Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Minutes 37 / Procès-verbal 37

Tuesday, 27 September 2005, 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 27 septembre 2005, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)

Councillor / Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)

Councillors / Conseillers G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, J. Harder,
D. Holmes, G. Hunter

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX

Minutes 36 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 13 September 2005; Joint Minutes 1 & 2, of Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee and Planning and Environment Committee and Transportation Committee held on Tuesday, 23 August and Monday, 12 September 2005; Joint Minutes 2, of Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Transportation Committee held on Monday, 12 September 2005 were confirmed.

At the start of the meeting, Chair Hume read a statement required under the Planning Act, which advises that anyone who intends to appeal the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 5 - 133, must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendments being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal(s) by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

REFERRALS/deferrals

RENVOIS/reports

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

1. demolition - 197-201 Wilbrod Street

dèmolition - 197-201, rue wilbrod

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0138 rideau-rockcliffe (13)

Deferred from 14 JUne & 12 JULY 05 meetings

reporté des réunions du 14 juin et 12 juillet 05

Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy, Planning and Growth Management (PGM), John Moser, Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, and Jeff O’Neill, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 9 August 2005. Mr. O’Neill gave a brief PowerPoint presentation providing the Committee with an overview of the staff report. A copy is held on file with the City Clerk.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Anna O’Connell and Paul Faynwachs, Gor-Fay Realty Co. Ltd., in support of the application. A proposed site plan has been prepared for 197/201 Wilbrod that is very similar to what is currently on site as the existing building is structurally unsound, which has been confirmed in writing by an engineer. Although the building is boarded up vagrants have entered and vandalized as well as started fires. Police and fire have been called several times, with complaints received from neighbours and also made to the Councillor regarding personal and neighbourhood safety. It therefore makes economic sense to rebuild as opposed to repair.

In response to Councillor Bédard, Ms. O’Connell advised the plans had not yet been submitted to PGM as they were new to the process. Councillor Bédard advised the usual route is to prepare and present plans for review by staff for presentation to the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC). That process takes place before a Request for Demolition is made. The Councillor then suggested possibly the matter should be adjourned to allow the applicant to meet with staff. Mr. Lindsay pointed out that staff had informed the applicant on numerous occasions regarding due process.

The matter was set aside for 17 months awaiting replacement drawings to be submitted but with no success. Hence the report is before PEC for decision.

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council refuse an application for Demolition Control Approval at 197-201 Wilbrod Street.

CARRIED

2. cash-in-lieu of parking - 415 richmond road

règlement financier des exigences de stationnement -
415, chemin richmond

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0009 KITCHISSIPPI (15)

DEFERRED FROM 13 SEPTEMBER 05 MEETING

reporté du réunion du 13 septembre 05

D. Jacobs, J. Moser and G. Lindsay appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 25 July 2005. Chair Hume acknowledged a Motion from Councillor Harder.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

WHEREAS City staff agree that cash-in-lieu is appropriate for 415 Richmond;

AND WHEREAS this need for extra parking spaces arises out of the conversion from general office use to medical offices which will serve the immediate communitiy;

AND WHEREAS there is more than adequate pedestrian and transit access to the site;

AND WHEREAS the property owners have spent a great deal of money to ensure a “traditional” mainstreet feel is provided through urban design;

AND WHEREAS the property owners have operated a drugstore in the community for over 15 years and are active, community-minded business owners;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the cash-in-lieu for 415 Richmond Road be reduced to Nine Dollars ($9.00).

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Michael Polowin, McCarthy Tetrault, advised the building is located on the north side of Richmond in the Westboro community. The owners of the building, through a numbered company, have operated the drug store located on the ground floor for 15 years. The building is architecturally interesting; maximizes land density; serves the community; and, the application has community support. Additional parking is needed due to the conversion of second floor offices to medical to serve community needs. This is not a Shoppers Drug Mart, but two individuals operating a business. The owners have responded to community needs on a Traditional Mainstreet, which is in keeping with OP policy. The cost of the additional parking is quite high and therefore Mr. Polowin asked PEC to support the Traditional Mainstreet designation that was applied.

Councillor Cullen spoke in opposition to the Motion as he was familiar with the bulding. The Shoppers’ Drug Mart is located on the western edge of Westboro, which is now competing with the Glebe in terms of popularity. As a result parking is now at a premium. The purpose of cash-in-lieu (CIL) is to invest those funds in alternate facilities that can be used to deal with the parking situation. There is precious little parking on the street with paid parking at the Mountain Equipment Co-Op lot.

Councillor Harder spoke in support of her Motion emphasizing the change in use from office space to medical will serve the community. It is not a large chain drug store, but local and will appeal to walkins and is in keeping with Traditional Mainstreet design and supported by the community.

Mr. Polowin advised that in the months of sitting through OP discussions regarding Traditional Mainstreet, staff supported the notion that to achieve planning and design directives and create successful mixes (ground floor retail/office above) to serve the community with pedestrian scale, some sacrifices were required; i.e., parking. The community approached the owners and determined more doctors’ offices were needed, which increased the parking requirement. As well there are condos in the vicinity that will walk to these doctors’ offices, not drive. The concept as captured in the Council-approved OP is that occasionally the City would have to make financial sacrifices to achieve those ends. These two small business people should be given a break to achieve the ends the City has imposed upon them and have happily complied with.

In response to a question from Councillor Bédard on why staff did not come forward with a recommendation to reduce the amount, Mr. Moser advised that staff support the CIL, but does not have that mandate. Council recently extended that mandate to affordable housing, but not for commercial or for-profit housing that must rise to PEC for decision. The surrounding infrastructure can support the deficient parking.

On Councillor Harder’s Motion:

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors J. Harder, P. Hume

NAYS (6): Councillors A. Cullen, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the Cash-in-Lieu amount be reduced to $11,700.

CARRIED with Councillor G. Bédard dissenting.

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

1. That the Planning and Environment Committee approve a Cash-in-Lieu of Parking application for nine parking spaces in the amount of $11,700 for the conversion of general office space into medical office space and subject to the following conditions:

a) That the Applicant enter into the standard agreement required by Section 40 of the Planning Act, and

b) That full payment be made upon execution of the agreement.

2. That this approval is void if the agreement required by a) above has not been signed within six months of the date of this approval.

CARRIED as amended

eNVIRONMENTAL aDVISORY COMMITTEE

Comité consultatif sur l’environnement

3. SOLAR WATER HEATING SYSTEMS

CHAUFFE-EAU SOLAIRES

ACS2005-CCV-EAC-0003 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Correspondence from David Gladstone, in support, was circulated to the Committee and is on file with the City Clerk. The Committee approved the recommendations contained in the Environmental Advisory Committee report dated 7 July 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that City Council:

1. Direct City staff to continue working with the various stakeholders involved with removing the barriers to the residential use of solar water heaters to ensure that they are removed as expeditiously as possible; and

2. When this has taken place, that City staff inform the community in an appropriate way such that those who are interested in selling and/or buying solar water heaters can take action accordingly.

CARRIED

puBlic works and services

services et Travaux publics

4. TREES AND FOUNDATIONS STRATEGY IN AREAS OF SENSITIVE MARINE CLAY IN THE CITY OF OTTAWA

STRATÉGIE SUR LES ARBRES ET LES FONDATIONS DANS LES SECTEURS OÙ IL Y A PRÉSENCE D’ARGILE MARINE DANS LA VILLE D’OTTAWA

ACS2005-PWS-SOP-0006 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC), was present in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 9 September 2005 and provided a memorandum containing a resolution adopted by OFGAC requesting PEC approve the recommendations contained within the report. An e-mail dated 27 September 2005 from David Gladstone also in strong support was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Committee approved the recommendations.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. That Forestry Services staff use the revised 4-Phase assessment process, as outlined in this report, when reviewing individual claims of foundation damage to buildings potentially caused by City-owned trees.

2. That property owners submitting claims of city-owned trees causing damage to their foundations continue to be responsible for all associated costs of the required geotechnical report prescribed in the 4-Phase assessment process as outlined in this report.

3. That the City implement a communications strategy that:

· Informs area residents on tree and foundation issues in areas where sensitive marine clay is known to exist as outlined in Documents 1 and 2 attached to this report;

· Ensures the City’s website contains information on how area residents can educate themselves on sensitive marine clay issues;

· Issues special watering advisories in times of drought requesting that residents assist the City by watering trees adjacent to their properties;

· In coordination with the City’s Water Efficiency program, provides information on the importance of watering trees as outlined in Document 3 of this report and;

· Develops an information exchange with other professionals involved in the trees and foundation assessment process.

4. That a precommitment to the 2006 Forestry Operating Budget of the Surface Operations Branch of Public Works and Services Department be established for increased funding of $873,000 for tree trimming, supplemental watering, infrastructure improvements and for 2 FTE positions for implementation to cover the additional costs for tree maintenance activities that mitigate the effect of trees growing in proximity to buildings and structures. Further that $50,000 be provided from the 2006 capital funding envelopes to purchase two vehicles.

5. When planting on city property in areas where sensitive marine clay is known to exist:

· Only low water demand trees with a lateral separation distance of 1 full mature tree height be planted in proximity to buildings or structures;

· In areas where adjoining properties result in one combined greenspace only 1 tree per front yard area will be planted;

· That all landscaping plans be reviewed to ensure compliance with the City’s Trees and Foundations process;

· When planting replacement trees in locations where insufficient space allows an appropriate separation distance to place the tree on city property, when requested the city will action a tree planting on the adjacent private property on the condition that the resident signs a waiver assuming ownership of the tree and absolving the city of all future liability.

6. That in areas of sensitive marine clay where the revised 4-Phase assessment process determines that city owned trees may be a contributing factor to foundation damage the trees will be retained in recognition of the significance of the City’s urban forest and its contribution to the quality of life in the City of Ottawa and the City will implement arboriculture mitigation measures as outlined in this report.

CARRIED

Planning and GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

5. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 701 TAYLOR CREEK DRIVE

PLAN OFFICIEL et zonage - 701, promenade taylor creek

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0220 ORLEANS (1)

Don Kennedy was present in support of the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 7 September 2005. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Official Plan to amend the policies of the Mixed Use Business Parks - Category A Designation as it relates to 701 Taylor Creek Drive, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Urban Zoning By-Law to rezone 701 Taylor Creek Drive from MS1, Industrial Service and MR, Industrial Restricted to MS1-X, Industrial Service - Exception as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

6. ZONING - 2080 Portobello Boulevard

ZONAGE - 2080, boulevard Portobello

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0211 CUMBERLAND (19)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 7 September 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 2080 Portobello Boulevard from D-R Development Residential to IS (H1)
Institutional School - Holding One as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

7. ZONING - 6897 Notre Dame Street

ZONAGE - 6897, RUE NOTRE-DAME

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0206 INNES (2)

At the outset of this item Chair Hume advised simultaneous translation was available.

D. Jacobs, J. Moser, Karen Curie, Manager, Development Approvals, Hana Nader-Merhi, Solicitor, Danny Page, Program Manager, Development Review, and Shoma Murshid, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 7 September 2005. Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation by Ms. Murshid, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk, staff responded to questions raised by Committee members and Councillor Bloess, Ward Councillor, and the following represents the main points:

· This is a private residential care facility, not a group home.

· The Gloucester By-Law did provide a 500m separation distance between Group Homes. Although there is a definition for a private home residential care facility and it is a separate use, it does encompass some similarities to a group home and must respect the minimum separation distance requirement of 500m.. It could probably meet the criteria for conversion at some point in the future should a private residential care facility cease to exist and would not require a rezoning, since Group Homes are permitted as of right.

· There is a requirement for an additional two parking spaces, which will be located at the front of the property in addition to the two required as a single detached dwelling. The configuration and paved area will be determined at the building permit stage. The frontage of the property is 18m and within that area the owner is permitted to have tandem parking (Gloucester Zoning By-Law). As there already is a driveway, the only requirement is to widen the existing driveway to permit four cars to park on site. A substantial amount of lawn will remain. The Gloucester By-Law is structured such that these uses need to be reviewed on an individual basis. Residential care facilities are visually similar to residential homes and would be compatible throughout the City in many locations, but not necessarily on every site. In this case, the building can be constructed without amending any zoning provisions; i.e. setbacks, etc. In other parts of the City, the use would be permitted as of right in the Zoning By-Laws and do not require individual site specific rezoning.

· Shortly before amalgamation, Gloucester adopted a new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law and since that time it was found that certain points that existed in the previous By-laws were inadvertently omitted. There was a ‘technical’ amendment to the Gloucester Zoning By-Law in the spring because the previous By-Law had allowed this as a general provision for all residential sections. Similar exercises have taken place for other former municipalities due to omissions.

The Committee heard from the following delegations.

Rejean Nadeau provided a written detailed submission (English and French), in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are summarized below:

· 60 Notre Dame residents signed a petition in opposition to the rezoning request.

· The proposal was not discussed with area residents prior to the application although Councillor Bloess had asked the applicant to do so. PGM staff did not address community concerns in advance of posting the sign. Any advance information was provided through the Ward Councillor.

· A two-storey, 2912 feet² (1,456 feet²/floor) would restrict sunlight, reduce privacy and limit the ability to enjoy their property.

· The proposed parking will give the appearance of a commercial property, which will affect property value; the removal of 30-year old trees and pavement of lawn area is not in keeping with blending the facility within a neighbourhood and City concerns regarding the preservation and promotion of greenspace.

· There are exising issues relative to parking on the street, high traffic volume and speeding that make it difficult to back out of driveways. Directly across from the site are three 33-foot wide lots that already contribute to on street parking issues.

· The street does not lend itself to people using walkers and/or wheelchairs due to its hilly nature and steep inclines.

· The preservation of the character and heritage of this residential single-family home neighbourhood within the original Village of Orleans is in jeopardy due to the apparent transformation of properties to commercial use, not originally intended.

· The definition of Private Care Facilities permits anyone over the age of 18 that requires care to live in such a facility. Should Mr. Fournier choose to sell, lease or deviate from the proposed use, the facility could then be used by anyone requiring supervision or as a half-way home.

· The nature of zoning amendments is supposed to provide for a value added component and should not result in detracting from the value and character of the neighbourhood. Residents do not believe there is a value added component, rather a value substracted component due to the reasons previously mentioned.

Mary Lou Nadeau provided a comprehensive written submission, in opposition, on behalf of neighbourhood residents relative to the report, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of the main points are summarized below:

· Ms. Nadeau unknowlingly purchased an outdated version of the Zoning By-Law (in May). Due to the technical amendment on March 9, the wording changed from Where permitted in urban residential zones… to The following provisions shall apply to a Private Care Residential Facility in all urban residential zone. Residents questioned whether this application and others like it brought about the amendment.

· The petition has been updated and there are currently 61 signatures from 39 property owners, from 41 canvassed within a one block radius. The majority of residents are close to retirement age or already retired and faced with the care of elderly parents.

· Increase in noise levels is anticipated due to the increased need for ambulance, Para-Transpo services, health care providers, visitors, service drop-offs due to the addition of the six residents. These special needs will also result in additional strain on the sewage capacity of the area.

· Belcourt Residence (St. Joseph Blvd) and The Madonna Nursing Home are fairly close by. There is only one other such care facility in Orleans, The Residence Belanger on Taffy Lane (Rs3 zone) established in an existing home.

· A diagram outlined the proposal and parking, for five spaces, not four.

· Due to the type of residents that will require assistance, there will be substantial use of parking spaces by visitors and health care providers. The statement that overflow visitors park on the street will add to already existing issues.

· Regarding tandem parking, the requirement for a buffer only exists where there are six parking spaces. There is an issue with snow storage in winter and, since it is immediately adjacent to their home, it is a valid concern that needs to be addressed.

· The grounds have not been maintained since the applicant took possession. The kitchen in the illegal apartment was built shortly after the applicant took possession of the house and residents are unaware if a permit was issued. There has been use of current parking areas by the various tenants and residents cannot understand why the City would consider an application if there is a current illegal situation.

· Since the end of June, the process of building a retaining wall continued on the property.

As a result of the presentation, Committee members and Councillor Bloess raised questions and the following summarizes the issues:

· The zoning requires two spaces for the current single detached dwelling and an additional two will be required with the introduction of the private residential care facility. A 20-room facility was originally envisioned by the applicant and staff had serious concerns related to compatibility with the neighbourhoood since it was an institutional facility rather than an integrated facility that would fit within a residential context. The proposal was scaled down considerably over time. The required four parking spaces could be provided in a number of ways. The proposal will not be subject to Site Plan Approval and as a result staff will not be able to govern the parking layout.

· PEC could direct that no Zoning By-Law be approved until Site Plan Approval has been obtained.

· Through the processing of this application, staff discovered a basement apartment had been installed and the owner indicated it would disappear with the introduction of the facility. That has been taken at face value. If it does continue and there is insufficient parking, Mr. Fournier will be in breach of the Zoning By-Law. There has been a request for By-Law to follow-up on the existing situation. If Mr. Fournier met all the requirements with respect to the provision of parking, the basement apartment could remain, even if the facility was approved and constructed.

The following individuals asked that there names be listed on record as in opposition:

· Ronald and Pierrette Varin

· André and Liette DeBlois

Richard Fournier, the applicant, advised that five residents approached him and signatories on the petition signed on the understanding he was constructing a half-way home. He wanted to state for the record it is not a half-way home.

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Bloess questioned the vehicles/supplies on the lawn, alleged to be commonplace. Mr. Fournier asserted it was temporary while the retaining wall was built. Councillor Bloess then referred to the wording of the petition that does not make any reference to a half-way house. Mr. Fournier reiterated five (immediate) neighbours who viewed the petition then approached him to inform him they did not sign and did not have a problem with the proposal. There are 99 residences on Notre Dame and if only 30 +/- signed, it would indicate that a majority were not in opposition. Mr. Fournier clarified there would be five spaces in total, three in a tandem, one in the garage and one in front. There will be shrubs added as part of the landscaping.

In response to Councillor Bellemare, Mr. Fournier confirmed it was his intention to live in the original house and that is the difference between an institution and a private facility. Ms. Murshid confirmed the wording of the Gloucester By-Law is the clear intention that the single-detached dwelling will remain and the private residential care facility will be an accessory use. If the resident moved and made an arrangement with respect to the operator of the facility, he would be in breach of the Zoning By-Law and it would then be akin to an institutional facilty. In such an instance, one recourse would be to apply to amend the zoning or the City could prosecute for breach of By-Law conformity. Ms. Nader-Merhi advised the penalty is $25,000, but normally, it was $500 or $1,000, if sentence is not suspended on the first offence. Prosecutions for non-permitted use are very common; there should be some record of penalties.

The Committee received the following correspondence, in oppositon, that is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Email dated 26 September 2005, from Paul and Edith Brisson

· Email dated 24 September 2005, from Pierrette and Roger Thibaudeau

· Email dated 22 September 2005, from Ronald Langill

· Email dated 21 September 2005, from Diane Boucher Snell

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

Councillor Bloess provided a brief history of his interaction with this application as the Ward Councillor. The Councillor had met with the applicant, Mr. Page as well as another planner to discuss the suitability of this type of application within the existing neighbourhood and was of a mixed mind. If there can be residential accommodation for seniors, who are not entirely dependent on services and have some independence, but would like some services in the home, that can be accommodated in existing neighbourhoods, it is a good thing. Councillor Bloess was also led to believe the original reaction from neighbours (up the hill as well) was favourable and as such agreed to have the application proceed. Unfortunately, from the documents received today, and the numerous emails and meetings with residents and when looking at the aerial photo, it is a single detached family neighbourhood area. His dilemma as the Ward Councillor is to find desirable accommodations for seniors without a significant impact on the neighbourhood. In this case, there is an impact. The front of the subject site changes significantly. As is, there is a consistency in the neighbourhood. Traffic is a separate issue that he continues to manage. This is a huge and undesired change and Councillor Bloess recommended PEC refuse this application. If a different proposal were to come forward with less impact on the neighbourhood, it could be entertained at that time.

In response to Councillor Bédard, Ms. Currie advised that a rooming/boarding/lodging house for 5-8 residences requires four spaces and is traditionally a free-standing enterprise.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That the staff recommendation be changed from “approve” to REFUSE; and, add “as inconsistent with the City’s Infill Housing Design Guidelines”.

CARRIED

YEAS (6); Councillors A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, J. Harder P. Feltmate

NAYS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, P. Hume

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council REFUSE an amendment to the former Gloucester Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 6897 Notre Dame Street from “Residential, Single Dwelling Zone” (Rs 1) to “Residential, Single Dwelling Zone - Exception x” (Rs 1-(Ex)) as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2, as inconsistent with the City’s Infill Housing Design Guidelines.

CARRIED as amended

8. ZONING - 4015 Donnelly Drive

ZONAGE - 4015, promenade donnelly

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0215 RIDEAU (21)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 9 September 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 4015 Donnelly Drive from A2 (General Rural) to A2-55 (General Rural - special exception 55) as shown in Document 1 as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

9. ZONING - 211 Bronson avenue

ZONAGE - 211, avenue bronson

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0202 SOMERSET (14)

Corey Mayville and Don Burke, Bronson Centre, were present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 26 August 2005 and the Motion proposed by Councillor Holmes. Correspondence dated 27 September 2005 was received from Dierdee Foucauld on process that is held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That an agreement be drawn up between the Bronson Centre and the City of Ottawa to provide for supervision on a 24/7 basis for the rooming house portion of the building.

CARRIED

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law for 211 Bronson Avenue to add an exception to the I1 Minor Institutional Zone as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3as amended by the following:

That an agreement be drawn up between the Bronson Centre and the City of Ottawa to provide for supervision on a 24/7 basis for the rooming house portion of the building.

CARRIED as amended

10. zONING - 3350 WOODROFFE AVENUE

zONAGE - 3350, avenue woodroffe

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0228 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN/BELL-NEPEAN SUD (3)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 15 September 2005.

that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of a portion of the lands described as 3350 Woodroffe Avenue, from Residential Mixed Unit Zone - RMU to Residential Sixth Density (Exception) Zone - R6A (Block XX) as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

11. ZONING - 5500 Kanata Avenue

ZONAGE - 5500, avenue kanata

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0190 KANATA (4)

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering for Kanata Roads Inc., was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 16 September 2005 and the technical amendment.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

WHEREAS “Document 3” attached to Staff Report ASC2005-PGM-APR-0190, being the ‘Details of Recommended Zoning’, omitted a zone provision detail for the proposed CG-X Zone,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT an additional zone provision detail is to be added to at the end of “Document 3” to Staff Report ACS2005-PGM-APR-0190, being the ‘Details of Recommended Zoning’ for the proposed CG-X Zone, as follows:

“(i) AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION

Notwithstanding the limiting provision within Section 2(11), the net floor area of the building must not exceed 300 square metres. ”

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-Laws to change the zoning of 5500 Kanata Avenue from Agricultural Resource (ARG) and Hazard Lands (HZD) to Residential Type 1D Exception 2 Zone (R1D-2), Residential Type 3A Exception Zone (R3A-X), Residential Type 4B Exception Zone (R4B-X), Residential Type 5C Exception Zone (R5C-X), Open Space Type 1 Zone (OS1), and General Commercial Exception Zone (CG-X) as shown in Document 2 and as detailed in Document 3, as amended be the following:

THAT an additional zone provision detail be added at the end of “Document 3”, being the ‘Details of Recommended Zoning’ for the proposed CG-X Zone, as follows:

“(i) AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION

Notwithstanding the limiting provision within Section 2(11), the net floor area of the building must not exceed 300 square metres. ”

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED as amended

12. ZONING - 5264 Fernbank Road and 898 Eagleson Road

ZONAGE - 5264, chemin Fernbank ET 898, CHEMIN EAGLESON

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0168 GOULBOURN (6)

Murray Chown and Greg Winters, Novatech Engineering for DIR Investments, were present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 September 2005. The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-law 40-99 to change the zoning of part of 5264 Fernbank Road from MG (General Industrial) to R4-XX (Residential Type 4-Special Exception), R5-XX (Residential Type 5-Special Exception), OS (Open Space), PR (Parks and Recreation), I-XX (Institutional-Special Exception) and CC-XX (Core Commercial-Special Exception) and to change the zoning of 898 Eagleson Road from MG (General Industrial) to CH‑XX (Highway Commercial-Special Exception) as detailed in Document 4.

CARRIED

13. ZONING - 3680 Timmins Road

ZONAGE - 3680, chemin Timmins

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0214 WEST CARLETON (5)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 15 September 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 3680 Timmins Road from a Rural Zone (RU) to a Rural Exception Zone (RU-53) as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

14. DEMOLITION - 641a and B somerset STREET west

DéMOLITION - 641 a ET b, RUE SOMERSET OUEST

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0218 SOMERSET (14)

The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 30 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the demolition of the building known as 641A and 641B Somerset Street West as shown on Document 1 and subject to the following conditions:

1. That the Registered Owner(s) enter into a demolition agreement with the City of Ottawa prior to the issuance of a demolition permit including the following conditions and pay all the costs associated with the registration of the said agreement. At such time that the site is improved in accordance with a site plan as required by condition 2 below, the agreement will be released upon request by the Registered Owner(s). The Registered Owner(s) shall pay all costs associated with the registration of the release from this agreement.

2. That the Owner submit a site plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, illustrating site improvements to be implemented including the location of garbage enclosure(s), fencing, parking and landscaping;

3. That the Owner provide to the City financial security in the amount of 50% of the estimated cost of site works and such securities to be released at the same time as the release of the demolition agreement.

4. That the approval be considered null and void if the provisions of Condition 1 above have not been fulfilled within six months of the date of approval.

CARRIED

LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL

CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULATIF SUR LA
CONSERVATION DE L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

15. APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT 250 SANDRIDGE ROAD

DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK - 250, chemin Sandridge

ACS2005-DEV-APR-0212 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)

The Committee approved the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 24 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application for the demolition of the house at 250 Sandridge Road in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District;

2. Approve the application for the construction of a new house at 250 Sandridge Road in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District in accordance with the plans submitted by John Henry of Terra Nova Building Corporation, received on August 10, 2005, included as Document 4.

CARRIED

16. HERITAGE PLAQUE PROGRAM 2005/2006

PROGRAMME DE PLAQUES DU PATRIMOINE 2005/2006

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0205 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 24 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that heritage plaques be installed on eight designated heritage buildings in 2006 as listed in Document 1.

CARRIED

Planning and GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUES D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

17. EXCHANGE OF INCREASED HEIGHT
OR DENSITY FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS

EXPLOITATION ACCRUE EN HAUTEUR OU EN DENSITÉ
EN ÉCHANGE D’AVANTAGES POUR LA COLLECTIVITÉ

ACS2005-PGM-POL-0040 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Vice-Chair Feltmate assumed the Chair for this item.

D. Jacobs, J. Moser, H. Nader-Merhi, Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Planning and Design, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, and Stan Wilder, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 7 September 2005. Mr. Jacobs introduced the item followed by Messrs. Kilstrom and Wilder, who spoke to a brief PowerPoint slide presentation that served to provide the Committee with a brief overview of the staff report. A copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Harder presented a Motion to change the staff recommendation that would remove the words “recommend to Council” since the report will be returning to PEC after consultation with stakeholders and then rise to Council only once.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Alan K. Cohen, Soloway Wright, on behalf of Domicile DevelopmentsInc. and Charlesfort Development Corporation, and Barry Hobin. Mr. Cohen also advised he was asked to speak on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association (OCHBA), who could not be in attendance. Ted Phillips was present, but had to leave. On behalf of OCHBA, he was requested to ask that if PEC chooses to approve the report in principle, that it not remit the matter to Council. Secondly, he was asked to request that consultation be broadened to include his clients (Charlesfort and Domicile) and that PEC may also want to include certain public bodies such as School Boards, whose lands become excess and who sell those lands; and, other public bodies, because they will have a pecuniary interest and in terms of community associations, although he has respect for the Federation of Community Associations (FCA), staff should involve particular community associations.

Mr. Hobin primarily represented Charles fort Developments, but Domicile as well, and did not speak on behalf of the general homebuilding industry. The report basically says that in all these things good planning and design must prevail. There is something flawed here and as someone that faces community associations on a daily basis with projects, there is not much appetite for them to accept increased density at the benefit of the City to take additional funds or community benefits. If it is raw money, the optics are horrific. In recent experience, such as Westboro, Centretown and dealing with Rockcliffe Park, where there are active projects and even in New Edinburgh, communities are sensitive about rights under current development and the notion of expanding beyond that is an inflammatory issue. There is an already adversarial relationship in many of these neighbourhoods. The notion of form vs. density is unclear; the issue of height vs. density, number of units needs to be clarified.

Secondly, the cycle of real estate is very complex. Ottawa is a very small, high density market and the cycle is quite changeable. Over the last three or four years, Ottawa has enjoyed a growth in condominium or high density types of dwellings. In the early 90’s, there was no market. As a result, that led to a proliferation of four-storey stacked townhomes where 12-storey rights existed. It is very difficult when entering into the adjudication of value in the real estate cycle and there must be a fair amount of caution because of the potentials for evaluating at this height should the market fall out; the developer becomes strapped and cannot bring anything to market. This has the optics of being a tax that would benefit the entire community and create community benefits. Mr. Hobin understood the City is under a tremendous strain with respect to budgets. The community benefits noted in the report speak to some of the issues that have to do with affordable housing, greenspace, heritage conservation; all great ideas, but there appears to be a disconnect between the notion there would be an evaluation on the increased density, which results in money transferred to buy back these things. It does not speak to the issue of in kind benefits. The notion of the donation of greenspace or land is certainly precedent in the re-development of the Crichton Street School, which was a fine example of exchange in cash-in-lieu for preservation of trees and a mini-park. On the notion of requesting facilities to be provided, he cautioned there is a need for a rather large project to support that notion, which is one of the inclusions in LeBreton Flats.

Charging a premium for a density/height increase is not necessarily a great optic. The picture on the cover depicts the redevelopment of the Ottawa Board of Education lands in the Glebe; a parcel of land within an established neighbourhood that contained a building of heritage value, not zoned. The land was acquired, rezoned and a streetscape created without garage doors. It was zoned under tremendous consultation. Charging above that in the case of this project would have been a very hostile situation and resulted in the applicant before the OMB. The initiative of the developer to remove all garage doors and provide underground parking was at a significant cost.

Mr. Cohen asked PEC to defer this item and certainly not to have it rise to Council. The OP contemplates intensification and a growing in before growing out, yet the City is seeking from their clients and others, a payment to do so. That is going to be a disincentive and the City may not attain the form of development it desired. Secondly, the recommendation is that there be 50% of added value. With respect, the City and its staff does not know enough about value and valuation of land to put forward a figure. To suggest that figure without knowing what that value is, how it is achieved, how much arises from rezoning, etc. is an anathema to their clients who see this as a cash grab rather than some well-thought-out discussion that may lead to a workable solution. Thirdly, he invited PEC to ask Legal Services to provide an opinion on the legality of what is proposed.

Linda Hoad appeared on her own behalf and not representing any of the organizations she was affiliated with, but based on experiences as a member of FCA and the Hintonburg Community Association (HCA) as well as a member of the CA. She generally supported the thrust of the report because most inner-City communities are already experiencing requests for density and height increase. HCA is negotiating for benefits on its own; i.e., the Great Canadian Theatre Company (GCTC). HCA recently negotiated with Tartan/Urban to change height and shape on Holland to allow for eight stories over part of the building, but, as a result of the shadow study, to change the shape so that impact on adjacent neighbours is the same as the six-storey building permitted as of right. Of those mentioned, one was a rezoning; the second was before the Committee of Adjustment (CA). And, that is one of the flaws in the recommendations. Unless you oppose applications to the CA that would fall within the guidelines proposed, then you would not receive any community benefits. They will be given at the CA, which does not fall under Section 37 of the Planning Act. Ms. Hoad agreed to a large extent with what Mr. Hobin presented; Individuals such as Mr. Hobin negotiate with communities for benefits through design, in part, and also other types of benefits. Soft benefits are certainly what communities will be looking for. Height is not mentioned in guidelines, but is contained in the title of the report and must be considered since it is perceived by communities as what makes some developments incompatible. As mentioned by Mr. Hobin, the City is facing a crisis of confidence with respect to the Zoning By-Law among community associations. There is a mistaken impression among the development community, shared apparently by some staff, that intensification requires a change in the existing By-Laws. The old City of Ottawa is zoned for intensification. In addition, there is an impression that every site has the right to achieve the full height or density in the zoning, which is only possible if other requirements can be met. This misunderstanding has led to some totally incompatible variances to the existing By-Laws, supported by staff. This report is a way to work through the persistent and ongoing requests by developers to increase the height and/or intensify. Most inner City communities accept these requests, but expect staff to respect a negotiation process to provide benefits in return for what the By-Law does not provide and does not need to provide.

In response to Councillor Holmes on HCA’s interpretation of intensification wording in the OP, Ms Hoad advised that HCA and any organization that participated in the OP process were told by staff it would not mean changes to the existing zoning and indeed would be dealing with underutilized lands. The project at Parkdale and Spencer was a change of zoning from industrial to residential, but could have fallen under the guidelines. Since the OP was approved and shortly before, there is more pressure to increase height. Most communities are quite prepared to accept minor variances for a building to fit onto a difficult site; it is known that infill is difficult and it is not expected it will meet the zoning exactly; there will be variances. FCA represents approximately 30 community associations and there are members from outside the Greenbelt. FCA did meet with Mr. Wilder and there was a considerable divergence of opinion; some suburban associations viewed this as bribery and corruption. Most downtown communities who are experiencing the demand for additional height and density want to receive something in return and it is one of the reasons the FCA did not attempt to arrive at a position.

The Committee also received an e-mail dated 27 September 2005 from David Gladstone, Chair, Planning and Development Review, Centretown Citizens Community Association.

Councillor Holmes referred to her Motion and wanted to see height and/or density included in all discussions. In her ward, zoning is height and/or setbacks. There is no density. The second recommendation is the 5,000m² that is talked about in the report (50 units), which needs to be smaller. Councillor Holmes’ next Motion followed on the community’s perception this is a secret negotiation between developers and PGM with no public input. The community is quite suspicious and hostile to that idea; the Motion asks for on-site signage that negotiation is taking place. There needs to be community input as to what is a benefit that community would see; i.e. mini-park, better bus stop amenities and public visibility to that negotiation. PGM should oppose applications to the CA for increased height or density exceeding 25%.

Councillor Holmes then asked for a definition of good planning. Mr. Jacobs explained there is no quantifiable definition; it breaks down to what is appropriate for the neighbourhood, what is possible, what the community is interested in and what Council will approve; the end result is generally defined as good planning. The concepts of good planning and good design are various objective pieces. Many of the initiatives proposed to implement the OP require community consultation that staff attempt to put into practice through cooperative discussion with the development industry and community as to what constitutes a level of good planning and also achieve OP objectives. These guidelines are an attempt to provide a framework for discussion so that staff can bring forward ideas to promulgate participation in that process because the onus is on the City to provide incentives. This is not an extraction process. This is very much an experience where staff needs to work with the community to define some base lines with the development industry and the community. One must be careful about how much is added to the principles and how direction is provided until there is sufficient opportunity to deal with real life experiences.

In response to Councillor Bédard, Mr. Moser averred staff does not encourage applicants to proceed to the CA, although there are circumstances where it is appropriate. But, certainly if an applicant wants to pursue that route, staff cannot prevent that. Responding further, Mr. Moser emphasized that staff speaks to numerous applicants throughout the year and provides a range of options. The preference is to sit down with an applicant, whether on a zoning matter or one destined for the CA, to speak to the range of issues and attempt to negotiate and if deemed appropriate, staff can raise them with the CA and ask that they be imposed. If there is no success, staff can address CA and oppose the application. Council can give some direction to the CA on certain issues, but it is an arm’s length relationship.

Councillor Hunter asked legal if there was a guideline in the Planning Act, which gives definition and guidance on minor. Ms. Nader-Merhi advised that Section 45 outlines the criteria for granting variances; the courts through Case Law have defined four tests for minor variances, but there is still some subjectivity involved in determining those tests. Recent case law development has said minor is defined through impact, as opposed to numbers.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

1. That DOCUMENT 2 – ‘Guidelines to Assist in the Implementation of Density Incentives’ be amended to include consideration of applications for increased height by the addition of ‘…and height’ following the word ‘density’ in Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14, when the increase in building height exceeds 25% of the maximum allowable height permitted under the Zoning By-law.

2. That the threshold for minimum development size be amended to 2,500 square metres, or 25,000 square feet.

3. That community benefits considered as ‘affordable housing’ be further defined as ‘cash or land contributions dedicated to the construction of new units to accommodate those on the Social Housing Registry waiting list’.

4. That following the pre-consultation, there be public notification through on-site signage of applications for Exchange of Increased Height or Density for Community Benefits; and that community groups are consulted for their input on the type of benefit to be sought; and that staff ensure that community associations are made aware of the Guidelines.

5. That the Planning and Growth Management Department oppose applications to the Committee of Adjustment for increased height or density exceeding 25%, and request that they should be considered under this policy.

6. That staff monitor the use and impact of height and density incentives; report back on the number of applications, the benefits negotiated, and request feedback from community groups and the Federation of Citizens’ Associations on the community experience in the implementation of the Guidelines.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

7. a) That the public consultation include community associations representing the areas that would contiguous with the areas of the Central Area, rapid transit stations, arterial Mainstreets, mixed use centres and brownfields.

b) That developers working in these contiguous areas be included in the community consultation.

c) That School Boards be included.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Planning and Environment Committee support in principle the “Guidelines to Assist in the Implementation of Density Incentives” contained in Document 2 of this report as the basis for further discussion with stakeholders

CARRIED with Councillor D. Holmes dissenting.

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

2. That the threshold for minimum development size be amended to 2,500 square metres, or 25,000 square feet.

b) That developers working in these contiguous areas be included in the community consultation.

c) That School Boards be included.

CARRIED as amended with Councillor M. Bellemare dissinting.

18. INFILL HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES - LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY

LIGNES DIRECTRICES en matière de CONCEPTION DE LOGEMENTS résidentiels INTERCALAIRES DE FAIBLE DENSITÉ ET DE DENSITÉ MOYENNE

ACS2005-PGM-POL-0055 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 1 September 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the design guidelines for infill housing entitled: 'Infill Housing Design Guidelines-Low-Medium Density’ (Document 1).

CARRIED

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

19. STREET NAME CHANGE - GREENVIEW AVENUE

CHANGEMENT DE NOM DE RUE – AVENUE GREENVIEW

ACS2005-PGM-BLD-0019 BAY/BAIE (7)

Vice-Chair Feltmate chaired this item.

D. Jacobs, Arlene Gregoire, Director, Building Services, and Don Brousseau, Senior Policy Officer, Legal and Service Integration Division, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 29 July 2005.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

Cyril Winter referred to the map of streets in the Greenview area. The extension of Don physically provides a link to the odd numbered side of Greenview. Contrary to what is stated, it is not divided; but it is more appropriate to say it is “branched” into a boulevard. Secondly, the report states the odd numbered side (older section) of Greenview is a cul-de-sac, which it is not. It is bound by Don and Howe. The only section of a cul-de-sac services one house. The street is accessible by Carling via an access lane that is part of Greenview. This issue arose because of a safety concern and due to errors contained in the report, he asked for reconsideration. A directional sign would alleviate safety concerns.

Harry Schep attempted to clarify comments in the report, which states Greenview was identified as a priority for remedial action. This all came about through an accident at 104 Greenview, with an ambulance delayed because there was no number. Identification problems have since been rectified through signage. Residents have lived on the street for 40 years and there has never been a safety issue. The new numbers and signs in the area, as a result of the ambulance situation, is the appropriate approach to simplify the situation. The ratings hinge on the physical disconnection. The City imposed the bus link for no real reason that he could ascertain. The report and rationale for the name change are faulty.

Bryan Parlour advised that residents of the section to be changed do not want the change to take place and want PEC to reject the change and maintain the status quo. Echoed previous comments that there is no safety hazard. Residents do not believe the minor inconvenience is significant enough to inflict a street name change. Paramedics have said it is not a safety issue for them to find the street. If it is not an issue for us, why is it an issue for City Council? Preferences of street residents should take precedence over policy issues.

Gina Taggart Budde, President, Board of Directors, The Britannia Condominium Corporation 68, represented 317 residents that live in 212 units in the condominium; some have lived there for over 30 years; and, provided a written submission, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. Plans for the building and the Greenview name have existed since 1973. A 14-page petition was sent to PEC through Mr. Brousseau’s office and contained 258 names; many residents were away or not at home when the petition was canvassed. Numerous emails have also been received by Mr. Brousseau, Councillor Cullen and Ms. Ferrari; she represented many residents and there was a large turnout at the public meeting at the Ron Kolbus Lakeside Gardens Centre (RKLGC). These residents oppose the renaming of the section of Greenview that extends from Carling to RKLGC (the long continuous uninterrupted section) since that portion of the street has a large number of residents. In addition the change would affect others as thousands of residents access the facilities in the area (West Ottawa Tennis Club, Children’s Safety Village and the RKLGC). There would be an incredible cost and inconvenience to a large number of residents who live in the area. Renaming the northern section, with 11 homes would be more appropriate, definitely more logical and certainly more cost-effective for the majority involved. She did regret those residents who would be inconvenienced if a compromise cannot be arrived at. In summary, she requested PEC follow its precedent of changing the name of the portion of the street with the least number of residents.

Councillor Cullen sympathized with the 13 long-term residents of the original Greenview, but there are two distinct streets. The original Greenview, unfortunately, is separated by the extension of Don, which is bus-only access and designed to protect the community from any overflow parking from Britannia Park. The original Greenview was in existence when the area was developed; the long Greenview came about through the redevelopment of the Park and the Condominium that faces Carling that should have had a Carling address. There was a problem with Lakeside Gardens having a Carling address, with residents trying to access the polling station; it created confusion and the Council of the day chose to rename the entire section Greenview. The policy states that for safety reasons the distinctiveness must be resolved. The law of larger numbers means that ultimately the original portion would be renamed. There was public consultation and 13 homes on the original portion of Greenview rejected all ideas and want to retain the original name. The staff recommendation to change one or the other is valid (and brought to PEC’s attention a newspaper article). There is no desire to have another tragedy. Lorne Greene did live on the original Greenview and had an influence on the name since that was not the original name when the subdivision was constructed; hence the proposal for Lorne Greene Way.

Mr. Brousseau referred to the recently approved Harmonized Addressing By-Law and guidelines set out therein. Council also approved the anomalies report in January that spoke to 290 identified concerns the City would attempt to resolve over the years with this as an initial step on the first ½ dozen this year. Staff is aware of the problems and constantly under pressure from Emergency Services (EPS) to resolve anomalies, receiving more weekly.

In response to Councillor Holmes, Mr. Brousseau explicated it is not quite correct that ambulance crews did not have a problem; the paramedics were attempting to reassure residents that “we’ll find you”, but EPS has stressed this is a concern and want it resolved. Signing, with numbers, would not be EPS’s first choice.

A/Chair Feltmate received confirmation that emergency vehicles can access bus routes.

On the departmental recommendation, copied below:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council enact a by-law to change the name of Greenview Avenue for that part located between Howe Street and the cul-de-sac south of Don Street to “Lorne Greene Way”.

LOST

YEAS(3): Councillors A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard

NAYS (4): Councillors J. Harder, G. Hunter, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

That the City provide signage at the intersections of Greenview Avenue and Don Street indicating the house numbers on the Greenview Avenues.

CARRIED as amended with Councillor G. Bédard dissenting

20. STREET NAME CHANGE - ANCONA COURT

CHANGEMENT DE NOM DE RUE – COUR ANCONA

acs2005-pgm-bld-0022 BASELINE (8)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 26 August 2005.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council enact a by-law to change the name of Ancona Court to “Briargreen Court”, effective January 15, 2006.

CARRIED

21. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE - 551A Montreal Road

DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES –
551A, chemin montreal

ACS2005-PGM-BLD-0020 rideau-rockcliffe (13)

Chair Hume noted staff, at the request of the applicant, withdrew the item. Byron Meyers. C.C.C.453, was present and informed he would be circulated when the item would come forward.

ADDITIONAL ITEM

POINT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That The Planning ad Environment Committee approve the addition of the following Motion for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to Section 81(3) of the Procedure By-Law (Being By-Law No. 2003-589).

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, under delegated authority, City Council approved to amend Schedule A of Private Roadway Naming By-law 2002-521 to name a private roadway servicing the National War Museum, Vimy Place Private;

AND WHEREAS, the Museum has expressed concern that as a well known national site owned by the Federal Government, the standard suffix “Private” required under the By-Law and while most often used in residential developments, the use of “Private” for a property with military references could be considered inappropriate in this instance;

AND WHEREAS, for Emergency Services, and Public Works and Services infrastructure servicing of City owned streets, it is clear that the subject roadway is located on Federal land;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council enact a by-law to change the roadway name from “Vimy Place Private” to “Vimy Place”. (ACS2005-CCS-PEC-0009)

CARRIED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. on time review status report

RAPPORTS DÉTAPE SUR L’EXAMEN EN TEMPS VOULU

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0223

RECEIVED

Inquiries

DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNMENT

Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen

Delegation of Authority – Site Plan Control – Ward 1 – 8911 North Service Road

Members of Planning and Environment Committee have received an e-mail from an Orleans resident concerning a proposed development in Orleans Ward (15-storey tower) and has requested that delegated authority be removed from staff so that the public can express the concerns at Planning and Environment Committee. However there is no Councillor from Orleans Ward to act on the request. What procedure should be followed here regarding the resident’s request?

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p. m.

Original signed by Original signed by

L. Ferrari Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair