EXTRACT OF draft Minutes 82 4 october 2010 |
|
extrait de l’Ébauche Du ProcÈs-verbal 82 LE 4 octobre 2010 |
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0181 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE (10)
The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file with the City Clerk:
· Letter dated 1 October 2010 from François Lapointe, on behalf of the National Capital Commission (NCC)
· Memo dated 1 October 2010 from the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC)
· Memo dated 17 September 2010 from the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC)
· E-mail dated 29 September 2010 from Leslie Saunders
· E-mail dated 1 October 2010 from Sol Shuster, Greenbelt Coalition of Canada’s Capital Region
Simon Deiaco, Planner II, provided an overview of the Site Plan and staff’s recommendations by means of a Power Point presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He was accompanied by Derrick Moodie, Acting Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services; Nick Stow, Planner III, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch and Arun Singh, Project Manager, Infrastructure Approvals.
Committee then addressed several questions and received answers from staff with respect to the staff report and presentation.
The Chair referenced the letter received from the National Capital Commission (NCC) and asked how the NCC’s concerns would be accommodated within the Site Plan on a go-forward basis. Mr. Deiaco noted that there is a condition in the Site Plan approval that brings authority back to planning staff for the finalization of all approved plans. He suggested there was still the opportunity to work with the NCC, as had been done at recent meetings, and staff and the applicant are fully committed to doing that. He indicated that changes with respect to lighting, architecture, additional landscaping could be incorporated into the final approved plans. He confirmed that the NCC understands this process.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Deiaco explained that the Airport Master Plan was updated in 2008 and carried forward the commercial aviation/ non aviation designation for this site. He further noted that the Greenbelt Master Plan was drafted or approved in 1996 and the designation for this site was carried forward.
Councillor Deans expressed her understanding that the City and the NCC had jointly hired Ron Huizer of Beacon Environmental to conduct a Lester Road Wetland Complex evaluation, and the Lester Road Wetland Complex species at risk survey with a target of completion dated mid October. She posed some questions with respect to the results of that study and what could be done if the subject site was deemed to be provincially significant wetland. Mr. Stow confirmed that in 2009 the NCC hired Mr. Huizer to conduct a wetland evaluation in the Lester Road area. That evaluation took place in 2009 and 2010 and is scheduled for completion this autumn. He explained that, while the study area includes the subject site, Mr. Huizer’s finding show that the site does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the wetland complex. Mr. Stow further confirmed that staff intends to submit those findings to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) on 15 October 2010, noting they had wanted to give the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC) and Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) the opportunity to review the findings.
Councillor Deans noted some environmental groups believe the area is part of the wetland, and that it would ultimately be up to the MNR to determine whether the site was inside the boundary of the provincially significant wetland. She wondered if the project would be stopped if the MNR were to rule that it was.
Mr. Moodie noted that the lands in question were federally regulated. He noted Council was in a position to make approvals based on the regulatory framework of the day. He suggested it would be a challenge to go back and stop the process without further Council direction because the site is not currently regulated as a provincially significant wetland. He suggested that if the MNR did determine that the site meets the qualifications for a provincially significant wetland, the City would be faced with the question of whether that would be regulated on federal lands or not. He suggested staff could bring back an information item to Committee and Council should such an eventuality occur.
Councillor Deans wondered whether there was a way to make the Site Plan approval conditional on ensuring the site is not designated as part of a provincially significant wetland. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel expressed his understanding that if the Zoning is in place, the applicants are entitled to move forward with Site Plan approval, noting wetland issues are not issues addressed at the Site Plan stage.
Councillor Deans also asked some questions with respect to traffic impacts of the facility on the adjacent road network. Mr. Singh explained that there would be some mitigation measures done by the developer that will take care of some of the level of services. He noted that the Delcan’s traffic study investigated several intersections, including Hunt Club Road and Uplands Drive. He noted the existing level of service is level “E,” and with this development it would be level “F” at build out stage without mitigation, with a volume capacity ratio at 1.17; however, with mitigation that ratio would go back to 0.97. He further noted that the Uplands Drive and Research Road would be signalized as part of the Site Plan agreement.
Councillor Deans sought reassurances that the proposed development would not result in traffic backing up onto the Airport Parkway. Mr. Singh suggested the modifications done by the developer would address those concerns.
Ron Jack and Marc Baker of Delcan were called to answer questions with respect to the transportation analysis. Mr. Baker noted that the site’s peak traffic generation was expected to occur during the off peak hours during the weekends, and the peak direction of flow to and from the site would generally be opposite the commuter flow. He acknowledged there would be increases in traffic volume on some area roads. With respect to the Airport Parkway, he noted the mitigation measures identified in the traffic study include potentially extending the length of the right turn lane at the Airport Parkway off ramp at Uplands all the way through the site access, and doubling the left turn lane to ensure that intersection operates freely and back-ups do not occur on the Airport Parkway.
Mr. Baker further stated that they expected the majority of the traffic to travel to and from the Airport Parkway, noting there would also be some traffic coming via Hunt Club Road and Uplands Drive, and some from the East and South via Lester Road, none of which are local roads. He further stated that the recommended mitigation measures and modifications would allow the road network to work at acceptable levels and not back up the parkway.
Councillor Deans expressed concern about the layout of the site, with the building located at the rear. She noted that current planning principles lead the City to encourage building up to the streetscape and putting parking in the rear, and wondered why this was not being done on this site. Mr. Deiaco agreed that along Arterial and Traditional Mainstreets the City encourages tight built form along the street. He suggested that the operational and space requirements of the unique facility were considerations in the design. He noted the facility had a designation that functions similar to an arena. He noted that the architect would be making comments on the site design and orientation later in the meeting.
Councillor Monette noted that the NCC had recommended an environmental study for the site, yet the report shows that the lands are exempt from such a requirement. Mr. Deiaco confirmed that an Environmental Assessment is not required for the site; however, environmental considerations are being considered. He referenced the tree preservation plan and the wetlands evaluation by way of example.
In response to further questions from the Councillor, Mr. Deiaco confirmed that an independent traffic study and addendum had been prepared, and believed they had been done at the cost of the applicant. He further confirmed that the subject lands were identified in the Master Plan as buildable area.
In response to questions from Councillor Deans with respect to significant trees on the site, Mr. Deiaco noted the applicant had prepared a tree preservation plan. In addition, the consultant’s landscape architect walked the site and provided staff with a letter advising that there were no significant at-risk species found on the site.
Committee then heard from the following public delegations:
Heather Hamilton, Vice-Chair of OFGAC, spoke in opposition to the proposed Site Plan on behalf of the Advisory Committee. Her detailed comments are held on file with the City Clerk. She began by stating that OFGAC is not against a new trade show development for Ottawa; however, after a thorough review OFGAC has the following concerns about this project:
1) There is basic disagreement between the parties about the wetland status of this area. It is OFGAC’s opinion that the area where the project is proposed is indeed a wetland, notwithstanding that it may not meet all of the somewhat restrictive criteria applied by the MNR for designation as a wetland.
2) As OFGAC has outlined in its site plan comments for this project, changes to the current hydrology brought about by the project could seriously disrupt the water table and degrade the remaining wetlands. OFGAC has outlined possible ‘best practices’ options for storm water and runoff considerations in our site plan comments to city staff, but, to our knowledge, these suggestions have not been seriously considered. The Committee asks PEC to recommend that staff revisit these recommendations and follow-up on them.
3) There is no question that the Trade Show parcel of land is part of an extensive area of important urban forest in Ottawa. Every effort should be made by the city to preserve these areas as critical sources of eco-services (i.e. storm water retention, cleaning pollutants from the air, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity reservoirs)
4) OFGAC feels that, even if not required under the by-law, an in-depth tree conservation report should have been done, necessitated by the forest ecology of the area. She noted the only tree report they had seen was a one-page e-mail by a consultant that recommended strong consideration be given to cancelling the normal Stage 1 Tree Inventory Study for this site plan submission, which the committee feels is inadequate.
5) The Trade Show project area is potentially home to species-at-risk. OFGAC believes the ecological surveys carried out by consultants for the City are scientifically inconclusive because of flawed methodology.
6) This area is part of the Greenbelt. OFGAC is concerned that the City is continually proposing projects that result in the erosion of the Greenbelt through development of road corridors and projects such this. The OFGAC encourages the city to re-examine its relationship with the Greenbelt to view it as a valuable asset to be protected, rather than a cache of land from which to carve out new developments.
7) The Trade Show development project has seemingly been fast-tracked because of a need to maintain trade show space in Ottawa now that Lansdowne will no longer host this activity, and OFGAC believes it has not been subject to rigorous planning or public scrutiny and has not undergone an adequate process for such a major development project.
8) Once the Trade Show Centre is built there could result in a call to expand the Airport Parkway and other surrounding roadways to meet the transportation needs of the centre by car, since there is limited public transit access. This would further erode Greenbelt lands and the urban forests and wetlands that are adjacent to the Parkway, and make additional incursions into the Provincially Significant Lester Road Wetlands.
9) OFGAC feels the proposed surface parking lot is a wasteful use of the land and strongly encourages the City to work with the developer to decrease the large and destructive ecological footprint, and try to save as much of the forested wetland as possible through redesign and reduction of the parking area and overall configuration of the site.
10) Projects such as this, which encourage car access as the primary mode of transportation, contradicts and erodes the City’s stated intentions and goals of reducing public sector greenhouse gas emissions and actively hamper our abilities to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
11) With respect to esthetics, it is unfortunate that visitors to Ottawa will see a large expanse of asphalt expanse of asphalt. She suggested it was ironic that while trade show/ exhibition space is being moved to the airport from Lansdowne Park, whose redesign will become new parkland with trees and green spaces, development on this site will destroy an important ecosystem, and trees and green spaces.
In conclusion, Ms. Hamilton stated that OFGAC does not support this project being built on the subject lands. To alleviate the concerns outlined above, OFGAC strongly encourages the City to look at alternative trade show space options in the core areas of the city; alternatively, the City could initiate discussions with the Airport Authority, the Department of Defence, and the Uplands military base to find a suitable alternative site in the same area as the proposed project.
Notwithstanding OFGAC’s opposition to the proposed site, Ms. Hamilton voiced their support for the comments submitted by the NCC, and urged the City to seriously consider these recommendations and incorporate them in any final approvals of the Site Plan.
Bernie Geiger, Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC), spoke in opposition to the Site Plan as presented, on behalf of the Advisory Committee. He noted that PTAC had passed a unanimous resolution with respect to the Site Plan, which has been provided to Committee and Council. He noted PTAC is concerned that the proposed project is not consistent with the City’s Official Plan (OP) from a transportation point of view. While the OP encourages encourage pedestrian, cycling, and transit use and improving the modal split, this project makes the whole situation worse.
The Chair reminded Mr. Geiger that Committee was dealing with the Site Plan
only, and as the Zoning is already in place, Committee is constrained from
going back to revisit the Zoning or other designations on the site.
On the assumption that the location could not be changed at this point, Mr. Geiger suggested several mitigation measures could take place. Firstly, PTAC recommends the entre be moved closer to the road, making it closer for pedestrian and cycling access, and bringing it closer to the existing transit routes. PTAC also recommends that consideration be given to developing a multi use pathway (sooner rather than later) parallel to Uplands Drive along the Airport Parkway to encourage use by cyclists and pedestrians. He noted that Uplands Drive was currently unsuitable for cyclists, pedestrians, and people in wheel chairs. He circulated a photo of Uplands Drive to illustrate this point, a copy of which is held on file.
Mr. Geiger also spoke as a private citizen and resident of the nearby area. He objected to the proposal on a personal basis due to the inadequacy of the traffic study. He circulated a map illustrating what he predicted to be potential cut through traffic on local roads and residential streets; a copy is held on file. He suggested a there was a high likelihood the traffic flows from events could impact Downpatrick Road, a residential street and subsequently McCarthy Road, another residential street. He suggested the traffic flows would turn these into collector roads. He noted traffic was already considerable during evening rush hours and weekend afternoons, with the Hunt Club and Riverside Drive and Hunt Club and Airport Parkway intersections backed up significantly most of the time
Mr. Geiger challenged the proponent’s assertions with respect to traffic flows, suggesting some activities would add traffic volume to the end of the evening rush hour. He further noted that late events such as concerts would extend these impacts on residential streets into the late evening. He suggested the consultants did not adequately consider these concerns. He further noted that the City would be widening Uplands Drive and Hunt Club Road, noting the OP says they would happen in 2031, and suggested these improvements be brought forward 10 or 15 years.
In conclusion, Mr. Geiger emphasized the need to encourage cycling and transit use and suggested the Site Plan as laid out does not do this. He emphasized that there were a number of factors that could be explored to mitigate the traffic impact if the proposal proceeds.
Cheryl Doran spoke in opposition to the Site Plan as presented. She appealed to Committee to recognize the NCC’s Greenbelt in Ottawa South as a significant federal wetland, suggesting it had been such for over nine thousand years. She noted the southern Greenbelt sustained a wonderful ecosystem filled with various aquatic species including species at risk, fish, and regionally significant and uncommon to area plants, which are protected by various acts and policies. She questioned why the staff report had not mentioned this, nor the over twelve hectares of federal wetlands on this site. She stated that the 1991 Federal policy on wetland conservation applies to this land, as does the Species at Risk Act.
Ms. Doran suggested the Site Plan, with its large parking lot, was an example of old thinking as it does not address sustainable transportation, light rail and transit. She suggested that developing light rail transit along the Airport Parkway to the airport and beyond should be the only development Council supports on these leased lands.
With respect to the details of the Site Plan, Ms. Doran expressed confusion as to why Committee and Council were approving a Site Plan on federal lands. She noted the issues raised by the NCC. She suggested approval of the Site Plan was premature, as they were awaiting a Canadian Environmental Assessment (EA) comprehensive study and provincial approvals which have not yet been forthcoming. She also noted that she had yet to see in the plan where fish compensation area will be made, and wondered how staff foresaw moving hibernating aquatic species. In conclusion, she strongly encouraged Committee to deny approval, pending federal government site approvals and environmental assessments.
Martin Lalande, Ontario Recreational Vehicle Dealer Association, began by introducing his organization and its mandate to the Committee. Information on the association was circulated to Committee members and is held on file with the City Clerk.
He asked for Committee’s support in ensuring fair and equal allocation of space in the new trade show facility. He suggested there was not a firm policy in place governing who can and cannot lease space at the new exhibition centre. He noted that his organization was in the process of communicating with Shenkman Corporation with regards to leasing space but had not concrete answers yet. He noted that preference was being given to those who currently have show space at Lansdowne Park. He emphasized that is members wanted the same opportunity to book space, noting there were few facilities in Ottawa that could accommodate recreational vehicles. In conclusion, he asked for Committees support for having equal opportunity to book space at the new centre.
Sol Shuster, Chair of the Greenbelt Coalition of Canada’s Capital Region, spoke in opposition to the site plan as presented. He suggested that in recent years staff, presumably under the Mayor’s direction, had made efforts to develop the Greenbelt. He cited as examples the City’s white paper on development in the Greenbelt, initiatives to develop employment centres adjacent to highways 416 and 417, and the subject development. He suggested that Council, even those members who claim to support the greenbelt, had done nothing to stop this. He suggested that when the idea for this project came up at Committee there had been no dissenting voices. He also lamented that word, “Greenbelt” was virtually absent from staff reports, and questioned the level of public participation. Mr. Shuster suggested the whole process had been flawed, and therefore asked that Committee and Council reject the application for Site Plan approval.
Mr. Shuster indicated the coalition’s displeasure with the NCC’s decision not to adhere to the Airport Authority’s land use plan which requires detailed environmental studies before any federal approval would be given. He maintained the site was indeed a wetland, and a habitat for the Blandings turtle. He also suggested there was very strong evidence that it is part of a Lester Road wetland complex which will very likely become provincially significant wetland. He suggested it would be prudent to wait until that determination had been made by the MNR.
Referencing the letter from the NCC, Mr. Shuster noted it raised the need for an EA under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Provincial EA requirements. He noted the federal requirements would include Federal requirements include completion of an assessment of a federal wetland evaluation, a tree inventory and a number of other studies. He urged Committee to defer and decision until these studies had been completed. He further noted the NCC had requested that no clear cutting of trees or other vegetation be allowed to occur before the missing due diligence environmental studies are completed. He expressed the coalition’s support for this position.
Mr. Shuster noted that the Councillor for his own ward, Councillor Hunter, had been a long time supporter of the Greenbelt. He hoped the Councillor would preserve that legacy and continue this support when voting.
Don Paquette, Paquette Planning Associates Ltd. was present on behalf of the applicant. He was accompanied by:
· David McRobie, Architect
· Gerry Larocque, Landscape Architect
· Kevin McCrann, Shenkman Corporation
· Stephen Pichette, DSEL Engineering
Mr. Paquette noted that he had coordinated the Site Plan. He noted the site was identified as a development site in the OP, the NCC Greenbelt Master Plan, and the Zoning was in place to develop the site, and explained that the Site Plan was intended to best develop the site for the intended permitted use.
Mr. McRobie spoke to the site design. He first spoke to the positioning of the trade show hall. He noted that the site had gone through four configurations before arriving at the preferred location for the building. He suggested the building location was based on several factors in terms of the functioning and presentation of the facility.
Firstly, he noted that the site configuration was intended to balance the need for public access with the need for efficient circulation of service vehicles to the facility. He noted the facility will have significant needs for service access on a continuous basis as shows are set up and torn down, pointing out that the rear of the building would be dedicated to servicing of the space. He emphasized the importance of keeping the service area separate from the public access for reasons of safety. The configuration of the site allows the service vehicles to access the site without interfering with the public circulation on the rest of the site. He noted that the substantial wooded frontage on Airport Parkway would be fully preserved, shielding the service facilities of the building.
Further, Mr. McRobie noted that the topography of the site also has an impact on the placement of the building. As the primary view approaching the site from the airport was from the elevated overpass between Uplands Drive and the Airport Parkway, one looks slightly down into the site. He noted that the location of the building allows the building set back and the landscape features to be the prominent view of the site, rather than have the dominant view be a large expanse of rooftop.
With respect to the architectural theme of the building, Mr. McRobie emphasized the intent to provide a high quality finish for the building so that the image of the building is appropriate to the facility, citing those used at the Aviation Museum as an example. He also referenced the attractive curvature of the proposed building.
Mr. Larocque spoke to the landscaping of the site. With respect to the evaluation of the existing woodlot, he noted they had confirmed the site was not a significant woodlot on the City’s list of woodlots, and there are no natural heritage features listed on the site. They also walked the site in July and September to look for rare and endangered species, and found none. He characterized the wood lot as dominated by Red Maple and White Ash. He also noted that ½ to ¾ metres of fill would be required for grading and servicing. The landscape plan was developed in conjunction with site engineering and architecture, and from a pragmatic approach recommended that not much time be given to a detailed Stage 1 Tree Inventory. He noted the areas where the trees would be preserved on the site.
Mr. Larocque explained that the landscape plan focused on creating the perimeter of the property to capitalize on green setbacks, expanded based on meetings with the NCC, and consists of low berms and low plantings as well as naturalization planting. He referenced the significant buffer plantings, which leave a window allowing a view from the high point of the Airport Parkway to the building.
As part of the green initiatives in attempt to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver designation, there will be a system of biosoils and plantings intended to slow storm water drainage, and clean and purify the water before releasing it into a storm water pond.
Mr. Larocque also referenced the walkways that would provide pedestrian-friendly, barrier free environments leading to an esplanade treatment to the front of the building with the capacity to safely handle large number of people.
In response to questions from the Chair with respect to the federal approvals for the developer’s lease from the Airport Authority, Mr. McCrann confirmed that the lease between Shenkman and the Airport Authority was complete, and was currently with the Transport Canada. He was unsure whether Transport Canada would circulate the lease to other Federal departments.
Councillor Deans suggested that, given the aforementioned sight line to the building, it could be an opportunity to install a green roof on the facility. Mr. McRobie stated that it was not part of the plan to provide for that opportunity. He noted the building was a large clear-span structure and structural considerations have to be taken into consideration, particularly the effects of snowfall. He suggested a green roof would be quite a challenge and he was not sure it would present the building in the best light. He also noted that the amount of exposure and wind exposure would present a challenge to a proper growing environment.
Councillor Deans inquired whether the developer would agree, in principle, to the construction of a multi-use pathway to the site as a condition of Site Plan approval, in order to make the site more pedestrian/cycling/wheelchair/stroller accessible. Mr. McCrann indicated that, while it had not been a requirement through the foregoing discussions, if it would be a heavily used pathway to the facility they would be happy to do that, though he was not sure if it would be.
Councillor Deans noted the concerns raised about the boundary of the wetland. When asked for Clarification, Staff indicated that the study area for the Lester Road Wetland Evaluation does include the proposed site, and the purpose of the study was to determine which areas are wetlands. The City’s wetland evaluator determined that this particular site was not wetland. While the final decision would be made by the MNR, staff has great confidence in the opinion of the wetland evaluator.
Councillor Deans asked the applicants whether they would abandon the site as a location for the trade show space if MNR were to determine that this parcel of land is inside the provincially significant wetland. In response, Mr. McCrann noted that they investigated the potential for wetland designation through the RFP process with the City, and that he takes great comfort in the fact the preliminary findings that these are not designated wetlands. He found it hard to contemplate that the MNR would say anything different. He indicated that, at some point they would need to operate under the guise of the current by-laws, zoning and designations. He noted that they were working back from an opening dated of January 2012. Mr. McCrann further stated that they had no ability to move to another site with the timelines they are facing and the business model that has been put forward in the RFP.
Councillor Deans asked if the City’s logo would appear on the building, as depicted in the artist’s renderings. The Chair noted that the City is a partner in the project. Mr. McCrann confirmed that they would be happy to have the logo on the building, but if the City did not want their logo there it would not be.
Councillor Monette asked whether any other locations were considered for the project. Mr. McCrann noted that the developer owned extensive land in the City of Ottawa, and none of it met the criteria for the RFP and none were suitable from a business operational perspective. He emphasized that they had looked at many locations and this was the premier location. As to why the airport was chosen as the prime location, Mr. McCrann referenced a similar trade and consumer show building owned by the Shenkman Family near the Toronto airport that has been very successful in that location. He also noted the business that would be transferring from Lansdowne Park to this location and they had consulted extensively with the Ottawa Association of Exhibition Managers. He further noted that his company assumed the financial risk of managing the project, and had chosen this location because it met the criteria from a planning, transportation and business opportunity perspective.
With respect to the issue of the multi-use pathway, Councillor Monette asked if there were cycling amenities. Mr. McCrann indicated he was not certain how or where the pathways would inter-connect with this building, but he understood there was a plan for a future cycling pathway along these roadways. He reiterated that they would look at something that would make sense.
Councillor Hunter inquired whether they were able to determine the age of the trees on the site. Mr. Larocque indicated that the oldest of the Red Maple were likely in the 40-50 year old range, slightly older for the White Ash. The Councillor recalled an air photo of the area and noted the drainage courses look as if they were made for the purposes of farming. Mr. Pichette agreed that it would appear the drainage ditches had an agricultural purpose but could not confirm this. He noted there was a couple of beaver dams located on those ditches that are backing them up. The Councillor surmised the land was likely expropriated from a farmer around the time the greenbelt was created. He surmised that there was nothing long-standing about anything wetland in the area, and it had a history of being a dry and farmed land. Mr. Pichette agreed that was probable.
Councillor Hunter indicated that he would have thought that the geotechnical issues would have been of larger importance than appear in the staff report, given the amount of fill required for the site. Mr. Pichette indicated that a geotechnical investigation has been done on the site and there are no significant geotechnical concerns for the site.
Councillor Hunter expressed concern that the transportation report appeared to classify many of major needed improvements in the area as required by “background traffic growth,” meaning the developer would not be required to pay for them. By way of example, he cited the double-laning of the exit from the Airport Parkway onto Uplands and Lester. He suspected the proposed development was accelerating the need for such improvements, and suggested the applicant should pay for them if this is the case.
Mr. Deiaco explained that there is a significant amount of development occurring south of the site. Staff has identified those works as being required at some point in the future and, while the development may accelerate that at some point, it is not projected that this development will create that immediate need. In response to further questions Mr. Moodie clarified that if those projects were growth-related, they would be funded by development charges. He noted that the items with respect to widening Lester Road and Albion Road are not currently in the Transportation Master Plan but would be considered in the next update.
Mr. Moodie further indicated that staff is confident that this development will not direct an immediate need for those improvements on its own, and there is a significant portion of that need that will come in the future that will be contributed to by additional background traffic.
Councillor Holmes wondered how many times the City would be caught in a situation where the OP (and in this case the Airport Official Plan and Greenbelt Master Plan) support a development, yet the City’s Advisory Committees disagree. She asked staff when the City would begin to get the Advisory Committees to evaluate and provide input into the OP on a broader basis, rather than on an ad-hoc basis when individual applications came forward. Mr. Moodie confirmed that the Advisory Committees are consulted during the OP updates. He noted that during the consultation period in 2009 for the update of the OP and the Advisory Committees had an opportunity to identify areas of concerns and he believed that through the extensive consultation the majority of those concerns were addressed as they were raised. John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management added that the next big opportunity for those discussions would be the run up to the 2013 OP review. He noted this would not be a refresh; rather, the City would be looking at the whole OP and where to go with it. The Councillor was encouraged by this, noting specifically the need to look at the green lands in the OP to see whether or not the newer thinking makes them more fragile and more needing of conservation. Mr. Moser offered that by 2013 the City would have the benefit of the results of the NCC’s Greenbelt Master Plan and the Choosing our Future long range plan for the City.
Councillor Holmes expressed her surprise that the architect spoke to not needing a green roof, and asked why there could not be a green roof on this building. Mr. McRobie reiterated the fact that it was not part of the original requirement of the City’s RFP. Also, given the positioning of the building, a green roof would not contribute anything considering the wooded backdrop that is presented in the context of the building. He referenced what was being done at ground level from a greening perspective, and felt it is the right approach. In response to a request for clarification from the Chair, Mr. McRobie noted that a green roof presented a significant structural challenge, although anything can be done at any price. He noted that the roof would deflect approximately eight inches under Ottawa’s snow load. As it is a column-free space (as requested by the RFP) a green roof would be infeasible unless one hyper-structures it by introducing trusses above the line of the roof, and raising the height of the roof in order to conceal those trusses. He felt the better thing to do was to minimize the height of the building and greening the ground surface instead. He suggested it was both a financial and visual consideration.
Councillor Holmes did not understand why the building could not be moved to the front of the site to make it more pedestrian friendly, and still accommodate the required loading. Mr. McRobie explained that such a configuration would require private vehicles to park in the most remote corner of the site and walk past and around trucks that are accessing the loading facility. When asked by the Councillor if they could not use greenery to hide that truck activity, he explained that as the cars would be so far away from the building, people would be taking short cuts, which is a hazard.
With respect to the need for a multi-use pathway so cyclists can get to the facility, Councillor Holmes asked if there was a commitment to look at that issue and work with the NCC and the City on that. Mr. McCrann confirmed there was.
Councillor Holmes wondered asked if Transport Canada had the authority to make a decision on the lease without NCC involvement. Mr. Moodie confirmed his understanding that Transport Canada and the Airport Authority have the authority to make decisions over this site. The Councillor therefore suggested that the NCC’s comments meant nothing. Staff advised that the NCC is a commenting agency and all indications to date have been that a collaborative approach has been supported and concessions have been made to meet the comments of the NCC. However, if there is a significant divergence of views and opinions, the Airport Authority and Transport Canada have the authority for the site.
Councillor Doucet understood that the exhibit space at this site has to be under construction before the Lansdowne Project goes forward because that is where most of the businesses are going to come from. Mr. McCrann confirmed that as a condition of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, this project would have had to have started construction. With respect to the nature of the lease, Mr. McCrann confirmed that it was Shenkman Corporation signing the lease, while the City provided an upfront payment and loan guarantee.
When he asked what happens to the facility if it goes bankrupt, Councillor Doucet was advised by Mr. McCrann that, at the City’s choice, the facility would be assumed by the municipality.
In response to questions from Councillor Doucet related to the Fish Habitat Study, Jocelyn Chandler, Planner for the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) provided the following information:
· The Fish Habitat Assessment (prepared by Bruce Kilgour and Associates) was done based on observations from Conservation Authority staff and other people who had noted there were fish in the water courses on site.
· The Assessment revealed that there were isolated fish populations within those water courses, but at the moment they do not have a connection to the downstream habitat of Sawmill Creek, where there are more fish.
· She explained that such isolation occurs to some degree as a result of the beaver dams on the site, and because the storm water management pond belonging to the Airport Authority which is downstream, requires maintenance as it is blocking the outlet. Once that is repaired and maintained (which they understood the Airport Authority is looking at now), there is a strong potential for fish migration between the site and the downstream areas of Sawmill Creek.
· In addition, when it reviews fish habitat assessments under its delegated authority from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the RVCA has to decide whether what is happening on that site can be mitigated or whether it is compensation. Since they only deal with mitigation they look at the character of the fish in the habitat and whether the work that is being done and any other proposals associated with it can be mitigated.
· There are parts of two water courses that are being closed on this site to provide for the development envelope. The conclusion from the fisheries aquatic biologist at the RVCA based the study is that the residual impacts of the construction can be mitigated through the construction practices and phasing as they move forward with the project and through the creation of a new channel on the adjacent lands which will connect some of the upstream headwater areas and the downstream components.
· This design will promote migration between the upstream and downstream areas and through that storm water management pond as well as improved habitat.
· It is recommended that there be a realigning of a water course on site, which is an improved habitat with greater complexity and features that are more conducive to fish habitat.
She concluded by stating that the RVCA is determined that what is being proposed for this site can be approved under a Level 2 delegated authority because the work being proposed can be mitigated and there will in fact be a net improvement in the fish habitat.
Councillor Bellemare expressed particular concern about the issue of jurisdiction and the letter from the NCC indicating an impasse in their discussions with the Airport Authority. He cited some of the comments contained in that letter and wondered what the impact would on the cost and the construction schedule if they decided to meet those NCC standards. Mr. McCrann explained that their construction schedule is fixed. He added that in undertaking to lease this site, it was made clear to them that the Airport Authority was in a position to lease the land for the use required. Further, the NCC has confirmed it is within a buildable area and he was confident they would be able to carry on with their schedule. He noted the changes they have already made to landscaping and building material to meet the NCC and City staff requirements and how much this has cost ($2M). Also, they eliminated over 200 parking spots from the original proposal which has a business affect on their proposal. While these changes and others have added to their cost, they recognize that this is a much needed facility and reiterated again that this is by far the best location for it.
Councillor Doucet reference the submission made by the Chair of the Greenbelt Coalition of Canada’s Capital Region, which stated:
“The plan is subject to certain environmental and other conditions including submission of detailed environmental studies and wooded areas and ensuring the species at risk, the Fisheries Act, and the Federal Policy of Wetland Conservation are respected before any development can proceed. This has clearly not been done. The joint City-NCC-Lester Wetland Evaluation and SAR Survey is no substitute for a detailed environmental study. Moreover, we have major reservations particularly regarding the serious omissions and inconsistencies in the evaluation report that they will be bringing to the attention of the OMNR.”
When asked to provide a comment, Ms. Chandler explained that the RVCA has no relationship with species at risk as that is purely an MNR function and they do not review or provide any comments on that matter. She reiterated that she had previously spoken about fish in that it is a federal level delegated authority. With respect to wetland, the RVCA only becomes involved in wetlands if they are designated by the MNR. Their regulatory authority under the Conservation Authorities Act, which applies to provincially significant wetlands, does not apply here now. With respect to the federal EA process, she indicated that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Association had asked the RVCA for any comments on a report they provided to the Minister. Such comments were provided to them, such as fish habitat, and they also gave them contacts with respect to senior City staff regarding the wetlands. In response to an additional comment posed by Councillor Doucet, Ms. Chandler stated that even if these lands were wetlands, because they are federal lands, there is no need to get a permit from the conservation authority (under Provincial Act) to develop a provincially significant wetland.
Prior to moving to consideration of the staff recommendations, the Chair sought legal advice with respect to his understanding that the Committee can only amend and impose conditions and does not have the authority to reject a Site Plan where a property is zoned and is in compliance with the OP
Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel confirmed this understanding, adding that Site Plan approval takes place at the conclusion of the development process and the Committee and Council only have the power to set conditions (which can be referred to the OMB by the applicant). He added that prior to the meeting, he had looked for other examples of where a Site Plan had been rejected where the Zoning was in place and he could find none. The Chair asked that this opinion be provided in writing to Council prior to Wednesday’s meeting, and Mr. Marc agreed
As there were no additional conditions Committee members wished to submit with respect to the application, Committee then considered the staff recommendations, as presented:
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Site Plan Control application for 4899 Uplands Drive as shown on the following plans:
1. Site Plan, Dwg. No. SD-01, dated August 16, 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by David S. McRobie Architects Inc.
2. Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan, Dwg. No. L-1, dated August 16, 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by Larocque Levstek Consulting Services.
3. Site Servicing and Grading Plan, Dwg. No. SSGP-1, dated August 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
4. Erosion Control Plan, Dwg. No. EC-1, dated August 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
5. Stormwater Management Plan, Dwg. No. SWM-1, dated August 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
6. Forecmain Routing, Dwg. No. PP-1, dated September 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
7. Forcemain Routing, Dwg. No. PP-2, dated September 2010, revised September 24, 2010, prepared by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
subject to the conditions detailed in Document 6.
CARRIED,
with Councillor C. Doucet dissenting