1. ZONING AND SITE PLAN - 187 METCALFE STREET
ZONAGE ET PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 187, RUE METCALFE
Committee recommendation as amended
(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an amendment to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 187 Metcalfe Street to amend the exception of the R5B  S242 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B – Exception 1600 – Schedule 242) zone to permit additional uses and amended provisions as detailed in Document 2, as amended to delete the “outdoor cinema” use from Document 2, subsections 1 and 3.
Recommandation modifÉe DU Comité
(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage de la Ville d’Ottawa afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 187, rue Metcalfe et de modifier l’exception de la Zone R5B  S242 (Zone résidentielle de densité 5, sous-zone B, exception 1600 – annexe 242) en vue de permettre des utilisations supplémentaires et des conditions modifiées, tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2, tel que modifié, pour enlever « à l’usage d’un cinéma extérieur » des paragraphes 1 et 3 du Document 2.
1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 30 April 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0007).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 11 May 2010.
1. That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 187 Metcalfe Street to amend the exception of the R5B  S242 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B – Exception 1600 – Schedule 242) zone to permit additional uses and amended provisions as detailed in Document 2;
2. That Planning and Environment Committee approve the Site Plan Control application as per the plans and reports included in Document 4 and subject to the conditions included in Document 5, and re-delegate to staff the authority for subsequent approvals to Site Plan Control Applications.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
1. Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage de la Ville d’Ottawa afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 187, rue Metcalfe et de modifier l’exception de la Zone R5B  S242 (Zone résidentielle de densité 5, sous-zone B, exception 1600 – annexe 242) en vue de permettre des utilisations supplémentaires et des conditions modifiées, tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
2. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement approuve la demande de réglementation du plan d’implantation conformément aux plans et aux rapports inclus dans le Document 4 et sous réserve des conditions comprises dans le Document 5, et délègue à nouveau au personnel les pouvoirs en ce qui a trait aux approbations subséquentes des demandes visant la réglementation du plan d'implantation.
The subject site is located at 187 Metcalfe Street. The 0.49 hectare site occupies the western half of the block bounded by Metcalfe Street, Nepean Street, Lisgar Street, and Elgin Street. The lands have 60.24 metres of frontage on Metcalfe Street, which is considered the front yard for zoning purposes, and 81.6 metres on Nepean and Lisgar Streets. The property has been used as a 231-space surface parking lot for approximately 30 years and is currently entirely covered with pavement with no soft landscaping or buildings.
The immediate area consists of a variety of commercial, office, residential and retail uses within mixed-use and/or stand alone buildings ranging in height from two to three storeys along Lisgar Street, eight to 12 storeys along Metcalfe Street, eight to 27 storeys along Nepean Street, and two to 11 storeys east of the site. A parking structure is located immediately north of the site. Lands on the south side of Lisgar Street across from the subject site are located within the Centertown Heritage Conservation District.
Proposed Development Concept
The proposed development has a total of 32,700 square metres of gross floor area, with 300 square metres for a daycare, 2400 square metres for commercial uses, and the remainder for residential uses. There are a total of 453 dwelling units proposed, with 230 units in the west building, 155 units in the east building, and 68 units in the south building. The west and east buildings are 84.5 metres (27 storeys) in height, with the south building being 22.5 metres (seven storeys) in height, all linked by a two-storey commercial building. The principal entrance to the commercial uses is along Metcalfe Street, with other entrances along Nepean Street. The daycare is located in the southeast corner of the site, and is accessed from Lisgar Street. The entrance to the west building is at the corner of Metcalfe and Nepean Streets, and the entrance to the east building is along Nepean Street. The seven-storey building will have a common entrance along Lisgar Street, as well as five townhouse units that will be directly accessed from Lisgar Street.
There are six levels of underground parking with a total of 619 parking spaces. The Zoning By‑law requires a minimum of 354 and a maximum of 884 parking spaces. There are separate accesses to the loading docks and the underground parking, both located along Nepean Street.
A public plaza approximately 10 metres in width will extend along the Metcalfe frontage of the site.
The development is proposed to be constructed in phases. Phase I will consist of the entirety of the underground parking garage, the west building, and the commercial use. Phase II will include the east building, and Phase III will include the south building and daycare.
A Zoning By-law amendment to increase the building height and permit additional uses on the site was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in December 2008. The subject lands are currently zoned R5B  S242 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B - Exception 1600 - Schedule 242). Exception 1600 permits additional commercial uses including a personal service business (limited to a barber shop, beauty parlour or dry cleaner’s distribution centre), a retail store (limited to a drugstore, flower stand or newspaper stand), and a restaurant, and restricts all commercial uses to the ground floor or basement of a residential use building. The current zoning permits a maximum building height of seven storeys on the southern portion, and 27 storeys on the northern portion of the site.
The applicant is proposing to develop the site with a mixed-use building with frontage on Metcalfe, Lisgar and Nepean Streets. The development include two 27-storey residential towers along Nepean Street, with commercial/public uses in the lower levels, and townhouses and apartments within a seven-storey building located along Lisgar Street. Since the previous rezoning in 2008, the owner/applicant is considering a retail food store and daycare on the lower levels of the proposed development. In addition, an interim outdoor cinema is proposed to operate on the site during the site development. As such a Zoning By-law amendment is required in order to permit the additional uses.
The application proposes to add "retail food store", “cinema”, and "daycare" as additional permitted uses to the current R5B  S242 zoning. The retail food store and daycare are proposed to be restricted to the ground floor or basement of the building, with the daycare also being permitted on the second floor. Other minor changes to the zoning provisions are being proposed and are detailed in Document 2.
Other Background Information
An appeal on the subject Zoning By-law amendment application was received on 16 March 2010, based on the failure of Council to make a decision on the application within 120 days. Staff have not brought this application to Planning and Environment Committee and Council for consideration until this time as a result of the need for transportation and access concerns to be addressed.
Staff-delegated authority for the Site Plan Control application was removed by the Ward Councillor on 16 April 2010 and the Site Plan application is now in front of Planning and Environment Committee for review and approval.
Staff are recommending that the authority to grant approvals for any further Site Plan applications be delegated back to staff. If there is a concern at that time, delegated authority could again be lifted.
Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement
Section 2 of the Planning Act outlines those land use matters that are of provincial interest, to which all City planning decisions shall have regard. The provincial interests that apply to this site include the appropriate location of growth and development and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians. In addition, the Planning Act requires that all City planning decisions be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that provides further policies on matters of provincial interest related to land use development. PPS policies indicate that there should be an appropriate mix of uses to support strong, liveable, and healthy communities.
The proposed zoning allows for a mix of residential and locally-oriented commercial uses, which will efficiently use land and contribute to a balanced community. The site is located on an arterial road (Metcalfe Street), which provides good access to the site and a focus for mixed-use development. The site is conveniently located near transit, and nearby residential and commercial areas to allow for access by pedestrians and transit. Staff conclude that the proposal is consistent with the matters of provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act and PPS.
Section 2.3.1 of the Official Plan sets broad strategic directions to meet the challenge of managing growth, providing infrastructure, maintaining environmental integrity and creating livable communities within Ottawa. To meet these challenges, polices are set out to pursue a mix of land uses and compact forms of development which in turn will enable the City to support a high-quality transit system and make better use of existing infrastructure and roads. The proposed additional uses provide a better mix of uses that will support this overall goal.
Land Use Designations
The site is designated as “General Urban Area” on Schedule B of Volume 1 of the Official Plan. To facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities, the General Urban Area is intended to develop with a full range and choice of housing, in combination with conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses. The Official Plan supports infill development and intensification within the General Urban Area, provided it is developed in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics, and ensures the long-term vitality, of the existing community.
The Official Plan further requires that uses that serve wider parts of the city will be located at the edges of neighbourhoods on roads where the needs of these land uses, such as transit, access and parking can be more easily met and their impacts controlled.
The site is located at the northern edge of Centretown adjacent to the Central Area. Metcalfe Street is a northbound arterial road that serves as a main access route to the city’s Central Area. The addition of a retail store, daycare and cinema fits well within the General Urban Area designation given the proximity to the Central Area and the convenient services they provide to the surrounding communities. The property is appropriate for supporting the proposed large-scale mixed-use development and is well served by transit on Elgin Street and the Transitway on Albert and Slater Streets three blocks to the north. The basic components of the development proposal conform with, and implement the policies set out in the Official Plan for the General Urban Area.
Centretown Secondary Plan
The Centertown Secondary Plan in Volume 2 of the Official Plan intends to conserve and enhance the residential character of Centertown as an inner-city community with several identifiable neighborhoods focused around defined commercial corridors and public open spaces. The land use schedule defines land use designations reflective of the desired use and built form patterns. These designations are intended to serve as a framework within which the objectives and policy directions are to be achieved.
The site is situated immediately south of the Central Area and as such is designated as “High Profile Residential” on Schedule H of the Centretown Secondary Plan. This designation permits a variety of dwelling types and sizes geared to small households. Buildings and uses accessory to or compatible with these residential types will be considered. In general, residential areas shall include dwelling uses and may include public service and minor retail and office uses which serve primarily the local population, but are not necessarily limited to only the geographic area of Centretown. The proposed retail food store, cinema, and daycare are considered such uses, as they will primarily serve the local area as well as the Central Area in general. The proposed development also serves as a transition from the residential area to the south and the commercial area to the north. The implementing zoning will limit a retail food store to being on the ground floor or basement of a residential building, meaning that the site cannot develop without residential uses, thereby maintaining the intent of the Secondary Plan described above.
In summary, the proposed rezoning is in keeping with the intent of the applicable policies of the Centertown Secondary Plan, and will provide for increased opportunities for people to live and work in an area accessible to services, transit, work places and amenities.
Compatibility and Design
Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the Official Plan outline the objectives and policies for compatible development. Among the considerations are: traffic, vehicular access, parking requirements, pattern of surrounding community, and relationship to supporting community services. The proposal was also reviewed in light of the Urban Design Guidelines for High-rise Housing.
The following is an analysis of the applicable criteria, which demonstrates that the proposed development satisfies the compatibility tests of the Official Plan in a way that does not result in undue adverse impacts.
a) Traffic and Access
Access to the proposed building will be from Nepean Street; there is no proposed vehicular access to the property from Metcalfe Street as this is prohibited in the current zoning. A Community Transportation Study (CTS) was prepared in support of the application, and indicates that the proposed development will result in a modest increase in traffic on most of the adjacent roadway network. Implementing a traffic control signal at the intersection of Metcalfe and Nepean Streets would achieve an acceptable level of service at that intersection. Concerns with respect to access and manoeuvring from the site have been examined through the Site Plan Control process. Recommendations of the CTS as well as specific requirements of the City, such as the provision of sidewalks and traffic control signals, have been included as conditions of Site Plan Control approval.
The proposed development includes multiple levels of shared underground parking to accommodate the parking requirements for the residential and non-residential uses proposed for the site. The application does not propose any modifications to the applicable parking standards of the Zoning By-law.
c) Pattern of the Surrounding Community
Ground-oriented residential development is proposed along the Lisgar Street frontage, which faces existing ground-oriented residential uses. The proposed commercial uses will front onto Metcalfe and Nepean Streets, which are mixed-use in nature. The proposed development concept and the recommended zoning provide for development that is considered to fit with the pattern of development in the area with respect to uses.
d) Supporting Neighbourhood Services
The retail food store and day care uses provide services to the surrounding community. These uses are of a scale that is appropriate to the area, which includes both Centretown and the Central Area.
The applicant will be required to implement the recommendations of a Noise Impact Study as per the conditions of Site Plan Control approval.
f) Location of Loading, Service, and Outdoor Storage
Loading is located on the north side of the building on Nepean Street, and thus faces away from existing residential development, which is on the same side of Nepean Street and along Lisgar Street.
The loading and parking garage access doors will have a unique design using a combination of aluminum and translucent glazed panels, with the intent to reduce the impact on the streetscape. Storage and service operations will occur within the building.
g) Sunlight and Outdoor Amenity Areas
The development has been designed such that the two 27-storey buildings are located on the north side of the site and away from existing residential to the south. There are no windows in the west wall of the existing 11-storey residential building to the east, and this wall abuts the easternmost 27-storey building. The proposed development is situated to reduce direct shadowing impacts on this building and amenity areas, with an open courtyard located between the buildings to allow sunlight to penetrate through the site. The open courtyard is above the second storey and provides amenity space for the residential uses in the proposed development.
Compatibility concerns such as built form and height were addressed through the initial rezoning, which established the building heights and massing.
The subject property is within the area covered by the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS) and subject to design control as per Schedule L of the Official Plan. Properties within this area require review by the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Review Panel. Preliminary review was performed during the previously approved re-zoning which considered additional height and density, and further review through the pre-consultation process for the subject applications. At this point in the process, the review panel has expressed comfort with the overall building design, location, and massing. The Review Panel will have met on May 4, 2010 to discuss such issues as building materials and building openings. The Department will provide the Committee with the results of that meeting. Staff recommend that any minor changes to the building exterior as requested by the Review Panel be at the discretion of staff, through consultation with the Ward Councillor.
A number of development concerns were identified through the Site Plan Control Application process. These related to issues about landscaping, vehicular access, loading and servicing. It is the Department’s position that the site will be adequately landscaped, with the provision of trees along all street frontages. It is recognized that Nepean Street will be a busy street, with not only the loading and vehicular access to the site being provided from that street but the loading and parking entrances for Place Bell Canada, across Nepean Street, as well. It is the Department’s position that while very busy, with the proposed roadway modifications of a traffic light at the corner of Metcalfe and Nepean Streets, the loading and vehicular access and egress points along Nepean Street will function at an acceptable level.
As well, the inclusion of loading restrictions along Nepean Street in the conditions of Site Plan Approval will help to alleviate traffic congestion on that road. Finally, the servicing studies undertaken for the proposal and reviewed by staff, indicate that servicing capacity in the area is not an issue.
In summary, the proposed addition of retail food store, cinema, and daycare uses supports the direction of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, and strategic directions of the Official Plan. The proposed uses, which are permitted in the General Urban Area designation, serve, and provide a transition between, the surrounding residential community and the Central Area, while maintaining the residential prominence intended in the Centretown Secondary Plan. Compatibility and design criteria have been addressed satisfactorily. As such, Staff recommend approval of this Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan Control application.
A Phase I and Supplemental Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) were submitted with the application indicating that there were no significant environmental concerns with the existing building and site. However, as a result of a previous use of the site (former surface parking lot) the mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) will be required as per Ontario Regulation 153/04, through the conditions of Site Plan Control approval.
Councillor Diane Holmes, Ward 14 (Somerset), provided comments as follows:
I am concerned about the large size of the proposed retail food store. The grade level commercial uses permitted in the Official Plan designation for this high-profile residential area were intended to primarily serve the district population and the residents of the apartment buildings in which the commercial uses are located. The zoning did not contemplate large-scale regional attractions.
Both residential sidestreets are already narrow and congested. With the volume of traffic that is to be generated by the two twenty-seven storey apartment towers on Nepean, existing on-street parking, and the loading and parking entrances for Place Bell Canada on the opposite side of the street; the addition of the loading, the increased servicing and customer parking from Nepean Street that would be generated by the food store would be excessive. This store will require a number of tractor trailer trucks per day, and I cannot see how they will navigate the streets.
In regard to the ‘Community Transportation Impact Study’ provided by the applicant’s consultant, I have the following concerns regarding the feasibility of the proposed truck-turning radii:
Figure 12 - Turning Movements Metcalfe/Nepean: Following the submission of this application, I have made a point of monitoring the WB 15M truck turning activities at this intersection, and it is my observation that these trucks experience difficulty in making the turn. They frequently have to run over the bulb-out at the south-east corner. If there are any vehicles parked along the north side of Nepean (which is usually the case) the larger trucks are blocked from making the turn. Even if we are to accept the accuracy of the truck turning radius, in order to launch the turn, the truck would have to be straddling the curb in front of the Medical Arts Building at 180 Metcalfe Street,
Figure 13 - Turning Movements Nepean/Access: This drawing depicts the access and egress to and from the loading bays. These bays are situated directly opposite the loading bays and parking garage ramp aprons for Place Bell Canada, which are continuously congested and double-parked. The Nepean access assumes a totally clear Nepean Street, which is rarely the case. In my view this study fails to acknowledge the existing parking and loading conditions on Nepean Street. I note the study predicts a Level of Service 'F' for Nepean and Metcalfe Street.
Site Access Constraints:
The proposed loading bays and parking access/egress ramps are positioned in a way that will interfere with the already congested traffic patterns on Nepean Street, where illegal parking and loading for Place Bell Canada on the north side occurs all day long. The proposed truck loading bays for the grocery store use are located directly opposite the apron of the ramp serving the 1000 car Place Bell Canada parking garage.
Therefore I have the following questions on this issue.
1. What is the City of Ottawa's traffic engineering analysis of the actual capacity on Nepean Street to accommodate all of the traffic, parking for the commercial and residential uses of 187 Metcalfe Street, and the loading required for the proposed food store. As you know, the north side of Nepean already accommodates all of the loading and parking access for Place Bell Canada. The north side of the street is parked up all day long. The proposed truck access radii could only be accommodated on an empty street.
2. What are the details of the two-way Nepean Street proposal on the applicant's traffic study?
3. Has an ingress for the residential parking from Lisgar Street been investigated? This could alleviate part of the congestion on Nepean Street.
4. As you know, Metcalfe Street south of Somerset Street is not a truck route. North of Somerset it is a restricted load.
I support the addition of street trees along the Nepean and Lisgar Street elevations, and the extension of a fully landscaped area out to the Metcalfe Street curb line
Urban Design Considerations:
As you know, an urban design peer review is part of the Site Plan approval process. The previous version of this scheme (please see attached images) was given a fast-track urban design peer review approval because of the time constraints associated with the submissions to the National Portrait Gallery Competition, which was then aborted.
In my view, the quality of the revised design has been so altered to such an extent that a fresh urban design peer review process is required, preferably by a panel of out-of-town consultants. I am appalled that virtually all of the key design elements that made this development distinctive: the large cutaway areas that allowed for greater visual transparency through the site; the irregular profiles and silhouettes, and the large open area beneath the building's 'feet' to permit a view and vista up Metcalfe Street have been eliminated.
Instead, the building has been reduced to a monolithic, overbearing and featureless box. The Nepean Street facade, with its utilitarian truck loading bays and parking garage ramps is harsh and pedestrian un-friendly.
The zoning for this site has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board as a decision was not made within 120 days. Should the by-law recommended above be adopted and not appealed, it is expected that the earlier appeal will be withdrawn. If one occurred, a hearing with respect to land use would be anticipated to last three to five days.
With respect to the site plan, if it is not approved, it may be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. A hearing on the site plan issues would likely last two to three days.
The expenditure for an outside planner would be estimated to be $30,000 on the land use issues and $15,000 on the site plan issues.
The proposed development and planning applications align with the City Strategic Plan in that it respects the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form, and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities, and contributes toward achieving a 30 per cent modal split by 2021.
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
The rezoning application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to the need to resolve transportation and access concerns. The Site Plan Control Application is being processed in accordance with the “On Time Decision Date”.
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Site Plan
Document 4 List of Plans and Reports
Document 5 Conditions of Site Plan Approval
Document 6 Consultation Details
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, 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 to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
The Residential Fifth Density – Exception 1600 – Schedule 242 (R5B  S242) zone will be amended by:
1. Adding the following uses to Column III, Additional Land Uses Permitted for exception  in Section 239:
“retail food store”
2. Adding “retail food store” to the list of uses restricted to the ground floor or basement of an apartment dwelling mid-high rise or an apartment dwelling, low rise, in the first paragraph of Column V of exception  in Section 239.
3. Adding the following additional provision to Column V of exception  in Section 239:
· An outdoor cinema may operate on the property without being located in a residential use building
· Corner Side Yard setback along Lisgar Street: 0m
· Corner Side Yard setback along Nepean Street: 2.5m
· Section 113(5)(b) does not apply and an aisle accessing a loading space is not required.
· Despite Section 107(1)(c) the minimum required aisle width is 6.5m.
SITE PLAN DOCUMENT 3
LIST OF PLANS AND REPORTS DOCUMENT 4
List of Plans to be Approved:
1. Site Plan/Ground Floor Plan, Tribeca, AP-0001, prepared by Dan S. Hanganu Architects, dated 26 January 2010 and revised 22 April 2010.
2. Landscape Plan, Tribeca, L-1, prepared by James B. Lennox and Associates Inc., dated 27 January 2010 and revised 23 April 2010.
3. General Plan Of Services, Metcalfe Residential, 108020-GP, prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants, dated 10 February 2010.
4. Grading And Erosion Control Plan, Metcalfe Residential, 108020-GR, prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants, dated 10 February 2010.
5. Nepean and Metcalfe Elevations, Tribeca, A-300, prepared by Dan S. Hanganu Architects, dated 10 March 2010 and revised 22 April 2010.
List of Reports to be Approved:
1. Servicing Brief, Revised February 10, 2010 prepared by Greg MacDonald, P. Eng. Novatech engineering Consultants.
2. Stormwater Management Report, February 10, 2010 prepared by Greg MacDonald, P. Eng. Novatech Engineering Consultants
3. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, June 2008 Report No. 07-1121-0239-1000 prepared by Mike Cunningham, P. Eng Golder Associates
4. Community Transportation Study, Revised February 2010, prepared by Jennifer Luong, P. Eng. Novatech Engineering Consultants
CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN CONTROL APPROVAL DOCUMENT 5
The applicant shall enter into a standard site development agreement consisting of the following conditions. In the event the Owner fails to enter into such agreement within one year, this approval shall lapse.
The Owner(s) shall obtain such permits as may be required from Municipal or Provincial authorities and shall file copies thereof with the General Manager, Planning & Growth Management Department.
3. Water Supply for Fire Fighting
The Owner(s) shall provide adequate water supply for fire fighting for every building. Water supplies may be public water works system, automatic fire pumps, pressure tanks or gravity tanks.
4. Reinstatement of City Property
The Owner(s) shall reinstate at its expense, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department, any property of the City, including, but not limited to, sidewalks and curbs, boulevards, that are damaged as a result of the subject development.
5. Construction Fencing
The Owner(s) shall be required to install construction fencing at its expense, in such a location as may be determined by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.
6. Completion of Works
No building will be occupied on the lands, nor will the Owner(s) convey title to any building until all requirements with respect to completion of the Works as identified in this Agreement have been carried out and received Approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department, including the installation of municipal numbering provided in a permanent location visible during both day and night and the installation of any street name sign on relevant streets. Provided that notwithstanding the non-completion of the foregoing Works, conveyance and/or occupancy of a lot or structure may otherwise be permitted, if in the sole opinion of the General Manager, Planning & Growth Management Department, the aforesaid Works are proceeding satisfactorily toward completion. The Owner shall obtain the consent of the General Manager, Planning & Growth Management Department, for such conveyance and/or occupancy in writing.
1. Road Widening
The Owner(s) shall convey, at no cost to the City, within six months of signing this agreement, a road widening across the complete Metcalfe Street frontage measuring 10 meters from the existing centreline of pavement. The exact widening must be determined by legal survey. The Owner shall provide a Reference Plan for registration, indicating the widening. Such reference plan must be tied to the Horizontal Control Network in accordance with the municipal requirements and guidelines for referencing legal surveys and will be submitted to the City of Ottawa Surveyor for review prior to its deposit in the Registry Office.
2. Community Transportation Study
The Owner(s) has undertaken a Community Transportation Study for this site. The purpose
of this study was to estimate the anticipated traffic volumes associated with the development, investigate the expected impact on the road system and determine the road modifications. This study included impacts this site will have on pedestrian, cycling and transit requirements associated with this site, and other measures required to accommodate the development. The Owner(s) agrees to implement the recommendations of this study at his cost.
3. Public Roadway Modifications
The Owner(s) are responsible for all costs associated with the public roadway modifications including traffic control signal (TCS) installation required at the intersections of Metcalfe Street and Nepean Street to accommodate this development. The Owner(s) shall post required securities to satisfaction of General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.
The Owner(s) will also be responsible for paying the annual maintenance and operating costs of the TCS until a study, conducted by the City, confirms that this location meets the warrants for signalization. If found to be warranted, the City will assume the maintenance and operating costs of the TCS beginning January 1st of the following year. Once the TCS is operational, the property owner may request the City to undertake a traffic count to determine if the intersection meets the warrants for signalization. The property owner is responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs associated with this count and subsequent analysis. If the location is found to meet the warrants for signalization this cost will be waived.
The Owner(s) will also be responsible for obtaining Roadway Modification Approval from the City for any roadway modification and installation of traffic signals. For detailed information on how to obtain RMA, please contact Micky Szeto at 613-580-2424 x13803.
4. Noise Impact Study
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Owner(s) must prepare and implement a noise attenuation study in compliance with the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department. The Owner(s) shall implement the noise control attenuation measures recommended in the approved noise study.
5. Waste Collection
a. For Commercial Uses: Waste collection and recycling collection will not be provided by the City. The applicant should make appropriate arrangements with a private contractor for waste and recycling collection. The Owner should consult a private contractor regarding any access requirements for waste and/or recycling collection.
b. For the residential buildings: Container waste collection and cart (and/or container) recycling collection will be provided by the City. The Owner shall provide an adequate storage room or space for waste containers and recycling carts (and/or containers). It is recommended that the containers and carts be placed on a concrete floor. The Owner shall provide an adequately constructed road access to the waste/recycling storage room or area suitable for waste/recycle vehicles. Direct access to the containers and carts is required. Any additional services (i.e. winching of containers) may result in extra charges.
6. Requirement for Grease Trap
The Owner(s), in accordance with the Sewer By law (By law Number 2003-514, as amended), must install a grease trap on the internal sanitary plumbing system when a restaurant is established.
7. City Sidewalks
The Owner(s) agrees to construct a 4.0m wide City concrete sidewalk within the City road allowance along the entire Metcalfe Street frontage, a 2.5m wide City concrete sidewalk within the City road allowance along the entire Nepean Street and Lisgar Street frontages, as may be determined by the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management Department. Such sidewalk(s) shall be located and constructed to City Standards and as approved by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.
8. Provision for Transit Passenger Standing Areas/Shelter Pads And Shelters
The Owner(s) shall locate, design and construct, at no cost to the City of Ottawa, paved transit passenger standing areas/shelter pads and shelters on the southeast corner of Elgin Street and Nepean Street to the specifications of the City of Ottawa.
9. Private Approach By-law
The Owner(s) agrees, prior to issuance of building permit, to obtain a private approach by-law waiver for non-compliance from the City of Ottawa.
10. City Parking Meters
All City parking meters fronting this development must be located at the back of the City sidewalk. The Owner(s) is responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of these City parking meters.
11. Hydro Ottawa
The Owner(s) agrees that registration of the Site Plan agreement will not occur until such time that the Owner has confirmed with Hydro Ottawa that the proposed building does not conflict with overhead line clearance requirements. If the proposed building conflicts with said requirements, the location/design of the building is subject to revision.
12. Maintenance and Liability Agreement
The Owner(s) shall be required to enter into a maintenance and liability agreement for all plant and landscaping material placed in the City right-of-way and the Owner shall assume all maintenance and replacement responsibilities in perpetuity.
13. Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland
The Owner(s) shall pay cash-in-lieu of parkland in accordance with the Parkland Dedication By-law of the City of Ottawa, as well as the fee for appraisal services, such amounts to be paid at the time of execution of the Site Plan Agreement.
14. Tree Protection
The Owner(s) shall undertake the following tree protection measures on the subject site for all trees shown to be retained, as per the approved plans on the subject property and nearby on adjacent property(s) to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department:
a. To ensure minimal damage to any roots or branches from existing trees located on adjacent properties, any required pruning or removal of roots or branches shall be undertaken by a qualified arborist or similar expert, using current best practices.
b. Prior to any site development or demolition, protective metal or wooden fencing having a minimum height of 1.2 metres shall be installed for all trees shown to be retained on the approved plans at a distance not less than 2.0 metres from the base of the subject trees. The required fencing shall remain in place until the completion of all construction and site works.
c. All trees to be retained shall be pruned by a qualified arbourist or similar expert, using current best practices.
d. There shall be no storage of materials or equipment within the drip-line of all trees to be retained.
15. Soil Management
The Owner(s) agrees to undertake analytical testing for contamination of any soils, fill and /or debris to be removed during redevelopment. If any of these materials are found to be contaminated, they must be disposed, treated or recycled at a waste disposal site or landfill licensed for that purpose by the Ministry of Environment.
16. Record of Site Condition
The Owner(s) shall be required to submit to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department and to the Director, Building Code Services Branch, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) completed in accordance with the O.Reg. 153/04 and acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment. The RSC shall confirm that all or part of the site will be suitable for the proposed use in accordance with O.Reg. 153/04. The City may issue a building permit on a phased basis to allow for site investigation and remediation activities, and if permitted by O.Reg. 153/04. No further site works will be permitted until the RSC is submitted.
17. Environmental Site Assessment – Additional/Changed Conditions
The Owner(s) agrees that upon receipt and review of the complete Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, addition of new conditions, or changes to conditions 19 and 20 above, may be required.
18. Truck Loading Restrictions
agrees that loading for the commercial uses shall not occur between 7-9am and
3:30 and 5:30pm.
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 6
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.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
The proposed retail food store use will generate need for truck deliveries. How many semi-trailer loads per day will service the store? Will Metcalfe, Nepean and Lisgar be widened to accommodate trucks? What is the time and delivery of goods? What is the effect on local traffic?
The transportation study submitted with the application indicates that there will be approximately 10 trucks per day, six days per week, which will deliver between 7am and 4:30pm. The southeast corner of Metcalfe and Nepean Streets is proposed to be widened to accommodate truck-turning movements; however, this will be subject to the Road Modification Approval process. The other comments have been addressed in the Discussion section above.
In order to encourage and service intensification, services must be located in the core. A large grocery store in the core is very much needed. It is this type of development that could encourage people to move downtown and eliminate commutes.
There is already another grocery store located downtown. The addition and development of a retail food store is a highly incompatible and inappropriate land use.
As outlined in the Discussion section above, staff consider the use to be compatible and appropriate.
Does the plan conform with the National Capital Commission’s plan as it is within the Parliamentary precinct, for example, for type and use of property (eg height) and quality of construction and type of materials?
The height of the proposed building is not subject to this application, and was previously approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. The site is located outside of the National Capital Commission’s “Core Area”. The National Capital Commission and the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy review panel have be consulted on matters of site design.
The retail food store use will generate industrial pollution and requires and Environmental Assessment. There will be noise from the rooftop units for the retail food store.
An Environmental Assessment is not required for this class of development. Noise concerns, including mitigation measures have been addressed through the Site Plan process.
Parking should meet minimum requirements and no reductions should be granted. There should be visitor parking, handicap, and short-term parking available to the public.
The applicant is not seeking a reduction to the minimum parking requirements as part of this Zoning By-law amendment application. The proposed development will have to be in compliance with all applicable by-laws for parking, including the Zoning By-law and Traffic and Parking By-law.
(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)
The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file with the City Clerk:
· E-mail date 11 May 2010 from Shawn Menard, President, Centretown Citizens Community Association
· Letter dated 10 May 2010 from Deborah A. Bellinger, on behalf of 160 Elgin Portfolio Inc.
· Letter dated 6 May 2010 from Michael Lambert
· Comments from David Gladstone dated 11 May 2010
· Comments from the Downtown Urban Design Review Panel (DOUDS) from their panel meeting of 4 May 2010
Kalle Hakala, Planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval, by means of a PowerPoint presentation that is held on file with the City Clerk. He was accompanied by John Smit, Manager of Development Review, Urban, and Alain Miguelez, Program Manager of Development Review Process, Urban.
It was noted that for this application Committee would be asked to approve the Site Plan, and recommend to Council approval of the Zoning.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, staff provided the following additional information:
· The previous rezoning application approved by the OMB in 2008 resulted in the property being granted more commercial uses than had previously existed. The current application was a request for further commercial uses, specifically a food store and daycare
· With respect to the addition of a cinema use, staff believed the applicant intended to use some of the land as an outdoor cinema on a temporary basis during the pre-construction phase. Staff did not feel it necessary to specify in the report that the use must be temporary because the developer had not incorporated any space in their development for a permanent cinema. The zoning by-law definition of “cinema” does not specify inside or outside use.
· It would the applicant’s responsibility to provide the required parking for the cinema per the Zoning By-law, whether on the remaining existing parking or in the underground parking garage being constructed and staff would ensure this was the case.
· While staff had only just received the full environmental assessment, based on the initial environmental assessment they had no concerns with respect to the environmental implications of the development and impact on the underground water below the site, and felt any issues could be dealt with through building design.
· The City would provide the standard weekly container waste and recycling collection for the development. Should there be a need for any collection in excess of this, the building owners would be responsible.
· The applicant would be required to locate, design and construct a transit shelter at the southeast corner of Elgin Street and Nepean Street at no cost to the City. Currently there is a transit stop at that location, but no shelter.
In response to questions about the proposed grocery store and the impacts of delivery trucks, staff reviewed with Committee some drawings illustrating how delivery trucks would access the site via Metcalfe Street and Nepean Street, and the process of loading and unloading. Staff also provided the following points of information:
· The size of the proposed grocery store would be 2400 square metres, approximately 25000 square feet.
· The applicant’s transportation consultant had recommended the widening of Nepean Street at the intersection of Metcalfe by approximately one metre, which would require road modification approval.
· The applicant’s transportation consultant had proposed that approximately 10 trucks per day would access the site, but not all trucks accessing the site would be the larger WB 15M trucks illustrated in the drawings.
· Five or six parallel parking spaces on Nepean Street would need to be removed to allow access for the trucks.
· No loading would be permitted during peak periods, 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 – 5:30 p.m. The condition would be implemented through the Site Plan agreement. Enforcement would likely be on a complaint basis, with by-law staff monitoring any issues that arise. The City could also require that signage be erected indicating the permitted hours of delivery.
· With respect to the noise from the trucks and its impact on nearby residents, the applicant is required to do a noise study as a condition of site plan approval, which would recommend mitigation measures. The receiving area is to be completely located within the building, with a door that can shut with the trucks located inside, further mitigating the impacts.
Debbie Bellinger, Nelligan O’Brien Payne, spoke on behalf of the owners of 160 Elgin St. (Place Bell Canada) in opposition to the proposal as presented. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation and written comments are held on file with the City Clerk. She began by noting that Place Bell Canada had sworn a declaration that they did not receive the required notice of the application, although it may have been sent.
With respect to the particular concerns of her client, Ms. Bellinger raised the following points
· They are concerned about what the proposed cinema use would mean in the long term, and note the traffic study did not include the cinema use.
· They do not object to the proposed daycare use, although there are some concerns with the traffic and parking impact.
· They do not agree with the planning rationale that a retail food store is consistent with the uses already recognized by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB.) In particular, there are concerns that insufficient attention had been paid to the traffic and access impacts.
· There are concerns with the traffic study and the potential traffic and access problems caused by delivery trucks on Nepean Street. The bottleneck caused by delivery truck loading on Nepean Street could potentially limit access to the parking garage at 160 Elgin Street.
· The traffic study did not adequately address the impact of traffic on the surrounding community, and there has been no impact study on the residents above the loading bay.
· There is concern that, with no delivery allowed during peak hours, deliveries will extend into the evening hours.
· The traffic consultant’s proposal that truck drivers will need to coordinate their actions to access the loading bay will be problematic.
· The loading bay will be located too close to Metcalfe, and there are concerns with the large turning radius and the requirement for three clear lanes on Metcalfe and Nepean Streets, particularly in winter.
· Have examined the traffic study, 160 Elgin will endeavour to obtain a traffic consultant, though they have not yet had the opportunity to do so.
· 160 Elgin is recommending another use for the site, other than a food store.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with regards to the issue of notification, Ms. Bellinger reiterated that Place Bell Canade did not receive notice, and indicated that at least one neighbouring owner also did not receive notice, although though some others did. Mr. Hakala explained that staff sends notice to everybody within 120 metres of an application, using a list generated quarterly by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC.) Staff confirmed that the correct information for 160 Elgin was on the list, and their notice was sent, but could not confirm that it was received.
Janet Bradley, Borden Ladner Gervais, spoke on behalf of Claridge Homes, owner and applicant. She was accompanied by traffic engineer Jennifer Luong, Novatech and Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants.
With respect to the Cinema use, Ms. Bradley suggested Claridge had thought it would be a nice idea to have an outdoor cinema during the presale period, and thus added it to the application as a temporary use; however, given the concerns it has raised, Claridge was formally requesting the application be amended to delete any reference to the outdoor cinema. With respect to the other proposed uses, Ms. Bradley suggested everyone should be supportive of encouraging residential development, a food store and a daycare in the downtown core, which is responsive to creating communities where people can work, play and shop.
On the issue of the food store, Ms. Bradley argued that a food store was needed in the downtown community. She noted it was not large for a food store, particularly compared with suburban grocery stores. She questioned that anyone would drive in from other areas of the City to pick up groceries from this relatively small food store, suggesting it would be used mostly by people living and working in the community. With respect to the impact of delivery trucks, she suggested similar issues would arise with any downtown grocery store, and suggested the impacts were not so unmanageable as to justify denying a downtown food store. Ms. Bradley then summarized the results of the traffic report, highlighting the following points
· Trucks are to be restricted in size, with the largest being the WB 15M truck. While there could be as many as 10 trucks per day delivering food, those will not all necessarily be the larger trucks.
· The site plan restricts the trucks so that they cannot unload during peak hours, so when office workers from Place Bell Canada arrive and leave work, there would be no trucks there. It was noted there are already large trucks delivering to Place Bell.
· The southeast corner of Nepean Street and Metcalfe Street would be engineered and widened to accommodate truck turning movements.
· There would be a traffic light installed at Nepean and Metcalfe, at the developer’s cost, regulating and controlling traffic to be safer for pedestrians.
· Trucking routes mean no trucks are allowed on Metcalfe south of Somerset Street, and the City’s parking by-law does not allow any stopping or parking of trucks on the north side of Nepean Street.
· The current zoning would, as of right, permit a pharmacy of the same size as the proposed retail food store, which would also have requirement for delivery trucks.
In conclusion, Ms. Bradley submitted that if the City was going to obtain the kinds of valuable uses proposed in this development, there may have to be some moderate impact, which in this case was being very well regulated by planning staff. Mr. Fobert added that this development contributed to the objective of creating complete, sustainable communities. He reiterated the importance of this kind of use, particularly in a location that is slated for growth in intensification over time. He estimated that the majority of the traffic in the food store would be walk-in traffic, citing a 2005 origin-destination survey of the area that showed half of all peak hour trips were done on foot.
In response to questions from the Chair with regards to the comparative size of this food store, Mr. Fobert suggested it would be approximately one quarter of the size of the Loblaws on Richmond Road. He confirmed that the applicants did have a tenant in mind for the food store, but were not yet able to disclose who it was.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes Ms. Luong indicated that the deliveries to the two loading bays would need to be scheduled so that trucks would not need to park on the street waiting for the previous truck to leave; however there may be the need to occasionally to have a truck waiting somewhere on Nepean Street.
Councillor Qadri suggested it was problematic that there was no waiting zone for the trucks. He suggested that the larger trucks, upwards of 45 feet long, were the type that made daily deliveries, while the smaller trucks would be more infrequent. Ms. Bradley agreed that the delivery scenarios would depend on the type of grocery store in the space and their practices.
Michael Lambert, resident of 18 Nepean Street, spoke with respect to the traffic impacts of the proposed development, as outlined in the traffic study commissioned by the applicants. He also submitted detailed written comments, which were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Lambert argued that the traffic study showed the projected traffic load was unmanageable, and suggested the projected 60 trucks per week would cause significant problems for the area, and for Nepean Street.
Mr. Lambert outlined the projected route a truck would need to take if it exited the Queensway and travelled down Metcalfe Street to the site, noting they would need to pass numerous important and historical buildings. He expressed concern with the impacts of these trucks on the area. He also expressed concern that the large vehicles turning onto Nepean Street and loading would create large backlog of traffic on the street, given the existing parking lots that have entrances off the street. He questioned the conclusion of the traffic report that coordination would be required between vehicles making deliveries to the subject site and Place Bell Canada, suggesting goodwill was not something upon which one should base traffic regulation. He suggested there were sufficient grocery stores in the downtown area, citing Hartman’s on Bank Street, Boushey’s on Elgin Street and numerous local bakeries and delicatessens. He concluded by suggested that the building of a retail grocery store on the site should be cancelled, perhaps putting in its place an open area.
Having concluded public delegations, Committee then posed additional questions to staff.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Hakala confirmed that trucks accessing the site would have to use approved truck routes; therefore, trucks could not access the site via Metcalfe Street from the Queensway. He suggested they would likely access the site via Laurier Avenue and O’Connor Street.
In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Hakala confirmed that the site was originally re-zoned as part of a proposal that accommodated a potential portrait gallery. As to why the City could not go back and down-zone the property now that there was no portrait gallery, Mr. Smit explained that the OMB concluded that even if the portrait gallery did not go ahead, the requested increase in height was still appropriate, so they set in place a zoning that did not require the portrait gallery. Councillor Doucet suggested that the portrait gallery was the only reason Council approved the original rezoning, and suggested the OMB was being presumptuous in assuming the City would have rezoned it anyway. Mr. Smit noted that this was exactly the case the City argued before the board; however the board concluded differently based on the evidence they heard at the hearing. Councillor Doucet lamented that they were seized with cleaning up the mess left by the OMB, which he found to be repugnant to his sensibilities as a locally elected official and as a resident. Chair Hume noted that the City would go before the OMB again on this application in July.
In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Hakala indicated that the current amount of truck traffic along Nepean Street was approximately 45 trucks during the eight highest hours. He confirmed that the nearest grocery store to the site was Hartman’s, at the Corner of Somerset and Bank, which is over 40000 square feet. The proposed grocery store on this site was to be approximately 25000 square feet, which is closer in scale to the Metro at Rideau and Cumberland. Mr. Hakala suspected those two other downtown grocery stores would have similar truck traffic as the one proposed, and indicated he was not aware of existing issues at either. In terms of how to balance the service to the residents and the congestion concerns, Mr. Hakala suggested that, other than the peak-hour restrictions, other mitigation measures included having the loading located off street, restricting access to existing truck routes, and other City requirements for the amount of traffic. Mr. Hakala indicated the department was satisfied with what the applicants were proposing, and satisfied with the transportation study as most recently proposed.
Having completed questions to staff, the Chair turned the recommendations over to Committee for debate.
Councillor Holmes, as ward Councillor, acknowledged that there was a need for more grocery stores downtown; however, she suggested that the access for this particular grocery store was too problematic from the perspective of traffic and access. She suggested it was unfortunate the loading bay would be directly opposite the garage entrances for Place Bell. She questioned the conclusion of the traffic report that drivers would have to coordinate their actions in order to make it work, suggesting it showed how problematic the situation was. She suggested the vehicular traffic would be a problem as well.
The Councillor noted this was a residentially zoned piece of the City, originally intended to be 12 stories, that has been expanded to 27 stories with significant additional parking. She suggested that the addition of the grocery store and associated truck traffic created an impossible situation for Nepean Street. She noted that there would be a peak hour truck restriction, but lamented the lack of site plan enforcement staff for the City, which would leave her little ability to deal with problems and complaints.
With respect to the cinema use, the Councillor suggested it had been ill-defined. She suggested that, had there been more time to deal with the application, and Council not been rushed to a decision by the impending OMB appeal, perhaps it could have been dealt with and accommodated. She suggested it was unfortunate the neighbouring buildings did not receive their notice. She concluded that, having already gone to the OMB for additional commercial uses, it was unacceptable to be going to the OMB again for this use, without giving sufficient time for consideration.
Councilor Holmes then introduced the following motions:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT number 1 of Document 2 be amended to remove “retail food store: as a permitted use.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Number 2 of Document 2 be deleted
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the “outdoor cinema” use be deleted from Document 2, subsections 1 and 3
Councillor Hunter acknowledged it would be very complicated getting trucks in and out of the site; however, he suggested Committee could not judge whether those truck movements were feasible, as they were not expert drivers. With respect to the timing of use of loading bays, he suggested this coordination of deliveries would be required of any grocery store due to limited loading bay space. He suggested it might have been better to arrange the loading bays differently so that trucks could enter and exit front first, and suggested perhaps that could be considered during site plan.
The Councillor further proposed that a food store was a necessity for the downtown, and an appropriate use given the zoning in place, suggesting there no other uses could provide a retail return on the space without deliveries. He further noted there would be a gain from having a developer-paid traffic signal at Nepean and Metcalfe, suggesting it would be an improvement for pedestrians and cyclists. He indicated he would not support Councillor Holmes’ motion to delete the food store use, and that he would support the staff recommendations and the removal of the Cinema.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
BE IT RESOLVED That the “outdoor cinema” use be deleted from Document 2, subsections 1 and 3.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
BE IT RESOLVED that number 1 of Document 2 be amended to remove “retail food store: as a permitted use.
YEAS (2): Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes
NAYS (4): Councillors G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
The Chair suggested that the Councillor’s second motion, be it resolved that Number 2 of Document 2 be deleted, was now redundant. Councillor Holmes agreed to withdraw that motion.
Committee then approved Recommendation 1 of the staff report, as amended.
1. That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 187 Metcalfe Street to amend the exception of the R5B  S242 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B – Exception 1600 – Schedule 242) zone to permit additional uses and amended provisions as detailed in Document 2, as amended to delete the “outdoor cinema” use from Document 2, subsections 1 and 3.
CARRIED, as amended
YEAS (4): Councillors G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
NAYS (2): Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes
Committee then considered Recommendation 2 of the staff report, related to Site Plan approval.
Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:
WHEREAS the staff report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0007 on the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda 73 of 11 May 2010 deals with Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control applications for 187 Metcalfe Street;
AND WHEREAS Document 5 of the staff report contains standard and special conditions of Site Plan Control approval;
AND WHEREAS minor changes to the plans will be required to address engineering requirements and the discussion of the Design Review Panel;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Report Ref. ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0007 , Document 5 be amended by adding the following condition at the end of the last condition: “19. The Owner(s) agrees to, prior to the execution of the Site Plan Agreement by the City, revise all required drawings, including, but not limited to those listed in Document 4, to address City engineering requirements and address the comments of the Design Review Panel, all to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management, in consultation with the Ward Councillor”
Councillors C. Doucet and D. Holmes dissented
Committee then approved recommendation 2, as amended
2. That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the Site Plan Control application as per the plans and reports included in Document 4 and subject to the conditions included in Document 5, as amended, and re-delegate to staff the authority for subsequent approvals to Site Plan Control Applications.
CARRIED, as amended
YEAS (4): Councillors G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
NAYS (2): Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes