STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS
SUBMITTED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire
PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
The Chair read a statement relative to the Zoning
By-law Amendments listed as items 1, 3 and 5-14 on the agenda. He advised that
only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions
before the amendments were adopted could appeal to the OMB. The applicant may
also appeal the matter if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days
for Zoning By-Law amendments and 180 days for Official Plan amendments, after
receipt of the application. He also advised that there were comment sheets
available for those wishing to submit written comments on the above-cited
application.
Before
dealing with the agenda, the Chair announced that he had a brief ceremonial
duty to undertake as it was the last meeting of the Committee for the term of
Council.
He
provided each member of Committee with a framed photo of the Ottawa River to
commemorate their work on the “The Ottawa River Action Plan” in recognition of their
leadership role in protecting the health of the Ottawa River. On behalf of himself
and senior staff, he thanked Committee members for their work not only in this
effort for the benefit of all Ottawans.
He
advised that the City Photographer had taken the picture and a volunteer put
together all the framing together for a total cost of less than $100.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux
demandes de renseignements:
CC 33/10 Resource
Management Plan for the Marlborough Forest/ Plan de gestion des resources
concernant la forêt Marlborough
RECEIVED
CC 34/10 Final Decisions on
Lansdowne Zoning/Décisions finales concernant le zonage
de Lansdowne
RECEIVED
CC 37/10 Brute Blue PVC Water
Pipe/ Canalisations d’eau en PVC Blue
Brute
RECEIVED
POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET RENVOIS
ACS2010-ICS -PGM-0168 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
Deferred from the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 4
October 2010/ Reporté de la réunion du comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement du 4 octobre 2010 :
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Committee
received the following correspondence with respect to this item, which is held
on file with the City Clerk:
·
E-mail dated 14 November 2010 from René Champagne, Rockcliffe
Mews Residents’ Association
·
E-mail dated 28 September 2010 from Jeff O’Neill, Rockcliffe Mews
Residents’ Association
·
Letter dated 17 September 2010 from Michèle Ade
·
E-mail dated 1 October 2010 from Paul Sauvé
Mr. Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants, was present
on behalf of the applicants to request that the item be deferred to the next
meeting.
Councillor Legendre, the ward Councillor, expressed
that he did not object to deferral, as he did not see that there was any choice
but to grant the applicant’s request.
The following Delegations were also registered to
speak:
·
René Champagne, Vice
President, Rockcliffe Mews Residents’ Association
·
Gerald E. Way
·
Michèle Ade
·
N. Harris, Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation
All delegations present were advised of the proposed
deferral to the first meeting of 2011, and none objected to deferral.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
That this item be deferred to the first regular
meeting in January 2011.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS - PGM-0119 CAPITAL (17)
Deferred
from the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 4 October 2010/ Reporté
de la réunion du comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement du 4 octobre 2010 :
A 601-Signature petition was submitted by Gwendolyn
Gall, calling on the City of Ottawa to “ensure that property developers adhere
to the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing and
petitioning the City to ensure that public streetscapes are preserved and
building design is harmonious with existing homes, and expressing concern with
an increasing number of infill building projects in which builders are not
computing with the City’s urban design standards.
Alain Miguelez, Program Manager, Development Review
Process (Inner Urban area) provided a presentation giving background
information on the application, and staff’s rationale for recommending approval
on the basis of zoning conformity. He did so by means of a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk
The chair noted that the City had rejected a Site Plan
proposal for a retail component at the Trainyards development site, which
resulted in an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing, and wondered why the City
could not take the same approach in this instance. Mr. Marc indicated that he
had reviewed OMB case law since that previous decision, and was unable to find
any case where a Site Plan had been refused by the OMB where a development is
in compliance with the Zoning By-law. He further noted that, in the case of
the Trainyards, the City, based on the inability to find a case from the OMB
refusing site plan approval, came forward with a revised position asking the
retail component to be reoriented, which met more of the policies in place, and
that in the end was approved by the Board. This had not amounted to Site Plan
refusal.
The Chair wondered whether in this case conditions
could be added to the site plan to advance the City’s policy positions, and
have that sustained by the OMB. Mr. Marc indicated that such an approach had
worked in the Trainyards case because the development that ultimately proceeded
with was, to a large extent, the same development in terms of density, as was
originally sought by the developer. In this case, while he would not say
there was no chance of success at the board should Committee take a position to
attempt to redesign this site through site plan approval; however, because it
would be a change in density it would be a more difficult position to advance
to the OMB. In response to a request for clarification from the Chair, Mr.
Marc surmised that the City would be unsuccessful before the OMB.
Councillor Doucet noted that there had been general
agreement at a community meeting that the developer’s alternate proposal, which
included a carriageway, was the preferred solution. Mr. Miguelez recalled the
same.
Councillor Doucet noted there had been such consensus
on that alternative and now the developer had come forward with a plan that did
not respect the design guidelines. He wondered, therefore, what the purpose of
the design guidelines was if they could be disregarded.
In response to Councillor Doucet’s questions Mr.
Miguelez believed that the guidelines were extremely valuable, and noted staff
had applied them in this case; however, the applicant had opted to present his
original design. He suggested it would be useful to have an OMB ruling on what
“teeth” the guidelines have under Bill 51
As to a possible motion to return the application back
to staff for further study, Mr. Miguelez indicated that staff is always willing
to work with proponents to improve projects, as that is their role as a
resource to proponents and neighborhoods, and to Council. He further indicated
that staff is not opposed to a three-unit development on the site; however,
staff thinks it can be done in a different way and is prepared to work with the
applicant in that direction.
Councillor Harder found it troublesome that the City
would fight the development on the basis of the side door entrances and other
design features, when that is exactly what the City has encouraged suburban
developers to do in order to achieve density. She wondered if the fact that
the City has different guidelines for different parts of the city would impact
their case before the OMB.
Mr. Miguelez noted that the design guidelines that
staff used in this case related to infill, and there is a difference between
infill in established neighbourhoods and the creation of brand new
neighbourhoods.
Councillor Harder suggested there were no guidelines,
and this spoke to the work that had begun by the intensification implementation
group, and the fact that one size does not fit all. We should actually have
firm principles in place for the suburban area she said. In response to
Councillor Holmes’ questions, John Moser stated there are 15 different
guidelines for different area... He mentioned new developments in the suburbs,
infill developments and “big box” retail as examples.
Councillor Feltmate stated her disappointment the
application of the guidelines that were approved in October 2009 hasn’t worked
out, and that the site plan is coming back. She stated her inability to see the
value in the guidelines if they’re not going to be applied.
In response to Mr. Miguelez’ agreement that the
guidelines are very important and he would defend them at the OMB if necessary,
Councillor Feltmate stated that staff would need to support the proposal in
order to defend it at the OMB, and the report only indicates that reluctantly,
which doesn’t provide for a strong case. Mr. Miguelez stated that staff didn’t
feel the proposal meets the Urban Design Guidelines and that would be the
testimony at the OMB, however the zoning is the legislative set of rules that
would take precedence. Therefore, this matter being before the Planning and
Environment Committee is a way to highlight new ground that we should seek to
cover in how we shape development under the new regime of Bill 51.
The chair questioned how the design guidelines could
be infused into a zoning by-law. He was under the impression through the site
plan process, the design elements could be imposed. He wanted to understand why
Mr. Marc didn’t agree, while Mr. Moser did.
Mr. Moser stated that staff had brought a report to
the last committee meeting which stated the desire in reviewing the guidelines
for infill development, as staff feel they can be strengthened to apply them
more appropriately, but for the time being they have to work the present
guidelines.
Tim Marc stated that there needs to be a better
balance between the flexibility allowed to applicant’s designs and
prescriptiveness in order to clearly state what is intended but reduces options.
Staff will have to make a recommendation and Committee and Council will have to
make a decision regarding the degree of clarity for applicants. He reiterated
that revised guidelines will have to take into account flexibility versus
prescriptiveness at the forefront.
Councillor Hunter posed a question with regards to
parking, and environmental guidelines. He asked about the implications of
having a carriage way with parking at the back as opposed to garages. He stated
that the front garages which take up less driveway space and would create more
green space on the lot would be better than the carriageway which would imply a
paved parking lot and would cause cars to sit idle in the winter while warming
up their engines. He questioned whether aesthetics were taking precedent over
the environment.
In response AM stated that rear parking doesn’t
preclude green space in backyards. People are looking for established
neighbourhoods with character, and most often they don’t have garages in the
front and are getting their cars started. She stated that while there are a
number of considerations taken when looking at application, staff certainly
follows the guidelines approved by Council, and highlight important elements
when considering compatibility. She stated that staff is a professional
resource to ensure adequate balance between the needs of parking and green
space.
Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants was present on behalf of the applicant. He was
accompanied by Michael Polowin, legal representation for the applicant,
and Douglas Hardie, the architect. Mr. Polowin began by stating that
the Urban Design Guidelines were rightfully adopted by Council to acknowledge
the reality that there are different circumstances to each application.
However, he further stated that the variety of guidelines allows for “cherry
picking” which is a case that he has seen made to the Board previously.
Mr. Tremblay spoke to the issue of the design
guidelines and the planning aspects of the application. He raised the
following points:
·
The Design Guidelines go from
general to specific details and are intended to be reviewed in the context of
the zoning bylaw.
·
While the staff report doesn’t
include all of the applicable guidelines, it does say that when there is
opportunity to put parking at the back, as you move forward it acknowledges
that if you can’t do rear yard parking or don’t want to there are alternative
guidelines.
·
He stated that the staff report
conveniently stops at guideline 4.7 which states that garages on public streets
should be more than 50 per cent of the frontage; however, guideline 4.8 which
says that for semi-detached and multiple attached dwelling row houses, the 50
per cent goal is more difficult to achieve, therefore it acknowledges
limitations in the ability to achieve 50 per cent and providing the garage is
downplayed, a reduction in percentage can be considered
·
He stated that the design by the
architect conforms to guideline 4.8, by recessing the garage and recessing the
building space.
·
He stated that guideline 4.9 also
speaks to the development, in stating: “emphasize the entry, windows, balconies
and front yard planting. Minimize and/or recess the garage door if it faces the
street.”
·
He stated that the guidelines
don’t not to have a garage, but rather how to do it, and maintained the
applicant accommodated that. He did not want the community to leave thinking
the design guidelines weren’t being addressed because they were.
·
Lastly he wanted to address the
issue of the streetscape. He suggested this proposal proportionately provides a
reasonable amount of front yard landscaping between driveways, and attempts to
integrate with the streetscape. He also suggested that front yard parking
interrupts the sidewalk and the streetscape would be less desirable than
garages that accommodate the cars and protect the sidewalk and streetscape
which conforms to the design guidelines.
Mr. Hardie stated that he had been in business in
Ottawa for 30 years, with much of that experience in infill design. He raised
the following points:
·
Point 2.5.1 of the OP spoke to
incorporating characteristics common in the project surroundings. He stated
characteristics that were evident in the neighbourhood that were incorporated
in the design such as expressed gables, hip roofs, second floor balconies,
front porches, small front yards and rear yards, and he stated that they are
currently looking at the pattern of front yard parking.
·
He mentioned the presence of 20
buildings on the block that front on the street, half with front yard parking
spaces.
·
He then mentioned criteria with
which they are compatible with in section 4.11 of the OP: height, bulk, scale
relationships (setback from street, and distance between buildings). He also
mentioned the compatibility in operational characteristics such as traffic
access and parking.
·
He said the project was designed
to comply with those criteria, deal practically with parking requirements,
provide unit design appeal for family living, a large at-grade amenity area
compatible with neighbours, unlike the alternate proposal which removes at
grade amenities, substituting an automobile focused back yard.
·
He stated that the alternate
proposal was rejected because they fundamentally felt that the nature of the
unit design changed. The rear amenity space makes it desirable for a wider
range of purchasers whereas previously the two outer units had no back yard in
exchange for parking.
Mr. Polowin stated his disappointment with the bias in
the report. He stated that the cherry-picking of the design guidelines was near
shocking. He expressed his confusion as to why staff had taken a position which
is unsupportable in law. He stated that the staff has encouraged their client
to incorporate a carriageway to access parking in the rear. With respect to why
the proponent doesn’t want to do it that way, he stated that it makes the
project economically unviable, and it cannot be done without a minor variance.
He stated that, while the community may not want a
three-door row, the Council-approved zoning that allows it, and approved the
concept of intensification in the OP. He noted that neighborhoods evolve. He
acknowledged that staff has the right to consider exterior design and
compatibility during Site Plan approval, but wanted to reiterate two points:
firstly, the design was based on the approved design guidelines and conforms
perfectly to it; secondly, there are communities in Ottawa that are now
considered ‘inner city urban areas’ which were designed as suburban
communities, such as Old Ottawa South, with with garages and long asphalt
driveways.
He suggested that shared garages and carriageways only
promote litigation, stating that joint ownership agreements are required and
they need to be done early on and maintained of the years, and the result is
too many neighbours complaining to the City and resorting to lawyers over
rights and driveway sharing and access. He noted that Committee had just
approved on consent a 500, 000 sq. ft. retail development and a 100 metre high
office tower while at the same time debating over infill that Council
supported.
In response to Councillor Hunter’s question, Mr.
Polowin stated that they supported the staff’s recommendation but not the
background report.
Brian Tansey,
resident of Old Ottawa South spoke mainly to the sense of community he
experienced in his community which he does not see happening with this
proposal. He stated that the discussion was a pre-fight to the OMB because the
guidelines don’t have the teeth to do the job and that the notion of compatibility
in the OP is too general, stating that compatibility needs to be taking into
consideration within each varying community.
He spoke of the importance of front porch living as a
factor in community dynamics at the micro level, which were not included in the
plan. He stated that the project is a good example of allowing the inner city
(Old Ottawa South) to be become more car-centric because it allows people to
have cars at either the front or the back whereas if it were people-centric the
community would use more public transport, and said that in Old Ottawa South
people are able to get by without them. He stated that staff chose a design
that had three garage doors, with no front porches and the front entrance is
the side door, which doesn’t fit in with neighbourhood friendliness. He said
it’s something you would see in the suburbs where you never see your
neighbours, which is not compatible with life in the inner city.
Gwendolyn Gall
spoke in opposition to the proposed site plan.
·
She noted that several months
previous a group of Old Ottawa South residents had met to discuss their
concerns about infill development in our neighbourhood; while they supported
densification to help reduce urban sprawl, they were concerned with the size,
quality and character of much of the infill was not compatible with that of the
neighbourhood, including the proposed infill at 71 Hopewell Avenue.
·
The group of residents circulated
a petition to request the City of Ottawa ensure that property developers adhere
to the City’s Urban Design Guidelines, at least in their spirit, which garnered
over 600 signatures in a short period of time, with nearly everyone approached
signing
·
While City planners attempted to
work with the developers to improve their plan, the developers proved inflexible
and after discussing having to take the case to the OMB, City staff reluctantly
recommended that the committee approve the site plan.
·
This was a grave disappointment to
the residents, who had hoped 71 Hopewell would be the line drawn in the sand in
terms of design guidelines and what is acceptable in an older urban
neighbourhood.
·
She requested Committee reject
this proposal or send it back for further consideration and work with staff,
and in future change the zoning bylaws to ensure that future densification
developments adhere to design guidelines and respect the character of the
neighbourhoods in which they are built.
·
With respect to Councillor
Harder’s comments about the kind of houses in the suburbs, she suggested
residents of Old Ottawa South had specifically chosen to live in an older
neighbourhood that is not a suburb and don’t want to be a suburb.
In conclusion she submitted to Committee a petition of
601 signatures from the citizens of Old Ottawa South. A copy of the petition is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Don Westwood
spoke in opposition to the proposed site plan. He raised the following points:
·
Noting that, as an architect and a
resident of an urban community, he supported infill as a design strategy for
the densification and development of our City; however, he would not support it
when the interests and demands of developers continue to appear to be more
important than the concerns and integrity of communities.
·
He stated that when those
motivations to maximize profit run roughshod over the basic rights of the
community in general and the quality of life for the immediate neighbours in
particular then something is seriously wrong with the current way in which site
plan control is executed, and suggested that was evident in this case.
·
He noted that the City actually
recommends that the proposed development go ahead in spite of its own
comprehensive report that states in several places that it doesn’t meet the
intents of sections 4.11 and 2.5.1 of the OP, or the Council-approved Urban
Design Guidelines for low-medium density infill housing;
·
He noted that the ward Councillor
does not support of the Site Plan, as proposed.
·
He noted that the site plan does
not align with F2 of the Strategic Plan
·
He noted that staff’s own initial
response to the community association was to agree with both their preliminary
and revised comments.
·
He noted the Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee also strongly recommends more adequate conformity with the
City of Ottawa’s urban design guidelines for infill, specifically that a garage
should not dominate any façade facing the street, public space or other
residential building and OBHAC states that the current proposal ‘would set a
negative precedent for infill development along this block of Hopewell
Avenue’.
·
He suggested the explanation for
this situation was that the various parties involved in the decision making
process are ‘constrained by the current as-of-right zoning permission;
therefore, until any changes to the Zoning Bylaws are made, nothing can be done
to prevent the development as currently proposed.
·
He maintained that just because a
by-law says that something is permitted it does not mean it should be.
·
He suggested maximums and minimums
be treated as such. For instance, this proposed development is legally
permitted to extend deep into the site, but as currently proposed it would
extend so far back beyond the rear of the adjacent houses (67 and 73), and at
such a height, that it would effectively prevent sunlight reaching the rear
gardens of those two properties during the afternoon and to 73 during the
morning.
·
He referenced an almost identical
situation that he had been involved in for an application to develop the vacant
lot at 65 Hopewell, where concerns were almost identical in nature to those now
raised by this proposed development. As a minor variance was required, the
Committee of Adjustment had made very specific binding conditions on the
development of that site in terms of height, streetscape, and rear setback and
so on.
·
Currently, when there is no
requirement for a development to place a proposal before any committee before
being granted a building permit, the City’s guidelines can be and usually are
completely ignored. By way of example he referenced the development at 104
Hopewell Avenue, where there are two garage doors side by side on a single lot
and no front doors directly facing the street at all and no green space in the
front yard.
·
He suggested that it seemed the
City officials that issue building permits also ignore their City’s own
guidelines, further highlighting the need for all infill projects to go before
a committee of some sort to achieve some form of ongoing control over the
nature of infill developments.
·
On the situation at hand, he urged
Committee to exercise its wisdom when considering the merits of the community’s
concerns.
·
He proposed that a decision on the
proposed development should at least be delayed until the zoning laws have not
yet been updated,
·
He expressed disbelief at staff’s
final response that it feels itself ‘constrained by the existing zoning laws’.
HE maintained that bylaws are made by people, and thus people can change them,
and improve them, unless the developers’ quest for maximum profits and the
interests of their politicians continue instead to determine the future of our
cities.
Brendan McCoy, Old Ottawa South Community Association
(OSCA), spoke in opposition to the
proposed site plan. He did so with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, a
copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He raised the following
points:
·
The proposed development is
insensitive to the streetscape, to neighbours, and to the City staff who worked
to improve it and who are ignored by the developer.
·
The community is neither opposed
to good infill, nor opposed to working with a developer who shows good will and
an interest in working with us.
·
A front porch is a signature
element in Old Ottawa South, a garage such is not. He showed committee
examples of homes in the area in order to demonstrate how the proposed
development is not compatible
·
Old Ottawa South is characterized
by tree-lined streets where the houses are close to the street and have a
relationship with the street. Most families have cars, but we have some of the
highest rates of bicycle and pedestrian commuters in the city.
·
The three units proposed for 71
Hopewell lack front porches, have no ground level windows, nor do two of them
have front doors. He suggested this to be a violation of the City’s infill
guidelines, as recognized by City staff.
·
While there is much older infill
in the neighbourhood, resulting in much density and an attractive and inviting
streetscape, the three townhomes proposed for 71 Hopewell are the opposite of
this earlier infill. The street frontage on the proposed development is all
parking and it deadens the street. Garages completely dominate the first floor
while pavement dominates the front of the property, in sharp contrast to the
neighbouring properties
·
After input from the neighbours
and the wider community it was suggested by City staff the developer look at an
alternate configuration, but the developer declined to do so.
·
Good design works well and looks
good. He referenced and showed photos of nearby infill that were successful
and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
·
He concluded that this is an
opportunity for the City to show courage and leadership, stating that they have
examples from across the City of great infill design but not enough.
·
He stated that staff and council
have worked hard to create and pass infill guidelines that would ensure
development in existing neighbourhoods would be embraced instead of feared. All
the guidelines ask is that developers take the character of the neighbourhood
into account, which the community agrees that this developer has failed to do
that.
·
While the developer had many
opportunities to make changes, instead he choose to push forward with the
design that would make three large garage doors and some pavement the face of
this home to the street. Mr. McCoy felt the developer was betting that this
committee will endorse his conduct and confirm that the only thing that matters
is zoning.
In closing he voiced that committee has a unique
chance to defend the guidelines and the principle of smart growth and to say
loudly and clearly that the character of the neighbourhood matters. He remarked
that builders and developers can do much better work and still make a profit
but they need the City to challenge them do that better work. He asked
committee to reject the proposed site plan and to demand that this developer do
better work, work that strengthens this neighbourhood and this City as a whole.
He asked committee to show their citizens that they care about their
neighbourhoods and require developers to do better work that what is being
presented today.
Janet Jull
spoke in opposition to the proposed site plan. She raised the following
points:
·
The 600 residents of Old Ottawa
South have thought it important enough to put their names on a petition to ask
the City to compel developers to comply with the City’s infill guidelines.
These residents do not oppose infill development rather oppose development that
does not respect the character of the neighbourhoods in which they live.
·
She felt the proposed development
has become a galvanizing issue in her community as it reflects the deep concern
of residents in old Ottawa South regarding the direction of infill developments
in their neighbourhoods.
·
She indicated that there is wide
spread concern that developers are not following the City’s guidelines for
infill development. The experience of this development proposal shows that
there is little if any incentive for developers to bother with the City’s
infill guidelines at all.
·
She felt it important to note that
most residents are concerned with the lack of meaningful consultation in the
development process. She explained that her comments reflect a process in which
developers recognize that the City’s infill guidelines hold little sway and are
easily trumped by a good lawyer and an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
·
She stated that as residents, many
of them have been puzzled by a process in which the developer can be
unresponsive to the City and by extension to the citizens of Ottawa. The urban
design guidelines for low/medium density infill state developers, designers and
property owners are encouraged to use the guidelines and even go beyond them to
come up with ideas to further improve urban infill. She indicated that the
purpose for the urban design guidelines for low/medium density infill is to
promote dialogue between the City and property owners.
·
She restated that her issue is not
with the idea of development at 71 Hopewell Avenue; her issue lies with the way
in which there has been a complete lack of dialogue around this development.
·
She indicated that she has had
four conversations with the builder, the first occurred when a bulldozer
appeared on the property, where she was told that three units as the zoning
permits, offering to show her what exactly he was going to build, directing her
to a location where he has already build that same building that would built at
this current location. In short she indicated that as resident she felt that
they were presented with the builder’s notion that he could build structure he
wished, as long as it met the appropriate setbacks and offsets.
·
She explained that their second
conversation was part of a meeting between the City, the builder and his
colleagues and local community residents. She indicated that the builder did
not participate or collaborate directly in the discussions, the meeting ended
with encouragement to the builder from the City that the builders rework the
design.
·
The third conversation, she
explained that it occurred a few days after the second meeting, where the
builder went door to door and told herself and neighbouring residents that he
would use a more attractive stone façade on the same original design, if they
wrote to the City in support of his design. He indicated if they would not do this
he would use the original matters and still get to build what he proposed to
build.
·
Finally, she indicated that there
has been no dialogue and not efforts to respond to the City or citizens
requests for the use of the guidelines and coming up with ideas to further
approve on this proposed urban infill. She felt the builder feels that he has
the right to build any structure that respects the offsets and setbacks,
regardless of its impact on the community and the people who live within it,
long after the property has built and sold.
She concluded that as residents, they would like to
know when they get to say what is built in our communities. She wondered if
their City is powerless to act in the face of bad design that fundamentally
changes the character of our neighborhoods and negatively impacts the people
that live within them because it meets the zoning. She wondered at what stage
the City would intervene to stop development whose design is an affront to the
citizens who live in the communities where it is built. She further inquired if
there is a process by which developers can ignore residents and the City’s own
urban planning guidelines. She asked each member to consider the ultimate
impact that a failure to establish the correct president in the case of 71
Hopewell will have on neighbourhoods in the City of Ottawa and emphasized the
need for dialogue between developers, the City and citizens.
Following the delegations, the Chair closed the public
hearing portion of the item and asked members to return to the report
recommendations that are before committee.
Councillor Doucet introduced the following motion:
WHEREAS the proposed intensification at 71 Hopewell
meets the City’s intensification targets, but does not meet the compatibility
requirements of infill intensification guidelines.
WHEREAS the community, the Councillor and staff would
prefer it if the developer respected the infill intensification design
guidelines
BE IT RESOLVED the applicant’s design be returned
to staff for further work with the developer in order to come forward with a
design which respects the infill design guidelines.
Councillor Doucet indicated that the fairly new
concept of infill was putting a lot of strain on communities. While did not
really notice when the first few infills were erected; now the entire structure
of neighbourhoods was changing. He noted the design guidelines were developed
with the primary purposes to ensure intensification but also to ensure that
they are compatible with the neighbourhood, that they do not reduce the quality
of life.
Referring to the front yard/back yard debate, he
indicated that at the community level, he had this debate as well. He was
unsure what the outcome would be, because you still have three units where
there once was one, three cars minimum where there once was one. He indicated
that the community talked it through in an open and hard-thought way and the
conclusion was that they would rather keep their streetscape and find a way of
putting those cars as were done on other streets, this was the trade off that
they preferred.
He thought this to be a signal to the developer and
the community that as a committee we are going to defend our intensification
design guidelines. He indicated that this is the purpose of his motion; it
directs staff to go back and work with the developer. The model that is being
presented cannot move forward because it is in contradiction to everything the
design guidelines have brought forward and it would avoid going to the OMB. He
felt that if committee does not carry his motion that the committee would be
sending the message to the community that we are unwilling to listen to their
concerns and as well sending a message to the developers that there are two
rules. One rule for those that respect the design guidelines and one for those
that does not.
Councillor Hunter stated that during the presentation
he saw a clear explanation and demonstration of where the City’s design
guidelines allow for the exact application that is before committee today. He
thought that if you are going to have front yard driveways and garages, this is
how it will be done, the rendering by the architect are textbook examples of
how it should done, how such a street front should occur if it is to be done.
He noted that it is one thing for a developer to bring up an argument from
another city, but when it is from the City’s own documents that they are using
to support their arguments, committee and council should pay attention.
He further explained that they have recessed garages,
brought balconies forward, making the garages less prominent. He thought these
to be minor issues compared to the benefit of allowing this type of
development, which allows for some rear yard amenities. He felt that the
developers have come up with a design that will sell well, be in demand and
will provide for more green space and enclosure of vehicles.
In summation he observed that report says to approve
the site plan, legal staff have indicated that the City does not have a leg to
stand on, if it is approved the community is not permitted to make an appeal to
the OMB, only the developer can. He urged committee to support the
recommendations, get the development built and move residents in.
Councillor Hume clarified that this is not a rejection
of the site plan; it is a deferral to the first regular meeting of the
committee. Regarding the matter of right of the proponent to appeal on the due
time provision, he indicated that the time frame is 30 days, which has long
passed, therefore he would be able to appeal. He further added that the
earliest time that date would be available would be sometime in February, at
which time they would have been able to deal with the matter by that time.
Councillor Holmes recounted that the spot site plans
that have happened over the last 5 years in this area, as well as her own, have
led to the garage door look. This community is a front porch, low-rise, treed
community where people are opposed to this look. She commended staff for saying
enough is enough, now we realize that there are too many of the garage door
looks, it is undermining our residential communities and the reason why people
have bought into these communities, for the turn of the century look.
She felt with the continued undermining of the garage
door look, people are becoming more frustrated and we see some of this here
today. Many years ago they went for shared driveways, which from a developers
point of view it is harder to sell a shared driveway than is to have your own
driveway. She thought this was why we are seeing pressure today from the
development community because it is a harder sell to do the shared lane. She
declared that with a shared driveway you have to talk to your neighbours, you
have a shared snow removal situation, you get to know people and she felt that
it cements the community. In her view it is a benefit to the community, people
learn to keep along and you take up less land with asphalt. In closing she
indicated this is all about the ease of sale and how much they can sell for.
Councillor Leadman declared this is an indication of
the problems that will continue to happen as long as we continue to be
inconsistent with the way we approach infill and development. She explained
that we have design guidelines, community design plans and secondary plans, but
they are not adhered to. She pointed out there has been 300 infill in the
Kitchissippi ward in 4 years, four times higher than any other ward. We
continue to make exceptions to the rule, by doing this we will continue to have
a room filled with people that are upset.
She inquired what staff is going to do to change this
outcome, suggesting that more bite has to be put into these documents so that
when the legal department is forced to go to the OMB they will have a leg to
stand on.
Councillor Monette asked staff what effect there would
be with the proposed motion for deferral to the next meeting, would there be
any direct effect to the application. Staff replied that it would delay the
developer, but in the meantime staff would be working with the developer.
Councillor Monette indicated that he would support Councillor Doucet’s motion
to give staff another opportunity to work with the developer and the community.
Councillor Hunter remarked that the Official Plan (OP)
calls for an increase inside the greenbelt of 60,000 housing units. He noted
this had been decided by the elected officials and felt that developers should
not be accused of wanting to make a profit when they come forward with plans
that conform to the OP. He suggested that if elected officials do not like the
policy then they should opt to change the OP, noting that the opportunity has
been there over the years to make the changes but this had not been done.
Councillor Doucet explained that eighty-two percent of
the parking in this community is in the backyards, and urged Committee to
imagine what it would look like if the entire street converted to the three
door garage and the asphalt model. He did not think that you would be left with
a street that anyone would want to buy on. He thought that it would look like a
street in a parking lot, there will be neither trees nor any street vibrancy.
The councillor stated that once it was realized that
if we do not start respecting our own guidelines that we think apply and
require developers to respect them, we are not going to have a community
anymore. He voiced that this is about a lot more than just one building; it is
about the future of our communities and the older parts of the city. He added
that it is also not about intensification it is in regards to the form of
intensification.
Moved
by Councillor C. Doucet:
WHEREAS the proposed intensification at 71 Hopewell
meets the City’s intensification targets, but does not meet the compatibility
requirements of infill intensification guidelines.
WHEREAS the community, the Councillor and staff would
prefer it if the developer respected the infill intensification design
guidelines
BE IT RESOLVED the applicant’s design be returned to
staff for further work with the developer in order to come forward with a
design which respects the infill design guidelines.
REFERRAL CARRIED
YEAS (6): Councillors C.
Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, B. Monette, S. Qadri
NAYS
(1): Councillor G. Hunter
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146 kitchissippi (15)
Deferred from the
Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 28 September 2010/Reporté de la
réunion du comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement du 28 septembre
2010
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
The following
correspondence was received with respect to this item, and is held on file with
the City Clerk:
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Rachael Adams
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from Caroline
Anstett
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 fromClaus, Kathryn,
Elizabeth and Cicely Anthonisen
·
Written Submissions dated November 15 & 16, 2010 from
Nick Aplin
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Doug Archibald
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Robert Argent
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Elizabeth
Argent
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Kerry Lynn
Armstrong
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Wendy Atkin
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Daniel Badiere
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Stephen Baird
·
E-mail dated November 21, 2010 from Roberta Baker
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Steve Bartlett
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sylvia
Bartlett
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Debby Bates
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Karen Beattie
·
Written Submission dated November 17, 2010 from Marnie
Beaubien
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Tim Bennett
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Carl Bertoia
·
Written Submissions dated November 14 & 15 2010
from Peter Bettle
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Harold Blount
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Elfrieda Bock
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sharon Boddy
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Katie Bonnar
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Dot Bonnefant
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from A. Booth
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from W. J. Borys
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Tim Bouma
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Ross Bowie
·
E-mail dated 8 Nov, 14 & 18 Nov 2010 from Ian
Bowles
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Anne Boys
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from J'lene Bradley
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from R Brewer
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Julie Brodeur
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from Candace
Brookbank
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Greg, Vera,
Nicholas, Laura and Will Brooks
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Barbara Brown
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Daniel
Buckles
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Wendy Burnham
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Joan Buthcher
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Kerrianne
Carrasco
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sheldon
Carrasco
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Sam Carson
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Sam Carson
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Laurie
Chennette
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Larry and
Sharon Chop
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Al Clark
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from S Cohen
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from John Coll
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Stacey
Corriveau
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Jesica Coulson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Susan
Crozier
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Basil Crozier
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Johanna Currie
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Robert Czerny
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Peter Czerny
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Don Dalziel
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Michael
Davidson
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Bonnie Dinning
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Nathan Dinning
·
Written Submissions dated November 15 & 17, 2010 from Kit
Dinning
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Yvonne Dionne
·
Written Submission dated November 17, 2010 from
Jennifer Dobson
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Fern Doctoroff
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Roland Dorsay
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Stephen Downes
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Connie Downes
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sean Drennan
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Anne Duggan
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from F. Duimovich
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Bruce Dunn
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Joanna Dyment
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Aileen Easton
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Annika Ek
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Irmi Elbert
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Matthew
Enticknap
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Heather Epton
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Shereen Farag
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Lorraine
Farkas
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from David Farley
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Brenda Fawcett
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Aimee Ferron
·
E-mail dated November 15 & 18 2010 from Charles
Ficner
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Max Finkelstein
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Anne and
Patrick Finn
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Pierre Fortier
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from James
Fraser
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Bruce Fraser
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from John Fraser
·
E-mail dated November 9, 2010 from Denise and
Mike Gagnon
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Colette Gagnon
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Charlene
Gervais
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Mary Glen
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Mary Gordon
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Shannon
Grainger
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Sue Gravel
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Janet Greer
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Heather
Griffith
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Andy Gullins
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jamie Guptill
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Alexander
Halil
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Natalie Hanson
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Donna Harris
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Mary
Hawthorne
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Joanne and
Kevin Hayes
·
E-mail dated November 15 & 19, 2010 from Douglas
Heath
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Charlotte
Heath
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sarah V. Heath
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Chris
Henschel
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from H. Philip
Hepworth
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Ruth and Kurt
Herman
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Donna Hobson
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Martha Hodgson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Ken Hoffman
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from Geoffrey Hole
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Paul Hope
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Janet Hunter
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Debra Huron
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Bob Hussey
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Carole Jacob
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Kathy Jarvis
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Amy Johnson
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Elaine
Jones-McLean
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Maria Judd
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Diane Kampen
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Maureen
Kavanagh
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from C.M. Kavanagh
·
E-mail dated November 16 & 18, 2010 from Steve
Kay
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Owen Kelly
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Amy Kempster
·
E-mail dated November 10, 2010 from Susan
Kennedy
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from John Kennedy
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Kathleen
Kingsley
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jocelyn
Kinnear
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from Rob Kirwan
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Cynthia Knoll
·
E-mail dated November 15, 16 & 18 2010 from
Mary-Ellen Kot
·
E-mail dated November 17 & 18, 2010 from Patricia
Kot
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Lise Labrecque
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Karen Large
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Peter Larson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Nathalie
Leblanc
·
E-mail dated November 21, 2010 from Mona Leroy
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Anne Lim
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from John Lindsay
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Leslie Lucas
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Gary Ludington
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Amad Lufti
·
E-mail dated November 12 & 18, 2010 from Abi
Lyon Wicke
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Heather
MacDonald
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from (Dr.)
Catherine MacGregor
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from Al MacKay
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Anne Madden
·
E-mail dated November 8, 2010 from Jeremy Mann
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Liz Marston
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Gavin Maryan
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Krys Maryan
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Steve and
Anita Mason
·
E-mail dated November 15 & 16, 2010 from Mary-Ellen
Maybee
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Paul McCormick
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from David
McCrindle
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Beverley
McIntosh
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sheila
McIntyre
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Enid McLean
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Zoltan Miko
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Allan Miller
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Barry Millman
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Heather
Mitchell
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Duff Mitchell
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from Bill Mitchell
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from David and
Peggy Morgan
·
Memo dated November 9, 2010 from Chris
Mulholland
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from S. Mullin
·
E-mail dated November 19, 2010 from Christine
Murphy
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Audrey Murphy
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Marie Murphy
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Michael Murphy
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jim Murton
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Lon Nadler
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Allegra Newman
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Lynn Olsen
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Bruce Orloff
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from James Orr
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Robyn Osgood
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Bill Outer
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Franca Palermo
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from Mona Pare
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Katie Paris
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Cheryl Parrott
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Daniel
Pascoli
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Girvan
Patterson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Dianne Paul
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Nancy Pawelek
·
Written Submission dated November 16, 2010 from Heather
Pearl
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Estelle
Perrault
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Estelle
Perrault
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from John Peters
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Ati Petrov
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Allan Phoenix
·
E-mail dated November 15 & 16, 2010 from Don
Plenderleith
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Janice Potter
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Andrea
Prazmowski
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Douglas Raby
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Geoff Rice
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Andrew Riddick
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Julia Riddick
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Bill Riddick
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Jennifer
Riddick
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Mark Rollins
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from James
Rossiter
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from Pamela
Rudiger-Prybylski
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Don Runge
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jacob
Rushforth
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from PeterRushforth
·
E-mail dated November 12 & 15, 2010 from Bamdad
Sadjadi
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Christine
Sadler
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Manju Sah
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Douglas
Scoular
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Gilles Seguin
·
Written Submission dated November 16, 2010 from Rawni
Sharp
·
E-mail dated Novwmber 10 & 15, 2010 from Norm
Sharpe
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from Patrick
Shaughnessy
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Catherine
Shields
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Anita Shrier
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Marilyn
Sierolaski
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Nicoly Slavkov
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from David Smith
·
E-mail dated November 12, 2010 from Jennifer
Spears
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jonathan
Spratley
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Stacey
Corriveau
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Don Stewart
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Mark Stokes
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Kara
Stonehouse
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Susanne
Streigler
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Dave Stremes
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from John Taylor
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Ted Thiessen
·
E-mail dated November 10, 2010 from Margaret
Thomson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jason Thomson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jason Thomson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Susan Thomson
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Neil Thornton
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from David Tipple
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Claire Todd
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Sarah Todd
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jose Touchette
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Anne Tweddle
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Jo-Anne Tweedy
·
E-mail dated November 14, 2010 from Lisa Van Buren
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Kathryn Vant
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Judi
Varga-Toth
·
E-mail dated November 17, 2010 from Nuria Vila
Perxes
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Michael Von
Herff
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Andrea Wall
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from Michelle Walsh
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Irene Warner
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Gordon and
Joanne Watt
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Alysse Weinberg
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Mari Wellman
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Carol Wicke
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Patricia Wiebe
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Bob Wild
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Kathleen
Wilker
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Suzanne Woo
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Elizabeth
Worthington
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from Silvia Zanon
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Olga
Zuyderhoff
·
E-mail dated November 18, 2010 from Melinda (Last
name not given)
·
E-mail dated November 15, 2010 from "Taxpayer
Mos"
·
E-mail dated November 13, 2010 from Tony (Last
name not given)
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Andrew
Davidson
·
E-mail dated November 16, 2010 from Simon (Last
name not given)
48
additional e-mails were received that were unsigned/anonymous.
Staff
provided, by means of a detailed PowerPoint presentation, an overview of the
rezoning application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. Douglas
James, Planner, was accompanied by Alain Miguelez, Program Manager, Development
Review Process (Urban) Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager of Development Review
(Urban) and John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management.
A copy of staff’s
PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
.
In
response to questions of clarification from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Miguelez stated
that, while the subject property was discussed in the Secondary Plan as a
candidate for redevelopment, no calculation for development potential was
produced because the site did not have Traditional Main Street zoning.
Councillor Leadman suggested that statement was arbitrary, and expressed her
understanding that the development calculations for that quadrant included the
subject property.
In
response to questions from Councillor Leadman with respect one year transit pas
that would be given to residents in the development, Mr. Miguelez noted that
the approach had been successful in the city of Toronto. He suggested that if
those bus passes could result in more transit frequency, benefiting the entire
neighbourhood and potentially leading to more transit usage. He acknowledged
that there was no way to guarantee that people would use the free transit pass.
With
respect to the 40 per cent modal split referenced in the staff report, Councillor
Leadman suggested that modal split was to support was to support the level of
intensification in the in the Community Design Plan (CDP), which was the amount
of intensification that was seen as supportable. She suggested the 40 per cent
modal split was no longer valid because this project represents significantly
higher intensification than projected.
Mr.
Miguelez noted that the CDP calls for almost 4,000 units from Pinecrest Road to
Island Park Drive, of which this is one segment. He emphasized the need to
adopt aggressive methods to ensure the 40 per cent target is reached. He noted
that this was the first time the City was trying the transit pass initiative,
which has been tried in other cities. He suggested if more people are taking
the bus because it is free for a year, this may lead to a lifestyle change, and
at the very least would lead to fewer cars on the road.
Councillor
Leadman noted that the City’s traffic department had not given unconditional
support of the proposal because they do not think the road network has the
capacity available to support this level of intensification, citing an e-mail
from traffic staff held on file with the City Clerk. She maintained that a one
year bus pass would be insufficient to address these concerns. She expressed
concern that the statements from the City’s traffic experts were not contained
in the report.
Mr.
James noted that there were several other aspects of the plan that would help
with the modal split, noting that mixed-use development leads to alternative
modes of transportation, as does having the bicycle and pedestrian paths
through the site. He further noted that a Transportation Demand Management
Plan was part of the Site Plan as well, and sharing of parking would help take
vehicles off the street.
Councillor Leadman spoke next to the issue of the proposed
entrance through the Byron Linear Park. She noted that the existing public
roads through the strip had been there for a long time, and noted that the
City’s parks department had discussed closing some to create a better pathway
system. She challenged any suggestion that a private pathway system, and a private
cut through the park was an improvement for the community as it breaks up a pedestrian
and cycle path. Further, she challenged staff’s rationale behind why there was
no conveyance of parkland when this area is deficient in parkland space. She note
the park space would be on privately owned site that is not a public facility.
She maintained that this puts more pressure on the community in terms of park
space and pathway systems, and would not encourage walking and cycling.
As requested by Chair Hume, Mr. Miguelez identified the
members of the Peer Review Panel as David Pontarini, Greg Smallenberg and
Michael McClelland. He explained that the panel was tasked with looking at the
proposal and the policy framework to see how redevelopment can occur in a way
that is sensitive to the heritage building in a way that provides good
pedestrian space and in a way that it is well integrated with surrounding
neighbourhood.
He
explained that the main aspects of the proposal were considered to be sound,
and noted the panel’s report was included in the staff report. He noted that
the panel had identified two primary aspects, the heritage building and the
vegetation, that merited particular attention. He highlighted that, in order
to celebrate the heritage buildings and public access, there would be
pedestrian easements to allow the public to walk into the spaces, courtyards
and plazas. He further noted the site would provide and extra pedestrian and cycling
access from points east and south of Byron Avenue and Leighton Terrace to
Richmond Road and the nearby transit station.
Mr.
Miguelez noted that the Peer Review Panel had discussed building heights and
building placement, and would be reviewing the detailed design of the buildings
as part of their mandate.
Chair
Hume wished to clear up some misunderstanding with respect to the Secondary Plan.
He surmised that the Secondary Plan proposes higher heights on the front of the
site than would be found in the Traditional Mainstreet zone, with the back
portion being four stories. He inquired as to what would indicate that the back
part of the development would transition up.
Mr.
James noted that the intent of that section of the plan is to be compatible and
mitigate impact on the adjacent low-rise residential area. Chair Hume noted
that from the western side, the development would transition up from
four-stories, up to nine-stories and surmised that the reasoning behind this
was that it was abutting the school, within the institutional zone. Mr. James
concurred with this assessment, reiterating that the intent was to protect the
surrounding residential area and transition away from it.
Chair
Hume commented that an ordinary person would assume from the Secondary Plan
that the south-eastern part of the development would be four-storeys, and stated
that his reading of the Plan is that this means everything south of the convent
building. He suggested that this proposal hinged the interpretation of that particular
provision of the Secondary Plan, adding that he would have preferred more
height on the front and less on the back of the site.
Mr. James noted
that section 1.4 of the Secondary Plan states that interpretation must be in
relation to all the policies including the OP, which speak to compatibility, and
how higher intensification should be considered. He stressed that the intent is
to protect the surrounding residential development, which they are attempting
to achieve with setbacks, landscaping, transitioning and building heights.
Chair Hume
noted the holding provisions state that a Site Plan must be registered before
any development occurs, and access and roadway modifications would be dealt
with as part of the Site Plan, access and roadway modifications will be dealt
with. Mr. James concurred, adding that before the holding zone is lifted, staff
would ensure that these things done to the satisfaction of the City.
Councillor Doucet inquired what the original zoning
was for the area; Mr. Miguelez explained that
there were three different zonings for the site, including Minor Institutional
(with a height of 11 metres or 4 storeys) for most of the property; Traditional
Main Street (15 metres, 5 storeys); and Residential first density (8 storeys).
The Councillor indicated that it was his understanding that the existing zoning
was 4 storeys. Mr. James indicated that initially the expert panel recommended
10 storeys along the front, which was brought down to 9 storeys by the
developer to be in compatibility with OPA 76, which calls for mid-rise
buildings on traditional/aerial main streets.
Councillor
Doucet wondered under what conditions the City would defend the existing zoning
on a property, indicating he would like to see that. Mr. Miguelez explained
that each application is different and is evaluated on a site-specific basis
against the policy framework. With respect to this application, he noted the
language in the policy stating that in the event of a redevelopment the front
along Richmond should become Traditional Main Street. . He noted that the
Secondary Plan starts with a unifying vision overlay objectives and principles,
the first objective being intensification, and states that the City should to
encourage infill intensification at human scale that is compatible with
existing community, with key potential redevelopment sites such as the subject
property. He further noted one of the principles was to preserve the scale and
character of established residential neighbourhoods and minimize any adverse
impacts of intensification. In the case of this development, he suggested it
was appropriate to preserve and enhance the human scale of the Westboro Village
Traditional Main Street, achieve compatible infill and intensification on a key
redevelopment site by providing appropriate setbacks, transition and building
heights, including the lower heights along the edges of low-rise residential
areas.
Mr. Miguelez
further noted that the current zoning is institutional, and the redevelopment
will not be for an institutional use.
In response to
questions from Councillor Doucet with respect to sunlight, Mr. Miguelez
indicated that there would be sunlight in the corridor between the proposed
nine story buildings. He added that, in addition to seeking sunlight, people
would also seek shade on hot days, suggesting a comfortable pedestrian
environment is one where pedestrians are also protected from hot sunlight.
Councillor
Leadman noted that staff did not incorporate the design panel’s suggestion to remove
one of the buildings. Mr. Miguelez concurred, indicating that one of the
panel’s proposals was to situate units at the rear of the site into a “U”
formation to provide more of an open space; after discussions, staff decided
against this as they felt it more important to frame the pedestrian green space
with active uses rather than have large un-programmed spaces. He suggested
this was one of two options that was presented by the panel, and was not what
they recommended be done.
Councillor
Leadman voiced that she felt staff misinterpreted the intent of the Secondary
Plan, which was that the portion south of the convent be four stories, not just
the portion now being proposed for four stories. In response to further
questioning from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Miguelez maintained that the proposal
was appropriate in terms of the Secondary Plan, Official Plan (OP) and the CDP.
Councillor
Leadman referenced and distributed a document entitled “Basic Site Plan and
Design Principles for Redevelopment of 114 Richmond Road,” a document prepared
by staff in August 2009. A copy of the document is held on file with the City
Clerk. She noted the document had been provided to the Community and potential
buyers of the site at that time. She suggested the Community trusted city
staff would bring these principles forward to developers, and that they would
respect their CDP and the language contained therein. She further indicated she
had seen plans from other developers that were not anywhere near as extensive
as this one. She noted that the community had bought into the CDP process,
which was designed for intensification, because they thought it would be
imposed on developers.
Mr. Miguelez
indicated that the Secondary Plan was adopted prior to OPA 76; pending the
resolution of the appeals, he felt the one thing that was being driven at was
the issue of minimum targets of intensification. So while the secondary plan
conforms to the OP, there are nuances one should be aware of. The councillor
rebutted that in the report it states that the Secondary Plan must conform to
the OP, which it does. She maintained the whole purpose of the Plan was intensification,
not a launch pad for more.
Having
concluded initial questions to staff, Committee then heard from the following
public delegations:
Chris Mulholland,
Chair of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) registered to
speak to Committee but was unable to attend. OBHAC submitted written comments
and recommendations, which were circulated and are held on file with the City
Clerk.
Lorne Cutler and Daniel Pascoli, Hampton Iona Community
Group, spoke in opposition to the rezoning
application as presented. They did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a
copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
The following is a summary of the points raised by Mr.
Pascoli:
·
The community group feels its detailed
report on the convent was mostly ignored by the staff report.
·
The community group supports the
original intent of the CDP and the Secondary Plan, not staff’s current interpretation,
and takes issue with staff’s justification of building over 6 storeys
·
He suggested that the proposed building
heights are incompatible with their surroundings, neither the buildings on the
north side or Richmond Road or the convent, and are not a “transition” from
Richmond Road
·
He challenged the idea that the site is
a “gateway,” noting that the Secondary Plan refers to Richmond Road and Island
Park as the gateway.
·
With respect to compatibility policies
of the OP, he noted there is no legal requirement for Ashcroft to keep its
proposed pathway between Byron and Richmond Road.
·
He wondered why it is more compatible
to sacrifice a public park than to require the developer to accommodate the
driveway to the residential buildings at the back.
·
He suggested staff ignored the
Provincial directive not to over intensify when the site is already subject to
quite a bit of intensification.
·
He questioned the traffic studies, stating
that the Delcan traffic study was conducted the Friday before and the week of the
March break, and the City measurements were done in the summer. Also, although
Delcan used a standard test for signalized intersections, but of the 14
intersections reviewed, four did not have traffic lights.
·
He suggested that if the developer was
not proposing the Ashcroft did not have extra building massing south of the
convent, there would not be the need for the Byron access, suggesting the
developer could/ would have to reconfigure the entrance through Richmond Road
if denied the option of cutting through the parkland.
Mr. Cutler then went on to speak to the history of the Secondary
Plan, a process he had been involved in. The following is a summary of the
points raised by Mr. Cutler:
·
He stated that there had been much
discussion around the adaptive use of the convent including doing something for
the community.
·
He indicated that the community was
told that because there was no secondary plan in the neighbourhood, the
buildings on the other side of the street would not be a precedent, and by
having a Secondary Plan with actual heights, these would be new president, not
buildings approved prior to the Secondary Plan.
·
With respect to the south portion of
the property, he noted that staff had given a presentation at the time showing the
south part of the property included everything south of the convent, suggesting
this is what staff meant when they said it should be rezoned for 4 storeys
maximum.
·
He noted that the Secondary Plan had
numerous references to the possibly of parkland in the neighbourhood. There are
specific references that the Byron Tramway Park should be preserved and
enhanced, and nowhere in the plan does it state that the park should be
touched.
·
He also noted that there are long
blocks of in this area without an intersection, unlike elsewhere along Byron,
where n you can look down the street and see the cars coming.
·
He suggested the proposed driveway would
very short and there are very little sight lines for people using the road
·
He stated that the pathway was used
extensively by children, young families, and cyclists. The Community Group
feels the access would be a detriment to the park, with no justification
·
The Community Group does not think the
heights are properly respectful of the heritage on the property, indicating
that the development would block the view of the convent even more than it is
blocked now.
In response to questions from Councillor Leadman with
respect to the traffic patterns during various parts of the year ant the timing
of the traffic counts, Mr. Cutler observed that in the summer the rush hour traffic
on Byron Avenue is only backed up to Brennan Avenue, whereas at other times of
the year it is backed up to Kensington Avenue. In the summer there is no
school traffic in the morning during rush hour and people on holidays and are
more likely to cycle, leading to less traffic.
Mr. Cutler related that on the first day of March break, he
observed someone from Delcan doing a traffic count at the corner of Brennan
Avenue and Byron Avenue. He noted the Community Group had asked if a proper
traffic count was done when school was in session, and they never received an
answer. He noted the Delcan study claimed that the traffic study was done the
following week, and also stated the count at Hilson Avenue and Byron Avenue was
done on the Friday before spring break, when some children would have already
been out of school.
Councillor Leadman asked if the traffic had changed over
time in the area along Richmond Road and Byron Avenue. Mr. Cutler stated that
the traffic along Byron had increased significantly over the years. He thought
the redesign of Wellington Street had forced traffic off that street onto Byron
Avenue.
In response to further questions from the Councillor, Mr.
Cutler explained that any past discussions regarding gateways to the community
had been about Golden Avenue in the west and Island Park as the eastern
gateway. He added that the Secondary Plan included a section specifically with
respect to the convent property, nowhere stating that it was a gateway.
Mr. Cutler further stated that at table in the Secondary Plan
indicating the potential for development based on the existing zoning along
Richmond Road, and also under the potential zoning. Under the existing zoning,
potential for residential in the east village was 133 units, and under
potential zoning it was 608 units which was the maximum development that could
occur as proposed in the CDP. As the CDP talked about the re-zoning for the
convent site, he thought it logical to conclude that these figures included it.
Councillor Feltmate asked for clarification with respect to
the delegation’s statement that there would be no legal requirement for the
developer to keep the path through the property open. Mr. Cutler understood that,
as this was private property, there is no legal requirement for the owners to
keep a walkway open through their park in the future. Staff explained that one
of the reasons they recommended a holding zone was to establish the public
rights of way such as the paths. He further noted that through the Site Plan
control process this would be done through agreements registered on title that
would maintain that they would remain open to the public.
In response to questions from Councillor
Qadri regarding the community group’s request for traffic count, Mr. Cutler
explained that in their submission they requested confirmation that a traffic
count by Delcan was done during a week that was not spring break, and neither
City staff nor Delcan provided them with a response. He further pointed out
that if staff is showing that traffic has decreased over the last number of
years, he would like to know the exact dates these counts were taken, because
traffic varies by season. Councillor Qadri requested that answers be provided
by the traffic consultant, or anyone from the traffic department. He mentioned
that at the last meeting there had been discussion about redoing traffic counts
and wondered what had come of that.
Basil Crozier, resident of Leighton Terrace, and an
engineer, spoke in opposition to the application as presented. He stated that
the central issue was density, as it was the driver of the height, traffic and
the cut-through of the Byron Linear Park. He requested Committee not allow any
increase in density beyond the levels in OP Amendment 76, stating that increased
density cannot be supported by the existing traffic infrastructure. With
respect to the traffic study, he stated that the large number of variables in
the Delcan traffic study leads to a high margin of error, noting seven of the
16 nearby intersection are at or are near failure, based on 181 vehicles
leaving the site. He noted that the Royal Society of Canada considers
predicting traffic load far from an exact science due to the unpredictability
of the human variable. He emphasized safety and security of citizens as
paramount, noting that as traffic failure increases, so does the probability of
an incident, delivery of emergency services and overflow onto residential
streets, all of which increase the risk to citizens. He gave an example of
erratic driving behaviour caused by detouring from Island Park to Leighton
Terrace after a recent crash.
Charles Ficner, resident, spoke in opposition to the
application. He expressed that this proposal brought to the fore the issue
that plans approved by Council are routinely undermined. He referred to the
zoning of 71 Hopewell as an example of how the guidelines approved by Council allow
a developer to do what it wants.
Mr. Ficner stated that 104 per cent of the
2021 targets for development had already been approved, in excess of the
infrastructure available to support it. He stated that the Secondary Plan calls
for the east village to develop as a traditional mainstreet and an extension of
Westboro Village, with lots greater than 6 meters in depth to be built up to 6
storeys, not 9 storeys as proposed for this property.
He challenged the legal department’s
interpretation in the Section 37 report which considers giving an additional
four storeys above the six in exchange for a fair dealing on section 37. He cited
the Minister’s statement that where intensification targets have been set,
over-intensification shall not be allowed. He cited a by-law stating that the
Byron Park would not be breached, stating that private driveway would not be
allowed. He stated that the City should constrain development this way because
the OMB cannot dictate that the city give public parks to allow the kind of
intensity that staff are supporting. He stated that without the development of
a cut-through, the requirements in the Secondary Plan would be maintained. He suggested
that that if buildings facing the Byron park can be 10 feet away from the
property line, with their front door entrances right onto the park, they will
claim a part of the park right up to the path, resulting the loss of even more
public park on top of the proposed entrance.
He stated that he distance to the Transitway
is not 600 meters as staff indicated but closer to a kilometre. He asked why
there are proposals that are so different then what the community understands
them to be. He said the planning process allows a $12 million site to become a
$50 or $60 million site through re-zoning, giving a huge amount of at the
expense of the community. He lamented that staff’s actions protect the
developers, and rather than protect the community, residents and businesses. He
suggested that the community might as well give up on participating in the
planning process if the plans are not upheld.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s
questions, Mr. Ficner responded that in the last few years the community had
seen 300 single family units bought, torn down, and replaced with multiples. He
further explained that due to the process, homes are more valuable to a
developer rather than for a person to live there, driving young people and the
elderly out of the Community as the cost of units increases based on what a
developer is willing to pay. He further stated that the type of development
occurring had a negative impact on small businesses, as properties are bought
up by developers who are granted height increases, creating a precedent and
incentive to tear down and build new.
Mr. Ficner stated that over-intensification
accelerates the pace of change, while the Secondary Plan allows for
intensification at a rational pace which allows for an orderly transition of
those kinds of developments. He maintained that staff’s proposal undermines the
possibility for a rational intensification process which damages the community,
the people and the businesses that serve it.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s
request, Mr. Ficner confirmed that he did not agree with staff’s position that
the development relates positively to the community and would add value for the
residents, adding that it would allow massive over-intensification and will
used as a precedent.
In response to questions from Councillor
Doucet’s questions around the density the community had agreed to compared with
what was proposed, Mr. Ficner responded that 300 were anticipated, whereas the
current proposal includes 600 units.
Upon Councillor Doucet’s request for
confirmation from staff, Mr. Miguelez responded that staff had spoken with the
planner working on the Westboro CDP, who confirmed that the methodology they
used to prepare the estimates for development potential did not include a
calculation for the convent property in terms of numbers of units.
The Chair added that the Real Estate
Partnerships and Development Office had given a valuation of the site’s
development potential. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel expanded on that,
stating that as part of the Section 37 analyses, Real Estate examined the land
value based on the existing zoning as well as the zoning as recommended by
staff. He stated that based on the existing zoning, it was valued at around $10
million, and based on the proposed zoning it was around $14 million. Councillor
Doucet stated that this didn’t seem like a big difference for an increase of
units from 300 to 600. Councillor Leadman added that this was just for the land
value.
In response to Councillor’s Doucet questions
about what the actual sale value would be, the delegate suggested that
developers are typically paying four to five hundred thousand dollars for
houses they tear down and build double units in their place. Therefore in
terms of land value, he suggested that if a condo would be worth around a
hundred thousand of the land value, that figure multiplied by 600 units
translates into 60 million dollars with the land as part of the selling price.
Councillor Doucet found it troubling that
everyone but staff seems to think that this area is included in the Secondary Plan.
Mr. James confirmed that the property was included in the secondary plan, but
was not included in the plan’s calculation of development potential because it
did not have Traditional Main Street zoning.
Dennis Van Staalduinen spoke in opposition to the application as
presented. He did so with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy
of which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following is a summary of
the points raised in his presentation:
·
He stated that he
wasn’t expressing NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) but rather SIMBY (Smart In MY
Backyard.)
·
He noted that the City
included him in the CDP for Wellington West, making him passionate about smart
growth.
·
He stated the best
decisions are made when local leaders are empowered with information, City
resources, legislation with teeth and the confidence that those teeth will be
applied when necessary.
·
Complex planning
decisions, he said, should start with the community, working through the City,
and developers can then work from those guidelines and negotiate up from within
set guidelines. While agreeing that developers are the engine of community
growth, communities should provide the steering wheel and Council should
control the gas pedal and the breaks.
·
He went on to state
that he didn’t want his three year old designing his neighbourhood, because when
he designs he starts with a box of Lego and jams every square inch with Lego
and keeps building until his box is empty.
·
He demonstrated a simulation
of the convent site by taking the amount of units being discussed (both in the
CDP and the proposal) and put it scale, and rendering it in Lego, suggesting
the proposed intensification was something akin to what his son would have
created with his Lego.
·
He suggested the
proposal creates a giant wall across the front and is not to human scale. He
also said the archways the staff spoke toare long dark tunnels.
·
He stated that it is
possible to control the amount of units, and if the planners had been doing
their job, this proposal would never have been allowed to come to the table. He
asked committee to deny the development.
·
Secondly he asked Committee
to deny access to Byron. He suggested that if Committee believes the OMB will
counter the first argument, this second one is with Committee’s power.
·
Thirdly, he told Committee
to reaffirm its own rules and documents, including the CDP and the spirit of
the CDP.
·
Lastly, he asked that Committee
not make the public fight them and asked it to work with the public to set
CDPs, other Secondary Plans and work with the instruments available, and build
the City in a “SIMBY” way.
Amos Hayes spoke in opposition to the development,
as presented. He spoke specifically to the proposed driveway cutting through
the Byron Linear Park. He did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy
of which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following is a summary of points
raised by Mr. Hayes in his presentation:
·
He noted that he had
been at the Byron Park on the previous Sunday giving people notice about the
plan to cut through the park, and expressed concerned that that this seemed to
the only notice that had been given to the public.
·
Mr. Hayes quoted a
portion of a media release from the Councillor Hume which spoke to height
limits for traditional main streets, and arterial main streets, except where CDPs
takes precedence. He suggested that the heights be known before the processes
get that far, and that residents have a right to know what’s allowed.
·
He said that the Secondary
Plan amendments to the OP were clear, and were made clear from in the staff
document that went out to the community and to developers before they bid on
the property.
·
He stated that one of
the ways to achieve the plan of getting 60 thousand units inside the Greenbelt was
to stick to the implementing mechanisms in the OP such as the creation of CDPs
which articulate key elements of community design and help establish local
implementation priorities.
·
He stated that, for
intensification going, the CDP was supposed to help direct that
intensification, and the CDP is focused on providing innovative and attractive
solutions while respecting the policies.
·
He stated that the Secondary
Plan is in compliance with the OP, and suggested it is supposed to be
interpreted as City Council’s policy direction for municipal actions
particularly in undertaking public works and the review of development
proposals.
·
He stated the OP’s
overlying objectives and principles are to retain and increase green space and
recreational facilities; to develop in a cyclist and pedestrian friendly way;
to preserve the scale and character of existing neighbourhoods; and ensure the
capability of new development.
·
He spoke specifically
to the objective to
preserve and enhance the human scale at generally four to six storeys.. He spoke to what document said for
Richmond Road -the Westboro Village Traditional Main Streets, which is to preserve
the scale and character of established residential neighbourhoods and minimize
any adverse impacts on intensification. It also says to preserve and enhance
the Byron Tramway Park.
·
He spoke to the available
height limits being higher on Richmond Road but only going to a maximum of four
storeys on the Southern part of the property. He also referenced the provision
that called for the construction of a four storey landmark building at the
intersection with Island Park Drive.
·
He then spoke to the
Secondary Plan while illustrating a map which demonstrated the areas that are
under four to six storey zoning, and illustrated the provision for seven to
nine and 10 storeys. He suggested that one way in which the City could preserve
green space at Byron and have more density was to remove the 65 parking spaces.
·
He played a sound bite
of his daughter saying she didn’t want a road going through the Byron Path, as she
uses it every day to go to school without her parents having to tell her to
stop at each cut through.
Councillor Leadman spoke to the signatures
that had been collected on the petition on this issue. She noted that 867
signatures had been collected over the weekend, in opposition to cutting
through the Byron Linear Park, with signatories from various parts of the City.
Mr. Hayes added that there are many others who collected signatures, and that
he himself collected 530 of those, from people who weren’t busy cycling or
running down the path.
Heather Thomson, resident of Hilson Avenue, spoke in opposition
to the development as proposed. She stated that, as a mother of two
without car, she makes frequent use of the Byron Path and pedestrian area along
Richmond Road. She stated that, as a professional planner, she was frustrated
with the process, stating that the community bought into a CDP and Secondary
Plan which appears to have been overturned, undermining the City’s credibility
and trust in the community.
Secondly she expressed concern with the
integrity of the Byron Linear Park. She stated that the CDP is an amazing tool
and commended the City for raising awareness of the CDP with Ashcroft Homes and
for engaging the community which helps prevent NIMBYism and encourages the
sense of proactive engagement. She suggested that if the City wants public
engagement, it cannot undermine the process when a development comes up. She
found it strange that the staff report undermined the guiding principles which
speak of pedestrian friendly environments and the preservation of the Byron
Linear Path. She stated that this is reactive planning, whereas the Secondary
Plan was a visionary document that was built with the community and maintains
its trust.
Elizabeth MacWilliam spoke in opposition to the development as
proposed. As a 24-year resident of Westboro/West Wellington Village, she
welcomed a well thought development for these properties that City Council can
be proud of; however she expressed concerns regarding density and traffic
congestion. She raised the following concerns:
·
She noted Ashcroft
owns this site and adjacent sites totalling approximately nine hundred units in
a one block area. She stated this development would create an imposing
streetscape of a wall of buildings.
·
She lamented that,
thought the developers were given a clear set of guidelines and information
package, they ignored those guidelines when they bid on the property.
·
She stated that the
acceptable height for main streets is 4 to 5 storeys and that Ashcroft proposed
a 12 storey development, reducing it to nine after community opposition. She
noted nine storeys was still three times the height of the highest building
nearest the site.
·
She stated that the
developer either exercised poor financial planning or knew how to work the
system and manipulate the rules to maximize profit.
·
She said that nine
hundred units equates to an increase in cars. Although the developer has only
planned for 65 parking spaces for the 260 seniors units, she noted that seniors
still use their cars and suggested the lack of parking spaces would result in
spill over onto neighbouring streets, congestion and safety issues for
pedestrians, cyclist and residents.
·
She noted that Island
Park Drive is overtaxed and suggested it cannot support any increases in
traffic volume, citing the frequent standstills. She surmised that traffic would
only worsen with the addition of 900 units.
·
While acknowledging development
is inevitable, she asked Council to implement responsible development which
reflects the reasonable intensification of the area and respects the surrounding
neighbourhood. She offered the St. George Yard development as an example of responsible
development
·
She appealed to City
Council not to allow Ashcroft to override public concern for the community in
pursuit of profit and to veil the property behind another wall of commercial
and residential development instead of giving it the respect it earned over the
past 130 years.
In response to questions from Councillor
Leadman, Ms. MacWillam noted that the developer’s property across the street
was presented to the community as a seniors’ residence, then it became
condominiums, and expressed that the developer cannot be trusted when they
state varying development intentions. She stated that the sure expectation for
her is a spill over of cars onto the street and increased traffic.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s
question inquiring as to whether there was a legal requirement to have more
parking if the seniors units in this development were changed to condos or
residential, Mr. James confirmed that there was not, and in order to change the
parking requirements, they would have to change the zoning. The Councillor
asked whether or not the zoning would need to be amended to change the units
from seniors to condos, to which Mr. James responded no, they could change the
unit type but there would still only be 65 parking spaces; therefore the Zoning
amendment would be related solely to the parking units.
The Councillor went on to ask how many
parking spaces would be needed if the developer was just applying for condos. Mr.
James responded that they would probably want a one to one ratio, even though
the current ratio is about one space for every two units. The Chair confirmed
with staff that if the developers changed the units from seniors’ units to
condos, there would be 65 spaces regardless. They would either have to limit
the number of condos to the number of parking spots related to the zoning
by-law or they would have to come back to Council to re-zone the property to
amend the parking requirement for those specific condo units. Mr. James
confirmed that there could be more condos but they would not get additional
parking. The Chair asked if parking spaces are related to the units provided.
Mr. Miguelez confirmed that regardless of the number of units, the parking was limited
to 65 spaces.
Councillor Holmes stated that in her ward
the parking ratio is mainly 0.5 parking spaces per unit to meet the By-law and
wondered if there many other cases were the by-law does not prescribe based on
the number of units. Mr. Miguelez responded that the current proposal involves
seniors’ units and staff has matched the number of parking spaces accordingly.
Councillor Holmes stated that if a developer can build a seniors’ building with
more units, and then convert it to a condo, there is an incentive to do this. Mr.
Miguelez responded that staff is not intending to provide an incentive and in
fact many condo buyers are not buying parking spaces because they chose to live
on foot. Councillor Holmes stated that even in her ward where most people walk,
many have cars.
Naomi Short, spoke in opposition to the development as proposed, specifically
the cut-through of the Byron Path. Noting her home backs onto the Byron Path,
she stated that people of all sections of the community use the path, including
parents, children, youth, dog walkers, commuters and seniors. She said the
diverse uses and the 293m length of it make it very valuable and therefore
attractive to developers. She stated that regular sidewalks are not good enough
to teach a child ride a bike without falling off, whereas on the path children
can ride freely without parents worrying about cars. She stated that this
development makes the area less attractive for families in the neighbourhood
and predicted they would have to move out to find a safe place to raise their
children, which defeats the purpose of intensification.
When Councillor Leadman asked if there
would be deliveries going through the Byron Path, Mr. James responded that his
understanding was most of the deliveries would be handled by Richmond Road, as
Byron in not a truck route. Councillor Leadman responded that if there is
access for deliveries to the seniors centre, trucks will go there, and
expressed concern for deliveries going to Byron Avenue because it is a
residential street. Mr. James responded that it could be a van as opposed to a
truck as long as it conforms to the City’s regulations. Councillor Qadri
received confirmation from Mr. Marc that the City’s policy is that trucks take
the shortest route when there is no official truck route available, and
therefore confirmed that Byron Avenue could be used as a truck route.
David Jeanes spoke to the heritage elements of the
proposal, by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file
with the City Clerk. The following is a summary of the points raised in his
presentation:
·
He spoke the
importance of the heritage designation which consists of an 1864 gothic revival
villa and the 1913 cloistered convent, both of which have significant heritage
value. He stated that their future importance depended on finding adaptive
reuse.
·
He went on to describe
details of the interior and exterior of the buildings. He mentioned that the
chapel and other spaces close to it are being considered for possible community
use are big spaces and therefore have potentially good uses for the community
activities in the future.
·
He then went to speak
of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) appeal arising from Ashcroft’s objection
to the heritage. He said the board may go to a public hearing but is first
asking the parties to attempt to resolve the issues through a pre-hearing non
public process. He stated that the City’s consultants, as part of this process,
have made some recommendations which impose an even stronger designation of the
landscape and the views, noting any changes to the designation would come back
to Committee and Council.
·
He then spoke to the
views of the cloister, saying that the trees in the initial plan are in the
middle of the views and therefore should be placed carefully. Additionally he
said that the cloister will be in full shadow at noon time, noting the peer
review expressed concern that the building from south would be the cause of
shadow.
·
He spoke to the
convent being sandwiched between two very tall buildings, and was in favour of
a plan that moved those two buildings further away from the convent to give it
some breathing space.
Councillor Leadman wondered if Mr. Jeanes
found it backwards that the proposal is being approved before receiving
direction on the heritage. Mr. Jeanes responded that the Peer Review Panel had felt
that the determination of the adaptive reuse of the building before the Site Plan
was crucial in determining what types of uses would be possible. He mentioned
the implications of having no parking for the monastery building, whose future
use had yet to be determined. When asked about the recommendations from OBHAC,
he replied that he was aware that they wanted greater setbacks, to be at 16
metres back from the heritage building for any building above 4 storeys. He
stated that while the new plan responds to the Peer Review Panel’s concerns about
the first design, OBHAC is questioning that is sufficient.
IN response to questions from Councillor
Leadman with respect to incorporating the recommendations from OBHAC into the
plan, Mr. James stated that the comments from OBHAC had only been received 10
days prior to the Committee meeting and suggested they could be looked at as
part of the Site Plan, and be incorporated into the overall design of the
building before the Holding Zone would be lifted. When asked if the increase
in setback would reduce the potential number of units Mr. James responded that
it could, requiring the architect to redesign the interior of the building.
Councillor Leadman then stated that the unknown makeup or potential setbacks
regarding the heritage property was big issue.
Councillor Doucet then asked the delegate
if he thought it would be good to have shade in the summertime. Mr. Jeanes suggested
that in the summertime time people revel in the sunshine, citing the example of
a development on Sparks Street that was set back for precisely that reason. Councillor
Doucet noted that there was virtually no shade at all in the artistic rendition
of the alleyway, and wondered if it was incorrect. Mr. Jeans stated that while
he had not seen detailed sun shading studies for the monastery, he suggested the
courtyard would be shaded completely at noon. Councillor Doucet surmised that
if it was completely shaded at noontime then it would be shaded all day. Mr. Jeans responded that there would be some sun from the west
over the school but stated that he wasn’t confident enough to sunshade studies
for detailed times of the day and different days of the year. He stated that
the pervious study shown to him was now inaccurate because at that point the
building was physically closer to the monastery. He stated that his concern was
with regards to the nine storey building to the south.
Peter Ward spoke in opposition to the plan as
presented. He questioned the objectivity of the planning and challenged the
statement in the staff report that the development relates positively to the
community. He noted that he had received a flyer in the mail two weeks prior
which indicated the average price of a condo in Westboro Village at $550
thousand. He stated that if one takes $500 thousand and multiplied that by the
600 proposed units, the result is a sum of $300 million.
Mr. Ward spoke of the importance of the
Parkway and the Byron Park, which are integral to the intensification the
applicants are proposing, and expressed opposition to the parking issue. He
expressed opposition to the seniors’ units, suggesting they could be changed to
condos without any consultation with the City, suggesting this would only serve
an increase in profit and cause parking problems for the entire project. He believed
the City’s objective was to get people out of cars which was a worthwhile aim.
However, he suggested the seniors in the facility would want to drive, and
anyone who can afford the condos may even want two cars. While stating he and his
wife were not against intensification, he suggested it should be reasonable and
in accordance with the OP. He also suggested that everyone read the 16 November
2010 article in the Ottawa Citizen on the matter.
Councillor Qadri asked staff whether or
not the traffic study that had been requested by one of the earlier delegations
had been carried out. Arun Singh, Project Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, responded
that he had not received any such request, stated that looking at the traffic
counts, they are very low in number and that even if they were doubled, it
wouldn’t make a lot of difference on the intersection. Councillor Leadman
stated that the request for a traffic study also came from her office twice
with no response.
Councillor Leadman stated that traffic
counts go down when there is congestion because traffic cannot move as quickly
and fewer cars can go through; she suggested, therefore, that low traffic
counts were not an indication that there is not a traffic problem.
At this point, the Chair proposed that
Committee continue hearing delegations until 5:30 p.m., at which time they
would recess the item and finish the other held items on the agenda. Committee
would the reconvene the following day at 1:00 p.m. to hear the balance of the
speakers on this item.
Denise Gagnon spoke in opposition to the proposal as
presented. She raised the following points:
·
The community is
asking Committee to uphold the OP and the Secondary Plan, documents Council had
endorsed.
·
She stated that with
the proposed staff plan, not only will the site’s historical institutional
zoning be lost forever, but the City’s intensification target of 300 units for
this site will be raised to 585. She suggested the OP would then not allow for
more than 304 additional units to be built in the area until after 2021.
·
She suggested the City
is accountable to the people for planning and maintaining a healthy environment.
She felt that the environmental component did not appear to have been taken
into account in the staff report.
·
She her foremost
concerns were with are air and noise pollution, traffic gridlock and future
costs to the City to remedy any subsequent unforeseen problems. She noted they
were already losing two acres greens pace, not including the proposed Byron cut
through, thereby contributing to the air pollution in the area.
·
She that Hilson
Elementary School had a playground that would abut the proposed 9 storey
building, blocking sunlight until the late afternoon.
·
She pointed out that
on the Site Plan showed over 200 units reserved for Senior Citizens, adding
that that these two were a population group that known to be at higher risk
from air pollution.
·
Referencing the
existing gridlock on Island Park Drive, and inquired if there was a by-law prohibiting
motorists from idling their vehicles for more than 3 minutes in a 60 minute
period, as there was for parked vehicles. She noted the impact was the same whether
they were parked or waiting in traffic.
·
She surmised that
allowing access to Byron Avenue or via Shannon Street onto Hilson Avenue would create
an overload of vehicles, endangering children going to and from school. She suggested
there were only two intersections on Byron Avenue where you can cross safely are
traffic lights, located at Kirkwood avenue and Isand Park Drive. She declared
that these two intersections are quite a distance from one another and traffic
moves quickly between the two. She observed that approving access via Byron or
Shannon would necessitate a stop sign or a traffic light; she did not think
that Ashcroft would pay for these measures and thus the City would have to pay.
·
With respect to
parking, she recounted the developer’s claim that only 65 parking spaces would
be allocated in the development area for senior citizens and that they would
only have access to the south entrance. She did not think they could stop
non-resident vehicles from using this entrance when Richmond Road is at
capacity.
In conclusion she stated that she was not
against intensification, but felt that this development should be limited to six
storeys on Richmond Road, and no more than four storeys behind the convent, and
that the bypass through Byron not be allowed.
Margaret Thomson, spoke in opposition to the plan as
presented. She commenced by indicating that she had lived and worked in the
west end area for over 30 years and vigorously objected to the density and
heights involved in the proposal. She raised the following points:
·
She remarked that she welcomes
a reasonable and sustainable number of units as per the Secondary Plan, and
suggested the traditional main street character of Richmond road would be
weakened by Ashcroft’s proposal.
·
She stated that the
term “main street” is used to disguise over developed sites thatare too dense
and too high. She states that, while exceptions for height and density have
been made, the City should not deem it permissible to continue such approvals.
She stated that Richmond Road was too close to residential homes for this type
of development.
·
With respect to
traffic, she pointed out that Byron Avenue, Richmond Road and Island Park Drive
are already are overwhelmed during peak hours, despite the staff report’s
statement that that all is well with the plan as far as traffic is concerned.
·
She said there was a
disjuncture between development of Richmond Road in Westboro and the rate at
which the City has been able to handle traffic.
·
She challenged the
staff report’s assertion that surrounding roads have sufficient capacity to
accommodated the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposal, and that
the development would have minimal traffic impact on the surrounding community.
She expressed that these statements were ludicrous in relation to the reality
experienced by the residents.
·
She opposed a
cut-through of the Byron Linear Park and challenged the statement in the report
that the cut-through is a separate issue.
·
She disagreed that the
proposed building heights on Richmond Road were appropriate, suggesting a
better plan would be to go back down to four storeys on the south and six on
the north at the most.
·
She requested that the
word “transition” not be used, because it’s an excuse to go higher
·
She said that to
approve a dense number of units at the site, there is going to have to be
repetitive thought given the way the buildings will have to be staggered,
set-back, in order to offset problems of high straight sightlines,
sun-blocking, wind tunnels etc.
In closing she stated that the proposal
was too much being squeezed into a beautiful, park-like setting.
David Drynan, resident of Granville Street, spoke in
opposition to the proposal. ON the issue of traffic, he challenged any notion
that traffic in the area was lessening, suggesting his street was getting more
dangerous every year. He stated that the land area in question was equivalent
to approximately 30 houses worth of land area, yet the proposal is asking for
600 units, which is twenty times the increase in density.
On the issue of the Byron Park, he stated
that the Park was one of the reasons for residing at the current location, and suggested
the City should be proud of it. He stated that a cut-through of the park went against
everything the residents worked towards for 30 years, where the City has
encouraged a better park, and encouraged the residents to participate and clean
graffiti and build children’s play areas. In closing he requested the City
preserve the Byron Park and not offer any piece of it to this developer or
anyone else.
Roland Dorsay, Island Park Community
Association, spoke in
opposition to the development as presented. He did so by means of a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following
is a summary of the points he raised:
·
As a 33-year resident
of Island Park Drive, he suggested his lived experience in the neighbourhood
gives him at least as much expertise as to the pulse of the neighbourhood as
any traffic consultant that does 14 or 15 one-hour traffic analyses on a bunch
of different streets.
·
He stated that many
members of the public did not oppose a development; rather, they opposed this particular
development, which stretches the language of the CDP well beyond the limits
envisaged by its authors.
·
He noted that the
contents of the CDP, OP and Secondary Plan are debatable as to what is being
proposed is permitted. He stated that whether or not it is permissible, it
should not be permitted.
·
He understood that if Committee
decides not to stick with the four and six storeys set out in the CDP, the committee
is left with one or two choices: either to accept the staff report or possible
to consider the Section 37 report. He stated that both solutions are odious to
everyone other than the developer and staff and certain members of committee
perhaps. However, given the choice between the two he suggested the Section 37
proposal would be the less offensive of the two as it preserves the four storey
limit for the area off the traditional mainstreet and would result in a less
negative impact on area traffic.
·
He stated that most of
the community association’s concerns were with the traffic. He stated that the
currently the community faces eight hours of gridlock per day, seven days a
week during the morning and afternoon peak. He stated that each peak hour has
about 12 hundred cars per lane, which is well above the street’s design
capacity and a sign of the failure of the road network in between the Champlain
Bridge and the Queensway.
·
He showed snapshots of
traffic in the community, and stated that there were two accidents per week on
Island Park Drive on a year round basis.
·
He suggested the Delcan
traffic study was deeply flawed and contained questionable findings and
conclusions. The study forecasts 75 extra cars as a result of the convent
development for each peak hour with nowhere for that traffic to go.
·
His other concern with
the study was that it projects only 25 cars per hour going on to Island Park
Drive based on a 25-75 modal split. He said that the current modal split is 18-82,
translating to additional 50 cars per hour on Island Park Drive.
·
He stated that the
Delcan study does not provide any analysis of the implications of adding
traffic to the Island Park Drive, thus depicting a distorted picture of what is
happening in the neighbourhood.
·
In his presentation, he
compared Delcan’s traffic study of Island Park Drive with one done for the NCC
in January 2010, noting the latter study had numbers more than double than
those found by Delcan. He believed the latter study was closer to the reality.
Amy Kempster¸ spoke the process and in oppositions to
the plan, as presented. She noted many of the problems were at the Site Plan
level, but the Site Plan was not yet before the Committee. Firstly, she argued
that if the developers say there will be 40 per cent open space, that open
space should be reflected in the zoning. She noted precedent on Clearview
Avenue in her neighbourhood where there was open space zoning on private land.
Secondly, she argued that Site Plans should
come to Committee at the same time s the Zoning. She noted the 2005 Provincial
Policy Statements say that intensification and redevelopment shall be directed
in accordance with the policies of Section 2, and that section 2 says significant
built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
She mentioned the Secondary Plan, which says that as much of the existing
green space should be retained in conjunction with allowing higher building
heights along Richmond Road. She suggested the development should be in
keeping with these policies, and requested that staff do more environmental
assessments of impacts in the future.
On the issue of traffic, Ms. Kempster then
spoke to the section of the report which stated that there would be 300
additional trips in the p.m. peak and the provision of transit passes for new
residents. She said that if the City wants more transit use they should declare
it in the zoning. She stated that every effort should be made to avoid using
the Byron Linear Park for access, and suggested that they go underground in
order to avoid losing more green space. In conclusion she stated that the
report should have solicited and included comments from the nearby school and
the school board.
Daniel Buckles, spoke in opposition to the proposal, as
presented, noting he was a senior research associate and professor at Carleton
University¸ and resident of Champlain Park. He reiterated the views of other
members of the community regarding the linear park and stated that it was the
only east-west route in that area with potential to be developed as a bike
path, adding an additional reason for conserving the integrity of the park,
given the promotion of bike uses and the difficulties in the future of using
Richmond Road as a bike friendly street. He argued that the proposed building
would create a lot of tunnels inside the development which would make it
difficult to appreciate, and moving the tunnels from Richmond Road to inside
the site does not address an important problem with tall buildings. Finally
with regard to process, he acknowledged that with so many delegations it was
difficult to hear all of the submissions with passion and detail desired.
Deborah Chapman,
resident of Westboro, circulated pictures of the grounds of the convent on
angles which demonstrate what parts would be lost, highlighting a 100 plus year
old Willow tree. She stated her opposition against a cut through of the Byron
Path. She knew two families in the last year that had moved due to speeding
cars. She expressed concern at how the process had been used to further the
developer’s proposal for the site. She indicated that the Secondary Plan, which
went before the OMB before it was approved, had cost $50 thousand dollars,
which she considered to be a waste of money because the City did not follow its
recommendation. She stated that while Ashcroft had the right to request zoning
amendments, she questioned whether the community had any rights, and expressed mistrust
of the City’s planning department because it is supportive of the developers
proposal and because the CDP is not being followed. She requested that
committee respect the CDP.
Heather Pearl Co-Chair
of the Champlain Park Community Association spoke in opposition to the plan, as
presented. She also submitted her comments in writing, and they are held on
file with the City Clerk. Her comments are summarized as follows:
·
She began my stating that she hoped
there would be an opportunity for all of the communities to consult with
Ashcroft regarding the development of the convent.
·
She stated that it would be beneficial
to delay rezoning the property until there is a proper Site Plan developed as
part of the consultation process.
·
She expressed support for the
principles and objectives stated in the Richmond Road -Westboro CDP, and
opposition to the current process, which undermined the Secondary Plan.
·
She indicated that the purpose of the
CDP was to translate the principles and policies of the OP to the community
scale. She stated that they play an important role in providing stakeholders
early involvement and discussion by all stakeholders about how future land use
development can occur.
·
She commended staff for putting
together a planning primer course on CDPs, but expressed concern about neglect
of the Westboro CDP.
·
She referred to the provincial policy
statement in the OP, which defines intensification and that states that no
policy has priority over the other, that they should be read together. She therefore
stated that intensification should not signify an increase of units above what
is allowed by the by-law or Secondary Plan and the intensification policy
should not trump other policy considerations.
·
She stated that redevelopment projects being
approved were significantly larger than what is called for in the Richmond Road
– Westboro CDP or in the by-laws that govern the areas.
·
She stated that the community and
adjacent communities will be accommodating a few thousand additional dwelling
units on Richmond, Wellington and Scott Streets, and that following the CDPs
ensures more evenly spread out City wide development
·
Additionally she questioned adherence
to 1.2.2B of the Provincial Policy Statement on the part of Ashcroft, and
wondered why the report refers to site as a node.
·
She recommended that Site Plans always accompany
rezoning requests so it is clear what is being planned. In this case, she
suggested rezoning not be allowed until Ashcroft has submitted and had approved
by heritage experts a viable Site Plan which include details on heritage
preservation.
In conclusion she stated that there is still much to do to
bring the Ashcroft proposal into line with the Secondary Plan and the
principles in the Provincial Policy Statement
In response to questions from the Chair Ms. Pearl supported
the idea of rezoning properties in conformity with the Secondary Plan once it’s
complete rather than rezone properties by piece meal at the request of
developers. Councillor Leadman agreed this was that is preferable; however, she
suggested developers will ask for rezoning and questioned whether pre-zoning
would make any difference. Ms. Pearl stated that that is her concern, that the
City sticks with the pre-zoning because the zoning is continually being
overturned.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s questions, Mr. Kilstrom
responded that there is nothing that prohibits anyone from requesting changes
to the zoning on a property if it has been pre-zoned. Councillor Leadman suggested
that if up-zoning was refused, the developer would simply go to the OMB.
Ron Jack, Delcan, spoke
to the traffic issues and the study prepared by his firm for this
development. He provided an overview of his work on traffic studies in the
area. He raised the following points:
·
He stated that Westboro has the same
issues as many other intensifying communities. He cited Beechwood Avenue, Bank
Street, Wellington Street, Richmond Road, Somerset Street and River Road as
examples of streets with busy and congested intersections.
·
By way of context, he cited the many of
the criticisms levelled by opponents to to Westboro Loblaws project five years previous.
Following the approval from the OMB, the developer was required to fund
post-development monitoring of issues issues such as traffic and safety etc. As
a result, traffic was generated as planned and the need for a study was nil
because the impact was benign.
·
Mr. Jack explained that a connection to
Byron was proposed because it is a collector road that connects to Kirkwood
Avenue, which connects to the Queensway and allows for travel to and from the
South without using Leighton Terrace, Hilson Avenue or other side streets.
·
He stated that the traffic study was
based on traffic counts done by the City during morning and evening peak hours,
resulting in generation of traffic in the order of 200-300 vehicles an hour,
going in all directions.
·
He stated that his job to inform on
what a project means from a transportation perspective and to advise on what
the best access is, how the site should be interconnected, how to make it
pedestrian friendly, and how to maximize transit ridership.
·
He stated that the City ride transit
modal split is 18 per cent in the peak hour; however, this project being close
to the transit way and close to downtown has a transit ridership which is
higher than 18 per cent but less than 75 per cent.
In response to Councillor Qadri’s question regarding the
appropriate time of year to do traffic counts, Mr. Jack answered that there
were two types of counts that were used for the project. City counts are done at
all of the major intersections. As the City does not do counts on local
streets, and because the project proposes a connection to Byron, they felt it
was important to do traffic counts during a morning and afternoon peak hour at
Byron and Hilson, and along three or four other local streets connecting to
Byron. He stated that in response to concerns raised at an open house public
meeting about the counts being done at the wrong time of year, they had recounted
some of the intersections in question, and they are included in the report.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s question regarding the
timing of the City’s counts, Mr. Jack responded that the City does its counts
in the spring, summer and any time of year upon request.
Committee then recessed the item at 5:20 p.m. on November
16, and moved on to consider the rest of the held items on the agenda.
Committee reconvened at 1:20 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17 to hear the
remaining delegations on this proposal.
Upon resuming on November 17, the Chair reminded the committee that the only items to be
discussed upon resumption of its meeting were items 3 and 4, with respect to
the Zoning of 114 Richmond Road, 90 Richmond Road and 380 Leighton Terrace. He
reminded everyone that only those who made oral submissions at the meeting, or written
submissions before the amendment is adopted may appeal the matter to the OMB.
In addition he stated that the applicant may appeal the matter to the OMB if
Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days for zoning and 180 for an
OP amendment after receipt of the complete application.
Committee then
heard from the following additional public delegations:
Jennifer Riddick, resident of Kensington Avenue, stated her distress to hear that
Ashcroft has already filed an appeal to the OMB, and was likely to win because
they are supported by the staff report. She stated that community opposition to
the development existed from the time the plan was unveiled in March, and
suggested the community’s work on the OP and the Secondary Plan had gone to
waste. She stated her frustration with the traffic on Richmond Road and Island
Park Drive and named six Ashcroft developments within four blocks of the
convent site that were in construction phase. She asked that the City take
control over the Byron Park as it is within the City’s ability to do so and
because we should preserve parkland. She stated that the trees and hedges at
the site were home to hundreds of birds and destroying them would affect the
ecosystem of the area.
Heather Mitchell, resident of Island Park Drive, challenged staff’s assertions that
traffic had not worsened on Island Park Drive. She asked that the plan be sent
back for revision regardless of the appeal to the OMB. She raised the following
three points.
·
Firstly she mentioned a
consultation she had attended with the developer, where the community was told
not to expect 10 houses and a park, and not discuss height. She stated her lack
of appreciation for being told not to discuss the project they were invited to
participate in, as well as her disappointment that Ashcroft gets to say what
kind of impact they will have.
·
Secondly, she challenged the
notion that community groups hate development and that are “NIMBY.” She stated
that none of the delegations were against development, they are for
responsible, sensible development. She agreed with the delegate who praised the
development at St. George’s Yard as an example of responsible and attractive
intensification. She argued this project however was not responsible
development because it is at issue with the rules and guidelines given to
developers. She stated that the community views those guidelines as fixed
whereas staff view them as pliable, arguing there there needs to be enforceable
rules.
·
Thirdly, she used an analogy of
Caesar Milan the dog behaviouralist, to depict the developer. She stated that
developers resemble dogs because they have their own agenda, they and do what
they want to do. She likened Council to the pack leader, who must set the
rules and boundaries, and who needs to ensure that everyone understand what
these rules and boundaries are and that they are clear and enforceable.
Ted Thiessen,
resident of Hampton Avenue, was opposed to the proposal as presented. He spoke
of the process which lead to the current situation. He stated that the CDP
process had included extensive consultation with various stakeholders and was
then approved by City Council and became part of the OP. He stated that some
developers chose to ignore the guidelines and made bids which assumed they would
be allowed to build beyond the limits of the plan. He could not understand how
the planning department made a recommendation that ignores the OP and why Committee
was considering approving the zoning change.
He stated that if the department and Committee give
such little weight to a Council approved plan developed through a consultative
process, the City risks losing the trust of community members who were part of that
process. He expressed his understanding that, based on built and approved
units, intensification was at 104 per cent of the addition units that were
planned in the area to 2021. He said that while some developers have social
consciousnesses and produce award winning work, most are profit-driven; therefore,
he argued it is Council and staff’s responsibility to ensure that development
remains within the guidelines in order to produce net benefits for the
community.
In response to Councillor Doucet’s questions, Mr.
Miguelez confirmed that the Secondary Plan requirements were given to
proponents who wanted who bid on the property. He stated that he did not know
of any developers expressing their intent to remain with the prescribed height
limits. He stated that the language in the Secondary Plan provides certain
conditions under which taller buildings would be considered. He stated that
discussions were based on the policy context, which goes beyond four to six
storeys. He also disagreed with an intensification rate of 104 per cent. He
stated that the minimum target for new dwelling u nits on Richmond Road to 2031
is 1800, which they are not close to yet.
Further, Mr. Miguelez stated that the OP speaks to minimums;
therefore there is no maximum cap on intensification targets. He stated his
understanding that, while the OP may be a complicated document to understand,
and touches everyone near a target area for development, in the big picture
there is a growth management strategy that aims at place the right types of
development in the right places. He noted the plan identifies Traditional Main
Streets as target areas, and the CDPs are formulated to further focus to how
development can be articulated on a main street. The OP calls for mid-rise
buildings of five to nine storeys. The CDP speak of heights of four to six
storeys and provides circumstances under which taller buildings could be
considered, and in this case, taller buildings can be considered, because of a
series of other goals and community benefits are being achieved through the
project that is being proposed. He stated that in the big pictures it is not
wrong to accommodate density and suggested it is more benign to have 600 units
at a location like this where people have more transportation options that at
other locations where there are few options.
Gary Ludington, Westboro Community Association, spoke in opposition to the plan as presented. He
also submitted a written copy of his comments, which was circulated and is held
on file with the City Clerk. He made the following points:
·
He noted the Community Association
has been involved with Richmond Road for quite some time, citing development
scenarios and planning processes it had been involved in.
·
He noted they had been warned that
there would be challenges and hurdles but also benefits to getting the CDP and
Secondary Plan approved, but suggested those benefits had not materialized. He
stated that if these plans cannot be defended, why they exist.
·
He addressed staff’s statement
that the Secondary Plan consider additional height at a node, stating that when
the Community Association’s board had met with planning staff in the past to
discuss concerns over how Richmond Road and West Willington were going to be
connected, all had been in agreement that the Island Park, Richmond Road, West Wellington
intersection was the gateway into those neighbourhoods.
·
He brought up proposal of
accepting cash-in-lieu of parkland. He mentioned how the former commissioner
for parks had refused to accept cash-in-lieu of parkland for the Loblaws
development due to the lack of parkland in the area. He suggested that today’s
Committee not accept cash-in-lieu from Ashcroft.
·
He stated that this neighbourhood
does not offer much for children, nor does this proposal offer anything to
them.
·
He spoke to the Westboro transit
station, suggesting it would not be used as much as had been suggested due to
its distance and location.
·
He stated that because
institutional zoning already exists on the site and if it remains it should
support benefits such as a community centre, community gardens and retirement
residences as a solution to offset the conversion of the some of the senior’s
residences to condos.
He encouraged the Committee to support Councillor
Leadman, the community and good planning, and make the development more fitting
with the CDP and Secondary Plan. He concluded by thanking Councillor Leadman
for all of her had work of the last four years.
Anne White,
resident of Mulvhill Avenue, spoke in opposition to the plan as presented. She
maintained that the intent of the plans was to have four to six storeys mixed
use on Richmond Road and a maximum of four storeys to the south of the convent
buildings. She stated that that, while staff said there would be no high-rises
on the property, nine storeys is very high and she did not see how it would be compatible
with the current streetscape.
She noted the developer’s adjacent property at 111
Richmond Road that was approved at eight storeys for senior’s residences,
pointing out that when the the seniors’ usage was relocated the height
remained. She pointed out that the site directly behind the convent was not on
a main street but in a residential environment, which the OP calls for four
storeys maximum. She stated that transitions should allow for decreases in
height.
She stated that because the properties at 101 and 111
Richmond Road had not yet been built, their impact on traffic can only be
estimated. She wondered if the traffic study addressed this and if it looked
at the impacts of changing it from seniors’ usage to general use, taking into
account different traffic patterns for different demographics.
Ms. White stated that the proposed development at the
convent site would put the community at 300 units beyond its 2021 intensity
targets and closed to its 2031 targets. She stated her belief that this
proposal would result in unsustainable intensification and requested that Committee
reject it and send it back to staff with a clear understanding of the intent
and meaning of the Secondary Plan. She also requested that Councillors propose
a motion to remove the cut through of the Byron Linear Park from consideration.
Councillor Holmes inquired as to whether the Byron
Linear Park was designated under the City’s parks By-law. Mr. Marc indicated
that that staff would have an answer to that question by the November 19 Council
meeting.
Robert Argent,
resident of Westboro, spoke in opposition to the proposal as presented. He expressed
outrage at the City’s planning department, suggesting it was going out of its
way to support and promote the developer. He was appalled by the issues of
interpretation of the intent of the OP and Secondary Plan. He said that a great
way to save money at City Hall would be to have the planning department paid
for by developers, and suggested that the way business runs at City Hall needed
to be addressed. He stated that the process would not have been so
confrontational and divisive had the rules been properly laid down for all that
followed. He requested that the new Council fix the process and return City
staff to being accountable to the City, rather than developers. He stated that
policies with teeth are required so that all are aware of the playing field
they are on. Finally, he asked the Chair who would be representing the citizens
of Ottawa at the OMB hearing, and thanked Councillor Leadman for her work.
Mr. Argent also put forward a PowerPoint Presentation
on behalf of another resident, Sylvano Carrasco, who could be present
due to a health emergency. The presentation is held on file with the City
Clerk. A summary of the points raised in the presentation is as follows:
·
With respect to density, he
illustrated the density of the development by comparing it to the nearby Minto
Metropole development, which is 32 stories high and contains 152 units. He
stated stating that the current proposal was the equivalent of four Metropoles
in terms of units.
·
He stated that the problem was
exacerbated because Ashcroft owns the two properties across the street and
together totals almost 900 units.
·
With respect to building heights, that
while the City had researched building heights in the area, there was nothing
higher three storeys along the Byron Path, and on Richmond there are barely
anything higher than four storeys. He did not see how his proposal conformed
with the surrounding area’s prevailing building heights, with the exception of
the developer’s other buildings.
·
With respect to intensification, he
stated that the community supports intensification and referenced the numbers
of units within several developments that had been built in the area, noting
that all of them combined still had fewer units than this one.
·
On the issue of traffic, he wondered
how 600 plus new cars would fit, given existing traffic patterns. He also mentioned
noticing cars with Quebec license plates on them going down Byron to bypass the
backup of cars on Prince of Wales.
·
He also spoke with respect to the
inefficacy of two-dimensional plans. He displayed renderings of the plans in
3D, which had been put into Google Earth along with the homes in the
surrounding neighbourhood to illustrate how big the development was in relation
to everything around it.
·
With respect to scale, he stated
that developments should fit with the neighbourhood, noting this neighbourhood
was composed of small one and two storey houses.
·
He questioned why the 380 Leighton
Terrace property was is being zoned from R1 to nine storeys and bundled
together with the Richmond Road properties under one rezoning amendment. He
stated that it sets a precedent for allowing developers to encroach on
residential streets.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s question, Mr.
Miguelez stated that although 380 Leighton Terrace is a residential house, it
is being re-zoned as a Traditional Main Street property because it was included
in the site for which the application for rezoning was received. Therefore
staff considered it as part of the package. Councillor Leadman stated that
this was one of problems application, stating that it was an encroachment on
the residential streets.
Jim Moore
spoke in opposition to the development as proposed. He stated that traffic
congestion not only affects the residents of the community but everyone who
drives North-South between Harland Avenue and Churchill, and everyone who
drives East-West between Carling and the Parkway. He stated that in order to
arrive at home on Island Park Drive between Byron Road and Richmond Road in a
timely manner, during rush hour he cuts through local side streets. He stated
that this problem had only begun to occur upon the opening of Loblaws, as
Northbound vehicles trying to turn left on Byron hold up traffic.
He brought up the fact that in addition to the seniors
themselves, parking would be required for visitors and well as service staff,
otherwise people will park on the street. He stated that the area is becoming
far too dense and that and that community is being ignored because they do not
speak legal jargon. In conclusion he requested that Committee require Ashcroft
to redesign something more in keeping with what the area and what the City can
handle. He also requested that traffic studies consider all traffic onto Iona
Street and off of Island Park in order to bypass the road blocks at Byron.
Mike Gagnon spoke
in opposition to the development as proposed. He questioned if City staff had consulted
with its Gatineau counterparts as to the development in Aylmer, and it’s
impacts on the Ontario side, stating that it would appear the traffic
originates from Quebec. He insisted that the Secondary Plan be respected and
that provisions exclude access via Byron Road, which would set a precedent for
other establishments such to do the same.
He brought up the issue of the environmental and
planning processes. He stated the City’s 2007 air pollution project indicated
that the air at Carling next to the Queensway was some of Ottawa’s most
polluted air having the worst air quality for airborne contaminants among 34
locations, yet the City has approved the conversion of a hotel at that exact
location to a seniors’ residence.
With regards to intensification, Mr. Gagnon he stated
that the variety of definitions used by the various stakeholders was a problem
and the OP should address this by reviewing the definition. He stated that City
leaders are expected to insure that one individual’s pursuit of profit does not
trump the wellbeing of this community.
He requested that committee propose three motions:
·
That the integrity of the park
remains as it is, and that no further access to Byron be allowed;
·
To ensure that there be an
environmental assessment of the whole area to ensure that the pollution counts
are acceptable, taking traffic into account including traffic from the Quebec
side;
·
That study be conducted by an
independent body, not by planning staff, of the concept of intensity
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s question
regarding inter-provincial traffic, Mr. Miguelez stated that there was
extensive consultation with the City of Gatineau and Transport Quebec on a
number of issues, including the growth management strategy for the whole
greater Ottawa-Gatineau area in conjunction with the OP population projections,
interprovincial transit studies, as well studies on projects like
interprovincial crossings. He stated that staff in the planning department has
a direct and regular contact with our colleagues at the City of Gatineau on a
number of planning issues. He noted the City of Gatineau is embarking on a
rapid transit system that they hope will have an effect on their commuting patterns
which will have beneficial repercussions on the Ontario side.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s question on air
quality, Mr. James indicated that air quality is not considered zoning
amendment proposals, and has never been challenged at the OMB. He suggested
this could be due to provincial legislation or the City simply has not married
air quality it into zoning requirements.
Jim Owens,
resident of Kensington Avenue, was opposed to the plan as presented. With
respect to the convent, he stated a good architect would bring out the
qualities of the heritage property, but this property was being treated as
inconvenience because it has to work around the convent to build condos.
He noted the report contends that the proposal meets the
following criteria for increased height and density: transitions, gateway or
transit considerations and the compatibility policies of the OP. He disagreed
with the assertion that the proposed 30.5 metre high building offers an
excellent transition in height between the 19 metre and 24 metre buildings
constructed opposite the subject site With respect to gateway considerations
outlined in the report, he suggested gateways are not necessarily just big
buildings, and should be designed with the aim of drawing people along the
street. He felt that the proposal does not satisfy this criterion.
With respect to the compatibility criteria of the OP,
he noted that a Site Plan was required. Therefore, in the absence of one he
suggested that any assertion that the proposal meets this criteria is empty of
content.
He concluded by stating that the proposal does not
meet any of the criteria for increased height or density. In addition he pointed
to discrepancies in the staff report with respect to the amount of open space,
stating in the consultation details that it is 50 per cent, and elsewhere in
the report that it is 40 per cent. He suggested this was a misrepresentation.
Mr. Owens further expressed his opposition to the cut
though of Byron, suggesting there was not context. He suggested that this site
was an unusual one with great potential, and concluded that the current
proposal destroyed its value.
In response to questions from Councillor Qadri with
respect to the potential use of the Byron corridor for rapid transit in the
future, staff indicated that this particular part of the corridor was not
identified for rapid transit, and could not logically be used for that purpose
east of Churchill Avenue.
In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr.
Miguelez indicated that Shannon Street is in fact a narrow lane, a five-metre wide
paved street. He confirmed that there is a line of trees on the park side and
mature vegetation on the residential side which were planted on the road
allowance. He suggested that if they were to build on Shannon Street, those
trees may have to go.
Lorraine Farkas
noted that she lived in a South-facing town house just north of the Canadian
Bank Note Company property. She expressed concern that a high rise may one day
fill that property as well, and requested that the four to six storey limit be
adhered to. She stated that if there is a proposal to set aside the rules for
a particular project, then the dominant interests of the residents, businesses,
and institutions in the community should decide whether the rules can be set
aside.
She stated her disappointment that Ashcroft obtained
approval to build nine and eight storey buildings beside the Canadian Banknote
Company. She questioned when such developments would cease, particularly when
City planners negotiate bus passes, parkland, and perhaps other items in return
for surpassing the high limits, which in turn leads to surpassing the
densification targets and surpassing the tolerance for more traffic.
She stated that the City should be simply handing out
bus passes as pilot projects, but not exchange for height. She stated that
there should be process in place for such endeavours and the rules should be
clear. She stated that this would allow the developers to continue making
profits, the City would still collect increased taxes, but the community would
also have its interests taken into account. She requested that City staff look
around at the Canadian Banknote Company and the other large tracks of land that
may be coming up in the future and start planning for them now with the
community’s interests in mind.
John Fraser,
resident of Kensington Avenue, spoke in opposition to the plan as presented.
He stated that the Byron Linear Park was built at considerable expense by the
City and much effort by the local residents. He stated that, while it has a
number of breaks in it, only the one Island Park Drive is truly dangerous. He
requested that the City not add an extremely dangerous entrance through it,
stating that the park is the one safe place in the area for children and adults
alike. He stated it would be dangerous because the sightlines from the development
aren’t good, and since it is City owned, it should not be changed.
Secondly, he stated that a four-storey residence, let
alone a nine storey residence abutting on an elementary school, would put the
students in jeopardy. Thirdly he stated that Ashcroft’s appeal to the OMB is
requesting for a maximum height of twelve storeys, which is three storeys
higher than the current proposal. He requested that Committee reject the
proposal and fight at the OMB.
Ian MacDonnell,
Westboro resident, stated his interest in speaking was spurred after reading in
the newspaper that there would be no effect on traffic by additional
development. He stated that he weaves through the community to avoid traffic,
and guessed others probably do the same, putting strain on the residential
streets. He suggested that to say t an additional 600 residents would not
increase traffic seems incredulous. He stated that while his daughter bought a
unit at 111 Richmond Road and that he may even buy one himself in this
development, his remarks were mainly to the traffic situation, and to say that
there would be no impact is incorrect.
Abi LyonWicke
spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She expressed her concern with
how the children would be affected by the development, the introduction new and
much taller buildings, over-intensification in the community, increased traffic
and parking problems, lack of respect for heritage buildings, loss of potential
green space, disregard for the public consultation process both the CDP and the
more recent process. She wished to make three specific points:
·
Firstly, she requested that the
stand of mature maple trees on the east side of the property identified as
significant by the design review panel be retained along with as many other
mature trees as possible on the property.
·
Secondly, she expressed concern
about the proposed destruction of 380 Leighton Terrace sating that the purchase
and destruction of a single to be replaced by multi-storey buildings sets an
ugly precedent and would create cut through traffic.
·
Thirdly, she stated that the Byron
Linear Park is a unique and valuable piece of public space and any interruption
of the park would reduce its current beauty and usefulness but also would set a
dangerous precedent for future development. She urged Committee to ensure that
this park remains intact.
Appearing on behalf of the Applicant was Ted Fobert,
FoTenn Consultants, Paul Webber, Bell Baker LLP, and Mr. Roderick Lahey,
architect,
Mr. Fobert began the applicant’s presentations from a
planning perspective, with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy
of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He raised the following points:
·
He noted that there was a
difference in interpretation between the developer, City staff and many of the
delegations with respect to conformity to the Secondary Plan and the OP, and explainined
his interpretation of the policies by starting with the OP.
·
He said the OP acknowledges the City
will grow 50 per cent by 2021, which means 1900 new homes will need to be built
in the next 20 years, and most of that demand will be for smaller apartment
units.
·
The OP states that one third of
housing growth is expected to occur in the form of apartments within the
greenbelt, translating into 50 thousand units over 20 years to accommodate
growth.
·
He stated that the OP focuses on
intensification around Transitways and main streets, and that main streets
offer the most opportunities for intensification, as the OP provides
flexibility for site circumstance and lot configuration where there is
potential for development adjacent to the street and to the rear of the
property.
·
He stated that while the plan
supports heights in the range of four to six storeys on traditional
mainstreets, greater building heights can be considered under the following
circumstances:
o The first circumstance is if the proposed building
height conforms with the prevailing building eights or it provides a transition.
In this case, this relates to the six and eight stories
o The second circumstance is fostering the creation of a
community focus or where opportunities support a transit station or stop. He
stated that the property is on a corner lot, it is a community focus. He noted
this property is walking distance from the Westboro transit station.
o He stated that the third factor that you can consider
additional height is where the development incorporates facilities, services,
or maters, as set out in section 5.2.1 of the plan, which deals with section 37
of the Planning Act. He stated that section 37 says that if you can
achieve some of the services or amenities identified in that section of the OP
you consider additional height.
·
He went on to state the criteria
for compatibility on Main Streets. The first was the capacity to accommodate
anticipated traffic which the traffic study supported.
·
He stated that it is part of the
City’s plan to have busier streets and to get people into transit, cycling and
walking.
·
He addressed the criteria for
vehicular access stating that there are two locations which reduce impacts on
the adjacent community, one being underground parking at Patricia, which is a
signalized intersection. The, Byron Avenue, would not impact the community as
there are no adjacent houses.
·
He addressed the criteria for
adequate parking and minimization of spill over parking by stating the
development was fully within the by-law requirement, of 25 cars per dwelling
unit for a seniors’ residence.
·
He then addressed the criteria for
building height massing which states that new buildings should have regard to
the area context, the massing and height of adjacent buildings and the planned
function for the area. It talks about the pattern of development and the fact
you want to pick up on the treatment of other characteristics common to the
surrounding community. He noted this is a condition of the holding provision
that staff have identified.
·
He stated that the setbacks
address the criteria that outdoor amenity areas respect privacy. With respect
to loading, he said that all the loading and truck traffic will come through
Richmond Road and through Patricia entrance; it’s not scheduled to come from
Byron Avenue.
·
He then spoke of the Westboro Secondary
Plan, stating that the first objective in the plan is to encourage
intensification at a human scale which he clarifies as not necessarily meaning
height but the relationship of the building to the pedestrian; the relationship
of the development with respect to the impact as measured by the compatibility
criteria identified above.
·
He stated that Ashcroft Homes
addresses the principles by providing appropriate setbacks and transition in
building heights including lower heights along the edges of existing low rise
residential areas.
·
He suggested the interpretation
that there can be no more than six stories on the site was incorrect, as
principles say to conform to the recommended general maximum building height
ranges for each sector. This proposal is in sector 6, and the associated
principles say that building higher than six storeys will be limited to sites
that are compatible with adjacent uses and also to those that have deeper lots
or have other natural or man-made separations
·
He stated that the Tradition Main
Street policies of the Secondary Plan were identical to the policies in the OP.
He stated the principles outlined for Sector 6, suggesting the plan confirms
with them.
·
He stated that in his
interpretation of four storeys adjacent to the low profile areas was the
appropriate response to the intensification and to orient the higher density
towards the neighbouring school and towards Richmond Road, and that was what
was evaluated by the peer review group.
·
Finally he stated that policy says
to consider rezoning Les Sœurs de la Visitation convent to a Traditional Main
Street. He stated that rezoning to Traditional Main Street would include the entire
lot as mentioned earlier.
·
He emphasized that the
redevelopment was compatible with, and provides an appropriate transition to,
the adjacent low rise residential neighbourhood
·
He noted they are incorporating as
much greens pace as possible, stating that 40 per cent of the site is non-developed.
·
He noted the guidelines said that
as part of the redevelopment application, the “southern part,” not south of the
convent, should be re-zoned to a maximum four storey residential in order to be
compatible with adjacent residential low-rise residential areas.
In closing he reiterated the applicant’s position that
the spirit and intent of the Secondary Plan had been considered and they have the
terms of conformity.
Mr. Lahey then reviewed the architectural and design
aspects of the plan. He did so by means of a detailed visual PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He
highlighted the following:
·
He noted that one of the goals his
firm wished to achieve was the transformation of Richmond Road, stating that
this project along with the two others across the street has allowed them to
begin to create a link between Westboro and Wellington Village.
·
He stated that the 800 feet of
store front retail will add to the Westboro Wellington Village experience.
·
He stated that because one of the
urban design policies is to bring buildings closer to the street they decided
to create an urban plaza. He stated that this would also fall under the urban
policy for a strong and healthy business community as there would be a mixed
use of retail and office space.
·
This whole development has the
concept the celebration of heritage, and Ashcroft has embraced the idea of the protection
and the celebration of the existing buildings.
·
Mr. Lahey highlighted the concept
of inviting people onto the site that had been cloistered for around a hundred
years, and be able to enjoy the site and the building in its further
development.
·
40 per cent of the site is
dedicated to the heritage building and the grounds.
·
The original 1864 house will be a
dominant part of the “plaza”
·
In the plaza would be a restaurant
as a lively centre of the development.
·
There are increased setbacks to
the building. The original plan had a setback of about ten feet from the
chapel, which has been increased to close to 40 feet for the main part of the
building. The lower portion (2 stories) gets within 20 feet, but that is there
to frame the courtyard of the original house
·
The space has opportunity for
community activities for programming space in the plaza
·
One of the guiding principles was
some of the work done in the Byward Market courtyards, plugging new buildings
into the courtyard spaces.
·
One of benefits of the project is
sustainable development, not just green buildings but the idea of centralizing
people and taking advantage of all those services and amenities
·
The Peer Review Panel suggested
bringing the originally-proposed 12 storey building down to ten storied, the
developer brought it down to 9. They panel talked about separating the building
from the heritage, and the developer did this.
·
While the Peer Review Panel suggested
an alternate “c” shaped building for the rear of the site, he suggested they could
not understand the programming requirements of the client. Alternatively, they
moved the entire group of buildings back eight metres an reduced the size of
buildings, creating a stronger scheme. He suggested the panel’s goal was
achieved through this proposal.
·
Other recommendations of the panel
were indeed incorporated.
·
There will be no private sidewalks
to Byron pathway.
·
Sun Shadow Studies submitted to
the City show that the design of the building maximizes the amount of light in
the cloistered garden.
In conclusion, Mr.
Lahey suggested it was a great development with unique features that the entire
community would be able to take advantage of and enjoy.
Mr. Webber then spoke on
behalf of the applicant with respect to the legal aspects. He noted that his
background was acting primarily for community associations, and understanding
what was being said by the delegations. He raised the following points:
·
He stated that the rule of law applies to everyone. Planning is a
statutory regulatory scheme, and everyone has to follow the rules. The OP has
the force of law.
·
The Secondary Plan that specifically says “consider the rezoning
of the monastery in the following circumstances…” has the force of law.
·
He noted the public spoke in the adoption and approval of the
Secondary Plan, which became the law, and submitted that is was binding on
everyone.
·
The other aspect of the rule of law is that the professional
staff (i.e. City planners) are the property of the process, not the
municipality. The OMB insists that they appear as expert witnesses, with no
regard as to how they are paid, the expectation is that they will offer their
professional best advice. He suggested that, while you can take their advice
or not, you cannot suggest they have acted inappropriately in coming to an
independent opinion.
·
He referenced comments made by Past president of heritage Ottawa
and OMB member that urban form should depend on planning principles, not who
can haggle the longest and the best.
·
He argued that the City has spoken through the secondary OP, and
any by-law it passes must be in conformity with that.
·
He also raised the idea that planning is dynamic, which is often
difficult for community groups to understand. He suggested it was is so
dynamic that every application must be assessed on its own merits within the
approved frame.
·
He noted that the Planning documents are those in force at the
time of the application – in this case the OP, the Secondary Plan, and OPA 70.
·
He suggested the fact that a CDP has been overtaken by events
should come as no surprise.
·
He noted the CDP was not incorporated into the Secondary Plan word
for word, but rather in a way that makes it consistent with planning
principles. At the same time the municipality is implementing Bill 51 through
OPA 76.
In conclusion,
he suggested the decision Committee must make as a matter of law ought to be
made strictly on the formal legal framework that exists now, the Secondary Plan
and the specific provision about the site, and the provision about having
regard to the whole of the OP and intensification policies. He noted that,
while one must have regard to the CDP, it is not a matter of law.
Councillor Hume
wished to understand the status of the Secondary Plan. Mr. Webber confirmed
that it did indeed have the force of law as an Official Plan, because it is
subject to appeal and subject to approval of the OMB.
Councillor
Hume suggested the developer were making an interpretation of the Secondary
Plan as it pertained to the site, as were Planning Staff and Committee. Mr.
Webber noted the Planning Act states that one shall not pass a by-law that
does not conform to the OP; therefore, in order to validly pass this re-zoning
By-law, Committee and Council must assess whether it is in conformity with the
OP, including the specific guidance in the Secondary Plan.
Councillor
Hume noted that much of the criticism had been of the interpretation of the
Secondary Plan as it pertained to the southern portion of the site. He
reiterated his reading of the section led him to believe that the intent of the
framers of the plan was to have the back portion four stories; however, the
professional planners interpret it in another manner. Therefore, he surmised
that in order to sustain his position on appeal, he would need a set of
professionals to argue that. Mr. Webber agreed with this.
Mr.
Webber noted that there was a change of language between the CDP, which spoke
to “south of the monastery” and the OP language, which speaks to the “southern
portion of the site.” He suggested that one used different language it is
because it means something different.
Councillor
Doucet referred to the “Basic Site Plan and Design Principles for redevelopment
of 114 Richmond Road” document. He noted the document contained an extract for
the Secondary Plan that states “as part of a redevelopment application, the
southern part of the property should be rezoned to a maximum of four story
residential zone in order to be compatible with the adjacent low rise
residential area.” Mr. Webber noted that this passage does not define what the
“southern portion” of the property is. He suggested the intent of the passage
was to recognize the potential conflict with the low-rise residential and that those
portions of the property abutting it be treated sensitively.
Councillor
Doucet suggested the accompanying map in the Design Principles document makes
it clear that the “southern portion” means the area to the south of the
convent. He suggested that there would not have been so much opposition and
controversy if they had stuck to four stories, and suggested staff and the
developer had a tortuous and incorrect interpretation of the Secondary Plan.
Mr.
Fobert noted the passage in its entirety also talks about the possibility of higher
building heights provided several things be achieved, which he suggested were
all achieved in this proposal He suggested the intent was to optimize the
opportunity for intensification on key redevelopment sites and meet certain
objectives in the achievement of that. He suggested the. developer is doing more
than required in many areas. For example, he noted the current institutional zone
requires a 7.5 metre setback, and what is proposed provide for the 20m setback.
He stated the developer’s team thinks the development will be a net benefit to
the community. He noted that few developments have no opposition, citing the
nearby Loblaws on Richmond Road as an example of a development that received
much opposition but was not ended up being a detriment to the community. He
further noted that the City was moving towards and planning for a City that
accommodates more activity.
Councillor Feltmate asked about the developer’s
nearby property, where they received approval for a Seniors residence, and then
switched it to regular condos. Mr. Lahey confirmed that was approved at the
OMB was for a residential building designed to accommodate a seniors building;
however, when the opportunity to develop the convent site came up, it was felt
that having the seniors on the south end of that site was more appropriate than
on the other site. Therefore, they redesigned the original building, reduces
the square footage and occupant load of that building, not increasing the
number of cars. He felt there was no detriment to the community from what was
originally proposed.
As to how one could be certain a similar situation
would not happen again, Mr. Webber stated that the seniors portion of the site
would be in a site-specific zone, which is restricted to 65 parking spaces, and
which would only be suitable if it were a seniors residence. He indicated
there was an agreement between staff and the proponent, that it could only be
changed with a subsequent approval of Committee and Council. He suggested that
some wording could be added the Zone to make that clear.
In response to questions from Councillor
Holmes about the requirement for vehicle access through the Byron strip. Mr.
Lahey confirmed this was to support the 65 cars that would go into one of the
four-storey seniors buildings. He indicated that the higher-scale buildings would
be accessed through Richmond Road and the servicing for the whole site would
have access off of Richmond road, save for emergency vehicles.
Councillor Leadman wished to clarify that
it was her understanding that the development mentioned by Mr. Lahey (the
seniors’ residence) did not go to the OMB, but rather the adjacent development.
Mr. Lahey confirmed his understanding that both properties were considered by
the OMB.
Councillor Doucet again referenced the Basic
Site Plan and Design Principles document, and reiterated that it was very clear
to any Councillor or member of the public that the south side of the property
should be a maximum of four stories, whereas the north side could allow for
additional height if certain conditions are met. Mr. Fobert reiterated that the
plan referred to “southern part” which was the point of contention, noting the
rest of the plan talks to the ability to optimize and achieve additional height
where appropriate on the site and talks to the transitioning to the low profile.
He suggested one must read the plan in its entirety, including the overall
intent with respect to accommodating development on key redevelopment sites.
In response to questions from Councillor
Monette with respect to public meetings, Mr. Fobert indicated that there had
been three full public meetings, plus two other meetings held by the
Councillor, noting they had not attended additional meetings organized by the
Councillor.
Councillor Monette inquired as to how many
compromises had been made from the original proposal. Mr. Lahey indicated that
they had made several significant changes including the following: reducing the
gross square footage by at least 100 thousand square feet of building area;
dropping two of the buildings from 12 stories to 9 stories; increasing the
amount of landscape open space; securing and protecting the heritage building;
increasing setbacks from the original zoning of 7.5 metres to 20 metres and
protecting the second row of trees as proposed by the peer review.
Councillor Feltmate noted that one of the most
contentious issues was the proposed vehicular access through Byron Linear Park,
and wondered what consideration was made to accommodate the 65 cars in another
way. Mr. Lahey suggested that the requirement for the cut-through had to do
with the functioning of the south portion of the site (the seniors’ facility) with
respect to accessibility for pick up, drop off, access to emergency vehicles.
He noted that at early community meetings it had been requested that access not
be from Leighton Terrace or Shannon Street; hence, the 20-foot driveway access
to Byron was being proposed.
In response to further questions, staff
indicated that if access were off Shannon Street, five homes would be affected.
Mr. Lahey stated that he did not feel access off Shannon Street would be as
good a solution from a traffic point of view. Mr. Fobert noted that Shannon
Street was almost a laneway, and accommodating additional traffic would change
the nature of the narrow street entirely. He suggested that an unobtrusive and
well-designed access off Byron Avenue was better. He noted that seniors were
non-peak hour users of the site, suggesting the traffic impact would therefore
be benign. Councillor Feltmate emphasized that the concern was over the
recreational use of the parkway, rather than about traffic.
Councillor Hunter, on the issue of traffic,
suggested the traffic was a problem in this area whether there was a
development or not. He also expressed amazement with the amount of condominium
development taking place along the Richmond Road Corridor, and wondered what
was behind the demand for building in this particular area. Mr. Lahey
suggested Ottawa was beginning to mature, and they were seeing a change in
lifestyle, with young professional and older adults seeking a lifestyle of
living in a condominium in an area like this, with access to local amenities. Mr.
Webber noted his Seniors bus pas, noting it was one of the reasons people like
himself were downsizing and living near transit.
Having concluded questions for the
delegations, Chair Hume advised that Committee would adjourn for the day and
resume the following afternoon at 2:30 p.m. to finish debate on this item He
noted that a number of motions had been submitted, which were circulated to
those present.
Committee recessed at 4:20 p.m. on
November 17, and reconvened on Thursday, November 18 at 2: 45 p.m.
After calling the meeting to order, the
Chair noted that after recessing the previous day, a member who had been on the
speaker’s list and had the opportunity to speak asked for that opportunity. As
he had not closed the public hearing, and in good faith, had indicated that the speaker could speak today as the first item of
business.
The final speaker, Duff Mitchell spoke in
opposition to the report recommendations as presented. He expressed his
appreciation for being allowed to speak. As a 12-year resident of Island Park
Drive, he stated that he was dependent upon the planning processes and policies
that relate to Richmond Road and Wellington Street West for an orderly and
sustainable development in the Community. He commented on the following issues:
·
Traffic – he agreed that the staff
report fails to take into account that the developer’s traffic study may
underestimate the traffic impact in the area. In particular, he urged Committee
to reflect on the presentation made By Roland Dorsay with respect to this.
·
Building Heights – he agreed that
the staff report fails to make the case why the City’s intensification goals
cannot be achieved with building heights of 4-6 stories as specified by the
Secondary Plan. He urged Committee to reflect upon the comments made by Lorne
Cutler in this respect, with respect to the orientation of the four story
buildings to the Convent, and the intent of the Community with respect to the
meaning of the “southern portion” as southern half
·
As to whether there can be pre-zoning
of heights, he pointed to the example of Washington, D.C, where there are
strict building height limits that have been in effect since 1899 limiting
buildings to the height of the Capitol, and a subsequent 1910 amendment
limiting widths to the width of the adjacent street plus 20 feet. He noted
that there had been no exceptions to this rule in Washington. He suggested that
Ottawa should be able to do the same.
·
Density – He agreed that the
report fails to examine whether the density of the proposed plan represents
over-intensification. He pointed out that the CDP envisioned 300 or so units
for the site, suggesting this was evidence that the community supports
intensification. However, the staff recommended 600 units is over-intensification
·
Byron Linear Park – He supported
those who made the case that the Staff report fails to adequately address the
issue of the Byron Linear Park cut-through. In particular, he drew attention
to the presentation of Amy Kempster who argued the Site Plan be included in the
Zoning process, and Amos Hayes and his petition in support of keeping the
linear park intact. He expressed his understanding that there had been no
study of path usage, and inadequate notice had been given that this was being
proposed. Further, he suggested that staff had dismissed the Shannon Street
option. He noted that the width of Shannon ranged from 7.2 metres to 7.4 metres
from tree trunks to lawn frontage.
·
Public Consultation – He suggested
the report misrepresented the nature of the public consultation that took
place. He noted that, while the report states there were five public
consultation meetings, the developer organized four, but only one actually
involved discussion of the proposed plan. The fifth, Councillor-organized
meeting, he suggested the developer side-swiped the Councillor and the
Community. He explained that, as the meeting began, the developer’s agenda
informed that a revised plan had been submitted, but did not provide it for
that meeting or informed the Councillor or the Committee in advance.
·
Adaptive use of the convent –
While the staff had provided the developer’s willingness to provide the convent
for community use in exchange for increased density and height, to date
Ashcroft has taken no meaningful action in this regard or made any financial
commitment. Ashcroft’s offer as part of discussions with the City on a possible
Section 37 agreement was to lease it to the City at 600k per year, with the
City paying all restoration and all ongoing utility and property tax costs. He
suggested this was offloading its problems with dealing with a heritage
building onto the City.
In conclusion he suggested the residents of the City
and Westboro deserved better, and hoped the Committee could find a way to
support development of the convent site while respecting the interests of the
community and balancing them with those of the developer.
With respect to public
consultations, Councillor Leadman recalled that the first two meetings were by
invitation only, and Mr. Mitchell agreed, indicated that invitations went to
Leighton Terrace and Shannon Streets residents and some other select people on
Byron Avenue. He added that the third meeting was open to the public, and at
that meeting the developer brought to the general public what the developer had
heard from the previous two meetings. He stated that the fourth meeting was the
only time an actual plan was proposed by the developers.
The Chair then closed the public hearing
portion of the meeting and turned the recommendations over to Committee:
The following had registered to speak but
were unable to remain for the duration of the meeting:
·
Jennifer Dobson
Any written comments submitted and are
held on file with the City Clerk:
Committee then proceeded to ask additional
questions of staff.
In response to questions from Councillor
Leadman with respect to the width Shannon Street, Mr. Miguelez indicated that
the paved width of Shannon Street was five metres. Councillor Leadman
indicated, based on measurements done by a resident, Shannon Street is actually
3.7 metres wide, and 7.2 metres to the tree line, and at the widest width 9.4
metres. She suggested that that no trees would be lost from the widening of
Shannon Street.
In response to further questions from Councillor
Leadman, Mr. Miguelez indicated that Shannon Street would not be any wider than
the Byron pathway. Councillor Leadman indicated based on the measurements she
obtained that the pathway is two metres wide, making it narrower than Shannon Street.
Councillor Leadman inquired as to whether
there was any public consultation pertaining to changing the zoning or use of
the Byron Linear Park and pathway. Mr. Miguelez explained that the zoning of
the actual pathway and park (open space zone) would not need to change; the
primacy of the space would remain recreational, and there is allowance made for
the driveway to exist, with proper design. He noted that there were City parks
that allowed for vehicular access driveways that exist within the zoning of those
parks.
With reference to the Basic Site Plan and
Design Principles document, Councillor Leadman noted the map referencing the
southern portion of the property and accompanying language indicated “low
profile residential” for that portion of the property. She indicated her
belief that the original interpretation of the Secondary Plan in that document
was accurate and that statements made by the applicant in the meeting suggested
that Staff’s initial interpretation of the Secondary Plan was incorrect, which
calls into question the professionalism of Planning Staff.
Mr. Miguelez pointed out on disclaimer in
that document, which stated that the diagrams were not intended as Zoning Maps,
and the shapes and the outline of different development areas shown on the
diagram were for illustration purposes only. Therefore, he emphasized that
when staff schematically put together these plans, they were careful to
indicate that there was a variety of different possibilities, knowing that
there could be a variety of different applicants and architects, which were not
intended to be prescriptive, hard and fast ways to look at the policy. As to
whether he told this to the community at the time, Mr. Miguelez indicated that,
while he did not think they had specifically discussed those two options, if
they had they would have indicated the same to them.
Councillor Leadman suggested that the Basic
Site Plan and Design Principles document, which reflected the Secondary Plan, indicated
the “southern part” of the site was south of the convent, as did the heritage
staff report. She found it distressing to hear this loose interpretation, when
the document accurately reflects the secondary plan.
In response to further questions, Mr.
Miguelez explained that the intent in preparing the schematics in the Basic
Site Plan and Design Principles document was to present illustrations of some
of the concepts that embodied that period of the policy framework. They were
not meant to represent the intent of the Secondary Plan to the letter; and were
meant to address the variability in possible applications might be submitted to
the City. He further noted that at the time of preparation, they were only
dealing with the 114 Richmond property, whereas the present application also
encompasses 90 Richmond Road and380 Leighton Terrace.
Councillor Doucet, referencing the Basic
Site Plan and Design Principles document, noted noted three different places
where it indicated that the southern portion should be rezoned to a maximum of
four story residential. Mr. Miguelez suggested that these passages were not
hard and fast. He listed all the other plans and policies that come into play.
He noted that these basic principles were a starting point for trying to
achieve a variety of goals for the public good through discussions with
proponents. He suggested the need to look at the whole policy context, what it
provides for, and what exchanges in built form, green space and heritage
preservation one can achieve.
Councillor Doucet challenged that there
was no nuance in those documents when it comes to the northern portion of the
site. He suggested that it was clear to all the delegations and the ward
Councillor that it was supposed to be four stories, and wondered how everyone
could have a different view from the Planning Staff and the proponent.
Councillor Doucet spoke with respect to
density. He felt the density was not appropriate, and the development was too
large. He gave an example of a 60-unit intensification project on Bronson
Avenue in his ward, where the densification was significant, but appropriate
and complied with the zoning. He suggested this site represented significantly
more than twice the densification.
Mr. Miguelez suggested each project must
be considered on its merits in its own context, and there is room in Ottawa for
projects of a variety of scales and looks. Mr. Miguelez also noted that within
the existing zoning at 114 Richmond with a four story building, you could get
600 units.
Councillor Holmes inquired as to whether
the Byron Linear Park was dedicated by By-law. Mr. Marc indicated that he did
not yet have the answer to that question, but would have it for Council.
Councillor Holmes also asked to see the
comments from the Parks, Recreation and Culture department with respect to an
access across the linear park. Mr. Miguelez noted that the Planning
Department received the comments from that department, and as the File Lead,
they compiled all the comments, evaluated them all, and came to a
recommendation. Councillor Holmes read some of the comments that had been
provided by the Parks and Recreation and Culture Department. A copy of the
comments was circulated, and is held on file with the City Clerk. The comments
indicated that the department objected to the circumstance that this
application puts us in, and opposed the annexation of green space represented
by the Site Plan. Councillor Holmes noted that these comments had not been
included in the report. She felt all branches comments should be required to
be included in the reports on rezoning matters before Committee and Council and
to the public.
Mr. Moser commented that, under the
current one-stop service model, the Planning and Growth Management department
has responsibility for new development; they hear from a range of internal and
external stakeholders, and bring forward a balanced report to Committee. He
indicated, while they do not always include the specific comments from a range
of stakeholders, they do forward a recommendation having weighed all that input.
Councillor Holmes suggested that this was not a transparent process, suggesting
that when comments are not included it is often because they are counter to the
recommendation. She suggested members of Council should have the ability to
balance the various comments, as should the public.
Councillor Leadman spoke further to the
comments from the Parks, Recreation and Culture department. Specifically the
comment that approval of the zoning without the discussion regarding the
planned site access from the South would “pull the wool over the eyes of the
public.” Councillor Leadman questioned the transparency when that comment never
came to the fore. Mr. Moser indicated that there would have been discussions
among staff from the two departments so
that everyone understood the Planning department’s approach, indicating that he
had attended meetings near the end of the process where such joint discussions
took place. He emphasized that the comments are not ignored, they are
discussed and taken into consideration in the departmental position.
Councillor Leadman suggested other aspects of the comments
led her to believe that Parks Recreation and Culture department was not
involved at all. She further indicated that at a meeting where parks staff was
invited, they were not aware of the intention of using the Byron Park for
access. She also noted that she had only been able to obtain the comments after
going to the Deputy City Manager. She suggested that this pointed to an issue
of accountability and transparency.
Councillor Monette objected that the
purpose of the meeting was not to attack staff, but rather to discuss the
proposal at hand. The Chair suggested that they had given the issue a full
airing, and suggested if there are not questions of clarification, they would
have to move on. The Chair suggested that now that the Parks Recreation and
Culture department staff’s comments have been brought to Committee’s attention,
Committee could weigh this opinion in light of the recommendations they would
make. Councillor Leadman expressed her concern that the report was not
complete. She suggested she was not attacking staff, but bringing light to the
type of report that is not accurately reflecting what is in the community.
Having concluded questions to staff,
Committee then moved on to deliberate on a series of motions and the report
recommendations.
Mr. Marc spoke to the issue of the Section
37 Agreement, as outlined in report ACS202010-CMR-LEG-0021 report listed as
item 4 on the agenda. He noted that the Section 37 bonusing provisions of the Planning
Act are a sub-set of the Zoning provisions. For such an agreement to be
considered, a motion would be required to move the provisions of the Section 37
report as a motion. As such, upon Committee consideration of zoning, if nobody
has introduced a motion with respect to Section 37, there will be no
consideration of Item 4. He further noted that those requesting to speak were
told if they wished to speak to Section 37, they should do it during the same
five minutes as the zoning. Mr. Marc clarified that Legal Services was making
no recommendation with respect to the height. A section 37 Community Benefit
flows from Committee determining what the density is determined by the
Committee.
Mr. Marc also spoke to the issue of the
site’s heritage designation, which had been referred to the Conservation Review
Board. He provided the legal opinion that once Committee had taken position on
zoning of the site, this would represent new information such that Committee and
Council could, if it wished, to provide further instructions on the heritage.
Vice-Chair Feltmate assumed the Chair, and
Councillor Hume introduced the following Motion:
WHEREAS
there is a shortage of community open space within Kitchissippi Ward;
AND
WHEREAS the consideration of the former monastery site presents an opportunity
to acquire further open space;
AND
WHEREAS it is appropriate that this decision on acquisition should be based
upon community consultation and the willingness of the community to contribute
to the cost of the acquisition of the open space.
Be
It Resolved That:
1.
The zoning be amended to provide the following conditions to the
holding zone:
a.
No development shall be permitted on the lands outlined in black
on Document 1, until Council has considered a report to impose a special rate
to permit the acquisition of such land, less land taken as parkland under the
Planning Act, section 42;
b.
If Council has not approved the acquisition of the lands outlined
in black, less lands to be acquired under section 42, and a special rate to
permit the acquisition by 31 March 2011 this provision will be deemed to be
void and of no effect
c.
If Council has approved the acquisition of the lands outlined in
black, less lands to be acquired under section 42, and the special rate by 31
March 2011, this provision shall remain in effect until 31 March 2014;
2.
The determination of the special rate take into account the
possibility of using funds from amounts contributed in Kitchissippi Ward to
cash-in-lieu of Parkland, other than funds directed towards City Wide purposes.
3.
The City take Parkland, and not cash-in-lieu of parkland, in
respect of this development and that such parkland be adjacent to the Byron
Linear Strip.
Members then posed questions on and debated
Councillor Hume’s motion.
Councillor Hunter noted that the proposal
would have more than five per cent open space already, under the ownership of
the developer, whereas under the proposed motion the same amount of land would
be put into City ownership. He suggested that City taxpayers would be
responsible for maintaining it. He felt the current plan was a better deal for
the taxpayer and expressed his firm opposition to the motion.
Councillor Leadman noted that in every
development there is a requirement for parkland under the OP, a provision
created because of deficiencies in parkland, particularly in the urban core.
She suggested that the motion provided an opportunity to convey land where
there was a shortage, and maintained it was the City’s right to do that under
the OP. She noted that in other developments, for every 300 units a hectare is
contributed for Parkland. She asked Mr. Marc what the City’s right was to ask
for conveyance of Parkland. Mr. Marc confirmed that it was a decision for the
City to make.
In
response to questions from Councillor Monette with respect to the second clause
of the motion, with respect to the determination of the special rate take into
account the possibility of using funds from amounts contributed in Kitchissippi
Ward to cash-in-lieu of Parkland, Councillor Hume explained that this provision
was intended to ensure that money from Cash-in-lieu from other wards was not
used. He noted that there was currently $1.3 million in the Kitchissippi
cash-in-lieu of parkland fund.
As
to the cost to acquire the land, Mr. Marc expressed his understanding that the
preliminary high-level calculation by the City’s Real Estate Partnerships and
Development office was that the cost of the land would be approximately $3.3
million; therefore an additional $2.2 million would need to be raised to
acquire the land, which would be done through a special levy in that ward. As
to whether the residents were aware of and supportive of this levy, Councillor
Hume explained that the motion allowed for a time period to go out and
determine whether there was that support; if not, the condition would expire.
Councillor Monette suggested
they should have the exact costs before making a decision. Mr. Marc explained
that this motion allowed for a fuller analysis of the cost of land, and
consultation with the Community while putting a hold on the lands in question
until March 31, 2011. If Council decides to pursue that option, the hold
remains in place. If not, or if no decision is made, the hold is removed and
whatever zoning has been approved, will come into place without having to come
back to Committee and Council.
Committee then voted on
Councillor Hume’s Motion:
WHEREAS there is a shortage
of community open space within Kitchissippi Ward;
AND WHEREAS the
consideration of the former monastery site presents an opportunity to acquire
further open space;
AND WHEREAS it is
appropriate that this decision on acquisition should be based upon community
consultation and the willingness of the community to contribute to the cost of
the acquisition of the open space.
Be It Resolved That:
1.
The zoning be amended to provide the following conditions to the
holding zone:
a.
No development shall be permitted on the lands outlined in black
on Document 1, until Council has considered a report to impose a special rate
to permit the acquisition of such land, less land taken as parkland under the
Planning Act, section 42;
b.
If Council has not approved the acquisition of the lands outlined
in black, less lands to be acquired under section 42, and a special rate to
permit the acquisition by 31 March 2011 this provision will be deemed to be
void and of no effect
c.
If Council has approved the acquisition of the lands outlined in
black, less lands to be acquired under section 42, and the special rate by 31
March 2011, this provision shall remain in effect until 31 March 2014;
2.
The determination of the special rate take into account the
possibility of using funds from amounts contributed in Kitchissippi Ward to
cash-in-lieu of Parkland, other than funds directed towards City Wide purposes.
3.
The City take Parkland, and not cash-in-lieu of parkland, in
respect of this development and that such parkland be adjacent to the Byron
Linear Strip.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): C. Doucet, D. Holmes, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate, P.
Hume
NAYS (2): G. Hunter, B. Monette,
The location map accompanying this motion can be found on the
following page
Councillor Doucet then introduced the
following motion:
WHEREAS Report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146 recommends
certain zoning changes to the lands known municipally as 90 and 114 Richmond
Road and 380 Leighton Terrace;
AND WHEREAS the Councillor has requested a
change to Documents 1 and 2 of the said Report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146 to expand
the boundary of the proposed R5B[1763] S256-h zone and require a maximum
permitted building height of 4 storeys within this zone;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
Committee approve the following:
That Document 1 be replaced with the
attached Location Map and Document 2 be replaced with the attached Schedule
256.
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
The Chair noted that the effect of the
above motion would be to create four stories across the southern portion of the
site. Councillor Doucet indicated that he was introducing the motion on behalf
of Councillor Leadman. He emphasized his opinion that the Basic Site Plan and Design
Principles document shown to all the potential proponents was clear that the
portion of the land south of the convent was to be a maximum of four stories.
He suggested this would allow sufficient density. He noted that none of the
delegations was opposed to any intensification; rather, they want that
intensification to be within the boundaries of what they understood the law to
be, which is four stories.
Councillor Doucet further noted that
during his Mayoral campaign, he heard from many communities the idea that the
City should respect its own laws, which they did not think it was doing.
Referencing again the development at Bronson and Second Avenue in his ward, he
noted that while not all residents were completely pleased with it, they
understood that it was within what the law permitted; therefore, the Councillor
and most of the Community supported it. He agreed with the community that in
this case the City was not respecting its own laws.
Councillor Feltmate inquired as to whether
there were financial implications of approving the Zoning before knowing the
results of the Councillor Hume’s motion, which had just been approved. Mr.
Marc indicated that the lands affected by the previously approved motion are
those already proposed to have four stories. He further noted that
expropriation law looks to the highest and best use. Therefore, the OMB would look
at the zoning in place but will also consider the Zoning that could have been
obtained in assessing value.
Councillor Hunter suggested that in order
to achieve four stories across the southern portion of the site, they would be
allowing the development to spread out over the whole site. He suggested it
was a trade-off an argued that it would be better to have it higher, as and
with more open space, as currently proposed, rather than four stories across
the whole portion. Therefore, .he indicated that he would not support the
Councillor Doucet’s motion.
Councillor Leadman suggested that what is
proposed for the site was partly a function of what the developer had paid for
the site, and the need to get a return on investment. She suggested if the bidder
had bid appropriately, in accordance with what was permitted in the secondary
plan, then there would not be over development proposed and a more appealing
and compatible design would have come forward. She reviewed the various
densities of the surrounding streets, noting the zoning surrounding the
property is all low-rise residential with the exception of Richmond Road. She
suggested that the nine-story heights did not conform with what surrounded
them. She suggested this was why the Community requested maximum four stories
in this area, as reflected in the CDP.
Councillor Leadman further suggested that
the development would exacerbate the stretched infrastructure across the
corridor in opposition to Provincial Policy Statements that say developments should
appropriately and efficiently use the infrastructure and public service
facilities which are planned and available and avoid the need for their
unjustified and un-economical expansion. She noting there was nothing proposed
to mitigate the traffic impacts.
She noted that an additional 1800 units
built along the corridor in recent years, not including the 300 in infill
applications. She challenged any characterization of this community as NIMBY or
anti-development, as there has been a substantial amount of the development.
Again referencing the Basic Site Plan and Design Principles document, which
stated that intensification shall not be used as a rationale for approval of
additional height or density, as outlined in the OP. She maintained that intensification
is not a rationale for over-intensification.
Councillor Leadman noted that the
Secondary Plan was very specific about this site, recognizing it was unique.
She suggested its over intensification was not a benefit to the Community, nor
to the City, as it would cost the City money in the end. She noted
infrastructure in this area was limited, suggesting the issue of who would pay
for that infrastructure development had not been addressed.
Councillor Leadman inquired as to how many
e-mails had been received on the issue. The Committee Coordinator indicated
that between two hundred and fifty and three hundred e-mails had been received,
and they were still coming in.
Councillor Leadman suggested the proposal
represented a bad misinterpretation of the CDP/ Secondary Plan, maintaining
that the the only person who can interpret a community’s plan is the community
itself. She indicated her support for the motion brought forward by Councillor
Doucet on her behalf.
Councillor Feltmate wondered how to
protect the public rights of way, Mr. Marc explained that there were a number
of different matters before Committee, to be taken into consideration,
including the approved motion from Councillor Hume, the fact that none of the
motions proposed changing the setbacks, and the prospect of an OMB appeal.
He suggested that if Council proceeded to
approve the first motion from Councillor Hume (re: the holding zone) then there
would be no prospect to occupy that land, as it would be owned by the City. If
the City does not acquire the land, but the zoning is approved with a height of
four stories as moved by Councillor Doucet, the setbacks in the staff report
would remain, and they limit how close the development can get to the property
line. He cautioned, however, that if the height was limited to four stories,
the developer might make an argument to the OMB that if they are limited to
four stories, they should be allowed to occupy additional space.
Councillor Hunter challenged the idea that
four stories was more compatible with the adjacent neighbourhood than the nine
stories, noting there was no definition of compatibility. He referenced
another high rise development approved in the ward with single family homes in
the backyard, suggesting this will make it difficult to argue against this one
before the OMB. He referenced similar developments in his area where apartment
buildings abut high-priced single family development. Councillor Leadman
commented that there is a difference between building a high-rise surrounded by
low rise townhouses at one time, and putting a high-rise development beside
existing low rise development, as in the former case the residents choose to
live beside a high-rise development.
Councillor Hunter referenced the sun
shadow studies, which indicate that sun shadows will not be an issue for
neighbouring properties. ON the issue of parking, he suggested that if one
wants to control the height of buildings, one must require developments to have
more parking, as lessening the parking requirements allows for more building.
Councillor Feltmate expressed frustration
that there was a risk to the community that if they approved four stories, the
OMB could allow smaller setbacks. Councillor Holmes noted the City had lobbied
the Province for years to get rid of the OMB, and suggested its
provincially-appointed members were pro-development, placing the City in this
situation with every development. Notwithstanding, she suggested the City
should do what it could to benefit the Community. She challenged the common
tactic of developers to propose a false choice between a large, pretty building
and a short ugly building.
Councillor Hunter suggested it was
important to take into consideration the rules of the OMB. He noted the current
proposed plan was something the developer and City staff had come to agreement
on, involving tradeoffs on both sides. He suggested that if Council changed
the plan, they lose that agreement, at the expense of taxpayers. He suggested
that, while people might not like the proposal now, there would be over 600
people moving into its units who would be there because they like them. He
also referenced the assessment increase that would increase tax revenues for
the taxpayers of the City.
Councillor Leadman suggested the cash in
lieu of parkland balance for Kitchissippi, the highest in the City, was an
indication of the high level of intensification taking place in the ward. She
stated that the CDP was designed for intensification, and there had already
been significant intensification. She suggested, however, that the proposed
development was out of sync with the rest of the area. She note that other
higher-rise developments (such as Westboro Station and the Exchange) were not
abutting low-rise residential and/or they were located at a gateway. She
suggested the proposed development on this site was not compatible and would
set a bad precedent. She suggested that the appropriate level of
intensification was what was agreed to in the CDP and reflected in the Basic
Site Plan and Design Principles document. She noted other developers had other
plans for the site that demonstrated a respect for those design principles, and
suggested they felt cheated.
On the issue of traffic, she suggested the
traffic challenges that were not going away and that the new development would
exacerbate those problems with the road network, and would cost the City
money. In conclusion she proposed that this development represented an
over-intensification, and while the community is accepting intensification, but
this was too much.
Chair Hume suggested the current situation
posed a dilemma to Committee, Council and the community. He suggested that if
the City had zoned the site upon completion of the Secondary Plan, they might
not be in this position because the zoning would have matched the intent of the
Secondary Plan. He agreed that the Secondary Plan points to four stories to the
south of the convent, but acknowledged that was not City’s staff’s
interpretation, nor necessarily the interpretation that would be before the
OMB. He felt that it was in the best interests of the Community to acquire the
proposed four stories, avoiding a hearing and allowing the developer to proceed
on the rest of the site. Addressing the developers, he stated that he hoped
that his faith that this would happen was not misplaced. He hoped the message
was clear, that if his faith was indeed misplaced he would not want to see a
similar application before him in the future. He indicated that he would not
support the Doucet motion, and would support the rest of the zoning as outlined
in the report.
Committee then voted on Councillor
Doucet’s Motion:
WHEREAS Report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146
recommends certain zoning changes to the lands known municipally as 90 and 114
Richmond Road and 380 Leighton Terrace;
AND WHEREAS the Councillor has requested a
change to Documents 1 and 2 of the said Report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146 to expand
the boundary of the proposed R5B[1763] S256-h zone and require a maximum
permitted building height of 4 storeys within this zone;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
Committee approve the following:
That Document 1 be replaced with the
attached Location Map and Document 2 be replaced with the attached Schedule
256.
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
LOST
YEAS (3): C. Doucet, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate,
NAYS (4): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri,
The location map and
schedule accompanying the above motion can be found below:
Councillor Doucet then introduced his
second motion:
WHEREAS report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146
recommends certain zoning
changes to the lands known municipally as 90 and 114 Richmond Road and 380
Leighton Terrace;
AND WHEREAS the Councillor has requested a change to the recommendation, Details of
Recommended Zoning – Document 3 and the Location Map – Document 1 of the said
report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146
to rezone a portion of the
subject land from I1A to O1[1763] S256-H;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that committee approve the following:
1.
That the Report
Recommendation be amended by inserting after the text “(TM[1763] S256-h)” the
text
“Parks and Open
Space Exception Zone with a Schedule and holding symbol (O1[1763] S256-h)”;
2.
That Document 1
be replaced with the attached Location Map; and,
3.
That Document 3
be amended by replacing the first two sentences after the heading “Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law” with the text:
“The subject properties are to be rezoned
from I1A, TM[83] H(15) and R1MM[762] to TM[1763] S256-h, O1[1763] S256-h and a
R5B[1763] S256-h as shown on Document 1.
A new Exception, TM[1763] S256-h, O1[1763]
S256-h and R5B[1763] S256-h, is added to Section 239 and will include in
effect, the following:”
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
The location map accompanying the above
motion can be found on the following page:
Councillor Holmes then introduced the
following motion. Mr. Marc explained that the motion provides that, if that
portion were to be anything other than a retirement home, the applicants would
need to come back to Committee and Council for a rezoning for parking.
WHEREAS report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146
recommends certain zoning
changes to the lands known municipally as 90 and 114 Richmond Road and 380
Leighton Terrace;
AND WHEREAS the Councillors have requested a change to the Details of Recommended
Zoning – Document 3 of the said report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146 to require a maximum permitted number of parking spaces,
including visitor parking, for all retirement homes, instead of for all uses
located within the residential zone;
AND WHEREAS staff has reviewed the wording and agrees
to the proposed change to said Report;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Committee approve the following:
That Document 3 be amended by deleting
from the ninth provision under the heading “Provisions of Column V” the words
“all uses” and replace with the words “all retirement homes” so that the
provision would read:
“The maximum permitted total cumulative
number of parking spaces, including required visitor parking, for all
retirement homes located within the R5B[1763] S256 zone, is 65.”
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Councillor Feltmate the introduced the
following Motion:
BE
IT RESOLVED THAT Access for development not be permitted across the Byron
Linear Strip and adjacent Parkland
Councillor Hunter suggested that the
motion should be properly dealt with during the Site Plan process, and moved
the following motion to that effect:
BE IT RESOLVED that Councillor Feltmate’s
motion be referred to the consideration of the Site Plan.
Councillor Hunter suggested that there
were only two access alternatives; one was crossing the Byron Linear Strip as
proposed and the other was passing along Shannon Street to Hilson Avenue. He
suggested there was not proper representation from the residents of Hilson or
Shannon with respect to a possible access through Shannon, nor was there an engineering
study of the effect on Shannon Street. He suggested the decision should not be
rushed into, and thus referred to the Site Plan process if not discarded
entirely.
In response to questions from Councillor
Hume in the context of the referral motion, Mr. Marc explained that the
applicant can refer the Site Plan to the OMB, and normally, this type of access
issue would be dealt with at the Site Plan stage. However, he advised that,
because of the nature of this development where Council has a right to say no,
it is probably fair to the developer to let them know what Council’s position
will be, as this might affect the position the applicant takes on the Zoning.
He indicated this was why he had recommended that the motion be brought forward
immediately.
Mr. James explained that the Site Plan had
been recently deemed complete, and would be a two-stage site Plan, and it would
be some time before Site Plan Approval was granted.
On referral, Councillor Doucet commented
that the Basic Site Plan and Design Principles document had indicated vehicular
access for building at the rear of the property would be by extending Shannon Street
into the site, and further noting there was no mention in that document of
cutting through the Byron linear park. He suggested that this should have been
clear to developers, as it was to the Community and the Councillor. He
suggested Councillor Feltmate’s motion confirmed this understanding, and thus had
no concern with approving it immediately.
Councillor Hume wondered if there would still
be a requirement for the access through the Byron pathway if the City was able
to acquire the lands as proposed in the first approved motion. Mr. James
indicated that it would be difficult to say, but there might need to be access
off of Shannon.
Councillor Leadman noted that the Byron
Access was intended to service the four story residential portion, which she
understood to be 65 cars. She suggested, therefore, that if that portion of
the site were acquired by the City, there would no longer be a need for that
crossing. She noted that all the public feedback was in opposition to this
crossing, and suggested there would be an alternative that does not take away a
public asset for the benefit of the few. She asked Committee to reject
deferral and support the motion from Councillor Feltmate.
Committee then voted on Councillor
Hunter’s motion to refer:
BE IT RESOLVED that Councillor Feltmate’s
motion be referred to the consideration of the Site Plan.
LOST
YEAS (1): G. Hunter
NAYS (6): C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, B.
Monette, S. Qadri,
On the substantive motion, Councillor Hunter suggested that
Committee had not heard from all sides of the argument. He suggested that
Shannon Street would likely have to be brought up to standard, which would
affect the residents of that street. He suggested this was unfair to do
without properly consulting those residents. He also challenged the idea that
the driveway servicing 65 vehicles would ruin the Byron Linear Park.
Councillor Holmes suggested it should not be necessary to take
Shannon Street up to a standard road allowance, referenced some very narrow
streets in her ward where people have to go slowly, squeeze in, or just pull
over and let each other pass. She suggested Shannon Street could remain as a
lane.
In response to questions from Councillor Monette, staff confirmed
that there were five homes on Shannon Street that would be affected, and that
those five homes had not been specifically notified of the motion. Therefore,
Councillor Monette indicated he had serious reservations with moving forward
without consulting with these five families, and indicated he was not prepared
to support such a motion until getting their input.
Councillor Feltmate expressed her frustration with the mixed
messages from staff and the proponent around whether only 65 cars would be
using the driveway or potentially more when you consider visitors. She
suggested the notion of only 65 cars was a fallacy, and a poor excuse to cross
the linear park. She suggested more due diligence should have been done on some
of the rationales in the report.
Councillor Doucet noted that the overwhelming majority of the
residents who use the Byron corridor every day were opposed to the crossing.
He noted that every time ones comes to a break in the path, one has to worry
about the safety of the children, regardless of the numbers of vehicles. He
suggested that they should not be even having the debate, but rather just
listen to the Ward Councillor and the Community on this issue.
Councillor Leadman suggested that, since the purpose of the Byron
cut through was to service the 260 units in the rear of the site, and those
units would be removed by virtue of the first motion approved, that access
should no longer be required. She also indicated that this did not necessarily
mean Shannon Street would be used. Further, she suggested that if the density was
so high that it requires an access across Byron, then it was too high a
density.
Committee then considered Councillor Feltmate’s motion:
BE
IT RESOLVED THAT Access for development not be permitted across the Byron
Linear Strip and adjacent Parkland
CARRIED
YEAS (5): C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, P. Hume, S.
Qadri,
NAYS (2): G. Hunter, B. Monette
Committee then moved on to consider the staff recommendation, as
amended by the above motions:
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law
No. 2008-250 to change the zoning of 90 Richmond Road, 114 Richmond Road and
380 Leighton Terrace from Minor Institutional (I1A), Traditional Mainstreet
(TM[83] H(15)) and Residential First Density (R1MM[762]), to a Traditional
Mainstreet Exception zone with a Schedule and holding symbol (TM[1763] S256-h)
and a Residential Fifth Density Subzone B Exception zone with a Schedule and
holding symbol (R5B[1763] S256-h), to permit a Mixed Use and Residential
Development, as shown in Document 1 and Detailed in Documents 2 and 3, as
amended by the following:
1.
That the zoning be amended to provide the following conditions to
the holding zone:
a.
No development shall be permitted on the lands outlined in black
on Document 1 until Council has considered a report to impose a special rate to
permit the acquisition of such land, less land taken as parkland under the
Planning Act, section 42;
b.
If Council has not approved the acquisition of the lands outlined
in black , less lands to be acquired under section 42, and a special rate to
permit the acquisition by 31 March 2011 this provision will be deemed to be
void and of no effect
c.
If Council has approved the acquisition of the lands outlined in
black, less lands to be acquired under section 42, and the special rate by 31
March 2011, this provision shall remain in effect until 31 March 2014;
2.
The determination of the special rate take into account the
possibility of using funds from amounts contributed in Kitchissippi Ward to
cash-in-lieu of Parkland, other than funds directed towards City Wide purposes.
3.
The City take Parkland, and not cash-in-lieu of parkland, in
respect of this development and that such parkland be adjacent to the Byron
Linear Strip.
4.
That the
Report Recommendation be amended by inserting after the text “(TM[1763]
S256-h)” the text “Parks and Open Space Exception Zone with a Schedule and holding
symbol (O1[1763]; and
5.
That
Document 1 be replaced with the attached Location Map; and
6.
That
Document 3 be amended by replacing the first two sentences after the heading “Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law” with the text:
“The subject properties are to be rezoned
from I1A, TM[83] H(15) and R1MM[762] to TM[1763] S256-h, O1[1763] S256-h and a
R5B[1763] S256-h as shown on Document 1.
A new Exception, TM[1763] S256-h, O1[1763]
S256-h and R5B[1763] S256-h, is added to Section 239 and will include in
effect, the following:”
7.
That
Document 3 be amended by deleting from the ninth provision under the heading
“Provisions of Column V” the words “all uses” and replace with the words “all
retirement homes” so that the provision would read:
“The maximum permitted total cumulative
number of parking spaces, including required visitor parking, for all
retirement homes located within the R5B[1763] S256 zone, is 65.”
8.
That access
for development not be permitted across the Byron Linear Strip and adjacent
Parkland.
9.
That there
be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Councillors G. Hunter and B. Monette
Dissented
Upon Committee’s approval of the Zoning,
as amended, Councillor Hunter then introduced the following motion with respect
to the heritage designation of the site:
WHEREAS Council on 14 April 2010 approved the designation under
the Ontario Heritage Act, Part IV, of 114 Richmond Road;
AND WHEREAS objections to this designation have been filed;
AND WHEREAS the Conservation Review Board has scheduled a second
pre-hearing conference for 02 December, 2010;
AND WHEREAS in the additional time since the April 14th
2010 decision of Council, further information regarding the history of the site
has been revealed;
AND WHEREAS Planning and Environment Committee has considered the
zoning with respect to this site;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee recommended
that Council:
1.
Endorse the Revised Statement of
Cultural Heritage Value attached as Document 1;
2.
Should Document 1 also be
endorsed by the Conservation Review Board, authorize the enactment of a by-law
to designate the property at 114 Richmond on the basis of Document 1.
Mr. Marc explained the purpose of the
Motion. He noted that, since Committee had just approved a recommendation to
Council on the Zoning, they may want to consider a motion to deal with the
Heritage designation of the land, which has been referred to the Conservation
Review Board (CRB). He explained that the CRB does not make a final
determination; rather, it makes a recommendation to Council and Council has the
final decision. Councillor Hunter’s motion provides that the portions highlighted
on the associated map would be subject to the Hertitage designation, rather
than the entire site as originally approved. If this motion were to be adopted
by Committee and Council, it would become the City’s position before the CRB,
and if the CRB were to concur, Council would be able to complete the
designation and adopt a By-law under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, reviewed
the recommended revised Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, highlighting the
changes that had been made in light of new information obtained after Council’s
approval of the designation. She noted that, by virtue of additional work by
dedicated members of the Community and a better understanding of the site by
City heritage staff, the statement has been finessed and the heritage
attributes revised to more correctly link the grounds to the historic use of
the site by the Sisters. She briefly outlined what had been added and/ or
clarified, which is reflected in the above Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value. She noted that, while that the sisters did use the south portion of the
site, the evidence of such use has disappeared. Under the Ontario Heritage
Act one cannot designate or list as an attribute something that no longer
exists. She suggested the revised document better reflected the lives of the
individual families who had owned the site, and the rich lives of the sisters
of the visitation.
In response to questions from Councillor
Leadman as to why OBHAC had not been required to approve the change in the
designation, Mr. Marc explained that the matter was now outside the purview of
OBHAC, as it was before Committee, Council and the CRB. He noted that whatever
Committee and Council decides would be put before the CRB, which is made up of
heritage experts, and Committee and Council will have the benefit of their
expert advice on the motion.
Councillor Leadman did not understand why
they would change the originally approved heritage designation, suggesting the
revised statement could just be forwarded to the CRB. She further noted that
the developer had already filed to the OMB based on their original application,
and the heritage designation was based on that application. Mr. Marc explained
that one appeals to the OMB based on the time limits, the OMB is sent a copy of
the application at the time of appeal. However, that original proposal is not
what the applicant is seeking now. He further noted that the Heritage
Designation was an independent determination by Council, and was not tied to
any specific application. He suggested the zoning decision was new
information, and it was up to Council to decide if that changes its opinion of
designation or not.
Ms. Coutts noted that some of the material
added to the statement, as result of work by David Jeanes, was not yet before
the CRB, as it was found after designation. She suggested these revisions were
not related to the proposed development on the site.
Councillor Leadman maintained that the
original designation approved by Council was for the whole site, and did not
see a need to change the designation. She suggested sending the additional
documentation to the CRB would provide more strength to the heritage
attributes. She also noted that there were not attributes listed at the time
Council decided to approve the designation of the entire parcel, so adding
additional attributes should not remove designation.
In response to questions from Councillor
Hume, Mr. Marc suggested it would be awkward and odd to be recommending
designation of the whole site while simultaneously recommending development of
the kind that is being proposed. He suggested the motion would make for a more
consistent argument before the CRB. He further noted that, regardless, Council
would have to amend the designation to implement the approved development. Ms.
Coutts added that if it were the entire parcel designated, , there would need
to be an application for new construction under the Ontario Heritage Act for
the proposed building go forward
Councillor Leadman suggested the approved
heritage designation was important in order to bring that additional requirement
to ensure the development is respectful of the heritage.
Councillor Hunter noted that staff had
prepared the wording of the motion. He suggested it focused the designation by
taking into account what elements are important to protect and focus on, removing
from it those areas where development can occur and there are not attributes.
He suggested if there was to be any credibility in protecting important
heritage aspects, the City should have a focused and clear statement on what
are important and reflected in the designation.
Councillor Leadman disagreed with the
assessment by Councillor Hunter, and questioned the need to bring forward a
change to the designation at this point. She suggested if those land were
removed from the heritage designation, then the impacts of those buildings on
the heritage building will not be considered.
Ms. Coutts pointed out that under the OP
policies and Provincial Policy statement there are very clear guidelines that
require that buildings adjacent to designated heritage buildings respect the
heritage character of those buildings. Therefore, the developer has to respond
to make the adjacent buildings compatible with the heritage buildings, and
would still need to prove compatibility even without designation on the whole
site. She noted that the Site Plan would also be going to OBHAC
Councillor Leadman did not think there was
enough strength in the process seen to date to ensure that protection, which is
why heritage designation is needed. She did not think it was appropriate to
support the motion, as it weakens the heritage aspects of the site, potentially
compromising the building if there is not the additional step of review
process.
Committee then considered and approved the motion from Councillor Hunter:
WHEREAS Council on 14 April 2010 approved the designation under
the Ontario Heritage Act, Part IV, of 114 Richmond Road;
AND WHEREAS objections to this designation have been filed;
AND WHEREAS the Conservation Review Board has scheduled a second
pre-hearing conference for 02 December, 2010;
AND WHEREAS in the additional time since the April 14th
2010 decision of Council, further information regarding the history of the site
has been revealed;
AND WHEREAS Planning and Environment Committee has considered the
zoning with respect to this site;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Planning and Environment Committee recommended
that Council:
1.
Endorse the Revised Statement of
Cultural Heritage Value attached as Document 1;
2.
Should Document 1 also be
endorsed by the Conservation Review Board, authorize the enactment of a by-law
to designate the property at 114 Richmond on the basis of Document 1.
CARRIED
The revised Statement of Cultural Heritage
Value and associated location map can be found below:
DOCUMENT
1
STATEMENT
OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE
Description
of Property - The Soeurs de la Visitation d’Ottawa, 114 Richmond Road.
The
Soeurs de la Visitation d’Ottawa Monastery is a large stone structure, located
on Richmond Road in the Westboro neighbourhood of Ottawa.
Statement
of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
The
Soeurs de la Visitation d’Ottawa Monastery is comprised of two parts, a Gothic
Revival house built in 1864-1865 and the large stone addition constructed in
1913 to transform the structure into a monastery. Its cultural heritage value
lies in its being an excellent example of both an 1860s Gothic Revival House
designed for and occupied by members of the elite and an early 20th
century monastery. The complex has historical value for its association with
James Skead (owner 1880 until his death in 1884, whose widow lived there until
1887), a lumberman, senator, Ottawa booster and founder of Skead’s Mills and
George Holland, (owner 1887-1910), a successful publisher and innovator, and
with the Soeurs de la Visitation d’Ottawa. It is also a rare surviving example
of a property that housed a cloistered religious community for over 100 years
and functioned as a self-sustaining entity for much of that time.
The
original two and a half storey stone house was built in 1864-1865. It was
designed by English architect Sidney Bowles Fripp for James Dyke, a local
merchant, who quickly sold it to George Eaton, a gentleman farmer. It was one
of a number of properties built on larger lots laid out along Richmond Road for
members of Ottawa’s emerging elite class. The longest owner of the building
prior to its purchase and conversion to a monastery in the early 20th
century was George Holland, a prominent local newspaperman, and, with his
brother Andrew, a communications entrepreneur.
In
1909 George and Alison Holland sold the entire property to the Soeurs de la
Visitation, a cloistered order of nuns whose members devote their lives to
prayer. Founded in Annecy, France in 1610, the order established monasteries
across Europe in the centuries following its establishment. The order’s
founders, St. Francis de Sales and Ste. Jeanne Francois de Chantal,
have both been beatified. The nuns
moved into the house in 1910 and, by 1913, its conversion to a monastery was
complete. A tall, two storey building with an attic, it consists of four
wings, arranged around a central courtyard or cloister, a plan followed by the
monasteries of medieval Europe, and used for Roman Catholic convents and
monasteries around the world. Soon after its acquisition by the Soeurs de la
Visitation, the property was encircled by high walls which shielded the
monastery from the exterior world, although the Chapel was used by the
community throughout its history. In the years following its establishment, the
grounds evolved from food production into a contemplative space, also used by
the nuns for recreation.
Description
of Heritage Attributes
Key
attributes that embody the cultural heritage value of the Soeurs de la
Visitation d’Ottawa Monastery as an excellent example of both a large Gothic
Revival house built for and inhabited by members of Ottawa’s elite and a
monastery housing a contemplative order of nuns include:
House
• steeply
pitched roof with narrow gable-roofed dormers
• location
of the east facing veranda
• bay
window with wooden pointed arch details
• decorative
bargeboard
• tall
chimneys
•
stone quoins and voussoirs
•
Distinctive “pinwheel plan” and central staircase
•
Stone construction
Monastery
• tall, two storey stone construction
with regularly spaced rectangular windows
•
inward-facing plan with the wings arranged around a central
courtyard or cloister, enclosed on four sides
•
Pattern of the flowerbeds within central courtyard or cloister
•
high hipped metal-clad roof with gable and triangular dormers
•
bellcote
•
first and second floor galleries overlooking the grounds
•
Chapel, its interior volume and pointed arch windows
Grounds
•
picturesque gardens associated with the Gothic Revival house, with
the layout of pathways, flowerbeds and mature trees
•
pathway around the periphery of the site to the south of the
monastery used by the nuns for recreation, including the allée of trees that
defines the pathway on the east side of the property
•
The trees and shrubs along the walls planted to buffer the site
from the outside world
•
The strategic placement of the house on a slight rise
The flat
roofed addition to the north of the chapel, the enclosed passageway to the west
of the building, the metal barrier wall, the former garage to the east of the
building and the small shed-roofed addition to the south of the building are
not included in the designation.
Councillor Feltmate then introduced the
following motion:
Be it resolved that in order to provide
more transparency and accountability to the public, Planning Reports, including
Zoning changes, include dissenting opinions from other departments.
Chair Hume ruled that this motion was not
a matter related specifically to the Zoning of the site before Committee, and
Councillor Feltmate could submit it as a Notice of Motion to be considered at
the first meeting in January 2011. Mr. Marc suggested that it could also be
referred to the governance debate at Council.
Councillor Feltmate preferred that come
forward to a Committee meeting to that public notice and delegations would be
allowed. Chair Hume gave his assurance that if the Councillor moved it as a
notice of motion, the matter would be considered by Committee in January.
ACS202010-CMR-LEG-0021 kitchissippi (15)
Discussion
of this item occurred as part of the discussion of Item 3 above. As no motion
came forward as part of the Zoning discussions, this report’s provisions were
not considered by Committee.
That Planning and Environment Committee consider
amending the zoning by-law amendment for the above site to include a provision
in accordance with Document 1, pursuant to the Planning Act¸ section 37.
RECEIVED
OTTAWA BUILT
HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE
PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0194 SOMERSET (14)
Comments were received from Paul Couvrette with
respect to this matter, which were circulated and are held on file with the
City Clerk.
The following individuals registered to speak to this
matter:
·
Paul Couvrette
·
David Krajaefski, Stantec
Consulting Ltd., applicant
Due to the lengthy discussions on the preceding item,
the above delegations were no longer present when Committee considered this
item. Councillor Holmes, the Ward Councillor, indicated that she had spoken
with both delegations. She stated that Mr. Couvrette’s concerns related to
matters such as access, which related to Site Plan. She indicated she would
work with staff to address those concerns during the Site Plan process.
Committee then approved the recommendations of the
Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee and staff, as presented.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
1. Approve the application
for permission to demolish a one-storey service centre and for new
construction at 435 Gladstone Avenue in accordance with the plans by M. David
Blakley, submitted by Stantec Consulting Ltd., received on October 4, 2010.
2. Issue the Heritage Permit
with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3. Delegate authority for
minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth
Management Department.
(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.)
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on
January 2, 2011.)
CARRIED
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES
COLLECTIVITÉS
PLANNING
and growth management
ACS2010-ICS- PGM-0188 rideau-vanier (12)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 164 Jeanne Mance Street from
Residential Fourth Density Subzone [R4O] to Minor Institutional Subzone [I1A].
ACS2010-ICS- PGM- 0191 CUMBERLAND (19)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of Part of 2484 Trim Road from DR Development
Reserve and AG Agricultural to Residential – R3YY Exception Zone XX and O1 Open Space, as shown in Documents 1 and 2 and
as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
ZONAGE - 5370,
CHEMIN CANOTEK
ACS2010-ICS- PGM-0200 BEACON HILL-CYRVILLE (11)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 5370 Canotek Road by amending Exception
[293] as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
9. ZONING - 2411 PAGE ROAD
ZONAGE
- 2411, CHEMIN PAGE
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0201 innes (2)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to
change the zoning of a part of 2411 Page Road from Residential First
Density Zone, Subzone WW (R1WW) to Residential First Density, Subzone WW -
Exception Zone (R1WW - [XXXX]) as shown in Document 1 and as
detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS- PGM-0203 SOMERSET (14)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 154 O’Connor Street from R5B[482]
F(3.0) (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception 482, Floor Space Index
3.0) to R5B[xxxx] F(3.0) (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception xxx,
Floor Space Index 3.0) to permit a restaurant and to permit a commercial
parking lot as a temporary use for a period of three years, as shown in
Document 1, and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
11. ZONING
– 6060 RENAUD ROAD
ZONAGE
- 6060, CHEMIN RENAUD
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0204 innes (2)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning
of 6060 Renaud Road from Development Reserve, (DR) to Residential First
Density, Subzone WW (R1WW), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0207 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1375 Johnston Road from IL - Light Industrial Zone to IL [xxxx] - Light Industrial Zone,
Exception [xxxx] , as detailed in
Document 2.
Adam Thompson, Novatech Engineering, was present on
behalf of the applicants, and supported deferral to the next meeting. Staff
indicated they were also in agreement with deferral.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
That this item be deferred to the first regular
meeting in January 2011.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0208 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Comments were
received from the Overbrook Community Association with respect to this item,
which were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk.
Miguel
Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants, was present on behalf of the applicant.
Sheila
Perry was present on behalf of the Overbrook Community Association. She
indicated that she was in support, but wished to provide additional comments on
behalf of the association. The Chair indicated to the delegation that her
comments would be provided as part of the package that was provided to City
Council.
The ward
Councillor, Councillor Legendre, was present and indicated his support for the
application.
Committee then
approved the report recommendations, as presented:
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend Council approve:
1.
An amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1200 St. Laurent Boulevard
from GM24 [89] F(1.0) H(25),
General Mixed Use zone to a new GM24 [1787] F(1.0) S263, General Mixed Use zone,
as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Documents 3 and 4;
2.
An amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 500 Coventry Road from IL [280] H(11) to a new GM24[1787] F(1.0) S263-h1,
General Mixed Use zone, as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Documents 3 and
4; and
3.
An amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 525 Coventry Road from IL [281] H(11), and 535 Coventry Road from and IL
H(11) both to a new GM24[1787] F(1.0) S263-h2, General Mixed Use zone, as
detailed in Document 2 and shown in Documents 3 and 4.
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0192 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
(This
matter is Subject to Bill 51)
Councillor
Feltmate moved a technical amendment, at the request of staff.
Moved by
Councillor P. Feltmate:
That
report number ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0192 be amended by the following:
Amend Column III of Document 1, regarding Section 197
(10) – Traditional Mainstreet Zone, to 1) add a comma after the first use of
the word “lot”, and a second comma after the second use of the word “lot” in
the first sentence; 2) immediately following the word “block”, add the wording:
“, or on a lot on the opposite side of the public street on which the use
requiring the parking is located”; and 3) to delete the second sentence in its
entirety, so that the clause would now read:
“Despite any requirements to the contrary, parking for
a use required on one lot, may be located on another lot, but must be in the
same city block, or on a lot on the opposite side of the public street on which
the use requiring the parking is located.”
And that there be no further notice pursuant to
Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Committee then
approved the report recommendations, as amended.
1.
That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the amendments recommended
in Column 3 of Documents 1 and 3 to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law
2008-250; as amended by the following
Amend Column III of Document 1, regarding Section 197
(10) – Traditional Mainstreet Zone, to 1) add a comma after the first use of
the word “lot”, and a second comma after the second use of the word “lot” in
the first sentence; 2) immediately following the word “block”, add the wording:
“, or on a lot on the opposite side of the public street on which the use
requiring the parking is located”; and 3) to delete the second sentence in its
entirety, so that the clause would now read:
“Despite any requirements to the contrary, parking for
a use required on one lot, may be located on another lot, but must be in the
same city block, or on a lot on the opposite side of the public street on which
the use requiring the parking is located.”
And that there be no further notice pursuant to
Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0206 barrhaven (3)
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council enact a By-law to change the name of portions of the street named
Harthill Way as follows and as shown in Document 1:
(a) Parts 7, 11, 21 and 25 on
Plan 4R-23525 from “Harthill Way” to “Broxburn Crescent”;
(b) Parts 9 and 23 on Plan 4R-23525 from
“Harthill Way” to “Kippen Place”; and
(c) Part 13 and 19 on Plan
4R-23525 from “Harthill Way” to “Fraser Fields Way”.
CARRIED
16. 2009
DRINKING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT
RAPPORT ANNUEL 2009 DU SYSTÈME DE GESTION
DE LA QUALITÉ DE L’EAU POTABLE
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0028 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning and Environment Committee
and Council receive the 2009 Drinking Water Quality Management System Annual
Report.
CARRIED
17. JULY
24, 2009 WEST-END FLOODING ACTION PLAN – STATUS UPDATE
PLAN D’ACTION POUR LES INONDATIONS DU 24
JUILLET 2009 DANS LA PARTIE OUEST DE LA VILLE – RAPPORT DE SITUATION
Kanata North/Nord(4)
WEST
CARLETON-MARCH (5)
STITTSVILLE
(6)
ACS2010-ICS-INF-0011 KANATA
SOUTH/SUD (23)
Alain Gonthier, Manager of Asset Management, provided
an overview of the staff report by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy
of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He was accompanied by Wayne
Newell, Director of Infrastructure Services, and Dixon Weir, General Manager of
Environmental Services.
In response to Councillor Feltmate question
regarding how much of the $4 million put into the 2010 budget has been spent on
the flooding, Mr. Gonthier didn’t have the exact figure on hand. He replied that
half of the $4 million was for sewer replacement covers and the installation of
inlet control devices, and the other costs for the study and functional design
work for more complex solutions.
In response to further questions from Councillor
Feltmate with respect to the funds already identified for 2010-2012, staff noted
that $20 million already identified as part of the 2010 budget, was a
preliminary estimate done before they defined what the solutions were. Now that
there is a better sense of the actual solutions, those estimates are being
revised and will be finalized as part of the Glen Cairn Environmental
Assessment. He suggested they were in the range of $30M to $32M for the entire
West End, which translates into a $12 million increase spread over a few years
to cover Stittsville, Kanata North, Kanata South and West Carleton-March.
In response to additional questions, staff
indicated that they did not have an exact count of the number of sanitary
covers that have been replaced but they are being installed every day and they
will hopefully all be installed by the end of 2010. The inlet control devices
have already started to be installed and may extend into 2011 because there may
be constraints in terms of access to catch basins.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s
questions, staff stated that they had been fairly open with the Public Advisory
Committee throughout the process, and when the action plan is tabled, all of
the information will be tabled at the same time for the wider general public. The
plan will be subject to a 30-day public review process wherein the public will
have the ability to review all of the information contained in the
Environmental Assessment document.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s
question regarding what the impact would have been if an additional culvert or
overland flow between Glen Cairn the Monaghan drain system, staff responded
that more culverts that are crossing the trail, the more risk of more flows getting
into the community.
Councillor Feltmate acknowledged staff’s
hard work working with the Councillors in the community, at meetings and
answering emails. The Chair concurred and stated that sooner or later every
part of the City will need their help, so all were thankful for the work they
do.
In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s
questions, staff confirmed that they had been in contact with Mississippi Valley
Conservation Authority, and operating staff from the wastewater and drainage
have been involved with the authority in trying to assist them in some of their
activities and maintenance requirements. Councillor El-Chantiry echoed thanks
to the staff.
In response to Councillor Qadri’s question regarding
pressures that the cleanup would put on the Carp River in terms of water flow,
Mr. Gonthier stated all of the flows would be taken into consideration through
other proposals and reviews. Staff confirmed that that this issue would be
flagged for the future.
In response to further questions from Councillor
Qadri, Mr. Weir indicated that the cost of the Hazeldean pump station and the
pressures it may put on other pump stations was not captured in this report;
rather, the Planning and Growth Management department is leading another
assessment looking at the entire network and the west end sanitary sewage collection
process. Staff confirmed that the $30 to $32 million estimate was strictly for
the localized area in terms of the Hazeldean Pump Station and some of the other
solutions for Glen Cairn and Stittsville.
Councillor Qadri asked how the Monahan
drain flow would be affected by the development of Fernbank. Staff responded
that the issue would be looked at in the context of the development process;
nonetheless, staff is looking at it from a flood relief perspective to ensure
flows are following their intended course away from the Glen Cairn community.
Staff further indicated that they would look into whether the upgrade of that
area was part of the Fernbank Community Design Plan (CDP) or if it was part of
the $32 millino, because there were already initiatives underway to the Monahan
drain improvements, and indicated they would a more definitive answer as to what
is included in this project to avoid duplication of costing.
In response to a request for clarification
of Slide 18 of the staff presentation, staff clarified that flow restrictors
are required on the first connection to prevent uncontrolled flows from going
into the sewer system and impacting downstream users and they must stay in
place until the development has reached a point where its flow restriction
devices are actually installed. These are the standards in place that are now
applicable to new developments coming into the process.
Chair Hume mentioned that there was a significant
need to invest in infrastructure with little flexibility in their financial
plans to address that. Mr. Weir confirmed that the 2011 budget would outline an
ability to build some reserve capacity to address these sorts of emerging waste
water issues, as staff was putting together the long range financial plan. He stated
that in the development of the financial plan, the department works closely
with the City Treasurer to look at best practices in terms of creating a
sustainable reserve to deal with surprise infrastructure failures.
After concluding questions to staff,
Committee heard from the following public delegation:
Ted Cooper spoke primarily with respect to the
possible downstream impacts of what is proposed in the West End Flooding Action
Plan. He did so by means of a detailed PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which
is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted that, although he was a City of
Ottawa employee, he was presenting as a private citizen. He raised the
following points:
·
He stated that
consideration should be given to other possible impacts that might not be
anticipated or budgeted for unless a bigger watershed view of the problem is
taken.
·
He expressed concern
for lack of coordination with the Kanata West Class Environmental Assessments
(EAs) because notices of completion for the EAs were posted at the end of July
of 2010, several months before Council has seen any information on an action
plan for an investigation.
·
He stated that the EAs
located downstream from Glen Cairn and Stittsville flood damage centres should
be coordinated because they are part of the same watershed.
·
As an example of
increased risk due to lack of coordination, he used the Maple Grove road
crossing which is a 5.65 meter culvert. He noted that all of the assessments on
flood levels have been based in an 18 meter wide bridge which is not scheduled
to be built until 2023 to 2031 timeframe, and by that point there will have
been significant urbanization.
·
He stressed that the
impact of future development and increase flows from Glen Cairn be factored in.
·
He also expressed
concern with the aggravation of downstream flood levels.
·
He illustrated how the
City undertook a rehabilitation of Huntmar Drive with the intent of raising the
road’s profile to 93.1 meters, but the third party review indicated that the
flood levels would increase to an elevation.36 meters higher than the road. He
asked that committee learn from this lesson.
·
He concluded by
recommending the City ask the Ministry of the Environment to suspend its review
of the part 2 order request filed under the
Kanata West class EAs so that a more detailed assessment of interim conditions
can be completed and that the West End flood investigation be coordinated with
the Kanata west class EAs so that the investment in public infrastructure is
sustainable in the long term.
In response to Councillor Feltmate’s
follow up questions, Mr. Gonthier indicated that the next level of detail would
be to ensure that whatever is being put in place is not just transferring the
problem downstream. He stated that the purpose of raising the road on Huntmar
Drive was not to keep the road out of the floodplain; rather the reason to
change the profile of the road was to go from a grade separation to an at-grade
crossing of the railway. He added that staff want to make sure that there is
some sense of long term opportunity and a good sense of what the long term
direction will be.
Councillor Feltmate then introduced the
following motion:
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS debris blocking a culvert was
identified as one of the causes of flooding in the Katimavik – Hazeldean
community on July 24, 2009;
AND WHEREAS accumulation of debris in
ditches, culverts and other drainage courses is a significant concern in
communities with a history of flooding;
AND WHEREAS there is not a clear policy on
which department or branch is responsible for keeping drainage courses clear or
what level of vegetation or plant debris is acceptable;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That
Environmental Services staff be instructed to:
1.
Prepare a
policy on debris in creeks, drainage ditches and other drainage courses to
balance water quality and water flow concerns; and
2.
Co-ordinate
efforts of staff in other departments and branches, as well as external
agencies, to keep creeks, drainage ditches and other drainage courses free of
unnecessary debris; and
3.
Report back to
Planning and Environment Committee on what has been put in place.
In response to questions of clarification,
Councillor Feltmate confirmed the intent was that if a policy was required it
would come back as a policy report, and if policy changes are not required it
would come back for information, and an IPD would be sufficient.
Councillor Qadri wondered if a proposed
policy apply to backyard drainage ditches, or the pipes going across the road
or laneways. Mr. Weir suggested that would indeed be part of staff’s review.
He noted that they had identified surface water management as being a key area
that needs greater attention. He suggested the department would work with the
relevant departments and branched involved in that service area and try to
consolidate or rationalize some of the roles and responsibilities. Mr. Weir
indicated that staff understood the principles of the motion and the methods
for reporting back.
Councillor Qadri also wanted to pass on his my
congratulations to staff and the Community Association in Glen Cairn for doing
a great job on the west end flooding issue.
Committee the approved Councillor
Feltmate’s first motion.
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Environmental Services
staff be instructed to:
1.
Prepare a policy on debris
in creeks, drainage ditches and other drainage courses to balance water quality
and water flow concerns; and
2.
Co-ordinate efforts of
staff in other departments and branches, as well as external agencies, to keep
creeks, drainage ditches and other drainage courses free of unnecessary debris;
and
3.
Report back to Planning and
Environment Committee on what has been put in place.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS allowing stormwater to temporarily accumulate
on the surface is a key part of the strategy for preventing flooding during
heavy rainfall events;
AND WHEREAS many residents are not aware of this and
see accumulation of stormwater in parks or on roads as a sign of problems
rather than a way to prevent flooding;
AND WHEREAS this has led to residents removing sewer
access covers during heavy rainfall events to allow water on the surface to
drain faster;
AND WHEREAS this has contributed to problems of sewer
backups;
AND WHEREAS some vegetation in ditches and stormwater
management ponds is needed to act as a natural filter to address water quality
issues;
AND WHEREAS this information has not been provided to
residents;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Environmental Services
launch a public awareness campaign on drainage issues including the role that
surface accumulation of water during heavy rainfall events, the need to not
remove manhole covers when water accumulates on the surface and what level of
debris is acceptable or even helpful.
CARRIED
Committee then approved the report recommendation, as
amended:
That the Planning and Environment
Committee and Council receive this report for information, and approve:
1. That
Environmental Services staff be instructed to:
a)
Prepare a policy on
debris in creeks, drainage ditches and other drainage courses to balance water
quality and water flow concerns; and
b)
Co-ordinate efforts of
staff in other departments and branches, as well as external agencies, to keep
creeks, drainage ditches and other drainage courses free of unnecessary debris;
and
c)
Report back to Planning
and Environment Committee on what has been put in place.
2. That
Environmental Services launch a public awareness campaign on drainage issues
including the role that surface accumulation of water during heavy rainfall
events, the need to not remove manhole covers when water accumulates on the
surface and what level of debris is acceptable or even helpful.
CARRIED
18. RESPONSE TO
INQUIRY PEC 08 – 09 - CITIZEN ARTICLE – WATERMAIN TROUBLES RECEDE
RÉPONSE AU DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS NO.
PEC 08 – 09 - ARTICLE DU CITIZEN – PROBLÈMES AVEC LA CONDUITE D’EAU PRINCIPALE
ACS2010- CCS-PEC-0046 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the
Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
19. RESPONSE TO
INQUIRY PEC 08 – 10 – ODOUR AT THE GLEN CAIRN POND
RÉPONSE AU DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS NO.
PEC 08 – 10 - ODEURS À L’ÉTANG GLEN CAIRN
ACS2010- CCS-PEC-0047 KANATA SOUTH/SUD (23)
Committee received comments
from Faith Blacquiere with respect to this matter, which are held on file with
the City Clerk.
Dixon Weir, General Manager
of Environmental Services, was accompanied by Michel Chevalier, Manager of Wastewater Services, Felice
Petti, Manager of Surface Water Management, and Eva Spalding, Stormwater
Management Engineer.
At the request of Chair Hume, Ms. Spalding
reviewed her background with the City, where she started as a storm water
management engineer in 2002. She noted that she currently managed a staff of
eight, supporting 245 storm water management facilities right now under them.
Mr. Chevalier made a brief presentation
with respect to staff’s response to complaints of odour at the Glen Cairn Pond.
She raised the following points:
·
Staff is taking every
odour complaint very seriously and respond odour issues on a 24/7 365 basis.
·
Staff received a
number of complaints with respect to odour at the Glen Cairn Pond, including
four calls from one complainant and one call by another complainant, all
between May 26 and June 21, 2010.
·
Starting with the
second call, staff escalated their response and actually met with the
complainant when he had experienced odours, and had met with him on site less
than an hour after he had experienced the odour. She noted that the storm water
treatment unit group also met with him and never experience any odours at that
time, and the complainant agreed that they were no longer present
·
She noted that one of
the challenges was the difficulty to pinpoint exactly where the problem is,
since they have not experience the odours
·
She noted that the
pond in question is owned by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority. .The
City operates the water quality portion of the pond but the water quantity
portion of the pond is operated by the Authority.
·
Staff is in contact
with the Conservation Authority and are providing assistance, and are more than
willing to provide technical assistance if they require it.
·
Although the City does
not own and operate the pond, staff certainly keep an eye on it and we ensure
that it works properly.
·
On this issue of
sediment levels, he it had been suggested that cleaning the pond might solve
the odour issues. He noted that cleaning the pond will cost somewhere between
$3.5 and $4 million, and would probably be done by the MVCA, with technical
assistance from the City if they require it.
·
He pointed out that
this project was well connected to the Glen Cairn assessment, and the storm water
treatment unit is connected with that assessment, working in collaboration with
those staff. He suggested that if or when the pond was cleaned, it would be
done in coordination with the rest of the study.
In conclusion, staff assured Committee that
staff has conducted a thorough investigation of the pond, including manholes in
the area, all the grills. He noted that they had found no evidence of beavers
or blockages, nor any signs of sewage contamination. He suggested the pond is
functioning normally, with the exception of the sedimentation that would be
expected in a 30- year old pond. He reiterated that they would work with the
Conservation Authority on cleaning it out soon.
Councillor Feltmate thanked staff for their report,
noting staff had investigated the issue and attended to the facility more than
once, at various times of the day and night. Councillor Feltmate wondered
whether there was any consideration that the odour might have been coming from
the Hazeldean Pumping Station. Staff stated that they had not received
complaints from that area, and so would be very surprised if it’s coming from there.
In response to further questions staff confirmed that the Conservation
Authority was following up on the issue and staff was assisting them.
Councillor Feltmate referenced a lengthy e-mail she
had received from a community member, also sent to staff, asking for a response
to various questions. Mr. Weir indicated that staff needed to review the
questions in detail respond back. He felt it was important to go through and
respond to all of the detailed suggestions and comments that have been provided
and provide a response. At the request of the Councillor, staff indicated they
would be pleased to provide the email response to all members of Council and
the Councillors elect.
In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry
with respect to the timing of the cleanup of the pond, and whether all parties
agreed that this was needed. Staff confirmed that the City and the
Conservation Authority agreed that the pond needed to be cleaned in the near
future, as it has reached that point in its lifecycle. In terms of
coordination of the activities, staff is waiting to do is see the outcome of
the Glen Cairn investigation, so that all activities are coordinated.
Councillor El-Chantiry stated that his biggest concern
is to have coordinated effort between the City and the Conservation Authority.
He asked staff to keep the dialogue open. Staff indicated that they would
speak with them and give them the update on the progress, where we are today in
terms of the timing of any remedial works in the pond.
That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report
for information.
RECEIVED
Upon conclusion of this item at 6:30 p.m.
on November 16, Committee recessed at until the following day, having
considered all items with the exception of Items 3 and 4.
20. STATUS
UPDATE - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS - FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING 4 OCTOBER 2010
RAPPORT DE SITUATION -
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE
L’ENVIRONNEMENT POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 4 OCTOBRE 2010
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0104 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the
Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
prenne connaissance du présent rapport.
RECEIVED
21. 2010
OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Q3 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE STATUS
REPORT
BUDGETS DE
FONCTIONNEMENT ET D’IMMOBILISATIONS 2010 – T3 – RAPPORT D’ÉTAPE DU COMITÉ DE L’urbanisme
et de l’environnement
ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0068 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the
Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
prenne connaissance du présent rapport.
RECEIVED
SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT DELETION -
APPLECROSS CRESCENT
SUPPRESSION
DE L’OBLIGATION D’AMÉNAGER UN TROTTOIR SUR LE CROISSANT APPLECROSS
ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0048 kanata north/nord (4)
The Chair advised that Councillor Qadri, on behalf of Councillor
Wilkinson, was requesting the addition of an item to the agenda with respect to
the deletion of sidewalk requirements for Applecross Crescent.
Councillor Qadri indicated that he was requesting suspension of rules
because project in question was going forward and it would be the optimum time
to stop the sidewalk from being constructed and to delete it from the
development.
Moved by Councillor S. Qadri:
That the Planning And Environment Committee approve
the addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s
meeting, pursuant to section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law (being by-law no.
2006-462).
CARRIED
John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management indicated
staff had been made aware of the motion. It was his understanding that the
subdivision in question had shown there was not going to be a sidewalk in front
of these residences, and that the residents were aware and had raised the
issue.
Moved by Councillor S. Qadri:
WHEREAS the street Applecross Crescent is a narrow
local road identical to others in the area with no sidewalks; and
WHEREAS 92% of the residents on both sides of the
street have signed a petition to request that the installation of a the
sidewalk be removed as a requirement of the subdivision for this street; and
WHEREAS since changes to engineering plans before plan
registration are routine the engineering plans were revised and finalized with
an addition of the requirement for a sidewalk on a portion of Applecross
Crescent, after residents had entered into agreements to purchase their homes
and been given plans indicating that there would be no sidewalk, with no
consultation or notice to any of the residents by the developer;
WHEREAS Applecross Crescent is not a through street;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Environment
Committee approve the deletion of the requirement for a sidewalk to be
constructed by Tenth Line Developments Inc. on the North side of Applecross
Crescent within the Briar Ridge Phase 2 Subdivision Plan.
CARRIED
NOTICES
OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS
DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Councillor P. Feltmate
Be it resolved that in order to provide
more transparency and accountability to the public, Planning Reports, including
Zoning changes, include dissenting opinions from other departments.
Inquiries
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
No inquiries were submitted.
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES QUESTIONS
No other business was discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
NEXT MEETING
PROCHAINE RÉUNION
To be determined
À
confirmer
Committee
adjourned at 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, November 18.
Committee
Coordinator Chair
