the the demolition of the stage has been identified previously as a part of the Queens Park Steering Committee is one of the plans to upgrade site amenities and planning for the property in a long term the stages is in a relatively poor condition and is in kind of in need of a new plan so and this is the current plan right now I don’t believe the current ask is for the demolition of the the stage and I think future plans are for an eventual reconstruction of a commemorative or a sorry a performance space but I know specific plans identified are time grains at this time. Anything further from the committee there being nothing I will call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 0. The next item is 3.2 participation meeting with regard to 1154 Sunningdale Road East I just need to open the public participation meeting Councillor Lewis moving Councillor layman seconding anything further I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 and staff presentation on this particular matter are there any public submissions Mr. Gubbles did see him some time on the screen I think. Gubbles are you there? Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much you have five minutes to make a presentation and you can start anytime you’re ready.

[19:27] Five minutes is more than enough time I’ll keep it very brief and that is that the applicant support staff’s recommendation for approval and that would be the extent of my presentation. That is my kind of presentation Mr. Gubbles thank you very much. You’re most welcome Mr. Chairman and do we have a public any members of the public wish to speak? Ms. Dance. Dance are you here? Mr. Chair I don’t have that person in the zoom room we do have one unidentified person in the waiting room that I will bring in and we’ll see if that who we’re looking for for item 3.2. Great thank you. That’d be the applicant. Sorry you were the identified unidentified person. No I’m this is Anthony Gubbles I was the agent the applicant was attending but I don’t believe she intended to say anything. Oh we’ll find out is that that the person’s name that was mentioned?

[20:41] Elise Stan yes yes okay fair enough so she is not speaking no she is not okay great so that looks like that’s the extent of the public participation so I just need someone to have a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Layman seconded by Councillor Lewis anything further call the vote. Mr. Hopkins closing the vote the motion carries 4-0. All right then is someone prepared to move the recommendation moved by Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Layman any comments on the motion there being none then I will call the vote. Closing the vote the motion carries 4-0. And the next matter I have a conflict on so I’ll turn the chair over to Councillor Hopkins yes thank you Councillor Squire and I will take the chair and I would like to confirm before we move on how many committee members we have I know I can’t see you I assume it’s Councillor Layman and Councillor Lewis if you could just confirm that that you’re there because I would be asking you to move motions and open PPMs. This chair yeah this is Councillor Layman I’m not too sure how we do that I can see you on my screen but I’m not too sure if you can see me so if you speak okay so I am confirming my attendance and I will confirm my attendance as well Madam Vice Chair and Councillor Layman and I will do our best not to speak over each other if we need to get your attention. Thank you for confirming I just wanted to make sure I knew who was that committee and I would like to I guess open up the public participation meeting this is for 755 785 Wonderland Road South which is West Mount Mall. So with that I will go to my committee members to open up the PPM. This is Councillor Layman I’ll make that motion to open it up and I have and I will second. Thank you very much and with that the public participation meeting is open I want to bring to your attention committee members the the letter that we received from Celica Priammo on a request to refer as well but with that I will go to staff for their presentation. Part of me Councillor Hopkins can we please vote on opening the public? Oh yes sorry it feels strange doing it from far so far away using the vote the motion carries three to zero. And with that I would like to go to staff for a presentation. Thank you the chair as as you indicated this is a zoning by-law amendment application at 755 to 785 Wonderland Road South and is known as West Mount Mall. The location of the site it is a former regional mall was built in 1980s. Current 1989 official plan designation on the property is community commercial node and in the London plan it’s a shopping area place type. Under zoning by-law Z1 it’s zoned as a regional shopping area special provision zone the special provision in addition to the wide range of uses permitted in a regional mall it also permits commercial and private schools.

[25:23] The existing situation the mall currently has about 41,000 square meters of gross leaseable floor area about 10,000 square meters of that is retail 10th over 10,000 square meters of that as office type uses as approximately 1500 public service uses including the city social service center and about 4,600 square meters of other uses approximately 15,000 square meters of the mall is vacant or 36 percent of the total gross leaseable floor area. It’s been summary the first floor is mainly retail uses and the second floor is mainly offices with vacancies in both levels. In recent years the former regional shopping area the shopping mall has been losing tenants and has had some difficult vacancy issues in the past partially due to the proximity of new commercial development to the south and changes in retail demand over time. The requested zoning by-law amendment is to add business service establishment as an additional permitted use from at a call center on the surface this seems fairly straightforward but when you look at it in some detail there are some from policy and zoning implications to it. In the request there was no size specified for size as call center would be. The definition of business service establishment is listed in your agenda. It means an establishment primarily engaged providing services to business establishments on a fewer contract basis including advertising and mailing, building maintenance, employment services, protective services and small equipment rental leasing and repair. Staff have gone through zoning by-law Z1 and that use is only currently permitted in one light industrial zone at the current time. Most of the call centers in the city have located in the downtown. A good example of that are the call centers that are in city plaza/galorea. The city of London has had very strict office policies since the 1990s. In the 1989 official plan a maximum 5,000 square meters was permitted for office buildings and suburban locations. With the new London plan the maximum is now 2,000 square meters of office space in shopping area place types. The policies focus on the all-inclusive term office which includes all forms of offices whereas zoning by-law Z1 has various office definitions. Not only the official plan policies but the downtown plan, the downtown community improvement area and the core action plan all speak to the importance of office space to the downtown and the goal of all these policies and the regulations is to limit large floor plate employment based offices in suburban locations and direct them towards the downtown. Small scale offices are still allowed in suburban locations that serve walk-up clients and customers but the scale is limited. In terms of office space statistics I’ve updated the information that was in the report to include a 2021 stat. The overall rate vacancy rate in downtown is 18%. That is an average of class A, class B and class C space. Class C is the older buildings in downtown, has fewer amenities in class A and in suburban locations the rate is 6.6%. For general reference a 5 to 8% vacancy rate is considered a healthy office rate. In the last five years the downtown share of office space has dropped 5% from 80% to approximately 75% and to deal with this the city has recently formed a core area vacancy strategy team to identify ways to fill vacancies and that study is currently being undertaken. Why is downtown important to the city? The downtown is the employment, entertainment and cultural center of the city. The city’s gathering place for all its citizens. In terms of assessment taxes the downtown collects a disproportionate share based on its land area. In the last state of the downtown report 5.5% of all taxes collected from the downtown and a downtown only comprises 0.2% of the total city land area. It’s also office space is also important to the downtown because it provides spin-off benefits to other uses downtown such as retail, personal service and that. So given all these facts and the policy analysis included in our report we are recommending refusal of the request to add business service establishment as a permitted use. It’s not in conformity the 2020 provincial policy statement with regards to enhancing main streets in the downtown. It’s not in conformity with the downtown and community commercial nodes policies of the 89 official plan. It’s not in conformity with the downtown and shopping area of place type policies of the London plan. It would introduce a large floor space employment based office use in a suburban location and based on the definition of business service establishment it could introduce a late industrial use shopping mall. Now staff just didn’t want to leave it at a strict refusal. We wanted to at least indicate what we see as potential options for the site. We feel the focus should be on non-office uses, community serving uses. This is a community commercial node now. We feel that introduction of high density or medium density residential similar to applications we we recently had for Masonville Mall Highland Center and London Mall in London. This is a viable option.

[32:13] This is something that’s been happening not only in Canada but has has been happening south of the border where old malls are refitted and turned into mixed used landforms. And the third option we put in the report was possibly refording reformatting in the mall similar to Oak Ridge Argyle and Northlands Mall. That concludes the presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you Mr. Parker. Any technical questions from committee members? I hear none. So I will go to the applicant. The applicant is there. Please come forward. Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Casey Kolchicki. I’m a senior planner with Zilinka Pranva Limited. As you alluded to at the top of the item we did file a letter on Friday to planning committee members requesting a deferral for this item tonight. We’ve reviewed the staff report and we believe that given the contents of the staff report there’s some material in there that warrants further analysis and further discussion with staff before we make a final determination on the application at hand. Not I won’t go through the contents of my letter. They speak for themselves but just given the presentation tonight and and that report we think that there’s there’s some basis for further discussions with staff on how they see this property developing moving forward given its high current high vacancy rate and just the sheer size of the property itself providing an opportunity for additional development opportunities. We would like to have those discussions with staff before a final applicant or a final decision is made on the application at hand. I’m available to answer any questions though if planning committee members have any. Thank you. Thank you for that. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment?

[34:24] I hear none. I see none and I’ll ask one more time. Any other comments from the public or welcome? Well this is Luke Cornell from representing the owner. I’ve heard the comments made by staff and obviously as a person whose life work is depositioning and fixing the funk properties. I find some of the comparators offered by staff are not exactly accurate for this kind of an asset but I would look forward to with as Casey said to have further discussions and maybe explain some of the some of the compared properties given through development how they compare to this asset and our view is only to try and bring this property back to a tax base and also a real community service for the southwestern part of London which is becoming more and more a little community. The trends we you know I watch my job. We have over 200 properties across Canada we manage for carnage and I can talk about trends. I can talk about office trends and how they are in urban and downtowns. Downtowns have to reinvent themselves and I’ve seen this phenomenon vacancy and transitioning of offices across the country and I think there is more than just a policy change and people don’t come to to the down to if you want to obviously come downtown or any services. I think it’s it’s a deeper and more understanding policy that needs to be thought of and I hope that we get the chance to have this discussion further with our planners with the city to find a solution because we think that we can we our game is not to go after downtown. It wasn’t our game and we haven’t taken that time to feel this is a different type of use. We’re seeing trends for call centers to move out of urban areas because of parking, transition, transport and stuff and this is a kind of a option because we know guys look in the market which are looking and leaving London because of the situations our thought is instead of people not coming to London. If we can offer this service we can keep them in London, give them a job in London and support the economy in London.

[36:44] Thank you. And I’ll ask one last time if there’s anyone else that would like to make a comment please do so. I’d like to go to the committee members to close the public participation meeting. I’ll move closure Madam Presiding Officer. Councillor Layman seconds. Thank you Councillor Layman and with that I will go to the committee members as you see we have received a request to defer this recommendation. I also see the Ward Councillor Councillor Van Mirberg. If committee members allow me I may go to the Ward Councillor to make a comment first.

[37:33] Apologies Councillor Hopkins. I just need to vote to close the public meeting please. I don’t have it yet. There it is. Closing the vote the motion carries three to zero. Thank you and with that if the committee members will allow me I will go to the Ward Councillor. Thank you Acting Chair and acting Chair as you are a fellow southwestern London resident you’re more than aware of how important a property functioning West Mount Mall is to our area certainly the south and west of London. Indeed you can make the argument all of London especially when this mall when when functioning acts as a generator of employment and that would very much be the case if they were able to attract a call center into this location.

[38:49] Again the proper the proper functioning of this mall is just so important to our community and to our residents. So many of us have grown up with that mall. It represents not only an economy driver but also a cultural center in so many ways. I think we have to take a step back and look at what’s happening now with this mall. We are very fortunate to have an accomplished management company driving the reins of what’s happening with West Mount. They’re very proactive. They’re constantly looking to see how they can repurpose this mall and not only keep it in terms of survival but have it thrive in the community and help build the community and I think in very real ways that is happening.

[39:50] So if this goes to a referral back with staff I would certainly support that. I think that’s a step in the right direction. I think there’s win-win here for all of London and certainly for the south and west of London. So Chair thank you again for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to having a support if this does indeed go to referral. Thank you. Thank you and I will go to the committee members for their comments or just start the conversation. I also want to acknowledge that Councillor van Holst is here too but I will go to the committee members first. Thank you Madam Chair and I’m going to use this opportunity to put a motion on the floor that this item is referred back to staff. Further purposes of further discussion with the applicant on the usages allowable in the zone as it is today and what considerations may be given to accommodating part of their request. And before we move forward I know we will need a seconder. Councillor Layman seconds.

[41:15] Thank you and if the committee members would allow me there just in case this was going to be referred back there is a motion in front of staff that the civic administration refer this back for further consultation with the applicant and to report back to a future public participating meeting of the planning and environmental committee so that was more or less if you would like to make changes to that please feel free to do that but I wonder if I now would go to Councillor van Holst to make a comment.

[41:52] Thank you Madam Chair and I think the committee is going in a good direction with the referral. It seems to me that some discussion is warranted. I also think it may be time to revisit our policy with respect to downtown for a number of reasons. Of course we’re going to have quite a bit of growth in the southwest and at this point we’re not widening the roads which people would be taking if they wanted to have their office job downtown. So if we’re looking at reducing the number of vehicles on the road if we’re looking at reducing travel time and carbon emissions because of that having jobs closer to where people work is certainly a possibility to solve those things. So I think we might want to look again at that policy. I think it might also have some other effects that would help us fill up a downtown as well with downtown being the only place you can have an office, a larger office that might drive the prices up whereas if it was spread out a little more in the city those might be a little more attractive and bring even more as our city grows we need places to work and there’s going to be people who don’t have cars who might be able to might like working in their neighborhood. I think that’s a very attractive thing and might help us grow as well. So there’s a few reasons why I think this policy from the 1990s although I think it’s achieved some important gains for us. We might want to look at that again and in revisiting that this particular this particular development or zone change might seem worthy or more worthy through that lens. My question if I can to the applicant um is there is there and do you have a potential tenant? Is that why you’re coming to us with this or is it just a plan that you’ve seen work in in other communities? We do not have a tenant in hand I think that to be we need to be you know going out have a tenant and then tell a tenant how you will get you in this ball and and we can’t it’s not kind of ethical right or we have to say the guys we have to give you we need a year or so before finding the city would want but I am we are noticing trends across Canada where these call centres are starting to reposition themselves in defunct shopping because West Mount is no longer involved right we we are focusing on making it a a community centre and our focus is to bring every type of use and a requirement that a person living who you can go there is if I need an eye doctor I need to send out which might put everything one place and trying to at the same time create a business hub so that both retailers there any area can survive so we’re starting to see that example I’ll give you a new Brunswick TD move their big call centre in a former Sears box which is exactly the the situation here I don’t know if you know but TD TD also is making some make changes across the country and in London they’re not they’re not coming to us but we were wondering what we we followed them in the in what they did in in New Brunswick and that that’s what they did and we’re starting to see that kind of a trend so it’s helping revive the community because you know we know West Mount as you know has also a transit hub on it it’s it’s got that that perfect capacity of bringing people to the area be able to work and then go get back on the subway system and our thought is have a live work plan environment people can go to the grocery and now we’ve got a dollar am I coming in we’re trying to create all these things and we can beg your pharmacy and have all these services could be the work there on the area to come so why we want to call centers because it’s a trend that’s happening and it’s a great way to refix and reposition the funk assets like this thank you mr. Connolly and council of then also if you could go through me please oh I’m sorry if I that was my 10 manager and again as is just a final comment to you the the mall is having some challenges there and I recall us turning down another opportunity that that came up for them and in the form of they they somewhat about a zoo or a for reptiles and that would have been quite a draw to the community as well so I do see that this is an area that requires some attention and I hope we’ll take that extra time to look at some other possibilities thank you thank you council of an host i’d like to go back to the committee members and we too have a motion to have this defer I would like to see this any other comments I noticed counselor Turner is here counselor turn thank you mam chair miss there’s no other comments from the committee if if I have a chance I’d love to speak yes I think the committee members have brought forward the deferral to move and second the deferral of this recommendation to go back to staff to have further discussions with the applicant and to eventually bring it back to a further public participation meeting have plenty thanks mam chair if I might refer you to to staff I’m kind of curious about the the property tax implications of commercial properties as specifically with the commercial a commercial B and the core one of our challenges right now with kind of the the peri-covid times is that we see very high rake and sorry vacancy in the core as mr parker outlined part of that ends up having a fairly significant impact in our and property hacks revenues in that property type in that property class and I’m wondering if there might be any commentary about how this might impact property tax revenues on that class I’ve raised this a couple times at council before one of my big concerns is that where we see a large decrease or a rapid decrease in occupancy amongst commercial properties the the challenge would be is that the in order to make up for that shortfall in revenue we have to change the ratios and we have to move property taxation in greater numbers over to a different class and most often that class is going to be residential we saw that and I raised as I said before in council this happened to some profound effect in Calgary when there was a bit of the oil burst and saw a lot of decrease in occupancy in their downtown do we have those similar concerns here and if we do does this is this relatively neutral in terms of our property tax revenues on commercial properties or does it have an impact one way or the other thank you for the question counselor Turner and I will go to staff I’m not sure if there’s someone here that can address the question around the property tax classifications and the impacts on the changes that we may make if I can go to staff if there’s anyone here do you madam chair Greg guard speaking um there’s nobody here from finance we can certainly follow up and see if we get an answer for counselor Turner for council um I wouldn’t want to try to venture a comment on behalf of finance uh counselor Turner would that be appropriate if we can get that information to you or i council yeah no I appreciate the the nuance to the question I guess perhaps in a bit of comment um we have a number of policies and then these policies we put in place to try and provide some protections because we find ourselves in situations like this the the decrease in occupancy rate in the core is something that we really need to bolster and focus on in our policies that have been fairly successful up until covid time uh we recognize that there needs to be some repurposing of retail commercial properties such as west mount mall the only challenges we we’ve undermined that as well because we we opened up the retail cap associated with the the commercial corridor in the southwest area plan down on on Wonderland Road south so just down the road we just created a massive surplus of commercial property land uh and thus pretty much undermining any chance we’d have or have seen any of retail recovery back in west mount mall so now we’ve got to try and figure out how to repurpose west mount mall and mr penelli is is doing his best to do that but at the same time we’ve got this downtown that we uh that is the economic drive of our city and uh and if we don’t have policies in place to shore that up and we undermine our ability to to generate revenue from there and to be able to to keep the city going so we’ve got a bit of a squirrel moment here because it’s it’s pulling our attention in every direction uh and these uh the policies is well founded it makes a lot of sense uh except when we start to talk about how do we make sure that we don’t have this big empty building in the middle of westbound council van holst right uh and council van merebergen’s right uh it makes sense to have to build our neighborhoods in a way where people work close to where they live so that we don’t have to drive all over the city to be able to do that hey this is this is a bit of a conundrum and that’s kind of the purpose of my question is to think about how does this impact us on a municipal revenue side of things because i think we’re going to be in a lot of trouble in the next few years and if we make the wrong step here then that impact is going to be felt by residential not people who can write off their property taxes on on their their uh their financial sheets and they’re going to feel it in their pocketbooks directly uh not to say that companies don’t feel these things as well but uh it’s taxes are a business expense for them um taxes are a living expense for residents and so when we see those shifts it creates a fairly large impact to the people who we need to be able to do everything we can to protect and support so i i don’t envy the the situation that the committee is in i think a referral but to hear if there might be some some opportunities for um for some sort of compromise uh sounds appropriate uh i i support uh the recommendation from staff on the refusal that sounds like they’ve tried to leave the door open to some other options uh i i think we we also when we have uh people purchasing properties uh they purchase them going hopefully with their eyes open understanding what the regulatory environment is before they do so uh and that it might be challenging to make those changes because this is a pretty massive shift in in their municipal policies to be able to allow what’s being asked to them uh and councilor van holst asked the right question uh is there a prospective tenant or is this just to make sure that the um the conditions are right to be able to attract one uh without a tenant we’re we’re more in a theoretical and we’re we’re zoning something uh for future days that uh that could have like i said before an impact on on the viability of our collect thank you for the opportunity to speak council up thank you councilor turner for uh joining in and with that i would uh like to go to committee members if they have further comments and if they if not if they could allow me just to make a comment from the presiding chair will defer to you councilor horkins thank you councilor Lewis and i just want to uh thank committee and and uh the attending councilors for their comments i would agree completely with councilor van near virgin this is uh um all that’s very important to the west part of of the city and we need to do something about it i uh do here and and and it is a really a difficult challenging conversation to have i i was struggling with just automatically refusing it even though i could understand to refuse that but then what do we do and i would definitely encourage the applicant uh to really work with the city uh understand our policies and uh there’s a number of i think opportunities out there we’ve seen it in other malls throughout london how they’ve been able to rejuvenate and i would like to see the same thing at west mount mall i moved to uh Byron in the late 80s and it was a very um thriving mall and you know thriving community all my couple of my my sons went to uh Saunders and one went to west mount so there is a lot of uh i think opportunities in the community and i would definitely just encourage the applicant and city staff to have have those conversations i think that are definitely needed to tell how we rejuvenate west mount mall so with that there is a motion in front of the committee members uh and uh we can vote if there are any further comments closing the vote the motion carries three to zero thank you and with that i will return the chair to counselor squire thank you very much vice chair for taking care of that part of the meeting we’re now going to move on to item 3.4 which is a public participation meeting with regard to uh 250 to 272 spring bank drive and i’ll need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by uh counselor london second by counselor lewis there’s nothing further i will call the vote on closing the vote the motion carries for it is zero um could i uh have the staff presentation please yes thank you mr chair this is an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application for 250 to 272 spring bank drive by two the subject site is located on the south side of spring rank drive just opposite to force till half located north of spring rank drive the site is adjacent to the coves which is part of the tems valley corridor property is a regular in shape with a total site area of approximately 1.34 hectares currently the site is vacant but was um previously an auto sales establishment the applicant has requested to amend the official plan and zoning bylaw to facilitate four modifications to an approved two tower residential development with a maximum building height of 15 stories which is 51 meters and a maximum density of 306 units per hectare a site specific bonus would permit the development in return for exceptional building design dedication of open space underground parking and affordable housing before moving into the policy context it is important to provide a brief history on this site in 2018 the anteria municipal board approved an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment to permit a mixed use residential development by allowing for the maximum height of 51 meters in a maximum density of 306 units per hectare allowing special provisions for setbacks and coverage through bonusing this was approved with the provision of a green roof top a podium the construction of lead certified building along with other considerations so the proposed changes um generally maintain the same use intensity and form approved by the anterior municipal board i’d like to get into the changes that this includes um it’s it concludes the removal of the commercial components um there will be no lead certification no green roof it’s adding 28 affordable unit units sorry affordable housing units um they have indicated that they are building to lead standard just not certifying um they are providing a rooftop amenity space and in place of 14 stories it will be 15 stories however again i want to note it is important um that everyone know that the height of the 51 meters is staying the same and the density is staying the same with 306 units per hectare that was approved through the bonusing at the board looking at use intensity and form as proposed as mentioned the proposed development generally maintains the same use intensity and form approved by the board the commercial component has been removed as mentioned with only residential remaining the podium is now proposed with garden suites this is a positive given the housing shortage in the city the intensity has remained the same with the height of 51 meters as mentioned and density of 306 units per hectare through bonusing with the exception as mentioned 14 stories to 15 stories looking at the form there are small changes but improved changes from the previously approved form in that the towers are now parallel to the street and situated above a two-story residential podium this also has they have also incorporated two stories of underground parking the most substantial change i’d like to mention is the removal of the green roof and lead certification and replacing them again with that 20 the 28 affordable housing units as mentioned um it should be noted that the applicant has indicated that development um will be constructed to lead as i mentioned previously so looking at the relevant policies for this application and is important that’s um i really the following the proposed development remains largely unchanged as mentioned and is consistent with the intent of the amendments approved by the board through the board order these lands were redesignated to multi-family multi-family high density residential which permits high rise apartment buildings the subject site is located in the urban corridor place type this allows um apartment buildings the proposed the proposal facilitates the development of an underutilized property and encourages an appropriate form of development looking at this staff are satisfied that the provision of the affordable housing along with the exceptional building design underground parking is commensurate for the requested changes and consistent with the board order as such staff are satisfied the proposed intensity and scale of the development is in conformity with the 1989 official plan i’d also like to mention that the proposed modifications to the form represent good planning and are consistent with the development framework as approved by the board the bonus thing on the subject site ensures the billing form and design will fit within the surrounding area while providing a high quality design standard the subject lands are situated in a location where intensification can be accommodated given the nearby arterial erodes and existing public transit the proposed amendments conform to the 1989 official plan policies and the enforced policies of the London plan i’d like to just quickly mention that there is a proposed recommended site specific policy to the urban corridor place type and this is to align with the approved Ontario municipal board order which added a specific policy in section 3.5 in the 1989 official plan and to also align with the proposed change to the application to the 1989 official plan policy from 14 stories to 15 stories while maintaining that height of 51 meters you’re now at six minutes okay sorry i’ll just run up now with all this being said um staff are recommending the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments thank you thank you is the applicant in attendance someone from the applicant online or in attendance mr chair mr newton is in attendance at this meeting all right i want to tend to speak now and then we would have technical questions and i’m not going to wait so um any technical questions for staff uh councilor hockens thank you um mr chair just a quick one i understand there’s underground parking two levels but just trying to get a sense of how many parking spaces and go ahead stack uh through you mr chairman i’m i’m now unmuted i know i i we’re asking staff a question sir thank you for you mr chair i i actually missed that question sorry did you repeat it councilor yes i understand there’s underground parking and i just want to confirm how many parking spaces are in this application through you mr chair if you give me about 20 seconds i can find that information 20 seconds if i can be assistance mr chair mr chair sorry three mr chair yeah the site plan indicates there’s 211 thank you anything further councilor any other technical questions right we’ll hear from the applicant now go ahead thank you mr chairman uh we’re very pleased with the staff report i would be remiss if i didn’t death through you uh thank staff for for an exercise that we started last fall with uh alana michael thomas insick uh jersey and brian turcott at london london housing authority uh together i believe we brought a better plan before you than uh what had been approved by the board and uh i just said a couple quick notes uh there’s a best efforts toward the lead we were we were advised that lead certification would delay the project in construction by at least two years and maybe three because of that process uh there’s never been an an apartment building done to lead certified standard in london prior also the green roof was a component of the commercial podium which has been eliminated there is an amenity space where that podium would have been which is between the two towers and behind the two story uh residential uh apartments facing uh spring bank i don’t have a lot to tell you there’s been a long history on this and staff as i say have done yoman work to uh to bring this before you uh on that i’d be happy to answer any questions that the committee has and also that any of the public might have thank you thank you any technical questions for the applicants from committee they’re being done we will then go to the public three mr chair stephanie perra miss perra hello you have uh five minutes whenever you want to start and if you’d like to give us your address you can okay i’m at eight spring bank drive so down the road um so as a resident i against this proposal and the zoning amendments and the waving of the lead accreditation i worry about the enjoyment of the coves um since i feel like these buildings are going to be seen no matter where you are walking in the coves um i also worry about the unique wildlife and vegetation in the coves and how it’s going to change the overall community um i’ve had red and transcripts that the council had proposed a smaller low-to-risk mid-right building which i feel is much more appropriate for this area um with that said idea of two kind of specific points um so i know that the buildings going to obviously increase the density of the people in the area um there’s going to be more garbage more quick traffic much of which will be in the coves um in in those trails uh so has there been anything um done to specifically assess the impact on the coves i know that the tans valley conservation authority was i don’t know at a meeting or they didn’t have objections but i don’t really know what that means like has anyone actually been consulted that knows about the wildlife in this environmentally significant area and what the impact will be on um and then my other question is that yes it’s in a multi-family high density residential zone um but there is still certain criteria in that zone um the ontario board previously found no impact to the character in the surrounding area and just as a resident i disagree with that i don’t think that it does fit the single family homes in the small businesses um so my question my second question is how how like what is the rationale of how this possibly matches the scaling character in the adjacent area thank you thanks sorry about my dog that’s okay we’ve heard a lot of them in uh since we’ve been on coven they like to show up at meetings thank you um next through you mr chair skylare frankie go ahead you have uh five minutes lovely thank you hi everybody my name is skylare frank i live at 99 spring bank drive and i’m a resident in the coves neighborhood and i just want to say thanks for the opportunity to share feedback about this proposed development i want to start off by saying i truly appreciate and applaud the inclusion of the 28 affordable housing units in the development as london desperately needs more affordable housing units across the city in all neighborhoods i’m so pleased to see this included um as well this development is on a bus route and close to downtown so i think it’s a really great location for high density because folks who live there ideally won’t need to be as reliant on cars to get around since they have some other options i also appreciate that the developer will endeavor to build to lead standard and i do have a question here as i would love to know what level of lead um i do understand that lead certifications expensive and has lots of delays but i do know that um there’s various items that can be included so i just i’m wondering to what level um such as will local sourcing be included or sustainable materials or how energy efficient is the building going to be and how will the waste generated on site be recycled so if there’s any way for the developer to be able to outline like what lead standard they’re seeking despite not actually getting certification i would really love that information um i also want to echo the thoughts of councilor turner in earlier discussions that it would be really great to see bird-friendly features included in the site plan since the development is adjacent to esa and it’s on a bird flight path in fact i actually call it a bird highway um i know that living beside the coves i see bald eagles and grape blue herons fly daily from the coves to the river and back to do their fishing and i’d really hate to think of those majestic birds colliding with this building since it’s so close to the esa and i do know there’s lots of ways that buildings can be improved so motion censored lights directed at the ground and window treatments with dots or lines up until the fourth story would all help prevent birds from colliding into these windows also just because it is beside an esa i would really love to see native plants prioritized um i’d hate to think of invasive species being brought in and creeping into the coves and wherever possible in the landscaping i’d love to know if the developer is planning to use native species so maple’s oaks tulip trees are all beautiful and provide great habitat for the area and just to round out my comments i do want to say while i love high density and infill developments and i do really really want density in my backyard i do think that this is a too large development for the location although i totally understand that it has already been pre-approved for 51 meters um but i just want to put out there uh mid-rise probably would have been slightly better for the location um because i’m worried the 15-story building we’re we’re just going to overshadow the esa and it’s going to be visible from anywhere where you’re walking which i regularly walk through the esa um but i understand that’s kind of moving forward and i’ve made my piece with it um but just to round it out thanks for including the affordable housing as well as the lead development options and please consider the bird-friendly practices and thank you for your time thank you very much through you mr chair bread and samuels for samuels hello um thank you for uh this opportunity to share my feedback on the proposed development i’m the coordinator for london’s bird team i’m also a frequent visitor to the coves environmentally significant area in general i support this project but i echo scholar frank’s concerns i would like to see more information included in the site plan about what specifically the developer will be including to achieve the lead standard um but my main reason for being here is i would like to take a moment to speak about the bird-friendly features that have been discussed for inclusion in the site plan in 2019 and then again in 2020 this committee expressed support for updates to the site plan bylaw to require the use of bird-friendly glass materials and all new site plans however for reasons that are unclear to me the city of london still does not require bird-friendly glass materials to be used in building construction for new site plans as a result new development continues to use large use large amounts of reflective untreated window glass that poses an imminent and significant risk of harm to natural heritage the city’s environmental and ecological planning advisory committee continues to recommend the use of bird-friendly materials in new site plans we are discussing the construction of a large residential building featuring many large windows immediately adjacent to an environmentally significant area more specifically the building will be erected between the coves esa and the tames river to the north and will of us contribute to further fragmentation of habitat for birds and other wildlife as birds move between the esa and the river they will be put at risk of colliding with untreated window glass that they mistake for open space or extensions of their habitat the solution for this is straightforward all window glass on the building should have their exterior surfaces treated with visual markers spaced two inches apart up to the fourth story the city should refer to the city of toronto 2007’s bird-friendly bylaw or look to the canadian standards association bird-friendly building design standard from 2019 in addition i would recommend the use of occupancy sensors for outdoor lighting fixtures to minimize light trust pass into the esa thank you for your consideration of this request thank you very much uh next through you mr. chair tom mclanahan is in the committee room all right mr. mclanahan so whenever you’re ready you have five minutes we’ll have to wait for that a number of the points that i have have already been made and i’m not going to repeat one of the things that i think is extremely important that that this particular structure this project is bordered on two sides by the coves environmentally significant area and i guess the question that i would be asking if i were on this committee would be in what way does this project enhance the coves environmentally significant area the city and citizen have already invested a considerable amount of money in land acquisition and trail building to date i have a suspicion that there’ll be much more invested as well so the city is i think acknowledge that one the coves is a very significant asset for the city and most people who live in that area would agree i want to make one other point and uh that those of you who know your history know that every history of london begins on marks the second 1793 with the arrival of the governor at the coves where a large peninsula has just been cut off from the river the missing piece of information that often occurs is the fact that he was joined there by joseph brant and that night at the campfire it would have been interesting to know what they talked about and some of you are probably aware that the decision was made that the new capital of uppercata would be at the forks of the temps that didn’t occur but i think that this is an extremely important place piece at in the history of this city and at this particular point in time the coves is very much intact from what it would have been like in 1793 so to some degree we’re sort of erasing or rubbing away at what our history and not very many cities i don’t think can identify their beginning in the dramatic way that london could these things need to be preserved particularly the treeline for the meander for that i think the word is geomorph morphological feature that’s all i have to say for the moment thank you thank you um next speaker um tyson whitehead also in the committee room for whitehead whenever you’re ready sir go ahead so myself and my wife who’s also here are as a couple we live at 185 fortsdale avenue so this process has been a significant learning experience from us our initial feedback on this proposal has can be found in the report was essentially the buildings look nice so since then we’ve learned more about the history the process and how this may impact us and our concerns have grown our understanding of what is happening here is that ran development no longer wishes to build according to the zoning that was granted that them in the terra immunosupple board hearing and instead are seeking new zoning and official plan provisions under which to build specifically they want to remove the bonusing requirements for the commercial podium associate green lead group and the leadership and energy environment design certification there’s also an increase in lot coverage from 20 to 29 percent and to add another story without increasing height the city planners are recommending accepting this in exchange for affordable housing provision so we’re thinking in the friends you’ve all the compromises there’s a glaring oversight these concessions do not benefit the local community the most significant local issue with this proposal has always been at size relative to the intensification level of the surrounding area which we’ve heard about it fits neither the designation or zoning of the original 89 official plan as ran develops must have been entirely aware when they bought the land nor is it the newer London plan which is urban corridor place type it has a maximum fully bonus type of eight stories in areas that are not primarily low density residential and further the city has twice let the local community down with regards to the sideless development first when ran developments brought their initial 42 meter proposal for it the city failed to adhere to the timeline of the planning act this resulted in the original OMD hearing that approved a fully bonus 42 meters zoning in principle this was subject to site details being addressed which many of which we are now hearing are the the items of exceptional design such as the orientation and facing the building the partial exposure of the parking lot so on and then this second this current 51 meters which is an increase in height of 29 feet from the old OMB of 42 was not an artifact at the OMB it was the outcome the city coming to an agreement in private with ran developments that included a new height of 51 meters in the site process and then OMB rubber stamped it this is inexplicable to us why this was granted as the OMB had ordered the original site issues to be addressed at 42 meters or how it was granted actually considering that OMB had already bonus two stories to get the full 42 meter figure um we look at back at the history of the bonus and we see the OMB started with 10 stories which they bonus to to give the original request that 12 by ran the city then expect locally set on another additional two and then that’s now proposing an additional one this all adds up to five stories of bonusing on the original OMB 10 story started so we feel strongly that this proposal should be rejected instead a more equitable trade-off should be sought that seeks to address the local sizing issue in addition to the affordable housing for example instead of all just affordable housing ran development could agree to come a combination of affordable housing and a return to the 42 meters in exchange for the other considerations they’re looking for while the building is of exceptional design much of this if not all that stems from the items OMB had required addressing in the site plan 42 meters and they’re also not part of the new urban corridor form policy or other issue with this stems from the manner in which the London plan amendment is being proposed as I already mentioned the designation of the site plan in the London plan is urban corridor this is consistent with the vision the city has always expressed for this area that does not fit the current zoning or the amendments that were made to the D9 plan the mechanism the London plan adopted for dealing with high density residential exception areas being carried forward from 89 official plan was actually we have one minute remaining it’s actually the creation of the HDR overlay place type these are items 954 through 959 the overlay and all the corresponding points in the London plan are currently under appeal in phase one B of the London LPAT case other large corporations in London are presently ensuring their interest are being looked after in this hearing handling the RAN development HDR area is a site specific west post policy and urban quarter place is not consistent with this other approach and it likely violates the London plan dictum to not create specific policy areas that’s in general precedent in addition we are being the second house in from Forest Hill City so on a personal note now the online shadow calculator indicates that the building will place our house and even more so our neighbors this out under shadow for multiple hours around room in the months of November just five minutes I will give you 10 more seconds sir if you could try to wrap up okay it’ll also represent as long east side of the coast of most of the evening sunshine during the summer this situation at least to us would be significantly reproved if we could return to a 42 meter pipe and then we had the COVID issues that those have already been discussed much better so that is all I have to say thank you thank you very much appreciate it next speaker through you mr chair that is everyone that is pre-registered all right I don’t know if there’s anyone else in the committee room we just check and see if there’s anyone that knows there isn’t all right so it appears that everyone who wish to speak has spoken I just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Layman seconded by Councillor Lewis does not anything further I will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero raised in the in the presentations that perhaps I can have either staff or and then follow up by the applicant provide any answers that they might have there was a question about whether there had been any specific assessment of the impact of this development on the coals and I wonder if staff has any information on that through you mr chair through the Ontario municipal board hearing there was a subject land status report conducted and further to that the board order zones along the corridor and applied an open space zoning to that also the upper times river conservation authority staff have confirmed the development concept is generally consistent with the with the concept considered and they just need their section 28 permit with some conditions all right so applicant have anything to add to that I know mr chairman that uh is exactly what I would have told you all right thank you um next is that is the applicant able to provide any information about what level of leads compliance I suppose our standards you are planning on meeting and maybe any specifics about that mr chairman the lead calculation is a fairly complicated thing that goes through some 15 different categories uh that involves lighting energy efficiency garbage recycling site location and a whole variety of things the intended lead level had always been just a basic 40 point level um that again we’ve made a commitment to our best efforts to achieve that we believe that we can uh that will likely require um we’ve also made the commitment to the bird bird friendly glass as well which uh should maybe assess the the one speaker all right can we just focus on the lead thing so you you’re saying you’ll get to a 40 point level can you just explain what that means the 40 points again are spread over about 15 different categories and I don’t have those in front of me I apologize that’s fine thank you I was going to go on to the bird friendly features I know it’s in the the final building design is to incorporate bird friendly design features that will be through site plan is there any information you can provide now on on what people might expect uh that design work that detail design work hasn’t been done uh architectural plans have not been drawn for this project at this point in time these will be directions to the architect and we will be working with whatever environmental consultants are necessary to ensure that we do have the bird friendly glass etc also related to birds and natural environment there is a landscape plan proposed for the open space area to be dedicated adjacent to the to the top of bank for the coves right now that’s currently an asphalt parking lot uh one of these speakers noted would it be native species I don’t know the exact species uh Ron Koudai’s landscape architect had been has been retained uh and still is with respect to that matter and we will raise that with them as we bring the detailed site plan uh back to uh to staff thank you very much uh staff do you have anything to add? Through you Mr. Chair I know that’s that was um all on the same lines as what I what I would have said thank you very much all right I’ll turn it over to committee for questions sorry about that delay I just want to get those questions answered uh counselor lame thank you chair a couple of questions to staff through you um there’s reference to this being referred to um LPAT um or um the organization prior to LPAT can you give me some details on why that I would imagine it was um challenged in some way can you give me some up-to-date information why it was challenged and uh how how are we at this point now Mr. Chairman Mr. Chair it’s Michael Thomas in sick speaking uh this matter was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board uh as a result of non-decision by council in the statutory timeline and the reason for that though I heard the the comment made earlier that the sort of the staff let let the process down but what happens typically in a situation like this is that we try and work with the applicant and the community to come to a resolution often that goes beyond the statutory timeline at the time it was five months and um we started the progress of those uh negotiations weren’t really advancing and so the applicant then chose to appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board for a decision so that was the background on how it got there go ahead council thank you and uh through chair to staff um unless I’m missing something in the report I don’t see any reference to uh the urban design peer review um has this project been through that process go ahead sir you mr. Chairman the urban design element was dealt with through staff last fall through with the help of jersey and it went through a number of iterations I don’t believe there was any formal presentation to peer review although the urban design staff um has significant involvement in the process of the evolution of this plan that’s in front of you council uh I apologize so can you explain to me which projects are put through uh formally through the urban design peer review process and which are not just for staff I would take it correct yeah sorry staff chair mr. Chair michael tom is insecure again generally speaking projects which uh introduce new levels of intensity in in the areas where they are not permitted those ones are evaluated through the urban design peer review panel in this case we had a building that was permitted of 51 meters a height of 306 units per hectare and a form that was very similar to that which is being presented so there was no new intensity and very little change to the actual form that had been approved and so this one was not subject to the peer review panel go ahead council uh thank you thank you for that that uh that educates me um so my correct when this originally was zoned for that density at that point uh it went through that through the peer review go ahead staff perhaps I’ll have to double back just to look at that old file but uh a good um it prior to me getting that I would strongly assume that it did go through the urban design peer review panel and then again the ultimate decision to approve that form was done to the Ontario municipal board okay um through you want to just comment uh chair or comment go ahead yeah um I’m glad to hear that and I hope before council uh if I could get that that information this is a fairly significant um project uh in the coves of fairly significant location um that I would be more comfortable with if uh it did go through that process um so hopefully staff can can get that information to me before before council play thank you any other questions we’re just going to do questions if we can now from uh councilors councilor Hopkins yeah thank you mr chair I do have a couple questions I know there’s a lot of history to this file too so forgive me if my question may not make uh too much sense so the extra story that we have can I uh through you ask staff uh how we got an extra story added to this building go ahead staff uh madam chair or uh mr chair I just want to respond to to the councilor’s question there michael tom is insecure uh typically commercial stories are uh greater in height than um uh residential stories and so what you have here is the elimination of a commercial story and then there’s some access height there as well and it’s not uncommon then for the other uh remaining 14 stories of the building to find efficiencies there uh to narrow down the stories and and able to get one more story out of the out of the building without increasing the height uh thank you for that clarification and I guess I’m going to go back to the story question again getting back to the parking the two levels of parking is that underground I know sometimes we do parking levels that are above ground which add to the story but if you they can have a better understanding how that’s going to work with the parking go ahead staff mr chair for the most part it’s underground there are some slopes to this site which may result in portions of the property just being above ground but the applicant is usually utilizing the slope and the topography to put this parking uh underground there will be some surface parking as well but there will will be two stories of underground parking and my last question for now is uh around the public participation meeting for a site plant application which is going to go forward after this zoning I just want clarification just reading the recommendation I did know that the OMB also ordered a public participation meeting through the site plant process but I can get a better understanding what we’ve done to date so you mr chair I’m not sure who can answer that question I’m looking for staff to answer but nobody’s answered me yet if I can be of assistance mr chair no no it’s a question for staff does someone know where staff like to stop pairing me mr chair michael tom is in to go ahead we’re we’re just finding that answer out I don’t believe there was a requirement for a public site find but uh I could um I could be mistaken on that so we’re just trying to just wanted to know that yeah if I may mr chair just to add to mr tom is in it’s um response if you go to page 90 there’s I guess the last paragraph and the first paragraph it refers to that but I’m a little unclear to exactly what that means and those are the uh end of my questions for now does staff see the reference that the council was making feel like I’ve just uh like I’m on my own here no you’re not um oh no you but staff just seems to have decided they were gonna absent themselves for a little while here mr chair we’re still looking for that response um but it it’s it’s pretty clear that what the council are saying is that on page 90 it says the OMB ordered that a public hearing should be conducted on the site plant application and that final approval of the zoning be withheld until a site plan had been approved and a satisfactory agreement entered into with the city uh mr chair we were just speaking with our site plan staff and they’ll be providing a response for you um in the next couple seconds thank you mr chair it’s my piece thanks for the time on this it’s a bit of a conundrum because there there is no h5 on the site as it stands right now uh but there is um that that reference that uh councilor hopkins was referring to uh looking back in the file there was a notice of application that was circulated but there was no actual public site plan meeting that followed through with that uh given that the the file effectively went on hold um for reasons that are unknown at this time but uh that is the status there was no previous public site plan meeting just just notice of it what about the fact that it says that final approval of the zoning is to be withheld until a site plan had been approved doesn’t isn’t that kind of important you’re asking us i think i’m trying to figure that aren’t you asking us to to approve the zoning tonight mr chair might can be of assistance here okay why don’t you give it a shot then thank you mr chairman’s for you there was a second Ontario municipal board hearing based on the city refusing to approve the site plan uh that was the subject of the board’s official plan and zoning decision so the um the board’s order came out i believe in february of 2018 that uh included the official plan amendment the zoning amendment and also the site plan approval so therefore there would have been no h5 thank you sir thank you Sir Hopkins are you looking for staff’s position on this it just seems to me now that you’ve raised this it raises a bit of an issue is to mr chair i would prefer staff’s comments and i understand that maybe there’s a lot of history to this file and i would like just clarification and i don’t want to rush that to get the information right away i don’t get something that we can get uh get further clarification as so we continue and of course this will be going to council as well all right so you want to carry on then until we get uh get an answer on this hopefully i guess my only concern is it it seems to be a direction that we can’t approve zoning until the site plan has been approved yeah we’re going to move on then uh to other things and see you see where we get to all right um further questions from committee members for being none i think counselor turner wanted to ask some questions we’re doing questions now counselor turner just so you know that absolutely thank you mr chair i appreciate the opportunity to visit your committee um just a couple quick questions one with respect to and the question has been asked but i want to ask them a little bit more specifically if i could um the lead standard itself mr nixon identified that they’d be getting about 40 or so mod points there to the lead standard there are four different criteria in lead um there’s uh certified certified silver gold and platinum there’s about 110 points that can be uh obtained in total uh i think my question for staff is to which of those four standards did the omb direct the the building to be done uh the the 40 points or so that mr nixon identified is certified which is the lowest of the four standards thank you dav can you provide an answer to that mr chair michael tom is insecure the omb hearing uh the omb decision requires a construction of a lead certified building so that’s that’s the direction from the um the entire missile board at the time so it would it would uh i would interpret that to be the lowest of the lead rankings okay thank you um that standard is easily attained by just building with concrete uh the uh the next question is specific with respect to the site plan i appreciate that this has been uh incorporated into the uh clause d being noted the following site plan matters the final and this is clause i within that d the final building design is to incorporate bird friendly design features recognizing this comes up at site plan itself is there an opportunity now to be more specific with those with those bird friendly design features uh mr samuels had identified uh some of those key ones as well as mr frank um and uh and i don’t know if we can be more specific so that uh this isn’t hashed out uh a couple months hence when we get to site plan uh through mr uh chair staff please i’ll take the first cut at that and then maybe staff can jump in certainly this is the point where the committee can advise of the site plan matters that they would like considered so to the counselor’s point if if through the summary of mr samuels comments those items that actually can be addressed to site plan could be referred then they could be considered i just want to advise the committee that they’re not all those matters are able to be addressed to site plan but certainly to the extent that they can under the current bylaw and under the uh call it the allowable of of our scope under site plan we can take that direction pretty mr chair thank you mr cara well yeah so i appreciate that and then if if the committee is willing then i would recommend or request that the committee might entertain uh making those requests uh to the site plan referral uh that uh the the motion actuated lighting uh windows and treatments up to the fourth floor uh the window treatment standard that mr samuels had identified i believe there might have been a couple others uh but those would be uh important elements to be brought forward into the the site plan considerations any other questions counselor no i’ll reserve for comments thank you any other questions from the committee all right then i’ll turn it over for comments and any motions that the committee wishes to bring for you mr chair may i just uh intro for a second um there there is an amendment to the recommendation and bylaw with with regards to the housing development corporation that i’d like to introduce um those are before you and they were given to the secretary this morning all right and uh what are the nature of those what it’s just a little portion under the provision of the affordable housing and it’s to change the wording um three bullet points down that the rent for the identified affordable housing units be set at 85 percent of average market rents for the london census metropolitan area for the calendar year of 2021 as established for one bedroom and two bedroom there was just a clarification um with regards to the calendar year for the year of 2021 all right so that’s going to be in the amended bylaw and that’s that’s just providing more specific information on that bullet point yes and that is that has been given to the the committee members all right thank you so comments motions from staff for my committee members many members have to bring the motions counselor louis i will defer to counselor hopkins i saw she had her hand up before counselor hopkins go ahead go ahead thank you i i would have differed back to you counselor louis but i would be prepared to uh follow up with uh adding the motion and i guess it it’s adding it to di that counselor turner um refer to given uh the comments from the public for mr samuels in in particular looking at what the city of toronto is doing but how we can meet the uh be more specific in albert friendly evaluations with this building it is so important this is right next to any esa it’s a very tall building and it is across from from uh spring bank park as well and we know that’s the corridor where they’re going and we should do everything possible so uh through you mr chair i i would like to bring forward that motion to um to what you want to amend d1 so so how do you want to amend di how do you want to amend it more specific considerations like the one it’s at the city of toronto that mr samuels referred to or um just to be more specific and do everything possible to to meet the the criteria to protect the birds yeah the reason i’m asking that is it says it’s very general it says the final building design is to incorporate bird friendly design features which i would take it to mean that could be anything it could incorporate two bird design features are we asked if we’re going to are we changing it to consider further steps or or what is it they were doing because if you get specific it’s a question of whether you’re considering them or demanding their incorporation at this point and i don’t know which i i i heard council turner say considering so that’s that’s going to be important what your wording is definitely considerate that i would just like to add to do everything possible to protect the collision of birds to this building and um whatever we need to do to do that i would like to add that amendment to di okay so if i i’m trying to draft something the final building design is to incorporate bird friendly design features including consideration of a list of things is that what we’re talking about yes yeah go ahead if you can help um i have um part d small i the final building design is to incorporate bird friendly design features including but not limited to motion act actuated lighting and window treatments up to the fourth floor of the proposed building um with the including but not limited to we are open to adding other bird friendly features okay i’m sorry did it say including consideration of i can certainly add in yeah what the reason of the importance here to me is that if you say the final building sign is to incorporate building design features including and you make a list you’re you’re providing you’re making the mandatory and i just want to make sure that’s what this committee wants to do or you want the site plan process to consider whether those are applicable they can be done or whatever i’m trying to be i think it’s important what the wording is mr chair i appreciate the importance of our wording and and maybe adding to do everything possible to to make this building upward friendly that’s again that’s you can use that language i it’s not very specific language i i’m i’m trying to get to where we want to get to here counselor louis can you help uh thank you mr chair and hopefully i can help i i certainly understand where counselor hopkins is trying to go i i would suggest that we we listen to what counselor turner had suggested in his comments and and if we were to use the language uh will consider in the site planning um certainly i i would be willing to second that if counselor hopkins is comfortable once the clerk has has put that language up if if she’s good that way i understand where she’s what she’s trying to accomplish i also appreciate your caution about language that makes it mandatory versus uh looking at options so i i i think she’ll be considered in the site plan is kind of the language that i would be prepared to second thank you have you clerk are you able to drop that thank you mr chair so i have for part d i the final building design will consider incorporating bird friendly design features including but not limited to motion actuated lighting and window treatments up to the fourth floor of the proposed building okay counselor hopkins is that something you would be prepared to move yes all right and seconded by counselor louis so that’s an amendment um to the recommendation so any comments on the amendment counselor turners you want to comment on the amendment i certainly i appreciate the amendment to being moved i think it’s appropriate uh it uh to your point to mr chair i think it’s well heated um being specific versus general is important uh one of the challenges is that uh the question of what authority and latitude we have uh to impose those standards so um so i i think this uh this gets us there from so thank you for bringing it forward thank you very much all right so is there anything further on the amendment all right i will call the vote on the amendment counselor hopkins closing the vote the motion carries forward to zero all right and now uh it’s we’re looking at motion to someone prepared to move it with the amendment counselor layman seconded by counselor louis discussion on the motion as amended council attorney your hand just has been up for a while did you want to speak on the total motion now i didn’t know if you did but when i have the opportunity it doesn’t look like committee members are so go ahead okay uh thank you mr chair uh so to this uh this has created a fair amount of interest within the neighborhood this is a long standing file in fact actually i spoke to this at the public participation meeting prior to becoming a counselor it’s just uh in the year of the election actually as in back in 2014 um at that point i spoke against it the intensification was in the area was uh was inconsistent with the intensification uh in those um along that corridor the uh the focus for intensification had been predominantly at the corners mostly at uh at wonderland and spring bank uh and a little bit further down but this uh came a lot further down spring bank and uh this is part of one of the reasons why staff uh i believe recommended refuse what the time and uh not withstanding that the elapsing of the the time limit on a decision uh the the file was appealed for non-decision and then ultimately awarded by the omb for what uh the current form is minus a couple uh small provisions one being that lot coverage of going from 28 to 29 percent and the second uh sort of being the height and as mr. Thompson sick identified uh that’s more reflective of the change in in those commercial um store front street front uh units uh all set and told my understanding through this is that the the ultimate omb approval was for the height that is being sought right now but there was a difference in the number of stories the height and the stories um at the end of the day the number of stories achieved the same height that was approved so the the committee doesn’t have a lot of latitude unfortunately um to to be able to make many decisions on some of what’s coming forward uh this is more uh tweaking the site itself uh and as identified by staff probably those tweaks are for the better compared to what was originally approved by the omb and i i do recognize the concern set to the community has had we had a good meeting with the community and and the applicant um several months ago and had a good thorough discussion about some of the issues of the day um the adjacency to the colds environmentally significant areas probably the one that jumps out most for people and uh and as identified this uh is is directly in a migratory flight path um and it creates a bit of a a hazard for migrating birds especially those that are moving between the river and the colds so anything that we can do in this circumstance to try and mitigate that impact that would it is much appreciated so thank you for bringing forward the that motion for amendment um in terms of environmental impacts there the subject of land status report was done and there was a significant evaluation of the environmental impacts done at the time in 2014 uh this does not approach upon the ESA uh and slope stability is important as well and and has to be maintained so i’m saying most of this for the community who may be watching uh who do have concerns i just identify how much latitude we have in this which isn’t much uh not understanding all of that um i’m i’m glad that we’re finally getting towards a resolution on it and any of those small changes that we can make that to that reflect some of the concerns of the community uh both through through the colds friends of the colds and neighboring uh residents uh i think we will be well appreciated so thank you for your time and your consideration as well thank you counsel any other comments before i call the main motion Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you mr chair i will um wait up uh to hear from staff um hopefully before council just to get further clarification on what the omb ordered when it came through when it came to the site plan process and public participation i’m just a little unclear with that but in the meantime um i would uh like to make comments on uh this recommendation and i know it’s been going on for a very long time and this area is a little bit a needy in terms of some kind of development and i heard loud and clear from the public their comments around that that middle that missing middle that we seem to have in the city of london how we can get lower buildings uh still providing intensification but getting back to uh this resolution and uh what is supported i am supporting it uh for now just uh because of the affordable housing component i really appreciate the committee’s support on the bird uh friendly features uh that are very needed in this area uh in particular it’s right next to that that esa i uh understand there is a dedication to the open space component there and really i’m glad to see this ashfout removed not to accommodate an open space or amenity section the underground parking is in the setbacks and really the buildings fronting on to the street is some of the changes that that i can support i would like to encourage the applicant to do everything possible to meet uh bleed requirements and to develop those options regardless i think we do live in in in in uh an age where people want their buildings in particular near near this area that is of great significance the codes in particular that we do everything possible to make this building work uh within the community and have regard for the environment and uh i would also encourage the applicant as well uh to to plant i know the landscaping is still not done but the the naturalization uh the native species uh in this area is is very very important so with that those encouragements to the applicant for now i will be supporting the recommendation thank you counselor is there anything further from the committee or anyone if not i will call the vote on the amended motion closing the vote the motion carries 4-0 yeah who participated in that um the next matter is item 3.5 which is a public participation meeting with regard to the uh guy a core area community improvement plan and we’ll have to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor layman seconded by counselor louis there’s nothing further i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 4-0 please thank you mr chair true you this is Isaac the coaster i’m very pleased to present the final argout core area community improvement plan tonight the purpose is to present the bylaws to adopt the argout cip the official plan amendments and the london plan amendment to implement the argout core area community improvement plan and to provide some background on the overall cip since the draft in june 2021 so what is a community improvement plan a cip is a tool that the planning act provides for in section 28 allowing a municipality to take action to support improvements and redevelopment within a specifically defined cip project area so it allows us to do things that without the cip wouldn’t be possible it can help to address reuse and restoration of lands buildings and infrastructure address growth management challenges and plan for rehabilitation and land use changes this neighborhood cip of adopted would be the 12th cip in the city of london and the seventh neighborhood cip on the next slide is the recommended project area which includes all properties fronting thinness street between hybrid avenue north and the vell street in east london and is divided in two sub areas the thinness street corridor and the argon mall area of course the argon neighborhood is much larger than just the denes corridor but based on the regeneration study undertaken in 2020 this project area was chosen as stakeholders identified the thinness street corridor as the location where the need for community improvement was the greatest as then that street is the main artery through the community where most businesses are located regeneration and revitalization initiatives in this area will provide the most benefits for the overall argon core area community how can the argon core area cip positively affect the community in terms of the process through this project that started in october 2019 we engaged the community strengthened relationships with the bia and aca built connections transferred to provided information through community information meetings and then find a vision and goal with the community this resulted in action items that can be divided in municipal action items community opportunities and priorities that were identified and completed during the argon area cip process so overall the positive effect of this cip is that it has provided a coordinated framework to support the argon community in many ways this framework is supported by the vision the community developed by 2035 the argon core area will be a welcoming well-maintained and safe destination with unique small businesses and shops as well as supporting an established growing residential neighborhoods the improvement goals and action items have been organized in six improvement categories developing a high quality public realm a safer neighborhood for all supporting businesses enhancing parks and places to sit and linger improve mobility and strengthening the community in total 39 action items are proposed 25 municipal action items and 14 community opportunities i would like to briefly mention that the cip contains three different financial and center programs the facade improvement loan upgrade to building code loan and rehabilitation and tax redevelopment grant as noted in the staff report funding for existing cip incentive programs will expire no later than december 2023 bending a municipal council review prior to the adoption of the 2024 2027 multi-year budget therefore staff is recommending that funding for any incentive programs or other financial requirements for the argon cip be considered through the comprehensive review of funding levels for all cip’s prior to the next multi-year budget the cip contains targets indicators of success and baseline conditions that are set out the cip provides for a monitoring report and of course the financial and center programs will be reviewed once the funding becomes available this is very important as cip’s are not a static document but require updates based on the growth and change in the community that brings me to the recommendations in the interest of time i will only mention that we’ll amend the 1989 official plan the long-term plan and bylaws in order to implement the cip that concludes my presentation i want to thank the argon community and all stakeholders for the instrumental role in this process and i’m available for questions thank you thank you very much well under five minutes appreciated um any technical questions from the committee there being none we’ll move on to uh public comments through you mr chair j true style go ahead sir thank you thank you thank you committee members for the opportunity to speak today my name is j truth bell and i’m the director of corporate affairs for smart centers we own and operate the argon mall within the proposed community improvement plan area and we appreciate the opportunities to engage with staff on the cip and want to acknowledge the forward thinking that it’s gone into it part centers was founded on providing value oriented to retail to communities across Canada and for the past five years we’ve begun intensifying our centers by adding residential both condo and purposeful rental seniors housing and self-storage to begin to build truly mixed youth communities frequently smart centers as applications or approvals for over 7,000 residential units across Ontario ranging from town homes in Cambridge to high-rise luxury rentals in mid-town Toronto we’ve been working with partners across the country to build our sites into communities that fit their local context and help them achieve their goals for growth we’re very pleased to see that the strategies presented in this report will contribute to the community and help move us all forward toward a brighter future i want to thank thank staff again thank committee members and eventually council for looking at this with serious seriousness and for including us in the conversation thank you very much thank you next speaker through you mr chair i believe there are people in committee room all right members of the community in the committee room i wish to speak to the argon core area plan yes no no are there any other speakers no three three mr chair no all right we’ll have to close the public participation meeting somebody move that for me please counselor louis seconded by counselor layman there’s nothing further i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries forward to zero counselor louis did you want to lead off on this thank you counselor squire you beat me to even putting my hand up and i appreciate the chance to just speak very briefly uh and i do mean brief i’m not going to say too much other than to thank our staff for all the work that’s gone into this and to all the members of the neighborhood who have participated the small business owners the service providers along the commercial corridor on dot das and the community association uh and the business improvement association um i think it’s important that folks know after the first draft mr decuster and his team made uh at a priority to make the time to come back out to argyle in person uh in a covid safe way uh to hear some further thoughts from the community on refining the plan a little bit we know uh at the community level that not all of these changes are going to come quickly uh nor will we necessarily see all of them come to fruition as the document evolves because it is a living document that will see some changes as things move ahead but as we start to already revitalize the Dundas corridor with some infrastructure work this is very timely we’re also revitalizing in fact the construction has already started this week on the bridges way valve bike lanes which will be providing some active transportation routes into the neighborhood uh and we do look forward uh to the representative from smart centers continuing our conversations about uh access to them all uh to some secure bike parking at the end of those bike lanes this is all a good new story for ward two and and for the businesses in the argyle area in particular so appreciate all the work that’s gone into this from all sides uh i will say for years and years uh we heard uh responses to this request that were no we we don’t need that in argyle uh but staff remained open to hearing and they listened and this is where we are today so i appreciate the time to uh just offer those thanks to everybody and obviously i’m supporting this so i’ll move the staff recommendation is there a sector for the staff recommendation moved by counselor hopkins any further comments before i call the vote right we’ll call the vote then closing the vote the motion carries four to zero three point six which is a public participation meeting with regard to the this is a public site plan meeting with regard to eleven fifty fan shop park road east and we’ll have to open the public participation meeting moved by counselor louis seconded by counselor hopkins i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries four to zero please thank you mr chair uh this is malony vivian site development planner um there is a presentation it does start on page three sixty six of the agenda there thank you so the post development before us today is located at eleven fifty fan shop park road east this property does have frontage long both fan shop park road east and staff house avenue um so as shown on page three sixty seven of the agenda the proposed development consists of one six-story apartment building containing 81 units and one stacked townhouse walked with six units for a total of 87 units on the site um the apartment building is proposed to be 21 meters in height um with the stacked townhouse as proposed to be 11 meters in height um part of council’s resolution through the zoning by-law amendment um from last year included the provision of minimal or north windows um to the habitable rooms along the west facade of those stacked townhouses so staff are still working with the applicant to confirm that the windows on the west elevation are mainly for non habitable spaces and that’s to ensure that the resolution of council is generally generally maintained um so i’m moving on to page three sixty nine now uh so just some background on this the site did go through a zoning by-law amendment and visual plan amendment last year to permit that six-story apartment building and stacked townhouse for a density of 133 units per hectare the 87 units there through that uh rezoning and official plan amendments minimum parking count of 110 spaces was approved the parking on the site is a mix of surface parking and one level of underground for a total of 111 parking spaces for all uses on site this also includes the five barrier freestalls visitor parking will be provided in accordance with the site plan control by-law and this will be done at a rate of one space for every ten units uh this will also assist to ensure that overflow parking does not make it to the side streets um the applicant is proposing a lot coverage of 27.1 percent which is well below the maximum of 40 percent as well the landscape opens base of 38.5 um which is greater than the minimum required 30 percent um so on to page 370 there the resolution of council from the rezoning included direction to the site plan approval authority for garbage storage to be located internal to the building the fencing along the west property boundary to be installed or enhanced to provide adequate screening minimizing the impact of headlights and enhanced privacy has asked for the enhanced provision of landscape along the south west property boundary to provide screening for those stack town house dwellings and minimal to no windows to habitable rooms for the west assault of the stack town houses so as part of the overall circulation staff did receive 12 comments from the public with respect to the application um and many of the concerns raised were due to privacy garbage storage damage damage just surrounding homes due to construction the scale of the development loss of trees and traffic concerns with the increased density um so one of the more prominent matters that we did here was the loss of privacy and landscaping so in terms of privacy there is an existing board on board bench fence which is generally 1.8 meters in height um and it’s generally board on board across the western property boundary so a site visit was conducted to confirm the height of that existing fence and to examine the condition of it um it is noted that there were a few gaps in the fence that there is currently chain link existing um so as part of the site plan approval process we’ll be working with the applicant to provide that board on board all the way across and then through this as well we’ll look to ensure that the preservation of the fence is maintained throughout the construction process so with respect to landscaping page 371 of the agenda assist to further demonstrate the proposed on site landscaping including their attention of the mature trees along the western property boundary so these trees will assist in continuing to provide screening and privacy from the proposed development um so staff are still working with the applicant to provide for as many planting as possible that provide for those screening qualities that exceed the minimum requirements of the site plan control by-law um it’s also noted that we are still looking to provide those landscaping areas um where it does interact with engineering matters so those conversations are ongoing um to conclude staff are of the opinion that the proposed plan satisfy council’s resolution i’m happy to go into more detail and answer any questions you may have thank you thank you any technical questions for staff we’re being done uh is the applicant here mr care we’ve had some people drop off the zoom so if you would like to see if we can if we have anybody in the committee rooms and i will let you know if someone else join sure that’d be great uh in the committee room anybody wish to comment on this development on Fanshawe park roadies you have five minutes okay so uh i am just a resident at the uh one two four three holly circle and also the house owner so i just uh i would just speak for myself so i uh strongly against uh the construction plan of lemma 50 financial parkway east and many for two reasons first uh this is apartment building and it has very high elevation and so uh in the upper level of the apartment building it will have a very nice view of all our backyards so essentially we have a great loss of privacy and um our houses are under the like the supervision or under the the scene of all the residents of the apartment building and especially consider that our community of the holly circle we have a lot of small kids and a lot of uh children are playing by the street and in the backyard every day so this building of the high uh a high apartment building is really concerning for uh for us about our own privacy and also the security for our own kids so this is my first main point why i am very against the building of the apartment uh construction so like the alternative thing like building townhouse or single houses i think many of the residents will find it acceptable but building um high apartment you know neighborhood that is that has a lot of like single houses with very young families i don’t think it is a very like good decision and it wouldn’t be a good mixture of the like the community and secondly so the area now it is like a small forest area and it has a lot of bushes and trees and it is a natural habitat of a lot of small animals so i can spot like the groundhog the deer’s rabbits in my backyard so i’m concerning that if we are erasing this bush area it will be a big um a big disaster for the local animals and it will destroy the local uh balance for the small animals so i think from the environment perspective i also strongly against the plan of building the apartment buildings this apartment thank you very much thank you is there anyone else in the committee room who wishes to speak as there’s someone on the zoom call who wishes to speak through you mr chair we do not have anyone at this time however i have been advised that the applicant is trying to get on all right why don’t we wait a few moments for that anything yeah okay it’s just a question how long are we are we going to have to wait or do we have any idea just not mr chair we do have somebody joining by phone um i’m i’m going to apologize in advance for the pronunciation you’d be your parmar okay are you on the line yeah i can hear you sir okay i can hear you too so you’ve got five minutes so if you’d like to go ahead and start anytime you like have anybody else spoken yes other people have spoken oh i so i have missed the bus you missed you just you missed um just one person i think go ahead so i’m a resident of uh one two five three uh public circle and the and the building which is coming up uh its entrance is going to be just opposite to my my backyard and um what i see is uh that all along the from um south to north there there are the Norway spruce trees it’s only in my area which is about 40 feet it’s a there’s a one heckberry tree um i’m just wondering because as per the old plan they these trees were to be cut so my worry is my question is are they retaining these uh Norway spruce apparently they have been numbered as one to all the trees have been numbered uh i’m more worried about the trees 17 18 19 20 and 21 so five of them because i went to whatever information you’ve given us maybe i’m a layman but it doesn’t provide me what’s going to happen there and i was also thinking because it’s only my area about 40 feet which doesn’t have any trees there and apparently the entrance of the building is going to be from that side so the lights will directly fall on my house sir is that possible for you even before all the construction starts can they work on the plantation part in the have some spruce trees planted there that’s our question yes did you have so you’re worried about trees 17 18 19 20 21 and the lights on your house and you’re looking at spruce trees to be planted yes i even before they do anything at least because mine is that barren area and the lights they will fall directly okay on my my house is okay is there anything else you wish to say um one more thing is that i’m not sure what type of that garbage collection center is going to be and unfortunately that’s also going to be just opposite to my house right just not even 10 meters from my backyard and is there any plan for them to cover it upwards i don’t know is there any solution for that i will ask thank you sir thank you anything else uh i think i’m good sir thank you for giving me an opportunity you’re more than welcome thanks for coming have a good evening good evening sir i saw some other people coming on the screen just somebody oh three you mr chair i believe your new chair okay yes so do i give a chance to um to speak okay go ahead should i turn my video on i’m having to do that if you’d like it’s up to you you can speak just speak or you can put your video on sure i um the hose can stop me from so maybe oh there you are so yes so i’m a resident and one two four three how that’s cool so which is uh not like based on kind of plans not blocked by uh the construction but i do have very strong concern of the privacy so i would be much more comfortable if the new construction is for standalone houses or for like coming houses but this is like apartment for six stories and if you check the neighborhood so most of the neighborhood houses are standalone um houses it means you are basically building a power in in the neighborhood and the top like the sixth um story apartment is very close to the neighborhood so i’m just wondering like because they are facing the um like backyard of most of the houses so how are you going to protect the privacy from so people just stand in their houses so they can see everything in the neighborhood so my uh i would say the foremost concern would be the privacy so given the distance and why like i would imagine there would be some restrictions on how like high the building can be so um if that makes sense so that’s my understanding yep that’s my first concern and i do also have some concerns about the like um the environmental damage is might possibly cause to the place because i we occasionally see like different types of wild animals in um the the area that is designated to be the apartment so we are also not sure about like is there any going to be any environmental damage to um to the neighborhood i would say those would be the two of my most important concerns and and i already explained so i think if the construction is just like um building new standalone houses or town houses like what the neighborhood is having so i would be much more comfortable having that but given like the neighborhood is there is no basically apartment in the neighborhood and i do not see any facility that can facilitate like the living or the large population of the apartment so i’m pretty surprised that the plan is for to build a six-story apartment anything further uh i think that would be it and thank you very much thank you through you mr chair we do have michelle door and wash the applicants on the line okay uh go ahead thank you mr chair members of council i apologize for my uh technical issues um thank you for giving me the time to jump on to this call this afternoon um i have had a chance to review the staff report we’ve continued to work with staff on the site plan application we have no issues with anything um any of the information provided by staff with regards to our application um with regards to fencing we are proposing fencing around the entire perimeter of the property along the north and west property lines we want to ensure we have consistency with the fencing um around the entire perimeter the westerly trees are to remain we have proposed those from the outside of this application um even prior to the rezoning application we are long-term intent has always been to maintain the uh large established spruce trees and we have incorporated them into the design uh and we’ve looked at them extensively and very closely with the landscape architect to ensure that any changes to design will ensure that those trees remain so again that’s it that’s a number one priority for us with regards to this application um garbage collection that is internal to the building we do have a little bit of overflow um in the parking lot but the primary garbage collection is inside of the building and will be brought out on garbage collection day that’s typical of any multi-unit residential building um if there’s any other questions i’d be happy to answer them i think i might have missed some comments in between to try to um log on here but if any of the public has additional comments or the committee members have any comments i’d be happy to answer them for you okay maybe so there was one number the public was asking about particular trees numbered 17 18 19 20 and 21 and whether they were coming down those are the large uh through you mr chair those are the large spruce trees yep and they are intended to um be retained yes all right and he was also concerned i don’t know if you heard him about lights on his house will the spruce trees help with that or is that a different issue um that is part of the spruce trees but the the updated fencing will um ensure that the trees together with the fencing will uh reduce any light issues into the backyards of those existing houses all right and uh he asked about the garbage collection i think you addressed that so the outside area that has garbage what is that just uh is it covered those are uh those are earth bins so they are the the deep well bins um so it eliminates any um smell issues um and that’s typically just for overflow and what we have found is holidays things like that christmas the garbage room when there’s extra garbage tends to overflow so we have the outdoor collection for those um particular occasions where we just don’t have enough room in the building it’s great thank you are there any other uh submissions no so we’ll have to close the public participation meeting moved by counselor louis seconded by counselor hopkins once there’s something further we’ll vote on that was in the vote the motion carries board is zero any questions we’ll start with questions if anyone has one or we can do comments at the same time i suppose at this point in time i see the word counselor is here why don’t you go ahead word counselor since nobody’s jumping to speak thank you mr chair for recognizing me at your committee and i want to thank um the residents of of how it circle and the uh and the area that have come out tonight and also that uh the residents in the area that have remained engaged on this uh on this issue for some time now um this committee may recall that this uh this item came before council uh last year and the zoning on this site was approved so this so just to the people that are here this is a development that was approved already a year ago and what we’re discussing tonight are the site plan issues so the details around the build itself and i just want to say to the community as well that um there were a number of community meetings many of you may have attended those meetings um uh some of them took place at the start of the 2020 pandemic so unfortunately we had to do it over zoom like like we’re doing tonight um and a lot of these uh concerns came up at that time as well uh i i what always made this development more palatable was the the fact as mr as miz dornbosch explained tonight that those large spruce trees on the western boundary will be maintained the other a part of this that is better for the people on how it circle is actually the fact that this is a taller building it’s a six-story building there are a certain number of units that are allowed on this site so to go taller allows the building to be moved closer to stack house and further away from howlet circle so having a taller building rather than a spread out building allows those spruce trees to be saved um if it was a smaller shorter but but wider building then you have excavation that takes place closer to the roots of those trees and it compromises the health of those trees and a lot of times uh in those situations who mature trees are lost so i just want to make sure people understand that with a taller building that means it can be pushed further away and that saves those trees i know there are issues of traffic i know people have talked uh in their submissions about crossing fanshaw park road at this area and how busy stack house road is where it meets fanshaw um there have been over the years a number of people in the in the grand fell neighborhood that have asked for a traffic light at that spot and so far city staff keep telling me that the traffic volumes are not high enough yet to justify a traffic light at that stop there is considerable development that is scheduled that will take place in the future there and i want people to understand that that this building represents really a small um in the grand scheme of things a small development on the opposite side of stack house road that you’ll notice that there is a lot of empty land there all of that has already in years past um been set aside for residential development so an expansion of the existing subdivision that you all live in so uh your subdivision right now has pretty much stopped at stack house it is going to continue to the east that is all um set up for development uh possibly in the near future so i think it’s really important for people to understand that as part of the that development though what will happen going forward is once those homes are built stack house will be made more complete and by that i mean there will be sidewalks installed there will possibly be cycling lanes installed there will be street lighting better improved street lighting installed there because i do get a lot of complaints about the nature of stack house road and how dangerous it is the speeds the curves the lack of sidewalks all of that that will all take place as that future development takes place and most likely as well a stop light at the intersection of Fanshawe Park Road and stack house so it just i i want people to understand that to a great degree this um this development um is something that was allowed on this site and what city council did a year ago was um ensure that the design that was proposed by the developer is something that would keep it as far away from the the smaller houses on how it circle and maintain that spruce hedge that is already existing on the site so um again i understand how people have concerns it’s important for people to know that there is a lot of development that has already been approved in many years past in the area and and all of that development will take place over the coming years thank you mr chair you’re welcome other comments from uh committee someone prepared to move the recommendation moved by counselor layman seconded by counselor lewis any further discussion counselor hopkins go ahead thank you mr chair i’m just having a few problems with my technology here but i i do want to thank the community for coming out i know when we have these infills uh it is a concern in the community because it does change their community and i appreciate the counselor’s comments here too trying to explain what our policies are the intensity of 133 units this proposal meets so that requirement as well as the lock coverage it is allowed it’s going below what is allowed and the landscaping open space is higher than it’s allowed and i think that is really important uh to note because uh one of the things i’ve heard loud and clear tonight is the concern of privacy and that allows more opportunities uh for the applicant to work with staff to to um put in privacy uh trees for instance i understand and think the applicant for adding the fencing that’s going to go around that is important but also uh working with staff uh and i know there’s a number of challenges but i would like to encourage the applicant to continue uh doing that to plant more trees i know there’s a lot of uh shrubs in that that are going to be planted that there is something about having extra trees where possible to add to the privacy of this community but i am supporting the recommendation going forward all right so since i think further i will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries forward to zero just for direction we have one matter item 4.1 which is a ninth report of the London advisory committee on heritage we’ve already approved paragraph 4.2 so i just need a motion to receive and file the balance of the report moved by councilor layman seconded by councilor hockens any comments there being none i will call the vote oh sorry what through you mr. chair just to clarify you are recommending the actions recommended by the London advisory committee on heritage in their committee report not just noting and filing okay and what why are you saying i mean what is it that you’re asking are you pointing out something that we’re approving there is a recommendation there is a difference between noting and filing and approving and i just want to make sure council understands if we’re approving something yes okay um so one of the recommendations um 4.1 in the latch report is to designate the property at 44 Bruce Street um the other recommendation that latch has that you’ve already approved the 900 King Street yeah the other one is um relating to the application at 560 and 562 Wellington Street that the London advisory committee on heritage is reiterated reiterating pardon me its previous comments and those are just the two that i want to make sure the committee um realizes that they’re approving okay well i’m still not sure why we can’t just receive and file it but committee they’ve made certain recommendations within their jurisdiction and we’re receiving and filing um that report we weren’t asked to approve anything separately does anybody have an objection to receiving and filing councilor Lewis thank you mr. chair i’m prepared to receive and file i’m not prepared to uh as a committee endorse their recommendations on on heritage designation on those two properties frankly there’s not enough information in their report for me to make a decision on that yes committee chair i just want to point out that this matter has been dealt with previously and there is a big difference between receiving and filing going separately to endorse actions taken from a committee i will uh i gonna let the motion receive and file stand and uh we’ll vote on that closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 0 all right and now we have uh matters traditional business we have confidential matters so i’m looking for a motion to go into confidential session for the first two reasons enunciated we’re no longer uh meeting on the third matter which is litigation potential litigation so if i could get that motion moved by councilor hopkins seconded by councilor layman and i’ll call the vote uh voting by hand and we’re going to go into confidential session and i’ll just they’ll just take a moment