September 11, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Items 2.1 to 2.3, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Building Division Monthly Report - May 2023

2023-09-11 - Staff Report - (2.1) Building Division Monthly Report - May 2023

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of May, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.   (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

2.2   Building Division Monthly Report - June 2023

2023-09-11 - Staff Report - (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report - June 2023

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of June, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.(2023-A23)

Motion Passed

2.3   9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-08-17 ECAC Report 9

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the 9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-C04)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   2908 Dundas Street (Z-9627)

2023-09-11 - Staff Report - (3.1) 2908 Dundas Street (Z-9627)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2908 Dundas Street Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 2908 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Light Industrial  (h-17LI1) Zone TO a Holding Light industrial Special Provision (h-17LI1/LI6(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Light Industrial Place Type and Key Directions; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of industrial lands within the Built Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development; and,

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   447 Ashland Avenue (SPA23-074)

2023-09-11 - Staff Report - (3.2) 447 Ashland Avenue (SPA23-074)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Extendicare, relating to the property located at 447 Ashland Avenue (1156 Dundas Street):

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval by Extendicare, relating to the property located at 447 Ashland Avenue (1156 Dundas Street) to permit a new continuum-of-care facility:

i)    enquiring what the plan is for the empty field on Gleason Street; and,

ii)    enquiring what is proposed for the McCormick Factory as it is decaying and an eyesore; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing the Site Plan Application by Extendicare, relating to the property located at 447 Ashland Avenue (1156 Dundas Street);

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    E. Wittman, GSP Group; and,

  •    L. Longhurst;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which directs growth to settlement areas and enhancing main streets;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to The Official Plan for the City of London 216 – The London Plan and the McCormick’s Secondary Plan including but not limited to the policies of the mid-rise residential designation;

  •    the proposed Site Plan complies with the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law; and,

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control Area By-law; and,

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1992 Fanshawe Park Road West (TZ-9636)

2023-09-11 - Staff Report - (3.3) 1992 Fanshawe Park Road West (TZ-9636)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 1992 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), by extending the Temporary Use (T-45) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan and the Farmland Place Type policies; and,

  •    the recommended temporary use provides the portion of the subject property used for the golf driving range the opportunity reverted back to agricultural use should the lands be required for that purpose; and,

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   1515 Trossacks Avenue (Z-9632)

2023-09-11 - Staff Report - (3.4) 1515 Trossacks Avenue (Z-9632)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Daniel Boyer c/o Polocorp Inc., relating to the property located at 1515 Trossacks Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9 (R9-3*H21) TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)*H21) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following item through the site plan process:

i)    fencing and/or landscaping be provided along the perimeter of the site to ensure adequate buffering is maintained between the subject lands and adjacent residential properties;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    G. Saini, Polocorp Inc.;

  •    C. Melo;

  •    M. Zemes; and,

  •    E. Cartwight;

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;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Key Directions; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options; and,

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to delete clause b) ii), which reads as follows:

“b) ii)  removal of surface level parking to provide larger outdoor amenity space and a paratransit layby.”

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Council Resolution - Housing Accelerator Fund

2023-09-11 - Council Resolution - Motion Which Notice is Given 7.2 - Housing Accelerator Fund

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That clause b) of the Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on August 29, 2023, with respect to the Housing Accelerator Fund BE DEFERRED to a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:44 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 (1 hour, 49 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 4 p.m. I’d like to proceed with the 14th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information.

Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the City website. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Anapaywak, and Adawanram. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC at London.ca or 519-66-124-89 extension-2425. At this time, I’ll look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Seeing none, move on to consent items. I haven’t heard of any requests to have any pulled. Look for committee members. See if that is the case.

Seeing none, can I have a motion to receive, accept the consent items. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. There’s no on the floor. Open the floor for discussion.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a quick comment through you to staff.

Thank you for the Building Division Monthly Reports. I know we got me in June in front of us. I just want to mention it was really nice to see our building permits numbers going up. When I do the comparison, I like to not only compare to where we were about a year ago, but also where we have been.

And I was just really pleased in the June report to see that our numbers finally, in all areas, going over the 2020 numbers. And as you know, what happened in 2020, that’s where things changed with COVID. And it’s really good that our numbers are starting to to get up and exceed where we were in the past. I just wanted to make that comment.

So through you, I just want to thank staff for the work that they’re doing. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you to our staff. I’m just wondering as we look at decreased permit volumes right now. And I recognize fully we’ve had some challenges with staffing levels. I also note that in terms of the numbers of permits that are in process, there’s still a log jam there of numbers that are in process versus actually out the door and shovels in the ground.

So I’m just wondering if we could perhaps get a verbal on where we are with regard to our staffing levels and the number of permits, particularly those that are off the clock and waiting beyond the length of time for whatever reason that I know there’s a variety of reasons that permits go off the clock. But where are we in terms of catching up on some of that backlog? Okay, I’ll go to staff regarding two questions there, I think, was a number of units are considered permits are allocated off the clock and regarding staffing levels and processing. Absolutely.

So very, very meaningful and important questions right now. So wanted to let committee know that we’re going to be bringing forward a report at the mechanics council cycle cycle that’s going to be updates on our 47,000 unit pledge report that’s going to provide you a lot of that information. So that will be in the October cycle. I’m going to let Peter mention if he’s got anything that any of those numbers off hand, but if he doesn’t we will have an October report.

We can say is that we do have approximately 280 permits right now that are had been approved and are just awaiting for those pickups and hang those fees. So we do have at least some capacity to be able to get some development moving. We just really need the industry to also kind of pick up here as well. So it has been very important for us to be able to use this time.

It’s a bit of a lull. We have some concerns with the number of staffing we have and that Council’s assets to come back with a report to talk about that. So we’ll have that report actually also in the October cycle to give you a little bit more information on on on our capacity. And then as well we really want to ensure that we use this time wisely and we look at increasing improving our processes and and providing that extra amount of time that we need to be able to to get our new staff up to speed.

So that’s what we’ve been using this this law and as well. I’ll let Peter address any of the questions that he might have anything in his in his hands to be able to provide tonight. Thank you Scott and through you Mr. Chair I don’t have actual numbers but I can just put things into perspective in terms of where we are at the present time.

The minor residential permits there’s minor delay in issuing those where we see most of the backlog is in the industrial commercial institutional permits where we have issues with processing resubmissions and from a staffing perspective the staff in terms of complement is there. What we are focusing on right now is the training of staff to be able to process the applications more efficiently and quicker. Deputy Mayor. Well that’s great I appreciate that I just wanted to touch base on that today while we had the opportunity and I look forward to the future report outlining steps we’re taking.

Thank you. Any other questions from committee the committee will allow I’ll just have one comment or question. Mr. Mathers our permits are down approximately 32 percent but yet the number of applications that are in progress are are up 21 percent.

Being that we’re down here today I’m hoping that we can get at least caught up to last year’s numbers by the end of December. Can we what are we doing to catch up we’re down 21 percent or 220 units. Can we get those numbers at least caught up to last year’s pipeline given the fact that you know we’re down in the number of units that are permits that have been applied for if the if the permits were a bunch above I can understand more in the pipeline but being that they’re down I’m concerned that we’re also down and getting things approved through the chair I’ll just start to address the question and then I’ll throw it off to Peter as well so firstly it will be very difficult to be able to get completely back to last year’s numbers just knowing that a lot of the permit applications we do receive by in the first half of the year so this is as it is being the June report there is some potential like that we’ve got some permits that just need to be picked up and been constructed so we do have that potential and over the net we have been since June and and and over the last several months been really very much trying to increase the amount of output from our area as well to ensure that those new permits are available for pickup regarding the the differential between the number of permits that are in the queue versus ones that have been approved a lot have Peter speak to that Mr. Kacorus thank you Scott and again through you Mr.

Chair just to again put this into perspective if you look at the June report you’ll see that we have we had 965 permit applications in process as as at the end of June there were actually 29 permits that the ones their applications where fees were owing so basically all the processing all the processing was complete it’s a matter of outstanding fees to be paid and those permits would be issued the same day if I were to extrapolate the number of units associated with those 29 permits that’s another 340 units so if we looked at the year-to-date June numbers only that 685 we jump up to 1,025 that 1,025 compared to the end of January last year would be surpassing those number of units by 17 so maybe what’s not captured that report is the applications under review how many of those were actually sitting waiting for fees to be paid so that those extra units could be created almost instantaneously upon fee payment okay thank you my last comment is this number of permits the applications are in our last and last year we know we think we know why it’s obviously interest rates are driving this hopefully we’re at the top of that cycle and as interest rates come down demand is certainly there I imagine the amount of permits being applied for will start to go back so I’m hoping that we use this time wisely to prepare if we have time to train higher make different changes in our technology as well to be prepared to build when developers are ready to invest there are no other questions or comments we’ve got motion to accept consent items I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you we’ll be moving on to 3.1 of the scheduled items regarding first item 3.1 to 908 Dundas Street I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM Councillor Hopkins and seconded by Councillor Frank I’ll call that vote doesn’t devote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you we have the staff report are there any questions of technical nature for staff at this time and committee members seeing done then I’ll ask clerk if the developers here would like to address the committee please go ahead state your name and do you have five minutes yeah can you turn on your mic please that on now okay my name is Alia Richards I’m a planner from Zalinka preammo and we are here representing the applicant M&D Singh I want to start by thanking staff for their continued work on this application and processing it I’ve reviewed staff’s report and recommendations and we are agreeable and I would like to encourage committee to endure staff’s recommendation for approval as well thank you for your time and I’m happy to answer any questions the committee or the public may have thank you this time that’s fine thank you this time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this matter for the committee so clear because there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online okay thank you I looking chambers I don’t see anyone ready to speak to this I’ll look for motion to close PPM Councillor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 so I’ll put 3.1 floor now for committee members Councillor Frank thank you I’m happy to move the staff recommendation thank you okay look for a seconder Deputy Mayor Lewis we have a motion moved in second any comments Councillor Hopkins yeah I’m happy to support the amendment or the application I do have a question through you maybe to staff understand it’s just going to be a field they’re going to be storing the the transports there there’s going to be no buildings what would be the process going forward if this is approved to putting a building on that through the chair it would be going through site plan approval I believe the the applicant and the owner have been kind of in discussions with site plan already but that’s where it would continue to Councillor yeah thank you for for that information I have another question as well through you about the landscaping I’m pleased and thank the applicant for the work putting the verma up in the landscaping do we know what kind of landscaping or is that again go to be part of the site plan process through the chair yeah that would be a part of the site plan process we’ve just got the special provision to require it on the south and east sites Councillor I’m glad it’s there thank you any other comments or questions Deputy Mayor Lewis yeah just very briefly as this property is in Ward 2 actually it’s the last property in Ward 2 before we exit the city limits but happy to see this come forward no concerns have been brought to my attention by the community I mean I know it was noted in the staff report that they hadn’t received any responses I’ve had a couple of folks from Costas Road reach out and or Costas Ave and after speaking to them very briefly there was no concerns on their part as well so happy to be supportive of this thank you any other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors seeing none motion moved in second and I’ll put that on the floor for a vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you we’re moving on to 3.2 this is regarding property of 4 4 7 Ashland Ave I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 we have the staff report any technical questions at this time for staff seeing none I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee yes I would like to address them please have please state your name and you have five minutes yeah my name is Evan Whitman I’m a planner with GSP group I’m joined today by members of the architect team as well as extended care who will be the operators of the building the staff report does an excellent job of outlining the proposal and we thank staff for their continued cooperation and our supportive of their recommendations I won’t be taking the full five minutes but I do want to provide a little more information about extended care as well as some background information extended care is a leader in long-term care and delivery being the operators of 20 facilities in the province with four more under construction and various in various municipalities excuse me the proposed extended care facility is the replacement of an existing aging facility in London this building is mostly semi-private rooms with some ward rooms the new facility will be a transformation of that care model featuring private rooms state-of-the-art age vac and security and 32-bed home areas containing dining room activity rooms etc for residents to live amongst their neighbors and foster a greater sense of community here is entirely funded by the Ministry of Health and long-term care and is regulated by the province for affordability it’s important to note that this is not a retirement home regarding the site it’s quite a challenging site to develop due to the significant grade change resulting in Ashland being quite a bit higher than the rear of the site although there are challenges our project team has repaired an excellently designed building which screens the loading area from public view animates the frontages along Ashland Gleason and creates a vibrant and functional building including a significant internal outdoor courtyard area this project meets an increasing demand for long-term care spaces and we’re working as quickly as we can to proceed to the construction stage of the project our team would be happy to answer any questions that the public or committee may have thank you thank you Mr. Whitman at this time I’ll ask if there is anybody from the public that would like to speak to the committee on this matter please give us your name ma’am and you have five minutes is it on yes we can hear it good afternoon Lori longhurst from England cycle center I’d like to start by saying that we are all for extended care coming to the neighborhood our main concerns with that is what is the city’s plan for Gleason Street at the moment it is an empty field and it has become a public dumping ground operating a business we’ve kept it clean as the number of the businesses in the area have there’s been great improvement with Kellogg’s and the continued decay of the McCormick factory is a shame and is an eyesore to people visiting London so all for the nursing home get the shovels in the ground more people in the area more eyes on the property but regarding Gleason Street what’s the plan there to open it and what is the plan for the Kellogg’s building because it’s been probably 15 years of decay and nothing has happened with that thank you for McCormick sorry yeah thank you any other folks that would like to address the committee is there anyone online through the chair there’s no one online thank you one more call-up okay seeing there’s no one else that would like to address the committee I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM Councilor Hopkins seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero before I open up to the committee I think I’ll ask staff right now to maybe comment on the question that we heard regarding the empty space upon Gleason and perhaps maybe give committee and public an update on where things stand with McCormick development good afternoon mr. Chair so this site 447 Ashland is part of the larger land holding at 1156 Dundas Street so that includes the vacant lands behind to the north of the McCormick building the McCormick building itself and some of the lands to the north of the future Gleason Street so there is a relationship between the subdivision that’s under way it was submitted in 2022 that would bring forward the extension of Gleason Street as well as some divide up some of the land into development blocks that would also address the redevelopment of the McCormick building itself this site is coming forward ahead of that subdivision it’s going through a proposed consent to bring it forward ahead of the timing for the rest of the subdivision so this is kind of its own unique site and the rest of the subdivision lands including Gleason Street and the McCormick Boulevard would be dealt with separately through that subdivision process I’ll just follow up on that where about are we on that process for the subdivision plans perhaps I can add some context with respect to the rest of the subdivision mr. Chair so through you to the committee the subdivision is under appeal so the owner applicant appealed the city’s approval of the plan of subdivision and so it’s proceeding through the OLT process and a hearing is scheduled for the first week of February and then it would be up to the tribunal to issue a decision following that so this site has been carved out in order to proceed ahead of the rest of the subdivision okay thank you and I think it’s good for the public to know that the subdivision the halls is right now is under appeal process looks like February is a hearing this particular site that we’re looking at this afternoon is separate from that piece things can proceed here so now I’ll turn it over to the committee Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you for that extra bit of information I this has been going on for a long time it’s good to see some kind of development happening in this area given that Gleason Street is going to be dealt with separately my question through you Mr.

Chair is there’s there’s quite a bit of residential happening on Ashland so do we know going forward what the construction route is going to look like when we have these developments these infills as such especially around residential areas and it’s going to be quite a big development when it’s all taken place but as it starts is there a conversation that’s being had that the construction route with all the trucks and the debris that is going to be pulled out and brought in what is that plan going to look like going forward I’ll go to staff on that thank you and through the chair I’ll do my best to answer this there’s a couple things happening as indicated there’s the subdivision process and very often through that process there are construction routes that are determined and our development inspection team works closely with developers to manage that in terms of this site plan in particular there wouldn’t be a construction management plan it’s a bit of a challenging site given that it’s primarily just on National Avenue without Gleason Street extension occurring at this time so it would likely just be in a no traffic through Ashland and quite honestly through subdivision or site plan processes there aren’t a lot of situations where construction traffic is managed and mitigated given the number a sheer number of sites that are under under construction of course our development inspection team does try to work with developers whenever complaints come in and there may be the one-off sites that garner some attraction and resolution from committee and council to take some special care and consideration on certain infill sites beyond the site in particular so the short answer is no for the site plan there won’t be anything it’s presumed that it will come off Ashland and then through this subdivision process where the rest of the works will occur there will be something that happens through that process councilor yeah I would encourage some special care would be taken when we look at the construction route in this area getting back to Gleason Street why is it not can that just try to understand is it at the OLT that portion or is there an opportunity that we could look at that street I’ll go and staff on that thank you through the chair that the the general principle is roads are created through subdivision processes there are certain circumstances where they are dealt with through a site plan but given that there’s a larger comprehensive plan for this larger block of land Gleason Street will be dealt with and is intended to be dealt with by the subdivider itself the the owner of the larger land holding council yeah thank you for that so we’re not there yet thank you okay can I I’m looking for a motion if we could on this item a deputy mayor I will move the staff recommendation can I have a seconder councilor Hopkins so we have motion moved and seconded any other further discussion councilor Frank thank you yes I just want to highlight with this site it does note that they’re going to be using green building features on the actual building and I thought that was very exciting so I just wanted everyone to take note because I think this will be a really good example of that and as well I think it’s good use of info as we’ve already all said and there’s going to be bike parking inside and outside so just wanted to highlight those things that I thought were really exciting that we don’t often see and some of the applications coming forward thank you any other comments we have motion moved and second I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay moving on 3.3 rewearing property at 1992 Fanshawe Park Road West I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting Deputy Mayor Lewis seconded by Councilor Frank I’ll call that closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you any technical questions for staff at this time seeing none with the applicant like to address the committee please give us a lower the mic thank you you have five minutes okay good afternoon committee members and staff my name is Taylor Whitney I’m a planner with the link of preamel limited the planning consultants representing Southside construction management the land owners of 192 Fanshawe Park Road West I’m here today hoping for a positive endorsement from this committee for our application for an extension of a temporary use a portion of the subject lands are currently being used for a golf driving range a use that has existed for over 20 years without complaint on the lands the temporary use is complementary to the agricultural planned function of the lands without undermining the agricultural value we’ve had the opportunity to review staff’s report and we appreciate their consideration and recommendation for approval I’m available to answer any questions you may have today and thank you for your time and consideration thank you anyone from the public that would like to address committee on this item I’ll ask that clerk if there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online thank you seeing that no one wants to address the committee I will look for motion to close the PPM I’ll put the item on the floor for committee Deputy Mayor Lewis thank you chair through you I’ll move the staff recommendation you have a motion moved and I got a look for a seconder Councillor Frank any discussion before I call the vote seeing none I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 okay we’re now at 3.4 regarding the property at 15 15 Trusack’s Avenue I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting Councillor Frank by Councillor Hopkins I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 at this time there if there’s any technical questions now’s the time for committee members Deputy Mayor Lewis thank you chair it through you just a very quick question on the staff recommendation part B sub clause to removal of surface level parking to provide larger outdoor amenity space and paratransit delay by I recognize this is a site plan approval authority be requested to consider I’m just seeking clarification on where that request to consider is coming from given that we already have a significantly reduced parking per unit ratio and that a number of the spots are already underground spots I mean it’s it’s pretty clear to me having read the report when we after we receive the agenda there is no opportunity to remove more surface level parking on the site so I’m wondering where that recommendation is coming from or the sorry the request to consider in the recommendation I’ll go staff through the chair so based on the existing site plan the lay by is not currently up to standards so that’ll have to be adjusted and likely these parking spaces will have to be removed through that and we are seeking to possibly achieve a little more on site amenity they’ll still have sufficient parking if they lose a few spots at surface and that’s where it’s coming from so we’re looking for them to consider that through site plan review Deputy Mayor so sorry I’m not I’m genuinely not trying to be combative I’m just wondering how we can say given the reduced number of parking spaces already on the site per unit that sufficient parking will still be available because we’re not even a one space per unit which is great I supported the reduced parking ratios but I am finding it difficult to say that we can take away more consider taking away more spaces when we’re already well below the one per unit ratio this recording through the chair so the bylaw only requires 0.5 per unit so they’re actually above the required parking still so they do have wiggle room to maintain the zoning by a lot 0.5 by removing a few spaces deputy mayor I’ll just follow up on that technical question is the intent of that request to see if they would expand their underground parking through the chair if that’s an option available that would be an ideal place to put more parking at this time I don’t know if we know those details of the underground parking but if they have the ability to add it there that’s another way to make up their parking spaces thank you any other questions technical nature for staff okay if the applicant is here I’ll go to the applicant first for their comments are they online please give us your name and you have five minutes good afternoon chair members of the committee my name is Gerson Mancini and I’m a planner with polo corp I have a brief presentation prepared for today if I be allowed to share the screen please go ahead I’m screen sharing this currently disabled for me can I request the host to enable that just second please please try now it’s like we there we go okay okay I hope everyone can see my screen we got it perfect so I will be speaking to the proposal for one five on five pro sax Avenue the applicant and the owner of the subject property is Daniel poor the planners are myself and my colleague Matthew Verzeca the director of planning and development and polo corp the applicant is seeking a zoning by-law amendment to permit info development on the subject property the proposed lawman includes a six-story multi-residential building where the approximately hundred dwelling units this will be a purposeful rental building with a mix of one and two bedroom dwelling units looking at the plan a bit more in detail the vehicular access to the building is provided through a driveway of true sex road which leads to a surface parking area that accommodates 33 spaces a ramp leads to the underground parking area which accommodates an additional 24 spaces the proposal also includes 10 at-grade parking spaces and 90 spaces in the underground parking lot pedestrian access is provided to the lobby both from Fanshawe and true sacks all ground for units along Fanshawe would have direct access from the municipal sidewalk along the street the proposed development features an outdoor and an outdoor amenity area as well as an indoor amenity area additional amenity areas are provided in the form of balconies and patios for ground ground for units the proposed development will be serviced using existing municipal infrastructure the proposed spurring has been designed through careful consideration of the surrounding context the building has an L-shaped layout that is oriented towards the budding roads with reduced setbacks from close acts and Fanshawe Park Road the building also features a 2.4 meter step back at the third story which creates a clearly defined two-story podium and as a result the first two stories of the building resemble townhomes from the street this allows for compatibility and appropriate transition to the surrounding townhouse development the parking and servicing areas are located at the rear of the building such that they’re largely screened from public view direct connectivity to the budding sidewalk on Fanshawe Road with street facing patios and balconies further activates the frontage and creates an active streetscape the proposed development contemplates landscaping along all property boundaries along the north and best property lines that allows for visual transition between the budding townhouse developments and along the eastern property line the two meter wide landscaping buffer reinforces the street edge the proposal therefore represents context sensitive intensification the subject property is designated neighborhood in the city’s official plan and is located at the intersection of an urban thoroughfare and a neighborhood and a neighborhood connector low-rise apartments with the standard height of four stories are permitted as a fright on the property and an upper maximum height of six stories are permitted subject to a zoning parallel amendment the proposal meets many official plan objectives including development through infillane intensification diverse and compatible compatible development minimal setbacks in street-oriented development I know and I note here that the proposed development requires a zoning by-law amendment only to permit an increased number of stories the height of the proposed building itself is about 20 meters while the zoning by-law permits 21 meters as a fright on the property the proposed zoning by-law applications will provide site-specific exceptions to facilitate the proposed development including a maximum height of six stories reduced front rear and exterior side yard setbacks increased density and reduced setbacks for patios and balconies in reviewing the site and surrounding context the proposed development is suitable for the subject property as it is surrounded by a mix of dwelling types including towns singles and apartment buildings the design consideration specifically the setback at the third to the sixth story allows for appropriate transition to the surrounding development the subject property is also surrounded by a range of commercial institutional and transit facilities which make it an appropriate location for the proposed high-density residential development overall the proposed development is a compact infill development that represents the existing um that respects the existing character of the neighborhood and contributes to the creation of an active and attractive public realm the property is well served by transit and conforms to provincial and local policy framework and is therefore appropriate for the site lastly I’d like to thank staff for working diligently with us on this application we’ve had a transfer review and are in support of staff’s recommendation and we encourage committee to endorse the staff recommendation as well thank you thank you I’ll now go to the public I see you up there ma’am please give us your name and you have five minutes my name is Roseanne parenthood and I’m a resident at 1535 truss x over the years that we’ve been at truss x there’s been parking issues of our own and we’ve received parking from other properties such as the townhouses next to us and the apartment buildings for which we’ve had to police we’ve had the police come out for parking issues from those properties we’ve had school buses parked in our they’re not school buses but other vehicles parked in our lane way which is a fire route we’ve had I think that the parking will end up being there’s going to be a lot of harassment on all sides because of the lack of of parking people fighting over spaces how are how are you going to control a parking road rage right now you see a lot of individuals riding their bikes okay that’s fine but there’s been a lot of accidents with around bikes being hit I just don’t think that there’s going to be a lot of spots and right now mte came into our parking lot they’re the engineers they were there on August the 9th they parked in our parking lot I watched them they walked out the driveway over to 1515 truss x how was that going to work you know so I think that there’s you know you look at the demographics there the the driving you know how can you control how many vehicles that a person has visitor parking you know it’s just it doesn’t equate to what it’s going to come and there’s going to be police called on a regular basis to come out and I do know that they come out to private parking or for private parking issues on private property I know that in other areas you’ve got to have us a viable transportation service public transportation public transportation service which is not here in london you have property at just down fan shot at cedar hollow that’s been there for eight nine years there’s no transportation there by by the ltc so to increase it from every half hour to decrease it to about every 10 15 minutes to make it viable it’s not going to happen because there’s other subdivisions within the city of london that don’t have transportation through them and they’ve been there for over 20 years in some cases so by having your resources of the police coming out to solve arguments see accidents happening you know reporting that harassment abuse I just don’t get where it’s going to be a viable thing just having so few parking spaces in such a small area okay thank you is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue please give us your name and you have five minutes yes my name is Kathy mellow I do not live anywhere near this proposed construction but I do have a sister-in-law who lives at 191 commissioners road west it is one of the new buildings that has been built with insufficient parking it is a constant problem in that building my sister-in-law cannot leave her apartment after four o’clock because she won’t have a parking spot to come back to social problems galore it’s nice to think that transportation can public transportation can fill in the gaps but at this point in time our transportation system is inadequate for getting everyone around the city does city council propose to have a plan to follow up on the existing buildings to see how that’s working out because in her particular building it’s not working there is a lot of problems thank you thank you for anyone else please sir give us your name and do you have five minutes yeah my name is Marcel Resendes and I also are resident of 1535 process my concern is of course about the parking and you know this whole thing about the green and you know less vehicles on the road it’s a good thing and I’m out for it but it’s not going to work here because I don’t think people are going to give up their car for you know public transportation when they have to wait half an hour because the bus is going on financial they come every half hour and that’s not going to you know encourage people to take the the public transit also my concern is being in construction for 45 years that site is probably going to employ you know probably 60 people in there so where are they going to park is there a plan to have the construction workers a parking plan like maybe rent a parking area somewhere and shuttle them into the drop site so that’s one of my questions on that because that’s have worked in construction and I know parking and people are just going to park at our place and we are paying a good amount of property taxes and condo fees and I don’t think we should be taking advantage of but you know because of thing like Rosanne said they’ve already started the surveyors went there they parked in our private property in order to work at the site so that is basically my concern is the construction how’s that going to be and there is no way you can tell me that you cannot provide and not parking spots for that area there’s a way to do it but I guess it’s going to be more cost the developer more money and I think that’s the developer agreed that’s doing that because obviously it’s going to cost more money to provide more parking spots or lose more units to rent out and again that I’ll be traced to money that the developer is not going to get and thank you very much for listening to me and I hope we get the resolution thank you for anyone else I would like to speak to this more issue please ma’am you have five minutes give us your name go ahead my name is Emma Cartwright I am a unit owner at 1535 trussics and my unit actually backs up onto this development lot I sound like a broken record but I also have concerns about the parking within our own complex we are allotted one spot per unit and we already battle within our own complex to have sufficient parking so to have overflow coming from another property there will be lots of disputes and we will be eating up city services to resolve them probably unnecessarily so yeah parking is a huge concern to us all I may be care a little bit more about privacy I know there was an amendment application about taking the sorry I don’t know all the terminology the clearance from eight meters to two meters along the sides of the property that basically will have the building sitting on top of my unit and with the additional request for six floors instead of four I will have no privacy at the back of my house I don’t I don’t understand the reason for such a drastic adjustment other than yeah developer greed I guess get more for their money so yes that’s all my points thank you thank you sir anyone else that would like to address the committee also clerk if there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online thank you okay seeing no one else would like to address the committee I’ll look for motion to close the PPM Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you know go to staff on this one you might probably defer to the developer but what are the plans for construction workers parking being that I don’t see any parking around the site and I do understand the concerns raised today about you know parking lot right around the corner essentially that was already used by engineers of this particular site through the chairs so at this point in the process we don’t determine kind of where the construction vehicles are going to go that could be determined later on but I will go to the applicant for assistance if they have plans for that yet okay can I can I go to the applicant can you tell me what are the plans for your construction workers during the build phase of this project we’re up regarding parking and speaking through the chair so we do intend to prepare a construction management plan and believe there’s sufficient parking on site to manage any parking requirements at this construction stage okay thank you okay um I’ll open the the item put on the floor for committee members at this time Deputy Mayor Lewis while being mindful of the fact that we need to speak within five minutes I’ll move the staff recommendation to get the discussion going see if there’s a seconder for that I get a seconder for this counselor Frank okay so now we have a motion moved and seconded um any discussion or questions at this time Council Frank thank you yes I do have two questions to staff I noticed on the chart if you’re which page but it said there’s not going to be any tree removal which makes sense because I looked at it in just a field of grass but it did also say non-applicable for tree planting and I just wanted to confirm it looked like from some of the photos there would be trees planted so I’m just getting a sense of what the location of some of those trees will be through the chair we don’t have any exact details on the plans for the tree planting that’s dealt with at the site plan stage there’ll be more information at that stage for the project thank you and through the chair could I get some assurances there will be trees then on that location thank you I’ll go staff for the chair yes there would be trees planted throughout the site in accordance with the site by control by law about one for every 15 meters at minimum so you certainly be looking for that of course the one challenge would that may be present would be the presence of underground parking which then does preclude some plantings depending on the depth of soil that’s available so we’ll continue to work with the applicant as that goes on and that’s something that’s regulated in our bylaw councilor thank you I appreciate that I just wanted to check the non-applicable I got a little nervous um and then just wondering um I want to put on my broken record for tonight but I’m just wondering if there’s any affordable units or any discussion with the applicant to have any affordable units included in this building go staff through the chair there is no initial discussions with the applicant about affordable housing but I could defer to them to see if they have any future plans for that go the applicant speaking through the chair so at this time we will we’re proposing the building to be a purposeful rental um but any opportunities for affordable housing will be explored at the site plan stage Councilor thank you yes well then I look forward to hearing from site plan uh how those discussions are resolved at a later date thank you other comments or questions Councilor Hopkins yeah I just wanted to follow up on uh a comment name uh the public and thank you for the public for coming out it’s it’s good to hear comments and concerns um about the privacy I know there’s quite a bit of buffering around this area if you could speak a little bit more you know it’s site plan but if you could just um kind of share and maybe even the applicant can add to what are um the opportunities for buffering with this development I’ll go to staff I believe the quote the comment was originally it was eight meters and now it’s being posed as two meters so maybe some uh thinking behind that and all the up on the uh the councilor’s concerns about uh about privacy through the chair so the rear yard setback which is um I think the setback that’s in question it starts at 5.9 meters for one to two stories and then from the third to the sixth floor it increased by 2.4 meters for that podium setback so it’s actually at about 8.3 meters for the three to six stories so that’s to add a little bit more privacy and separation from the first and second story as well as gain some um buffering for the neighboring privacy concerns councilor and I know public is here do we know what that’s going to look like fencing or landscaping or it could could we just sort of have a an idea of what we can look at stuff through the chair I know that there’s going to be some tree planting along that side as well so that might provide some extra protection for privacy um there’s also most likely fencing that will go along that side of the property or um that kind of thing so um there will be those privacy matters that will address some of those issues um I can defer to the applicant too to explain kind of how they want to set that back um and they might be able to provide an explanation on kind of how that rear yard setbacks can work yes the applicant is able to make a comment go to the applicant sure um speaking to the chair I think staff have explained our intention if um of providing some sort of screening for the first two stories via landscaping shrubs and the exact nature of plantation will again we can work with staff on that through the site plan process and then again this step back at the third to this story allows for that additional setback in the rear yard that provides for that additional privacy and screening um for the upper stories of the building councilor thank you for that um the other question I have is around transit and how it’s supported in this area we know it’s a primary transit area and as these applications go forward and the concerns we hear about less parking in the area how is london transit or how’s that information shared with london transit um as we do these infills in particular the the intensities it’s quite high here and with any infill and in fact how’s that information shared back to ltc and in that conversation as they look at roots and improving transit obviously I think that’s something we can all agree here in the city of london that we do need to improve transit and as we build sort of what comes first the chicken or the egg kind of conversation i’m i’m not sure how we share that information with ltc i’ll go to staff on that um through the chair um so all ltc is um circulated our planning applications as a commenting agency um we don’t have um i guess proactive discussions with them on a regular basis to see how they’re trying to accommodate some of the development that is happening but it’s something that we can certainly um take back and and think about how we can better have those conversations councilor yeah i think that’s really important especially as we do uh the reviews in our mobility plan as well it could be sort of a further conversation and i know we have a commissioner here amongst us from ltc who is listening intently as well thank you our council approval thank you and sir the chair so in terms of the service ltc does have a service and actually the bus stop is currently right in front of this land and uh as the residents uh their concern is that the 30-minute interval certainly wouldn’t be very efficient and wouldn’t be kind of getting people from the cars onto the buses uh but we do ltc is aware of this in terms of the intervals and uh you’ll see it our council is the proposal for the budget because we will need to have increased number of service hours to decrease the intervals and to get the people from the cars onto the buses so ltc is aware of it and the plan is there to decrease these intervals and not just to this location throughout the city thank you thank you any other comments or questions uh deputy marelos thank you chair and through you uh a couple of comments that i want to share and i appreciate the residents concern around parking reductions however we also can’t continue to just have what i’ve described previously as oceans of asphalt for for parking we need places for people to live um and i’d like to ask um through you chair to the applicant um if she’s able to indicate um their marketing plan for these units i’m i’m thrilled that their purpose built rental because we know that the purpose built rental inventory in the city is well below um even the lower end of the 3% threshold that cmhc recommends but in terms of marketing these two perspective tenants is the intent to have reserve parking available for tenants until it is full up or is it going to be on a first come first serve and leave it a bit of a wild west in terms of which tenant gets homes gets home from work and gets to claim a parking spot go to the applicant on that question um speaking through the chair and responding to the committee members so at this time we’re still in very preliminary um design at a very preliminary design stage where we’re implementing the planning strategy that the city planning requirements or parking requirements that the city has um we believe that given the fact that the the property is on a major like on a major road there’s availability of transit there’s availability of active transportation infrastructure and um again those details of how parking is to be a lot a different um units that will be worked out um as we advance further in the process deputy mayor okay thank you for that because uh i can share that i have seen parking reductions work and i’ve seen them work in my own ward at 440 clerk road where we’ve got a 65 unit building that has far less than 65 parking spaces available and i don’t have the number off the top of my head but i believe it’s 40 some parking spaces so there’s about 20 25 units that don’t have dedicated parking spaces for them um and the tenants have to pay an additional fee to have a reserve parking space so it means that um your rent is cheaper if you don’t have a car because you don’t need a parking space and that’s one of the ways that we attain some affordability there i think it’s also important that residents know um parking restrictions on local roadways in terms of on-street parking and those kind of things are neighborhood initiated processes so there is a petition process that a neighborhood can initiate that creates a restricted no parking zone on neighborhood streets so that if on-street parking is a problem you can actually petition the city to create no parking on side streets and and have um take away that ability for people to sort of clog up the road although that uh on-street parking often also serves as passive traffic calming and slow speeds down so there is a trade-off to that uh in that you may see increased speeds in traffic if on-street parking is further restricted uh now i know right at the corner there’s naturally a no parking zone uh immediately at around the intersection uh staff can correct me i believe it’s 10 meters uh maybe it’s 20 meters but there is a a zone uh immediately from the intersection where on-street parking is not allowed anyway uh but there are ways to mitigate concerns about uh street congestion parking in your neighborhood so i would encourage you to reach out to your ward counselor he’s actually here um so he can certainly share some links to that process for you um if that’s a concern um so i’m gonna um conclude my parking comments there um but we see other than saying we see all the time uh apartment buildings retail plazas um around the city where parking maximums are are never the reality uh and we do have otherwise a valuable land tied up waiting for cars that just aren’t aren’t there all the time so that’s the reason we’re going to reduce parking rate um i will say um transit talks are are certainly ongoing but right now we have a transit commission that is arms length from city hall so i mean council does have the ability if if they really believe that uh they need uh that to be integrated more closely with our planning to actually bring transit in house um and deliver it as a public service rather than as as just as a bus service so um that’s always an option to be considered in the future but they are arms length and they set their own priorities around routing and scheduling and and fares and those kind of things so um i appreciate the transit concern but we do um have a master mobility plan that’s underway um and all kinds of different opportunities are being looked at through that and so that’s um to be determined uh in terms of where those transit dollars will be spent until they’ll be uh personnel any other comments or questions for committee um i wonder if the deputy mayor could take the chair i will take the chair and uh i will recognize councilor layman thank you um i understand where the deputy mayor is what he’s saying there and we did make a change to parking requirements so that you know the we thought it was best to leave um minimum parking up to private developers and to determine their their needs of uh how they were going to market their units um my concern here is that um uh when these when infill comes before us there is concerns raised about uh available parking and it’s usually directed at the street and when the deputy mayor is correct we can work with uh residents to change street parking but i think this is a different case it was uh brought up by um members of the public that right beside this development literally the entrance to uh their their condo area uh is a lot of parking and um the concern and i think it’s a valid concern that there’s not enough parking um residents of this particular property will be encroaching on the parking that’s um right outside the front door so my question to staff is um what we can restrict street parking and monitor that we can’t do anything about private property i take it on a private condo that’s right beside it where people are parking that are not residents there don’t have are not permitted to park there um the onus would be on the private owners or residents i would take it of that property can you confirm that please through you chair after you present officer uh thank you counselor layman and i see mr corby’s uh ready to respond to that one through the chair you you’re correct that it would be a civil matter with the private property owners to remove vehicles that are supposed to be parked there okay thank you so on that note what what i would like to propose to the committee is that um we make some um some change here to recognize that and that would be removing part two of b so i would like to put an amendment forth um that b which calls for the removal of surface level parking to larger outdoor space and pair of transit lay by and be removed from the staff recommendation on the motion okay so we’re seeking an amendment uh i’m sorry i just wanted to check with the clerk is counsel hill you’re with us online i don’t have he is okay uh just because i don’t have a zoom screen on this side so um counselor hillyer you’re seconding that amendment uh okay so we’ve got a mover and a seconder and now we can discuss the uh amendment to the motion counselor frank thank you um just a couple questions to staff um so if we do not remove surface level parking for outdoor amenity space and pair of treads at lay by what does that result in for the building let’s ask mr corby that through the chair so if you remove it the pair of trans at lay by still required through the site plan control by law so it will still have to meet our standards which likely will result in the loss of a couple parking spaces um it just means through site plan control we won’t be pushing for additional amenity space outside of what’s proposed right now sir frank thank you yes i won’t be supporting this amendment then because i’m uh it sounds like we will need a pair of transit lay by which i think is incredibly important as we have heard for the last 10 months that pair of transit is essential for for making the city a livable place for people to use it and as well for the outdoor amenity space i’m not prepared to lose that either because this is already a very highly dense location with lots of surface parking arguable but how much is needed or required but uh the bulk of this uh development is already covered in either building or parking um so i will not be supporting this amendment for those reasons further counselor hopkins yes um just as a follow up to the amenity space question uh if we remove it um or the opportunity for a larger amenity space what kind of amenity space would be left here mr corby or mr house through the chair they have a small kind of portion of amenity space at the back the property right behind the building um so if we remove the opportunity to make a larger outdoor amenity space that would be the remaining piece that would continue to be the outdoor amenity space counselor hopkins and how many units in this building for that space that people are going to be living i just as a reminder there’s a hundred units for the whole property answer hopkins i have a question is i think we’re getting into a dangerous situation here as we uh start setting precedence here and that’s i’m not sure if staff can answer that question but uh and i know we uh look at each application in in its entirety but have we gone and changed parking spaces on these one-off applications to accommodate the concerns because i i can just see this coming forward time and time again as we make a decision here um so i am just i don’t want to an answer to a question that i already know we look at each application but what are the challenges going forward if we do support this amendment or this change oh well let’s ask mr. Corby that through the chairs so in the case of this application we noted they are above the minimum parking requirement um so that’s why it was direction to site plan approval to consider kind of removing some of the spaces they do have wiggle room um so we’re not actually reducing the parking below what the standard is that is good to know and that’s why i will not be sorting the amendment hey i’ve got uh and i didn’t time me there counselor hopkins but i suspect you probably have a little bit of time left on the amendment if you wanted to come back to that i do have counselor layman and counselor frank both on the speaker’s list so i’ll go to counselor layman first but thank you i just want to remind committee that it’s not we’re not changing the applicants request here it’s what we’re suggesting uh from staff and i think the reason in in this particular case it’s needed is because i think we have to be aware as we go through infill the concerns of neighborhoods um just uh a short walk away is constitution park right behind um these folks uh development not far from this development here just a short little walk so there’s plenty of green space right there um i think what was expressed by the residents uh bordering this development is their concerns are valid um their parking spaces will be poached um if we are going to be successful in infill uh i think we have to do our best uh to take in concerns of surrounding area it’s not like planning a subdivision where we start from scratch where we’re putting in development uh into the middle of already existing spaces so i think it’s incumbent upon us to to take that into consideration so given that um the park is uh nearby it’s green plenty of green space nearby uh i think um not restricting the developer and their and the applicant and what they initially thought would be uh suitable for their market uh i think that’s uh something i ask everyone to consider and support uh this amendment council frank thank you yes and i think i will just share that there is the opportunity for the developer to add more parking they just have to simply do a below ground and i know that that is more expensive which is why it’s not being suggested um but as for the comments that were earlier there is more than enough space below ground for i assume actually i don’t know the taiju geological statuses underneath the building but i can assume that if the developer would like to provide more parking space they could do it below so um at this point again i’m not going to support this amendment because it’s removing uh outdoor money space and a pair transit lay by which i think are incredibly important to be making again the space a good useful enjoyable space for the 100 plus tenants that will be moving in um and if the developer would like to provide more parking below ground that is i’m sure something that site plan can discuss with them so i won’t be supporting this amendment okay i’ve no other speakers to the amendment uh if committee will indulge me i’m going to ask a question of staff uh from the presiding officer of space um mr corbian an earlier response you indicated that pair transit lay by would still have to be accommodated on site in some manner um so just to follow up on that um if this were removed the pair transit lay by would still have to be accommodated in some way shape or form um what that looks like would be a matter for staff and and the applicant to work out as the site plan details are worked out is that correct through the chair that is correct yeah and just to follow up on that then would it be um i recognize that the configuration is tight but is it something that a change in configuration might potentially and i don’t want to second guess what either staff or the developer may may seek to do to accommodate that but is it potentially something that could be accomplished through reconfiguration rather than a loss of surf surf sparking underlining the potentially there because i know that that’s through the chair there is potential that there is no loss in parking uh again that details will be worked out at site plan okay thank you for that so i i just wanted to check on that because i do think the pair transit lay by um is an important part of that discussion and so as long as that remains um i will share that i will be personally supportive of the amendment because i do agree and i did take a look and indeed constitution park um is a fairly healthy neighborhood park uh within a very short uh distance from this property and and the one thing that i’m always cognizant of with the outdoor amenity space features is that um they’re typically not utilized for recreational purposes um they’re often a spot to take the dog out for a pee in the winter or um perhaps somebody who’s a smoker goes outside for a cigarette and then comes back in um but these these amenity spaces on multi-residential units aren’t typically well used um they often um are there they look nice but um they’re not terribly functional for the residents and and the neighborhood parks tend to fill that gap much more uh strongly and i actually prefer people using the neighborhood parks because then you get to meet your neighbors a little bit more and have great conversations uh with people that you might not otherwise interact with so i will be supporting this um and i’ve got Councillor Frank up back on the speaker’s list thank you uh one more question to staff through the chair um so by not advocating for larger outdoor amenity space how many parking lot uh stalls or how many parking spaces do you think this uh will result in in providing to the space Mr. Corby through the chair if i understand your question correctly the the parking would probably remain as shown in the conceptual site when they’ll achieve what they’ve shown Councillor Frank thank you so is that like one spot two spot three spots i’m just trying to get a sense of how much you know for this effort that we’re doing how many spots we’re going to be able to provide to the residents there will be through the chair there’ll be no additional spots added but they’re adding so the parking space is right now is 27 surface parking spaces so um through if we remove that there’s going to be no real change to the site plan so it’ll remain that 27 spaces Councillor Frank sorry perhaps i’m not getting it so if we don’t do outdoor amenity spaces we’re going to have 27 spots if we do do outdoor amenity spaces we’re going to have 27 spots Mr. House if there is through the chair if there is um change to the plan with the additional amenity space so if we keep that mentioned there there will be a reduction of parking spaces most likely because that area will change and will require more but if there’s no change in that part is removed then there will be no um change to the surface parking.

Councillor Frank all right this did not prove the point i was trying to make at all but i appreciate the efforts of answering those questions thank you and i’m just going to look to see if there’s anyone else uh wishing to speak to the amendment before i ask the clerk to open the vote seeing none uh then madam clerk can you open the vote for us please closing the vote the motion carries three to two thank you colleagues and with that amendment taken care of i will return the chair to Councillor Layman for the main motion as amended thank you so we have a main motion so we have a motion on the floor that’s been amended staff report with the amendment of taking out b2 so i will put that motion on the floor for a debate seeing there’s no comments then i will call that call the vote sorry we’re i’m going to have the clerk explain what we did apparently we moved the motion as amended please go ahead clerk through the chair i put it down as you moved the staff recommendation with with b i i removed so you moved the amended staff recommendation with part b i only um i just want to make it clear um because it wasn’t unanimous and i might have misdirected because my my understanding was that we were voting on the amendment and then we wouldn’t then have a second vote on the motion as amended so um clerk can you can you confirm that that was the case because that that was my understanding through the chair i can do a new motion with just b i with the mover and seconder and then redo the staff recommendation the full staff recommendation i apologize folks i just want to make sure we’re we’re clear on here the clerk is just going to take a couple of minutes to make sure we’re doing this properly okay i think we’re here now so we we moved the motion or the amendment has passed uh now we’re back to the main motion as amended so i’m going to look for a mover of the amended motion counselor or deputy mayor lewis and a seconder i’ll second that so now we have a new motion on the floor with the staff report amended to remove b2 so i will call that vote no counselor happens yeah so this is on the main motion um with the amendment going forward can i make a comment i was absolutely sorry i apologize i want to take this opportunity no no problem again i’m going to be consistent um i’m disappointed uh to see a lot less amenity space with this in intensification of development i am not sure myself with this amendment how many more spaces parking spaces there will be that to me is still very unclear uh i do want to take this opportunity to um ask the applicant that they could do more underground parking um and we’ll would encourage them to do to look at that as they go through the process thank you any other comments or questions before i call the vote seeing none then i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 1 thank you um that concludes the scheduled items we’ll now move on to items for direction 4.1 regarding council resolution for the housing accelerator fund um if we look at page on the original agenda of 114 um council directed that following item we referred to planning environment committee for consideration that the civic administration be directed at their earliest opportunity to review and prepare a strategic assessment for council specific neighborhoods whereas right building permits for five or more residential units may be appropriate within the existing framework of neighborhood development so that’s what we have um referred to from council so i will put that on on the floor for um for committee’s uh discussion mr frank thank you yes um of course very supportive of moving forward with this but also i just want to say thank you to staff for trying to untangle this very confusing thing i feel like a bunch of us maybe are in the same boat where i’m trying to figure out like a single family home a duplex a triplex fourplex how many bedrooms can you have in each but can you add more additional residential units to each one but can you can’t you before now or after october 17th so i’ll say i want to say thank you to staff for trying to untangle this and um uh we actually were together a bit on a chart which i think people other people might find really helpful um that all being said i’m just trying to get a better understanding of um uh like a duplex versus a single family home that has an ARU and i guess some of the questions i have are about purpose built versus converting existing homes and i think that’s maybe where i’m struggling the most um so i’m just wondering if staff could answer um my questions about if a single family home is turned into an ARU can they also have another ARU outside and also then if it’s a duplex that already has two units then can that also have another unit inside just for clarity thanks thank you um i’ll go to staff for some clarification on that um excuse me so through the chair um the current um regulation that exists today in the zoning bylaw allows two additional residential units in association with any single detached semi detached or town host dwelling um there’s no restriction in terms of timing of those units or um whether it’s purpose built or um an alteration made to the building um there is a regulation right now um that also exists that permits one at one of those additional units to be within an accessory structure so um if three units are permitted um two would have to be in the main building and only one could be in an accessory structure so it wouldn’t be it wouldn’t permit um like three into three separate buildings each with a residential unit um only one could be in the accessory structure and that’s based on the the current regulations today councilor thank you and through the chair then just to follow up on that vein after the october um decisions pending council decision um so if you have a one single family home on a unit um after that point is it still you can only have one accessory dwelling or at that point did those rules change now um staff um so after the direction from council um a few weeks ago um we were directed to add one more additional unit so which would allow it to four units to be permitted on a lot so the wording of that motion was very specific to include that and to bring it to the next possible planning committee meeting um subject to planning act timelines um so that’s what we did and the earliest possible planning committee meeting was october third which only allowed um a few days really to prepare the report and and get things rolling so so that’s how we scoped um that amendment in order to comply and and meet council’s direction um i would say we are also looking at other changes to address some of the the broader issues that you identified interpretation of whether duplex or triplex would have access to additional residential units um we’re also looking at the five-bedroom limits through that review um and some other broader um issues around um low-density residential intensification so those will be addressed through a separate report which we hope to bring um in the near future as well but not possible um for the october third pet meeting but hopefully early in 2024 we’ll have that report council thank you and last question um after all the changes are made whenever that is i’m just wondering if staff are also thinking about a communication strategy to let um developers and homeowners know about this opportunity given that it’s such a great opportunity for infill and existing neighborhoods i just want to capitalize on it as much as possible after all these things are all sorted out and it’s easier to communicate and go to staff through the chair so uh we are intending to do that and it very much aligns with uh what we’re looking to do is from an affordable housing perspective and also just uh to be able to provide more housing in London so that’s actually going to be component of our housing supply action plan as well as to get people for one thing to to allow ensure that uh when these units are designed that they’re easy to get through our building process but also to ensure that um they can be that we that more maximize the number of people that know about it and are able to take on these opportunities so that is a way part of our housing supply action plan thank you also uh deputy mareless uh thank you chair and uh i’m going to take this opportunity to to start out by saying um i recognize this is coming from a communication we received from the mayor uh that came uh through as a special communication uh with the right of permission for for um that this was something to also be considered um and i’m going to share that uh at this point um i’m not going to be supportive of asking staff to take on the work to do uh an additional work to do five and and i want to talk about why for a moment um uh mrs. McNeely is probably regretting coming back to work this week um but thankfully for her uh miss oh hagan was very very helpful in responding to several inquiries that i had to send along uh just in the last week or so um and i’m going to share a couple of examples uh one was communicated to a number of of us by email uh with regard to the r2 zone and whether or not somebody with a duplex can then add an ARU and then we get into the the uh bedroom counts um and as staff have indicated that has to still be sorted out the five bedroom limit um so you could have a duplex uh that has two dwelling units which could each have up to five bedrooms for a total of ten bedrooms but you couldn’t add an ARU there unless you took away one of the bedrooms um is my understanding of of the response that i received uh earlier so whether we’re talking about a large unit with five bedrooms or a smaller unit within an ARU on the back um as counselor frank indicated there’s kind of a knot here that needs to be untangled a bit um another example uh we have a resident who’s looking to add an ARU uh in their rear yard um that was based it’s not a shipping container but it is based uh the bones of it are based on a shipping container highly modified heat and electrical are going to be in there a different roof um sliding glass patio doors windows all those things um but then the applicant was quoted a building code section uh that shipping containers were not permitted um so and these prefab units are are going to be increasingly necessary if we’re going to use ARUs as a way to reach our 47 000 um so there’s just a couple of examples of things that we really need our staff to to spend some time sorting out um to counselor frank’s point to both the need to communicate this to the public when we’re still figuring things out it’s it’s very hard to say to folks go ahead and start putting an ARU on your property um and then in the case of the shipping container one you know we’ve got a resident who’s 50 thousand dollars invested in with more to go and now is being told they can’t advance it i would like our staff focused on those problems and getting those sorted out and to counselor frank’s point a nice chart that said if this then that if that kind of a choose your own adventure chart for uh in fill on your private residential properties um but i think that there’s a lot of work to do on these existing challenges and moving forward with the right of permission for four units before we further complicate it with five units i and i’ve communicated this to the mayor he knows i’m not going to be supporting his ask for five um uh because we have a lot of work to do on this first um this is a for me uh one of those situations where it’s not never but just not now um i think we need to walk before we try to run in this case and i i think we’re stumbling even in in trying to walk um through no individuals fault just through the fact that we have a very complicated process for good reason so that building code is followed so that neighborhoods aren’t disrupted unfairly um so that people are are safe in the places that we do create for them to live uh but i think we’ve got a lot of work to do in sorting out the existing framework that we’ve asked staff to be working in before we start adding to their plate so um i i would quite honestly colleagues um prefer i’m i’m not quite comfortable suggesting this at the moment i i but i’d prefer that we actually defer this and bring it back in a year after we’ve sorted some things out and see if there’s um some some opportunity then as we’ve started to see more work done around primary transit corridors you know we look at the redevelopment of the London psychiatric hospital lands for example uh the vision soho uh shovels in the ground and building happening and and once we get those things rolling then i think we could revisit whether a right of five might be appropriate in some areas of the city but i think we’ve got awful lot of work to do right now um and i think saying we’re we’re just going to put this on the plate uh for staff to investigate it’s not only on a little bit unfair to them because they will always tell us they will do whatever we ask them to because that they’re great people that way and they try and and really respect the the will of council uh in terms of what we’re trying to do but they have a maximum bandwidth too and i think that it’s we need to acknowledge that um and maybe kick this can down the road for a future consideration but not now uh so deputy mayor are you asking for a referral here and what are you where are you going with this uh yes i i will i’m going to ask uh i’m going to move a deferral um to this item uh to be brought back uh to a planning and environment committee in a year okay so we’ve got a referral uh can i get a seconder for that i’ll second that and then we now we’ve got a referral moved and second now i’ll open the floor for questions counselor frank thank you i have a two part question one that’s just on the second part correct not the first part okay wonderful and then two so then this will just go on to our deferred matters list for future consideration um to go go staff on that question uh through the chair that would be highly desirable if it was just without that specific timeline because if we if we see this as an issue moving forward we’d want to move it forward and if it’s something that maybe can wait then that’s the proper place for it okay so we’ve got uh i’ll go adopt the mayor luis i i’m fine with withdrawing the timeline and just deferring part b uh to a future uh planning and environment committee rather than saying one year and then staff can bring it back when they feel it’s appropriate okay um counsel has uh stay already the only thing before us right now is counsel’s direction to us which is be correct so that has the motion to refer be has been made without a time specification has been um um moved and seconded so i’ll take uh further questions or comments on that motion on that referral okay seeing none uh then i’ll open the the vote on that referral closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay i have no uh deferred matters uh number five councilor hoppens wanted to ask a few questions i guess it’s too late i could save it for counsel on um around the uh a part so i’m not exactly sure i’m just trying to catch up to what’s going on i know okay with the b part but had not had an opportunity to ask questions on the a part so okay so a was passed at council so um it’s not a is not before us tonight at this committee um i’m not sure if uh the chair of council i’ll follow up with staff okay thank you um we have no uh deferred matters uh deputy mayor los actually uh chair through you we do have a deferred matter which is um uh being able to see our deferred matters list um and uh in in the last term of council it was practiced that the deferred matters list was attached to the end of every agenda um at some point that has stopped happening um i know that we uh of the current committee um has added items to the deferred matters list since the term of council started uh now i do know that the last council tried to clean up as many of the items on the deferred matters list as possible um but right now without that list at the end of each agenda uh it becomes incumbent on whatever councilor has had an item added to the deferred matters list to do the follow-up on uh so through you um i would like to ask our our city clerks um if we can get the deferred matters list just as a matter of process uh included at the end of each committee agenda uh and i’m going to make the same request at other committees but if we can get the deferred matters list restored to the committee agenda so we’re aware of the items that are outstanding that are coming back for reports in the future advised by the clerk we don’t need a motion to do that you can just request the clerk to do that okay great then i’m going to request that the clerk uh return the uh list of deferred matters uh to future uh peck meeting agendas so that we can see the items that we have uh deferred for future consideration would you like that on every agenda uh yes please i think that um i i know that a lot of items don’t change um that they may sit on the agenda for for several months but i think just that reminder on at the end of each agenda of what’s outstanding would be helpful okay great um we are now in adjournment uh the promotion to adjourn councilor hockens seconded doobly by deputy mareluis and hand vote favor the motion carries thank you folks