Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability made opening remarks with regards to the proposed rezoning. She reminded Committee that the report responded to Council’s direction of 28 June 2010 that staff to bring forward a report on the Zoning changes required to accommodate an approved revitalization plan for Lansdowne. She noted this was a different process than normal. She explained that the proposed Zoning would allow the project to proceed and meet Council’s directions and is consistent with principals and specific goals set out in the City’s Official Plan (OP) to intensify the use of land through mixed use quality design development within the urban area. Specifically, she noted that the City wants to create neighbourhoods with buildings and public space where people can live, work, and attend public events, where mobility choices such as walking, biking and transit makes sense and suggested the proposed Zoning achieves key compatibility objectives where the development works well within the community.

Moser, the General Manager of Planning and Growth Manager and John Smit, the Manager of Development Review for the Urban Area then provided a brief overview the report recommendations. They did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

Brendan McCoy, Ottawa South Community Association (OSCA) spoke in opposition to the rezoning. A copy of Mr. McCoy’s PowerPoint presentation is held on file. The following is a summary of the points raised:

· Mr. McCoy argued the proposed development is poorly planned, put together for commercial and budgetary reasons without regarding the heritage and character of the surrounding area, transportation infrastructure or the intentions of the city’s own OP or Transportation Master Plan (TMP.)

· He suggested public consultations on the project have been insufficient, and the report suggests no consideration has been given to the reasoned and thoughtful input of community groups and concerned individuals.

· He suggested the rezoning is in contravention of the spirit and the letter of the City’s OP, TMP and good planning practice.

· The proposal will create a mall with over 1000 parking spots and include buildings 16 stories or taller in a streetscape dominated by two to four storey buildings, which he suggested does not respect the OP objective of ensuring new development respects the character of existing areas.

· He noted the communities of Old Ottawa South, the Glebe and Lansdowne are surrounded by the Rideau Canal and dependent on a few bridges, representing a serious problem for transportation planning. A major facility such in this area needs rapid transit, but there is none.

· He predicted the doubling of commercial space in the Glebe will exacerbate traffic gridlock and hurt merchants in the Glebe and in Old Ottawa South. Bank Street cannot accept significant extra volumes of traffic without creating gridlock, and is little capacity to improve transit on Bank as the routes that serve it can only move as quickly as traffic.

· While there is an argument for developing some retail space with office or residential above it along the Bank Street frontage the site, he argued the proposed commercial space will add traffic and pull commercial activity off of Bank Street

· He maintained that, at the least, the proposal should require an OP amendment.

Mr. McCoy emphasized OSCA’s concern about the impact such a large and poorly planned development will have on neighbourhoods, traditional main streets and traffic and surrounding areas.

Councillor Doucet inquired as to whether any other park in the City had ever been re-designated for commercial use. Mr. McCoy acknowledged that it was a unique situation and we suggested Committee and Council consider the precedent that it might set. In response to further questions from the Councillor, Mr. McCoy expanded on the unique location of Lansdowne Park on a peninsula. He further noted that the road network was already congested and it was difficult to get places or find parking. He noted that Lansdowne had been used only occasionally over the preceding decades and could not imagine how they were going to get large numbers of people to and from the site.

Roland Dorsay, Friends of Lansdowne Coalition spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He began by expressing his agreement with the points raised by the previous delegation. He raised the following points, expanding on those provided in a detailed written submission:

· The Coalition opposes the creation of an L2-C subzone as proposed in this Zoning application, because it would allow a scale and scope of development that is excessively beyond what is provided for in the OP; is incompatible with local community uses; fails to enhance a sense of community; creates a space that is not easily accessible and that fails to have its major facilities served by rapid transit.

· The coalition maintains that such a major change of land use requires an OP amendment and not just a Zoning change. While the staff report claims that buildings at the proposed height and mass conform to the Official plan, the coalition feels this requires a more plastic reading of the OP than ever envisaged as reasonable by community groups across the city.

· The height increases on Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue represent a disproportionate change, allowing heights, building density and traffic levels well beyond what is currently permitted.

· Given that other smaller-scale re-Zoning elsewhere in the city have had to go through an OP amendment process, there is no reason to exempt Lansdowne from this requirement, especially in light of the unduly short circuited public consultation process with respect to the rezoning.

· The coalition objects to the City’s failure to adequately notify and consult the public about the proposed Zoning changes. There was no public notice signage on the site, at odds with standard practice, and no meaningful public consultation specifically focussed on the proposed Zoning change.

· The coalition believes that neither the public information sessions held on the Lansdowne Partnership Plan nor the present Committee meeting, amount to adequate public consultation with respect to the rezoning. It was noted that there was no opportunity at Committee for questions and answered, nor did the timing of the meeting allow for public participation for those who must be at work during the day.

· The coalition asks that the City more fully consult the public on the proposed changes and follow the proper process to undertake an amendment to the official plan.

· The proposed L2-C subzone would allow for uses and development which incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhoods and which have inadequate parking and transportation to support them.

· The proposed land use reflects a major change to current designations and traditional land uses related to Bank Street, Sylvia Holden Park and the heritage buildings. This shows a lack of concern for maintaining Bank Street as a traditional four to six storey main street compatible with those in the Glebe and old Ottawa South.

· The coalition is similarly concerned that the City would allow Sylvia Holden Park to be converted to high-rise and mid-rise residential use when it has been recognized and used as a residential park for the last 15 years.

· The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Lansdowne partnership plan as presented to Council and to the public as it fails to adequately define and protect the public park. As such, he suggested re-Zoning should be deferred until there is an approved integrated site plan. In particular, he suggested the urban park have its own separate Zoning not an L2-C Zoning.

In conclusion, Mr. Dorsay called on the City to reject or defer the current Zoning application, hold proper public consultations and initiate an OP amendment process. A copy of Friends of Lansdowne Coalition’s detailed written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Doucet suggested that the proposed Zoning change was so massive, and the process so offensive, that it was difficult to decide what was the worst part. He inquired as to which aspect the delegation had the most concern with. Mr. Dorsay spoke to the deep frustration held by community groups and the public at large that the rules are not being respected, and suggested it was difficult for the public to have any confidence in the process. He argued the City should respect what has been approved and respect the consultation process. He added that the coalition was supportive of intensification and development, but opposes this proposal because it is so disproportionate to anything else in the surrounding area, and shows very little evidence of regard for the impact on the community.

Councillor Doucet lamented that the original process for Lansdowne was to dedicate $350,000 for an international design competition and $5 million for the renovation of the park; now the City was involved in a process where they had accrued $3.5 million just for the legal fees and $345 million over the life of the project, none of which was done with a competitive process. He suggested he would have further comments to make in this regard.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Dorsay indicated that, while he could not speak for other coalition members, he was not aware of whether staff had been asked for the heritage report, nor had he commented on the issue of moving the Horticulture Building. In response to further questions from the Councillor, he confirmed that the coalition had asked for a public meeting on the matter, and was not aware of any response from staff to that request. In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Dorsay indicated that he had participated in the Committee of the Whole meetings on the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, but had not been in attendance at the five previous public information town hall meetings; however, he suggested those meetings did not concern the Zoning.

John Lawford, resident of 107 Holmwood Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed re-Zoning. Specifically, he spoke to the issue of Sylvia Holden Park. He reviewed, by means of his PowerPoint presentation, the location of Sylvia Holden Park, which runs down Holmwood Avenue between Bank Street to O’Connor Street. He raised the following points:

· Although it has not been dedicated by a specific by-law, it is a park because is one because the city has set aside Sylvia Holden Park as a park in 1992; the City has since maintained the park as a park; and the residents use and think of it as a local park.

· The park is #50 on the City’s park inventory, and is known officially as 945 Bank Street.

· He quoted from the City’s policy on real property transactions regarding City-owned park land, which includes both real property dedicated by By-law and those which are approved for future park dedication. He noted the policy requires a 2/3 vote of Council for such transactions, and suggested this policy should apply to Sylvia Holden Park.

· No consultation was done on the inclusion of Sylvia Holden Park, although there was a meeting in relation to the “Lansdowne Community Park.”

· Although Council did not formally slate Sylva Holden park for future dedication in 1992, the City’s subsequent actions have been consistent with treatment as a park; the city mows the grass, tends the trees, has separated it from Lansdowne Park with a chain link fence, removes garbage, posted park signage, and obtained a park sponsor.

· Residents use Sylvia Holden Park as a park, and consider it as a green buffer zone between Holmwood Avenue and the hubbub at Lansdowne Park during events.

· The Zoning change to replace Sylvia Holden Park with stacked town homes attached to commercial residential blocks will result in development that towers over the existing homes and keep them in shadow almost year round.

· The scale of the proposed buildings and their location does not integrate with the existing neighbourhood of two to three-storey homes.

· He recommended moving any development behind Sylvia Holden Park and leaving Sylvia Holden Park in place. He suggested this would retain scarce park land in the Glebe, help achieve green space requirements for the overall development and would serve an even greater purpose for present and future residents if left untouched.

In conclusion, because the proposed Zoning amendments allow building on Sylvia Holden Park and because no consultation on the park was ever undertaken, Mr. Lawford asked Committee to reject the staff recommendations and recommend to Council we are asking you to reject the report that you have received from staff and recommend to Council that Sylvia Holden Park not be developed. A copy of Mr. Lawford’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate regarding the distinction between Sylvia Holden Park and the Lansdowne Community Park, Mr. Lawford noted that there was some confusion because the larger park was initially described to Council as “Sylvia Holden Community Park.” Distinct from the community park, Sylvia Holden Park proper runs from O’Connor to Bank Street along Holmwood. He confirmed that it had been his understanding that the Council Motion of June 28, 2010 protected Sylvia Holden Park; however, from the proposed Zoning it was obvious this was not the case.

Robert Martin, resident of 83 Holmwood Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He provided Committee with a detailed PowerPoint presentation and accompanying written submission, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Martin emphasized that he was not anti-development, and was committed to the exciting possibilities of the future redevelopment at Lansdowne, noting that he had participated as an architect in the front lawn design competition; however, he had serious reservations about the opinions and conclusions of the staff report and about the development that the requested Zoning amendments would allow. The following is a summary of the points raised in his presentation:

· Firstly, he suggested there had been a lack of meaningful community consultation. City staff has not undertaken any consultation to date with the local community regarding the report. He suggested the city should be setting an example with important planning processes, and open and transparent communication and real consensus building are necessary to make this a project a majority of taxpayers will support.

· Second, he expressed concerns with respect to the Site Plan, the status of the front lawn competition and the integration of green space with OSEG space.

· He suggested the current design proposals were at odds with the vision articulated to the front lawn design teams with respect to the integration of green space and development space, as well as the treatment of the heritage buildings.

· He recommended that the City not pursue rezoning until the configuration of the Site Plan (including the green space and development interface) was better resolved, opportunities for community input had been allowed and the design review committee had made its recommendations to Council.

· Specifically, he expressed concern with respect to the impacts on Sylvia Holden Park, suggesting it was not ‘vacant under-developed land’ but rather a full-fledged mature park.

· He noted the OP calls for the efficient use of vacant undeveloped land through infill and intensification that will sensitively build on existing neighbourhood characteristics and new development should occur in a way that contributes to enhancing existing established communities.

· He reminded Committee of their mandate to protect an environment and maintain the urban forest, suggesting the City should not be facilitating its destruction.

· His third area of concern was with respect to the scale and massing of proposed Redevelopment, and its compatibility with the pattern of the surrounding community. In his PowerPoint presentation, he provided detailed visual representations of the proposed height and massing changes.

· He highlighted that the height and width of the building area being requested by the Zoning is more than twice what is being shown in any designs presented so far.

· He further noted that there was a considerable discrepancy between the proposed development and the building envelope that was being recommended for approval

· He challenged the report’s assertion that the proposed development would provide sensitive integration with the residential fabric along Holmwood Avenue, and that the proposed four-storey development was compatible with existing heights along Holmwood and consistent with OP directions. He suggested an eight-storey 100 foot building so close to an existing primarily two storey residential neighbourhood cannot reasonably be argued to represent sensitive integration or reasonable transition. He further noted that the size, massing and heights of the building had no precedent anywhere in the neighbouring community.

· He suggested that stepping back with the massing and height limits did not reasonably diminish the impact to the neighbourhood, given the narrow width of the first band of housing before the much higher development.

· His fourth argument was that there had been inadequate and inaccurate communication of the design proposal, requiring updating of renderings and additional renderings.

· He suggested that no renderings presented to the public had accurately and honestly depicted the street experience along the affected areas. Therefore, he requested updated renderings be provided to the public to accurately depict what the height limits along Holmwood Avenue would look like.

· Next, Mr. Martin questioned the lack of sun shadow analysis in the report and argued there would be adverse impacts from the proposed development.

· He noted that, based on some preliminary sun-shadow studies using the digital model, there would be adverse impacts throughout the year should the requested height limits be permitted. Specifically, a substantial portion of Holmwood can be expected to have little or no direct light within living spaces for the entire winter and diminished light for the remainder of the year.

· He suggested that the public and committee members should expect accurate sun-shadow analysis to calculate the adverse shadow impact to the requested 30 meter height limit to residents along Holmwood Avenue.

· Mr. Martin also spoke to the issue of heritage, and the importance of creatively and sensitively integrating heritage assets into the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. He suggested there was nothing to support relocation of the heritage buildings on the site

· He argued that the resolution of the development area and the front lawn space be concluded before changes to Zoning height limit are sought; otherwise, in the event the building is not permitted to move and the Zoning height increases are allowed , important heritage assets risk being completely overwhelmed by tall structures right next to them.

· He emphasized that Councillors must be stewards of the significant asset for future generations, and hoped Committee appreciated that its decisions would have irreversible with lasting impacts to neighbourhoods and communities.

· Although the City may consider itself in a partnership with OSEG, its first duty of care is or should be with affected citizens, which requires that Councillors have the courage, wisdom and vision not to allow or accept processes and solutions that impose undue and adverse impacts.

· He requested a revised city approach for good and ethical planning processes, including proper communication, proper consultation and before Zoning requests are submitted.

· Finally, he suggested that, if the price of the development is predicated on having to construct such a large square footage and number of residential units to offset other investments by the developers, perhaps the assumptions of square footage and numbers of units need to be revisited. He urged committee to have an open and transparent debate on that point

In conclusion, he called on the Committee to not recommend the adoption of the report recommendations by Council.

Councillor Doucet congratulated the delegation for his thorough and comprehensive addressing of the Zoning change. However, he wished to point out that the City frequently damages neighbourhoods by rezoning changes, citing several examples in the downtown area. He wondered how to convince his colleagues not to do that here. In response to the Councillor’s comments, Mr. Martin emphasized that he was not opposed to the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park; rather, he was appealing Committee to recognize the adverse impacts of the Zoning changes being sought, and calling on them to consider some alternate visions that have much smaller impacts.

Councillor Doucet noted that the delegation had not commented on the fact that the City was not seeking an OP amendment. Mr. Martin noted he did not wish to overlap with the other comments Committee would be hearing, and asked Committee to consider his comments on the report.

Sabine Modder, resident of 107 Holmwood Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposal, specifically the residential development on what is currently Sylvia Holden Park. She spoke to the value of the park and the adverse impact the removal of the parkland would have on the community. The following is a summary of the points raised in Ms. Modder’s presentation:

· Sylvia Holden Park t is an integral part of the community life and streetscape, a success story, and a “green lung” with about 150 mature trees that is well used and well loved by the children and teens that live on Holmwood Avenue.

· She noted that many of the homes on the block la front or back yards, but for the past 18 years the park has contributed to the growth of the community, bringing it together in a safe and healthy way.

· The many children on the block make use of the park, engaging in pickup soccer and other unstructured play. At a time when there are concerns of childhood obesity and vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sunlight, these children are actively participating in self-managed team sports, supervised by a very informal system of community supervision by parents and neighbours.

· She suggested that, if we are to encourage more spectator sports and entertainment there a social obligation to promote active physical play that is cost free and already in place.

· She also noted the annual park clean up organized by a neighbour, with supplies provided by the City.

· Eliminating the park by building townhouses would be an undue, adverse impact and negatively impact the quality of life of the immediate neighbours on Holmwood Avenue.

· She requested Committee and Council to allow the residents to keep their park, which was intended as a buffer, and that development remain on the other side of the fence.

In conclusion, Ms. Modder noted that she and her neighbours were the residents who would be most affected in both the short and the long terms by the development, and asked that their voices be heard and their concerns respected.

Committee recessed for lunch at 12:15 p.m. Upon resuming at 12:55 p.m., Committee heard from the remaining public delegations.

Jo Wood spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning, concentrating on the proposed development along the Bank Street. She did so with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file. The following is a summary of the points raised in her presentation:

· Ms. Wood argued that the proposed changes were too vast, too soon, and too flawed to be worthy of consideration.

· She expressed concern with the extent of the 60 metre height limit zone at the corner of Bank Street and the Queen Elizabeth Driveway, as recommended in the report.

· She noted that the scale of the proposed building in this area is justified as being some kind of a focal element to minimize the impact of the stadium and to separate the Glebe and Old Ottawa South. She wondered why they would not want to have the stadium as a focal point, rather than high rises.

· She further suggested that the high rise on the Holmwood side was totally incompatible with the nearby Glebe residences and the traditional main street buildings with which the development is supposed to integrate.

· She surmised that one reason for this abrupt change in height was to differentiate the Lansdowne development from a traditional main street, such that it resembled more of an arterial main street; however, she noted that even arterial main streets are normally limited to 25 metres.

· She suggested the proposed heights would create a visibly impenetrable wall between the interior of Lansdowne and walkers along the street, and questioned the wisdom of this for marketing the site

· She further suggested that the high rises would cause wind tunnels and drifting snow in the winter, making it unpleasant for pedestrians. She also suggested sidewalks and residences would be blocked from sunlight and by the building shadows, and the Aberdeen Pavilion, would be almost impossible to see.

In summary, Ms. Wood argued that the plan was incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhoods and would adversely affect them, and maintained that such high buildings do not belong on a traditional main street where they will create an undesirable microclimate and block sunlight. She argued the proposed changes required an OP amendment.

Bobby Galbreath, Glebe Community Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed Zoning. He did so by means of a detailed PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file. The following is a summary of the points raised in his presentation:

· The GCA is opposed to the rezoning of Lansdowne Park as it is incompatible with the neighbourhood community, does not conform to the OP, will endanger heritage, and is not supported by the existing transportation infrastructure.

· He further suggested there had been very limited public consultation on the proposal and Zoning.

· With regards to the proposed Zoning, he expressed his concern that the density (FSI) of the proposed development was undefined, although building heights are provided. He also expressed concern with respect to the Zoning of the Community Park. The GCA requests that the process of controlling or limiting development intended for this property be open and transparent.

· Regarding heritage, he suggested the proposed actions, specifically the removal of the heritage overlay and the moving of the horticulture building, seem to avoid the original intention of the OP.

· He also noted City staff had informed the CGA that short term to 2021 residential unit identification targets for the traditional main street portion of Bank Street identified in the residential land strategy for Ottawa had already been reached. Therefore, he suggested the residential component of the plan exceed needs of this area identified in the OP.

· Regarding transportation, he expressed concerns about the adequacy of limited transportation corridors available to the site, particularly in view of the commercial traffic restriction on Queen Elizabeth Drive. These include the servicing and supply of the City commercial, residential, office uses, people who go to the stadium when an event is on, or on a day-to-day basis for shopping.

· Regarding parking, he proposed that the street parking of Lansdowne users would effectively eliminate street parking for Glebe residents when events are planned at Lansdowne, which the GCA considers unacceptable.

· With regard to land dispositions, he noted Council had already initiated a call for proposals for the sale of air rights for the residential, commercial and office components of the property, prior to the establishment of the Lansdowne Zoning and master plan. The GCA requests that any actions toward the sale of property or rights follow established procedure.

· He argued that, although the land would remain in the titular hands of the City, the development would effectively remove the land as a public asset forever. He maintained that the conversion of the established Sylvia Holden Park to residential property use requires a 2/3 vote of Council

· He further requested Committee consider this area as a lower density L1 Zoning designation.

· There have been many changes to Lansdowne since the open houses in September and

· On the issue of consultation, he maintained that the previous LPP consultations could not be considered consultations for Zoning purposes

In conclusion, Mr. Galbreath argued that the broad extent of the changes to the Lansdowne property contravene the letter and the spirit of the OP in several ways, and the GCA respectfully requests that prior to the establishment of revised Zoning the proposed Lansdowne plan be identified in more detail and be open to consultation.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet with respect to the impact on the least to the public access and ownership of the park, Mr. Galbreath suggested that once the park had facilities constructed, they would lose control of the park, whether the City owned the land or not. In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Galbreath indicated that he had asked staff about intensification and transportation impacts, and did not get information back from staff on the questions he had asked.

Catherine Caule, resident of 166 Holmwood Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed re-Zoning. Specifically, she felt the rezoning proposal did s not implement the policies and objectives of OP. In addition, she expressed concerns with the notice process and expressed her believe that it could be appealed to the OMB. She provided Committee with a detailed PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

With regards to the deficient notice process, she noted that when Council decides to pass a Zoning bylaw it must first give as much information as possible to the public and argued the City had failed to provide this information in spirit and letter. Further, she noted that notice of public meeting notices was to be given at least 20 days in advance, but she had received her notice by mail only eight days before the original meeting and 12 days before this meeting. Also, she pointed out the original meeting was scheduled in the August vacation period. She noted there had been no previous public meetings dedicated to the rezoning issue. She remarked that residents needed a proper information session and public consultation, noting they have not seen an integrated design plan, mock-ups or visuals of what is being proposed in a neighbourhood context. She commented that accurate information should always be sent to the property owners within close proximity, which had not happened in this case.

On the issue of the proposal not complying with the OP, she argued the proposed urban mixed-use rezoning, which includes larger scale retail, a hotel and taller residential, did not match the look and feel of the neighbourhood. She proposed that the rezoning provided for buildings, rather than an abundance of trees and green space. She also suggested the building heights and density would make it difficult to see the top and vistas of the Aberdeen Pavilion. Further, she remarked that proposed non-residential uses for the L2C, include an amusement center and a night club, both of which are incompatible. She asked that, at a minimum, casinos and nightclubs be excluded from the permissible uses and that limits be put on retail store use, as big box stores are not compatible with the neighbourhood.

Ms. Caule enumerated the following examples of adverse impacts on her street and her property:

· Increased traffic on Holmwood Avenue from cars looking for parking spots, cars avoiding Bank Street, more cars for the new residential unit tenants, and increased truck traffic

· Increased noise from cars, equipment or buildings and entertainment venues

· Light pollution from car headlights and high buildings

· A shortage of parking spots near her home will inconvenience her visitors

· Poorer air quality from increased vehicle traffic will exacerbate asthma

· More people creating noise on the street as bars and events close will disrupt sleep

· Holmwood will be gridlocked in winter when the road is reduced to a narrow strip, meaning she might not be able to enter or reverse from her driveway

She remarked that she had moved to her street because it was quiet and residential yet urban, and argued this rezoning would change her neighbourhood and quality of life. In conclusion, she asked that, before Council considers the rezoning, other studies be completed (e.g. noise and community impact) and a more thorough public consultation occur that includes three-dimensional visuals. She asked that the City not create a precedent to circumvent the OP for major changes in land use.

Chris Mulholland, Chair, Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) noted that the advisory committee discussed this issue at its meeting of 19 August 2010, after it was brought forward at the last minute by concerned members of the community. He expressed OBHAC’s opinion that, given the rezoning has a direct impact on heritage, the Committee should have been consulted in a more official manner and with better documentation than has been provided. He advised OBHAC approved a motion at that time requesting that PEC defer making a decision on the rezoning until such time as more information can be brought forward. Specifically, the committee would like to see images that represent what the impact of the proposed Zoning could be on the heritage buildings. As the current proposal does not seem to match the information that was provided in the previous OSEG images, OBHAC would like to see updated and dimension documentation. The committee would also like to see the heritage impact statement, which has yet to be made available. He maintained that prior to discussing this issue the document should be made available to PEC and OBHAC, whose job it is to provide advice to the City on these matters.

He noted that OBHAC’s major concerns with the specifics of the Zoning are primarily that it presupposes the relocation of the Horticulture Building, an issue that has yet to be brought before OBHAC or PEC with the proper documentation, applications and presentations. He suggested to pass a Zoning that assumes the building will be moved was inappropriate until such time as the proper steps under the Ontario Heritage Act had been taken. He noted there seemed to be a rush to complete the application but suggested that was no reason to ignore what is both good practice and may be interpreted as being legally required practice.

Mr. Mulholland further explained that OBHAC also had concerns with the proposed heights being proposed and requested deferral of consideration until the effects of that height on the heritage buildings has been determined. He noted OBHAC was concerned that the high buildings along Holmwood would negatively impact on the Horticulture Building, either in its current or proposed new location. Also, the high buildings along Bank street edge have the potential to negatively impact the easement provided to the Aberdeen Pavilion, and OBHAC would like documentation that verifies whether it would or not before rezoning is granted. In conclusion, he recommended PEC defer the issue or reject the Zoning as requested. A copy OBHAC’s motion of August 19, 2010 was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Doucet remarked that he has never known Committee to be requested to rezone a property before knowing what its uses would be and asked for staff comment. Mr. Smit replied that rezoning can happen in two ways; it can be City-initiated such as in the context of a Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw review, or via an area study dealing with Community Design Plan where intended uses are not necessarily known. Councillor Doucet asked for clarification as to whether it is the City’s practice to rezone a property before it is known what will be done with it. Mr. Smit advised it is dependent on the situation.

Councillor Holmes asked if OBHAC had requested City staff for the heritage report. Mr. Mulholland advised they had made that request of heritage planning staff and were told they are looking into whether or not it could be released to the Committee yet and in what format. Councillor Holmes was of the understanding it had been written some time ago and she questioned whether Mr. Mulholland was aware of any reason OBHAC has been prevented from seeing it. He said that, although the committee has suspicions in that regard, they have no concrete answer.

Catherine Lindquist, accompanied by Greg Best, spoke for the Glebe Business Improvement Area (BIA). She thanked Committee for responding to the community’s concerns about insufficient notice of the report and deferring consideration of this item from August 24 to this meeting. She noted, however, the BIA’s disappointment that they had received no prior notice that the report with respect to the air rights would be coming forward to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, noting they were unable to attend due to a prior commitment. She further suggested both reports were premature, and argued that rezoning, air rights and Site Plan reports should not proceed until the so-called ‘overlap area’ is clarified and a final master plan presented for consultation and Council approval.

With respect to the proposed rezoning, Ms. Lindquist indicated that the BIA does not believe the proposed rezoning conforms to the OP. The BIA strongly disagrees with the report`s assertion that the development meets the OP in terms of its strategic directions for main streets and the general urban area, and with respect to having development enhancing established communities without causing undue adverse impacts. She stated that the current proposal would have significant negative impacts, notably:

· The depth of the development would create an enclave that will draw business off the street. Everywhere this type of development has already occurred, the main street has suffered, and when asked the City’s consultants could not provide any examples of where this has not been the case.

· The size of the development is too big for the area and would double the amount of retail in the Glebe. The City is assuming this is sustainable based on a deeply flawed report done for the developers, which significantly overstated sales.

· Contrary to the assertions of the staff report, the new commercial area will not reflect a scale of development in form that will make it part of the urban fabric of the Glebe. The commercial fabric of the Glebe is primarily oriented to Bank Street, and most stores are small, while this development proposes mostly much larger spaces. The Glebe and Old Ottawa South also feature predominantly unique, independent boutiques; judging from OSEG’s proposed list of tenants the development will predominantly be large chains and the change will harm existing businesses.

· With respect to traffic, she flagged that there was no study of the impacts of the increased traffic and event day measures on existing retailers, and this was not addressed by the retail peer review. She pointed out that various studies have shown that traffic and parking are already serious concerns for existing Glebe customers and clients.

· With respect to parking, she suggested the cars expected to park in the Glebe on event days would have significant impacts on Glebe businesses. Although the peer reviewer did not think the impact would be significant given that most customers walk to Glebe stores, it also stated that many customers come from as far away as Bayshore to shop in the Glebe. As many Glebe businesses draw from all areas of the city and a loss of most parking spots on event days will hurt them.

· She suggested that for Council not to have addressed such glaring errors which justify the size of the development or to quantify the negative impacts, was irresponsible and shows a lack of the due diligence residents should expect from the City.

· She added that the proposed development, because of its size, retail mix and transportation impacts, will cause undue harm to the existing business district, in violation of the OP.

· She advised the Glebe BIA has suggested how, through a reduction in size, controls on tenant mix and a phased-in approach, this development could be compatible with the existing neighbourhood and in compliance with the OP.

· The Glebe BIA represents small businesses that generate the majority of employment in the city, many of which still suffering from the recession, the transit strike, and are now facing impacts associated with the HST, rising hydro charges, etc.

In conclusion she expressed that, while the BIA wants to see Lansdowne revitalized with appropriate and impressive development, it feels the voice of small business was not being heard at City Hall at this time.

Councillor Doucet remarked that he had never seen one contested on the basis that it would damage an entire business community, as suggested by the BIA. He thought this matter should be dealt with as an OP amendment rather than a rezoning, and asked for Ms. Lindquist’s comment. Ms. Lindquist indicated that it had been a great disappointment for the business community. She felt there was a sense of excitement and opportunity at the initial meetings and with the design competition about what could be done at Lansdowne and how the business community could be a part of it, and there was expectation that there would be a community design plan, at the minimum, or a full master planning exercise with a lot of involvement.

Don Byrne, resident of 103 Holmwood Avenue, expressed concerns about potential impacts of the rezoning on Sylvia Holden Park, specifically:

§ The loss to the community of Sylvia Holden Park: Mr. Byrne stated that the park was created in 1992 as a result of a Council decision to protect the neighbourhood from commercialization. It is not a part of Lansdowne and has been a vital and positive part of the community for two decades. He questioned why the City would support the removal of 150 mature trees and numerous bushes to build condos and a shopping mall when the City’s own objectives call for preservation of green space, biodiversity, and conservation of trees. Furthermore, he suggested building on this park will set a precedent, noting developers do not seek to build condos and malls on other parks in the inner city.

§ The setbacks along Holmwood Avenue: Mr. Byrne suggested setbacks need to be explicitly limited to behind Sylvia Holden Park, so that no new building is built on the parkland.

§ The height and length of the proposed buildings along the south side of Holmwood Avenue: Mr. Byrne suggested the proposed height limits to be unacceptable, suggesting they were beyond any reasonable scale of building in the neighbourhood; furthermore, the Zoning changes would allow for much larger buildings than those described in the plan. He asked that the height limit be scaled down and the building be moved to the other side of Sylvia Holden Park.

§ The failure of the designers of this plan to respect the OP principles: Mr. Byrne noted that the OP directs that new development in established communities should enhance and co-exist with them without causing undue adverse impacts. He suggested the impact of this development on the community would be incredibly negative, the most obvious being the loss of a city park, the negative impact on the residents of Holmwood Avenue due to loss of light in their homes and depreciation of the value of their homes, and the negative impacts of inadequate parking.

In closing, Mr. Byrne recommended that PEC and Council reject Recommendation 1 of the report. A copy of his detailed presentation is held on file.

Councillor Doucet suggested intensification had become a motor for a height and land grab by developers, and and the City has no countervailing force to say more public space and trees must be for every piece of land used up for development. Mr. Byrne indicated he understood that. He noted that he was himself a builder, and was not adverse to development, and felt intensification was necessary for the downtown core to make it a viable place to live; however, he stressed there have to be reasonable limits set. With respect to Lansdowne, he felt the limits are completely inappropriate.

Jackie Bourdeau Byrne, resident of Holmwood Avenue, provided a copy of a community petition calling for rejection of report recommendation 1, a copy of which was circulated to Committee and Council and is held on file with the City Clerk. She provided a breakdown with respect to the 1280 individuals who had signed the petition, noting that 50 per cent were from outside the immediate area and the remainder were from the Glebe. She outlined some of the comments provided, noting that many were concerned with the lack of consultation with the public at large and with the project itself, particularly its impact on the future of Sylvia Holden Park. She advised that all who had signed the petition agreed that Lansdowne Park and Sylvia Holden Park were two separate entities and two separate addresses and that Sylvia Holden Park should remain a municipal park and not become part of the proposed development.

Adrian Evans spoke to Committee about the Community Park, referenced as part of ‘Area B’ in the staff report, and located north of the Lansdowne site. He was concerned with the staff proposal to rezone this park as proposed in the staff report. He said that according to planning by-laws, an L2 Zoning is was more appropriate for an urban city-wide sports facility for high intensity, moderate density of scale of development, whereas L1 is an appropriate Zoning for a park whose purpose is recreational uses that meet the needs of the surrounding community. He strongly suggested community park in question be zoned L1, as are similar neighbourhood parks such as St. Luke's in Centretown, Brewer Park in Ottawa South, and Windsor Park in Ottawa South.

In response to the delegations concerns, Chair Hume suggested Committee could move to change the Zoning of the community park to L1. Councillor Doucet indicated that he would so move. Mr. Smit explained that they were amenable to the change to L1.

Moved by C. Doucet:

That the portion of area B identified as the Lansdowne Community Park be rezoned from L2(338) F(1.5) to L1

CARRIED

Mr. Evans thanked Committee for making that decision. He wished further the situation with Sylvia Holden Park, noting that because of some legal technicalities, it appears the park may not require a two-thirds vote at Council to be decommissioned. He asked that Council consider passing the necessary motion to ensure the Community Park becomes an official municipal park to benefit from the protections a park should have. A copy of Mr. Evans presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to the distinction between Sylvia Holden Park and the Lansdowne Community Park, Mr. Evans noted that some of the confusion with this area stems from the fact that both parks were called Sylvia Holden in the Parks and Recreation database and suggested the section with the baseball diamond was renamed to Lansdowne Community Park in March.

Mr. Smit clarified that the motion applied to Lansdowne Community Park, not all of ‘Area B’, noting the NCC-owned Area B would continue to be an L2 zone, as identified on the location map in the Zoning report.

Steve Harris, a Glebe resident, expressed serious concerns about the proposed rezoning and about the report itself. He suggested the rezoning report to be seriously flawed and recommended rejection by Committee. Specifically, he felt it did not adequately separate facts and analysis from opinion, remarking that it was more of a marketing brochure than a report. He presented the following as examples of flaws in that the report fails to address the design objectives in section 2.5.1 of the OP:

· Objective: to enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity. He suggested the report does not provide any analysis that demonstrates the project enhances any sense of community. The project also converts public recreational space, into commercial retail and development. He suggested the LPP had consistently failed to demonstrate unique or dynamic attributes of the project that would actually have that distinct identity.

· Objective: to define the public and private spaces through development (i.e. quality public and private spaces). The report states that a wall of four to six condos is something that sensitively extends residential space by replacing grass and trees in an area of green space that connects the Canal to Bank Street, an area used by children.

· Objective: to create spaces that are safe, accessible and easy to get through and move through. He noted safety and accessibility were dependent on loading and delivery impacts as well people’s movement and capacity. He suggested a Site Plan was required to really understand the impacts, and without such a plan rezoning is premature.

· Objective: to ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas. While the report suggests sixteen-storey buildings are focal points and provide better definition to residential areas, he suggested these claims were not justified anywhere in the report, nor does the report illustrate how these buildings fit in with existing neighbourhoods, or how a mall fits into the character of the existing area.

· Objective: to consider adaptability and diversity by creating places that can adapt and evolve easily over time. He maintained that this objective was not addressed in the report, and suggested large buildings were not very adaptable structures in terms of their ability to evolve.

· Objective: environmental sustainability in development. He argued that replacing conventional recreational space with commercial and residential development is not an environmentally sustainable policy.

In summary Mr. Harris did not believe the report had the content, structure or wherewithal to provide any justification for rezoning and argued it should be rejected as a report and not be considered.

Councillor Doucet asked Mr. Harris to comment on the loss of public space in an intensifying community and on the fact the staff report does not mention this. Mr. Harris replied that recreational and green space is at a premium in the urban environment and while intensification within a street that has a primarily residential area is one thing, replacement of a pure green designated park space with commercial development is a completely over the top scenario. He noted it is common practice to deal with individual applications for development one at a time, but to deal with an entire area at once and consider massive replacement of green space and recreational space with commercial space is rare. He suggested it was the City’s responsibility as stewards to look at the bigger picture in terms of how much green space is needed in an area to make it a liveable neighbourhood.

David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. A copy of his detailed statement is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Flemming objected that the re-Zoning of Lansdowne Park, as proposed in the report, appears to violate provincial policies protecting the Horticulture Building and Aberdeen Pavilion and furthermore, that it opens the way to relocate the Horticulture Building to make way for a parking garage. He stated the importance of any application to relocate a building designated under the Ontario Heritage Act is demonstrated by the fact that such a request is considered in the same manner as an application for demolition under the Act.

Mr. Flemming noted that provincial heritage regulations require that a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) be prepared for any new development adjacent to or including a heritage property. The City normally requires such a statement from owners and developers of heritage properties before any Zoning or Site Planes approved. He questioned why the City was not following its own rules in this instance, noting that to date the City had not disclosed the CHIS. He indicated that Heritage Ottawa had made two requests to see it.

With regards to the relocation of the Horticulture Building, Mr. Flemming noted that a report to City Council in June had promised that no decision would be made on the relocation of the Horticulture Building until the successful completion of the heritage impact assessment, suggesting the historical overview prepared in February by the City’s heritage consultant, Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd., falls far short of what is required for such a document. He remarked that relocation of a heritage-designated building is usually only considered in the rare case when a building is in physical danger from causes such as erosion or other environmental threats. He challenged the claim by City staff and OSEG that relocating the building “would be a compelling way to preserve the building and re-establish it as a dynamic urban place grounded in, and reflecting its history” because this would hold true - and more so - if it were left in its current location. He maintained the only reason for relocation was that OSEG wants to build on and under the present site, and suggested this was not a justification that would ever be permitted under any international and national standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places.

Further, Mr. Flemming noted that the cost of relocating the Horticulture Building was estimated at $3 million, amounting to nearly 9 per cent of the $35 million budget allocated to the Urban Park component of the Lansdowne Limited Partnership. He felt such a cost could not be justified. He further feared that either a botched attempt to move the building or unforeseen budget constraints could result in either the total loss or further deterioration of the building.

Mr. Flemming also highlighted that relocation of the Horticulture Building would also preclude it from ever qualifying for designation as a National Historic Site and any subsequent federal cost-share programs for the restoration of heritage properties, noting the Aberdeen Pavilion had received $1 million of such federal funding to assist in its restoration in the 1990s.

Mr. Flemming further noted objected to the lifting of the heritage overlay provisions under the Zoning by-law, which currently offer protection from unsuitable development on the sites of both designated buildings. He challenged the report`s claims that the overlay was redundant, contending that given the tactics used by the City to develop this project, the protection afforded by the heritage overlay was needed more than ever. While Heritage Ottawa agrees that Lansdowne Park has been neglected for far too long, and has consistently supported the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park and many specific aspects of the plan, Mr. Flemming suggested that fact that the current re-Zoning application lacks a cultural heritage impact statement and is being proposed before the Design Review Panel has submitted its report ends all pretence of the City’s commitment to the protection of heritage.

In conclusion, Mr. Flemming urged the disclosure and public discussion of the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement for the site before any consideration of re-Zoning takes place, in conformity with Provincial legislation and principles of transparency. Furthermore, he urged that any aspects of the development not be considered until the report of the Lansdowne Design Review and Advisory Panel had been released and is subject to public scrutiny and consultation.

Councillor Doucet remarked on the delegation`s statement that moving the horticulture building might disqualify the City from receiving the same kind of partnership funding it got for the restoration of the Aberdeen Pavilion. Mr. Flemming indicated the reason it would not be eligible for funding is that it would never be declared a national historic site once moved from its original site. He said it would also likely not be eligible for a lot of federal and provincial funding under other programs because the City has gone with an unsolicited single bid on this project. Mr. Flemming went on to discuss the impact he proposal would have on the Farmers’ Market, noting they were quite distressed with the most recent proposal, as they had hoped to have access to the Horticulture Building on a year-round basis. He indicated that the President of the association had informed him that the market had now been allocated 79 tents outside the Aberdeen Pavilion.

John Martin, Lansdowne Park Conservancy, wished to provide an alternative to the current proposal that he believed would satisfy Council, developers and the community. He noted that, at this stage in the process, four major things that needed to be satisfied balance: a stadium, green space, mixed development, and outside management; to that extent, he advised that the Conservancy had partnered with an internationally-recognized design firm, to develop an alternative proposal. Copies of the Conservancy`s proposal were circulated, and are held on file with the City Clerk. The following summarized the details of the proposal, as outlined in Mr. Martin`s presentation:

· The plan respects heritage and local community and does not require towers, private homes or box stores to pay for it.

· The proposal calls for a solar stadium at the Park, an outdoor 50m training facility with family access, pavilion, concert shell and respecting all heritage buildings.

· It would include horticulture; dancing water; pond; surface access; retail space inside a restored Horticulture Building and inside the Coliseum; small external retail on the base of the north stands; and an additional 30,000 sq. ft. of space in the basement of the salons that could be used now that the trade show spaces are moving out.

· There would be a grass berm at the eastern end of the field, which could be used for tobogganing in the winter. Bicycle paths would also be integrated, as well as winter cross-country skiing and skating areas.

· He indicated that the development would be be revenue-positive, advising that the plan would cost $ 90 million, including all contingency fees, insurance, design fees, construction costs, and heritage restoration.

· Mr. Martin provided renderings demonstrating the two options proposed under this plan. He demonstrated that Option One did not include towers or limit sight lines, respects heritage, and leaves the strip of Sylvia Holden Park alone, does not interfere with the Community Park, and merges gracefully into the NCC-owned land.

· Option 2, with no stadium, would come in at $45 million. He suggested this option would be more appropriately scaled for the Park, though either would be fine. He pointed out that Option 2 would have a net revenue plus of $45 million after 30 years.

· The City would retain ownership under both options, and all site revenue surplus would either be reinvested back in the park or back to the taxpayer.

· He indicated the timeline for option 1, with the stadium, would be 32 months and for Option 2, no stadium, it would be 18 months. He pointed out this would not require complicated road redesigns, would allow surface parking for the Farmers’ Market and Coliseum area, visible access and long, open vistas.

· He advised the plan would be officially submitted under the procurement rules of substantial compliance and they would also be challenging under the Ottawa Option Plan to be duly recognized as a competing bid.

· He further proposed that NBBJ was prepared to offer a comprehensive Site Plan and design proposal for Bayview, the site chosen by City’s Stadium Site Location Study, which would have a stadium, a transit hub and anywhere from 750 thousand to1.5 million square feet.

· With respect to the Somerset-Bayview development area, he noted it was approved by Council in 2005 for commercial, retail, residential and civic development. He pointed out there would be a major development in that area by the Phoenix Homes group, who were proposing two 30-storey towers because it is a transit oriented site. He suggested there was an opportunity to develop a stadium there now, which would be missed if it were to be developed at Lansdowne.

In conclusion, he noted that they would be formally submitting their proposal to the City as an unsolicited competitive bid. In response to questions from Councillor Doucet about the likelihood of his bid being accepted, Mr. Martin suggested that it raised a procurement issue, as it was more affordable and should be considered under substantial compliance. He also reiterated that the City would lose the Bayview site if they did not act now.

Carol MacLeod, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning, specifically with regards to Sylvia Holden Park. She noted that she lived near the site, had been the GCA area representative for many years, and had cared for the gardens in Sylvia Holden Park since 2007. The following is a summary of the points raised in her presentation:

· She indicated her opposition to the proposals to accommodate OSEG development at Lansdowne, specifically in the neighbourhood park zone, which would be substantially higher than the highest buildings along Bank Street. She asked Committee to save the park from the OSEG scheme,

· She highlighted some of the history of the park, noting it dated back to 1975, when City of Ottawa added $10 thousand to Central Canada Exhibition Association’s budget to install a park at this location, with the community contributing $40 thousand for materials. The City installed playground equipment in Lansdowne Park North-East Centre….

Peter Conway, resident and owner of McCrank's Cycles, spoke on behalf of Frank Johnson, owner of Irene’s Pub, in opposition to the proposal. The following is a summary of the points raised in his presentation:

· He suggested the present Zoning (as a major leisure facility) is entirely in accord with the city and the area, and it should be developed as such, and that additional residential and commercial uses would not meet the demands of the public as expressed in every meeting on the subject.

· He suggested that Council persistently ignored widespread public opinion in opposition to the proposal to rezone, and that it acted out of order in making exclusive arrangements with OSEG at the time of the democratic consultation, and did not act on behalf of its constituents. He stated that Council should recognize that the stewardship of heritage properties and a major leisure facility is held in trust and is not to be placed in the hands of private concerns at considerable liability to tax payers across the city.

· He stated that the report justifies the rezoning by defining the park as a general urban area, which disregards the Zoning of the parka as a major leisure facility. He stated that the justification given was detrimental to the renewal of the urban core.

· He argued that inadequate consideration was given to the transportation requirements for such a dramatic change of use and that the transportation system is inadequate and cannot be improved. He stated that OSEG has not proposed any solutions to the increase in traffic that would be caused by increased commercial activity.

Written submissions from Mr. Johnson are held on file with the City Clerk.

Sheila Perry spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. She noted that she was speaking as an individual, though she was Vice-Chair of the City’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and President of the Community Council of Overbrook. She suggested that creating an L2 sub-zone that allows commercial and residential was inappropriate and set a risky precedent for the City of Ottawa. She suggested the proposed commercial uses had nothing to do with leisure or public facility, and maintained the changes required an OP amendment.

Further, as there would be different uses for different parts of the site, she argues that there should be a separate Zoning for the urban park, and a new zone for the commercial and residential. She argued that the parkland and recreational needs must be protected for the City of Ottawa future and for immediate community use by appropriate L1 Zoning for the Community Park, Sylvia Holden Park.

In conclusion, Ms. Perry argued for a protection of park spaces in the Glebe in order to meet the recommended allocations of the city, and for a clarity of boundaries when applying mixed planning. A copy of Ms. Perry’s remarks is held on file with the City Clerk.

John Dance, representing Ottawa East Community Association and Sustainable Living Ottawa East, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. He raised the following points:

· He began by noting that when the association had met with the representatives of City staff and Minto, they had noted that the proposal would be appealed to the OMB. He suggested the City had done little to prevent this from happening, as they had not reached out to the most affected Community.

· He challenged the report’s assertion that the proposed Zoning would allow for a proposal that fits with and respects the existing community.

· Specifically, he opposed the height of what was proposed for Holmwood Avenue, and Bank Street; he suggested the proposals undermine the Traditional Mainstreet concept, and questioned how Council could support something contrary to its policy.

· With respect to the report’s references to “landmark” structures allowable beyond the four to six stories of the traditional main street, he suggested the Aberdeen Pavilion was already a landmark structure, which would be obscured by the proposed structures. He argued there was no need for two 16 or 12 storey structures on Bank Street as landmarks.

· Finally, he suggested the City was wasting taxpayers’ money by proceeding in this manner, as the proposal would be going to the OMB, would be delayed and would result in something entirely unsatisfactory for those living most near it, and most Ottawans.

In conclusion, Mr. Dance suggested it would be a serious mistake for Committee to recommend the rezoning as proposed, and recommended they send it back to staff and have them talk with the community members most affected, and modify their proposals.

John Blue spoke as a neighbour to Lansdowne Park, a taxpayer and a concerned citizen in opposition to what he suggested was continuing non-observance of prescribed procedure and public process reflected in the recommendations to Committee. He raised the following specific points:

· Committee has the responsibility to maintain legitimate process and civic governance in its guidance to Council, as outlined in the OP and City By-laws.

· In seeking to ensure that the financial benefits stream from commercial and realty activities cover the stadium project, the Lansdowne Partnership Plan has no relevance to its neighbourhood, to any heritage connection, to the old Lansdowne Park or to the great potential of the location on the Canal.

· The process has been one of divisive politics throughout, with rejection of any questioning of the plan as “NIMBYism” and obstructionism.

· He argued the City has ignored the results and analysis of the 2009 e-survey and telephone survey, effectively eliminating public comment input.

· He noted the best the City has been able to do to respond to the questions, doubts or oppositions, is to publish on its website an unsubstantiated “12 Myths About the Lansdowne Redevelopment Project, ” rather than make use of public input.

· He suggested the process of approving a project in stages as individual parts are defined has prevented the public from seeing the overall plan

· He noted the OP requires a full consultative process be followed and incorporated appropriately during project design, and suggested this had not happened.

· He noted the report considered the public input at the June 28 Council meeting to be public engagement and input, which he suggested was an admission that a public consultation and comment process was not carried out as required from the start.

· He further suggested the main concern for Ottawa was the transfer of public lands of Lansdowne Park and Sylvia Holden Park to private hands by long-term lease or sale, suggesting this issue alone was sufficient to require and OP amendment.

· Mr. Blue noted the OP designates Bank Street as a traditional main street with very specific defined characteristics and restrictions, and suggested the planned Bank Street frontage does not meet these requirements.

· He challenged the report’s suggestion that the height of the buildings along this portion would make the stadium less imposing and make it fit better into the neighbourhood, and argues this kind of rationale has no place within the OP.

· He further suggested the proposed development along Holmwood Avenue did not meet OP requirements, nor did it fit with the nature existing neighbourhood.

· He further suggested the issue of transportation for public events was insurmountable without an OP amendment, due to the lack of transit on Bank Street

· He also remarked that the OP requirements for parking for large public venues were questionable, with only a comment that the consultants reported that parking could be managed with a shuttle service, bus passes and absorption into the neighbourhoods, in conflict with the City planning guidelines and with the OP.

In conclusion, Mr. Blue maintained that the proposed changes to the status and uses of Lansdowne Park required amendments to the OP, and the necessary process requires a comprehensive public consultation. He expressed his discouragement with the process, and asked Committee to take a stand.

Brian Tansey spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. He began by noted that he had listened to the previous delegations, and counted over 96 arguments that had been made against just the proposed re-Zoning itself. He suggested Committee had the last chance to take a stand against the proposal as presented, as the outcome at Council was predictable. He reiterated the concerns of previous delegations that there had not been proper public consultation. He agreed that, at a minimum, the proposed changes required an OP amendment, as it represented a complete change to a public space. In conclusion, he asked Committee to consider their role, and suggested City would be worse off if Council continued to vote the way it had previously on this matter.

The following individuals also registered their opposition, but were unable to attend the meeting. Their names are noted for the record:

· Koby Smutylo

· Christine Secombe

· Enid Parry

· Marwan Hassan

· Madonna Slaney

· Nancy Lawand

Regis Trudel, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) was also present in support of the report recommendations.

After confirming that no other individuals present wished to speak, the Chair turned the recommendations over to Committee for questions to staff, discussion, and debate. He advised that, after questions to staff, Committee would consider the various motions put forward by members of Committee. He advised that he would deal first with a motion of deferral from Councillor Doucet, followed by a replacement motion, also from Councillor Doucet; if those were defeated, motions amending specific aspects of the plan would be in order.

Councillor Bellemare suggested that the better time to have considered a motion to defer would have been before listening to the public delegations, and that to do so now was inappropriate. The chair noted that a procedural motion was always in order, and thus the motion to defer would be considered. Councillor Doucet later suggested that it would have done the community and Committee a disservice to introduce the deferral motion prior to hearing delegations.

Committee the proceeded to address questions to staff.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to the heritage impact assessment and why it had not yet been provided to Committee and Council, Mr. Smit explained that the draft document had been prepared, and had been forwarded to the Ontario Heritage Trust for peer review and comments back to the consultant. He noted staff had just received the detailed comments back and the consultant was in the process of reviewing and responding to those in the context of finalizing the heritage impact assessment report. While the anticipation was that this would have had that completed sooner, staff was waiting for these comments before finalizing it. He confirmed that staff would provide the finalized document as soon as possible, as it was required before staff could initiate the Site Plan and any formal heritage approvals.

Councillor asked for comment with respect to media speculation that the City would pressure the Ontario Heritage Trust into agreeing with moving the Horticulture Building. Mr. Smit noted staff have had ongoing discussions with the Heritage Trust since April of 2010, and have kept them informed of the process. He expressed his understanding that those reports were in response to the documentation provided to PEC at their previous meeting in response from an Inquiry from Councillor Doucet. In terms of the Horticulture building, Mr. Smit noted that it is a municipally designated building, and is not affected by the heritage easement agreement that applies to Lansdowne, which is focused on the Aberdeen Pavilion and view corridors to that building. He noted the proposed relocation would be located partially within a portion of the easement lands, which requires consultation with the Ontario Heritage Trust, and staff has been engaged in that consultation. He further noted that one of the reasons for the recommendation to place a holding zone on the rezoning was to ensure that we go through the full processes as relates to the heritage approvals and the Site Plan.

In response to further questions from the Councillor with respect to the relocation of the horticulture building, Mr. Smit explained that under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the nature of the proposal would be considered demolition, but the effect is really to provide for the relocation, with the potential for Council to re-designate the building in its relocated position. He suggested that would be the subject of the initiative to obtain the heritage approval, as directed by Council, which would commence once the heritage impact assessment report is finalized.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to the Farmers Market, Mr. Smit noted Council had directed in June that the farmers’ square be provided and incorporated into the integrated master plan consistent in general location and area as was identified in the Phillips, Farevaag, Smallenburg (PFS) proposal He noted staff have had a number of discussions with the Farmers’ market board and representatives and were moving towards discussions of entering into a memorandum of understanding, which will further inform the design development through the Stage 1 Site Plan review. He noted Council also directed that area be accommodated for 150 stalls and also what the size of those stalls would be required to be, all of which would be factored into the design to be reflected on the Stage 1 Site Plan. He emphasized that staff is embarking on negotiating a business arrangement between the City and the farmers’ market as directed by Council.

In response to further questions from the Councillor with respect to the market’s use of the Horticulture Building, Mr. Smit noted that in discussions with the market it has been acknowledged that there is opportunity and desire for indoor location. He suggested the notion of locating indoor market stalls in the Horticulture Building was still on the table; however, the programming of Horticulture Building is being looked after and worked on by the urban park design team. He further agreed that the team was focused on making sure that programming has a public element. The Chair noted that PFS would be recommending programming to Council when they present the new urban park, and suggested it will be evolved to a point that will allow reflection to be provided in the final Stage 1 Site Plan when it comes forward for consideration by Committee of the Whole in November.

Councillor Doucet posed a series of questions with respect to the heritage aspects of the proposal and the position of the Ontario Heritage Trust. Mr. Smit provided the following additional information in response:

· The proposal is introducing built elements that encroach into the view corridor easement extending from Bank Street to the face of the Aberdeen Pavilion; thus staff must initiate a process with the trust to obtain approval for those encroachments.

· The trust has indicated in correspondence that at the degree of encroachment proposed is not acceptable to them, but they have not definitively said “no encroachment.”

· The trust has provided a comment to PEC which sets out some of views on the proposal.

· It was not the trust that indicated they would put Lansdowne on the endangered heritage list, but rather another group that raises awareness of heritage and that list is not compiled by any government agency or body.

Councillor Doucet inquired as to whether the City had ever applied for rezoning of a public space without final disposition of the City public space decided. Mr. Smit indicated that he could not think of one, outside of a comprehensive Zoning by-law or CDP process, but emphasized that there was a Council direction in this case. As to whether the City had ever applied for rezoning for a site when there are outstanding federal and provincial heritage liens, Mr. Smit indicated he was not aware of other properties. He did note there were other properties where there are other government interests.

Councillor Feltmate inquired why staff had not brought the Site Plan forward concurrent with the Zoning, and asked staff to outline the differences between the permitted Zoning and the renderings provided to Council in June. Mr. Smit provided the following information in response:

· While staff sometimes brings controversial rezoning applications forward with the Site Plan, it is also common practice to either defer the enactment of the By-law until a Site Plan comes in or introduce a holding provision until Site Plan has been approved. In this instance, staff is recommending a holding provision.

· He noted Lansdowne was a fairly extensive development program. He suggested it was problematic to attempt to have all the answers at once, or continue to invest without having a sense as to whether or not there would be approval.

· The Zoning height schedule is laid across the property and is intended to capture where the buildings would be located, while allowing for flexibility for design or further adjustments that might be required before final approvals will be given to proceed with the project.

· By way of example, there will be a need to integrate into the Bank Street rehab project, and obtain clearer definition on the location of the Ottawa Art Gallery in terms of where they locate.; therefore, the footprint might end up changing within the area that is captured under the height limits.

· Mr. Smit noted that one of the comments from the Design Review Panel was to ensure an opportunity for more intense residential development to be accommodated under the Zoning, so staff has allowed for that to occur; however, it’s not to say that that will happen, as there are clear limitations in terms of square footage and parking to support the residential.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate with respect to the public’s concerns over the Zoning process and consultation, Mr. Smit noted that Council had directed in June that staff bring forward a report to PEC on the Zoning changes required for the implementation of LPP, and indicated the date that was to go forward. He expressed his understanding that the City had met its legal obligations under the Planning Act for the giving of notice and holding of a public meeting. Carey Thomson, Deputy City Solicitor, confirmed that the PEC was the official public meeting in compliance with the City’s legal obligations. Councillor Feltmate noted that, although it may not be a legal requirement, it was general practice that a community meeting is held, particularly for controversial matters, which was not done in this case. She suggested this added to the public’s feeling that the City was not being transparent.

Councillor Feltmate also asked for clarity around Lansdowne Community Park and Sylvia Holden Park and, how and when they had come to be separated, and how the Community had come to misunderstand that the motion protecting the former did not apply to the latter. Mr. Smit provided understanding of the background and history of the two areas:

· The area now known as Lansdowne Community Park was taken out and developed by the former City of Ottawa as a community park, but has always continued to be part of Lansdowne Park proper.

· In the 1990’s there was an initiative to develop what is now known as Sylvia Holden Park.

· He expressed his understanding, based on consultations with Parks and Recreation staff, that Sylvia Holden Park always was the corner of Bank and Holmwood; however, that notation ended up being transferred and people referred to what is now known as Lansdowne community park as Sylvia Holden park.

· When the LPP was before Council in September 2009, there were graphic depictions that showed the community park being part of the Lansdowne revitalization, and there was a Council direction at that time not to graphically include the Lansdowne Community Park within the Lansdowne revitalization. That original plan always showed Sylvia Holden Park as being part of the revitalization

· Through the design competition process, at the advice of the strategic design review and advisory panel, the Lansdowne community park was included as part of the front yard design competition, which again raised the concerns. In June Council directed that that no longer be part of and continue to stay on its own.

· He noted that in June there was clear depiction of development occurring in the area known as Sylvia Holden Park, and suggested that the concerns with respect to that area were never identified previously through any of the processes.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Smit reiterated staff’s position that the rezoning request for the LPP are in full compliance with the OP and in fact advance the directions of the OP.

Councillor Doucet put forward further questions and concerns with respect to Sylvia Holden Park. Mr. Smit indicated that staff was aware that the land located at 945 Bank Street was Sylvia Holden park, but the discussion always revolved around the Lansdowne community park. He expressed his understanding that the area known as Sylvia Holden Park was retained by the former City of Ottawa when the former Region took over ownership of Lansdowne after the initiative by the former City of Ottawa to sell Lansdowne and, per Document 1 in the staff report, the area is clearly delineated. Councillor Doucet suggested it was reasonable that the Community would have been confused given there were signs at various locations referring to the entire area as Sylvia Holden and the City’s website had previously referred to the entire area as Sylvia Holden Park. He suggested nobody had heard of “Lansdowne Community Park” prior to the OSEG proposal, as all understood the area to be Sylvia Holden Park.

Councillor Hunter noted that he had fully understood, in good faith, what park was being protected when Council had moved to preserve the area known as the Lansdowne Community Park. In response to questions from the Councillor with respect to the new parkland and green space being created in the proposal, on what is now asphalt parking, Mr. Smit indicated that about a third of the City-owned Lansdowne park that would be turned over to parkland, which is a very significant enhancement of the green space and the available space for use by the community. Councillor Hunter suggested this represented a gain for the community.

Having concluded with questions to staff, Committee then turned its attention to the following motion of deferral introduced by Councillor Doucet:

WHEREAS the Zoning envelope in the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (LPP) report has been altered compared to what has been communicated previously at Council, and in the June 9, 2010 Lansdowne Partnership Plan Implementation Report; and

WHEREAS this Zoning change has been requested before any coordinated Site Plan has been developed or any consultation with the community has taken place; and

WHEREAS the Heritage Impact Assessment requested by my office has not yet been received even though the Zoning report states that this report has been completed; and

WHEREAS the proposed holding zone would prohibit development until the Stage 1 Site Plan has been approved and this is not scheduled to be voted on by the Committee of the Whole until November 24, 2010; and

WHEREAS this Zoning process requires approval before significant information concerning the integration of the stadium, mixed –use area, urban park and heritage elements is available, and Zoning changes normally require this information be available;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (LPP) report be deferred until the Heritage Impact Assessment is provided to Council and the public, and that the final disposition of the public spaces has been determined.

On his motion, Councillor Doucet emphasized that there were many aspects that remained unknown; whether the horticulture building is would moved; whether the farmers market quadrangle would be preserved or how much green space would be left for the public. Given these interrelated uncertainties, he suggested it was premature to be rezoning the park on the assumption that all of these problems would be resolved. He noted the delegations had highlighted how massive the appropriation of public space the plan represents, and the multitude of effects it would have on the community. He further suggested that, given the proposition would go before judicial review, it was incumbent upon the m to hold it up for proper due process or they would have a difficult time before the OMB. He suggested that all the problems that had arisen around Lansdowne had been caused by the City’s unwillingness to exercise due and proper process. He encouraged Committee to support deferral.

The Chair advised that that if the deferral was to a date undetermined, it would need to be approved by Council. However, Committee could defer the matter to a specific meeting without Council approval. As staff confirmed that they were looking to finalize the heritage impact statement, Councillor Doucet amended his motion to recommend deferral to the 4 October 2010 PEC meeting.

Councillor Holmes spoke in support of deferral. She expressed her concern that heritage had not taken seriously by Council and the City, and expressed her suspicions that perhaps the heritage statement was not yet before them because the Ontario Heritage Trust was not doing what staff wanted. She further expressed the importance of the discussions around relocating the Horticulture Building and the potential for moving into the sightlines of Aberdeen Pavilion from Bank Street. She maintained that, as it is one of the City’s most important buildings, one should be able to see it from the main street. She agreed that the heritage impact assessment should come forward before approvals proceeded any further.

Committee then voted on Councillor Doucet’s motion to defer:

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS this Zoning change has been requested before any coordinated Site Plan has been developed or any consultation with the community has taken place; and

WHEREAS the Heritage Impact Assessment requested by my office has not yet been received even though the Zoning report states that this report has been completed; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (LPP) report be deferred to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of October 4, 2010 until the Heritage Impact Assessment is provided to Council and the public, and that the final disposition of the public spaces has been determined.

LOST

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

With the concurrence of Committee, the Chair advised that members would make their concluding remarks with respect to the matter as a whole before proceeding to the remaining motions to replace or amend the staff recommendations.

Councillor Doucet remarked that this had been an entirely exceptional process for an entirely unique and exceptional site, noting Lansdowne Park was the only significant piece of City-owned land in the centre of the city. He pointed out that the site was adjacent to a World Heritage Site, and had become a primary location for public assembly, and held 140 years worth of the City’s memories. He cited such examples as soldiers gathering and the foundations of regiments. He suggested the site had been a unifying force, a point of connection between rural Ottawa, the Ottawa valley and the City of Ottawa, citing the Farmers Market as a very successful example

The Councillor further noted that people care about Lansdowne Park, and observed that even before the current revitalization proposals had come forward there had been a renaissance at the park, with new events happening there and the community increasingly making use of the space in various ways. Therefore, he questioned the view of Lansdowne Park was a decaying place with a lot of asphalt. He expressed his disappointment that, since the international design competition had been arrested, he had been engaged in protecting against takeover of the park. He acknowledged that all his motions were intended to prevent some small part of the damage that would be done by the plan, but would not stop it. He suggested the fundamental damage will have been done regardless, and the City will have lost the park for future generations in favour of a shopping mall.

Councillor Holmes spoke in opposition to the proposal before Committee. Firstly, she suggested it was problematic that the City was in both in partnership with a development group and the decision-making body overseeing the planning process. She suggested this amounted to an unethical situation and undermined public confidence in the City.

She further suggested that the City had short circuited the process, in not undertaking the usual process of doing either an OP amendment or a CDP, and had short circuited consultation. She noted no public meeting had been held as would be standard with other Zoning matters of this scale or smaller. She suggested that the City should have done more than just the legal necessity, as rightly expected by the community. She also expressed concern that the Committee was being asked to make a decision to remove the heritage overlay without the appropriate heritage documentation before them. She expressed further disapproval of the removal of Sylvia Holden Park, which was supposed to remain in the public domain.

With respect to compliance with the OP, Councillor Holmes suggested the OP was like the Bible, in that you can make it say anything. She suggested that the OP could not be relied upon and provided no protection to communities. She expressed the opinion that the proposal provided too much commercial on Bank, as indicated by the Glebe merchants, and excessive height on Holmwood.

She suggested that this was an example of where suburban and rural Councillors would out-vote urban Councillors with respect to preserving downtown communities or whatever the downtown feels is important. She lamented that most other cities of similar size repair their arenas and invest in their infrastructure, but this City will not pay to do that despite the fact that we are under the debt level that the Province says we could have. She felt the City should be investing in developing the site itself. She cited Chicago as an example of a City that invests in its public spaces, to the benefit of communities, contrasting it to Ottawa, where we fight every tax increase despite the need for investment. In conclusion, Councillor Holmes suggested it was a sad day for the City, and indicated that she could not support the report.

Councillor Hunter spoke in support of the report. He questioned the notion that there was a divide between downtown and rural/suburban Councillors, noting that there are many occasions where either group is asked to support city wide interests rather than the interests of their particular area. He accepted that the local Councillors have a parochial view on this city-wide issue, but suggested that the representatives of the rest of the city had the responsibility to do the right thing.

Councillor Hunter suggested that Lansdowne Park had been characterized by change throughout its history, and that it was envisioned as an exhibition grounds rather than a park. He also noted that there had previously been many other buildings on the site, some of which would have qualified as heritage buildings; however, those buildings were all gone. He suggested it was time for the biggest and boldest change to Lansdowne. He challenged the notion that there had been no consultation, suggesting there had been plenty. He suggested that the concept plan represented a gain for the Glebe community, given the amount of park space that would be provided as part of the plan. With respect to the Horticulture Building, he suggested it was better to move it and give it some visibility than allow it to be buried amongst the other development, suggesting moving it elsewhere on the site would not change its historical context. In conclusion, he expressed his intent to support the report recommendations.

Councillor Feltmate spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. She indicated that, while she had been prepared to support moving forward based on Council’s direction, it seemed to her that the City continued to move forward in as difficult a manner as possible. She expressed her concern that Committee was being asked to make decisions piecemeal, without all the information before them. She expressed her sympathy with the people seeking to protect Sylvia Holden Park, noting that the type of activity and neighbourhood involvement occurring there was exactly what the City was trying to encourage elsewhere. She expressed her anger and sadness with the process, suggesting the decisions around Lansdowne were not being done in a coherent way that allows Council and the community to work through the issues. She indicated that she would not support the Zoning changes, acknowledging that they would likely be approved, particularly considering the Mayor was in attendance. She expressed her frustration that this was an example of what disillusions people in the community.

Councillor Bellemare acknowledged that there were high-quality elements in the Lansdowne proposal, and a wonderful team of architects working to make it as attractive as possible; however, he felt that with poor transportation, deficient parking and no rapid transit whatsoever, Lansdowne Park was no longer an appropriate location for a major destination like a sports stadium. He suggested it was an example of bad planning perpetuating itself and was a missed opportunity to change course for the better. He further suggested it was over intensification not compatible with the character of the area. He agreed that there was a need to rejuvenate Lansdowne Park, but maintained it needed to be done in a wise fashion. In conclusion, he indicated that he could not support the proposed rezoning.

Mayor O’Brien wished to thank everyone for working so hard on this project and participating in the process. He thanked Committee for embodying the City’s motto “Advance Ottawa En-Avant,” over the course of this term of Council, addressing issues like the conference centre, Ottawa River pollution, LRT planning and moving them forward. He expressed his strong belief that Lansdowne Park would add to the value of everyone’s life in the city. He reminded Committee of the other impacts of this development, including the tradeshow space to be located outside the airport, the Ottawa Central Exhibition moving to a more appropriate location at Albion Road, suggesting that would lighten the traffic load in the Glebe area. He also pointed out that a new home for the Ottawa Art Gallery was being planned and considered for Lansdowne Park. He suggested all these aspects would benefit all citizens, including those in the Glebe, suggesting it would be a new very distinctive market destination for the citizens of Ottawa. He maintained that the benefits far outweighed some of the cons and indicated he would be supporting the proposal, as he had from the outset.

Councillor Doucet, as ward Councillor, provided his concluding remarks with respect to the report. He acknowledged that, although he and his community opposed the development plan, they would likely lose the vote at Committee and Council, just as they had the last time. He noted that, despite his efforts and the great opposition in the Community nothing could stop it. He noted a Globe and Mail article saying that this was the worst thing to happen to a Canadian City in 2009, and cited a particular family in his ward and their opposition to the plan. He maintained that the proposal was a bad deal for Ottawa, indicating the Zoning and intensity did not make sense. He noted the delegation earlier that had presented an alternative vision for the site, and lamented that the City has refused to entertain any alternative

The Councillor agreed with Councillor Hunter that Lansdowne Park has been used for many things over the years, including private sector stuff. However, he pointed out that there had never been permanent retail on the site. He emphasized that it was a city-wide issue, not just a Glebe issue, to have a public space turned over into a private space for permanent retail He suggested it was ludicrous to be deciding such a large change over a re-Zoning, when at a minimum there should be an OP amendment. . He expressed concern that every argument advanced against the proposal, including the inadequate transit, the heritage aspects, were being circumvented. He opposed making a decision on very important heritage buildings, in the absence of the necessary information, on a matter of rezoning. He suggested there were so many conflicts in this process. In conclusion, he argued that Committee should not be deciding the fate of Lansdowne Park through a Zoning application, maintained that it should be done through and OP amendment, and indicated he would not be voting in favour of the report.

Committee then proceeded to consider the various motions to replace, or amend the staff recommendations, beginning with Councillor Doucet’s motion that the report be rejected and amended to be in accordance with the Council direction that was approved on June 28, 2010 and reflect the building heights and massing included in the June 9, 2010 LPP report.

Mr. Thompson pointed out that the background clauses of the motions spoke to a 20-25 per cent greater heights and doubling of the building envelope than had previously been shown, and wished to clarify that staff has not expressed their agreement with that statement.

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS based on an analysis of the OSEG digital model, which was used to make all the pictures that accompany the LPP Implementation Report of June 9, 2010, compared to the September 14, 2010 Zoning – Lansdowne Park Report, there are very significant changes in what is being asked which include:

· about 20-25 % higher maximum permitted heights than anything shown to the public and councillors to date;

· About double the buildable envelope (i.e. volume of development, including the implications of allowable square footage, than anything shown to the public and councillors to date; and

WHEREAS this speaks to a complete lack of transparency and misleading communication on the part of the City and OSEG;

WHEREAS as we all know, once the Zoning envelope is defined, the development tends to fill it;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Councillors are making decisions based on erroneous information, and the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (LPP) Report should be rejected and amended to be in accordance with the Council direction that was approved on June 28, 2010 and reflect the building heights and massing included in the June 9, 2010 LPP report.

LOST

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

Committee then considered a motion from Councillor Doucet that maximum height permitted within the urban park be six metres. Mr. Smit indicated that staff’s clear intention was that any buildings located in the urban park would be low profile, and suggested a six-metre height limit was more than adequate to accommodate it.

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS the proposed Zoning for the Lansdowne Urban Park is 11 metres; and

WHEREAS this section of Lansdowne Park is intended to be used solely as parkland; and

WHEREAS buildings up to 11 metres in an urban park would be unnecessary and inappropriate;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the maximum permitted building heights in the Urban Park be limited to 2 stories (6m).

CARRIED

Committee then considered a motion from Councillor Doucet that the maximum height permitted for the horticulture building once relocated should be identical to its current height, and the heritage overlay move with the building. Mr. Smit explained that the 13 metres was what staff calculated as being generally the height of the existing horticulture building. In terms of the heritage overlay, he confirmed the intent was to re-designate the building once moved, so it would still have the same protection

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS the Horticulture Building should not be moved because it is a designated City owned Heritage property, and its relocation is the equivalent of demolition under the Ontario Heritage Act; and

WHEREAS this building should be left in situ and repurposed for public use; and

WHEREAS if the City is still determined to relocate this important heritage asset; and

WHEREAS the Horticulture Building’s current height is believed to be 10m;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the maximum height permitted for the Horticulture Building, once relocated, should be identical to its current height and that it be a requirement that the historic overlay also move with the building.

CARRIED

Committee then considered another motion from Councillor Doucet, that the rezoning of Holmwood Avenue be limited to six metres, and that the setback be four metres. The Chair advised that the motion would be divided for voting purposes, such that Committee would vote separately on the height limits and the setback.

With respect to the height, Mr. Smit noted that the height limit for the existing homes on the North side of Holmwood Avenue was 11 metres, and staff was suggesting 12 metres for the South side, which recognizes that there would be below-grade parking, so there might need to be adjustments made. With respect to the setback, the intention was to maintain the typical setback pattern, which is three metres. He noted that when it comes to a defined Site Plan, there might be some implications relative to where the parking garage would be located. He confirmed it was staff’s recommendation to stay with a three metre setback.

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (Lansdowne Partnership Plan) report proposes Zoning of up to 12 metres along Holmwood Avenue; and

WHEREAS 12 metres is not in keeping with the current heights on Holmwood which are predominantly 2 stories (6m); and

WHEREAS this land is currently used as a local community park, which is named Sylvia Holden Park, and is home to several mature trees, and is located at the corner of Bank Street and runs along Holmwood Avenue; and

WHEREAS residents are appalled that the City is effectively rezoning their local community park for residential and commercial purposes in violation of a 1994 parks by-law intended to protect such a site;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the rezoning of Holmwood Avenue be restricted to two stories (6m) at street level, in keeping with the current heights of buildings on the street.

LOST

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the setback be increased to 4m.

LOST

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

Committee then considered the following motion from Councillor Doucet with respect to the Heritage Overlay for the Aberdeen Pavillion and the Horticulture Building:

WHEREAS the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (Lansdowne Partnership Plan) recommends that the current heritage overlay applying to the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building be eliminated; and

WHEREAS both buildings are designated under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA); and

WHEREAS the report claims that the retention of the current heritage overlay is considered redundant and is recommended to be removed; and

WHEREAS according to the City of Ottawa website, the purpose of an heritage overlay is to encourage the retention of existing heritage buildings by offering Zoning incentives to reuse the buildings, and to limit the size and location of additions to preserve the heritage character of the original building;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the heritage overlay applying to the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building is not deemed to be redundant and should be maintained.

Mr. Smit noted the current heritage overlay was very specific to the current location of the current location of the buildings. He suggested that, to maintain the existing overlay would be in conflict with Document 3. He emphasized that, even without the overlay, both buildings were fully protected by the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, and therefore staff maintain the overlay would be redundant.

Councillor Hunter pointed out that Committee had just approved a motion agreeing that the heritage overlay would move with the Horticulture buildings; he suggested, therefore, that the motion was either redundant or out of order.

Mr. Smit wished to confirm that the intent of the approved motion with respect to the Horticulture Building, and the Chair suggested that was the intent of the Committee to move the overlay under the Zoning to the new building. After a brief discussion, Councillor Doucet withdrew the above motion.

Committee then considered two motions from Councillor Holmes, the first that Sylvia Holden Park be zoned exclusively for public recreation use, and the second that the Horticulture building not be moved from its present site. The chair advised that these motions motion would require suspension of the rules of procedure, as they were contrary to what Council had already decided.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That Committee waive the rules of procedure to consider the following motions:

1. That Sylvia Holden Park be zoned for exclusive public recreation usage (L1 Zoning).

2. That the Horticulture Building not be moved from its present site

LOST

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

Committee then considered another motion from Councillor Holmes, requesting that the heritage impact statement be provided for City Council. Mr. Smit confirmed that it was staff’s intent to finalize the report the following week, and it would be released publicly, and provided to Councillors.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the City’s heritage report be provided for City Council

CARRIED

Councillor Holmes introduced an additional motion, that the horticulture building be used as a year-round farmer’s market. The Chair ruled that, as the motion pertained to programming on the site, it was a matter to be considered as part of the Site Plan discussions, and was not within Committee’s purview at this time because only the Zoning was under consideration. He advised that the Site Plan discussions would be before Council in Committee of the Whole, likely in November, and recommended the motion be referred to that process.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the following motion be referred to the Council Committee of the Whole consideration of the Site Plan:

“Be it resolved that the Horticulture Building be used as a year round Farmers Market”

CARRIED

Committee then considered a final motion by Councillor Doucet with regards to the maximum permitted building heights for commercial and residential towers on Bank Street. When asked for comment, Mr. Smit referenced the direction set by Council to provide for more intense residential development. He further pointed out that the development at the foot of the Bank Street Bridge, a potential home for the Ottawa Art Gallery, was one location where a high building could be supported. While emphasizing the decision rested with Committee, his recommendation was to not accept the motion.

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

WHEREAS at the June 9, 2010, Committee of the Whole meeting where the Lansdowne Partnership Plan Implementation Report was tabled, it was difficult to ascertain the actual heights of some of the proposed buildings as this information was not clearly specified in the report; and

WHEREAS at the same meeting, City staff, when asked about the heights of the proposed buildings on Bank Street answered that they would be 14 stories in height (42m) at Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue, and 12 stories (35 m) near the Bank Street bridge; and

WHEREAS the maximum permitted heights in the Zoning – Lansdowne Park (Lansdowne Partnership Plan) are 17 (52m) and 20 (60m) stories respectively; and

WHEREAS the Lord Lansdowne Seniors’ residence located at the north west corner of Bank and Holmwood is 11 stories (33m);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the heights of the commercial and residential towers on Bank Street remain 14 stories in height (42m) at Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue, and 12 stories (35 m) near the Bank Street bridge as per the June 9, 2010 LPP Implementation Report.

LOST

YEAS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes

NAYS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

Having considered all motions before them, Committee then voted to approve the report recommendations, as amended:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to establish a new L2, Major Leisure Facility Subzone to be known as “L2C Subzone – Lansdowne” and to change the Zoning for Lansdowne Park shown as Area A on Document 1, from L2[338]F(1.5), Major Leisure Facility exception zone to L2C[338]SXXX-h, Major Leisure Facility Subzone exception zone with a Schedule and holding symbol, to accommodate the Lansdowne Partnership Plan as detailed in Document 2, subject to the following amendment:

a. That the maximum height permitted for the Horticulture Building, once relocated, should be identical to its current height and that it be a requirement that the historic overlay also move with the building.

2. An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the Zoning of the Lansdowne Community Park shown as Area B on Document 1 from L2[338] F(1.5) to L2 F(1.5), subject to the following amendments:

a. That the portion of area B identified as the Lansdowne Community Park be rezoned from L2(338) F(1.5) to L1

b. That the maximum permitted building heights in the Urban Park be limited to 2 stories (6m).

That Planning and Environment Committee Approve:

3. That the City’s heritage report be provided for City Council

4. That the following Motion be referred to the Council Committee of the Whole consideration of the Site Plan:

“Be it resolved that the Horticulture Building be used as a year round Farmers Market”

CARRIED, as amended

YEAS (5): P. Hume, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, L. O’Brien

NAYS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes