4. ZONING - 100 LANDRY STREET

ZONAGE - 100, RUE LANDRY

Committee recommendations

That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Vanier Zoning By-Law 2380 for 100 Landry Street as follows:

1. To change the Zoning for the northeast portion of the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone to a Public Use Zone (PU) as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area D in Document 3;

2. To repeal exception 104 in the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone and establish a new exception with provisions as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area B on Document 3;

3. To change the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area C on Document 3 to R6-104 Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2; and,

4. To change the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area A on Document 3 to R7 – exception, Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2.

Recommandations du Comité

Que le Conseil approuve les modifications suivantes au règlement de zonage 2380 de l’ancienne Ville de Vanier, relativement au 100, rue Landry :

1. Modifier la désignation de la partie nord-est de la zone de complexe résidentiel (R6-104) et la remplacer par une zone d’utilisation publique (PU), décrite au document 2 et désignée comme le secteur D dans le document 3 ;

2. Révoquer l’exception 104 à la zone de complexe résidentiel (R6-104) et établir une nouvelle exception comportant les dispositions énoncées dans le document 2 relativement à la partie désignée comme le secteur B dans le document 3 ;

3. Modifier la zone commerciale spéciale (SC-1) visant la partie désignée comme le secteur C dans le document 3 et la remplacer par une zone de complexe résidentiel avec exceptions (R6-104), comme le précise le document 2 ; et,

4. Modifier la zone commerciale spéciale (SC-1) visant la partie désignée comme le secteur A dans le document 3 et la remplacer par une zone de complexe résidentiel avec exceptions (R7 - exception), comme le précise le document 2.

Documentation

1. A/Deputy City Manager's report (Planning and Growth Management) dated
13 October 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-APR-0045).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 24 October 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

13 October 2006 / le 13 octobre 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : John L. Moser, Acting Deputy City Manager/

Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

Contact Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

Rideau - Vanier (12)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PGM-APR-0045

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 100 Landry Street (FILE NO. D02-02-05-0039 )
OBJET :	ZONAGE - 100, rue landry

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Vanier Zoning By-Law 2380 for 100 Landry Street as follows:

1. To change the Zoning for the northeast portion of the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone to a Public Use Zone (PU) as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area D in Document 3;

2. To repeal exception 104 in the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone and establish a new exception with provisions as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area B on Document 3;

3. To change the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area C on Document 3 to R6-104 Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2;

4. To change the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area A on Document 3 to R7 – exception, Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2; and

And that the Planning and Environment Committee direct that this report be heard at the Council Meeting of October 25, 2006.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver les modifications suivantes au règlement de zonage 2380 de l’ancienne Ville de Vanier, relativement au 100, rue Landry:

1. Modifier la désignation de la partie nord-est de la zone de complexe résidentiel (R6-104) et la remplacer par une zone d’utilisation publique (PU), décrite au document 2 et désignée comme le secteur D dans le document 3;

2. Révoquer l’exception 104 à la zone de complexe résidentiel (R6-104) et établir une nouvelle exception comportant les dispositions énoncées dans le document 2 relativement à la partie désignée comme le secteur B dans le document 3 ;

3. Modifier la zone commerciale spéciale (SC-1) visant la partie désignée comme le secteur C dans le document 3 et la remplacer par une zone de complexe résidentiel avec exceptions (R6-104), comme le précise le document 2 ;

4. Modifier la zone commerciale spéciale (SC-1) visant la partie désignée comme le secteur A dans le document 3 et la remplacer par une zone de complexe résidentiel avec exceptions (R7 - exception), comme le précise le document 2;

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement demande que ce rapport soit transmis de façon que le Conseil municipal puisse en prendre connaissance à sa réunion du 25 octobre 2006.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

The subject property, 100 Landry Street, is located on the south side of the street between Charlevois Street to the west, Baribeau Street to the east, and bound by the Vanier Parkway to the south. The 3.91-hectare property, formerly occupied by a steel and fabrication industry (Dominion Bridge), is presently a vacant brownfield and is zoned SC-1, a Special Commercial Zone and R6-104, a Residential Complex Zone with exceptions. The applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to accommodate a redevelopment proposal that includes a mix of high and medium density residential uses. The site is proposed to contain three high-rise apartment buildings, nine-storeys, 24 storeys and 25 storeys, all with underground parking in the western portion of the site. The nine-storey building is proposed to be either a 144-unit apartment building or a seniors residence accommodating up to 203 persons fronting onto Landry Street and the high-rise apartments, 24 and 25 storeys, are proposed further south of Landry Street and will consist of 213 and 222 units respectively. The central portion of the site will contain 76 townhouses, oriented on a private internal street and 60 units will be provided in five three-storey walk up apartments along the remaining Landry Street frontage. The northeast corner of the site, approximately 40 by 50 metres, is to be conveyed to the City for parkland.

The Planning and Growth Management Department has reviewed the proposal and is satisfied that the application to change the zoning can be supported as it satisfies Official Plan policies pertaining to development in the General Urban Area, design for compatibility, affordable housing, transportation, and development of a contaminated sites. The Department is recommending that the SC-1 Zone be repealed and that this portion of the site be designated an R7 Residential Complex Zone with exceptions that provide alternative yards for the proposed apartment buildings. Exception 104 of the R6 –104 Zone on the remainder of the site shown in Document 3 is proposed to be repealed and replaced with new provisions as detailed in Document 2. The northeast corner of the site will be rezoned to a Public Use Zone and conveyed to the City through the accompanying Site Plan Control application for parkland purposes. A small portion of this area, identified as Area C on Document 3, will be changed from SC-1 to R6-104. The alternative standards established in exception 104 have been developed to correspond with the site plan application being considered with this proposed Zoning By-Law amendment.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Public Consultation/Input:

Extensive comments were received from the public regarding this application as well as comments received from the three Public Meetings that were held by the Ward Councillor and written correspondence from concerned Community Associations. The comments were applicable to both the Site Plan Control and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications, since the Department and the public reviewed both concurrently. The community identified the following as the primary issues of concern: (1) The increase in traffic; (2) risks associated with site remediation; (3) objections to the height of building and proposed density; and (4) the lack of urban design and architectural considerations in the proposed plan.

RÉSUMÉ

Summary to follow / sommaire à suivre

This report is available in English only. The City of Ottawa may translate this document or parts thereof on request. Requests for translation should be forwarded to Saide Sayah at 613-580-2424, 27589 or saide.sayah@ottawa.ca.

Ce rapport n’est disponible qu’en anglais. La Ville pourra, sur demande, traduire ce document au complet ou en partie. Les demandes de traduction doivent être présentées à Saide Sayah au 613-580-2424, 27589 ou à saide.sayah@ottawa.ca.

BACKGROUND

The subject property, 100 Landry Street, is located on the south side of the street between Charlevois Street to the west, Baribeau Street to the east, and bound by the Vanier Parkway to the south. The 3.91-hectare property, formerly occupied by a steel and fabrication industry (Dominion Bridge), is presently a vacant brownfield. Abutting the property to the southeast are single and townhouse dwellings that front onto Carillon Street. Adjacent to the east is a one-storey former school building, which now operates as a cultural and community centre and play area. To the west is a 17-storey apartment building located at 40 Landry Street. North, across Landry Street, and south across the Vanier Parkway are residential areas containing a mix of low profile dwellings.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site into a mix of high and medium density residential uses. The western and high-density portion of the site is proposed to contain three high-rise apartment buildings, nine-storeys, 24 stories and 25 stories, all with underground parking. The nine-storey building is proposed to be either a 144-unit apartment building or a seniors residence accommodating up to 203 persons fronting onto Landry Street. The two high-rise apartments, 24 and 25 storeys, are proposed further south of Landry Street approximately 11.0 metres from the Vanier Parkway and will consist of 213 and 222 units respectively. The central portion of the site will contain 76 townhouses, oriented on a private internal street and 60 nits will be provided in five three-storey walk up apartments along the remaining Landry Street frontage. The northeast corner of the site, approximately 40 by 50 metres, is to be conveyed to the City for parkland.

The applicant is requesting an amendment to the property’s current Zoning By-law designations, R6-104 and SC-1 (see Document 1) to facilitate this proposal. The Department is recommending three different zoning designations for the site (Documents 2 and 3); an R6-104, Residential Complex Zone with new exceptions, to accommodate the townhouse and three-storey apartments proposed for the site; an R7- exception, Residential Complex Zone for the western portion of the site that contains the high-rise apartment buildings; and a PU, Public Use Zone for the proposed park in the northeast corner of the site.

DISCUSSION

The proposed Zoning By-law amendment is considered to be consistent with the policies of the City’s Official Plan. The land uses and residential densities in the recommended zoning advance the strategic directions of the Official Plan as they pertain to Managing Growth within the Urban Area (Section 2.2.3), development criteria to be considered for proposals in the General Urban Area Designation (Section 3.6.1), the Compatibility and Community Design Section (2.5.1) as well as Affordable Housing, Transportation and Contaminated Site policies.

Official Plan Policies

The Official Plan advocates accommodating growth by directing it to urban areas to accommodate the City’s 20-year requirement for housing while at the same time creating liveable communities by providing a balance of facilities and a variety of housing types. The proposed zoning will foster a diversified residential development along the north side of the Vanier Parkway close to the Beechwood Village area, adjacent to Baribeau Park, and within 1500 metres of the Central Area. The proposal consisting of townhouses, three-storey walk up apartments and three high-rise apartment buildings will add a variety of housing to this large tract of vacant land in a building format that is conducive to affordable options and compatible with the surrounding built form.

Managing Growth Within the Urban Area

The Official Plan states in Section 2.2.3 that the projected urban population and associated land required for housing and jobs can be accommodated within the existing urban area provided that land uses intensify within existing areas of development. The subject property is designated General Urban Area in the Official Plan and is located in an area that provides opportunity for significant residential intensification inside the Greenbelt and satisfies Council’s objectives for residential intensification. Policy 2.2.3.3 promotes opportunities for intensification and infill provided that:

(a) The subject lands are within 600 metres of a future or existing rapid-transit station with potential to develop as compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly cores; and

(b) Lands where records indicate existing contamination due to previous commercial or industrial use, but which can be made suitable for development if cleaned up or remediated.

The site abuts the Vanier Parkway an arterial road with existing transit service and is approximately 420 metres north of Montreal Road, a "Transit Priority Corridor" and "Future Rapid Transit Corridor" in the Official Plan. The site, a former industrial land use, is currently a vacant underutilized “brownfield” and will have to comply with Ministry of Environment Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites which includes filing a Record of Site Condition indicating that the site is suitable for residential purposes prior to any construction and occupancy. This section of the Plan also supports the implementation of alternative municipal infrastructure and development standards (such as reduced road right-of-way width and reduced parking standards in areas serviced by public transit). The proposed Zoning By-law satisfies this policy by allowing flexibility in the design of allowable building envelopes, private road allowances and building setbacks from the street.

General Urban Area Designation (Section 3.6.1)

The General Urban Area designation provides the policy context for a broad range of uses from ground-oriented single-purpose to multi-storey mixed-use buildings. The Zoning By-law however continues to regulate the location, scale and type of land use in accordance with the provisions of the Plan and when considering a proposal for residential intensification in the General Urban Area, the following policies should be satisfied:

a) Recognize the importance of new development relating to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form;

b) Apply the policies of Section 2.5.1 and Section 4.11;

c) Consider its contribution to the maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles throughout the General Urban Area;

d) Assess ground-oriented multiple housing forms, such as duplex, triplex and fourplex, as one means of intensifying within established low-rise residential communities.

The proposal has been designed to integrate into the existing community through the siting of the three proposed building types, High rise apartment buildings, three-storey walk up apartments, and two storey townhouse units. The proposed Zoning By-law accommodates the five three-storey walk up apartments with frontage on Landry Street to create a transition between the existing community to the north and the new development to the south. The recommended zoning provides a maximum height limit of 13.5 metres (three-storeys) to ensure that the building heights on Landry Street respect the built form found in the single detached community east of St. Charles Street. The proposed Zoning By-law limits high-rise apartment buildings to the west portion of the site, adjacent to an existing 17-storey apartment building, 40 Landry Street, and regulates both height and density to reflect the proposed development in the concurrent site plan. This siting of the high-rise buildings avoids sun/shadow conflicts with the neighbourhood to the north as well as the proposed lower profile walk up apartments and townhomes on the east portion of the site.

A variety of dwelling types are provided in the development that will provide for a variety of demographic profiles throughout the General Urban Area. The proposed R7 zone will provide an opportunity for new apartment units inside the Urban Area as well as the opportunity for 203 retirement units. In addition, ground-oriented multiple housing forms are provided in the proposed R6-exception zone to ensure a better fit with the low profile residential areas enclosing the site to the north, east and south.

The proposal satisfies the Affordable Housing Policies of the Plan by providing a mix of multiple dwelling units that can provide housing affordable to low and moderate income groups. This account is based on the applicants estimated selling price for various unit types, which range from $190,000 for one bedroom condominium apartments and $200,000 to $210,000 for two bedroom walk up apartments. The Official Plan states that 25% of all new ownership housing is to be affordable to households up to the 40th income percentile, which for the City is approximately $207,000. The proposal will also have the ability to provide housing appropriate to households with special needs. This can be accomplished through either the proposed high-rise apartment buildings, the proposed retirement residence, and the walk up apartments and townhomes that will have the capacity to provide a significant number of units with at grade access. The proposed Zoning By-law also permits retirement residences in the west portion of the site in accordance with the policies of the General Urban Area designation. The Plan states that retirement homes with full care facilities will be directed to higher density residential areas. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment includes site-specific provisions that regulate the location and intensity of this use.

Compatibility and Community Design

The Compatibility of Development sub-section sets out policies for the review of intensification and infill development applications, which include compensatory physical design techniques to deal with variations from the existing architectural and built form relationships and characteristics found in the area. The proposed amendment will allow for a built form that is different from that found on the abutting low-profile residential properties to the north, south and east. The policies for more detailed development proposal review have been applied through the Site Plan Control application for the subject site.

Transportation

The transportation-oriented policies of the Official Plan require the provision of good pedestrian access to sidewalks and transit stops, and locating high-density residential development close to the approved primary transit network. As stated earlier, Montreal Road, approximately 400 metres from the site has been defined as a "Transit Priority Corridor" and "Future Rapid Transit Corridor" in the Official Plan. In addition, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was a requirement for both the rezoning and site plan application to assess the impact of the proposal on the transportation network in the surrounding area as well as the practical transportation requirements for the site.

The Transportation Impact Study provided the expected traffic implications of the proposed development based on the most current site plan and of particular emphasis, the potential impact of the site traffic on the local road network north of the site between Landry Street and Beechwood Avenue. The proposed private street layout does not include a collector road layout between the Vanier Parkway and Landry Street. Rather the internal private street network has been designed to ensure that non-site traffic is unlikely to cut through. Future residents however will have the ability to access either the Vanier Parkway through one signalized connection or Landry Street via two vehicular access points, one located in the R7 zone and the other further east in the R6 zone.

The TIS found the road network within the study area to operate well during non-peak times of the day however poor traffic conditions at the Beechwood/Charlevoix and Beechwood/Vanier intersections were noted during peak periods. Approximately 70% of the sites traffic is expected to travel to/from the south via the Vanier Parkway and Montreal Road. Of the balance, 20% is expected to travel to/from the west via St. Patrick Street and 10% to/from the east via Beechwood Avenue. The traffic volume increases resulting from the proposed development are expected to range between 50 and 100 vehicles per hour on the local street network between the site and Beechwood Avenue. The study also found that there is sufficient capacity at the existing Charlevoix Street and St. Charles Street connections to Beechwood Avenue to accommodate the additional site traffic.

The TIS also projected alternative traffic scenarios and found that the proposed development projected less traffic than currently permitted in the existing zoning. The TIS assumed 314 dwelling units in the R6-104 Zone and 38, 610 square metres of office space in the SC-1 Zone and compared the projected traffic with that of the proposed development consisting of 724 residential units. The analysis demonstrated that the proposed residential zoning would yield less two-way vehicle trips during peak hours than if the site were to development into a commercial and residential development.

Details of Proposed Zoning

Existing Zoning

The site is zoned, ‘SC-1’ and ‘R6-104’ in former City of Vanier Zoning By-law 2380. The western half of the site is designated ‘SC-1’, a Special Commercial Zone with a height limit of 57.0 metres (approximately 19 storeys) that permits a number of office and commercial uses totalling approximately 38, 700 square metres of gross floor area, and prohibiting residential uses. The eastern half of the site is designated ‘R6-104’, a Residential Complex Zone with an exception that provides additional site-specific performance standards to accommodate a total of 314 dwelling units. A variety of residential and non-residential uses are permitted, including an apartment, nursery school, and home occupation in the R6 Zone. Exception ‘104’ permits additional uses including back-to-back townhouses, stacked townhouses, and a senior citizens retirement complex. This exception also details the setbacks, projections, and separation distances applicable to the property.

Proposed Zoning

The Department is recommending that the SC-1 Zone be repealed and that this portion of the site be designated an R7 Residential Complex Zone with exceptions that provide alternative yards for apartment buildings. Exception 104 of the R6 –104 Zone on the remainder of the site shown in Document 3 is proposed to be repealed and replaced with new provisions as detailed in Document 2. The northeast corner of the site will be rezoned to a Public Use Zone and conveyed to the City through the accompanying Site Plan Control application for parkland purposes. A small portion of this area, identified as Area C on Document 3, will be changed from SC-1 to R6-104. The alternative standards established in exception 104 have been developed to correspond with the site plan application being considered with this proposed Zoning By-Law amendment.

The proposed rezoning has regard to Official Plan policies that include providing for building height transitions relative to the profile of adjacent buildings, setting back higher buildings from existing low profile neighbourhoods, minimizing impacts such as loss of light or privacy in outdoor amenity areas to the extent practical, respecting lot area and yard requirements, locating along roadways with sufficient traffic capacity, contributing to land use and activity diversity, and considering the extent of the provisions for community serving uses. The proposed zoning provisions do prescribe building height transitions that are responsive to existing building heights in the area. There is little outdoor amenity area adjacent to the north of the property where loss of light due to shadowing would impact the most. The recommended zoning only permits higher profile buildings in the western portion of the site, continually stepping back from Landry Street, to minimize shadowing on the existing lower profile neighbourhood located to the north of the site.

Both the proposed R7 and R6 Zones prescribe maximum dwelling counts that are linked to maximum permitted building heights. The permitted floor space index (FSI) is currently 3.0 in the SC-1 Zone and although the Department does not usually use FSI to measure residential uses, in this case the proposed FSI is approximately 3.55. This 0.55 increase in FSI combined with the over all reduction of residential units in the R6 zone, from 314 to 136 units, result in little to no increase in permitted building mass. The increase in height from 19 storeys to 24 and 25 storeys, allows for an additional 99 apartment dwelling units in the additional five and six storeys of the high rise apartment buildings, which is less than the 178 unit reduction in the R6-104 Zone.

The proposal exceeds the current Zoning By-law requirement for 35% Landscape Open Space and the proposed parking requirement of one parking space per dwelling unit far exceeds that prescribed in the proposed new Zoning By-law for the City, which in this case is 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Setbacks from Landry Street vary from 6.0 metres to 3.6 metres to provide a pedestrian oriented frontage and the building heights have been kept to a human scale with the nine-storey and three-storey apartments framing the south side of the Street. The portion of the Vanier Parkway abutting the site will display the two higher buildings at least 40 metres from Landry Street behind the nine-storey apartment. The existing low profile homes abutting the site to the south will back onto similar low profile dwellings being two storey townhomes in the R6-104 Zone.

The proposed location of the PU zone in the northeast portion of the site fronts onto Landry Street, facing the existing neighbourhood to the north and abuts a community centre and play area previously leased by the City for park purposes.

Conclusion

The Department supports the application to amend the Zoning By-law as it advances residential and other key policies in the Official Plan and provides for a compatible residential infill development on a large vacant brownfield in a strategic location. The proposed Zoning By-law is similar to that already permitted in the existing zoning in terms of permitted height and building profiles. The main difference between the proposed and existing zoning is the change in use from commercial to residential in the existing SC-1 Zone, an increase in height from 19 stories to 25 stories in the same area and a reduction of permitted residential units in the east portion of the site, already zoned residential, from approximately 314 units to 136 units.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The site is a known Brownfield and will require a Record of Site Condition in accordance with the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.

Additional consultation information is provided in Document 4.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications. The application was placed on hold due to changes in the proposal that resulted in additional submissions and review.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map and Existing Zoning

Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3 Proposed Zoning Schedule

Document 4 Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

Corporate Services Department, City Clerk’s Branch, Secretariat Services to notify the owner, (Trustcan Properties Limited c/o TD Bank Financial Group, 100 Wellington Street – 30^th Floor, Toronto Ontario M5K 1A2), applicant, (Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes Inc., 2001‑210 Gladstone Avenue, K2P 0Y6), OttawaScene Canada, 33‑174 Colonnade Road, Ottawa, ON, K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.

Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

Corporate Services Department, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2

1. Areas “B” and “C “ on Document 3 will be zoned R6.104

2. Exception 104 of the Vanier By-law 2380 will be repealed and replaced with the following:

On the parcel of land located on the south side off Landry Street designated "R6-104" on Schedule "A" to this By-law, the following provisions prevail:

General

(1) a minimum of 75 dwelling units must be contained within buildings other than apartment dwelling houses

For Apartment Dwelling House:

(1) minimum front yard depth along Landry Street is 3.6 metres.

(2) maximum permitted height of building is 13.5 metres.

(3) minimum yard depth fronting onto private streets or a parking lot is 2.5 metres.

(4) minimum interior or rear yard setback of 5.5 metres is required for apartment buildings.

(5) a maximum of 60 dwelling units may be provided in apartment dwellings.

(6) clause 7.8(j) does not apply..

(7) despite 6.24 (a) the minimum distance between two apartment dwelling houses on the same lot is 11.5 metres.

(8) the minimum required setback between a parking lot and public street is 1.8 metres.

(9) The minimum parking requirement for apartment dwelling house is 1.1 parking spaces per unit.

Row Dwelling House on a private street:

(1) minimum required rear yard depth of 6.0 metres;

(2) minimum required lot depth of 26 metres;

(3) minimum required interior side yard of 1.5 metres;

(4) minimum required exterior side yard or corner side yard of 2.5 metres;

(5) minimum distance between a row dwelling house and an apartment dwelling house in the adjacent R7.xxx zone is 20 metres.

3. Area “A“ on Document 3 will be zoned R7 exception with the exception detailed in item 4 below applying.

4. Add a new R7 exception zone to the by-law including the following site-specific provisions:

For Apartment Dwelling house:

(1) minimum front yard depth along Landry Street is 6.0 metres;

(2) minimum setback abutting the Vanier parkway is 9.5 metres;

(3) minimum setback abutting the westerly property line is 12.5 metres

(4) minimum distance between an apartment dwelling house and row dwelling house in the adjacent R6.104 zone is 20 metres;

(5) minimum distance between apartment dwellings is 20 metres;

(6) minimum distance between apartment dwellings above 9 storeys is 40 metres.

(7) the maximum number of apartment dwelling units permitted is 579 units with no single apartment dwelling house containing more than 222 units;

(8) if an apartment dwelling house is used as a seniors residence the maximum number of dwelling units so used is 203 provided that the total number of apartment dwelling units in other buildings on the property does not exceed 435 dwelling units;

(9) The maximum permitted height of building for an apartment dwelling house exceeding 200 dwelling units is 76 metres;

(10) The maximum permitted height of building for an apartment dwelling house exceeding 215 dwelling units is 79 metres;

(11) No building shall exceed a height of 28 metres above grade within 40 metres from the property line abutting Landry Street.

(12) The minimum parking requirement for apartment dwelling house is 1 parking space per unit.

(13) Section 6.14 (c) does not apply to a vehicular passageway abutting the Vanier Parkway.

5. Area D on Document 3 will be zoned PU.

PROPOSED ZONING SCHEDULE DOCUMENT 3

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 4

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. Public meetings were also held in the community.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

Extensive comments were received from the public regarding this application as well as comments received from the three Public Meetings that were held by the Ward Councillor and written correspondence from concerned Community Associations. The following contains a summary of concerns and questions raised by the community followed by a response from the Department.

PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS

Three Public Meetings were held in the community that were attended by City staff regarding application: June 21, 2005; July 19, 2005; and September 27, 2006.

The following is a list of concerns and the staff responses, pertaining to the site plan application, that were raised by the community during the last public meeting held by the Ward Councillor George Bédard on September 27, 2006:

The following is a list of concerns raised by the community during the most recent public meeting (followed in italics by the Departmental response):

(1) Concern was raised about the appropriateness of the level of intensification proposed for the site. Specifically that this proposal seems to propose too much density;

Compared to the current zoning, the Department determined that the proposed development will have less impact then a mixed-use office, commercial and residential development previously proposed for the site. In terms of height, the Zoning By-law Amendment for the site allows an increase in height from 57 metres to 79 metres, which in this case allows an additional 99 apartment dwelling units on floors above the existing 19-storey height limit. In addition, the R6-104 zone currently allows 314 dwelling units to be constructed on the site and the proposed zoning and development plans indicate a total of 136 dwelling units, resulting a reduction of 178 units.

(2) Why can’t the community have more time adequately educate themselves on the proposal?

When an application for Zoning By-law amendment is submitted, the Department must make a decision within the prescribed timeframes set out in the Planning Act. In this case, the Department delayed the hearing of the amendment so that it can be heard concurrently with the Site Plan application and to allow additional time for the community to respond. The application was made March 16, 2005 and from this initial time, three community meetings were held. The Department notes that there have been significant changes to the plan and in response, the application had been delayed to accommodate all parties involved.

(3) The proposal will lead to a devaluation of local property values.

The Department does not have any evidence that intensification of this sort has any correlation with the devaluation of property values. Property values are based on a number of qualitative and quantitative factors, of which Zoning By-law Amendments and new development are one.

(4) Has the City studied the infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, storm water services) to ensure that this proposal will not overburden existing services in the area.

Staff assesses all development applications to ensure that the existing storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water services can accommodate the proposed development. This development has been assessed and the Department has found that the existing infrastructure in the area can accommodate the proposed development.

(5) Why does the entire property need a Zoning By-law amendment?

The primary reason for a Zoning By-law amendment is to address the change in use from commercial to residential in the existing SC-1 Zone. In addition, the existing zoning in both the R6-104 and Sc-1 zone were crafted to accommodate a very specific proposal. Since the type of land use and distribution of density is shifting on the site, the Department has determined that the site should be rezone to reflect current development standards and the proposed land uses.

(6) What is the process of remediation? Can we ensure that the contamination does not spread.

The process of remediation is within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment. The applicant is proposing to fully remediate the portion of the site where the high rise apartment buildings are proposed and to use a Risk Based Assessment for remediation of the town house and walk up apartment section of the site. The Ministry of Environment will address the processes used to ensure that there is no risk to the existing neighbourhood.

(7) Why can’t the project time lines be temporarily delayed to give the developer and community to look into grants and incentives that may impact the site design and proposed density on the site?

The Department must follow the legislative process outlined in the Planning Act and in accordance with Council Policy. In this case, the Zoning By-law amendment application has been on hold for several months to address community concerns.

(8) The Vanier Parkway / Beechwood, Montreal / Vanier Parkway both fail and there is a serious problem at the Charleviox /Beechwood Intersection, what will these intersections be like if the development proceed? Nothing in any study has provided any assurances that traffic concerns can be improved. Traffic is a major concern.

The current zoning of the property allows for high density, high-rise development (57 metres high) that includes a substantial commercial component. The high-rise and walk-up apartment buildings proposed are not dissimilar from the high-rise building on the nearby properties to the west and across Landry Street to the north respectively. The higher development is also along the edge of the community adjacent to a major arterial roadway, in keeping with the location suggested for such development in the new Official Plan.

The final Traffic Impact Study has been reviewed and accepted by staff and indicates that the vehicular circulation system proposed for the site, including a new signalized intersection along the Vanier Parkway is appropriate to the development proposed for the property, and will minimize traffic impact on the surrounding community to the extent possible while providing for integration of the new residential area as part of the larger neighbourhood.

(9) Can we add more visitors parking?

The current requirement for parking in the Vanier Zoning By-law is 1.2 parking space for each apartment dwelling unit. In the proposed new Zoning By-law for the City, apartment buildings have a parking rate of 0.5 parking spaces per unit. It is very unlikely that in high-density residential buildings that a parking rate of one space per dwelling units will be insufficient. It is the Department’s experience that the proposed parking rate of one space per dwelling unit is more than sufficient and will likely be exceeded (as indicated in the proposed development) as the site is quite large and allows for extensive surface and underground parking without adversely reducing the amount of landscaped area.

(10) Does the Planning and Growth Management Department have to say “Yes” after processing the Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan Control Application.

The Department reviews each application on its own merit and makes a recommendation to Planning and Environment Committee, which in turn makes a recommendation to City Council. In this case, the Department has reviewed the application in the context of the Official Plan, the existing development rights in the former City of Vanier Zoning By-law, and within the context of the existing neighbourhood.

(11) Landry Avenue is a raceway, how can this problem be alleviated?

The Department determined that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan application will add more of a pedestrian element to Landry Street than currently exists. The addition of the nine-storey apartment building and three-storey walk up apartment buildings will create more pedestrian and slow moving vehicular activity that should slow down traffic on the Landry avenue.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

South of Beechwood Community Association Comments

The South of Beechwood Community Association (SoBe) provided in depth input through both the Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan Control process. Many of the comments and concerns addressed in this section are similar to those raised by the South of Beechwood Community Association. However to avoid repetition, the most recent correspondence from the SoBe Community Association has been included in the accompanying Site Plan Control Report to Planning and Environment Committee for 100 Landry Street.

Kingsview Park Property Owners and Tenants Association Comments:

On Behalf of the Kingsview Park Property Owners and Tenants Association I would like to convey to you the reaction of a good many of our residents to the rezoning application by Claridge Homes to allow construction of 142 townhomes and three high-rise apartment buildings up to 30 stories tall for the site between Landry Street and the Vanier Parkway. This site is opposite Kingsview Park.

All Residents who expressed views on this issue are strongly opposed to the size and scale of this proposed project. While it is generally accepted that redevelopment of this site is to be expected, the number of units proposed is considered much too great for this area and the height of the apartment towers as far too great for this neighbourhood. Considerable concern was also expressed about the inevitable increase in traffic this would bring about on the Vanier Parkway, where the intersections at Montreal Road and at Beechwood are already under heavy stress. Some residents were also worried about the effects of disturbing toxic soil.

We strongly hope that the Claridge Re-zoning application will NOT be approved in its present form and that it will be revised to better reflect the surrounding neighbourhood, i.e. a reduction in the number of units as well as the height of any apartment buildings that may be built as part of this complex. One of the important objectives should be the harmonious integration of the new complex into this area of largely low-rise family dwellings.

I would be grateful to be kept informed of any developments, in particular of any public consultation meetings that may be convened where Kingsview Park residents would have an opportunity to learn more of the this project and to express their views as the planning process proceeds.

Staff Response:

The proposed Zoning By-law amendment has been established in a manner so that it respects both the existing development potential in existing SC-1 and R6-104 Zones and the context of the abutting neighbourhoods within the policy framework of the Official Plan. The zoning only permits the 24 and 25 storey apartment buildings in the north west portion of the property abutting the Vanier Parkway to reduce their impact on lower profile neighbourhoods to the north and east. Along Landry Street, the zoning will limit the height of building to nine storeys (28 metres) and three storeys (13.5 meters) to provide better integration with the lower profile buildings. The increase in height is represents approximately six additional storeys permitted on the highest proposed apartment building and the permitted density of development is being significantly reduced in existing residential zone.

New Edinburgh Community Alliance Comments:

The New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA) is very concerned about the proposed development at 100 Landry by Claridge Homes, and its likely impact on our community.

The NECA Traffic Calming Committee has reviewed the Delcan Traffic Impact Study Final Report that was prepared regarding the proposed development. Given the Traffic Calming study that NECA undertook in cooperation with the City of Ottawa in 1994, we have serious concerns about impacts that the proposed Claridge development will have. These include impacts on traffic on significant arteries and at intersections that serve both Vanier and New Edinburgh, and also on the New Edinburgh area itself. I refer to the Beechwood – Vanier Parkway intersection, Beechwood Avenue and Crichton and MacKay Streets in particular.

NECA is seriously upset about the projected level of traffic in 2011 if the proposed construction goes ahead. This is based on the study’s observations about the current very high level of service in the Beechwood-Vanier Parkway intersection at today’s rates; the projected increasingly unacceptable baseline levels in 2011 without the development; and, the “complete failure” scenario projected for 2011 with the development in place.

We are also very alarmed about the possible “mitigation measures” that are identified including “opportunities for new routing” to other interior roads within both the Vanier and New Edinburgh communities.

We understand that “new routing” is a veiled reference to “cut through” traffic, an issue of already considerable concern to NECA. In our experience, this kind of traffic tends to involve aggressive driving including use of excessive speeds, ignoring posted traffic signs (notably school zone and stop signs), lack of respect for other road users including school buses, cyclists and pedestrians, and increased accidents.

NECA strongly requests that the City provide additional traffic data on projections regarding impacts on adjacent New Edinburgh streets and parking before considering this development proposal further. We also request the opportunity to participate in any meetings that take place in the future with City Planners regarding the proposed Claridge Development.

Staff Response:

The revised private street layout in the proposed site plan has been designed to minimize “cut through” traffic to the greatest extent possible. The Traffic Impact Study for this proposal has been reviewed by City staff who have indicated that the vehicular circulation system proposed for the site, including a new signalized intersection along the Vanier Parkway, is appropriate for the development proposal, and will minimize traffic impact on the surrounding community to the extent possible, while providing for integration of the new residential area as part of the larger neighbourhood.

Comments from: Le groupe des voisins Beechwood Sud

FROM : Marilyn Hart Urban Design and Urban Planning Consultant

Representing the Community Group, established July 20 2005, known as Le groupe des voisins Beechwood Sud. Coordinator - Michel Dubeau

Since the first Claridge site plan and rezoning request was presented to the community, on 21 June 2005, several changes to the site plan have been made for the better. Some of these changes relate to minimising the flow of traffic into the local streets from the Vanier Parkway, and the new development. This is good. Shadows from the tower blocks are now less harmful to neighbouring low scale housing. Some attempt has also been made to relate new residential buildings to the ‘porch and flower garden’ streetscape of Landry. These changes are welcomed.

However:

The two tower blocks (25 storeys) are still higher than the permitted zoning (57 metres). The architecture and relationship between buildings still leaves a lot to be desired. In the 16 months since the submission of the application, neither City staff nor the developer have come up with an urban design solution of any merit (see many other professional comments and architectural media reviews). There is no gracefulness or articulation in the present Twin Tower approach. No CAD analysis has been undertaken of the profile of the buildings from the St. Patrick Bridge, as requested earlier.

We realize that details of the architecture may be modified at a later date. However, as the community still does not have an architectural solution “that we can be proud of”, and one that will actually enhance our neighbourhood. We put forward the following recommendation for discussion at PEC. That is, work with the present massing and density of the existing Zoning Bylaw and keep the good aspects of the site plan that have emerged recently.

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT THE DENSITY PROVISIONS (high density: 120 units/net hectare) OF THE PRESENT R6 (104) ZONING, AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS (57 m – 19/20 storeys) OF THE PRESENT SC 1 ZONING REMAIN.

2. THAT THE SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (SC1) ON THE WESTERN THIRD OF THE SITE BE CHANGED TO A RESIDENTIAL ONLY USE.

RATIONALE (Planning Policies)

a) The current City of Ottawa OFFICIAL PLAN encourages residential intensification in the inner city. This large (3.91 ha ) site IS in the inner city. The site is presently vacant. The present zoning introduced by the City of Vanier in 1991 is ALREADY a high density zoning. To develop the site at the present permitted densities WILL meet the policy objectives of the Official Plan.

b) The current City of Ottawa OFFICIAL PLAN (section 2.2.6.) NO LONGER permits or encourages down zoning, and thus it is UNREALISTIC for the community to seek a lower development density than already exists in the current zoning bylaw.

c) The recent BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT STUDY (Consultant Draft Aug 2006) has been undertaken by the City since Claridge submitted their re-zoning application in approximately May 2005. (Report to PEC possibly October 24 2006). This Study sets out the legal and financial basis which would now allow the City to provide financial INCENTIVES to develop Brownfield Sites ( of which this is one) to compensate for the cost of cleaning up toxins on these sites during the development process (costs over and above normal excavation costs, that is). The argument of increasing building heights to pay for clean up costs may no longer be valid.

SITE PLAN CONDITIONS

Appropriate site plan design guidelines for the entire site should be attached as a schedule to the change in zoning (see comments and discussion elsewhere).

Staff Response:

The proposed Zoning By-law amendment does increase development potential in the existing SC-1 Zone and reduce the permitted residential density in the existing R6-104. However, in reviewing the proposed development and recommended zoning, staff find that the additional impact from 57 metres of permitted building height to 79 metres is acceptable in terms of shadowing and views. The architecture and urban design characteristics of the proposed development have continued to evolve over the course of the application review process. Although improvements in architecture and urban design can be suggested, many factors affect the building form that has emerged. The two primary factors are building flood plain requirements and remedial measures and costs that have impacted the applicant’s decision-making process in the design and layout of the proposed development.

ZONING - 100 LANDRY STREET

ZONAGE - 100, RUE LANDRY

ACS2006-PGM-APR-0045 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)

Mr. G. Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals (West/Central), Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch (PIA), Planning and Growth Management (PGM), introduced Messrs Saide Sayah and Douglas Bridgewater, Planners, who, by means of a PowerPoint, gave a detailed presentation of the staff report. Also on hand to answer questions from Committee members were Mr. Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals Branch and Michael Wildman, Program Manager, Infrastructure Approvals.

Chair Peter Hume asked what uses the current zoning allows. Mr. Sayah said that a 19-storey building with 420,000 feet of commercial office space could be built. Chair Hume inquired about the number of vehicles this would generate, assuming 4 employees by square foot, or 1,600 employees. Mr. Morrison said the current zoning estimated 855 vehicles during the a.m. peak hours and 947 during p.m. peak. Under the proposed re-zoning, the number of vehicles at p.m. peak hours would diminish to 642. With regard to the number of vehicles on Landry Street itself, the number would go from 100-150 down to 50 to 100 vehicles.

Mr. Ron Jack, Manager, DelCan Engineers, introduced Mr. Mark Baker, a Senior Transportation Engineer with the firm who provided an overview of the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed development. Mr. Baker began by stating that, under the existing conditions, capacity problems exist at the intersections of Vanier Parkway/Beechwood, Vanier Parkway/Montreal Road (Level F) and the intersection of Charlevoix Street/Beechwood Avenue that is impacted by the poor operation of the other two. Mr. Baker explained that the grading goes from A to F. with F as a failing mark. The existing traffic volumes on Charlevoix St. are in the order of 250 vehicles travelling both ways during the critical p.m. peak hour.

Mr. Baker continued by saying that, when looking at projections for the proposal and the current zoning, certain assumptions are made, such as a transit modal share of 30%: this is consistent with the targets identified in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The expected distribution is as follows based on the Vanier Parkway that runs north to south:

· 70% to and from the south via Vanier Parkway/Montreal Road;

· 20% to and from the west heading towards St Patrick Street;

· 10% to and from the east via Beechwood Ave.

With regard to the projected new vehicular trips, Mr. Baker said the site plan calls for approximately 588 high-rise apartments, 60 low-rise apartments and 76 town homes. This equates to 360 vehicles per hour in the a.m. peak and 510 in the p.m. peak. Under the current zoning, assuming 314 dwelling units and approximately 38,000 sq m of office space, approximately 750 vehicles per hour each peak hour would be generated. Mr. Baker’s stated that, during the critical p.m. peak hour, the current zoning represents a 50% increase relative to the proposed zoning. The additional site traffic volumes on Landry Street, in the critical peak hour, will result in an addition 100 vehicles per hour. Approximately half will use Charlevoix Street to access destinations to and from the west and the other half will use St Charles Street to destinations to and from the east. Mr. Baker pointed out that the majority would use the primary access onto VP and head south. The volume increases on Charlevoix Street during the critical p.m. peak hour is 50 vehicles per hour: this equates to less than one vehicle per minute, and likewise for St Charles Street.

Responding to an earlier question from Councillor Legendre about the mixed use at the former CFB Rockcliffe compared to the Landry Street site, Ron Jack posited that it came down to a matter of scale. The former is viewed as a mini version of the city, with as much mixed use as is possible in any particular community. This will make it possible for residents to shop locally, work locally, travel by foot or by bicycle. The size of the CFB Rockcliffe site provides a good opportunity to maximize through a combination of convenience and service retail, community-wide retail, schools and employment such as high tech and research. The building of a potential 4,000 residential units will result in a critical mass assuring good interaction between those elements. With regard to the Landry Street site, Mr. Jack said the kind of office that could be built there under the current zoning would likely be high density, with potentially 1600 employees, but these may not be the types of jobs that relate equally to the type of employment.

Councillor Legendre asked about cut-through traffic, inquiring whether the fact that two major intersections are at Level of Service F would encourage drivers to cut-through the site. Mr. Baker responded by saying that the former Vanier Official Plan had designated a collector road between the Vanier Parkway and Landry Street. There was some consideration for providing this road, but as the process unfolded, it became clear that this was not a valuable link because the design has become circuitous and this would involve circuitous movement.

Chair Hume asked whether the internal road network was a private road network. Mr. Wildman confirmed this was the case. Mr. Bridgewater added that the site plan contains conditions for traffic calming and for monitoring after a certain percentage of construction and occupancy of the buildings. Staff did not want to totally isolate the residential development from the community it is going to become a part of and staff are facing the challenge of linking and protecting at the same time.

Councillor Bédard wanted to know whether Committee and Council would make the determination as to whether or not traffic-calming measures were warranted. Mr. Lindsay indicated that this was the case. The Councillor also wanted to know whether staff are proposing to address the problems at the failing intersections. Mr. Baker said that, at Vanier Parkway/Montreal Road, a possible solution was taken off the table as it involved eliminating the transit priority lanes. With regard to Vanier Parkway/Beechwood, there already exists a double, northbound left-turning lane: an exclusive northbound right-turn lane was not thought to offer a great deal of benefit. Imposing restrictions at Charlevoix and Beechwood would only result in shifting the approach from Charlevoix onto Beechwood. Mr. Baker pointed out that these measures would affect all other users of the network and not just the users of this site. Ron Jack added that the Transportation Master Plan does not contain provisions for the widening of the Vanier Parkway, and this is an issue in terms of resolving the City’s broader transportation problems.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegates:

Ms. Céline Heinbecker called the public consultation process disappointing, and City staff’s response to residents’ concerns, vague and unsatisfactory. She felt that the Committee should try to satisfy the majority of people. She stated that the proposed reduction in the size of the towers did not address the community’s concerns and she urged that a decision be postponed until the community is less frustrated and satisfactory conclusions can be reached.

Councillor Gord Hunter pointed out to the speaker that the Committee is charged with hearing the public’s comments and deciding on the merits of the re-zoning and site plan applications for this project. He expressed the hope that the interveners would focus specifically on the changes they would like to see, not on how the process evolved. The Councillor added that the options before the Committee are to approve, reject or defer and there must be planning grounds to support all three options. In addition, he advised that the proponent could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) should the Committee refuse to deal with the matter.

Mr. Bruce McConville, a local businessman, said the site provided an opportunity for a model community. He stated there is widespread support for delaying a decision until the new City Council takes office. He noted that residents’ concerns relate to the size of the proposed towers and whether measures for traffic remediation are in place. Mr. McConville said he was not opposed to intensification but it must be balanced. He suggested reducing the height of the proposed towers while still ensuring a profit for the developer and he called for a new approach to accountability.

Mr. Andrew Lumsden made reference to the fact that the entire area, including 100 Landry Street, is located on a floodplain and he questioned why this was not being addressed. He said he wondered whether the proposal to build six storey buildings isn’t in order to pay for the removal of contaminants on the site. Mr. Lumsden wondered why there had been no interest on the part of commercial developers for this site, and why this intense residential development was happening in “little Vanier”.

When asked by Councillor Bédard to comment on the points raised by Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Bridgewater said the plan did not included grading, engineering or drainage issues. Addressing floodplain issues has been delegated to staff and they must comply with the requirements of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA). With regard to drainage, it will be done in such a manner as to ensure there is no drainage into the underground parking garage. There will be no habitable spaces below-grade. Mr. Wildman added that all unprotected openings would have to be 0.3 metres above the floodplain grading. Other issues will be addressed through the grading and drainage plans, and the RVCA must be satisfied with the design. In addition, staff must be satisfied that concerns have been addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Ms. Stephanie Plante stated that all the arguments being put forward today were legitimate and not last minute arguments. She raised the issue of quality of life as it pertains to transit and traffic, noting that the three bus lines that serve this area are already at capacity, especially during the peak hours. Ms. Plante stressed the need for clear numbers when dealing with traffic impacts and it was her view that the word “assumption” is a fallacy. She thought that the number of newcomers to the area would impact on existing recreational facilities, already at capacity. Ms. Plante also expressed the view that there was enough affordable housing in Vanier and she wanted other types of housing on this site. She also wanted to know how building towers could be seen as harmonizing with the local built community and contributing to the gentrification of the neighbourhood.

In reply to a request from Vice Chair Peggy Feltmate, Grant Lindsay, explained that affordable housing is defined as a unit costing approximately $207,000 and is not the same as subsidized or assisted housing.

Mr. David Mueller, Member of the Executive, South of Beechwood Community Association, referred to the Transportation Impact Study by DelCan and comments about the fact that two major intersections near 100 Landry are already failing. He called these the choke points in accessing the downtown for commuters. He said he could not see how the developer’s proposal to add one additional light at the intersection of the Vanier Parkway and restrict access to the site via Landry Street would address traffic issues. Mr. Mueller added there are serious implications for pedestrians and cyclists and the enforcement of traffic by-laws appears to be non-existent. He advised that a reducing the density might result in ninety percent less opposition to the project.

Ms. Marilyn Hart, Urban Planning and Urban Design Consultant and a member of the Steering Committee for the Beechwood Community Design Plan, asked whether the developer, Claridge, would be prepared to assist with enhancement and sidewalk improvements on Loyer Street. She expressed the hope this could be done informally through the rezoning application. Ms. Hart called Loyer Street the natural pedestrian route to the retailers on Beechwood Avenue. In reply to Councillor Bédard, Mr. Lindsay advised that this was beyond the scope of the application, however certain conditions could be imposed as part of the site plan and the Councillor could move a Motion to this effect if he so desired.

Mr. Patrick O’Keefe, President, Manor Park Community Association, advised that the MPCA is concerned that the proposed residential development will generate traffic on roads that are already over capacity. There are also concerns with the implementation of Official Plan policies in terms of residential infill. Mr. O’Keefe said that, in his opinion, development on this site based on it being within walking distance of a future transit station is flawed because there have been no final decisions about the East-West Light Rail route.

Ms. Jane Brammer, Community Action for Rockcliffe Airbase Development (CARAD began by stating that the size of this project and the breadth of its impact loomed greatly over the entire area. She asked that approval be deferred until the following issues are resolved:

· Height and density that are greater than allowed under the current zoning;

· The negotiation of reciprocal services;

· Mitigation measures are put in place to address the increased traffic generated;

· Assurances that airborne toxins will be contained during soil decontamination.

In response to questions from Councillor Diane Holmes, Mr. Bridgewater indicated that the provincial Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is responsible for supervising the removal of contaminated soil, as well as with any requirement or responsibility for reporting to the public.

Ms. Iola Price, representing the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association, expressed the view that staff had presented no compelling argument for the increase in height for this project. She posited that a 38% increase represents a major, not a minor alteration, and that further public consultation is required. In addition, Ms. Price stated that 24 and 25 storey buildings are too tall: they represent a 56% increase, again not a minor alteration. The RPRA requests that a maximum height of 57 metres remain in place. Ms. Price also felt that, given the anticipated population increase generated by the Landry Street and the former CFB Rockcliffe developments, an area wide study should be undertaken before approval is given. As well, the need for schools and other amenities has to be considered, and for these reasons, the RPRA recommends that the decision be deferred.

Ms. Natalie Bélevic, a resident of Manor Park, said she supports infill development, but she wondered whether this project isn’t setting a dangerous precedent in the urban core She referred to a recent development at 1002 Karen Way where the community was successful in reducing the building height. Ms. Bélevic also felt that more family-oriented dwellings should be part of the Landry Street project. She wondered whether the developer was taking advantage of policies in the Official Plan that encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and potentially of other financial incentives that are available.

Andrew Shore, Board of Directors, 40 Landry Street, noted that the residents who provided feedback are universally opposed to the project. Their concerns revolve around the environmental and traffic issues, pedestrian and cycling issues, and the impact of intensification on the immediate neighbourhood. Mr. Shore thought that the process should continue for some time yet and that more be done to accommodate all valid concerns. He also echoed the concerns expressed by other speakers about the cumulative impact of this project and the re-development of the former CFB Rockcliffe

Ms. Deborah Bellinger, Nelligan O’Brien Payne, representing Carleton Condominium Corporation (CCC) 498 (40 Landry Street), stated that, although there has been extensive consultation, there has been little time to deal with the final plan. She felt that, for this reason, it would not be appropriate to waive procedure and deal with the item at City Council tomorrow. Ms. Bellinger said it was surprising to hear Planning staff recommend public, internal network roads then state that private owners would have to deal with mitigation measures should these be required. She pointed out that there are no policies to tell a developer when enough is enough. Ms. Bellinger stated there is no mention of the internal workings of the infrastructure and she expressed dissatisfaction with the traffic studies.

Chair Hume inquired whether the speaker is asking for traffic mitigation as a condition of site plan approval. Ms. Bellinger replied this was the most complex private infrastructure proposal ever made, for an incredibly intense development. She said she would like to see the height of buildings come down, the project have less density and a public road through the middle of the project. Ms. Bellinger also indicated, in response to Chair Hume, that the Board of CCC 498 believed they could substantiate, support and defend their position at a Board hearing.

John Nolan, President, South of Beechwood Community Association, began by stating that his group is not a fringe, Not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) group and that people are reasonable when it comes to reasonable development. He expressed the view that the City’s long-term forecasts were incorrect and that growth is declining, not exploding. He suggested the projections needed to be revisited. With regard to the public consultation, Mr. Nolan expressed the view that, until they are directly impacted, people are apathetic and now that this project affects local residents, petitions have been circulating. At the end of the consultation process, there appears to be more opposition than there was before.

Chair Hume asked what Mr. Nolan would prefer on the site. He responded by saying that the buildings should be of much lower height such as bungalows and three-storey walk-ups. He added that what is being proposed for the east side appears reasonable and that a 16-storey tower might be acceptable. Mr. Nolan indicated that the population wants to work with Claridge in order to have a development of which everyone can be proud.

Mr. Gordon Keith owns a graphic design store that has been located in the Beechwood area for thirty-two years. He stated that the Vanier Business Improvement Area, which he represents, fully supports the Claridge development. Business owners believe that development at 100 Landry will result in more people bringing a new vitality to the locally owned businesses in the area. Mr. Keith said he felt that Claridge has addressed the community’s concerns with the new site plan and he asked those present to join him in supporting the project.

Martin Detto, Member of the Executive, South of Beechwood Community Association, echoed earlier concerns about the environment, traffic management, environmental mediation and quality of life. He indicated that soil remediation was a major concern, as the soil contains above-average levels of contaminants, many on the immediate surface. He posited that open trucks carrying contaminated soil would spread the contamination along the National Capital Commission’s road (the Vanier Parkway). The spread of contaminated dust through shovelling is also problematic. There are also concerns about the fact that not all the soil will be removed. Mr. Detto asked that, as a minimum requirement, the developer engage an independent environmental monitor to ensure that all conditions are met.

In reply to questions from Councillor Bédard, Mr. Wildman clarified that the Vanier Parkway is a City and not an NCC roadway. He added that permits would be required and that trucks would not be permitted to access internal, local streets.

Mr. Jim Burghout, representing Claridge Investments, and Mr. Paul Smolkin, Golder Associates, appeared before the Committee. Mr. Burghout indicated that Golder has developed a risk assessment and remediation action plan and will be on-site during the removal of the soil. The approvals will be posted on the Ministry of the Environment’s public registry site. Mr. Burghout then addressed some of the issues raised by the previous speakers:

· Traffic concerns: Claridge recognized the need to keep traffic off local streets and elected to have an intersection at the Vanier Parkway to optimize pedestrian safety and efficiency of movement. Internal circulation is designed not to allow cut-through traffic, since the streets will be narrow in width.

· Scope of the project: It is not viable to under-develop a site designated under the new Official Plan for more intensive use. Claridge’s approach was to redesignate the site as residential and develop two-thirds of it as low residential. Placing a high-rise building next to the Vanier Parkway is better for access and for transit purposes. In response to the community’s concerns, the higher buildings were pulled from Landry Street. This allows the developer to offer various housing and affordability options.

· The development being “rushed through”: Mr. Burghout pointed out that Claridge has been developing this project for the past year and a half.

Mr. Smolkin described the process that Golder Associates will follow to rid the site of the contaminated soil. He pointed out that the MOE has reviewed Golder’s documentation: the company has responded to the Ministry’s comments and been given approval in principle.

Councillor Cullen wanted to know whether there are compelling reasons for Council to deal with this matter on 25 October. Mr. Burghout said Golder Associates’ advice was to clean up the contaminated soil in cold weather, when fewer people will be affected and there is less inconvenience to the community. A quick decision by Council would allow the process to begin as soon as possible.

Chair Hume wondered, assuming there is no appeal to the OMB, how much work could be done between now and November 22^nd when this matter will rise before Council. Mr. Burghout responded by saying that some financial decisions need to be made and having a level of approval would be helpful to the developer.

Councillor Hunter pointed out that the issue of due process is one that the Committee holds strongly. He noted that this application has been in process for a long period of time. Mr. Burghout pointed out that Claridge has been patient throughout the process. The company agreed to run the site plan process parallel to the rezoning process and, until one month ago, was scheduled to appear before the Committee on October 10^th. City staff recommended that the matter be heard today, and advised that there was a mechanism whereby the item could go to Council the following day.

When asked to comment by Chair Hume, Mr. John Moser, Acting Deputy Manager, Planning and Growth Management, said staff did not have enough details from the proponent to complete its work. In light of the fact that the next regular Council meeting is not scheduled until November 22^nd, staff recommended the item be dealt with on October 25^th. Mr. Moser added that the major concern related to the site clean-up.

Having ascertained from Mr. Burghout that Claridge was not opposed to a site plan condition calling for the developer to contribute to the rehabilitation of Loyer Street, Councillor Bédard asked that the meeting record contain a statement to this effect.

The following individuals submitted written documentation in opposition to the development (on file with the City Clerk):

· Ms. Julie Leclair, 90 Dagmar Avenue;

· Mr. Angus W. J. (Ron) Robertson, 211 North River Road;

· Ms. Marilyn Hart, 79 Laval Street;

· Mr. Mark Friedman, Douglas Avenue;

· Mr. Roger Peters, 20 Coupal Street.

Also submitted into the record was a bilingual fact sheet from Claridge Homes describing modifications the company had made to address community concerns.

Committee Discussion

Councillor Michel Bellemare sought assurance from staff that the increase in density for this project was not being driven by the possibility of a future transit station. Mr. Lindsay responded by saying that the project was driven by the existing policies and policy framework. He added that the rapid transit line has been identified as coming down Montreal Road at some time in the future, likely within the lifespan of these buildings but that this had not been a deciding factor in establishing the density.

Councillor Bédard provided a brief history of a project that has been in front of the community for one and one-half years. He said there had been a great deal of consultation, and the public meetings were well attended. Many of the speakers have re-stated the issues that were raised at the public meetings, and the developer, along with City staff, has been whittling away at trying to resolve them. Councillor Bédard said the community now has before it a plan that, although not perfect, is ready. The developer could have chosen to go to the OMB but elected to follow the process and let Committee and Council deal with the matter. The suggestion of looking at the entire community, including the re-development of CFB Rockcliffe, would result in several more years of community consultation before being able to move forward. The Councillor said he was willing to approve the project at this time. Measures such as moving the highrise towers away from Landry Street, and having traffic exit onto the Vanier Parkway should address some of the traffic concerns. The interior road network will eliminate cut-through traffic. Councillor Bédard made reference to parking, noting that the chronic shortage of same in this area would be partially addressed by a good number of visitor spaces. With regard to the staging of the development, the population increases will dictate what kind of development goes in. The first stage, stacked townhomes, will fit in with the existing neighbourhood. Having affordable housing as part of the project may encourage further development in Vanier. Councillor Bédard stated that the decontamination issue has been resolved because trucks will be limited to using the Vanier Parkway. He concluded by saying that, in his estimation, this development would bring about positive changes for the area.

Councillor Cullen pointed out that there are no guidelines to specify how much is too much when it comes to intensification, nor criteria when considering limits. In many cases, communities are not opposed to intensification but to the degree of intensification. City staff has indicated that some measures would be put in place, as part of the next Official Plan review process, to help communities identify the demarcation lines. Councillor Cullen felt that the application before the Committee calls for significant changes in density and, for this reason, as well as for the reasons cited by the previous speaker, he was prepared to support it.

Councillor Diane Holmes pointed out that the City of Vancouver had undertaken major greening projects and asked developers to put in parks and other amenities. She stated that, for maximum public benefit, there has to be public buy-in. Councillor Holmes felt the project had some of these aspects and she looked forward to a broader discussion of these issues during the next term of Council. Chair Hume agreed that intensification and larger community benefits should be linked and his office is trying to achieve some of the results for the National Defence Medical Centre.

The Committee then considered the report recommendations:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Vanier Zoning By-Law 2380 for 100 Landry Street as follows:

1. To change the Zoning for the northeast portion of the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone to a Public Use Zone (PU) as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area D in Document 3;

2. To repeal exception 104 in the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone and establish a new exception with provisions as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area B on Document 3;

3. To change the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area C on Document 3 to R6-104 Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2;

4. To change the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area A on Document 3 to R7 – exception, Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

5. That the Planning and Environment Committee direct that this report be heard at the Council Meeting of October 25, 2006.

LOST

NAYS (5): A. Cullen, D. Holmes, G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate

YEAS (4): J. Harder, B. Monette, G. Hunter P. Hume