Planning and Development Committee Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'aménagement Minutes 55/ Procès-verbal 55 Thursday, 12 June 2003, 12:00 p.m. le jeudi 12juin 2003, 12 h Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller G. Hunter (Chair / Président), Councillor / Conseillère J. Stavinga (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente), Councillors / Conseillers E. Arnold, A. Cullen, J. Harder, P. Hume, S. Little, A. Munter Absent / Absent : Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, D. Eastman DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DÉCLARATIONS D'INTÉRÊT No declarations of interest were filed. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RATIFICATION DES PROCÈS-VERBAUX Minutes 53 of the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 22 May 2003 were confirmed. At the outset of the Meeting Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 3 to 18 to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB. PRESENTATION PRÉSENTATION 1. NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION'S SPARKS STREET REVITALIZATION VOCATION STUDY - PHASE I REVITALISATION DE LA RUE SPARKS : ÉTUDE SUR LA NOUVELLE VOCATION, COMMISSION DE LA CAPITALE NATIONALE - PHASE I ACS2003-DEV-POL-0030 CITY-WIDE Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Design and Environment, introduced Rowand Faludi, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Toronto, and Lori Thornton, Planner, NCC, who would provided an introduction to the overall Sparks Street Study, which the Committee received in hard copy. Ms. Thornton provided some background and context to the Study, which was initiated last fall with joint Terms of Reference developed by Public Works, City of Ottawa, NCC and representatives of the Mall Authority with a public tender call initiated in December, 2002. PricewaterhouseCoopers won the contract and began their work in February, 2003. A draft report of Phase I will be available in a few weeks. The second phase will take the findings of the research conducted in Phase I and begin working on where the Mall will go in the future and the possible elements of that revitalization strategy. Phase II will begin in early July with the stakeholder workshop. PricewaterhouseCoopers hopes to conclude their work in August and will return to Committee with their draft recommendations at that time. Ms. Thornton provided a copy of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Work Programme that entailed the full breadth of the scope of the work and their intent to deliver, which is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Faludi presented the results of his work to date, which were primarily the results of an intercept and telephone survey, as well as case study research on other pedestrian malls in North America and fairly extensive statistical analysis as contained in the report circulated and on file. Councillor Arnold was a member of the Sparks Street Mall Business Improvement Area (BIA) and Mall Management Board for nine years and found the information brought forward useful. Yesterday, City Council approved a report from the last PDC meeting entitled "National Capital Commission's Capital Agenda 21" that contained a recommendation related to parking, which has been identified by those interviewed. Staff has stated that parking 700 cars at the doorstep of Parliament Hill contradicts the new OP, as well as previous OPs, to reduce the use of private vehicles and increase transit use. Mr. Kilstrom explained that the intent was not to concentrate parking between Wellington and Sparks. There had to be a sense that when visiting the area one could park in the downtown area. Councillor Arnold acknowledged that was an important distinction. She questioned when recommendations were coming forward since stakeholder meetings were taking place throughout the summer and what was the actual public consultation in terms of the actions that would result from the next phase of the study? Ms. Thornton responded that would be determined by all the parties since it was not a decision the NCC could make. The stakeholder workshop entails getting 20 persons around a table to participate in the visioning component of the exercise. At the conclusion of the study, it was intended to seek public input to the recommendations of the study. Councillor Arnold received confirmation there was no public consultation process per se on the research phase. She inquired if there was any action resulting from this as she had her doubts since people stated they would come downtown in the evenings if there was more parking, which she found hard to believe since there was ample parking downtown in the evenings. She added there was considerable analyses to be conducted and the public needs to be consulted in a more substantive manner. Ms. Thornton agreed and added that at times it was characteristic of survey responses to not make sense. It was also important to mention this was one piece of research. The Mall is a City street and the City communicated very clearly to the NCC, Public Works and the Mall Authority, that before any changes can take place, there had to be a planning exercise. It was discussed briefly to have a collaborative planning exercise for the entire Mall initiated later this year, which was the forum for any recommendations to be evaluated and decisions made. Councillor Arnold received confirmation there was no immediate plan to see the heritage buildings demolished or moved and a parking garage built. She would be preparing a Motion asking that a public consultation process be outlined and brought forward to Committee. The Committee heard from the following delegations: David Jeanes, President, Transport 2000, and Board Member, Heritage Ottawa, provided a written submission of his presentation, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Jeanes added that he had registered in opposition since the presentation had not been available and the abstract published in advance focussed on the parking lot. Hollander Layte was the co-owner of two relatively new businesses on Sparks Street and remembered Sparks Street from its heyday when it was a beautiful street. Unfortunately, it has deteriorated over the last several years because of reckless disregard for the heritage aspects of the street. Regrettably, various levels of government allowed beautiful buildings to deteriorate, which was of great concern to her. She proposed that what remained on Sparks Street should be retained. (She was in the Bate Building, which was built in 1859 - 11 years before Canada existed). She sits on the Sparks Street Mall Authority and represents some of the most distinguished old business families in Ottawa when the street was truly great, but she was present from a personal perspective as well. In terms of the Vocation Study, one of her main concerns is that the very people who should have been able to respond were not able to. She was approached by a researcher on the Mall to participate, but was not allowed to participate once it was learned she had two businesses on the Mall. This was very insulting considering she was born and bred in Ottawa. From her perspective the whole research aspect was skewed in a certain direction. As previously noted, it was important to look at how people respond to these kinds of surveys. On the parking, she agreed with the Vocation Study that people want to park, but not necessarily in front of the Parliament Buildings; and, an underground parking lot for a woman at night is another aspect. It also had to be recognized that Ottawa does have winter; and, to have an open square there was open insanity in her opinion. The Mall conducted a survey of a number of the merchants on Sparks Street and would be in favour of a fully restored streetcar loop down Sparks Street that could, in fact, co-exist with a pedestrian mall. It would be ideal for tourists and wonderful for Ottawa. The Mall would like to see a parking lot in LeBreton Flats, which was currently being developed. It was an opportunity to put up a massive parking lot, which could connect with the buses, the O-Train link and have an historic element as well. Responding to questions from Councillor Harder, Ms. Layte remarked that there was not a large residential component in the vicinity, which was continuously diminishing. The Mall had to return to make it a living space, which will not be accomplished by an open square. The people who will make that street viable are those who live and work in Ottawa and that was what the Mall was striving towards. Doug Gabelmann had presented a request to speak in opposition, but withdrew his request. Dan Donovan, Sparks Street Business Association. Mr. Donovan had two businesses on Sparks Street; Ottawa Life Magazine is headquartered on the street. First, the Committee should refuse to accept the report on principle. It was deeply flawed and the tone should be set straight off that the City had a role to play in Sparks Street's redevelopment; and, should set standards for accepting information related to the street. There was a lot of public concern related to the street. It is a phenomenal street and a heritage component of the country. First, he conducted a lot of research over the years and found it incredulous that the report did not mention the restrictive covenants the Rideau Centre had against Sparks Street. There is no major retail on Sparks Street because it is not allowed and there will not be until those restrictive covenants were dealt with. On the parking, he agreed with Councillor Arnold. One only needs to walk down to the World Exchange Plaza after five o'clock at night - it is a vacant lot. There is sufficient parking for Sparks Street. Thirdly, he had some issues that relate to some of the questions in the report. The NCC has a fiduciary obligation to protect the heritage of the country, which was their core function. The parking lot idea is the first move to destroy four heritage buildings on Sparks Street, including the Bate's Building and Canada's Four Corners. On an open space, the lawn on Parliament Hill is a big open space. He understood the City's role in this process was to have a sustainable community, which means access points, sustainable transportation, bicycle paths, having the opportunity for people to do things sustainably. He did not see that a 650-car parking lot in the middle of the City is somehow sustainable. It is a totally contradictory policy, specifically from an environmental position. The NCC were advised that if they make an attempt to use this parking lot as the first part of the process and move those buildings, his Committee will sue them. This will result in an extended legal action if the NCC tries to demolish those Canadian cultural buildings. In conclusion, they love Sparks Street and it had massive potential, but that potential should not be directed by the very people who destroyed it over the last 20 years, being NCC policies. Sparks Street is a sustainable Mall, full of restaurants, with heritage buildings that have existed for over 160 years, with people, tourists and shops that are A-1 all the way. Responding to a request for clarification on the restrictive covenants by Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Faludi explained that he was unaware of the restrictive covenants and was not sure how they might impact a new retailer looking to locate on Sparks Street. He was not aware whether that restriction was placed by the Rideau Centre itself or by individual tenants. Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, speculated that the Rideau Centre may have imposed upon its tenants a restrictive covenant that they shall not locate stores within a certain radius of the Rideau Centre. Councillor Stavinga looked to the NCC to pursue this issue. Ms. Thornton remarked that none of the Mall Authority members raised this covenant. Secondly, on the surveys undertaken, she questioned when the business community would be engaged since the two previous presenters indicated they were not engaged. They had invested their life energy in making Sparks Street a vital place and it would behove them to be involved. Mr. Faludi advised that they had been involved with the Mall Authority and met this morning. They would be inviting a number of businesses to participate in the stakeholder to be held in July. David Gladstone, City Centre Coalition, provided a written submission of his presentation, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Councillor Arnold stated that the Committee should receive the report, but should heed the comments made in terms of its future since it was a City street. The City had a large stake in what happened on Sparks Street and been working very closely with the NCC on a number of projects that relate to the street and in many cases that collaboration has been successful. Hopefully, there can be some form of agreement on the areas of dispute. Sparks Street is an incredible resource, but an incredibly challenging place to do business; to be a property owner; with the many levels of government that have an interest; difficulties in the economy, etc. The public consultation process is very important because everyone has something to offer to revitalize Sparks. Councillor Stavinga suggested a wonderful opportunity was presenting itself and she asked that there be something more creative than a focus group, to be more inclusive and participatory producing something much more vibrant and lasting. Moved by Councillor E. Arnold: That the NCC be requested to develop a public consultation strategy for the Sparks Street revitalization initiative, to be brought back to Planning and Development Committee for information. CARRIED The Committee received the report dated 14 May 2003, as amended. That the Planning and Development Committee receive the National Capital Commission's presentation on the Sparks Street Revitalization Vocation Study - Phase I. That the NCC be requested to develop a public consultation strategy for the Sparks Street revitalization initiative, to be brought back to Planning and Development Committee for information. RECEIVED as amended DEFERRALS REPORTS 2. SITE PLAN - 1091 ST. LAURENT BOULEVARD PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 1091, BOULEVARD SAINT-LAURENT ACS2003-DEV-APR-0109 RIDEAU ROCKCLIFFE (13) DEFERRED MAY 22, 2003 MEETING Chair Hunter noted that consideration of this item by Committee required Waiving the Rules of Procedure, which did not take place; therefore, the item would be considered by Committee at its regular meeting on July 24, 2003. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SERVICES D'AMÉNAGEMENT PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH DIRECTION DE L'APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D'URBANISME ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE 3. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE FORMER CITY OF NEPEAN FOR 2 CRESTWAY DRIVE/99BARONESS DRIVE MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL ET DU ZONAGE DE L'ANCIENNE VILLE DE NEPEAN - 2, PROMENADE CRESTWAY/99, PROMENADE BARONESS ACS2003-DEV-APR-0079 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN/BELL-NEPEAN SUD (3) Prescott McDonald provided a brief presentation and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated 10 April 2003. In response to Chair Hunter, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, explained that the dedication was a condition on the last registration, which was held in abeyance until this application was dealt with at the request of the applicant. Chair Hunter inquired if it was dependent upon the serviceability of the land, since he had understood from the presentation it was dedicated conservation because it was not serviceable, not because it was conservation. He inquired if there was any discussion around the potential serviceability of the entire block or parts of it. Ms. Currie pointed out the land along the greenway corridor was dedicated for two reasons; the Greenway Corridor Protection Policy applied and in looking at the plan there were stretches of linear park along both sides of Prince of Wales to protect that greenway corridor; and, that general principle was not based on a serviceability issue. This particular parcel is sloped, with construction capability issues in certain parts. The applicant indicated the corner parcel is developable and for that reason proposes a change to the designation. Responding to a further query, Ms. Currie indicated the Secondary Plan was designed in such a way that the pathway in some cases runs in a corridor beside the road and then widens out into some open spaces. Following up on the Chair's question, Councillor Harder received confirmation the future pathway system has not been finalized for that stretch of Prince of Wales from JDS where Merivale goes into Jockvale. Ms. Currie advised that staff has a concept, which needs to be detailed. It was part of the 2003 Capital Budget programme, with monies provided to initiate the development of that pathway once there was a conclusion to these discussions. Having participated in meetings and received information from constituents, Councillor Harder inquired if the decision was pending the environmental assessment (EA) and design work for the Prince of Wales widening. Discussions were ongoing for four years, having started during the plan of subdivision for Havenlea. She emphasized the closest gas station to this location on Prince of Wales in any direction was at Hunt Club. The Committee heard from the following delegations: Brian C. Nelson, Past President, Southpointe Community Association. Mr. Nelson advised that currently the community was split 70/30 in favour, with 30% having signed a petition against the proposal. With regard to Councillor Harder's comment on the servicing, currently there are 5 gas stations for 40,000 residents in South Nepean, well underserved. The area is growing at an incredible pace. The community is looking at this development as an anchor, a place to meet, to get a loaf of bread, milk, and gas up the car on the way home. This development fits into the general plan of the City to encourage local community development to decrease vehicular traffic. It will allow residents to walk, since currently the closest convenience store is located 1 km. away (walking), with no interconnecting roadwork (driving - 2.5 - 3 km.). One has to go to either to Fallowfield or Strandherd to connect to it. From Day One the builder advertised in their Sales Office and clearly indicated they wanted a commercial development on this corner. The nearest property line will be 180 feet from the edge of the development area, which is approximately 1.8 acres, almost identical to the Quickie and Esso on Woodroffe and Rideau, which is a very successful operation, close to residents and is the a hub of the community. The Havenlea side does not connect directly to Davidson Heights and Woodroffe; residents are looking for this development to become the hub of its new growing community. Currently, there are no trees on the land; it is a barren cow pasture. He understood lights are anticipated at this intersection this year. It is not currently zoned conservation. It is greenspace in the current Secondary Plan, not conservation; and, the community is very much in favour of a pathway. The developer has proposed the pathway loop around the backside and in front of the development. Some issues with regard to garbage, lighting, etc. can be mitigated. The majority of area residents are supportive and those with questions related to issues that can be mitigated. Councillor Harder referred to a commercial development at the corner of Crestway and Leikin, which was opposed by residents of Redpath. That commenced the discussion on the other parcel of land. The developer gave up 2 acres of developable land, hoping to have one acre of developable land further down the road. Jack Stirling, Minto Development Inc, and Ursula Melinz, SolowayWright, for Minto. Ms. Melinz provided a written submission (letter dated 12 June 2003, from Doug Kelly), which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Minto was in support of the staff position to refuse the application. Chair Hunter questioned the comment contained in the letter "that if this land is developable then it should be acquired by the City, with funds from the environment land account, or as part of the 5% parkland dedication". Ms. Melinz explained that Minto always maintained that if the land was developable, it must be acquired by the City. Mr. Stirling added that historically the issue with the site was whether the lands were developable. Previous studies did not demonstrate the site was serviceable. If it can be shown it is a serviceable, developable site, the Planning Act states that if the City wanted to retain it, as Minto recommended, as part of the greenway concept lands, then there were only certain means by which the City can reserve those lands; one of which is through acquisition. Responding to a query by Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Stirlng clarified that Minto, as a partner in South Nepean Development Corporation, owns extensive lands in this area along Highway 16, including lands to the south. He pointed to an area on the west side of Highway 16, owned and developed by South Nepean Development Corporation and Minto dedicated as part of the Greenway Concept Plan. They participated in the master planning and supported the implementation of the Greenway Plan over the last 8-10 years. It was recognized through that process that lands suitable for development would be acquired through the 5% parkland dedication, or possibly acquisition. If lands were deemed to be non-developable, due to service accessibility, flood plain issues, airport noise issues, etc., these were provided as part of the conservation land without financial recognition. Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services, commented that subdivisions were developed through decisions resulting from negotiations with developers; lands not developable are dedicated to the City at no cost; in other situations negotiations take place; there is the 5% parkland dedication, ravine land is dedicated. In response to a query, based on his former position in the former City of Nepean, Mr. Stirling clarified that when the application was brought forward a study was not available to bear out the lands were serviceable. There were issues: the serviceability of the land and the ongoing planning studies in South Nepean for neighbourhoods 4, 5 and 6; and, the recognition and desire to create commercial node opportunities central to the communities as opposed to the periphery. Community commercial or community core sites were designated at major internal intersections, including Leikin and Crestway to the west that would accommodate similar uses. The staff position was twofold: there was no demonstrable way to service the land and there was satisfaction and belief other sites within South Nepean would provide the services and facilities. His recollection was that there was a position taken that the landowner could continue to study the land to identify servicing solutions and it was agreed to leave the final dedication of the lands to the latter phases of the subdivision, but the clear intent was that the lands could not be proven to be serviceable, developable and would be dedicated as such. In response to a query raised by Councillor Harder, Ms. Currie explained that Tartan submitted some servicing analysis and Infrastructure staff could provide further detail. Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, confirmed there would be surfacing expenses; and, difficulties with traffic movement since there was no access off Prince of Wales, with right in/out access off Crestway because of a median. Responding to a further question, Mr. Morrison advised that the developer would pay for servicing if it was serviceable. Pierre Dufresne, Manager, Land Development, Tartan Development. Mr. Dufresne provided a written submission of his presentation, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Dufresne highlighted the points contained therein and clarified some of the issues raised and brought some history to the matter. There will not be direct vehicular access to the site from the community; there will be walkways to the pathway. The residents were concerned with traffic movement at the intersection of Crestway and Highway 16; the contract commences next week to construct the streetlights, with a road widening, turning lanes. All traffic movement can be dealt with appropriately at the Site Plan Approval stage. In conclusion, he read from the report - "The requested amendments to allow commercial automotive service station was not envisioned to be part of the neighbourhood fabric", which they agree with, " but to be located outside of the community along arterial roadways.", which is exactly what Tartan was trying to do. Mr. Lathrop understood that in the Nepean Secondary Plan commercial development was to be located internal to the site. From his perspective, the community design was primarily based on internal commercial establishments servicing the community; and, that integral to the design for the Secondary Plan for the community was the greenway system, which was a major principle that Nepean was trying to retain in terms of Prince of Wales Drive. Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning Environment and Infrastructure Policy, confirmed Mr. Lathrop's understanding. He followed that when the former City of Nepean approached the entire development of South Nepean, the intent was to move away from commercial developments that served passing traffic along the arterials and moved them internal to the community so that they would be walking destinations as opposed to driving destinations. With respect to the greenway, this was a scenic corridor and the intent to keep it green was imbedded in the planning documents before work was completed in South Nepean. Responding to the same question, Mr. Dufresne stated the Secondary Plan did advocate commercial establishments inside the community; and, in fact there are clauses that speak to corner stores being built as of right without the need for re-zoning or changes to the Secondary Plan. But, a convenience store with gas pumps would never be built internal to the subdivision. There is the fundamental problem as to the economic feasibility of corner stores; but having lived downtown for 12 years he can think of 7 stores that were closed and converted to residential uses. Tartan does not believe a convenience store internal to the site can be economically feasible. It can only survive at the corner of Highway 16 and Crestway where there is sufficient traffic. They continue to endorse the principle of the greenway corridor, which will be maintained and is only expanded upon where lands are not developable. Tartan is consistent and conforms with the Secondary Plan Policies of the greenway corridor and will ensure it is achieved. It is also interesting that as a condition of approval for the first phase of subdivision and for the Minto subdivision, a note was placed on that Greenway Corridor Master Plan that showed the pathway corridor can be amended to incorporate the 1.1 acre site, should it be approved and it is shown on a City drawing. Councillor Harder received confirmation the internal convenience location did not allow for a gas station. Mr. Dufresne emphasized Tartan never felt that was appropriate. Councillor Harder pointed out that to address some of the community concerns, Tartan is willing to forego any car wash, automotive repair or fast food drive-thru use on the site. Chair Hunter received confirmation the entire site zoned conservation is 9.6 acres and the parcel in question is 1.1 acres; Mr. Dufresne confirmed that it would be regarded as parkland purposes, not a trade. The City had an opportunity to obtain 8.5 acres, at no cost, in return for the development of 1.1 acres, which did not compromise the greenway system. Arising from the Chair's questions and responses thereto, Councillor Stavinga was advised today's discussion may affect some decisions on the corner, although there is an obligation that it be deeded to the City free of charge. Ms. Currie further clarified that the entire 9 acres were to be deeded free of charge to the City, with a signed Subdivision Agreement. Mr. Dufresne explained that it was well understood as Tartan proceeded with plan registrations that that condition was relevant only to non-developable lands, otherwise Tartan would have appealed the condition to the OMB. Tartan had interpretations from planners and legal staff and this matter was only being resolved at the present time. Tartan would like to resolve the matter through Committee and Council as opposed to at the OMB to maintain their rights. Councillor Stavinga was prepared to defer the matter to afford an opportunity to review the condition since staff did not have the specific wording available today. There may have been some discussions as were alluded to earlier, but the Condition is clear that the land is to be deeded to the City. Mr. Dufresne acknowledged the Subdivision said "the lands", but in correspondence, Minutes of Planning Committee meetings, the Condition refers to those lands that are non-developable. He trusted the agreements and understandings Tartan has had with staff to date will be honoured. Councillor Stavinga remarked that she would not base a decision upon one part of Minutes; and, therefore would not support any change at this time. Having been involved in the matter in her Ward for a number of years, Councillor Harder presented a Motion to add the restrictions offered up by Tartan. The Councillor pointed out the greenway system was not finalized and reiterated there were no residents in close proximity to the location, but it provides a service to the near neighbours. As a result of poor decisions made in Davidson Heights, Woodroffe Avenue in that vicinity is a traffic nightmare that plays a role in her current position. Mr. Dufresne was correct in that there is nothing within walking distance and no roads other than Crestway that connect to other services. She asked the Committee to support the application, as amended by her Motion, to respond to residents' concerns. Councillor Cullen indicated he would support the staff recommendation, which reflects the new OP and identifies "Prince of Wales Drive as a Scenic Entry Route and, similar with to the former Regional OP, promotes the landscaping, berming, pathways and other features within the right-of-way and onto adjacent lands" etc. as quoted in the staff report. There was nothing indicated to support the application and through every OP review there has consistently been very strong public support to retain and promote greenspace. Councillor Stavinga presented a Motion for deferral, based on the difference of opinion presented. Councillor Harder requested the Committee to vote against the deferral since staff and the proponent could present theinformation requested prior to the Council meeting. Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga: That this matter be referred to the PDC meeting on June 26, 2003 to allow further clarification by the staff and the proponent on the intent of the condition in the Subdivision Agreement as well as the associated discussions and correspondence with the former City of Nepean relating to the dedication of conservation lands to the former City of Nepean. LOST YEAS (1): Councillor Stavinga NAYS (6): Councillors Harder, Cullen, Arnold, Little, Hume, Hunter Moved by Councillor J. Harder: That the staff recommendations 1, 2 and 3 be amended to change Refuse to Approve. That the staff recommendation 2 be amended to change Institutional to a form of mixed density residential 4. That Tartan deed the balance of 8.6 acres to the City and that uses not include drive through, car wash or automotive repair use; and 5. That serviceability of the site be proven and all costs be incurred by the developer. 6. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act RSO 1990 c. CARRIED YEAS (4): Councillors Harder, Little, Hume, Hunter NAYS (3): Councillors Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold The following correspondence was received, circulated and held on file with the City Clerk: * E-mail from Doug Chui and Trang Phung * Correspondence dated 12 June 2003 and Petition from Dale Braun, Interim Havenlea Steering Committee Member The Committee approved the recommendations as amended. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council: 1. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Official Plan to change the designation from Open Space to Residential; 2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Secondary Plan for Areas 4, 5, 6 from Greenway to a form of mixed density residential; 3. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 from CON, Conservation Zone, to CA3(CN), Commercial Automotive Zone; 4. That Tartan deed the balance of 8.6 acres to the City and that uses not include drive through, car wash or automotive repair use; and 5. That serviceability of the site be proven and all costs be incurred by the developer. 6. That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act RSO 1990 c. CARRIED as amended 4. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 517-519 ST. PATRICK STREET PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 517-519, RUE SAINT-PATRICK ACS2003-DEV-APR-0116 RIDEAU-VANIER (12) The Committee heard from the following delegations with respect to the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 30 May 2003 The Committee heard from the following delegations: Elaine Crossland, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, for the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Canada, addressed the Committer in support of the staff recommendation to refuse the application to amend the OP designation and the re-zoning application to permit high-rise apartment building. The Embassy had submitted a fairly detailed letter outlining their concerns, of which she highlighted three. First, the aesthetics were not in keeping with the neighbourhood, the existing waterfront development and the water course corridor. Parking, as noted in the staff report, is also going to be problematic along the street. And, lastly, the Embassy has to take positive steps to protect the premises against intrusion, damage, disturbance of peace and to maintain the dignity of the grounds. Lloyd Phillips, Lloyd Phillips and Associates Ltd., on behalf of the applicant, related some of the history. When the former City of Ottawa sold the land conditionally to Gibson and Associates, in January, 1999, the report stated "The property which is situated beside the Rideau River is within the greenway system and is designated and zoned waterway corridor (EW). As previously stated, an environmental review of the subject property was conducted by the Department of Urban Planning and Public Works. Their review concluded that the subject site does not contain any significant natural features and, as such, has no intrinsic environmental value as indicated by the draft Natural and Open Spaces Study. As well, the site does not contribute significantly to the social value of the Waterway Corridor as the surrounding land uses did not enable public access to the river. Furthermore, the Rideau Trail System envisioned for the Rideau River is proposed on the opposite - the east side of the river and not along the subject site. The report did identify significant environmental issues that would need to be addressed during the development of this site and the vegetative slope of the property adjacent to the Rideau River is in all likelihood undevelopable and should be retained in public ownership to ensure its long term protection. In addition, a Municipal Environmental Evaluation Report (MEER) would be required as part of any rezoning application for this property and would be subject to the approval by both the City's Environmental Management Branch and the Rideau Conservation Authority." (RVCA) The applicant went to considerable expense and trouble working through a number of issues with City staff, those raised by Ms. Crossland and traffic and parking issues. The owner undertook the expense of commissioning a MEER, which was reviewed by the Conservation Authority (CA) and ultimately rejected. There was an expectation that if the various matters were addressed, and he submitted they were, then the matter could move forward. The CA in this regard is an advisory agent to the City. The OP (both City and Region) do indicate there is a 30m setback, which if enforced, makes this property undevelopable. The land could have been retained for the uses indicated in the OP and, in fact, the NCC had an opportunity to purchase the land with the objective of conserving it. But, the land went on the open market as a development parcel. Although it was a tight site, with constraints, the applicant was prepared to deal with them. The applicant is disappointed with the recommendation and disagrees with same. Councillor Cullen referred to the 10% buffer shown on the map and the 30m buffer as stated in Document 2. Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, responded that in essence the crux of the issue when the City relied on the information supplied by the RVCA, the 30m separation distance had to be maintained and as Mr. Phillips submitted that basically renders the property non-developable. Moved by Councillor A. Cullen: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council refuse the applications to amend the former City of Ottawa Official Plan designation from Waterway Corridor to Residential, and to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998 from Waterway Corridor (EW) to High-rise Apartment (R6) to allow for an apartment at 517-519 St. Patrick Street. CARRIED 5. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - 6043 HAZELDEAN ROAD MODIFICATION DU PLAN OFFICIEL - 6043, CHEMIN HAZELDEAN ACS2003-DEV-APR-0137 GOULBOURN (6) Sally Switzer provided a brief presentation and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated 10 April 2003. The Committee heard from the following delegations: Jack Stirling, Minto Development Inc., and Ursula Melinz, SolowayWright, for Minto. Ms. Melinz provided a written submission (letter dated 12 June 2003, from Doug Kelly), which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Minto was in opposition to the staff recommendation and the redesignation of the land. Mr. Stirling added that he had appeared before the Committee on numerous occasions in the last six months with respect to the OP and the population projections for the OP and the Kanata West Concept Plan and was pleased to read in the report that, even with the inclusion of these lands as residential, it will be a challenge to meet the residential needs. He addressed the requirement quoted in the report that directed staff to undertake a study, which has not been completed. Rather, an application has come forward to amend the OP, with a comment that says - we think this re-designation will address the needs of the study that has not been completed. It is Minto's opinion the application is clearly premature. It is very frustrating, since Minto and other landowners in the area submitted, as part of the previous OP process, residential needs studies to demonstrate residential need in the Kanata west end area. In the 45 seconds he received at Planning Committee on his application, it was indicated his residential needs study did not meet the test, but this one does. This is inappropriate, premature and piecemeal planning and it is Minto's position the application is premature. Based upon the comments by the delegation, Councillor Stavinga asked staff why it held its opinion. Mr. Lindsay responded that a major distinction is that these lands are inside the designated urban envelope defined since 1988, both in the former Region's OP and in the subsequent Township of Goulbourn OP for the Stittsville community. This is not an urban expansion. Secondly, the needs analysis completed was in support of changing the designation from a general industrial designation. As to whether or not the general industrial designation is appropriate given the approval of the Kanata West Concept Plan and the lands associated with it, one of the results of amalgamation is that the City can look at this in a more comprehensive basis; and, it is being done through the Kanata West Study staff was directed to complete. Although these lands were not part of the Kanata West Study, they are part of the West Urban community. Staff looked at the appropriateness of re-designating these lands in the context of the new OP. The report is quite articulate as to the benefits for this designation to proceed and the applicant will communicate why this is appropriate. Mr. Stirling expressed disappointment with the answer provided by staff. Minto recognizes the land is inside the urban boundary. The rationale for the inclusion of the land to residential is based on the employment in the Kanata West Concept Area. The question is that during Planning Committee's consideration of the Kanata West Concept Plan, Committee directed staff to undertake a study to assess housing demand and the required residential land supply resulting from the employment numbers generated by Kanata West Concept Plan. Whether he represented lands seeking to be included inside the urban boundary or whether he was looking to acquire lands in the west end, which might be part of the results of this study, is immaterial. The fact is that this study has not been completed. Lloyd Phillips, Lloyd Phillips and Associates, Jeff Parks and Chris Taggart, Taggart Residential Developments Limited. Briefing notes and the proposed concept plan were provided and are held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Phillips explained that Taggart Residential Developments Limited purchased the property from Arnold and Francoise Bradley approximate one year ago and the severance was approved in the spring. Mr. and Mrs. Bradley retained a seven acre parcel fronting on Hazeldean Road and Taggart Residential purchased 139 acres on the balance. He pointed out Maplegrove Road, Hazeldean Road and Main Street, to the west were vacant lands and to the east was the Rona Cashway store and an existing hydro station. As a condition of approval of the severance, a 6m easement was granted along the eastern edge of the property for an existing overhead Hydro Ottawa pole line that runs to the transformer station. There is a possibility the line may be relocated and the concept plans will allow for either re-location or the retention of that. He outlined the lands on an excerpt of the urban area in the City's OP. He pointed out that the Kanata West area touches the corner and Stittsville wraps around it to the south. It was important to see how it sits in the larger context, as it is almost surrounded by residential lands. If the application is approved, there will be a small area of industrial land remaining, which he opined will change to another use. He submitted it was done, having regard not only for the old OPs of the Region and Stittsville, but also the ongoing policies of the new OP. He posited an integral part of the Kanata West Plan was to change the alignment of Palladium Drive. A number of residents on Allen Street, approximately 36 single family homes, to the east of the property expressed some concerns on the development. Taggart was proposing single family homes and there are a number of ways to address their concerns through the provision of extra deep lots or to dedicate an easement to the City. The applicant was willing to work with the residents to deal with their concerns. Addressing the submissions by Minto regarding the prematurity of this development, Mr. Phillips submitted that it was in fact timely. The report has clearly demonstrated the need within the existing urban area and the issues outside the urban area should be dealt with on their own merits and in their own time. Clearly, with the abundance of employment land in the West Urban Area, there is no impact. The applicant has also dealt with the commercial impact, not only in the Kanata West area, but specifically the impact on Main Street, which is a requirement of the Goulbourn OP. As indicated in the report, a comprehensive traffic impact study concluded this land use change can be accomplished within the existing and planned road system without the need for any road improvements over and above those already planned. This development should not be held in abeyance pending a larger study that deals with the issue of how much urban and non-urban land is needed. Councillor Hume inquired how this application fits within the larger context, which the Minto representative addressed, that staff was to undertake a study to assess housing demand and required residential land supply resulting from employment numbers generated by the Kanata West Concept Plan and to identify opportunities, as necessary, within the existing urban boundary. Although this study was incomplete, did this application represent that type of opportunity? Mr. Lindsay responded that the Councillor accurately summarized where staff was coming from. This particular application deals with lands within the urban envelope and staff focused on whether it was appropriate to have a general industrial designation or a mixed designation for commercial and residential. The overall OP concerns on whether or not there are sufficient lands in the west end within the urban boundary will be addressed through the Kanata West Study. Mr. Jacobs confirmed data was collected and the study deals only with lands within the urban area and the intent, as indicated in the report, was to assess the implications of the employment being generated by Kanata West on the residential land supply in the West Urban Community in total. During the OP hearings staff commented that meeting residential land demands in the specific area of Kanata will be a challenge over the next period of time. Generally, in the City there is sufficient land to meet residential capacities, but there are some challenges in particular areas. This re-designation would provide additional land to meet that demand. Councillor Hume confirmed there was a trend in the west end for more residential land as opposed to industrial and inquired when the analysis would be available. Mr. Jacobs responded that it was staff's intent to have it before Committee in September. Councillor Hume pointed out there was some urgency to have the report before Committee since approval of the application as based on results of that study. Mr. Jacobs clarified that statistical evidence has identified there is a potential challenge to meet residential demand in the west end, but staff did not conduct nor complete the specific study arising out of Kanata West. Councillor Stavinga supported the recommendation before Committee and applauded the efforts of Taggart, Chris Parks and Chris Taggart, who went beyond with respect to public consultation. They are aware of her expectations on behalf of the Goulbourn community and were prepared for the next step through the zoning and subdivision. The application is on target with the new OP and the approved Kanata West Plan, which identified this particular application, that residential is the most appropriate use. She challenged the applicant to not only look at single family homes, but another form of tenure. The first plan was primarily adult style single family homes and some town homes, but through community pressure and her efforts, low rise apartments were added. She was also pleased with the responsiveness on the highway commercial, which included a service station, but through discussions the frontage will be on Hazeldean Road, a major artery. Steps were taken to preserve the environment with regard to the integrity of Feedmill Creek and conserving as many trees as possible, which is a concern since the area is completely forested. Through the process residents came to the conclusion that with the evolution of the community, it was appropriate to move the designation to residential. She asked the Committee to support the application, which is a good for the community and recognizes the necessity for the main street connection up to the Palladium interchange. Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve and adopt an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate lands at 6043 Hazeldean Road from Employee Area to General Urban Area in the New City of Ottawa Official Plan, Business Park to General Urban Area in the Regional Official Plan, and from General Industrial and Highway Commercial to Residential, General Commercial, Highway Commercial and Stittsville Mixed Use Area in the Goulbourn Official Plan as detailed in Documents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. CARRIED 6. ZONING - 859 VALIN STREET AND ADJACENT LANDS ZONAGE -c 859, RUE VALIN ET TERRAINS ADJACENTS ACS2003-DEV-APR-0107 CUMBERLAND (19) Don Kennedy, D. W. Kennedy Consulting Ltd., was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 15 May 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Cumberland Zoning By-law to change the zoning from Development Residential, Development Commercial, and Residential - Singles -Small Lot to Residential - Row Dwellings and Semis - Exception 5 zone (R3D-X5), Residential -Single - Small and Large Lot being R1G, R1H and R1FX6 for the lands located at 859 Valin Street and adjacent lands as shown on Document 1. CARRIED 7. ZONING - 1790 GREY NUNS DRIVE ZONAGE - 1790, PROMENADE GREY NUNS ACS2003-DEV-APR-0142 ORLÉANS (1) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 29 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the amendment to the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law No. 333 of 1999 for 1790 Grey Nuns Drive to rezone the property from a Cc1 (E3) -Commercial Community Zone to Rs1 exception - Residential, Single Dwelling Zone, as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 1. CARRIED 8. ZONING - 2445 ST. LAURENT BOULEVARD 60 ZONAGE - 2445, BOULEVARD SAINT LAURENT ACS2003-DEV-APR-0118 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 5 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, from Industrial Business Park, IP1 F(1.0) H (10.7) to IP1 F (1.0) H (10.7) with an exception to include a school as a permitted use at 2445 St. Laurent Boulevard. CARRIED 9. ZONING - 384 ST. PATRICK STREET ZONAGE - 384, RUE SAINT PATRICK ACS2003-DEV-APR-0125 RIDEAU-VANIER (12) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 22 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, to add an Emergency Service Use as a permitted use in the General Commercial (CG[401]) zone applying to the property at 384 St. Patrick Street, as shown on Document 2. CARRIED 10. ZONING - 2360 VIRGINIA DRIVE ZONAGE - 2360, PROMENADE VIRGINIA ACS2003-DEV-APR-0096 ALTA VISTA (18) Councillor Hume, as the Ward Councillor, provided public consultation sheets as a result of a public open house on the matter and a series of e-mails, which are held on file with the City Clerk. The Committer heard from the following delegations on the recommendations contained in report dated 15 May 2003: Douglas Kirkland provided a lengthy written submission, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Kirkland supported the recommendation, but submitted there were some flaws in the report that he addressed in his submission. Responding to a question related to the concern with Manorhill Private at the sourthern entrance/exit to Virginia Drive that opens offset to the established intersection of Illinois and Virginia Drive by Chair Hunter, Mr. Kirkland referred to a situation at the intersection of Roseglen, Kilborn and Featherstone where a driveway was moved to line it up to allow for an equal four-way stop coming into one intersection, which was very safe and should be done at this location. Councillor Hume received confirmation Mr. Kirdland's main concern was with the layout, that Manor Hill and Illinois should align and although it is a site plan issue, it is a safety issue for him. If it could be re-configured, he would be generally supportive of the application. Mr. Kirkland stated there were still problems, but they were manageableCouncillor Hume noted it was a recurring theme and raised at a public open house on April 14th. He asked the Planner, Gordon Harrison, if that intersection could be reconfigured and was informed it would require the removal of units 15 and 12. In response to the Councillor's inquiry, Mr. Harrison advised that it was circulated to the City's transportation engineers and the proposal as it stood was acceptable. There were good site lines and given the low amount of traffic generated by this development, there was no need to align it. Councillor Harder inquired if the staff position was based purely on the number of possible vehicles (2 per unit). Mr. Morrison responded that it is the number of vehicles accessing/egressing; and secondly, it is a private roadway. Staff is currently reviewing the site plan and if possible, it would do so; however, as pointed it would mean a loss of units. Councillor Harder suggested that since the zoning issue was before Committee, the Ward Councillor could follow up on the matter. Councillor Hume agreed; however, the units, as configured, and the density are allowed under the zoning, but would follow up on the matter with staff. Mr. Harrsion clarified there were yard and height requirements and minimum width requirements per dwelling unit, but the zoning was not tied to a number of units. Responding to the Councillor on lining up the intersection, Mr. Morrison acknowledged that was preferable, however it is not uncommon and there are intersections across the City that are slightly skewed. He cautioned that if the roadway is moved, it will run alongside the property line of the adjacent property. Councillor Hume referred to the entrance of Featherston, Kilborn and Roseglen that lined up exactly and did not appear to be a problem. John Campbell provided a written submission by e-mail, which was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. His concerns were similar to those made by Robert Teskey. He questioned the advertised price of $325,000 per unit in this confined area when purchasers can easily buy a single family house for less than $300,000 in the area. The zoning change benefits only the developer. It is being changed for the most part to cram 35 units in the space available, which is too many. 20 was preferable in keeping with other developments in the area. Councillor Munter received confirmation that Mr. Campbell was concerned that units would sell for less than $325,000. Mr. Campbell opined that if the price dropped it would change the character of the development and how it affects the area. Councillor Harder submitted that market fluctuations occur within all communities, impacting all housing types and Mr. Campbell's concern was invalid. Mr. Campbell agreed, provided the units came on stream at $300,000. Kathleen Willis and John MacDougall, Vice-President, Uniform Urban Developers. Ms. Willis advised that Uniform Urban Developers concurs with the staff report. The issue before Committee is the zoning of the site, not the details reflected in the site plan, although they are somewhat tied together and the zoning is somewhat tailored to the proposal. Significant time was spent with staff in that regard to give comfort to the community. As laid out in the staff report, the development proposal meets all the tests of the new OP recently approved by Council and changes a surplus school site from institutional to residential. Ms. Willis described densities in the surrounding neighbourhood and that of the development as outlined in the report. The first proposal contained 45 three-storey units. Although very sensitively designed, Uniform had concerns it would not be acceptable to the community and voluntarily changed the design to 35 two-storey units. The applicant had concerns the density might be too low with the new OP. In terms of OP objectives for infill developments, which must demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood, the applicant has provided that in a number of ways; the housing form, attached townhomes, in units of three, one unit of two; those that front on Virginia Drive have a very unique streetscape designed exclusively for this site by Barry Hobin and Associates. In recognition of the single and semi-detached units across the street, the units on Virginia Drive are designed in such a manner that they appear to be extremely large single family homes to reflect the low-rise residential neighbourhood surrounding it. As one travels into the interior of the site, they are more traditionally attached townhomes, but also reflect a major presence in massing and form. In terms of value, the previous speaker articulated that the houses were to be priced in the $350,000 range and expressed scepticism as to the builder's ability to market them at that price. Uniform has an excellent track record and very carefully chooses their sites, winning community of the year award for two recent communities, Nautica on Carling Avenue and the Oaks of Island Park on Clearview Avenue. They pay great attention to detail and hire the best architect and will market these houses at the price indicated. In terms of other objectives in the OP: * use of existing municipal infrastructure * sewers and watermains are in the ground, with room for this development * roads have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated by this site. * It is beside a park * there is a bus route on Featherston Drive in the immediate vicinity. Regarding the comments on the offset of the intersection of Manorhill Private and Illinois Avenue, there were discussions with their traffic engineer and City staff. Councillor Hume spoke to staff and no one expressed a problem with that offset. * Very little traffic is generated by this development; less than if the school re-opened. * There will be virtually no thru traffic for Manorhill Private through to Illinois Drive. * Manorhill Private is a crescent and vehicles will be driving frontwards onto Virginia Drive and no one will be backing onto the street, which could actually improve the situation. * The site lines are excellent. Residents have a choice and could access/egress either intersection * The builder is fully prepared to put a stop sign at the intersection of Manorhill Private and Virginia Drive, if that was the desire of the City; and, similarly the existing yield sign on Illinois Avenue at Virginia Drive could be replaced with a stop sign. * The introduction of 4 private driveways on Virginia Drive, plus the 2 ends of Manordale Private will be less disruptive in this residential area. There was substantial public consultation. At the request of Councillor Hume, they met with the Alta Vista Planning Group, made up of representatives from community associations across Alta Vista. A presentation of the preliminary drawings was made before the proposal was submitted with positive feedback. An open house was hosted by Councillor Hume in early April attended by a number of people and numerous comments were received, positive and negative, with many of those addressed. Two delegations appeared today with concerns related to the change in use and a site plan issue. That would seem to indicate a fairly high level of support in the community since others have not objected. In fact, a number of community residents are on a reservation list to see the development before it goes out to the market. Uniform asks that the Committee supports the application since it meets all the tests of the City's OP and there has been a lot of scepticism about the City's political appetite to adhere to the objectives of infill and intensification as documented in this OP and the approval of this particular zoning application will demonstrate clearly Council and Planning Committee's commitment to fulfill its own objectives of intensification. Councillor Hume inquired if the applicant could modify the site plan in such a way should the zoning be approved to accommodate Mr. Kirkland's concerns, having heard Mr. Morrison's comments. Ms. Willis responded that the applicant would be willing to look at it. The difficulty was the proximity of a straight alignment opposite Illinois would result in the removal of units. Having said that, if it can be accomplished without losing units, it could be looked at. Responding to a further request, Mr. MacDougall added that it was scrutinized by both staff and their consultants. It was felt the plan would be compromised by the change, but if the City requested it would be looked at further. Mr. Morrison clarified that the preference would definitely be to line up the intersection, but given the traffic volumes and the two access/egress points, staff was satisfied it would work. Councillor Munter opined the application was a good development proposal and was consistent with the City's OP and a very appropriate form of development for the City. Councillor Hume referred to the package he provided to the Committee. It is an outstanding urban design and the best the community could hope for. He found himself in a very difficult situation given the community's concerns. There are three key issues for the community. One, was traffic, not necessarily that generated by this development, but that which already existed in this community because of the synagogue down the street. There is a plan in place to alleviate the traffic problem without taking drastic measures such as banning on all the streets. He was confident the houses would sell for $325-350,000, since houses in his neighbourhood requiring $100,000 in repairs are selling for $350,000 and upwards. There is certainly a market for a very high end product in the community. If the site plan issues can be resolved, the access issues by and large will be resolved. The Committee has all the correspondence received on this issue (listed below); and, one concern with the current development process is that there is not enough consultation, with only an on site information sign posted. The developer did undertake a very comprehensive consultation as outlined in the material provided, but it still comes down to the fundamental tenet of the OP, communities are extremely resistant to change; even 35 units at $350,000 were resisted. He informed the community that even if the Committee rejected the re-zoning, the matter would go before the OMB, spending tax dollars with a very slim chance of success, given the product before them. It was a reasonable development in Alta. * Information flyer outlining proposal (January 30, 2003) * Uniform Urban Developments site plan control proposal (January 31, 2003) * Notice to affected area of the Public Open House (March 7, 2003) * Comment sheets from the Open House * E-mail from Harold Wright dated 8 December 2002 * E-mail from Wendy Heffley dated 5 February 2003 * E-mail from Gerald Francoeur dated 9 Februrary 2003 * E-mail from Paul Armstrong dated 9 February 2003 * E-mail from Joanne McQuarrie dated 9 February 2003 * E-mail from W. M. J. McIntyre dated 9 February 2003 * E-mail from Carol Holmes dated 11 February 2003 * E-mail from Don Barnes dated 11 February 2003 * E-mail from from Doug Kirkland dated 12 February 2003 * E-mail from Robert Teskey dated 14 February 2003 * E-mail from Fouad Nasrallah dated 20 February 2003 * E-mail from Glenn Law dated 24 February 2003 * E-mail from Anna Munro dated 27 February 2003 * Letter dated 1 March 2003 from David M. and Jacqueline Halton * E-mail from Robert and Pauline Bodnoff dated 3 March 2003 * E-mail from John H. Campbell dated 16 April 2003 * E-mail from Andrew Kavchak dated 5 February 2003 * E-mail from Mary and Bob Layton dated 5 February 2003 * E-mail from Janet White dated 6 February 2003 * E-mail from Marg Ritchie dated 6 February 2003 * E-mail from Mr. and Mrs. Drummond * E-mail from Robert Teskey, with attached comments, dated 9 June 2003 Moved by Councillor A. Munter: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998, to establish an R3M Townhouse exception zone at 2360 Virginia Drive as detailed in Document 1. CARRIED 11. ZONING - 1428 HERON ROAD ZONAGE - 1428, CHEMIN HERON ACS2003-DEV-APR-0130 ALTA VISTA (18) Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 29 May 2003. An e-mail dated 2 June 2003, from Amy Kempster for the Greenspace Alliance was circulated to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Kempster particularly highlight that the 20m path on the eastern side on the more southerly part of the land between Heron and Walkley be 30m. The Committee approved the recommendation. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, to modify the performance standards for single detached houses in the R3H [606] Converted House and Townhouse Zone applying to 1428 Heron Road as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 3. CARRIED 12. ZONING - 1900 PRINCE OF WALES DRIVE ZONAGE - 1900, PROMENADE PRINCE OF WALES ACS2003-DEV-APR-0089 RIVER (16) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 29 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law, 1998, of the former City of Ottawa to add car wash as a permitted use in the CG2[424] F(0.25) - General Commercial Zone applying to 1900 Prince of Wales Drive as detailed in Document 2. CARRIED 13. ZONING - 237 CLARE STREET ZONING - 237, RUE CLARE ACS2003-DEV-APR-0120 KITCHISSIPPI (15) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 22 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to an amend Zoning By-law, 1998, of the former City of Ottawa to add an exception to the R2C Semi-Detached House Zone for 237 Clare Street, as detailed in Document 3. CARRIED 14. ZONING - 19 CENTREPOINTE DRIVE ZONAGE - 19, PROMENADE CENTREPOINTE ACS2003-DEV-APR-0097 BASELINE (8) Doug James provided a brief presentation and responded to questions on the departmental report dated 22 May 2003. Responding to questions from Councillor Chiarelli, Mr. James advised that the maximum office building that could be placed on the site was 3,700 square metres. The proposed zoning, with a 2.5 fsi would permit 18,000 square metres. On the target job to resident ratio in the Centrepointe community when originally designed, Mr. James advised that the Secondary Plan establishes a number of residential units. It divides the Secondary Plan into precincts and this is the Constellation Precinct, which anticipates 400 residences in this area, this being the first 180. Councillor Chiarelli inquired what analysis staff had undertaken with respect to the impact of the new City municipal campus at Ben Franklin Place in terms of traffic on Centrepointe and surrounding area. Mr. Lindsay believed the Councillor was referring to the former Nortel building with a fairly significant traffic analysis undertaken. Councillor Chiarelli was also referring to the plan by RPAM to block off the entire property for future development as well as the current Nortel development. Mr. James advised that a traffic study was conducted for this development and it anticipated the existing road network could handle the traffic as expected from this proposed development. There will be further studies for any future developments and if road improvements are required, they will be considered at that time. Councillor Cullen noted the residential across from the property, commercial to the north and the school to the south. Mr. James confirmed a traffic analysis was undertaken and it was opined the site could absorb it. Councillor Harder noted that the current zoning allowed an office building and asked if the parking requirements would compare to those for a residential building of this size. Mr. James responded that at peak times it would be similar, but slightly higher for residential. Councillor Harder was of the opinion that given the office nature and increased occupancy, there would be an increased number of cars resulting in spillage onto Centrepointe and its environs. Mr. James acknowledged that could be the case. Councillor Harder received confirmation that in the future Constellation would be extended to Woodroffe, but currently traffic had no escape but Centrepointe. Before the Committee heard from the delegations, Councillor Chiarelli provided approximately 60 e-mails which were circulated and held on file with the City Clerk, as listed below: * Howard S. Russell * Dianne Brydges and Donald Manning * Kim Chang * Jonathan Greenspan * D. Pagurek * Fuzheng Chen * Tuy Nguyen * Annam Ganesan * Marcella Sousa * Lonnie Melamed * Franc Zhang * Dr. Steven Poplove and family * Koon Hoo Teo * Hua Xu * Deepak * Noureddine Outaleb * Edward-Yang Xu * Suresh Peryalawar and Shalini Periyalwar * Robert Manchip * Max Ma * Vilok Kusumakar * Leonid Kliotzkin * Sheryl Hamilton * Jim Huang * Darlene Cherry * Donna M. Owen * Walter A. Cherry * Bill Love * Avner Ginsberg * The Centrepointe Communications team * Jennifer Campagna * Cory Houston * Jason Sterne * Sharon Basta * Jason Clarke * Kent Jenkins * George Li and family * Hanhong Dan and Qiong Pei * Chris and Tricia Young * Ferhana and Aamir Jaleel * Randi Sherman * Hang Zhang and Peng Zhang * Jeff Grant The Committer heard from the following Centrepointe residents, who provided a comprehensive slide presentation with photographs and individual representations, a hard copy of which were provided to the Committee and held on file with the City Clerk: Jeff McMullen and Janet Stauch Aly Alibhai Bill Love Denis Tisseur Darlene Cherry Mr. McMullen introduced the group and advised that the proposal generated a large concern in the Centrepointe area. The silent majority of residents within Centrepointe were greatly opposed to this development and given the results of the petition and the numerous e-mails circulated, there was no doubt. He reiterated that the variance sought was very large. It was a rezoning that would permit a change in use from a low rise commercial building to a high rise, high density residential building. It is a 5x change in density and a very significant change in the height of the permitted building directly across the street from residences. Ms. Stauch provided pictures and video clippings of the site to demonstrate how traffic flowed and how dangerous the corner was. A petition with 324 names was filed with the Committee and is held on file with City Clerk. This represented a 90% support against the application, with 324, out of 350, who signed the petition against the proposal. Responding to questions from Councillor Harder, Ms. Cherry commented that it was not so much the building as the density and the houses. On the question of traffic, she opined that with a residential component traffic would be generated 24 hours/day, but with a office component it would be day time only. Lewis Kruger, Director of Development, Richcraft Homes, identified the lands as being located on the east side of Centrepointe Drive in the Constellation precinct of the Centrepointe Community. Mr. Kruger noted delegations had expressed concerns as to the appropriateness for approval of the application because of planning reasons, traffic concerns and design of the proposed building. With respect to planning, Mr. Kruger stated the proposed development conformed with the former Nepean "BaseLine and Woodroffe Area Secondary Plan that stated with respect to the Constellation Precinct, "Residential uses shall be encouraged preferably adjacent to existing residential dwellings along Centrepointe Drive." It was noted the subject lands conformed to this location, and that the Secondary Plan also formed part of the new Ottawa Official Plan. The Traffic Impact Reports provided to the City by Delcan recommended no traffic improvements were necessary as a result of the proposed development, and the current road system was designed to accommodate traffic from the proposed development. Mr. Kruger introduced Ron Jack, Vice-President Manager, Transportation Systems Division, Delcan who made a formal presentation of their studies and findings, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following clarifications were provided in response to the previous comments: * The original Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was based on 2001 and 2002 traffic counts provided by the City. When it was learned the former Nortel building was 50% occupied, Delcan prepared and submitted an Addendum to the TIS, the analysis results of which were acceptable to staff. * Historic traffic growth at the Baseline/Centrepointe intersection average approximately 3% per year and it has been approximately 5% on Centrepointe Drive. As the Centrepointe area is approaching build-out the average traffic growth rate of 3% for all area streets and intersections was more appropriate * It is appropriate to use different transit modal splits for the two alternative development scenarios on the site. Like all suburban communities, residential-based travel from the suburbs into the central area experiences higher transit ridership than that to a suburban office location. All the City's Screenline counts reflect that commuter transit modal splits are higher than reverse-commuter modal splits. * With regard to the projected failure at the Centrepointe/Constellation north intersection, it is only the westbound left turn that fails. This movement is 12 vph in the morning and 30 vph in the afternoon peak hour. Possible future area road network modifications can be made to reduce traffic at this intersection, including the westerly extension of Navaho Drive to intersect Constellation and the possible addition of an eastbound right access to the existing right-out only at Constellation and Baseline. These modifications would certainly improve the operation of the subject intersection. * With regard to site access, the proposed location is the best. Having the site access on Centrepointe on the outside of the curb results in good visibility and is the most appropriate and safest of all alternatives; and * Regarding traffic generation, a 45,000 sq.ft. office = approximately 185 employees plus visitors; and, as 180 residential units are proposed, the peak hour traffic generation is approximately the same for both land uses. Mr. Kruger stated Richcraft had met with the community on 2 occasions, modified the building design as a result of those meetings, and continued to modify the plans as a result of those discussions. Rod Lahey, Roderick Lahey Architects, was retained by Richcraft after the property was purchased in the Fall of 2002, to review the existing zoning and planning policies and report on what type of development would best meet Richcraft's needs and the community at large. Mr. Lahey provided his notes, which are held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Lahey stated a variety of building massing had been reviewed including a 16 storey building, but the proposed massing and a 10 storey height was the most appropriate. Sun shadow studies revealed there would be no impact on adjacent residential buildings. A three-storey podium mirrored the residential buildings on the opposite side of Centrepointe Drive. The building has been designed to compliment the quality of development that typifies Centrepointe Drive. All of the parking with the exception of visitor parking is provided below grade. This was done to maximize the landscaped open space. Privacy is a real issue that was dealt with by designing the majority of the units with French balconies. The choice of materials and building design has been developed to reduce the visual mass of the building to provide a strong residential curb appeal. The proposed building will provide a much needed residential unit type missing in the area and act as a gateway building to the community. Mr. Kruger, noted it had previously been identified that past Planning Documents (Nepean Secondary Plan) and the current Ottawa OP supported the proposed development. The subject lands were designated "Mixed Use Centre" in the Ottawa OP and staff had reported that "Lands with this designation should offer substantial opportunities for new development or redevelopment, especially transit supported uses such as medium or high-density residential uses. Rezoning the property to allow an apartment building would meet the intent of these policies." In summary Mr. Kruger stated that past and present Planning documents supported the re-zoning and proposed development, traffic from the proposed development would not negatively impact the surrounding road system and the design of the proposed building was appropriate for the community. Councillor Stavinga said there was concern in the community for the 10 storey height of the proposed building, and asked if Richcraft would be willing to restrict the height to 6 or 7 stories. Mr. Kruger responded that he was unable to agree to a reduction in height because from a planning, traffic impact and design perspective, the proposed development was appropriate for the community. Chair Hunter and Councillor Chiarelli provided historical data on development in the area. Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga: That the maximum height be restricted to 26m and with no increase in massing (i.e. foot print). LOST YEAS (1): Councillor J. Stavinga NAYS (7): Councillors Harder, Munter, Cullen, Arnold, Little, Hume, Hunter The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 22 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Urban Area Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 19 Centrepointe Drive from a Commercial Office Zone (CO FAR 0.5) to a Commercial Mixed Use Zone (CMU FAR 2.5), as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Document 3. CARRIED Councillor J. Stavinga dissented. 15. ZONING - 457 HAZELDEAN ROAD ZONAGE - 457, CHEMIN HAZELDEAN ACS2003-DEV-APR-0078 KANATA (4) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 13 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law to change the zoning from Institutional (I) to General Commercial Exception (CG-11) for 457 Hazeldean Road as shown in Document 2 and detailed in Document 3. CARRIED 16. ZONING - 151 TANSLEY DRIVE ZONAGE - 151, PROMENADE TANSLEY ACS2003-DEV-APR-0098 WEST CARLETON (5) Brian Gibson, the applicant, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 15 May 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law to rezone 151 Tansley Drive from "MR-10" - Rural Industrial Exception 10 to "MR-10(x4)" - Rural Industrial Exception 10(x4) as detailed in Document 2. CARRIED PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY POLITIQUES D'URBANISME, D'ENVIRONNEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE 17. ZONING- PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BY-LAW, 1998 (Technical Anomalies) ZONAGE- MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LE ZONAGE DE 1998 (anomalies techniques) ACS2003-DEV-POL-0029 CITY-WIDE Jonah Bonn, Landscope Ltd., the applicant, was present in support of the recommendation contained in report dated 20 May 2003. The Committee approved the recommendation. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the amendments to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, as detailed in Document 1. CARRIED PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH DIRECTION DE L'APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D'URBANISME ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE 18. ZONING - 60 GUIGUES STREET, 90 PARENT STREET ZONAGE - 60, RUE GUIGUES, 90, RUE PARENT ACS2003-DEV-APR-0092 RIDEAU-VANIER (12) See Item 19. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE L'ARCHITECTURE LOCALE 19. DEMOLITIONS - 60 GUIGUES AVENUE AND 90 PARENT AVENUE, LOCATED WITHIN THE LOWERTOWN WEST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DÉMOLITION - 60, AVENUE GUIGUES ET 90, AVENUE PARENT, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA BASSE-VILLE OUEST ACS2003-DEV-APR-0022 RIDEAU-VANIER (12) Mr. Lindsay advised that the Heritage component of the presentation would be made by Sally Coutes, followed by the presentation on the zoning component by Julie Sarazan would provide the Committee with a complete perspective of the issues. Ms.Coutes provided a detailed presentation on proposal to demolish 60 Guigues Avenue and 90 Parent Avenue within the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated 28 April 2003. Ms. Sarazin provided a detailed presentation on proposal to demolish 60 Guigues Avenue and 90 Parent Avenue within the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District and was available to respond to any questions on departmental report dated 28 April 2003. Councillor Munter questioned the rationale for the rezoning on a permanent basis if the intention was for a temporary parking lot. Typically in such circumstances a three-year temporary By-Law is put in place that has to be renewed every three years. Mr. Lindsay pointed that the applicant requested a greater time frame than three years. But, it was certainly within the Committee's purview to consider a temporary use for a period of three years with an option to renew. Secondly, the future development of this site may incorporate such items as underground parking for example and provide the opportunity for the Church to have continued revenue for its operations. Councillor Little received confirmation the rezoning would allow for commercial parking. The Committee heard from the following delegations: David Small * Lived in the By Ward Market for close to 25 years. * He commended the Committee for the two years of hard work that went into the Official Plan. He was a strong supporter of Smart Growth and believed strongly in mixed use in the inner core. * He lived in the inner core because he liked the diversity and cultural differences. * There has been over $1 Million private residential investment. The community is moving in the direction of the OP, with intensification, community renewal, etc. Residents are moving into the area, changing the community, but this seems to be countered by the notion of a bulldozer coming in and taking away some of the very elements of the community that made it so attractive. * This isn't a matter of property values, although he didn't plan on living beside a parking lot; it's not about individual interests, but for the City to be consistent in terms of community preservation, historical preservation and joint stewardship of communities. * There are seven parking lots in the vicinity of the Basilica. There is no shortage of parking in the market, but a shortage of free parking. Metered parking in the area sits empty six days of the week. On Sundays cars are parked with people attending mass, which the community has accepted as its part. Area residents are doing their part in upgrading and maintaining the community to make it a better place to live. * The proposal is totally contrary to the OP principles with bulldozers coming in and no long term commitment or force of law that the lot will be anything but a parking lot, a cash cow in perpetuity. Janteen Van Kregten, Executive Director of the By Ward Market Business Improvement Area (BIA), provided a written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Van Kregten spoke in favour of the proposal to create additional spaces. The BIA represents over 450 businesses in the area north of George Street and East of Sussex Drive. Brook Burchfiel provided a brief presentation (entitled "A Cornerstone of Our Community) to the Committee, with numerous photographs of the subject buildings and those in the immediate vicinity, and expressing his disapproval of the staff recommendation for demolition and equally of creating another parking lot in his community. He related a brief history for each of the homes and current and former residents. Mr. Burchfiel reiterated that the properties were more than black and white lines on a map. It is a real community and the corner had to be saved because of the historical implications. It is the cornerstone of the Lowertown neighbourhood. Deborah Cooper was unable to remain, but provided copies of a letter with her concerns that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Linda (Nina) Discombe provided a petition with 170 signatures, from people who did not want to see the demolition of these buildings, nor a public parking lot, which she was able to garner in 10 hours. The petition was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk. * She questioned why the Archdiocese is applying for permanent parking, if the intention was to rebuild; would the temporary zoning not suit them? * It has been reported in the Media that $500,000 per year could be generated with public parking; and, the new facilities will cost approximately $20 Million, taking approximately eight years. She calculated it will take 35 years. * Renovation will cost $1.8 Million, why not do that? * The application for increased parking states they have 85 spots. Ideal informed her they have 150 spots. They already have the 57 spots they are seeking. * On a Sunday, only half 150 spots are used by parishioners attending mass; and, 10-15 have their ticket validated for the $5 rebate. * The creation of a parking lot is the beginning of the commercialization of the neighbourhood. Potentially 250 spots for possibly a decade open 24 hours a day; bars close at 2 a. m. in the Market. Additional comments were contained with the Petition. Sushen Khullar * Lived in the market since 1982. * His house will be the one most affected; it is the only one on the first block. * Residents spend an incredible amount of time in their gardens to beautify the community. There is a mix of residents. * The proposal talks about landscaping to enhance the parking, but it won't compare to the community's gardens. * The community does not want another parking lot; there is a lot of parking available. * The community constantly renovates and improves their homes to the betterment of the community at large, to restore it to its historical glory as a family community. Nichole Faubert, L'Auberge du Marche, was present but had to leave. Stephen Monuk * Spent $60,000 on his house and expected to spend $40-60,000 more. * Shortage of parking in the area; many parking lots shown are private, not public. Vehicles circulate continuously looking for parking. He didn't want people driving around the neighbourhood looking for parking. * The entrance of the proposed parking lot will be on Guigues Avenue; exit is on St. Patrick; it is a major thruway. * Residents care about their community, but those who addressed the Committee were those most directly affected; there is a whole community out there. * He sits on the Residents Association and is also involved with safety and security, most residents do not have a problem with the parking lot. * The church will put up the proper lighting, landscaping to make it viable and safe. John Andrew Doole * Opposes the demolition and rezoning to permit public parking. * Loss of these attractive buildings will have a negative impact on the neighbourhood by exposing it to additional noise and traffic * Wants to see a healthy By Ward Market area remain economically viable * The need for additional parking should not be provided at the expense of a vibrant neighbourhood in Lowertown. * The Archdiocese wants a temporary parking lot, but the zoning applied for is permanent; why can't temporary zoning be a viable alternative; it would be the only way Council could retain regulatory control over the Archdiocese' plans. * The current parking lot rented out by Ideal, was originally temporarily zoned and is now permanent. There were 2-3 renewals and eventually became permanent (1998). There was little opposition, possibly because it wasn't understood they were in jeopardy of being removed in the long term. * There is parking across the street between the nuns' residence and priests' residence, east of current parking lot, which is not zoned for that use, but Ideal parking signs are posted on the parking lot and paid parking is taking place. * Who will monitor the temporary zoning? * Parking is at the expense of the beautiful, diverse and vibrant neighbourhood. Councillor Stavinga asked for clarification on the parking area referred to by the speaker with the Ideal parking signs. Mr. Lindsay was not aware of any illegal parking lots, although there may be one or two operating without the proper zoning and could be investigated. Mr. Doole submitted a photograph of the site, which previously had a "Reserved for" sign for the nuns and priests. It was reserved for private use, but there is now an Ideal parking sign that says if you are unlawfully parking you will be towed away. Ms. Coutts clarified that the office building at the corner of Parent and Guigues had parking across the street. According to Monsignor Powers, the sign says something like "Private Parking please report to Ideal parking lot across the street"; it is simply a notice. Clarke Cross provided detailed written comments, which are on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Cross supported the LACAC position against the application. Chari Marple provided detailed comments on behalf of LACAC, which are held on file with the City Clerk. LACAC had five major concerns regarding this proposed action 1. There are no plans for replacement building 2. Length of time between demolition and proposed new construction, too long and beyond the time frame to confidently predict future plans 3. The architecture would be removed and replaced by a parking lot in one of Ottawa's designated heritage districts, negatively impacting the character of that district. The demolition of two structures of architectural interest for surface parking is unacceptable. 4, The heritage value of the buildings themselves. 5. Other alternatives have not been seriously explored. Due to these concerns, LACAC recommends rejection of the demolition. Chair Hunter asked if either building was individually designated as a Heritage building. Ms. Marple responded that one was designated as Category 3 out 4, with some heritage value. Ms. Coutts advised that neither was designated as an individual heritage property. The cathedral is designated under Part IV, as an individually designated property, but it lies within the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation District. The annex, 60 Guigues, is included in the district but not designated Part IV and wasn't rated. 90 Parent is designated as part of the Heritage Conservation District as a Category 3 building. For the record, the City of Ottawa does not use a 40 year cut-off date. In the Byward Market Heritage Conservation District extra points are given in age ranges and these started in the 19th Century and after 1939 it was given the same rating. It was evaluated at that time, based on the construction phases of the Heritage Conservation District and wouldn't change. The Chair received confirmation one of the major concerns was that there was no plan for an immediate replacement building. In response to a query by Councillor Stavinga, Ms. Coutts explained that every building within a Heritage Conservation District is designated and are given ratings from Category 1 - 4. She provided an example of the process entailed in considering applications and the requirements under the Ontario Heritage Ac. 60 Guiges has no category because of its anomalous position attached to a building that is attached to the Cathedral. Councillor Stavinga confirmed that Council has a choice to approve the demolition regardless of any concept of what is planned for the site in the future; or, the same authority to refuse demolition on the grounds that plans for a replacement building were not received. Monsignor Pat Powers, Archdiocese of Ottawa, provided a detailed written presentation that included historical data, which is on file with the City Clerk. On the issue raised by one of the speakers with respect to parking, it was temporarily used by the Conference of Bishops. He agreed to investigate to ensure that use was discontinued. Councillor Munter noted the Monsignor declared that parishioners would not pay for parking, yet $500,000 in revenue was anticipated. Monsignor Powers explained that church services take place on Sundays, with weddings and funerals during the week and parishioners are not charged, but a portion of the existing parking lot can be used for commercial purposes outside of the weekends when parishioners are not worshiping. That generates money and the additional 15 spots would allow the Church to raise between $400-500,000. However, if the addition of those spaces is a problem, they will be restricted to parishioners only and will slow down the ability to raise funds. Councillor Munter commented that the current debate would be moot if the redevelopment schedule was advanced with formal plans or sketches. It would provide a sense of security. He asked if the process could be accelerated and if existing buildings could be sold to finance the development. Monsignor Powers responded that the Archdiocese would endeavour to speed the process along, but property values have recently decreased - Kilborn had been evaluated at $10 Million and was now appraised at $5 Million. It is anticipated that over time that value will increase. There are several properties that could be sold and if it could be accomplished sooner it would. Councillor Munter posited that the problems with parking lots is that once installed they do not leave. The Monsignor indicated the Archdiocese was prepared to provide progress reports. Responding to a query by Councillor Stavinga on retaining the building, Monsignor Powers stated that the problem with the annex to the annex to the cathedral is that it is no longer in use and in a state of total disrepair. As well, the need for additional parking space is so great, they insist this building be removed. Councillor Stavinga questioned if the demolition and rezoning could be tied to site plan approval, with landscaping and design. She was leaning towards a temporary zoning; and, inquired if there could be a specific landscape plan that illustrates the protection of that wall, landscaping and with the approval of the Ward Councillor. Mr. Lindsay was aware the Archdiocese submitted a site plan, currently being reviewed and staff is emphasizing extensive landscaping. The Ward Councillor can also choose to bring the site plan to this Committee. The Councillor asked if the demolition could be approved subject to a site plan being developed that meets the satisfaction of the City and the Ward Councillor. The site plan should create a buffering for the community as it relates to the vegetation and retention of the wall. Mr. Moser confirmed that Committee and Council approve the demolition and zoning, subject to the approval of the site plan. Committee and Council in the past have withheld the approval of a zoning amendment until such time as a site plan has been approved. That would be within the purview of Committee and council. The following correspondence was received. * E-mail from Rodney Waugh and Leeann McGovern dated 9 June 2003 * E-mail from Fernande Levac, Centre des Jeunes, dated 10 June 2003 Chair Hunter received two Motions from Councillor Little: Be it resolved that the Planning and Development Committee refuse the application to rezone this property. Be it resolved that the Planning and Development Committee approve the LACAC recommendation to refuse the application to demolish the structures at 60 Guigues Avenue and 90 Parent Avenue in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District. Councillor Munter indicated he had a Motion that would follow on the heels of Councillor Little's Motion. That the minor institutional acceptance zone at 60 Guigues/90 Parent Street remain in place and that a three year temporary parking by-law be approved at this location and Further that the use of the temporary parking lot that is the subject of this by-law be limited to parishioners, employees and other cathedral related uses, and Further that the implementing by-law to enact the temporary lot not be placed before Council until the approval of the site plan by the City. Councillor Stavinga asked that not only the enactment of the zoning, but the approval for the demolition be subject to that finalization of the site plan. Councillor Munter agreed to amend his Motion accordingly. Councillor Meilleur advised that residents were concerned with traffic and the preservation of these two buildings. A public meeting was attended by 20 - 25 residents, none of whom were present today. There was initial objection at the beginning, but after listening to the presentation by Monsignor Power they were satisfied the site would be improved in the long term. There is still concern about the increased traffic, which Councillor Munter's Motion will alleviate. Councillor Stavinga inquired if the additional parking could be opened to the public similar to the existing lot, but subject to a review in one year. Mr. Marc advised that zoning cannot be conditioned, but Council can (and has) require that an agreement be signed by the church agreeing to the limited use of the parking lot and then enact the temporary zoning. To respond to Councillor Stavinga, one possibility is to enact a temporary zoning by-law for a one year period without such an agreement and if problems were encountered, a further extension would be enacted if there was an agreement limiting the use of the parking lot. Councillor Little would not support Councillor Munter's Motion because it would be difficult to police. He encouraged the Committee to approve his Motions. From the points raised by LACAC, the buildings had heritage value. He did not support demolition of these buildings and the application to demolish is premature. There was no plan presented for a replacement building. In terms of rezoning, it was his experience that once additional parking has been approved for churches the revenue becomes addictive. There is overwhelming opposition in the community, not only by the presenters but in the petition. He encouraged the Committee to refuse these applications and support his Motions Councillor Arnold received confirmation for the record that the nature of the applicant or their financial situation was not considered when looking at planning rationale for approval or rejection of an application. She understood that zoning for a public parking lot is different from ancillary parking or parking for parishioners. Mr. Lindsay stated that ancillary parking is usually tied to the function of the main structure on the property, whereas public parking is exactly that. Councillor Arnold received confirmation that an easier way to achieve Councillor Munter's objective is to refuse the public parking part of the zoning and if the demolition portion of the report was approved, ancillary parking could be permitted on that portion, which would not require agreements. The Councillor understood the Church's difficulties, but it should not be considered as part of the planning argument on whether demolition within the Heritage Conservation District, without a replacement plan, should be permitted. Secondly, it should not be considered when determining whether a public parking lot is a good use in that part of the By Ward Market. If a plan was presented that was compatible with the cathedral and surrounding buildings and contributed to the Heritage conservation district which is part of the heart of tourism in the City, there would be a different conversation. It is premature to approve the demolition of these buildings. She would not agree to a permanent parking lot. An ancillary use would be the next option; and, if not the least worst option would be a three year temporary zoning for public parking. Mr. Moser responded to questions related to the various options regarding ancillary parking, demolition, temporary parking and site plan by Councillor Stavinga. Mr. Marc advised the demolition could be subject to the prior approval of a site plan agreement. Following considerable discussion, it was clarified that ancillary parking was an as of right use in perpetuity until changed or redevelopment, unlike a temporary lot that requires a public process. Moved by Councillor S. Little: Be it resolved that the Planning and Development Committee refuse the application to rezone this property. LOST YEAS (2): Councillors Arnold, Little NAYS (3): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Hunter Be it resolved that the Planning and Development Committee approve the LACAC recommendation to refuse the application to demolish the structures at 60 Guigues Avenue and 90 Parent Avenue in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District. LOST YEAS (2): Councillors Arnold, Little NAYS (3): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Hunter Moved by Councillor A. Munter: That the I1 (Minor Institutional) exception zone at 60 Guigues Street/90 Parent Street remain in place and that a three-year Temporary Parking By-Law be approved at this location; and, Further that the use of the temporary parking lot that is the subject of this By-Law be limited to parishioners, employees and other Cathedral related users; and, Further that the implementing By-Law to enact the temporary lot and the approval of the demolition of 60 Guigues/90 Parent not be placed before Council until the approval of a site plan by the City. CARRIED YEAS (3): Councillors Munter, Stavinga, Hunter NAYS(2): Councillors Arnold, Little Councillor Munter suggested that between the Committee meeting and the Council meeting the wording could be refined to achieve the Committee's intent. 20. APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - 61 POND STREET DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION D'UNE MAISON DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK - 61, RUE POND ACS2003-DEV-APR-0111 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 7 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee and Council approve the application for the construction of a new house at 61 Pond Street, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District in accordance with the plans received on May 6, 2003. (Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.) CARRIED 21. APPLICATION TO ALTER 131 STANLEY AVENUE IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEMANDE DE TRANSFORMATION DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ SISE AU 131, AVENUE STANLEY DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH ACS2003-DEV-APR-0110 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 21 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the application to alter 131 Stanley Avenue in accordance with the plans received April 11, 2003 included as Documents 3 and 4. (Note: Approval for new construction on this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.) CARRIED 22. APPLICATION TO ALTER ASHBURY COLLEGE, 362 MARIPOSA AVENUE, A BUILDING LOCATED IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION DU ASHBURY COLLEGE, 362 RUE MARIPOSA, DANS L'ARRONDISSEMENT HISTORIQUE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK ACS2003-DEV-APR-0134 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 20 May 2003. An e-mail from Paul and Danielle Belisle (with suggestions) was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the application to alter Ashbury College, 362 Mariposa Avenue, in accordance with the plans filed by David S. McRobie, Architects, received on May 7 2003, included as Document 2. (Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.) CARRIED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SERVICES D'AMÉNAGEMENT PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH DIRECTION DE L'APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D'URBANISME ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE 23. SITE PLAN - 300 CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 300, PROMENADE CENTRAL PARK ACS2003-DEV-APR-0103 RIVER / RIVIERE (16) Councillor Wendy Stewart put forward a Motion regarding 310 Central Park. She advised that both the developer and Central Park residents present at the meeting had agreed to support her motion. However, she also wished to speak on behalf of Central Park residents concerning the densification of their neighbourhood. As seen in the many letters addressed to Committee, the residents are strongly opposed to the development of this latest high-rise. However, understanding that the zoning of this parcel of land permits such high-density development, they agreed to the Motion put forward by Councillor Stewart. The following individuals had presented a Request to Speak: * Richard Roik (provided an e-mail with his presentation, which was distributed and on file with the City Clerk) * David H. Smith * Anders Nordstrom * Douglas Edmondson, Central Park Community Group * Sean Hunter, Central Park Citizens Group * Darlene Cherry, Centrepointe Community * Jaylyn Wong * Ronald Jack, Delcan * Akash Sinha, Ashcroft Homes The following correspondence was circulated and held on file with the City Clerk: * E-mail from Alan Greenberg and Karen Somerville dated 8 June 2003 * E-mail from Glenn Wheeler dated 8 June 2003 * E-mail from Saeed Rasouli dated 9 June 2003 * E-mail from Carl Faehrmann dated 9 June 2003 * E-mail from Guo Tong dated 10 June 2003 * E-mail from Cheryl Noll dated 11 June 2003 * E-mail from Dinh Hai Tran dated 11 June 2003 * E-mail from Jaylyn Wong dated 11 June 2003 * E-mail from Klaus and Laura Killenberg * E-mail from Giuseppe and Maria Balerna * E-mail from Ben Benoit and Carole Michaud * E-mail from Dr. Martin Holcik * E-mail from Annie Murray dated 8 June 2003 * Letter from Lisheng Du and Ziafeng Yang dated 10 June 2003 * E-mail from Sandra Troccoli-Roik and Richard Roik dated 8 June 2003 * Letter from David H. Smith dated 11 June 2003 * E-mail from Neil Cachero dated 11 June 2003 Moved by Councillor P. Hume: That as a condition of Site Plan Control approval: a) Ashcroft must construct a 1.0 metre high wall between the edge of Tower B and the existing parking garage; b) Special Condition 1. in the staff report be amended to read: The coniferous trees within the 7.5 metre wide landscape strip must be moved further up the slope with the deciduous material planted along the lower part of the slope in order to better screen the car headlights. This landscaping will be monitored for a two-year period and, if the Councillor and Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals determine that the landscaping is ineffective, then Ashcroft must construct a 1.0 metre high wall along the edge of the parking lot to the east of Tower B, to the satisfaction of the Councillor and Director of Planning and Infrastracture Approvals. The applicant must post security in the amount of 100% of the value of the wall prior to signing the Site Plan Conrol agreement which will be released after either the wall is constructed or following two years if it is determined as a result of the monitoring that the wall is not required; and that the trees be planted no later than September 30, 2003; and, c) The lights within the existing structure must be modified to the satisfaction of the Director of Building Services and the Councillor. CARRIED The recommendations were approved as amended. That the Planning and Development Committee approve the site plan control application submitted by Ashcroft Homes Inc., subject to the conditions contained in Document 1 and as shown on the following plans, subject to the following amendment: 1. "Site Plan, Ashcroft Homes, Central Park South Commercial, Sheet SP-14", prepared by M. David Blakely, Architect, Inc., dated December 2000, revised May 07, 2003, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa on May 21, 2003; 2. "LandscapePlan, Ashcroft Homes, Central Park South Commercial, Sheet Number L1", prepared by James B. Lennox & Associates, Landscape Architect, revised May 15, 2003, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa on May 16, 2003; 3. "Site Servicing Plan, Building B, Central Park Subdivision South Commercial, Drawing Number 12491F-SP14B", prepared by Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd., revised May 07, 2003, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa on May 22, 2003; and 4. "Grading Plan, Central Park Subdivision South Commercial Area, Drawing Number 12491F-GP1," prepared by Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd., revised May 07, 2003, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa on May 22, 2003. 5. That as a condition of Site Plan Control approval: a) Ashcroft must construct a 1.0 metre high wall between the edge of Tower B and the existing parking garage; b) Special Condition 1. in the staff report be amended to read: The coniferous trees within the 7.5 metre wide landscape strip must be moved further up the slope with the deciduous material planted along the lower part of the slope in order to better screen the car headlights. This landscaping will be monitored for a two-year period and, if the Councillor and Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals determine that the landscaping is ineffective, then Ashcroft must construct a 1.0 metre high wall along the edge of the parking lot to the east of Tower B, to the satisfaction of the Councillor and Director of Planning and Infrastracture Approvals. The applicant must post security in the amount of 100% of the value of the wall prior to signing the Site Plan Conrol agreement which will be released after either the wall is constructed or following two years if it is determined as a result of the monitoring that the wall is not required; and that the trees be planted no later than September 30, 2003; and, c) The lights within the existing structure must be modified to the satisfaction of the Director of Building Services and the Councillor. CARRIED as amended 24. APPEAL - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 4191 FRANK KENNY ROAD APPEL - COMITÉ DE DÉROGATION - 4191, CHEMIN FRANK KENNY ACS2003-DEV-APR-0124 CUMBERLAND (19) Chair Hunter noted that Councillor McNeely had asked that this item be held, but withdrew his request and would raise his concerns at Council. The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 8 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the presence of staff from the Corporate Services and Development Services Departments at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing regarding the Committee of Adjustment application for a consent to allow a retirement lot at 4191 Frank Kenny Road. CARRIED 25. RIVERSIDE SOUTH - COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN INFORMATION AND TIMELINES PROCESSUS ET CALENDRIER DU PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE LA PROMENADE RIVERSIDE SUD ACS2003-DEV-APR-0122 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10) Chair Hunter advised that the concerns related to this item had been worked out to include two additional meetings with the study area landowners, the weeks of June 23 and Aug 11. David Jeanes, Transport 2000, Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, on behalf of the Mion family, Kathleen Willis, representing the Flood family, and Tim Chadder, representing K. Gordon had indicated a desire to address the Committee. Moved by Councillor S. Stavinga: That Document 3, "Riverside South Community Plan - Study Target Dates", be amended by including two additional meetings with Study Area landowners as follows: 7A. Landowner Meeting - Land Use Design, week of June 23, 2003 10A. Landowner Meeting - Review of Draft Community Design Plan, week of August 11. 2003. CARRIED The recommendation contained in report dated 22 May 2003 was approved as amended. That the Planning and Development Committee receive the study process and timelines set out in this report for the Riverside South Community Design Plan, subject to the following amendment: That Document 3, "Riverside South Community Plan - Study Target Dates", be amended by including two additional meetings with Study Area landowners as follows: 7A. Landowner Meeting - Land Use Design, week of June 23, 2003 10A. Landowner Meeting - Review of Draft Community Design Plan, week of August 11. 2003. CARRIED as amended BUILDING SERVICES DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT 26. BILL 124 - LEGISLATION THAT WILL IMPACT THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE BY THE CITY OF OTTAWA LE PROJET DE LOI 124 ET SON INCIDENCE SUR L'ADMINISTRATION ET L'APPLICATION DU CODE DU BÂTIMENT DE L'ONTARIO PAR LA VILLE D'OTTAWA ACS2003-DEV-BLD-0021 CITY-WIDE The Committee received the recommendation contained in report dated 13 May 2003. That Planning and Development Committee receive this report for information. RECEIVED 27. SIGNS BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 474 ELGIN STREET DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 474, RUE ELGIN ACS2003-DEV-BLD-0023 SOMERSET (14) The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 23 May 2003. That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application for a variance from the Signs By-law 36-2000, of the former City of Ottawa, to permit an illuminated identification wall sign on the third storey, as defined under Details of Recommended Variance. CARRIED COUNCILLORS' ITEMS ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS Councillor / Conseiller S. Little 28. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING - 1167 GLADSTONE AVENUE RÈGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES DE STATIONNEMENT - 1167, AVENUE GLADSTONE ACS2003-CCS- PDC-0004 The Committee approved the following Motion: WHEREAS on May 12, 2003, an application for a cash payment in lieu of providing 3 parking spaces for the property known municipally as 1167 Gladstone Avenue was approved by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals; AND WHEREAS the current charge of cash-in-lieu for three parking spaces is $17,444 dollars; AND WHEREAS sufficient additional parking is available immediately adjacent to this site at the parking lot at Grace Manor; AND WHEREAS the applicant is requesting the payment of one dollar a space as they are a not-for-profit organization who provide transitional housing; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the total cash payment for 3 spaces be three dollars ($3.00). CARRIED ADJOURNMENT LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE The Committee adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m Committee Coordinator Chair PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 55 12 JUNE 2003 12 COMITÉ DE L'URBANISME ET DE L'AMÉNAGEMENT PROCÈS-VERBAL 55 LE 12 JUIN 2003 Notes: 1. Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee. 2. Reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 23 June 2003 in Planning and Development Committee Report 54 Nota : 1. Le soulignement indique qu'il s'agit d'une nouvelle recommandation ou d'une recommandation modifiée approuvée par le Comité. 2. Les rapports nécessitant un examen par le Conseil municipal seront présentés au Conseil le 23 juin 2003 dans le rapport 54 du Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'amenagement. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 55 12 JUNE 2002 2 COMITÉ DE L'URBANISME ET DE L'AMÉNAGEMENT PROCÈS-VERBAL 55 LE 12 JUIN 2002