Open Council

1st Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

1st Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

December 4, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Call to Order

1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

1.2   Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2024

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lewis was appointed as Vice Chair to the Planning and Environment Committee by Mayoral Decision 2023-008

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Inclusionary Zoning Review Update

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (2.1) Inclusionary Zoning Review Update

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, NO FURTHER ACTION be taken with respect to the Inclusionary Zoning review;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will consider the findings of the Inclusionary Zoning feasibly analysis in related policy and program reviews to support the development of new affordable housing units, including but not limited to the review of incentive programs, policy reviews in support of the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) initiatives, and updates to the programs included in the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units; and,

it being further noted that Inclusionary Zoning is one potential tool to encourage the development of new affordable housing units; however, the financial feasibility analysis demonstrates that IZ is not a consistently viable mechanism to achieve this goal for all tenures of housing or for all market areas of the city;

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.

Motion Passed

2.2   12th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-11-16 ECAC Report 12 - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 12th Report of the Environmental Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 16, 2023:

a)  the appointment of K. Lee BE RESCINDED from the Ecological Community Advisory Committee due to lack of attendance; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Building Division Monthly Report, July 2023

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (2.3) Building Division Monthly Report - July 2023

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

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

Motion Passed

2.4   Building Division Monthly Report, August 2023

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (2.4) Building Division Monthly Report - August 2023

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

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

Motion Passed

2.5   Building Division Monthly Report, September 2023

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (2.5) Building Division Monthly Report - September 2023

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

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

Motion Passed

2.6   Building Division Monthly Report, October 2023

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (2.6) Building Division Monthly Report - October 2023

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

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

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1350 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9611)

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (3.1) 1350 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9611)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 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 Urban Reserve UR6 Special Provision (h-17h-42UR6(1)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-13(7)) Zone; Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-13()) Zone; Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-13()) Zone; Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (hh-17h-18h-100h-149R4-6(_)) Zone; and, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-17h-18h-100h-149R6-5(_)) Zone;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public participation meeting;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process; and,

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Royal Premier Homes (File No. 39T-23501),  prepared by Stantec,  Project No. 16141212, March 17th 2022, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of three (3) medium density residential blocks, twenty-eight (28) single-detached lots, one (1) reserve block and one (1) road widening blocks servicing by the extension on Southbridge Avenue and a new Neighbourhood Street (Street A);

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the Planning Fact Sheet with respect to these matters;

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

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents; and,

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form and mix of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan;

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-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

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   1680 Richmond Street (Z-9667)

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (3.2) 1680 Richmond Street (Z-9667)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd., relating to the property located at 1680 Richmond Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision RSA1(1) TO a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision RSA1(1) Zone;

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

  •    S. McGaffey; WND Associates;

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 with the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and the Transit Village Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would provide access to automobile sales boutique in a convenient and accessible location;

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-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   130 Southdale Road West (Z-9663)

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (3.3) 130 Southdale Road West (Z-9663)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Alora Homes, relating to the property located at 130 Southdale Road West, 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 December 19, 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 R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(_)) Zone;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    P. McInnes;

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 vacant residential lands within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options;

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-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   625 Mornington Avenue (1299 Oxford Street East) (Z-9589)

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (3.4) 625 Mornington Avenue (Z-9589)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Oxbury Centre Ltd., (c/o Westdell Development Co.), relating to the property located at 625 Mornington Avenue and 1299, 1303, 1307 and 1323 Oxford Street East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 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 Community Shopping Area (CSA4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-*R9-7()*H45) Zone and a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the recommendations of the Noise Study be implemented;

ii)    provide an adequately sized and centrally located outdoor amenity space, either at-grade or rooftop, or a combination of both;

iii)    details regarding garbage storage and collection be determined; and,

iv)    bird friendly design;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the special provisions to the CSA4 Zone relate to changes to existing conditions resulting from the recommended zone boundary and do not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Revised Application and Notice of Public Meeting;

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

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

  •    N. Perzia; and,

  •    M. Bartouka;

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 Transit Village Place Type and Protected Major Transit Station Area policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of an underutilized site;

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-D04)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion be amended to include a new part b) iv to read as follows:

iv)        Bird friendly design

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve the main motion, as amended

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   488-492 Pond Mills Road (Z-9625)

2023-12-04 Staff Report - (3.5) 488-492 Pond Mills Road (Z-9625)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Willow Bridge Homes Ltd., c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 488-492 Pond Mills Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 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 R1 (R1-3) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)*H15) Zone;

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

i)    the possible addition of a public pathway/easement for pedestrian access to Pond Mills Road from Glenroy Crescent:

ii)    additional landscaping to be implemented along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Glenroy Crescent and to install a privacy fence around the parking area bordering the property; and,

iii)    enhanced tree planting;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    I. Klassen;

  •    R. Evans;

  •    N. Aikenhead;

  •    B. Martin;

  •    S. Shoeb;

  •    S. Hart; and,

  •    T. Staines;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a broader range and mix of housing options within the area;

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-D04)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to remove clause b) i);

motion to amend clause b) ii) to include additional landscaping w/privacy fence to remove cut-through;

the Site Plan BE REQUESTED to explore installing a privacy fence around the parking area bordering the property;

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve the motion, as amended.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to remove clause b) i);

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by C. Rahman

motion to amend clause b) ii) to install a privacy fence around the parking area bordering the property;

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2023-12-04 PEC Deffered Matters List

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Deferred Matters List dated November 27, 2023 BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Planning and Environment Committee convene, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation;

a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 755, 765, 785, and 815 Wonderland Road at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation; and,

a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 3089 Singleton Avenue at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convened, in Closed Session, from 6:01 PM to 6:25 PM.

6.1   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:29 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 12 minutes)

[10:51] Good afternoon everyone, it’s 401. I’d like to call the first 21st meeting. Well, meeting with us. It’s the first. It’s the first meeting of the new cycle, Planning and Environment Committee. This is the last one that’s being held at this time. Next one on forward. We’ll be moving to our new time at 1 p.m. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website.

[11:25] The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwak and Haudenosaunee. 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, Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

[12:00] To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Before I call for disclosures of pecuniary interest, I will welcome Council Raman to our committee. We’ll look forward to the next year of terrific discussion debate. I’ll now call for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

[12:39] Seeing none, I’ll just remind people to keep their phones on mute. Thank you. We’ll move on to 1.2. Under the mayoral decision, 2023-008, the mayor has appointed Deputy Mayor Lewis as the Vice Chair, so I wanna thank the Deputy Mayor for taking that role on again.

[13:21] I will now move to consent items. There’s six, ask if anyone would like any pulled. Then I’ll look for a motion to move. Council Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank. Now at this time, if there are any discussions or questions, I will like to point out that 2.1 inclusionary zoning review update. We have the information in the report provided by staff. If some councilors, this has been kind of a new thing for us at PACPEC over the last number of years.

[13:58] So if there’s any further questions or desire for staff to do a brief update, the chair would be fine with that. Or else if you’re satisfied with the information, Councilor Frank. Thank you, I just have a question. And I’m okay without the presentation, although I know they do a great job. Please go ahead. I was just wondering through the chair to staff, given that we’re not gonna be doing inclusionary zoning for the reasons listed in the report. And that was perhaps one of the only opportunities that we could use to mandate affordable housing.

[14:33] If there’s been any discussion or indication between your counterparts and other cities or at the provincial level for any other planning tools that municipalities could use to actually try and secure affordable housing. Good stuff. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So, bonus thing obviously is going away, so we don’t have that anymore. So, some of the options that we have, like really, we’re focusing more on some of the carrots. So, looking at incentives, looking at the roadmap to 3000, looking at CIPs, those are really the options that we have in our fingertips.

[15:10] We could also be looking at how we structure the zoning bylaw as well to help us address some of those future issues as well. I will say, as some of the bonus zones start coming in, there was an inconsistency in how we negotiated some of those zones. We have a mix of 80%, 95%, 90%, 95%. We also have varied lengths of affordability periods as well, ranging from 15 to 50 years. So, some of the, even some of the provisions in the DC Act that allow us to look for 25 years and a period and an exemption on the DCs, those are some of the opportunities that we have as well.

[15:51] So, hopefully that kind of answers the question. We still have a lot of work to do and we’ll bring something forward in the future. Councilor. Thank you, yes, that’s what I thought. So, mostly incentive-based. All right, I appreciate that. I have no other questions about that, but I just wanted to say for the report of the ecological community advisory committee, I really like the salamander mascot. So, I think if we could have more projects that had mascots, I would remember them, Geoffrey the salamander. So, anyway, I really enjoyed that a lot. Any other comments or questions, Mitty?

[16:30] Okay, we have sent items moved and seconded, so I’ll call the vote. Close in to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to scheduled items. The first item 3.1 regarding 1351 Clif Road South. I’ll look for a motion to go in participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Roman, I’ll call the vote.

[17:17] Close in to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any questions from committee members for a technical nature for staff? I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Chair Lehman. Mike Davis here with Civic Planning and Design here today on behalf of our client, Royal Premier Developments, and I know I speak on behalf of them that they’re very pleased to be reaching this milestone with this project today.

[17:52] I’ll keep my comments short. This is a nine acre block of land in an actively developing portion of Southwest London. This plan really seeks to kind of infill what is currently a remnant gap in the area subdivision pattern. The plan itself actually centers around just minor extensions of two local streets. That’s gonna create an opportunity for a medium density housing block up along Warren Cliff and Bradley, and a lower density, a series of lower density lots south of the New South Bridge Avenue.

[18:25] The plan in general has been heavily influenced by its surroundings, it’s surrounded by actively developing lands and an existing draft plan of subdivision. So that’s really influenced the shape and design of this project. We know that with the Bradley Avenue extension coming online services being extended to the area that this is actually a project that can be executed on quickly and in a short time horizon. So I know that our clients are, this is a major priority for them. I wanna thank staff, especially Allison Kurtz for helping us navigate this process.

[19:02] In general, we are in support of all the recommendations of the staff report. Certainly, if there’s any questions, the committee happy to address those. Thanks you. Hello, I’ll go to the members of the public. Have there anyone here that would like to address the committee on this application? I’ll ask to clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay, I don’t see anyone in the gallery. So I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Fragg, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[19:35] I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Perhaps a motion. Do we get the discussion started? Councillor ramen. Councillor ramen’s moving the staff recommendation second by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions? Councillor Fragg.

[20:08] Thank you. Through the chair, I was hoping to ask a couple questions to staff and then perhaps some to the applicant. Given this is a subdivision application, I’m just wondering if the medium density items will be coming back for like a future approval or I guess I just missed the site plan and I know that this is subdivision. So I’m just trying to figure out what the next step is after this one. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the medium density blocks will come back through site plan applications for the blocks proposed for townhouses. If there’s fewer than 10 units, they won’t, but the medium density block right along Bradley Avenue and Warren Cliff Road South will come back through a future site plan application.

[20:49] Councillor? Perfect, thank you. And I guess for me, the main two questions I had was one. I noticed that there’s a shared amenity area and I think it was noted that it’s an expanded amenity area. I guess my question through the chair to staff is is that a long-term maintenance going to be the city or is that going to be owned by the people or maintained by the people who have single family homes or is it going to be maintained by people who are running the medium density block? I’ll go to staff on that.

[21:24] Through you chair, the portion of the, they’re talking about the amenity area would be tied to what would probably be a condominium application in the future. So it would be for that, for that presidential block and not a public park, Councillor? Thank you, just curious. And then the last question is clearly the site has a lot of mature, very mature trees, a lot of them. I’m just wondering if there’s any plans to compensate or save any of them. I didn’t notice that in the application, but even the stuff near, I guess, the road widening area or the stuff at the front, I’m just wondering if there’s going to be any ability to save any of the mature trees.

[22:04] What is staff? Through you chair, the portion with the single family, those trees will be removed because of grading. When they come in with the site plan application, staff will be looking to see if there could be anything preserved out of that. Again, there’ll be some grading issues, Bradley Road’s coming through, so there’ll be some great changes with that. So that may affect the ability to retain any of the trees. Councillor? Thank you, and I’ll follow up to that then. And if I could just, I know I’ve asked this before, but my memory is faulty.

[22:38] For this kind of thing, if they cut down all the trees, is there any requirement for them to replant or any cash in lieu? Staff, thank you through the chair. The tree compensation that’s identified in the plan is not enforced or any sort of regulation at this time. So that policy is suggestive at this time, but there are obviously planting requirements in the site plan control by law. It may not be as robust as the Councillor is seeking based on what’s on the site right now. Councillor?

[23:11] Thank you. And then one follow up then is, I do notice that one of the other applications today that there is like a compensation section that said like having trees are being cut down and then therefore 123 replacement trees are required, is that through a different policy or how I notice it’s the 488 Pod Mills, they’re cutting down, I think it’s 11 trees and having to plan 123. So I guess I’m confused about how that one has a replacement, the other one doesn’t. Mr. Peace, thank you through the chair. I believe the comment that’s being provided is pretty standard and it identifies just the general amount if that policy were to be enforced in effect through a regulation such as something in a site like a trombone or other.

[23:53] So at that point at this point, it’s more of an informative comment that’s being made but something similar would have been made through an application. Should that come forward for the multi-family site here? Councillor? Thank you. That exhausts my questions but perhaps more of a comment than towards the representative of the applicant. If there’s any way to save some of those trees or block or section or have some sort of replacement, I think the entire area would appreciate it ‘cause I know that the most of that area beside adjacent to it that has been developed into single family homes was also all completely removed of trees.

[24:29] So I don’t know if you could pass that along to the applicant but that would be really appreciated. Thank you, Councillor. Any other questions or comments, committee members? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 1680 Richmond Street.

[25:02] I’ll look for a motion to move. Public participation meeting, W. Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Robin, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll look to the applicant to see if the applicant would like to address committee.

[25:38] That’s a good online. Okay, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, my name is Sean McGaffey from WMD Associates and I just really wanted to register today to make sure we’re here to address any questions the committee may have of us. And also to thank staff for their prompt attention to this file and turning it around onto this committee agenda for us today. I know Cadillac Fairview is excited to look forward with this new tenant at Masonville. So with that, I’ll support the staff recommendations and be happy to address any questions you or the committee members may have.

[26:17] Thank you. Is there anyone in public that would like to address the committee? Last clerk, if there’s anyone online? Through the chair, there’s no one else online. Okay, seeing no one quickly standing up, I’ll look for a motion to leave public participation meeting. Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[26:54] Okay, I’ll look for many members who weigh in here. I have some motion to accept staff recommendation. Deputy Mayor Lewis and seconded by Councillor ramen. Any questions or comments? Councillor Preble who is joining us today, welcome. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, just a comment, Chair. And as a word, Councillor, I’m very much supportive of this application. I think it’s a great, exciting opportunity both for the applicant as well as for all the Londoners.

[27:30] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments, questions? We have a motion moved and second, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’m moving on to 3.3. This is regarding 130 Southdale Road West. I’ll look for a motion to move into public participation meeting.

[28:05] Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions from committee members for staff? Seeing none, I’ll ask the applicant is here. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Can you hear me? Loud and clear.

[28:36] Okay, so I’m from the public. My name’s Pamela McKinnis. I live at 166 Southdale Road West. Those are the condos to the West. Excuse me, ma’am, just a second, please. I’m asking right now for the applicant to speak to us. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I was a little bit confused because I saw you walking up to the mic and then I heard someone online. So we’ll go back to you that just spoke in a few minutes for your comments.

[29:12] Please ma’am, go ahead, give us your name, you have five minutes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members of committee. My name is Laura Jamison. I am a planner with Zalinga Priammo, representing our client regarding the Soning By-law Amendment application. I’d like to first and foremost thank staff for their work to date on this project as we move forward through the approval process quickly and without any delays. So we appreciate that. We are proposing a three and a half story fourplex on vacant lands within the primary transit area of the city of London.

[29:50] Vehicles will be able to safely exit onto Southdale Road, recognizing it is a busy road as a result of a turnaround area provided in the rear of the proposed development. Special provisions are requested in the Soning By-law Amendment to allow for appropriate density on a small, underutilized parcel. Landscaping features along the side and rear yards will shield this three and a half story development from the adjacent single detached dwellings limiting potential land use conflicts.

[30:27] The landscaping features will also have the effect of shielding the parking area from these adjacent properties as well. Overall, staff are recommending approval for the application and we are obviously very supportive of that. The proposed development will provide gentle density to the neighborhood and will have a positive impact on the surrounding community. Thank you very much for your time. I’m here to answer any additional questions you may have. Thank you. Now I will go to the public for any other comments.

[31:03] I believe someone was online clerk. If she could, this will be her time. If she would like to speak. Hey, I’m gonna speak. Okay, great. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Go ahead. Sorry. Yeah, Pamela McKenna’s. I live at 166 Southdale Road West. Now, before I begin, it’s not, it is a safety concern because right now, living at 166, 161 units, we cannot get in and out very successfully with our complex.

[31:41] So with that other, with the representative for the developer saying it’s safety, no. I disagree wholeheartedly and I know records will reflect that. I also like to point out that I think this is very suspicious. This land is only one tenth of an acre. I believe by putting a three and a half story building is going to change the aesthetics of the neighborhood because there is no other buildings all around. There are only single story or two-story buildings and as well as nowhere along Southdale Road from pine mills to west, so born, is there a four-plex building that is almost this height of almost four stories tall.

[32:30] I think it would be an eyesore. It doesn’t fit in with the existing one story to the east and two-story condo town homes to the west. It will obscure the view of the forest to the south and provide no privacy to immediate homes to the north, east and west. Also, I’m suspicious because last year, the city vetoed the three garage plan to accommodate five vehicles to a two garage home last year. I suspect the developer is just trying to accommodate five vehicles for one family because looking at the drawings, there’s nowhere that’s indicated that there’s any exit like four separate entrances.

[33:13] Is this gonna be a condo or is this a one-family dwelling that’s gonna be a monster of a home but calling it a four-plex? I have that question. Can someone answer that? I’ll take the questions through this time and then when we’re finished the public participation meeting, I’ll be asking staff those questions. So please continue. I just, well, again, I’ve already said what I’ve had to say.

[33:49] I just think it’s very suspicious. I don’t believe it’s gonna be four families living in this dwelling. I think it’s one family and they’re trying to accommodate the five vehicles that they had in their last year’s plan and the city vetoed that from a three-car garage to a two-car garage. I think the developer and the owner are circumventing this and going around the rezony application to get what they want to serve this developer and owner of that land.

[34:24] That concludes my session. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to address the committee? Is there anyone in the gallery? I’ll ask Clerk if there’s someone else online? Through the chair, there’s no one else online. Okay, thank you. I was seeing no one in the gallery and no one online and I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councilor Raman, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[35:00] I think I’m going to go to staff. A couple of questions were raised by the public. One regarding safety concerns. Currently it’s concerns that right now there’s trouble getting in and out. I assume I’m too south ill, but the staff have comments regarding traffic concerns with this additional development. Hi, through the chair, this is Brent Lambert from Development Engineering. Our transportation division didn’t raise any concerns about the traffic for this particular site.

[35:36] There’s going to be four parking spaces. So the number of traffic movements associated with this development didn’t justify any restricted access or a traffic impact assessment. So we have no issues from a city perspective. Thank you. Thank you. And I got a, it was an interesting question. Is this a get around? You know, there was, I guess apparently this property came looking for additional parking and was unsuccessful. No, we’re looking at fourplex with five parking spots.

[36:12] I’m not too sure how to phrase this question. I, it’s a little, it’s a little, I’m a little cautious here to be honest with you. However, just wondering if staff can comment where they feel comfortable, you know, and the possibility of someone looking to skirt bylaws by going this direction. Through the chair, so to clarify, the site is zoned for single detached dwellings right now. They could build a large single detached dwelling today if they chose.

[36:47] The variance, I can’t remember how long ago it was, was for the garage width. So your garage width has to be 50% of your building facade. Like they mentioned, it was a three car garage, it was quite wide. And we were recommended refusal, which was supported by committee of adjustment for the garage width. It wasn’t for the size of the dwelling. So this rezoning simply allows them to have the four plex in terms of the belt form. They could do that under their current zoning for that single detached dwelling, or they could do it under the new zoning. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, those are the two questions from a public participation meeting.

[37:25] So I’ll put this on the floor now for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll move to staff recommendation. Thank you. Councilor Roman. Second. Thank you. Comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’ll just follow up perhaps in a slightly different way with the previous question. So through you to staff, before building permits would be signed off at the end as this dwelling is constructed, because it’s intended to be a four plex.

[38:05] Would staff also be requiring the property owner to enter into a rental unit license agreement, a residential rental unit license agreement prior to finalizing any sign offs, because it is fewer than five units. So our residential licensing would kick in on that. So would there be a requirement there? Go to staff. Through the chair, yes, there would be a requirement. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So I just, I wanted to ask it that way, because I think that’s important for the member of the public who was asking, because it’s being applied for a four plex.

[38:45] When this site plan is done and construction happens, they would have to get a rental unit license before the site could be occupied. So as our staff mentioned, they could do a single family home already. It wasn’t the single family home that was refused. It was the garage width. But because they’re coming forward with a four plex now, they would have to get the rental licensing before they could actually occupy the building. Thank you. Councilor Hellman. Thank you and through you. So I wanted to just mention that I did hear the individual that spoke online about the traffic concerns.

[39:23] Knowing a little bit about the area, I understand those concerns and where that building is situated and oriented. But I do not see from what we have in the report that this increases the traffic flow in a big way anyway. So I think that that’s okay. But I do recognize that concern and think it’s important that the resident know that there are other avenues to share and express those concerns, ‘cause I think that’s also important to send them to you. Other board councilor to provide that feedback. I wanted to comment on the form with this proposal.

[39:58] So I did note that there was some direction around orientation of the building so that it better aligns and sits. I think that that makes a lot of sense in terms of what we’re looking at for this building. And I do like the fact that we are looking at some additional tree planting and some additional buffering, ‘cause I do think that would be helpful as well. Just on the form piece, do we see that the resident commented that this isn’t keeping with the other form in the area? But I’m wondering if we might want to also address the fact that this is probably something we may see more of coming forward.

[40:41] And so I think that’s important also to note so that people understand that, yes, potentially this wasn’t what we were seeing, but we may be seeing more of this coming forward based on some provincial legislation. So I think that, not sure if Steph want to comment on that, but I’ll go to Steph for your feedback on that. Through the chair, so that’s maybe something that we can talk about. So along that section of Southdale, it’s a higher order road.

[41:13] You will see more intensification, like in the future, there are permissions for low rise apartments. I believe up to six stories is the upper limit. So in these sections of land gets consolidated, we will see more intensification along these corridors. If individual lots come in, you might see more of four plexes of that nature. So yeah, I think it’s a fair statement to make that. This will be more common in the area. Councilor, any other comments or questions? It’s a committee would allow me just to follow up on that.

[41:49] Yeah, I agree with Councilor Robbins, kind of where she was going with that as we do more in fill. You know, it’s 3.5, could go up to six. There is a look to the build along, you know, the higher priority arterial road there. But let’s not forget the folks that live right behind it, that are in the neighborhood. There’s a look to them as well. So I encourage staff to keep that in mind when they’re reviewing design, because there’s folks that live, or not just not driving by, or even living across the street.

[42:29] It’s the folks that live in the neighborhood behind it, all of a sudden they’re seeing a change in their backyards. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you.

[43:01] Moving on to 3.4, regarding 625, Mornington Ave. I’ll look for a motion to move into our public participation meeting. Councilor Robbins, second by Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Questions of a technical nature for staff by committee members at this time. I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address.

[43:34] I see her up there. Hello, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and PEC members. My name is Simona Rassenu. I’m a planner with Strick Baldnilly Moniz and the current agent for this application. Before I go further, I would like to take a moment to note the recent unexpected passing of my former colleague, Manish Porter, who also worked for the applicant on this project, which is the Westdale Development Corp.

[44:07] Manish was a kind and warm person who went above and beyond for his clients and was well regarded by his co-workers. On behalf of my company SBM and Westdale Development Corporation, we would like to extend our condolences to his family and friends. Thank you. And now I’ll go on to the remote site. Can I ask you just to bend your mic down just a little bit so we can hear you down here a bit, Hunter? Thank you. Thank you. So the proposed application before you today would permit the replacement of the existing underutilized parking garage at 625 Mornington, which is located at the southwest corner of the larger Oxbury Center site with a 15 story, 177 dwelling unit building fronting Mornington Avenue.

[44:58] That includes a total of 140 vehicle parking spaces and 184 bicycle parking spaces. A portion of the existing to level parking garage is proposed to be incorporated into the development. The proposal before you today is a revised submission that incorporates site and building design changes in response to staff comments regarding the intensity and a form of the original proposal. The intent of the development proposal is to implement the policies of the transit village place type envisioned by the London Plan by replacing an existing underutilized parking garage with residential uses in a contemporary high-rise building to complement the existing commercial retail, including grocery store uses associated with the existing Oxbury Center.

[45:50] Future residents would be able to take advantage of the existing and future amenities available just around the corner at Oxbury Center while being able to quickly access the rest of London using the planned transit station of the Highbury Avenue North Oxford Street intersection, which is approximately 300 meters from the development site. And this planned transit station is in association with the East London Link bus rapid transit project currently under construction. The applicant and I would like to thank city staff for their support, including the draft site-specific zoning by-law amendment, and hope that you will support the proposed development as well.

[46:34] I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, and our condolences to your colleague and to his friends and family as well. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for people from the public that would like to address the committee on this item. Is there anyone online? Through the chair, there’s no one online. Is there anyone up in the gallery would like to speak?

[47:10] Please go to the mic. Thank you, ma’am. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. I am Noemi Persia. I live on Mornington Avenue, 636. I know the development is going to happen or proposal. I am very concerned about the traffic in that area. I live just in front of Oxford Mall, and I see the exit coming from the cars. It’s very difficult to cross even the sidewalk, continue the sidewalk.

[47:46] I do so many times. It’s very difficult because the amount of traffic that has Oxford Mall. And I imagine now what will happen with this 128 story building, and when 187 families coming and living there, how can they do the even the sidewalk is difficult, the road is difficult, the cars that cannot turn to the right, they cannot turn to the left at the five o’clock p.m. Somebody go, I invite them, somebody go and see there, takes at least 15, 20 minutes for me to leave the driveway.

[48:25] So I am concerned about the sidewalk, the traffic in there and the proximity of the building to the road. The Mornington Road, Mornington Avenue is that part, that block is very narrow. And they use it for the police, and the fact department and the ambulance has a quickly road to go to downtown, it’s a shortcut. But with all this congestion that is going to be with this 187 family or unit, maybe they need 400 parking lots.

[49:02] That’s my estimated. So that’s my concerns about this part. There are more concerns, but that I am talking about this situation, about the traffic. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to address the committee, please go to the mic. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Maria Bartuca, I come here for my husband.

[49:41] And Mornington Avenue, I don’t think that’s the road right to make this big building in there. Because that’s only a few houses over there, and they’re building much over there. If they want to make a building, they can turn down for the basic and make a building to the address to help for my idea. Thank you very much. For everybody. Thank you. Thank you. For anyone else in the gallery that would like to address the committee, please go to the microphone.

[50:18] I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone else online, just one more time. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay, I’ll look for a motion to come out of the public participation meeting. Councilor ramen, seconded by Councilor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Opposed and the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’m gonna go to staff on the question of traffic concerns. Mornington being rather narrow road, we heard.

[50:55] Rather large number of vehicles that will be coming in and out of this development. Concern is that it will affect people trying to get to their homes on that street, especially at rush hour, we heard. So I just like to go to staff to kind of address those concerns. Yeah, through the chair, Brent Lambert here again. There was a TIA submitted as part of this zoning application. And the conclusion of it was that the existing road network had capacity for this development here.

[51:35] It’s going to generate an additional 40 vehicle trips from the site, which is not significant in nature. And then on top of that with the addition of the bus rapid transit in this area being a transit area, we’re anticipating that in the future, the number of vehicles will decrease in the area. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll now put the item on the floor for committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll move the staff recommendation.

[52:12] And then after there’s a second, I’ll speak to it briefly. Okay. Now I’ll go from seconder Council Raman. If I motion moved and seconded, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor. Thank you chair. And through you, first of all, I have to both concur and at the same time disagree slightly with staff. I concur that the vehicle volume that’ll be generated, the existing road capacity is there. I’m less convinced the bus rapid transit is going to decrease car trips.

[52:45] It may slowly increase of car trips though, or at least plateau it. But I don’t think we’re going to see that number drop significantly anytime soon. However, this is in a primary transit area. This is a good redevelopment of an underutilized facility. In fact, if colleagues took a look at the map, this parking structure currently is right behind the London Middlesex community housing offices. So I’m there a couple times a month for board and committee meetings.

[53:20] And I’m quite familiar with the traffic patterns, the majority of which are heading out onto Oxford Street. Yes, Mornington does provide a connector through the neighborhood, which also exits out at the other end on Quebec Street. But primarily the traffic is leaving the neighborhood, other than those residents who are coming into head home. And this is very close to the corner. I suspect that given the use of commercial amenities, essentially on site, including grocery, restaurants, it’s going to be a very livable area where you won’t have to have a car to meet your basic needs, because you are going to have all of those services either right there or within a very short walk.

[54:08] I appreciate the comments in the staff report about working with the applicant to provide some adequate amenity space. Mornington Park is just down the road, although admittedly, if you’re walking a dog in January, that might be a little further than you want to go. So you might want that amenity space on site. But I suspect that a lot of, if we see families moving into some of these units, a lot of the kids will go down to the park to play there. But all in all, this is a good redevelopment of a site. In fact, the current parking structure is actually sometimes an attractor for negative behavior in the neighborhood.

[54:50] And so replacing that with something that’s going to provide residences, I think is really, really good. And I will just, I’ll wrap up by saying, I’ll take Mr. Lambert’s hope that traffic reduces as a good New Year’s or a good Christmas wish. I’m not sure if it’ll come true or not, but we will see as things develop out. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor Frank. Thank you. Question through you to staff. I noticed in some of the comments, there was concerns about birds flying into windows.

[55:24] And I’m just wondering, I’ve seen in the past, I know staff have added to some of the site plan comments the bird friendly consideration. I’m just wondering if this is a candidate for that, given the concerns of the neighborhood for bird collisions. I’ll go to staff through the chair. So the bird friendly design wasn’t considered through this application. If you would like, it could be a direction to the site plan approval authority.

[56:00] Councilor. Thank you guys. Then I would like to add an amendment similar to some of the past for consideration at site plan, bird friendly design, given the concerns from the residents in the area. I did send a verbiage to the clerk. I think it’d have to be an amendment given that there’s already a motion on the floor. I’ll look for a seconder, Councilor Raman. All right. So the amendment, if you refresh your screens, is there any discussion on the amendment?

[56:53] Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded. Our amendment moved and seconded on the motion. So I will call the vote. Housing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, now I’ll have to get the mover to move the motion as amendment.

[57:27] Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Raman. So we’re on the side there. So now we’re back to the main motion as amended. Any further discussion on that? Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So I heard from the residents in the neighborhood, their concerns around being able to access entry to their homes and to be able to cross what is already a busy road. I’m just wondering if we might be able to speak to how the form addresses that because it looks like we’re saying the entrance is on Mornington.

[58:00] So is the traffic then expected to be to or the parking or whatever towards the back of the building and therefore from Oxford more than from Mornington? I’ll go to staff regarding exit from the oversight. Through the chair, access to the parking garage is off of Mornington Avenue. So I know in page 165 it talks about the underground parking is not proposed in the revised submission. The ground floor plan drawing a reference to a new parking deck, but it would still be within the same vicinity and therefore would be entering off of Mornington.

[58:41] I’ll go to staff. So through the chair, it’s my understanding that the parking garage that’s internal to the building itself is accessed off of Mornington Avenue. The parking deck that’s existing also has access off of Mornington further north on the site, but I believe can also be accessed from the broader site from other accesses off of, I believe, both hybrid and Oxford.

[59:19] Not sure. Okay, so if the neighbors or the residents in the neighborhood are concerned about that access point being oversaturated because of the development and having difficulty coming in and out of their properties because of it, is there anything that will be considered during site plan to address any of those or mitigate any of that potential occurrence if that’s an issue? And I can vaguely see from the address and maybe we can ask again for the resident, she did say her the number address in terms of being directly across if that is a concern at all.

[1:00:02] Through the chair, as Mr. Lambert mentioned, we do have an accepted TIA that was submitted as part of this application, which demonstrated that there would be negligible impacts as a result of this development. So as such, there weren’t any recommendations for any mitigation measures because it wasn’t determined that mitigation measures were required. So there’s not really much more that can be done at the site plan stage. I was wondering if staff could just tell us what a TIA is. My apologies, traffic impact assessment.

[1:00:36] Councillor. Thank you, I’ll leave it there. I guess my only question or thought further to that is around making this more to pedestrian-friendly on Mornington Ave so that there’s better access. And I don’t know what’s being considered or looked at, whether or not there’s enough pedestrian access and crossovers to get people safely across the road. But I do know that there’s a lot of seniors in the area as well that are trying to access the businesses in that plaza. Go to staff, any comment on that?

[1:01:10] Or if there wasn’t a question there, it was just kind of a request or bringing to your attention. You’re in, go ahead. Through the chair, if I’m understanding correctly, I believe the Councillor’s asking if there’s opportunity for a pedestrian crossing from the west side of Mornington to the mall site.

[1:01:48] That’s something that is outside of the scope of this application. Councillor, you’re good. Go to the deputy mayor. Thank you. As I said, I’m familiar with the site ‘cause I’m there a few times a month. Oxford and Mornington is already a signalized intersection with pedestrian crossover, pedestrian buttons available. This is only a couple of hundred meters from that. So that’s where the pedestrians really should be crossing is at the signalized intersection. Midblock a PXO would be challenging to say the least.

[1:02:25] You’ve also got a fairly significant curve down on Mornington. And so visibility sightlines for a PXO would be limited as well. So just something to share as a consideration, it’s less distance to the signalized intersection than it would be between London transit stops, which are typically at least 300 meters apart. So it’s actually a fairly short distance to the signalized crossing. Thank you. Any other comments from committee members? Committee will allow me.

[1:02:59] This is, I understand this does impact the neighborhood. However, consideration was done in height here. Originally was higher and come down to the lower end with the London Plan as a London Plan calls for a transition into the neighborhood. This is on the East Link of BRT. We were told when we were discussing rapid transit that that would lead to developments of this nature along the corridor, along the transit links.

[1:03:39] And so I’m really happy to see this happening. This is going to be an important transit node with the hospital lands across the street. It’s happy to see the biking facilities included, Council Frank, because hopefully there will be, again, to mitigate some of the car traffic for those that are getting downtown as a ways to easily throw your bike on BRT and travel downtown and then get on your bike to do your business down there wherever you happen to be going along transit.

[1:04:18] So I hope to see more of these along the transit routes, especially Wellington Gateway, now that that’s underway. I’m hoping to see the height and state builds, quite frankly, go to that area that was forecasted when the London Plan and rapid transit ideas were conceived. So I will be supporting this development, thank you. So if there are no other further comments or questions, we have motion moved and seconded.

[1:04:53] As amended, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.5 regarding 488 to 492 Pond Mills Road. I’ll look for motion to open the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Ramana, call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:05:34] Thank you, any technical questions this time? Councilor Hillier. Yes, and thank you. I am quite familiar with this property and I lived a few blocks in it for over 25 years. And I have a few questions. First one regarding the snow removal for the two bordering properties. It appears to be looking at the parking structure. Just curious where the parking setup, where will the snow removal be going? And second is regarding the recommendation and part B, the possible addition of a public pathway easement for pedestrian access from Pond Mills to Glenroy.

[1:06:17] Now, if you know the back of this property, it has a fence line that the neighborhood has been fighting for years to keep close. I went by there again today. It’s been changed shut again because the neighborhood is very tired of the cut-through that’s been coming through there because they bought a house on Glenroy Crescent because it was quiet. This proposal is just adding access to Glenroy so parking could be there. So I’m wondering how much additional parking has been provided at this complex already.

[1:06:56] Okay, I’ll go to staff. Yep, Councilor, there’s two questions I heard there. One regarding snow removal and the other regarding additional parking. So I’ll go to staff on those questions through the chairs. So in terms of snow removal, it would be pushed to the end of the dry vials and maintained onsite in the landscaped areas on the edges. And so I could you repeat the second question for me? Councilor Hillier, could you repeat your question regarding additional parking? How much additional parking is there for visitors on top of the 43 being provided?

[1:07:34] It’s a question regarding visitor parking on top of the 43 being mentioned in the report. I’ll go to staff on that through the chair. So as per the bylaw, it’s 0.5 space per unit is required. So 39 spaces, you need 20 parking spaces for the development and I believe they’re proposing 44. So technically you could say there’s an extra 24 for visitor parking, Councilor. Technically. Okay, thank you. Any other technical questions for staff this time?

[1:08:11] Then I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, once again, Chair and members of the committee. I am Laura Jamison, a planner with Linka Priemmo here on behalf of our client, Willow Bridge Holmes, who is the developer of these lands. As you are aware, we are proposing a four story apartment building with 39 residential units.

[1:08:45] We are proposing 43 parking spaces, five of which will be dedicated to visitor parking. And there will also be, I believe, three accessible spaces included in the 44 that are required. Throughout the consultation process, city staff and members of the public provided feedback on the proposed development. Many changes have been made to address these concerns. Three meter setbacks from all property boundaries were incorporated to provide appropriate buffering from adjacent properties and to allow space for enhanced landscaping features, which were major concerns from the public.

[1:09:25] The building is also set back from a low pressure and bridge gas pipeline, which crosses the subject lands. Good urban design policies, including placing the building close to the street, parking in the side and rear yards where it’s screened from public view, and a common amenity area also provided in the rear have been incorporated. The height and massing fit within the context of the existing neighborhood. Residents have raised traffic and parking concerns.

[1:09:57] However, city staff did not require a traffic assessment with this proposal. The site is parked at a rate of just less than one space per unit, not including, as mentioned, the visitor and accessible parking spaces. Planning staff have recommended that the site plan approval authority be directed to request a pedestrian connection. However, our client has concerns with this request. For context, a gated pedestrian connection from Glenroy Crescent was provided historically for access to a commercial use on the subject lands.

[1:10:34] The subject lands are currently vacant and no commercial component is provided as part of this proposed development. That being said, there are concerns, there are safety concerns for residents of the proposed apartment building as it would cross the rear parking area, and there are trespassing concerns as well that our client recognizes as problematic. Furthermore, due to the constraints of the subject lands and the desire for robust landscaping along the property boundaries, a pedestrian connection cannot be required in addition to those.

[1:11:17] Overall, the proposed development fits, again, within the context of the surrounding neighborhood and is permitted within the London plan. We have heard and addressed comments from city staff and the public, and I’m here to answer any additional questions that members of the committee may have as well. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jameson. I’ll open up down to the public. If there’s someone from the public that would like to address the committee, please go to the microphone.

[1:11:53] Please give us your name, ma’am, and you have five minutes. Okay, my name is Irene Klossen. I live on 15 Millridge Road, which is just down the street off upon Mills. From my backyard, I can see the trees on this property, so my concern is that I would now be able to see the building from this property. When I bought the house six years ago, I value my privacy. I like looking at green trees and blue sky. I don’t want to feel like I’m downtown. This neck of the woods is, it might be a main street, but it’s only two-way traffic.

[1:12:28] The bus does go down there. So it’s kind of like the end of London, so it’s not a main arteries, what I’m trying to say. My concerns with this building are height. There is nothing in the vicinity that is close to that height, and just because it can be permitted does not mean it’s a beneficial look. A building is very permanent. The existing lot has, right now, it has trees all along the perimeter, which is a beautiful buffer if they left them.

[1:13:03] I’m not sure that they will, because I looked at the landscaping thing and it recommended that most everything be cut down, thanks to parking, which I have another issue with. Putting parking in the backyard is like putting traffic in someone’s backyard. So the neighbors, the existing neighbors, they would now have noise traffic, plus possible light pollution from lights for security. So I think it would be smarter to move the parking lot to the front of the property, where the road is, where the lights are, where the noise is, in consideration of the existing neighborhood.

[1:13:40] And speaking of the trees, I love trees. I have many on my property that I had to plant, and I know how long they take to grow. So it doesn’t make sense to cut down existing trees and plant new trees just because they don’t suit the builder. I feel like we should, as a forest city, we should be asking the construction people to plan around trees, especially if they’re not right or where the building is supposed to be. So that’s moving to things. The other thing is the property has a slope to it. So the street side is much higher than the back end, and I’m wondering what they’re going to do in regards to that.

[1:14:18] Are they going to sink the building somewhat so that you have kind of a walkout basement, so to speak, with maybe more apartments on the backside that can walk out and not on the front? And in regards to the height, going back to that, I’d prefer it if mature trees could actually hide this building from my backyard, and probably the neighbors would appreciate that, too. No one’s complaining about the trees, as far as I know from the neighbors. They just need a trim where they’re leaning maybe too much or deadfall or whatever.

[1:14:53] It hasn’t been maintained in a couple of years, so it needs some TLC. Is that my time? You have two minutes. Okay, oh, good. So parking, right, by moving the parking to the front of the property A, they probably can save on parking, like the cost of parking with asphalt. If security is a concern, there’s other townhomes down the road that have parking next to the street. They have fencing, you can landscape, you can make it pretty.

[1:15:26] I personally, as a pedestrian, wouldn’t want to walk past a building that is three meters away from the sidewalk and feel like I was being watched, or that I could see what people were doing on their porch or on their things. I feel like this is not downtown and we don’t need to have, I don’t know what they called it as something, a face. I’m like, I don’t want a wall face. I want to see some greenery before I see a building. And I think that might be it. Thank you.

[1:15:57] Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to address committee? Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Am I on? Yep, we can area. My name is Ross Abbott, so I live on Miller’s Road. And my initial concern here was the parking. Statistics Canada says that in 2019, the average household in Canada had 1.57 passenger vehicles. That equates on 39 to 61 plus visitor parking.

[1:16:38] I had no idea how many parking spots there were from the literature that we got. And 44 is a lot better than what I thought we were getting when you count the spaces on the picture. Also, the renderings are a little bit misleading, I think the sidewalk, if that’s the existing sidewalk, there are no boulevard trees, but there are three young maple trees that were just planted this year that are back about 42 inches, about three foot six from the edge of the sidewalk.

[1:17:18] And we’ve got all this other stuff on the pictures here, I think they’re a little misleading. I don’t really have a problem with the height of the building, but I do really have an issue with the problem. We already have from one of the townhouse units there, the odd person who has more vehicles, I guess, than what they’re allowed as they are, over parking in front of our places, and I would just as soon avoid that if we could. Thank you.

[1:17:53] Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yep, my name’s Nick Aikenit. I live at three Millridge Road, so I’m directly across the street from this building. Currently I do have some nice eight foot high fences, but I can see the sign for this right over my fence. I’m now gonna have apparently a four story building looking into my backyard, which isn’t too nice. I just moved into the place about two and a half years ago. I am a stargazer, so I like bringing my telescope out in the backyard, and now I’m gonna be having some of my skylight blocked, as well as more light pollution as well.

[1:18:34] I already have all the city lights coming to my backyard, coming into my bedroom window. Now I’m gonna have all these lights from this building, also coming into my backyard. Slowly create a nice little backyard to be able to host some families and friends here in the summer, and I really don’t feel a four story building is the right fit for this neighborhood. Also a little concern about access to the building and the road currently on the road. Like I mentioned before, it is only one way, both ways. And there’s turning lanes to get onto our few of these streets.

[1:19:09] So I’m really not sure how they’re gonna be getting into this building with the current layout of the road. I think it’s already a congested area. There’s corners, blind corners. I’ve already had two accidents outside of my house on pond mills because of the turn lane. So I think the added traffic is probably not a good idea. I think two months ago, there was a car that hit a city bus just right outside of the bus stop there. So a few safety concerns there. Thanks. Okay, thank you.

[1:19:43] For anyone else from the public that would like to address the committee, please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Braden Martin. I actually live on the bordering property to this proposed project. And I actually have a few concerns that I would kind of like to raise. One, I know that the property boundaries have been pushed out towards, I guess the outer limits of the acreage that’s available. I guess my concern is given that is this going to encroach upon the existing properties?

[1:20:21] I mean, how close is this going to bring the parking lot slash building to these neighboring properties? And I guess on a note of that, given the fence line, I’m curious to know what sort of fence or what sort of, I guess, proposals or ideas there are around the fence. I know I would be directly bordering the parking lot and I’m concerned about safety, noise, light pollution, things like that of, you know, possibility of vehicles entering my backyard.

[1:20:59] Should there be an errand, you know, vehicle within the parking lot, what sort of provisions are there in place to protect? My property line as well as the other ones adjacent to the parking lot. I know some other people have mentioned things regarding the tree line. I would prefer to have the tree line there. However, given the state of this, I guess property that’s existing now, it hasn’t been touched in several years. Many people that drive past it can attest to the fact that it’s overgrown. The tree branches often fall into my backyard and I have to dispose of them.

[1:21:33] The trees are rotting out. They are as much as I would like the trees there. They are a bit of a danger. They have fallen on my fence. They have damaged my fence in the past. Another point would be, again, the height and size. It is a lot better than a, you know, 18-story walk up, but I think a lot of other people have mentioned that there really is nothing like this around. It would be directly looking into my backyard. It blocks the sunset. It blocks a lot of things that are visible from my backyard and, again, regarding privacy, regarding safety, regarding things like that.

[1:22:12] I’d kind of like to know what provisions are in place to have people from looking in my backyard if I’m having a campfire or dinner with friends or such nature as I am literally butting up against this property. Another point I wrote down was, I mean, anybody that drives down Pond Mills knows that there is a high degree of speeding on that street. Somebody mentioned that it’s a blind corner. People often go way too fast on that street. I don’t know what the, I guess, resolution to that is or what, I guess, my question is but it’s just a concern of mine that adding traffic to an already dangerous section of Pond Mills Road is concerning for somebody who drives up and down it constantly.

[1:22:58] Somebody who walks down the street, somebody who walks dogs. You know, I just have concerns about the safety of increasing volume of traffic. I think that’s all I had. Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public that would like to address the committee? I know I spoke before but I just wanted to maybe use up my last minute. I have a question actually regarding the zoning. I looked in table, trying to understand zoning is interesting.

[1:23:35] So I looked up table 13.3, which is residential R9 zone, which is what I do believe they are requesting. And I noticed that the rear yard depth, the interior side depth, that there are minimums and according to my calculations, it was more like 12 meters. That was required based on the height of the building. So I would like that checked to make sure that we’re not just making up new zones. I don’t know. Oh, sorry, because it abuts, it has to do with, I’ll just read the part.

[1:24:11] Six meters plus one meter per one meter in height for all portions of a building above six meters in height where the residential R9 zone abuts land zoned, residential R1 or residential R2, which it does. It’s actually existing residential R1 right now. So it’s a big jump in zoning. Thank you. Anyone else from the public like just address committee ask clerk if there’s anyone online? Hi there. Can you hear me?

[1:24:43] Yes, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, thank you for the opportunity to let me talk. My name is Sheikh and I live in the adjacent property, 900 on view road. The new property proposed property is right behind the fence line of this community. The first question I have is right now, the existing zoning, which was already mentioned that it is R1, which is a single family housing. And the proposed zoning by the client is R9, which is 100 units per hectare kind of a zoning.

[1:25:19] And there’s nothing in the vicinity, which is as dense. They’re aiming for a four story high. And the highest, I believe in the neighborhood is three stories, which is probably my community, but it’s a shorter story each. It’s not the full 10 or 11 feet of story height. So this would probably stand out as an abomination. Number one, R1 to R9, it should probably be promoted to R3 at the max, my opinion again. That’s number one concern.

[1:25:54] Number two, density, 39 units in a lot this small. It will just lead to massive amounts of vehicular traffic on a single lane road, which already is extremely busy. It’s quite dangerous trying to merge into, from my community getting out upon Mills itself. And imagine another 43 cars added right beside my community. It’s going to be in nightmare. And practically speaking, 1.5 per unit should be the parking. It should be a lot of practically speaking, not going by the book.

[1:26:31] 0.5 London being transit, not being the best. I believe it’s fair to assume that people might actually go for more than one car. So you’re talking about too many cars, honestly, in this single lane, the link cannot be expanded. There is no scope for development or adding more lanes. So this is extremely impractical. The next one on my list would be parking is proposed on the rear. From any urban design sense, it would be better to have the parking in the front. So the building is further in the back. It’s hard as imposing.

[1:27:04] That’s, I mean, that should be done at the minimum. The building, the aesthetics of the building is something else I want to go on. Trees chopping down, mature trees and maybe replacing them with three or four saplings is not the same as one mature tree. So this is something to be considered. It’s a very open lot now with lakes right across, very close by. So that’s going to impact the local ecology. I don’t know how to convince the client that maybe the density should be lower than what they’re looking for.

[1:27:40] This being a complete neighborhood of single family houses majority, majorly, I think that’s my pre to them. We think about this rather than doing an abomination in the middle of a neighborhood. Thank you. That’s it for me. Thank you. Is there anyone else online to ask, Kirk? Shannon. Shannon, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, can you hear me? We can hear you. My name is Shannon Hart. And I’m the owner of condo unit 38 at 900 Pawnview Road.

[1:28:14] So I’m here for myself. But I’m also here for the 85 units within the Millers Cove condo community. We’re concerned about the development, as you’ve heard from many other people and other neighbors. While we understand that infill development is important, we think it’s also very important to consider the needs of existing homeowners and residents. We’re concerned that the proposed development will dramatically impact water diversion, parking, and safety. The crux of this concern is in regard to the size of the development and the simple fact that the existing lot is of insufficient size to accommodate 39 units, parking, and green space.

[1:28:51] This development is located within the Dingman Creek sub watershed. It was stated in the planning report that concerns related to stormwater, geotechnical, and hydrological concerns will be addressed in the appropriate design phase. But we would like to see this information available to the public and addressed immediately as it directly impacts our property. Permitting a reduction in zoning requirements for step back on all four sides will result in significant reductions in available green space, which allow for adequate drainage and snow melt. In addition of the 27 mature trees currently located on the property, 24 of which are currently slated for removal.

[1:29:30] Not only will this impact water recirculation and drainage, we’ll also have a significant negative impact on soil erosion and stability, as well as the newly installed border fence that we just put up. The property in question exists on a grade that will channel water directly onto adjoining properties, including our condo core, which is particularly susceptible to flooding. While we’ve employed strategies to help mitigate this issue, regrettably, we remain at high risk of flooding and foundation leaks during periods of heavy rainfall and snow melt. These issues will only be compounded if the water from the plan development is channeled onto our property, resulting in costly property damage.

[1:30:09] Parking, as you have heard, is a contentious issue. The proposed development is planned to provide a total of 43 parking spaces. That is what is stated on the plan, two of which are designated as accessible. So if every unit is allocated a single parking space, which seems only reasonable, there is only two remaining actual visitor parking spaces. This is obviously insufficient. As there’s no street parking on Palm Mills Road, I can perceive one of two potential consequences. The first is that visitors will take advantage of the closest available parking, which is located within our condo core.

[1:30:46] This will result not only in decreased parking for ourselves, as well as increased costs associated with security, monitoring, and ticketing. The second potential consequence will be the increase in drop-off and pulled-over traffic on the side of Palm Mills Road. The road is busy, windy, people speed, it’s dangerous, and it’s very close to a blind corner. Having additional vehicles on the side of the road will be a hazard to motorists and pedestrians with a high potential risk of accident or fatality. 50 is of paramount concern to all the residents of the area.

[1:31:21] The proposed plan is to locate the apartment lane lane along the southern edge of the property, which directly abuts our property line. Well, the proposal document states the lane is 30 meters from the nearest intersection. What they do not state is that it’s located nearly adjacent to our private lane way. The access is already difficult to navigate due to grading, per visibility, and speed of traffic. Adding an additional lane way in such proximity is frankly dangerous. Our second major concern involves the production and allowable setback from the road that will allow the building to be located a mere three meters from the curb.

[1:31:57] They use a lot of design jargon, such as strong street wall, a sense of place, activation of the public realm. But none of these statements is actually meaningful to any of us. According to the proposed plan, the building must be located close to the road to allow for rear parking. That in itself is barely sufficient, simply because the lot is too small. In fact, in order to fulfill the requirements for greenways, green space, laneways, garbage, and emergency access and parking, the developer is required to nearly eliminate the setbacks on all four sides of the property that are required zoning conditions.

[1:32:34] Obviously, such setbacks are important or they wouldn’t be required for zoning. Having a building of that size located so close to the road will significantly decrease sight lines, not only to our lane lane, but along the road itself. Obviously, you’ve heard a lot of concerns from a lot of neighbors and residents of the area. I hope that you will consider our position. Thank you. Thank you. That’s Clark, if there’s anyone else online that would like to address the committee. Travis.

[1:33:06] Travis, please give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello, my name is Travis Stains. Thank you. Our questions were addressed so I can yield my time. Thank you. Are there anyone else clerk that would like to address committee online? Through the chair, that is everyone. Thank you. One more call for the gallery. If there’s someone else that would like to address, please go to the microphone. Okay, I’ll look for a motion. Oh, do you’ve already spoken, sir? I have, do you want to ask one question?

[1:33:40] Quick question. I see that it’s going to be at care, continual of care. So is there parking for people that are going to be working at this facility as well? Thank you. Okay, I’ll go to the committee now for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councilor Raman seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:34:18] Thank you. There were a number of questions that were raised in the public participation meeting. I’ll try to get to most of them. I’ll ask committee members, if I don’t hit some of them, you can ask them when I’m finished. Let’s just go with the last question there. It looks, is there a potential for employee parking that would be needed at this site? I think there was a mention of ACARE facility through the chair. So I think the proposed use is an apartment building. If the applicant or owner chose to do a continued care facility, they’d have to meet the requirements of the by-law in terms of the parking.

[1:34:58] Thank you. There was concern raised about grading and water drainage onto neighboring properties, especially when you get to asphalt. We’ve seen this before at work, and it’s not being drained into grass, it’s being drained off of a asphalt, so I can understand concerns there. When our staff would like to comment on the grading and water drainage for this property. Hi, Brent Lambert here through the chair.

[1:35:34] So right now the site is basically uncontrolled drainage. So right now it’s just flowing based on the topography. When you get into a site plan application, our requirements require that the stormwater drainage is self-contained on site, that it’s controlled through actually the parking lots themselves. So there’s gonna be a series of catch basins with storage available around those catch basins. And then the water that doesn’t get conveyed to the storm sewer itself will be over land flow and that will be directed to pond mills.

[1:36:12] So we will have consideration for the neighboring properties will ensure that existing drainage routes are maintained. So if a property is draining onto our subject site currently, that drainage route will be maintained. So we’re foreseeing that there will be no impacts to the neighbors that overall the drainage situation will improve because you’re going from an uncontrolled state to an engineered design. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lambert. There was a question regarding zoning that we’re just one staff to confirm that we’re meeting all the depth requirements, minimum buffers, et cetera, that this zoning would provide.

[1:36:58] Through the chairs, I’ll try to answer them all. I think the first one was about the rear yard setback and its requirement. So pond mills is the frontage, that’s the front yard and the building is significantly set back in terms of rear yard setback. It’s above and beyond what’s required. Also there is comments about reductions and setbacks for all four side yards. So the front yard setback is a reduction. It’s a three meter minimum setback. It’s also important to note there is a road widening dedication of almost three meters. So based on the current property line, it’s still a six meter setback, but that’s reduced because of that road widening dedication.

[1:37:35] So the north interior side yard is a 4.4 meter side yard setback, that is a reduction than what’s required, but it’s still sufficient for all the appropriate onsite functions you need. So your rear yard, as I mentioned, it’s being met and the south interior side yard is being met. There’s a regulation about the rear yard setback for a parking lot that’s actually increased. So the requirements, only 1.5 meters at site plan, staff put a provision in the bylaw to make it three meters to ensure there’s sufficient space for trees and other things.

[1:38:09] Thank you, Mr. Corbary. First concerns raised about light pollution and noise having the parking in the rear of the building. Just wondering how do we mitigate that and why would you, in light of that, pardon the pun, put it in the back in the rear against public backyards or joining backyards opposed to the front, where maybe we don’t have much impact and because the street is there another street lighting?

[1:38:52] Through the chair, so I’ll answer kind of the last part about that question on why the parking’s in the rear. We have many urban design policies in our plan that direct parking into the back. Again, from a public realm standpoint, it’s not as inviting when you’re looking at the sea of parking lot and all that light. So it is encouraged to go in the back from a planning perspective in terms of the light pollution and stuff I’ll hand it over to Mike Pease. Mr. Pease, thank you. Thanks, Mr. Corbary. Yeah, so through site plan, there’d be a number of mitigating factors including the provision of fencing, predominantly along the north and south, especially board on board fencing at about six feet or 1.8 meters would be looked to be installed if it’s not already existing along the Southerly property line.

[1:39:35] There are provisions with direction to the approval authority for enhanced tree planting as well. So in addition to kind of what we would be looking for through the site plan process, there’ll be some enhancements as well. Whether that’s for season, whether that’s other, we’d leave that to the applicant to propose to us and we’d review that accordingly at the time of the application. Thank you. And the final one is regarding traffic, concerned about corners, blind spots, et cetera. Staff can comment on traffic studies or how that has been looked at regarding its development.

[1:40:14] Yeah, sure, through the chair, I think it was mentioned previously, but there was no TIA traffic impact assessment that was required as part of this development. It’s 39 units. They do have adequate site line distances, so we don’t see any issues with site lines. And also there is an existing turn lane that is currently on Pond Mills Road that will accommodate the safe turning movements of people accessing the site. Pond Mills is also a civic boulevard with bus lane, or sorry, buses in bike lanes associated with it.

[1:40:54] So we do not foresee any negative impacts at this time. Thank you. I think that’s the end of my list as Councillors. Please go ahead and if I’ve missed something to address the concerns there. So now I’ll put it on the floor for committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will move the staff recommendation. Look for a seconder, Councillor Robin seconds. We have a motion moved and seconded.

[1:41:31] I’ll go to committee, Councillor Hill here. There it goes. There we go. Yes, thank you. Listening to my neighbors and the staff and the development, I’d like to move a small, actually not a small, fairly decent amendment to the recommendation, whereas we eliminate B sub I because it’s not required for the development and would eliminate the problem for the neighborhood, for the cut through and to amend B sub I-I to include a additional landscaping to be implemented along the Eastern property, border adjacent to Glen Redcoise and to include a privacy fence.

[1:42:18] That would eliminate the cut through access along the back there. And a question for staff as well, if we amended that to include a privacy of friends around the perimeter, would that eliminate some of the light buffering problems from the parking into the cornering properties? Okay, before we get into the amendments, I’ll go to that question for us with staff. Thank you. Thank you through the chair and I apologize. One of the things I forgot to mention, my previous comments were that there’d be a lighting study that would likely be required as well through the site plan application. So if there are any light standards that are proposed in the parking lot, those would be mitigated via a lighting study, which would essentially mean that the lights are down lit and no light infiltration would go beyond the property line.

[1:43:01] So while the fence would provide supplemental support for that, the lighting plan would ensure that that would be mitigated at best and there wouldn’t be any impacts from the lights proposed. Thanks. Councillor Hilliard, is that, and it’s good enough answer for you, would you like to explore that further? I would like to explore that further with the possibility that they explore the possibility of installing the privacy fence around the perimeter of the parking surface of the bordering neighborhood. Would that work?

[1:43:34] I’m just jotting down notes right now. By the elimination of B-sub-I and then the addition of that fence, we’ve eliminated quite a few of the problems for the neighbors and the neighborhood. So staff, can you answer the Councillor here or would that require another amendment in your view? Through the chair, it sounds like the amendment would be a direction to the approval 30 and of course the approval 30 would consider that for the site plan process. Those if directed by council.

[1:44:09] That would be the inclusion of the board on board fence along the eastern property line. So would you require an amendment to indicate a boarder fence around the? Mr. Chair, the item identifies enhanced landscaping. Oh, okay, so you’re saying that’s, if the further clarity is warranted to provide direction to the approval 30 above fancy and not property boundary? Okay. It certainly would be helpful. Got it. So Councillor Hilliard, if your amendment B-I-I regarding landscaping could include that wording, your concerns there, that might be the place for it.

[1:44:44] Perfect. Okay, so I’ll ask the clerk now to see if she’s got, she has kind of transcribed your thoughts, sir. Good luck. (laughing) Mr. Chair, to the chair, thank you. It’s on your screens. I have motion to eliminate clause B-I, motion to amend clause B-I-I, to include additional landscaping with a privacy fence to remove the cut through. The site plan B requested to explore installing a privacy fence around the parking area, bordering the property area.

[1:45:26] Councillor, is that good? Yes, thank you. And I apologize to my colleagues in advance, I got some last minute communications, quite a few neighbors, and I had to act quickly. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ramen. Thank you, all second. Okay, Councillor Ramen, and second, your amendment, Councillor. So we have an amendment on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so through you, Chair, I’m not gonna support the removal of considering a public pathway. And I wanna speak to that.

[1:46:01] And I know the representative for the applicant is here, so I know that they’re concerned, not yours, but I hope that you’ll share this back with them. I actually think that it’s really, quite honestly, a bit short-sighted and a bit overstating the potential for negative consequences for there to be a pedestrian pathway. I see this as an opportunity for students who live on the east side of Pond Mills Road, who attend Glenn Caron Public School, the only public school in the immediate neighborhood, to have a shorter opportunity to walk to and from school, which we know we have a problem already with too many families driving their child to school instead of allowing them to walk.

[1:46:48] This would provide an opportunity for a shorter walking road to school, as well as out to Pond Mills itself from streets like Glenroy. And when I hear that people are concerned about pond street parking happening on their streets, honestly, the on-street parking belongs to every resident of the city. It doesn’t belong to the homeowner where the car might be parked on the street in front of. It’s a public road and that is public parking for whomever wishes to use it. And if some of those spaces are taken up by a vehicle that’s dropping off or picking up a student, I’m okay with that.

[1:47:27] In fact, I wish we would see more five or eight minute walks to school being undertaken by families. It is site plan. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen, but to remove the potential to even discuss it at this point, I’m sorry, Councilor, I can’t support you on that. It is important that we have neighborhoods that people can get around on, not just by car, and by removing this. And I see a very similar parallel in my own ward. There’s a condo complex, two and a half story condos on Clark Road.

[1:48:03] There is a public access pedestrian pathway through their back to Garland Lane, and it is used by students regularly. In fact, we’re lucky enough to have a great neighbor who also puts out a garbage can and changes the garbage bag herself as it gets filled up and puts it out on her garbage day, just so the kids have a place to toss their pop cans or chip bags or whatever. So I’m not supportive of removing that public pathway. I think that asking for border fencing is always fine to consider.

[1:48:39] I think it’s possible to put a gateway in that border fencing, but I’m just gonna speak to the amendment for now. So that’s what I’ll say about those is I could support the request to investigate fencing. I’m not gonna support removing the public pathway before it’s even been considered as site plan. Okay, I’ll look at splitting those two. I’m gonna talk with a clerk right now to see how we can do that ‘cause you indicated you’re okay with part of it, not the other. Okay, so we’re going to treat them as separate amendments.

[1:50:04] So I’m gonna start with BI, which is to dealing with the pathway. So Councilor Hillier, you are moving the elimination of BI. So I’ll look for a seconder on just BI. So I don’t see a seconder for BI. So that amendment is not gonna make it to a vote.

[1:50:42] I’ll look for a seconder or I will look, well, assume Councilor Hillier is a mover of a seconder or a mover for BI regarding landscaping. I’ll look for a seconder for that. Councilor, Councilor Raman has seconded that. So we have one amendment that is before us now. I’ll look for any further discussion on that amendment, Councilor Frank. Thank you. I was just hoping to get a bit of clarity about what it means by remove cut through and what cut through to where, from where, and where is this privacy fence going?

[1:51:22] So that was back in the first one. We’re on, that didn’t get, that was a motion made that by Councilor Hillier, that did not get a seconder. Go ahead, Councilor Raman.

[1:53:25] Thank you. Just to clarify, I thought I seconded Councilor Hillier’s motion to remove the pathway and to also enhance the additional landscaping with fencing. I just wanna confirm that. Correct, you did that originally. And then Deputy Mayor Lewis went down the path of wanting to separate the two aspects of that motion. On consultation with the clerk, the clerk advised me that we would need a new motion on removing BI, and then another motion on landscaping, which is going fencing around the parking lot.

[1:54:05] The confusion is lying, which Councilor Frank brought to our attention is that it was a cut and paste, quite frankly, that into the second amendment, that basically the first amendment, that’s the confusion that we’re correcting right now. So let’s bring that back up and we’ll make sure we’re all on the same page. Okay, if everyone refreshes their screen, they can see the second amendment that’s before us right now, that has been moved by Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Raman, and I just wanna hear from everyone to make sure that this is clear and we’re okay.

[1:55:19] I’m gonna wait for the second, or just that that’s why I make sure that the Councilor is good at Councilor. Thank you and through you. So my understanding was that Councilor Hillier moved that he would like to remove that cut through and I seconded that to get it on the floor. So that’s still seven, is that amendment seven? That’s still, and these are just now separated, is that my understanding?

[1:55:54] No, originally you second the motion that Councilor Hillier put forward that had two parts, removal of BI, which regards the cut through, and then the second part is landscaping with fencing around the parking area. Deputy Mayor Lewis was okay with the second part, not okay with the first, so we looked to separate those into two separate amendments. The clerk advised me that we would just start anew with putting those as separate amendments.

[1:56:31] So I put the first one forward, dealing with the removal of the pathway, Hillier, Councilor Hillier, moved. There was no seconder on that. That’s where the issue was, because she had second that, and we never knew it, we jumped ahead. Thank you, Councilor. I was looking to Councilor Robin waiting for her to do it, and she didn’t, so I think it’s probably ‘cause there was a misunderstanding, that’s okay. So I’m gonna go to the clerk now to see how we clean this up.

[1:57:33] The clerk has advised me that I can put that back on the floor, so that’s what I’m going to do. We’re gonna go back to BI, which is regarding the cut through. And if you look at the motion, it’s motion is to remove clause BI, and Councilor Hillier has moved that, and I’ll look for a seconder, Councilor Robin has agreed to second that. So committee, we are, now we have a memo on the floor to remove BI, and it has been moved and seconded.

[1:58:14] So now just, we’re just gonna deal with that, so Councilor Robin. Thank you, and thanks for clarifying that. So just looking at the map, I see why residents have concerns around the cut through for Glenroy Crescent, and looking at it from a connectivity perspective. The connectivity between Glenroy Crescent and Pawn Mills is basically what that pathway would provide for. Outside of that, it really doesn’t support the rest of the neighborhood.

[1:58:51] It looks like it just is a few houses, really in the center of Glenroy Crescent, that would be benefited in all, at all, from that cut through. But from what the Ward Councilor is saying, my understanding is he’s had considerable conversation with the residents on Glenroy Crescent. We’ve had a number of them here today. We’ve heard from the applicant as well. I think that at this point, I don’t think it necessitates looking at that cut through as part of this development.

[1:59:25] And from the feasibility and looking at how it connects into the school and the walkability, I think we’re stretching if that’s the reason for it, but I won’t be supporting it. Thank you, any other Councilor Frank? Thank you, yes. I won’t be supporting trying to get rid of pedestrian access points throughout a neighborhood. I think there’s no way of knowing how many people will be using it. I grew up on a Crescent and I walked to school in Georgetown, totally different scenario, but there was a cut through to be able to get to my school and without it, I would have had to been driven and I love two streets over.

[2:00:04] So I’m just thinking, similarly, this access point will be beneficial to many people, and including people taking the bus and trying to get to Pond Mills and walking there, whereas without it, anyone on the east side of this would have to walk through and go fairly far south to get back up to the same point. So I won’t be supporting trying to get rid of pedestrian pathways in a neighborhood. Thank you, any other Deputy Mayor Lewis? Yeah, I’ll be brief, even if you don’t believe that it’s a benefit to students going to and from school. When you look at this neighborhood and you have to look at the broader map, when you start talking about Edmunds Crescent, Worthington Ave, Lysanda Ave, if you’ve got, and I’m gonna say young people because they tend to be more pedestrian active, but regardless of the age, but if you’ve got a young person who’s trying to go from Worthington or Lockerne or Lysanda, over to a friend’s house on Millridge or Miller’s Road, exactly what Councillor Frank said, you’re asking them to go a considerable distance either north or south before getting to that destination.

[2:01:16] So as Councillor Frank said, I’m not supportive of removing pedestrian connectivity, especially when it’s a site plan for consideration. So it may well be at the end of the day that there’s not a way for it to even fit, but to rule it out at this point is not something I’ve prepared to support. Any other comments or questions? Okay, so the amendment is to move in second and removing BI, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion fails to three.

[2:02:08] Okay, now moving on to the next amendment that we have moved in second, is that correct? Clerk? Okay. Okay, and that is motion to amend clause BI to include additional landscaping with a privacy fence. Can we just go to the latest? We don’t have to— I think that’s right. We don’t have to.

[2:02:39] We’re just, make sure we have the wording correct here. Come on in. With the inclusion. Okay, please refresh your screens and so I want to make sure that the mover and the second are good with that wording, getting nods.

[2:04:25] Okay, so we have motion moved in seconded. Any discussion on this point? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, now we’ll go back to the main motion as amended. I’ll need a mover, Deputy Mayor Lewis as a seconder.

[2:05:05] Councilor Frank, a second. Any further discussion on the main motion as amended? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So staff address this in some of their answers, of course, things like the fact that front yard parking is actually not recommended in any of our policies. Rear yard parking is where we try as much as possible to place those. So hopefully, I think Councilor Hillier’s amendment to consider a privacy fence as well helps address a portion of that.

[2:05:41] What I will say, I’m supportive of this. And when I look at the landscape to open space above 30%, the maximum lock coverage is well below maximum allowed as well. Even the building height coming in at 15 meters, the width to get across, even to cross, uponmills to the properties over on millers and in that section of the subdivision, you’re talking about a 30 meter separation above twice the height of the building itself.

[2:06:18] As was mentioned, it is a civic boulevard. This particular civic boulevard is handling about 12,000 vehicles a day, but we have civic boulevards that run up to 30,000 or more vehicles a day. Now I will absolutely say like those have been widened to four lanes. And as Mr. Corby mentioned, there’s actually an ultimate road allowance on this property as well. So even the three meter setback that you see in the front yard, that is in addition to the three meters of road allowance that’s available.

[2:06:51] So it’s actually six meters back from the curb today. So when we look at these things, it’s the cumulative effect, but it’s also the impact. When I look at 39 units and the traffic of a road that’s handling 12,000 vehicle trips a day, it’s very hard to say that 30 or 40 cars is going to change the traffic patterns in any radical way that would be noticeable by anybody in the neighborhood. I certainly appreciate the concerns about the loss of mature trees.

[2:07:26] And I agree, it’s unfortunate when that happens. That’s why we require them to have compensation and replant because we also ultimately at the end of the day have to provide people a place to live. And this density and the loss of some trees on this site is definitely preferable to a green field, clear cutting of an existing woodlot somewhere else. So there’s always that give and take. But on the whole, being on a civic boulevard with the plan that’s been brought forward, I can be supportive of this.

[2:08:04] It’s change is always challenging. But when we see, and we heard a gentleman comment that the closest thing to the same size in the neighborhood is three stories. Three to four stories is not a radical departure in changing character. We’re gonna see more of that as we try and fit a few more units in each building so that people have a place to call home. So I appreciate the change on this is challenging. But I think that this is actually a very reasonable plan that’s been brought forward.

[2:08:38] Thank you, any other comments? We have a motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that include, concludes our scheduled items. There are no items for direction. We have a deferred matters list. So I’ll look for a motion to receive that list. Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Frank, a discussion, I’ll call the vote.

[2:09:27] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we do have a few matters before us are confidential. I’ll look for a motion to, sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Sorry, just before we look for a motion to move in camera on confidential, I would note on the deferred matters list that item number one has been delivered upon today. So I would suggest that we can delete that now from the deferred items list for the next update that appears on our agenda. That has been noted, thank you.

[2:10:23] I’ll look for a motion to go in camera. Councillor Robin, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We’re now back in public session.

[2:11:54] I’ll look to the Vice Chair to report out. Thank you, Chair. I am happy to report out that progress was made on all three items for which we went in camera for client solicitor privileged advice. Thank you. I believe the only thing before us now is a motion to adjourn. Councillor ramen moves and Deputy Mayor Lewis, or Deputy Mayor, Chair, Vice, too many titles, man. (laughs) Seconds, all in favor, motions moved and all the way for the clerk to make that call.

[2:12:31] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We’re adjourned, thank you, folks.