STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING
ACT MATTERS SUBMITTED POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES QUESTIONS SOUS LA LOI SUR L’AMENAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE
PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
The Chair read a
statement relative to the Official
Plan Amendment listed as Item 1, and the Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 4 to 6 on today’s agenda, only
those who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the
amendment is adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition, the applicant may appeal the
matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does not adopt an amendment
within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan Amendment, after
receipt of the application.”
reports
et renvois
1. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT – TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
PLAN OFFICIEL –
MODIFICATION TECHNIQUE
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0006 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 24 January 2012 / Reporté de la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme du 24 janvier 2012
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
the Planning Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend
Council approve and adopt Official Plan Amendment XX, as detailed in Document 1.
COMMITTEE MOTIONS APPROVED ON 24 JANUARY 2012
MOTION NO. PLC 27/3
Moved by Councillor M. Taylor
WHEREAS
the Official Plan Technical Amendment proposes a change to Schedule D, Rapid
Transit Network, to reposition an incorrectly located proposed station on the
North-South LRT line south of Lester Road at the airport spur;
AND
WHEREAS the North-South Corridor LRT Project Environmental Assessment Report
actually shows the proper location of the station to serve this area as being
two station locations - at the Airport Parkway/Uplands Drive and at Lester
Road;
AND
WHEREAS the proposed Technical Amendment would correct this error for the
Airport Parkway/Uplands station but inadvertently not for the further location at
Lester Road;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule 1 to the Technical Amendment be revised to also
show the addition of the EA approved transit station at Lester Road and the
future North-South LRT line.
CARRIED
MOTION
NO. PLC 27/4
Moved by Councillor M. Taylor
WHEREAS
“Part A - The Preamble” of the proposed Technical Official Plan Amendment
speaks to amending policies 9 and 10 of Section 3.1 – Generally Permitted Uses;
AND
WHEREAS “Part B – The Amendment” neglects to include the required wording to
amend policies 9 and 10;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT part b – The Amendment be amended to
include the following additional
wording:
“Section
3.1 Generally Permitted Uses, is hereby amended as follows:
a. by adding the words “and Municipal Services” following the
words “Public
Utilities”
in the title that precedes policy 9; and
b. by adding the words “and Municipal Services” following the
words “Public
utility
facilities” in the first line of policy 10.
The Committee received a memo dated 2 February from the General Manager
of Planning and Growth Management stating there were no risk implications in
the report. A copy of the memo is held
on file. The Committee also received an
amendment from staff (reflected below), which resulted from discussions with an
interested party following the previous meeting. All issues have been resolved through the
amendment of Schedule 8 to the Official Plan Amendment.
Kevin Yemm, Richcraft was present in support of the amendment.
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/1
Moved by Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS
the Official Plan Technical Amendment proposes a change to Schedule B, Urban
Policy Plan, to remove the “Developing Community Overlay” from identified lands
and to redesignate identified lands from “Mixed Use
Centre” to “General Urban Area”; and,
WHEREAS
the lands identified were not shown correctly;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule 8 to the Technical Amendment be revised to reflect
the correct parcel shapes.
CARRIED
The report recommendation
was then put to Committee and CARRIED as amended by Motion Nos. PLC
27/3, PLC 27/4 and PLC 28/1.
2. STREET
CLOSURE – PORTION OF REDMOND PLACE ADJACENT TO 99 GREENFIELD AVENUE
FERMETURE DE RUE - PARTIE DE LA PLACE REDMOND CONTIGUË
AU 99, AVENUE GREENFIELD
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve the closure of a portion of
Redmond Place as shown in Document 1 and subject to the conditions as outlined
in Document 3.
Kersten Nitsche, Planner,
provided an overview of the item. A copy
of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Michael Polowin, Kings Landing Co-Tenancy, spoke in support of the report so long as
the Committee made no recommendation on the dispensation of the land once it was
declared surplus.
Janet Bradley of Borden, Ladner, Gervais, indicated her support for the street closure.
The Committee noted that Legal staff had prepared
a technical amendment to delete one of the conditions which was a factual
statement and should therefore not be contained in that section of the report. The amendment also corrects a minor error in
the lot area of 99 Greenfield Avenue. The
Chair indicated he would also add to the amendment: “Planning
Committee makes no recommendation regarding the ultimate disposition as this is
a matter with the Term of Reference for FEDCO.”
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/3
Moved by
Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS Report ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0012
recommends the closure of a portion of Redmond Place, and;
WHEREAS through discussions with the Realty
Services Branch, it has been deemed advisable to make certain changes to the
conditions of approval, and;
WHEREAS an error has been made within the
body of report with respect to the size of 99 Greenfield Avenue;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the following changes be made to the staff report:
a. Document 3 – Conditions of Approval be amended as follows:
Removing
Condition #3, which states “When selling the closed road, the City is not
legally obliged to offer for sale to an abutting owner all or a portion of a
closed road.”
b. “Zoning” section of the staff report
be amended as follows:
Replacing “406 square metres” with “336 square metres”
in reference to the lot area of 99 Greenfield Avenue.
Planning
Committee makes no recommendation regarding the ultimate disposition as this is
a matter with the Term of Reference for FEDCO.
CARRIED
The report recommendation
was then put to Committee and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. PLC
28/3.
COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BATI D’OTTAWA
3. Application for
Demolition and New Construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation
District at 89 Placel Road
DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION DE L’IMMEUBLE EXISTANT ET DE CONSTRUCTION D’UN
NOUVEL IMMEUBLE AU 89, CHEMIN PLACEL, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU
PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0019 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
STAFF AND OBHAC RECOMMENDATIONS
The
Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Committee
recommend that Council:
1.
Approve the application to demolish the
existing house at 89 Placel Road;
2.
Approve the application for new
construction at 89 Placel Road in accordance with
plans by Christopher Simmonds Architect Inc. as
received on December 14, 2011;
3.
Delegate authority for minor design changes
to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department; and
4.
Issue the heritage permit with a two-year
expiry from the date of issuance.
(Note:
The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on
March 14, 2012)
(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.)
Ash
Babber, Project Manager, New Zealand High Commission, was present in support of the item.
SERVICES
D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS
PLANNING
and growth management
4. ZONING –760 MARCH ROAD
ZONAGE – 760, CHEMIN MARCH
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0043 KANATA
NORTH (4)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the
zoning of 760 March Road, from Development Reserve Zone [DR] to Residential
Fourth Density Subzone Z urban exception Zone [R4Z(XXXX)]
and Open Space Zone [O1], and amend the boundaries of the flood plain
hazard overlay,
as shown in Document 1 and
as detailed in Document 2.
The Committee received the following written submission,
a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk:
a. F. Blacquiere e-mail dated 13 February 2012
Mark Young, Planner, advised Committee that revisions were required to the
report because reference to a Zoning By-law Schedule was omitted in the Details
of the Zoning By-law Amendment, thereby necessitating a modification to both
Document 2 and the Recommendation of the report. Accordingly, the Committee received revised
staff recommendations as set out in Councillor Harder’s motion below.
Mr. Young provided an
overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held
on file with the City Clerk.
The following public delegations
were present in support of the amended staff recommendation and the amendment
proposed by Councillor Wilkinson and moved by Councillor Monette:
Dan Paquette, Paquette Planning
Erin O’Connor and Marcel Denomme,
Minto.
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/4
Moved by Councillor B. Monette
That the recommended
zoning be amended to require parking to meet the current zoning of 1.1 spaces
per dwelling plus 0.2 visitor spaces.
CARRIED
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/5
Moved by Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS
Report ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0073 recommends certain zoning changes to the lands
known municipally as 760 March Road, and;
WHEREAS
the said report recommends that Document 3 be added as a Schedule to Zoning
By-law No. 2008-250 and apply to the lands at 760 March Road, but Document 2
does not reflect the addition of the Schedule to the zoning for these lands;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Committee approve the following changes to Report
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0073:
That
the Recommendation be replaced with the following:
“That
the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law
2008-250 to change the zoning of 760 March Road, from Development Reserve Zone
[DR] to Residential Fourth Density Subzone Z urban exception Zone with a
Schedule [R4Z(XXXX) SXXX] and Open Space Zone with a Schedule
[O1 SXXX], and amend the boundaries of the flood plain hazard overlay, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in
Documents 2 and 3.
That
the legend of Document 1 be amended by adding after the text “R4Z[XXXX]” and “O1” the text “SXXX” wherever they appear, so
that they read “R4Z[XXXX] SXXX” and “O1 SXXX” respectively.
That Document 2 be amended by replacing item 1 with the following:
“1. The Zoning Map of By-law 2008-250 will be
amended by rezoning the subject lands and revising the boundaries of the flood
plain hazard overlay on the subject lands shown on Document 1 as follows:
a. Area A from DR to R4Z[XXXX]
SXXX.
b. Area B from DR to O1 SXXX.
c. Area
C from DR to O1 SXXX and over which the flood plain hazard overlay is to be
added.
d. Area
D from DR to R4Z[XXXX] SXXX and from which the flood
plain hazard overlay is to be removed.”
That there be no further
notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning
Act.”
CARRIED
The report recommendation
was then put to Committee and CARRIED as amended by Motion Nos. PLC
28/4 and PLC 28/5.
5. ZONING – 1683 MERIVALE ROAD
ZONAGE – 1683, CHEMIN MERIVALE
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0044 KNOXDALE-MERIVALE
(9)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law
2008-250 to change the zoning of part of 1683 Merivale
Road from AM5[193] H(34)to AM5[****]S***, as detailed in Document 2 and as
shown on Documents 1 and 3.
The Committee received the following written submissions,
copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:
a. L. Campbell submission dated 7 February 2012
b. G. Lemieux e-mail dated 10 February 2012
c. J. Groen e-mail dated 10 February
2012
Simon Deiaco, Planner, provided an overview of the application and
staff’s rationale for recommending approval.
A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City
Clerk.
Laurie Campbell, resident, Crystelle Building stated that while she
supported the proposal to construct the retirement residence, in principle, she
had the following concerns:
·
Set-back and fence line separating the Crystelle
Building from the proposed buildings; owners living in the upper floors will
receive little or no compensation from the proposed landscaping which is to
help compensate for the lack of view due to the differences in height between
the two buildings.
·
Underground parking should be of an appropriate depth to ensure it does
not impact negatively on the landscaping on the property or become a burden for
future owners of the building. The long-term maintenance needs to be
considered.
Additional details are contained in her
letter dated 7 February, a copy of which is held on file.
Brian Casagrande,
FoTenn Consultants, and Peter Malhotra, Claridge Homes, were present on behalf of the applicant
in support of the application.
The report recommendation was
put to Committee and CARRIED, as presented, with the following directions to
staff:
DIRECTIONS TO STAFF
That Claridge
Homes commit to carrying out a pre-construction review and inspection of the Crystelle Building in order to provide a comparison after
construction.
That Claridge
Homes confirm that as a condition of site plan, they are agreeable to paying
for the cost of the street lighting on Grant Carman Drive.
6. ZONING – 5271 RICHMOND ROAD
ZONAGE – 5271 CHEMIN RICHMOND
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0052 KANATA
SOUTH (23)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to Zoning By law 2008-250 to change the zoning of
5271 Richmond Road from Development Reserve Zone (DR) to Residential First
Density Subzone W exception zones (R1W[XXXX], R1W[XXXY]and R1W[XXXZ]),
Residential Third Density Subzone YY exception zone (R3YY[XXXW]), Residential Fourth Density
Subzone A exception zone with a holding provision (R4A[XXXV]-h) and Parks and
Open Space Zone (O1) as shown in Document 2 and detailed in Document 3.
The Committee received the following written submissions,
copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:
a. N. Psihramis e-mail dated 12 February 2012
b. K. Murray e-mail dated 3 February 2012
c. B. Roy submission dated 10 February 2012
d. G. Hood e-mails dated 9-16 February 2012
Miguel
Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants was present in support of the item.
7. EXCHANGE
OF INCREASED HEIGHT OR DENSITY FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS - IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDELINES
ÉCHANGE D’UNE AUGMENTATION DE LA HAUTEUR OU DE
LA DENSITÉ DES IMMEUBLES CONTRE DES AVANTAGES POUR LA COLLECTIVITÉ.
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0010 City Wide/
à l'échelle de la Ville
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:
1.
The “Guidelines and Protocol for the
Implementation of Section 37 of the Planning
Act” contained in Document 2; and
2.
An amendment to the Delegation of Authority
By-law, By-law Number 2002-4, to delegate signing authority for Section 37
Agreements to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management, with the
concurrence of the Councillor for the ward in which the development project is
located.
3.
Direct staff to return to Planning
Committee in March 2013 with a report that provides an assessment of the
implementation of the Section 37 Guidelines and Protocol and in particular a
review of the appropriateness of the land value uplift methodology and the
application of the policy in suburban areas.
The Committee received the following written submissions,
copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:
a. Stittsville Village Association letter dated 14 February 2012
b. The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) Ottawa e-mail
dated 13 February 2012
John Moser, General Manager, Planning and
Growth Management introduced the item.
Stanley Wilder, Planner, and Alain Miguelez, Program
Manager, Development Review Process (Urban), provided a detailed overview of
the item before Committee. A copy of their
PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Committee heard from the
following public delegations:
Raymond Sullivan, Centretown
Citizens Ottawa Corporation, made the following two suggestions for changes to the
draft Section 37 Guidelines:
Section 2.3
Add a paragraph saying:
"for capital-intensive community benefits such as daycare centres and
affordable housing, when supported by a community design plan or other
community consultation the Ward Councillor will establish a dedicated ward reserve
for daycare and housing.
Section 3.2
The text should be replaced
with: "The payment of community benefits secured as cash will be required,
as a condition of the Section 37 agreement, prior to issuing an above-grade
building permit. Where the particular
circumstances warrant, for example where restoration of a heritage building is
to be carried out prior to the construction of the new portion of the
development, or a community facility is needed sooner rather than later for
good planning reasons, the payment(s) may be secured at an earlier appropriate
trigger."
Additional details are
contained in his written submission dated 13 February 2012 previously
circulated and held on file.
Patrick Quealey, Environmental
Advisory Committee, spoke in support of the item, but provided the following comments:
·
The
EAC preferred the City’s initial threshold of 5000 sqare
metres rather than the current size listed in Section 2.5 for choosing a 7000 sqare metre building as the minimum for invoking S.37. They believe 25per centor
greater increase over what is permitted through as-of-right zoning as the
additional S.37 trigger, is too high and should be reduced to 15 or 20per cent. If the 7000 square metre and 25 per cent double
trigger is accepted as is, they recommend including provision for the City to
invoke S.37 regardless of thresholds in exceptional and specific situations.
·
Section
2.10 should provide greater clarity on how the Committee of Adjustment will be
encouraged to work with the City to realize S.37 benefits and what actions are
at the City’s disposal should the Committee of Adjustment ignore the City’s
request for a s.37 benefit.
·
The EAC
would like to see a mechanism where, in addition to staff, the Ward Councillor or
community could raise the possibility of a Section 37 benefit.
A copy of his written
submission is held on file.
Martin Laplante suggested the following
changes to the proposal:
·
Section 37 must be a transparent process; having the Section 37
Agreement executed prior to the introduction of the by-law that implements the
Zoning By-law Amendment for the increased density and/or height is too late for
a transparent process; a number of jurisdictions have a local plebiscite
·
All residential upzoning requests in the
designated areas must go through this process; there should not be a 25per cent
threshold
·
Restore Floor Space Index (FSI)
·
Make the second zoning maximum explicit and downzone the original
·
Better eligibility criteria
Additional details are
contained in his written submission, a copy of which is held on file.
Leslie Maitland, Heritage
Ottawa, indicated
support for various sections of the Implementation Guidelines, but hoped Section 37 would not be used to
the detriment of heritage. She also made
the following comments:
·
The funds
obtained under the proposed Guidelines may not be sufficient to have any
significant effect on retention or preservation of heritage resources.
·
Implementing
Section 37 as proposed will routinely result in little or no community
benefits, including conservation of heritage resources, actually being achieved.
A copy of her written
submission is held on file.
Jay Baltz, Federation of
Citizens’ Associations, indicated strong
support for the item, but submitted the following concerns:
·
They
do not agree with the proposal to calculate uplift based on uniform land values
determined for large areas of the City.
·
They object
strongly to the “drawdown” of benefits based on the relevance of the existing
zoning to the Official Plan.
·
They object
to the provision which allows the total volume under existing zoning to be
redistributed to a taller structure without incurring Section 37 benefits.
Additional details are
contained in his written submission, a copy of which is held on file.
Catherine Boucher, Dalhousie
Community Association submitted the following suggested changes to the guidelines:
·
The
threshold for building area should be 3000m2, not 7000m2
as recommended. The threshold for height
should be 10 or 12 per cent, not 25 per cent.
·
The
portion of all Section 37 benefits automatically ascribed to affordable housing
should be prescribed as “minimum 25 per cent”.
·
Where
a proposal by-passes the threshold criteria of Section 37 by seeking a Minor
Variance, rather than a rezoning, the Guidelines should specifically require staff
to recommend to the Committee of Adjustment that the Minor Variance be refused.
·
“Value
Uplift” based on merely inner and outer urban, is too general and reduces the
value in those areas where redevelopment is most likely. The number of zones should be substantially
increased and fine tuned.
A copy of the Community
Association’s letter dated 10 January 2012 is held on file.
Doug Casey, Charlesfort Development was generally in support of Section 37 but was
looking for clarification on several matters:
·
If a developer is changing the shape of a building, but not the density,
the report indicates that Section 37 would not be used; however, the preamble
in the report states that it would be.
·
If Section 37 is related to good planning and if something can go to the
Committee of Adjustment, a separate legal body, it would appear the Planning
Committee is overstepping its authority.
He suggested that a reasonable
time for the timing of payment would be when the condominium is registered.
Linda Hoad, Hintonburg Community Association indicated support for many
aspects of the Guidelines, but provided the following comments:
·
Opposed
to the exemption proposed for redistribution of density as long as the present
method of calculation is followed.
·
Strongly
opposed policy 2.7 (i) that allows the uplift to be
reduced because of the “relevance of zoning
to Official Plan, Secondary Plan, and/or Community Design policy.”
·
Strongly
opposed policy 2.7. (iii) Implementation of public
benefits in the proposed development because some of these items (e.g. plaza,
pathways) constitute good urban design, which is a requirement according to the
policy. Suggested this be removed
because it pre-empts the consultation proposed elsewhere in the policy.
A copy of her written
submission is held on file.
Michael Casey spoke in opposition to the
proposal. He noted that the City wants
to share in the uplift it is creating but it will be onerous on developers to
pay these additional costs up front. He
wanted the City to share in the risk and
the reward.
Christian Pupp spoke in support of Section
37. With respect to the Development Review
Process, he suggested delegating to staff, decisions on how it is calculated,
using the average values et cetera. He wondered
if the drawdown for a higher building could be made dependent on the
recommendation or the approval of the design review panel.
Stephen Pope, Old Ottawa East
Community Association, stated that given the low density and low-rise character of his
community, this neighbourhood would usually be excluded from any of the Section
37 discussions. However, they opposed the
staff recommendation because of issues associated with valuation and applying a
“one size fits all” across the entire urban area.
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/6
Moved
by Councillor R. Bloess
That Planning Committee recommend to Council that
the range of 15-30% of the value stated as a guideline in the Implementation
Report be broadened to 15-50% of the uplift.
LOST
YEAS
(3): R. Bloess, R. Chiarelli, B.
Monette
NAYS
(6): S. Blais, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley,
S. Qadri, J. Harder, P. Hume
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/7
Moved
by Councillor B. Monette
That the Planning Committee recommend to Council that the timing of the
payment of the benefit should be provided at the time of the Building Permit issuance
subject to the Ward Councillor’s concurrence.
LOST
YEAS (0)
NAYS
(9): S. Blais, R. Bloess, R.
Chiarelli, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, B. Monette, S. Qadri, J. Harder, P. Hume
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/8
Moved
by B. Monette
That the Planning Committee
recommend to Council that the minimum development size be reduced to 5,000 square meters.
LOST
YEAS
(2): S. Blais, R. Chiarelli
NAYS
(7): R. Bloess, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley,
B. Monette, S. Qadri, J. Harder, P. Hume
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/9
Moved
by Councillor J. Harder
That Recommendation 2 be
amended by changing the words “By-law Number 2002-4” to “By-law Number 2011-28”
to read as follows:
2. An
amendment to the Delegation of Authority By-law, By-law Number 2011-28,
to delegate signing authority for Section 37 Agreements to the General Manager,
Planning and Growth Management, with the concurrence of the Councillor for the
ward in which the development project is located.
CARRIED
The report recommendation
was then put to Committee and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. PLC
28/9, with the
following directions to staff:
DIRECTIONS TO STAFF
1. That
the Planning Department present guidelines for the
suburban areas for approval of Planning Committee no later than one year of
adoption by Council.
2. That prior
to this item rising to Council on 28 March 2012:
a. Planning staff report back on the
establishment of ward-wide funds for daycare, affordable housing, et cetera.
b. Staff in Realty Services report back to
the Committee on the following:
i. The
transactions that
relate to an increase in value only related to height.
ii. What estimated value is added to any
particular development through the increase of height and density, i.e., where
the density is being reallocated and not building new.
This report will be presented
to Council on 28 March 2012
CITY OPERATIONS
OPÉRATIONS
MUNICIPALES
PUBLIC WORKS
TRAVAUX PUBLICS
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:
1.
Entering into a
Front-Ending Agreement with Urbandale Corporation for the design and
construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Bridgestone Drive / Steeple
Chase Drive and Stonehaven Drive;
2.
In accordance with Council approval of the
Front-Ending Agreement Policy, pre-commit $1,200,000 plus applicable taxes from
the 2013 and 2014 Capital Budget, subject to the execution of the Front-Ending
Agreement;
3.
Authorize the
expenditure of $ 1,200,000 plus applicable taxes starting in 2013 in accordance
with the Reimbursement Schedule set forth in Document 5 for the reimbursement
to Urbandale Corporation for the design and construction of a roundabout at the
intersection of Bridgestone Drive/Steeple Chase Drive and Stonehaven
Drive subject to the execution of Front-Ending Agreements with Urbandale Corporation.
MOTION
NO. PLC 28/2
Moved by Councillor A. Hubley
That
this item be Tabled until such time as a Special
Meeting is called.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SEANCE
The Committee adjourned the
meeting at 1:30 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
R. Theriault Councillor
P. Hume
A/Committee Coordinator Chair
