Report to/Rapport au :

Committee of the Whole

Comité plénier

09 November 2010 / le 09 novembre 2010

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review/Examen des projets d'aménagement, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca

Capital (17)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0209

SUBJECT:	SITE PLAN CONTROL – iNTEGRATED SITE PLAN – lANSDOWNE PARTNERSHIP PLAN (FILE NO. d07-12-10-0220)

OBJET :	VÉRIFICATION DU PLAN D’IMPLANTATION - PLAN CADRE d’IMPLANTATION intégré – PLAN DE PARTENARIAT DE lANSDOWNE (N° DE DOSSIER d07-12-10-0220)

RECOMMENDATIONS

That City Council sitting as Committee of the Whole:

1. Approve the Integrated Site Plan for the Revitalization of Lansdowne Park, as described in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) Implementation report (ACS2010-CMO-REP-2034), approved by Council on June 28, 2010, and as detailed in Documents 3, 4, 5 and subject to the Standard and Special Conditions set out in Document 6 of this report:

Including:

a. Lansdowne Park Integrated Site Plan, DWG No. A0-01, prepared jointly by BBB Architects, Barry J. Hobin Architects, Cannon Design and Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS) dated November 4, 2010 and dated as received November 5, 2010 (Document 3);

b. Lansdowne Park Integrated Landscaping Plan prepared jointly by Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS), Corush Sunderland Wright Landscape Architects (CSW), BBB Architects, B.J. Hobin Architects, and Cannon Design dated November 11, 2010 and dated as received November 8, 2010 (Document 4);

c. Integrated Engineering Plans as follows (Document 5):

i. Existing Conditions Plan, Lansdowne Park, Drawing No. EX-1, prepared by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), dated November 2010, and dated as received November 8, 2010 (Document 5A)

ii. Integrated Servicing Plan, Lansdowne Park, Drawing No. SSP-1, prepared jointly by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), Stantec Engineering and Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS) dated November 2010, and dated as received November 8, 2010 (Document 5B)

iii. Integrated Grading Plan, Lansdowne Park, Drawing No. GP-1, prepared jointly by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), Stantec Engineering, Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS) and Corush Sunderland Wright Landscape Architects (CSW), dated November 2010, and dated as received November 8, 2010 (Document 5C)

iv. Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, Lansdowne Park, Drawing No. STM-1, prepared jointly by David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), Stantec Engineering, and Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS), dated November 2010, and dated as received November 8, 2010 (Document 5D); and

d. The conditions set out in Document 6, specifically those conditions related to finalizing the site plan approval and for executing the required site plan agreement.

2. Receive the Response Matrix (Document 2) for information, which details how Recommendation 1, responds to the directions provided by Council on June 28, 2010.

That City Council sitting as Committee of the Whole recommend that Council:

3. Approve the newly appointed Design Review Panel as the review body to finalize the site plan as set out in Recommendation 4 - on the basis that the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel has fulfilled its mandate to provide third party peer design review to Council through its consideration of the LPP.

4. Delegate to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management the authority to finalize the Integrated Site Plan Approval in accordance with the conditions set out in this report including but not limited to:

a. Receiving for consideration recommendations from the City’s recently appointed Design Review Panel on the design details to be incorporated into the Integrated Site Plan as set out in Document 6 prior to final site plan approval;

b. Advising where appropriate, the Planning and Environment Committee on the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Document 6; and

c. Bringing forward to the Planning and Environment Committee for its approval any plans that reflect substantial changes from the approval framework outlined in this report.

5. Approve that the City’s Signs By-law not apply for signage related to the Lansdowne Revitalization Project subject to a comprehensive signage plan being developed as described in Document 6.

6. Approve the preferred location for the Ottawa Art Gallery (OAG) at Lansdowne Park, as determined through the site evaluation process described in this report including endorsements by the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Art Gallery and the Design Review Panel, should Council determine through its consideration of the Arts Court Project Report (Q1 2011) to locate the Ottawa Art Gallery at Lansdowne.

7. Direct staff to bring forward an information report for Council consideration during the 2011 Budget process on the costs and requirements associated with the burial of the overhead hydro wires along Bank Street as part of the implementation of the Bank Street Rehabilitation project in the Glebe to facilitate a final decision on this issue prior to the commencement of the reconstruction which is scheduled to proceed in 2011 in accordance with the approved budget allocation.

8. Receive the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Ottawa Farmers’ Market Board and the City, which will serve as the framework for determining the design details to be incorporated into the Integrated Site Plan and based on the outcome of these discussions, that the site plan be finalized by staff under delegated authority.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Conseil municipal siégeant en comité plénier :

Approuve le plan d’implantation intégré pour le projet de revitalisation du parc Lansdowne, tel que décrit dans le Rapport sur la mise en application du Plan de partenariat du parc Lansdowne (PPL) (ACS2010-CMO-REP-2034), approuvé par le Conseil municipal le 28 juin 2010, et présenté en détail dans les documents n^o 3, 4, 5, sous réserve des conditions standards et particulières énoncées dans le document n^o 6 du présent rapport, soit :

a. le plan d’implantation intégré DWG n^oA0-01, préparé conjointement par BBB Architects, Barry J. Hobin Architects, Cannon Design et Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS) daté du 4 novembre 2010 et estampillé comme reçu le 5 novembre 2010 (cf. document n^o 3);

b. le plan d’aménagement paysager intégré préparé conjointement par PFS, Corush Sunderland Wright Landscape Architects (CSW), BBB Architects, B.J. Hobin Architects et Cannon Design daté du 11 novembre 2010 et estampillé comme reçu le 8 novembre 2010 (cf. document n^o 4);

c. Les plans d’ingénierie intégrés, comme suit (cf. document no 5):

i. le plan de l’état actuel du Parc Lansdowne, plan n^o Ex-1, préparé par David Shaeffer Engineering Ltd (DSEL), daté de novembre 2010 et estampillé comme reçu le 8 novembre 2010 (document 5A)

ii. le plan d’ingénierie intégré pour le Parc Lansdowne, plan n^o SSP-2, préparé conjointement par David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), Stantec Engineering, CSW Landscape Architects et PFS Landscape Architects, daté de novembre 2010 et estampillé comme reçu le 8 novembre 2010 (document 5B)

iii. le plan de nivellement pour le Parc Lansdowne, plan n^o GP-1, préparé conjointement par David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), Stantec Engineering, Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS) et Corush Sunderland Wright Landscape Architects (CSW), daté de novembre 2010 et estampillé comme reçu le 8 novembre 2010 (document 5C)

iv. le plan intégré de gestion des eaux pluviales pour le Parc Lansdowne, plan no STM-1, préparé conjointement par David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL), Stantec Engineering et Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS), daté de novembre 2010 et estampillé comme reçu le 8 novembre 2010 (document 5D);

d. Les conditions précisées dans le document no 6, particulièrement celles qui précisent comment la recommandation no 1 satisfait les directives énoncées par le Conseil le 28 juin 201.

Reçoive la grille de réponse (cf. Document n^o 2) à titre de renseignement détaillant la façon dont la Recommandation n^o l répond aux orientations établies par le Conseil municipal le 28 juin 2010.

Que le Conseil siégeant en comité plénier recommande à son tour au Conseil :

3. Approuve le Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception nouvellement nommé en tant qu’organe d’examen pour l’approbation définitive du plan d’implantation, comme prévu par la recommandation n^o 4 – dans l’éventualité où le Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception a rempli son mandat de procurer un examen de la conception par des tiers indépendants au Conseil municipal, dans le cadre de son examen du PPL.

4. Délègue au directeur général, Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, l’autorisation de finaliser l’approbation du plan d’implantation, conformément aux conditions énoncées dans le présent rapport, incluant, sans s’y limiter :

a. la réception, à des fins d’examen, des recommandations du Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception nouvellement nommé sur les composantes de la conception devant être incorporées au plan d’implantation intégré, tel qu’énoncé dans le document n^o6, avant l’approbation définitive du plan d’implantation;

b. des conseils prodigués au besoin au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement en ce qui concerne la réalisation des conditions énoncées dans le document n^o6;

c. la remise de tout plan qui comporte des changements importants par rapport au cadre d’approbation énoncé dans le présent rapport au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement pour son approbation.

5. Approuve la non-application de la réglementation municipale pour le projet de revitalisation de Lansdowne, sous réserve de la préparation d’un plan global de signalisation, comme il est prévu dans le document n^o 6.

6. Approuve l’emplacement choisi pour la Galerie d’art d’Ottawa (GAO) au parc Lansdowne, tel que déterminé par le processus d’évaluation de l’emplacement décrit dans le présent rapport, qui comprend l’approbation du conseil d’administration de la Galerie d’art d’Ottawa et du Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception, si le Conseil municipal, dans le cadre de l’étude du projet de la Cour des Arts (Q1 2011), approuve l’emplacement de la Galerie d’art d’Ottawa à Lansdowne.

7. Enjoigne au personnel de soumettre un rapport pour l’examen par le Conseil municipal, dans le cadre du processus budgétaire de 2011 qui porte sur la possibilité d’intégrer le coût et les exigences associés à l’enfouissement des fils électriques le long de la rue Bank à la mise en œuvre du projet de revitalisation de la rue Bank dans le Glebe, afin de faciliter une décision sur cet enjeu, avant d’effectuer les travaux de reconstruction dont la date de début dépend de l’approbation des allocations du budget.

8. Reçoive le protocole d’entente entre le Marché des producteurs agricoles d’Ottawa et la Ville qui servira de cadre pour déterminer les composantes de la conception qui devront être incorporées dans le plan d’implantation intégré, et que le plan d’implantation soit finalisé par le personnel sous pouvoir délégué, en fonction de la fin des pourparlers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In November 2009, Council gave conditional approval to the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG). In June 2010 Council gave its approval to the LPP and directed staff to proceed with the implementation of the LPP through the initiation of the required planning approval processes. This included direction to have the three major components of the redevelopment including the refurbishment of the stadium and Civic Centre, the creation of a large urban park and the construction of a mixed-use area that includes shops, offices and residences integrated into a single Integrated Site Plan through the City’s two stage site plan approval process.

Since Council approved the Lansdowne Park Proposal (LPP) Implementation report (Ref N°: ACS2010-CMR-REP-0034) on June 28, 2010, City staff has been working with its partners to produce the Integrated Site Plan requested to be considered by Council sitting as the Committee of the Whole on November 19, 2010. The Integrated Site Plan is a reflection of Council decisions, including direction given and conditions stipulated by Council to staff, and is being recommended for approval subject to a number of conditions being satisfied to have the approval finalized under delegated approval authority.

The development of the Integrated Site Plan is the result of extensive work undertaken since November 2009. This includes establishing a Design Review Panel (DRP) to develop overall guiding principles for the revitalization program and to provide ongoing third party peer design review through the plan development process; holding an International Urban Park design competition in partnership with the National Capital Commission (NCC) and Parks Canada Agency (Parks Canada); retaining consultants and overseeing the preparation of various studies, including comprehensive transportation and heritage studies and developing a retail strategy; liaising with various stakeholder groups - city advisory committees, the Ontario Heritage trust (OHT), the Ottawa Farmers’ Market (OFM) and the Ottawa Art Gallery (OAG); undertaking public consultations; assessing and recommending zoning changes for Lansdowne; facilitating a process to build an exposition and trade show facility; and finally, working with the City’s partners, the various design teams and consultants, and the DRP to integrate the three key redevelopment components for the Lansdowne revitalization into one Integrated Site Plan for Lansdowne Park.

The Integrated Site Plan recommended for approval by Council focuses on the overall layout of the main features of the development, including: building locations; on-site circulation for cars, service vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists; conceptual landscaping for the urban park and for the commercial and residential area; site servicing; grading and drainage; and stormwater management. Council will also give consideration to approving a set of comprehensive conditions to be used by staff to have the site plan approval finalized under delegated authority. These conditions focus on defining the design detailing to be layered onto the approved plans to have them evolve into the final plans for the required site plan agreement. The process to finalize the site plan approval would commence following Council approval and would conclude in Spring 2011 to meet the overall project implementation timelines.

This report provides the required background, context and information for Council to make an informed decision on the Integrated Site Plan. It also provides the detailed directions through an approval framework to meet all of Council’s directions and objectives for the revitalization of Lansdowne as set out in its June 28, 2010 approval. Towards this end, City Council will be asked to consider the following recommendations: 1. Approve the Integrated Master Site Plan and associated conditions; 2. Receive the Response Matrix to previous Council directions and conditions to finalize the site plan approval and for executing the required site plan agreement; 3. Delegate authority to have the site plan approval finalized; 4. Approve an exemption to City’s Sign By-law; 5. Approve a preferred location for the Ottawa Art Gallery, as endorsed by the Board of the OAG and the DRP, should Council decide to put the gallery at Lansdowne; and, 6. Other conditions required.

SOMMAIRE

En novembre 2009, le conseil municipal a approuvé sous certaines conditions le Plan de partenariat du parc Lansdowne (PPL) en partenariat avec l’Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG). En juin 2010, le Conseil municipal a donné son approbation au PPL, et a enjoint au personnel de la Ville d’entreprendre la mise en œuvre du PPL par l’amorce des processus nécessaires à l’approbation des plans. Cela inclut l’orientation qui prévoit le regroupement des trois composantes clés du projet de réaménagement, y compris la rénovation du stade et du centre municipal, la création d’un vaste parc urbain ainsi que la construction d’une composante à utilisation polyvalente qui comprend des boutiques, des bureaux et des résidences, en un seul plan d’implantation intégré dans le cadre du processus d’approbation du plan de la Ville, qui comprend deux phases.

Depuis que le Conseil municipal a approuvé le rapport de mise en œuvre du Plan de partenariat du parc Lansdowne (PPL), le 28 juin 2010 (n^o de référence : ACS2010-CMR-REP-0034), le personnel municipal développe, de concert avec ses partenaires, le Plan d’implantation intégré, aux fins d’examen par le Conseil municipal en comité plénier le 19 novembre 2010. Le plan d’implantation intégré reflète les décisions du Conseil municipal, y compris l’orientation et les conditions stipulées par le Conseil municipal au personnel municipal, et l’on recommande son approbation sous réserve de plusieurs conditions devant être remplies, afin d’obtenir l’approbation définitive selon le pouvoir d’approbation délégué.

L’élaboration du plan d’implantation intégré est le résultat de travaux exhaustifs entrepris depuis le mois de novembre 2009. Ces travaux comprennent : la mise sur pied du Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception, dont le mandat est d’élaborer les principes et les lignes directrices de la conception globale du programme de revitalisation et de procurer des services continus de tiers indépendants en matière d’examen de conception pour l’élaboration du plan d’implantation; la tenue d’un concours international de conception d’un nouveau parc urbain en collaboration avec la Commission de la capitale nationale (CCN) et l’Agence Parcs Canada; la retenue des services de conseillers et la supervision de la préparation de diverses études, y compris des études approfondies sur les transports et sur le patrimoine et le développement d’une stratégie commerciale, la liaison avec différents groupes d’intervenants – les comités consultatifs municipaux, la Fiducie du patrimoine ontarien, le Marché des producteurs agricoles d’Ottawa et la Galerie d’art d’Ottawa (GOA) –; la tenue de consultation publique; l’évaluation et la recommandation en matière de changements concernant le zonage du parc Lansdowne; la mise en place d’un processus pour l’aménagement d’installations servant à la tenue d’expositions et de salons; et, enfin, la collaboration avec les partenaires de la Ville, les différentes équipes et conseillers pour la conception, et le Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception afin d’intégrer les trois composantes de réaménagement clés de la revitalisation du parc Lansdowne en un seul plan d’implantation intégré pour le parc Lansdowne.

Le plan d’implantation intégré recommandé pour l’approbation du Conseil traite de l’aménagement général des caractéristiques principales du développement, y compris : l’emplacement des édifices, les mécanismes prévus pour la circulation des automobiles et des véhicules de service, l’accès pour les piétons et les vélos; la conception de l’aménagement paysager du parc urbain et des composantes commerciale et résidentielle, les services sur le site, le nivellement et le drainage; et la gestion des eaux pluviales. Le Conseil étudiera également l’approbation d’un ensemble de conditions détaillées devant être remplies par le personnel en vue de la finalisation de l’approbation du plan d’implantation par le pouvoir d’approbation délégué. Ces conditions visent à peaufiner les détails de la conception devant figurer sur les plans approuvés, afin que ceux-ci deviennent les plans finaux nécessaires à l’entente sur le plan d’implantation. Le processus de finalisation pour l’approbation du plan d’implantation débuterait à la suite de l’approbation du Conseil, et se terminerait au printemps 2011, afin de satisfaire l’ensemble des échéanciers de mise en application du projet.

Le présent rapport présente l’historique, le contexte et les renseignements nécessaires pour permettre au Conseil municipal de prendre une décision éclairée à propos du plan d’implantation intégré. Il fournit également l’ensemble des orientations à suivre par l’entremise d’un cadre d’approbation, dans le but de répondre aux directives et aux objectifs déterminés par le Conseil municipal dans le cadre du projet de revitalisation du parc Lansdowne, lors de son approbation du 28 juin 2010. À ces fins, le Conseil municipal aura le mandat d’examiner les recommandations suivantes : 1. L’approbation du plan-cadre d’implantation intégré et les conditions qui s’y rapportent. 2. L’obtention d’une grille de réponse aux directives et aux conditions antérieures du Conseil municipal, afin d’obtenir l’approbation définitive du plan d’implantation, et pour ratifier l’entente nécessaire au plan d’implantation. 3. La délégation de pouvoir afin d’obtenir l’approbation définitive du plan d’implantation. 4. L’approbation d’une exemption à la réglementation municipale en matière de signalisation. 5. L’approbation de l’emplacement choisi pour la Galerie d’art d’Ottawa, tel qu’appuyé par le Conseil d’administration de la Galerie d’art d’Ottawa et le Groupe consultatif et de révision stratégique de la conception, si le Conseil municipal opte pour le parc Lansdowne en tant qu’emplacement pour la galerie; et 6. Toute autre condition requise.

BACKGROUND

Lansdowne Park has an area of approximately 16 hectares and is located on the east side of Bank Street, south of Holmwood Avenue and adjacent to the western boundary of the Rideau Canal in the heart of the Nation’s Capital. Lansdowne is framed by lands of local and national importance - the scenic Queen Elizabeth Drive (QED) parkway owned by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and by the Rideau Canal, a National Historic Site of Canada and a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site, administered by Parks Canada.

The property is owned by the City, and is considered a city wide asset that contributes to the image and identity of Ottawa as a city and as the National Capital. This is due not only to its size and location, but also because of its long history as a public gathering place and venue for a variety of activities such as agricultural fairs, exhibition grounds, major sporting (hockey, football) and music events.

Today, Lansdowne accommodates a deteriorating major open-air sports stadium (Frank Clair Stadium) and arena complex (the Civic Centre) that requires significant investment. It also accommodates three other exhibition style buildings: the Coliseum Building, Horticulture Building and Aberdeen Pavilion, the latter two designated as heritage buildings under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Aberdeen Pavilion is also designated as a National Historic Site. The Coliseum and Aberdeen Pavilion are currently used for activities such as trade and consumer shows with the Horticulture Building serving as a storage facility. The remainder of the site is predominately a surface parking area accommodating approximately 2,200 parking spots. Current landscaped areas are located around the Aberdeen Pavilion, along Holmwood Avenue - with the corner of Holmwood Avenue and Bank Street accommodating a small passive park area (Sylvia Holden Park) - around the depressed court entrances to the Salons within the Civic Centre complex, and to the south of the south side stands of the stadium.

To capitalize on Lansdowne Park’s potential to once again become a unique and dynamic public place, the City, in April 2009, initiated a revitalization program through a partnership opportunity with a local consortium, the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG). At this time, Council directed staff to negotiate a partnership agreement with OSEG for the redevelopment of Lansdowne and return that agreement to Council for its consideration. Council also set out specific elements to be included as part of the revitalization plan.

On September 2, 2009, Council received a report from staff that presented the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) proposal, including the ways in which the plan complied with Council’s directions. Council then directed staff to undertake community consultation and to prepare a supplementary report detailing next steps for the implementation of the LPP. This report was considered at Committee of the Whole on November 12, 2009.

On November 16, 2009, Council approved the LPP, subject to a number of conditions being met with defined outcomes achieved. Under the terms of the LPP, the City would enter into a formal partnership agreement with OSEG, who had secured a conditional Canadian Football League (CFL) franchise and was pursuing a soccer franchise for Ottawa. As part of the agreement, OSEG would revitalize the Stadium and Civic Centre complex and would operate, maintain and manage the revitalized facility for 30 years. The City would grant OSEG the right to develop a portion of Lansdowne for mixed uses (retail, office, residential units and below-grade parking for approximately 1,350 vehicles) to generate the revenues required to support a partnership business plan. This new mixed-use development would be situated along Lansdowne’s Bank Street frontage and in the northwest sector of the site.

In addition to giving conditional approval to the LPP with OSEG, Council approved a resolution to undertake an open design competition for an area of Lansdowne Park referred to as the “Front Lawn”, with the LPP serving to define the context for the design competition. The purpose of this design competition was to provide a competitive process for developing a design solution for the “Front Lawn” (including the Overlap Area focused around the site’s two designated heritage buildings) that would transform it into a unique public open space capable of accommodating activities and events throughout the year.

As part of its November 16th decisions, Council directed staff to bring forward an implementation report on the LPP in June 2010 that would respond to the various conditions such that Council could determine whether or not it was satisfied the outcomes it had requested for implementing the LPP had been achieved and to consider giving final approval to the plan.

On June 28, 2010, Council approved the LPP Implementation proposal. This approval included a business plan and a master plan comprising the OSEG design for the stadium and a mixed-use area with refinements to respond to comments from the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel (DRP); specific Council directions for the Overlap Area; approval of the urban park design by Phillips Farevagg Smallenburg (PFS) Landscape Architects - the winning park design team selected through the urban park design competition; park design refinements to respond to the selection of PFS by the competition Jury; and a process for incorporating the plans into an Integrated Site Plan through the City’s two stage site plan approval process. Council also directed staff to initiate the other required planning approvals, including a rezoning to allow for the residential and commercial elements for a new urban mixed-use area (approved by Council on September 22, 2010) and heritage approvals for the relocation of the Horticulture Building (to be considered concurrent with the Integrated Site Plan) and to pursue required approvals from the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) for proposed works on lands covered by an Easement Agreement between the City of Ottawa and the OHT dealing with the Aberdeen Pavilion and view corridors to the Pavilion.

This report recommends approval of the Integrated Site Plan that has been developed in response to Council direction on June 28, 2010 for implementation of the LPP. This direction focused on having all the elements in the approved master plan integrated into a comprehensive Integrated Site Plan through the City’s two stage site plan approval process. The key element of the two stage approval is to have Council give its approval to the Integrated Site Plan and to a comprehensive set of conditions. These conditions must be satisfied prior to the site plan – once approved by Council – being finalized by staff under delegated authority. The process to have the Integrated Site Plan approval finalized would commence following approval of this report, and conclude in Spring 2011, so that the timeline for commencing construction in June 2011 can be achieved.

Companion Municipal Planning Approvals

In addition to the site plan approval, a rezoning to allow for the residential and commercial uses within the mixed-use area was approved by Council at its meeting on September 22, 2010. Formal heritage approval pursuant to the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act for the relocation of the Horticulture Building has also been initiated and will be considered by Committee of the Whole (in place of Planning and Environment Committee) with the Integrated Site Plan and by Council at its special meeting of November 19, 2010.

DETAILS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The approved master plan established an overall framework for the revitalization of Lansdowne Park and defined the elements to be incorporated into the Integrated Site Plan. These elements and their integration focus on the following:

1. The renovation of the current Stadium and Civic Centre complex and integration with the urban park;

2. The transformation of much of the current asphalt surface parking area along the Rideau Canal corridor into a dynamic urban park;

3. The development of a new urban mixed-use area for the northwest sector of the site and along Bank Street that provides commercial, cultural and residential uses reflective of an urban village, and animates and redefines the site’s relationship to Bank Street. This area would include a public square (Aberdeen Square) north of the Aberdeen Pavilion that would accommodate the Ottawa Farmers’ Market and provide opportunities for public events and activities that will develop synergies with the urban park and mixed use area. This public square is located in the “Overlap Area” identified to achieve integration between the urban mixed-use and urban park; and

4. Integration with the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project to have Bank Street improved in a way that supports both the needs for the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project and the Lansdowne Project.

Approximately 1350 below grade parking spaces and some limited surface parking would be provided as part of the new urban mixed-use area. Most of this parking would be common parking for all of Lansdowne Park with some dedicated residential parking accessed from both Holmwood Avenue and through the main on-site parking garage. The on-site accesses would be the only access to the main parking area. This access would be from the current signalized driveway access on Bank Street and from the existing northern access to Lansdowne from the QED. The current access north of the Coliseum Building would also be retained as a “right in-right out” access to a new internal street that will be part of the on-site circulation system. The current second access from the QED, closer to the Bank Street Bridge, would also be retained. The NCC has expressed that this access not be a daily use vehicular access but be limited to emergency vehicles and possibly other limited defined uses that would be examined with the NCC.

Below is an overview of the development associated with the three primary elements of the revitalization program approved by Council (stadium and Civic Centre renovation, urban mixed-use and urban park) as shown on the Integrated Site Plan recommended for approval.

Stadium and Civic Centre Renovation

The renovation of the Stadium and Civic Centre will include the development of a new south side stands to replace the existing ones (the lower level of which was removed due to structural integrity issues) and a complete renovation of the existing Frank Clair Stadium and Civic Centre complex that was built in 1967. It is proposed that the new south side stands be lower and set into a landscaped berm that will edge the QED, with an iconic veil that will create a unique landmark image for the stadium complex. The renovation of the current Frank Clair Stadium will include a new roof and complete interior renovation. The stadium field will also be enlarged to meet the requirements for use as both a regulation size soccer and CFL football field.

A key feature of the renovation plans is to have the stadium complex integrated into the urban park and urban mixed-use areas. Integration with the urban park will be achieved by incorporating the south side stands into the berm that will extend the urban park to the Bank Street Bridge, and by providing for visual and physical integration of the field area with the urban park and Bank Street. To provide integration with the mixed-use component, a retail face to the north side of the complex, that will also define the internal south edge of the mixed-use area, is being proposed.

Urban Mixed-Use

The objective for the mixed-use area is to establish a unique urban village where the buildings, and the uses they accommodate, create a very unique and dynamic shopping, residential and pedestrian experience and enable synergies with the urban park and stadium.

The mixed-use area is focused along Bank Street and within the northwest sector of Lansdowne Park. As part of the development of the urban village, it is proposed that the Horticulture Building be relocated from its current location west of the Aberdeen Pavilion to a mirror image location on the east side of the Aberdeen Pavilion. The relocation of this building requires approval by Council under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. Formal Council consideration of this relocation will be done concurrently with the consideration of the Integrated Site Plan. The Horticulture Building is to be programmed as a public-interest facility within the design framework of the urban park.

Development of the Bank Street frontage includes the provision of a wide pedestrian promenade with the potential to hold different on-site events and the capacity to accommodate the volumes of people arriving and leaving the site for major events. A grand promenade along Bank Street, animated with active ground floor uses, would provide for a comfortable and interactive pedestrian experience along the site’s frontage. The uses proposed along Bank Street include ground floor retail that can extend to second floor locations, as well as office and/or residential on the upper floors. Proposed building heights along Bank Street are 14 stories at the corner of Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue (Building A1), two stories for the retail building immediately south of the 14-storey building (Building H), seven or eight stories for the office building located immediately west of the existing Frank Clair Stadium (Building I) and 16 stories for the proposed building at the foot of the Bank Street Bridge, adjacent to the new south side stands (Building K). This building has been identified as a possible location for the Ottawa Art Gallery (OAG) if Council decides to proceed with locating the OAG at Lansdowne. The Gallery would be located within the podium portion of the building with upper floors accommodating residential units.

The site plan for the Bank Street edge will be further refined as decisions are made on the final location for the OAG and as details for integrating the Lansdowne revitalization plans with the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project are confirmed. Key integration issues to be addressed include: confirming the modifications for Bank Street shown on the Integrated Site Plan (maximizing the width of sidewalks, reducing the overall width of the street, defining the main pedestrian crossing), ensuring that transit needs will be accommodated, and defining the landscaping details and elements to be provided along Bank Street.

Along Holmwood Avenue, between Bank and O’Connor Streets, the development would consist of low profile, (three to four storey) street-edge residential units in the form of townhouses and stacked townhouses. These units will be part of larger mixed-use buildings, with commercial spaces behind the residential units that would be oriented into Lansdowne Park. These commercial spaces would occupy two floors that, in combination with the residential development fronting Holmwood Avenue, would form a podium on which would be located four to five upper floors for the two buildings located immediately east of the 14-storey corner building. These upper floors would accommodate residential apartment units set back from Holmwood Avenue and from the commercial facades facing into the site. The two buildings, located to the east of the midrise buildings with upper floor residential, will be low profile with only street edge residential (Building C, D). One of these buildings is proposed to accommodate a cinema (Building C) while the other has been identified as a possible location for the OAG. In total, approximately 220 residential units are proposed along the Holmwood Avenue edge of the site (including the units set back from Holmwood Avenue facing into the Lansdowne site).

The commercial aspect of the mixed-use area reflected on the Integrated Site Plan will be concentrated between the Holmwood Avenue residential edge along the northern boundary of Lansdowne and the northern edge of the Civic Centre complex and the Aberdeen Pavilion. This new commercial area being proposed consists of low–profile, two-storey pavilion style-buildings reminiscent of the buildings historically located at Lansdowne Park, many of which were previously concentrated in this area (Building H and G Block), as well as the podium components of the multi-storey buildings facing into the site proposed for the northern edge between Bank and O’Connor Streets.

The pavilion buildings and podiums for the mixed use buildings along the north edge will be developed and located to create internal courtyards and plazas and pedestrian priority corridors that can also accommodate vehicular circulation. A main central plaza area is being proposed that will accommodate a concentration of restaurants and the main pedestrian access to the below grade parking (G Block). This will serve as an open space focus for the urban mixed-use area west of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

Finally, consistent with Council’s direction, the Ottawa Farmers’ Market will be accommodated within a new public square (Aberdeen Square) located north of the Aberdeen Pavilion. The design for the public square will be further detailed prior to the site plan approval being finalized to address specific requirements for accommodating the farmers’ market and other possible programming opportunities when the area is not used by the market. This will ensure that this area becomes a dynamic activated open space feature that will provide an interface between the commercial focus of the mixed-use area and programmed activities within the urban park.

Urban Park

The new urban park will re-integrate Lansdowne Park with the Rideau Canal as it was historically and provide a key public open space that can accommodate multiple events of all sizes throughout the year.

Now mostly asphalt surface parking, this new urban park will feature a large open lawn capable of accommodating Winterlude activities, summer concerts, as well as staging areas for marathons and local sporting events. Along the south side of the Aberdeen Pavilion, a hardscaped area referred to as the “Great Porch” is proposed, which could be programmed in conjunction with events on the lawn area or on its own. It is proposed that the berm defining the south side stands extend into the urban park area along the east side of the stadium to further integrate the park with the stadium.

East of the relocated Horticulture Building, the park design proposes an heirloom orchard and other smaller scale areas for accommodating different programs and activities, including a possible outdoor curling rink. Further, a water feature with a unique beacon element defining the east edge of the lawn area and an interactive screen defining the west edge of the lawn area are also being proposed.

Finally, the urban park will include paths to connect with existing path systems along the QED and provide connections into and through the site. The existing driveway connections to the QED will be retained to accommodate vehicular access (north access for daily use and the south access for emergency vehicles and possibly other limited access for defined purposes to be determined in discussion with the NCC), as well as act as multi-purpose hard surface corridors that can be used for accommodating staging and marshalling to support events within the urban park and stadium and also shuttle bus loading and unloading.

The park design reflected on the Integrated Site Plan and landscape plan will be further detailed in conjunction with the development of a programming plan for the urban park. The programming plan would also address programming opportunities for Aberdeen Square, the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building to support the public programming framework for the park and that will develop synergies between the urban park and mixed-use areas.

DISCUSSION

Recommendation 1 – Approve Integrated Site Plan

Recommendation 1 responds to Council’s directions of June 28, 2010 to integrate the different elements of the approved Plan into a single Integrated Site Plan for approval by Council on November 19, 2010.

The Integrated Site Plan and associated conditions incorporate the following:

· The OSEG plan with modifications to respond to comments from the DRP;

· The PFS park plan with modifications as directed by the competition Jury;

· Integration of the park plan with the stadium plans to create a stadium in a park;

· A farmers’ square within the “Overlap Area”;

· A preferred location for the OAG should Council decide to locate the OAG at Lansdowne; and,

· Integration of the Lansdowne Project with the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project.

Approval of Recommendation 1 will establish an overall Integrated Site Plan and will establish specific directions and requirements to have the approval finalized. These are focused on adding details to the Integrated Site Plan so that it achieves the Lansdowne revitalization objectives established by the Guiding Principles developed by the DRP and endorsed by Council on June 28, 2010.

The Integrated Site Plan and conditions in setting the overall framework for finalizing the site plan focuses on building locations, on-site circulation and access to accommodate vehicles, servicing and loading, shuttle bus operations, open space elements, landscaping directions, multi-purpose paths and links, site grading and drainage, infrastructure servicing and stormwater management.

The directions and requirements necessary prior to final site plan approval and commencing construction, include the following:

· Refining the approved plans to incorporate the elements and details identified in the conditions to have the site plan approval finalized;

Having various studies and plans prepared and approved to deal with matters that Council directed be addressed through the formal site plan approval process and that are required to assist in refining the plans and in defining ongoing obligations that will be set out in the site plan agreement;
Works and obligations that will need to be meet prior to construction commencing;
Matters to be addressed during construction; and
Requirements and ongoing obligations to be fulfilled following construction that would be set out in the Site Plan Agreement such as implementing the detailed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, ensuring that sustainability targets will be met through detailed design for the buildings, etc.

DIRECTIONS FOR FINALIZING THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL

As directed by Council on June 28, 2010, the plans recommended for approval (site plan, landscape plan, engineering plan) together integrate the three primary components (urban park, urban mixed-use and stadium and Civic Centre) of the Lansdowne revitalization approved by Council into a single Integrated Site Plan. The conditions, set out in Document 6, that are specifically directed to providing direction and requirements to finalize Council’s approval of the Integrated Site Plan are focused on the following:

Refinements to the Integrated Site Plan to detail various elements such as building footprint articulations and entrances; confirming locations and footprints for the buildings along Bank Street and to incorporate the elements to provide for integration with the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project; design refinements to meet programming needs within public realm areas; and, the design details for circulation routes.
Refinements to the Integrated Landscaping Plan to define the details for the public realm design including: the details for landscaping of all the open space and public realm areas; defining hard surface treatments and materials; proposed planting details; lighting; furnishings within the urban park and mixed use areas; and, locations for public art, among others.
Refinements to the Integrated Engineering Plan for all below grade infrastructure including: identifying laterals; final site grading and drainage; and the detailed engineering for the proposed stormwater management system; and
Conceptual architectural plans for all the new construction including the stadium renovation.

As noted previously, Council also provided additional directions for elements to be incorporated into the Integrated Site Plan through various motions. These are focused on:

Details for Aberdeen Square to accommodate the Ottawa Farmers’ Market;
Integration of the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project with the Lansdowne Project;
Identifying a preferred location for the OAG at Lansdowne; and
Initiating an air rights development RFP process for the residential and office components within the mixed-use area.

Specific conditions are also set out in Document 6 related to these motions and the processes necessary to incorporate them into the Integrated Site Plan prior to final site plan approval. Below is a discussion of the processes initiated to ensure that these will be accommodated in accordance with Council’s directions.

Aberdeen Square

Motion 92-21 directed that the Integrated Site Plan include a multi-purpose farmers’ square in the same general area and orientation to the Aberdeen Pavilion as the winning park design. The Integrated Site Plan incorporates a public square north of the Aberdeen Pavilion in response to this direction.

There have been ongoing discussions with the Ottawa Farmers’ Market to determine how best to design this space to accommodate its use for a farmers’ market. Through these discussions, it was agreed that an MOU was required between the City and the Market Board to establish a business plan.

The Ottawa Farmers’ Market and the City are in the process of developing this MOU. The MOU will serve as the basis for determining the additional design detailing required prior to final site plan approval. The design detailing would be focused on accommodating the elements and facilities necessary to support the Market based on their business plan and also to support other programming requirements (to be determined by PFS) for the square for those periods when the Market would not be operating.

Bank Street Rehabilitation

Motion 92-18 directed that the Design Review Panel review and make recommendation to the Bank Street Reconstruction project, in consultation with the Bank Street Reconstruction Advisory Committee (consisting of the Ward Councillor, the Glebe Community Association, and Glebe BIA) and staff as it relates to any modifications required to support the Lansdowne Park Master Plan implementation; including the technical feasibility and costs related to proposed provisions for direct access from Bank Street and in accordance with the following principles:

· That the Bank Street reconstruction streetscaping be integrated with the streetscaping along the Lansdowne Park Bank Street frontage to create a unified environment;

· That there be integration in way-finding between the site and the rest of the Glebe BIA (i.e. maps of Lansdowne Park should list businesses throughout the Glebe just as BIA maps should profile and promote Lansdowne Park businesses);

· That the proposed underground parking should be integrated as well, and provide clear directions to Bank Street;

· That any parking validation programs should be extended to include Bank Street merchants; and

· That programming at Lansdowne Park and within the rest of the Glebe BIA should be integrated and cross-promoted to maximize exposure and participation.

The initial proposal to provide access ramps to the below grade parking within the Bank Street Right Of Way (ROW) is no longer being pursued and is not reflected on the Integrated Site Plan.

To respond to the first part of this motion, staff have initiated discussions to have the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project re-started. Staff and the consultants for both the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project and the transportation consultants for the Lansdowne project have also examined the needs for Bank Street to support the Lansdowne revitalization and ensure integration with the principles established for the Bank Street Rehabilitation. The work undertaken to date has determined that there is potential to modify the approved Bank Street Rehabilitation Plan to improve the pedestrian environment along Bank Street in front of Lansdowne by increasing the width of sidewalks and reducing the overall width of Bank Street in front of Lansdowne. This has been reviewed by the DRP and is shown on the Integrated Site Plan, however, further work and consultation is required to finalize the details. This work, as set out in the conditions (Document 6), will also address the landscaping integration elements and built form relationships between the proposed Bank Street buildings at Lansdowne and Bank Street.

One of the key elements identified by the Bank Street Reconstruction Advisory Committee relates to the desired burial of the overhead hydro wires along Bank Street north of Holmwood Avenue. Resolution of this issue is considered critical towards determining the timing for undertaking the Bank Street Rehabilitation works, given the importance of integrating the construction of the two projects. Towards, this end, Recommendation 7 provides for Council directing staff to bring forward an information report for Council consideration during the 2011 Budget process on the costs and requirements associated with the burial of the overhead hydro wires along Bank Street as part of the implementation of the Bank Street Rehabilitation project in the Glebe to facilitate a final decision on this issue prior to the commencement of the reconstruction which is scheduled to proceed in 2011 in accordance with the approved budget allocation.

The final determinations on the integration of the two projects will be reflected as refinements to the approved Integrated Site Plan in accordance with the conditions (Document 6). At this point, it is anticipated that the two projects will be undertaken jointly to ensure co-ordination of works.

Ottawa Art Gallery

Motion 92-21 directed that the Integrated Site Plan accommodate the new Ottawa Art Gallery at Lansdowne to the satisfaction of the Board of the Gallery and the DRP, should Council approve its location at Lansdowne.

In response to this motion, a number of possible locations for the OAG were identified and a detailed assessment of two locations – considered the strongest options for consideration - was undertaken: Building D adjacent to the relocated Horticulture Building and Building K adjacent to the new south side stands at the foot of the Bank Street Bridge.

The Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office (REPDO) staff in consultation with the OAG and their architectural advocate, Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects (KPMB), have investigated the two site options and recently concluded that the preferred location for the OAG at Lansdowne from both the perspective of the OAG and in the context of the overall Lansdowne revitalization project is Building K. A report on the outcome of the site analysis is now being completed and is scheduled to be considered by the OAG Board on 11 November 2010. The site analysis report will also be forwarded to the DRP for comment. REPDO staff will then bring forward an information report to report on the decision of the OAG Board and DRP comments prior to the 19 November 2010 meeting of the Committee of the Whole to consider the site plan. Subject to Council approval to locate the OAG at Lansdowne, further design development for accommodating the OAG at this location will be completed and reflected on the site plan. This includes building footprint refinements and associated site development details to support the OAG at this location while also addressing Lansdowne’s integration with the Bank Rehabilitation Project and ensuring that the stadium in the park concept is accommodated. Details to be reflected on the site plan are identified in the conditions (Document 6) as requirements to be satisfied prior to final site plan approval.

Air rights Development

When Council approved the LPP Implementation in June 2010, it also approved the initiation of an RFP for the sale/lease of air rights to a third party interest(s) for the residential and commercial office components of the urban mixed use development. This process has been initiated through the City’s Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office.

Through this process, proponents will be given the rights to develop the residential and commercial office elements for the Lansdowne Project, as well as the responsibility to develop the detailed design and undertake the construction of these elements. This work must be undertaken in co-ordination with the commercial elements of the project developed by OSEG to meet their retail leasing obligations in accordance with the Council approved Retail Strategy. As such, while the Integrated Site Plan sets out the locations for the new development to accommodate the commercial, office and residential elements, the detailed design for these buildings cannot be commenced until after the formal RFO process as set out in report (ACS2010 CMO-REP-0045), and a final selection is made for the air rights development. Through the collaborative design process set out in the conditions for final site plan approval, OSEG, in partnership with the air rights development proponents, will determine in partnership the details for the mixed use development. Conditions will also require that the details for the air rights development be in accordance with the Integrated Site Plan and that the designs incorporate the specific requirements for the mixed use and air rights development.

Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) Easement

In addition to the foregoing, further design refinements and/or adjustments to the Integrated Site Plan may be required as a result of the OHT approval process for works on lands covered by the OHT Easement Agreement. The process to obtain approvals required under the Easement Agreement will have been initiated prior to Council consideration of this report. The works within the Bank Street view corridor for which OHT approvals will be required include:

The below grade parking facility;
New below grade infrastructure;
Re-grading of the corridor to reduce the current depression on the west side of the Aberdeen Pavilion;
Encroachment of Building H, Building J and one building within Block G into the corridor;
A possible gateway feature within the Corridor at the entrance to Lansdowne that the Easement Agreement allows for; and
Landscaping (trees, lights, bollards, etc.) within the view corridor.

Also, there is a requirement under the Easement Agreement to consult with the OHT for works proposed for the Part 2 easement lands which includes much of the urban park area along the QED. This provision does not preclude the implementation of the urban park reflected on the Integrated Site Plan; however, there will be a requirement to consult with the OHT on the works prior to final site plan approval. The key interest of the OHT as it relates to the Part 2 easement lands is that three view lines from the property edge at the QED to the Aberdeen Pavilion defined in the Easement Agreement be maintained. Through consultations with the OHT, the urban park design detailing should respect the three view lines and improve the views from the QED to the Aberdeen Pavilion.

CONDITIONS

The conditions recommended for approval as set out in Document 6 includes both standard conditions and special conditions. These fall into the following categories:

Standard conditions many of which will be included in the site plan agreement;
Conditions to be satisfied to finalize the site plan approval, most of which would not carry forward into the site plan agreement;
Conditions to be satisfied prior to construction commencing many of which will be included in the site plan agreement;
Conditions to be satisfied during construction that will be included in the site plan agreement; and
Specific conditions that will set out on-going obligations and that will be included in the site plan agreement.

Prior to commencing construction, the site plan must be finalized with a Site Plan Agreement executed between the City and OSEG that includes all those conditions in Document 6 that are to be carried forward into the agreement (as highlighted above) and any additional conditions that may be determined through the process.

The key conditions are those special conditions setting out requirements and directions that must be satisfied prior to final site plan approval. The standard conditions and those special conditions included in the categories of items to be addressed prior to and during construction are focused on more standard development matters that are not design focused to ensure orderly site development with the conditions to be included in the agreement focused on ensuring that various requirements and ongoing obligations such implementing the TDM plan and monitoring will be implemented post construction.

The special conditions setting out the requirements and directions for having the site plan approval finalized address the matters discussed below:

Other Approvals

The conditions related to other approvals require that final site plan approval be conditional on: receiving the final zoning approval; Council giving its final approval to the relocation of the Horticulture Building; and approval from the OHT for works on lands covered by the OHT Easement Agreement.

Plan Detailing

The various plans being recommended for approval have been developed to an overall master plan level to integrate the various elements of the Lansdowne revitalization into a single Integrated Site Plan as directed by Council. To have the site plan approval finalized requires that the various plans, once approved by Council, be further detailed prior to the site plan approval being finalized under delegated approval authority to allow the execution of a Site Plan Agreement, and the issuance of building permits. The conditions set out dealing with this matter identify the specific requirements for the plan details and refinements that are to be incorporated into the approved integrated plans.

The refinements to the integrated plans to have the site plan approval finalized will be subject to design review by the City’s recently appointed Design Review Panel (Recommendation 3) and recommendations to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management prior to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management finalizing the site plan approval.

Studies/Plans

Throughout the process of developing the LPP and to initiate the various planning approvals, a variety of studies have been undertaken, some of which have been received or approved by Council. All of these have informed and provided direction to the LPP approvals and the overall development program now reflected in the Integrated Site Plan being recommended for approval. The following highlights some the key studies that have been completed:

Heritage

Lansdowne Park History Chronology (March 2010)
Horticulture Building Structural Condition Review (June 2010)
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Heritage Impact Assessment (September 2010)
Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (October 2010)

Retail

Glebe BIA Market Research Study (October 2009)
Lansdowne Redevelopment Retail Market Development and Impact Assessment (October 2009)
Lansdowne Retail Planning Report (June 2010)
Lansdowne Retail Peer Review Report (June 2010)

Transportation

· Lansdowne Development Transportation Strategy LPP (August 2009)

· Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and TDM Plan (June 2010)

· Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and TDM Plan Peer Review (June 2010)

Engineering and Environmental

· Preliminary Due Diligence Report - Servicing (August 2009)

· Preliminary Geotechnical (March 2010)

· Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (March 2010)

· Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (June 2010)

· Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management (September 2010)

Others

· Preliminary Event Management (August 2010)

Accessibility Framework (October 2010)
Sustainability Feasibility Assessment (October 2010)

Building on the work completed to date and following Council direction, a number of additional studies and plans must be completed and approved, as identified in the conditions (Document 6), prior to final site plan approval. These will provide direction and clarity for certain detailed design elements and will help determine the specifics of any conditions that may need to be incorporated into the site plan agreement. Most of these studies follow-up on recommendations set out in previously completed studies (some of which have been approved by Council) or are in response to specific directions provided by Council in its June 28, 2010 approval of the LPP. The following provides an overview of the specific studies required prior to final site plan approval:

1. Sustainability Plan that identifies the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighbourhood Development (LEED ND) target to be pursued and elements and features to be included in the site plan. It will also set out Building LEED targets and guidelines for achieving these that will be included in the site plan agreement;

2. Accessibility Plan that identifies universal accessibility features to be included in the site plan, and universal accessibility features to be included in building plans that will be set out in the site plan agreement;

3. Final stormwater management and site servicing report for approval by all required public agencies as may be required;

4. Transit Operations Plan detailing the transit services and operational needs for providing transit service to meet day to day needs, and needs for different events for attendance thresholds of 7,000 to 14,000 patrons (Civic Centre, smaller stadium and urban park events), 15,000 to 24,000 patrons (full stadium events and larger urban park events) and 25,000 plus patrons (expanded stadium events) and including a monitoring plan;

5. Shuttle Operations Plan detailing shuttle service and associated operational requirements consistent with terms under the Pilot Project Agreement with the NCC for accommodating shuttle service on the QED to meet needs for different events for attendance thresholds of 15,000 to 24,000 patrons (full stadium events and larger urban park events) and 25,000 plus patrons (expanded stadium events) and including a monitoring plan;

6. Traffic and Parking Operations Plan for both on and off-site traffic and parking operations for day to day and related to events with attendance thresholds of 7,000 to 14,000 patrons (Civic Centre, smaller stadium and urban park events), 15,000 to 24,000 patrons (full stadium events and larger urban park events) and 25,000 plus patrons (expanded stadium events) and including a monitoring plan;

7. Detailed Transportation Demand Management Plan for the different land uses to be provided (residential, office, retail/entertainment, and events) and in particular for reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV) and automobile use by patrons attending events and accommodating bike parking needs;

8. Finalizing the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Study;

9. Finalizing the Event Management Plan detailing how on-site activity to support day to day use and for various events would be managed and how different needs for accommodating pedestrian needs, access, loading/marshalling etc. would be met;

10. A more refined concept plan for the urban mixed-use public realm that translates the directions and concept approved for the public realm design into a plan representation to serve as the basis for the design detailing to be incorporated into the integrated site plan;

11. A comprehensive signage and way finding plan;

12. Programming Plan for the urban park, Aberdeen Square, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building;

13. Interpretive/Public Art Plan identifying art elements that are to be provided throughout the site, as well as potential locations for public art to allow these to be shown on the final landscape plan. It will also include an interpretive element to reflect the Algonquin First Nations culture and relationship to the Rideau waterway system; and

14. Site Lighting Plan that responds to the City’s lighting standards and will address the site lighting needs and advance a unique lighting concept for Lansdowne.

SUSTAINABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

In addition to the overall objective of transforming Lansdowne into a dynamic urban place that reflects its history, there are two very important objectives for the project. First, that it be a model of sustainable urban development, and secondly, that it satisfy universal accessibility standards. These were identified through the Guiding Principles endorsed by Council in June 2010. To advance and/or meet sustainability and accessibility objectives and needs, specific requirements are set out through the conditions requiring a sustainability plan and accessibility plan to inform having sustainability and accessibility design elements and details incorporated into the Integrated Site Plan and individual building plans.

The City has retained Enermodal Engineering to develop the sustainability plan. Work completed to date has determined a goal for the Lansdowne Project to strive to achieve a LEED Neighbourhood Development (LEED ND) gold certification for the overall project and a Building LEED gold certification for new buildings. The LEED ND is a neighbourhood sustainability program developed in the United States and has had very limited application in Canada. The Lansdowne development has the potential to be one of only a few large place making projects in Canada that is developed to LEED ND standards. These focus on incorporating a strong residential element into mixed use development, utilizing brownfield sites, incorporating Transportation Demand Measures, providing for strong pedestrian orientation and connectivity including connections to bike routes and sidewalk systems. An initial assessment by Enermodal of the Integrated Site Plan has determined that the plan has the elements to achieve LEED ND silver and that there is potential to achieve LEED ND gold. The conditions set LEED ND gold as the goal for the project and LEED gold being the target for most new buildings.

Betty Dione Enterprise (BDE) has been retained to develop an accessibility plan to establish universal accessibility standards to be integrated into the Lansdowne development at both the master plan level and for the various buildings. The importance of universal accessibility as a mainstream consideration in planning and designing urban places and buildings has become an important consideration for new development under the Provinces new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The Lansdowne project has the potential to be an example of how to achieve universal accessibility for a major urban development project. The plan being developed by BDE will provide the direction to achieve this objective.

Recommendation 2 – Receive the Response Matrix

City Council in approving the LPP Implementation on June 28, 2010 gave its approval to a Master Plan for the revitalization of Lansdowne comprised of the following:

· The OSEG design for the stadium and a mixed-use area;

· Refinements to the stadium and mixed use plans to respond to the evaluation comments from the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel;

· The urban park design plan developed by Phillips Farevagg Smallenburg Landscape Architects (PFS);

· Refinements to the urban park plan to respond to changes required by the competition Jury; and

· A process for incorporating the plans into an Integrated Site Plan through the City’s Two Stage Site Plan Approval process.

Council also provided specific directions for various other development matters to be addressed. These included:

· Incorporating into the overlap area an open public square reflective of the square proposed by PFS north of the Aberdeen Pavilion for an outdoor farmers market that would accommodate 150 stalls having a size of 3m X 6M;

· Integration of the Bank Street Rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne Project to ensure the requirements for each would be accommodated;

· Examining opportunities for including within the development program a new facility to accommodate the Ottawa Art Gallery (OAG); and,

· Providing for the DRP to continue to play a formal role through the integration and design refinement processes to provide continued guidance, third party review and advice to the City Manager and the Lansdowne Park Revitalization Project Team through the integration process, provide peer review advice to the City Manager for the Integrated Site Plan and recommending the site plans to City Council.

The Integrated Site Plan and associated conditions recommended for approval respond fully to these and the various other specific directions provided by Council on June 28, 2010. This is fully summarized in the Response Matrix included as Document 2. This document is to be received for information.

On June 28, 2010, Council also directed (Motion 92-36) that the DRP provide its third party peer review of the Integrated Site Plan and that staff provide a response to this. The DRP third party peer review and the staff response are also included for information in Document 2.

Recommendation 3 – Delegate Authority to Finalize the Site Plan

With its approval of Recommendation 1, Council will provide a detailed road map to have its site plan finalized such that the plans will address all of Council’s objectives, technical matters and ongoing operational requirements. This is achieved through the detailed requirements and directions for finalizing the site plan identified in the conditions (Document 6) and through the conditions that would be included in the site plan agreement.

Given the detailed directions contained in Recommendation 1 and the requirements and directions defined in the conditions (Document 6), staff are recommending that delegated authority be re-instated with the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management for final site plan approval. It is further recommended that the City’s newly appointed Design Review Panel through the City’s formalized design review process now take over the design review function in the review of the details to be included in the Integrated Site Plan as set out in the conditions and provide its recommendations for consideration by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management prior to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management exercising his authority.

Recommendation 3 directs that any substantial changes to the Integrated Site Plan that are not within the overall framework of this report be brought forward to the Planning and Environment Committee for its approval. Examples of substantial changes that would result in a need for Planning and Environment Committee approval would be adding additional buildings, removal of buildings shown, elimination of significant elements within the urban park or any significant changes required to satisfy conditions of other required approvals. Also, any matters where final approval results in changes to the previously approved Financial Obligations of the City, will require further approval by Council.

The Integrated Site Plan recommended for approval has been assessed against the project pro forma and has been determined to fit within the business and financial plan approved by Council in June 2010. No additional funding commitments are represented as required with the approval of the Integrated Site Plan as recommended in this report.

Recommendation 4 – Design Review Panel (DRP)

The Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel (DRP) was established at the direction of Council through its conditional approval of the LPP in November 2009. The DRP’s mandate was grounded in defining the urban design objectives for the three primary components of the Lansdowne revitalization and ensuring that the Master Site Plan and architectural plans meet the highest possible design standards as set out in their design objectives. By doing so, the panel played a critical role in ensuring that Lansdowne was transformed into a unique and dynamic urban place that is integrated and works well with its heritage features and larger urban context. Under this broad mandate, the DRP was charged with the following:

Developing in collaboration with the City, NCC, Parks Canada and OSEG broad design principles and guidelines for the Lansdowne redevelopment;
Developing in consultation with the City, NCC and Parks Canada, key design elements and directions for the design competition for the front yard (including the farmer’s market, the Horticultural Building and the Aberdeen Pavilion);
Participating with the City, NCC and Parks Canada in the review of responses to the Request for Expressions of Interest and Qualifications for the front yard design competition and in the selection of the winning design;
Participating in the development of the retail strategy;
Providing third party design review, direction and advice in the development of the Master Site Plan for the commercial and stadium elements of the revitalization as these are developed by OSEG; and
Providing independent third party review of the final Master Site Plan when it considers the final plan in June 2010.

The DRP’s mandate was extended by Council on June 28, 2010 through Motions 92-21 and 92-36. Motion 92-36 provided that the DRP play a continued role through the integration and plan refinement process and to provide recommendations to Council on the zoning, site plan, and other mandates given by Council. Motion 92-21 provided direction for the DRP to ensure that additional key elements directed by Council be included in the Integrated Site Plan.

The DRP has fulfilled its initial mandate and with Council receipt of the DRP evaluation report on the Integrated Site Plan included in Document 2, will have satisfied its extended mandate: it provided a third party peer review to Council in June 2010, provided a recommendation on the zoning, participated in the integration process, and has provided an evaluation report on the Integrated Site Plan. Through the process of developing the Integrated Site Plan being recommended for approval, the DRP has played an important role in helping to develop the plan and in establishing the conditions necessary for final site plan approval under delegated authority.

Recognizing that the Panel has fulfilled its initial and extended mandates to provide independent advice to Council prior to Council making its decision, and played a key role in developing the conditions necessary for final site plan approval under delegated authority, the role of continued design review can now be transferred to the City’s newly appointed design review panel as the design review focus shifts from the more strategic focus of the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review and Advisory Panel review to reviewing and providing recommendations on design detailing to ensure adherence to design detailing directions established in the conditions (Document 6). This focus on design review is consistent with the design review focus for the City’s recently established design review panel and it is recommended that this panel assume this role towards having the site plan approval finalized.

To effect this transition in design review, a briefing session will be held prior to the end of the year at one of the regularly scheduled meetings of the City’s newly appointed Design Review Panel where staff and the Lansdowne Strategic Design Review Panel would provide a briefing on the Lansdowne project and the focus of the design review required towards having the site plan approval finalized.

Recommendation 5 - Approve Exemption from City Signs By-law

Signage to identify and possibly name buildings, for way finding both on-site and off-site that will provide for having Lansdowne recognized and identified as part of the Glebe BIA, and for commercial uses will be an important element of making Lansdowne a unique place. Consideration will also be given in developing the signage plan and in particular related to way finding to incorporate way-finding that also reflects the Algonquin First Nation.

To achieve an integrated and comprehensive signage program that will work with the design and place making objectives, conditions are set out to have a signage plan developed prior to finalizing the site plan approval. With the preparation of this plan for approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management, it is recommended that the application of the Signs By-law to the Lansdowne project be waived to allow for the implementation of the signage plan without requiring possible variances to the by-law that may be necessary.

Recommendation 6 – Approve Use of Building K as OAG if Council Decides to Put Gallery at Lansdowne (separate report Q1 2011)

Motion 92-21 approved by Council on June 28, 2010, provided direction for the Integrated Site Plan to include a home for the new Ottawa Art Gallery at Lansdowne to the satisfaction of the Board of the Gallery and the DRP. Through the development of the Integrated Site Plan, several possible locations were examined and assessed. It has been determined that the preferred location is at Building K and this location would best meet the needs of the OAG in the context of the overall revitalization plan for Lansdowne. Given this, it is recommended that Council subject to the endorsement of the OAG Board and the DRP, endorse Building K as the preferred location for the Ottawa Art Gallery should Council, through its consideration of the Arts Court Project Report, approve the relocation of the Ottawa Art Gallery to Lansdowne.

Recommendation 7 – Bank Street Rehabilitation

Staff in response to Motion 92-18 have initiated discussions with the Bank Street Rehabilitation project team and the Bank Street Reconstruction Public Advisory Group (as defined in the motion) to restart the Bank Street Reconstruction project and address required integration items with the Lansdowne project. These relate to the Bank Street cross section, ensuring transit requirements can be met, increasing sidewalk widths to better accommodate pedestrian and transit patrons, streetscape design, construction scheduling and construction staging.

A key issue identified relates to the burial of overhead hydro wires for the area of Bank Street north of Holmwood Avenue as an element of the Bank Street works to be included in the reconstruction project. Recognizing this, Recommendation 7 directs staff to bring forward, for consideration through the 2011 budget process, an information report on the costs and requirements associated with the burial of the overhead hydro wires along Bank Street as part of the implementation of the Bank Street Rehabilitation project in the Glebe. This is to facilitate a final decision on this issue prior to the commencement of the reconstruction. The approved Bank Street Rehabilitation is scheduled to commence in 2011 without the burial of the overhead subject to Council approval of the budget request that has been submitted by the Infrastructure Services Department for starting this work in 2011.

To co-ordinate with the Lansdowne reconstruction, the Bank Street rehabilitation work must begin in 2011.

Given the interest by the Glebe BIA and Glebe Community Association to have the burial of the overhead hydro lines part of this proposal, there is a need for Council to make a decision and provide direction for advancing the reconstruction project next year. Most importantly, it must be decided if this will be part of the project, and based on this, construction impacts can be managed and/or minimized.

The Integrated Site Plan being recommended for approval with the conditions in Document 6 fully responds to Council’s directions for integrating the various components of the Lansdowne Project into a single integrated plan and addresses all the directions provided in the LPP Implementation Report. The Site plan approval that will be given by Council will establish a detailed framework for finalizing the site plan approval under delegated authority, and ultimately, achieve a development program that will transform Lansdowne into a dynamic urban place.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Sustainability is a key element of the Lansdowne revitalization. The Integrated Site Plan provides for making effective use of this significant municipal asset and advances the City’s sustainability objectives related to land use planning, efficient use of land and infrastructure, and the notions and principles of smart growth. The conditions for final site plan approval require the development of a sustainability plan and that the overall development and individual buildings strive to achieve the highest possible LEED ND and LEED Building certifications. Also, site remediation is required to address the site contamination confirmed through the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and this is also addressed through the conditions of approval.

CONSULTATION

The Lansdowne Site plan was subject to the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Process for Site Plan Applications. The plan was circulated to area community groups and was posted on the City’s DEV APPS web site. Also, a public information meeting attended by approximately 250 people was held on October 14, 2010.

Seventy-two comments were received through the circulation and as a result of the October 14^th public information session. Of these, approximately 85 per cent of respondents expressed opposition or significant concerns with the proposed development. Approximately 10 per cent of respondents expressed support or expressed support in general with some concerns about certain elements of the proposed development. Approximately five per cent of respondents provided comments of a miscellaneous nature such as wanting more information to be able to purchase a residential unit and did not comment specifically on the proposed development.

Document 7 summarizes the public comments received into the following broad categories:

· Opposition for reasons that are not site plan related (approx. 50 per cent)

· General Opposition that also included site plan related concerns (approx. 35 per cent)

· Support with some specific site plan concerns/suggestions(approx. 10 per cent)

· Miscellaneous (approx five per cent)

All public comments received have been compiled and are included as submitted in Document 7.

COMMENTS BY WARD COUNCILLOR

The following comments/questions were provided by the Ward Councillor.

Vision – What is the rationale for the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) vision for such an important publicly owned heritage site in the heart of Ottawa, located next to a World Heritage Site, the Rideau Canal?

Staff Response

The rationale for the vision has been expressed by Council through its approvals of the LPP. In summary, the rationale is to transform Lansdowne from a surface parking area with deteriorated buildings that is detached from its surroundings -including the Rideau Canal - into a dynamic urban place that reflects the site’s history as a significant public gathering place, re-embraces the Rideau Canal, can accommodate multiple events and activities, and is re-integrated into the fabric of the adjacent community and larger city.

Traffic – Why subject the local and surrounding community to more intense traffic gridlock when a stadium could be built elsewhere next to rapid transit? Lansdowne’s legacy will have an impact on the area and the city for the next 70-100 years. Vehicles are already bumper-to-bumper during rush hour and on weekends on Bank Street and there is a shortage of parking in the area.

What is the plan to make cycling safer on Bank Street, including the Bank Street Bridge, given that traffic volumes are expected to increase with the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park?

What consideration has been given to making the site accessible to seniors and people with disabilities?

Has the NCC confirmed that shuttle buses can use the Queen Elizabeth Driveway to access the site? Why is Council voting on the Phase 1 Site Plan when the critical need for a viable transit option has not been clarified?

Staff Response

Council through its approval of the LPP implementation in June 2010 has made its final decision to have Lansdowne continue as the site for an open air stadium and arena complex for the city. In making this decision, Council required that a detailed transportation study be undertaken and that this study be subject to a peer review process. Council approved the transportation study as part of its approval of the LPP implementation as meeting the direction given in November 2009. At that time, Council requested a study to determine whether or not impacts on traffic circulation and on-street parking resulting from implementation of the LPP can be reasonably accommodated and that the transportation strategy outlined in the LPP will work as anticipated.

Issues related to the Bank Street Bridge are outside the scope of the site plan. The scope of the project is focused on the on-site development program, and, as directed by Council, on establishing a process to provide for the integration of the Lansdowne project with the Bank Street Rehabilitation project, which deals only with Bank Street on the north side of the bridge. The integrated site plan also provides for having multi-purpose pathways provided from Bank Street including the area at the foot of the bank street Bridge to provide for connections to the NCC cycling system along the QED

The City has retained an accessibility consultant to prepare an accessibility plan. This is discussed in the report and conditions are included related to this matter in Document 6.

The NCC has approved a pilot project to allow for use of the QED for shuttles for events with attendance over 15,000. This was reported to Council in June 2010.

Council in approving the Transportation study has given its approval to the manner in which transit service will be provided. The conditions set out in the site plan approval based on recommendations in the transportation study will require that a transit operations plan consistent with the strategy be developed.

Urban Park – The design of the urban park has changed considerably since the winner of the international design competition was announced. What percentage of the site is now going to be green space? What other changes can we expect to the park since the design has changed considerably already? Who has the final say on the design of the urban park? Why is a local landscape firm listed on one of the site plan documents instead of the winning landscape firm, Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg?

Why are there inconsistencies between two of the site plan documents with regards to the size and design of the heirloom orchard and the bus shuttle loop?

Contrary to what is stated in Document 27, which is part of the LPP, the shuttle bus loop was not part of the RFP for the international urban park design competition. Why was it not included in the RFP? Motion 92/21 includes “shuttle drop-off and pick-up that has no impact on the great lawn”. Again, this requirement should have been part of the RFP for the urban park design competition because it has a major impact on the design and programming of the urban park.

How will the NCC land along the perimeter of Lansdowne Park be integrated with the site?

Staff Response

The urban park design team has retained much of the original design for the City owned lands reflected on their winning design plan. A few key elements of the original design are not included –-the passeral bridge connection to Old Ottawa East and the proposed island in the Rideau Canal (both of which were directed by the competition jury to not be included), and the Lansdowne Community Park has been taken out of the design as directed by Council. All other elements have been retained. The other changes are as a result of the integration of the park with the stadium and mixed-use areas. These changes, reflected on the Integrated Site Plan, relate to the berm area on the east side of the stadium and the provision of a shuttle loop and access to the below grade parking which have been integrated into the design features for the north east sector of the original park design. The percentage of the site that will comprise the urban park which features both hard and soft surface areas to support various programming opportunities remains at approximately 35 per cent of the City land.

Council, in giving its approval to the Integrated Site Plan and the conditions set out, will be approving the park design. Any future changes will be focused on design details and modifications that may be required to accommodate the programming plan that the park design team will develop through a consultation process.

The local landscape firm identified on the site plan was retained by OSEG to develop the detailed landscape plans for the mixed-use area. OSEG’s design team will be responsible under the approved partnership with the City for the detailed design for the mixed-use area and stadium. PFS, the park design team, is responsible for the urban park and the Aberdeen Square detailed design work.

All the plans recommended for approval reflect a consistent size and design for the heirloom orchard and the bus shuttle loop.

The RFP for the design competition indicated that the there was a need for spaces within the urban park that would be easily accessed by vehicles from the site’s access points and vehicular circulation routes to support the different types of larger activities/events. It was clarified to the park design teams through the design symposium that this also included provisions to accommodate shuttle services. The proposed shuttle loop is located north of the proposed curling rinks where it does not impact the Great Lawn area for the proposed urban park.

The integration of the NCC land with the urban park design on the City lands will be subject to the NCC approval process and is addressed through conditions in the approval.

Heritage – The Horticulture Building should be left in situ and creatively re-purposed. This is the most cost effective and respectful approach to dealing with a designated heritage building. The presentation on the mixed-use area at the public open house on October 14 included an image of the Horticulture Building with the façade retained but the remainder of the building “re-styled” into some kind of strange looking shelter, with the rear walls removed on three sides. This plan for the building has never been previously disclosed, nor approved at Council.

The City has not yet requested heritage approvals from the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) with regards to the proposed impingements on the Aberdeen Pavilion easement agreements. Will the request be made to the OHT prior to Council voting on the Phase 1 Site Plan?

A draft version of the Statement of Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment was provided to Council the day before the Lansdowne re-zoning vote on Wednesday, September 22. Why was Council not provided with the final version in advance of the September 22 vote? The final version was only made available on the City website on Monday, September 27. How does this late disclosure of pertinent information enable informed decisions by members of Council and the public?

Staff Response

The relocation of the Horticulture Building is a matter that will be considered by Council at its special meeting of November 19 pursuant to the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. A condition included for the relocation and also for approval of the site plan requires that a conservation plan be developed. This plan would address future modifications to the building necessary to accommodate a new public focused use as determined by the park design team as part of the programming plan.

The City will have submitted a formal application to the OHT to obtain approval for those works requiring OHT approval on those lands covered by the OHT Easement Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement prior to Council consideration of the Integrated Site Plan.

The Draft Statement of Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment was provided to Council as soon as it was received with the final version of this report also provided to Council and posted on the City’s web site as soon as it was available.

The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report is required for initiating any approvals under the Ontario Heritage Act and for the site plan approval. The report was in its final form when these processes for the Lansdowne project were commenced and has been available for public review since September 27. It is also a document to the heritage approval report that will be considered by Council on November 19 with the Integrated Site Plan. An HIA was not required for the rezoning approval which was focused on adding residential and commercial uses as permitted uses at Lansdowne.

Ottawa Farmers’ Market (OFM) – The “Aberdeen Square” is barely big enough to Accommodate 150 stalls as per a motion of Council that was passed on June 28, 2010. Based on comments from a farmer who sells his products at the Ottawa Farmers’ Market, and who attended the October 14 site plan open house, it does not sound as though farmers are going to have enough space to drive their trucks on to the site to unload their products. How is this serious deficiency going to be addressed?

The winning Urban Park design team recommended a vision plan that included keeping the Horticulture Building in situ and a much larger space for the Ottawa Farmers’ Market.

Why are we giving priority to a Cineplex over adequate space for local farmers and the local food they grow and sell? Would it not be more cost effective to allow the OFM year round use of the Horticulture Building in its current location, instead of spending $3 million in taxpayers money to have the building moved 120 metres?

Staff Response

The area defined on the Integrated Site Plan as the Aberdeen Square and contiguous areas extending east and west of the Aberdeen Pavilion has been sized to accommodate the Council directed number of market stalls. Accommodations for the Farmers’ Market will require an MOU with the Market Board to confirm the business plan and inform the design detailing what will be required to support the Farmers’ Market. This is addressed by Recommendation 8.

The Cineplex is an element of the business plan and financial pro forma for the partnership between the City and the OSEG that Council approved in June 2010.

The relocation of the Horticulture Building, as noted above, will be addressed by Council under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act concurrently with consideration of the Integrated Site Plan.

Retail – Why so much retail so quickly? Is this really fair to business owners on Bank Street and in the surrounding area? How can anyone argue that 300,000 square feet of new retail will not draw sales away from neighbouring merchants? These arguments were made when the Rideau Centre was proposed in the early 1990’s and the rapid deterioration of Rideau Street is still in evidence today.

Staff Response

In June 2010, Council approved a retail strategy and the amount of retail to be located at Lansdowne. This retail strategy was incorporated into and subsequently approved by Council through the zoning report in September 2010. The amount and type of retail proposed and approved is also integral to the business plan and financial pro forma that Council approved for the partnership between the City and OSEG.

Ottawa Art Gallery (OAG) – The location of the OAG has not yet been determined even though the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) have put two other possible locations on the site forward. This should be clarified as part of the Stage 1 Site Plan.

The future of the OAG should not be left in limbo until Council votes on the Stage 2 Site Plan in May 2011.

Staff Response

Staff and the OAG staff and consultants have determined that the most appropriate location for the OAG at Lansdowne, should Council decide to locate the OAG at Lansdowne, is in Building K. This is reflected in the site plan approval report.

Parking – Motion 92/21 includes the following: “The new park and open space shall not

be used for day-to-day parking on the surface”. At the open house on October 14 it was

evident that hard surface areas of the urban park, including the “overlap area” are to be

used for parking. Is any of this parking going to be for permanent use?

Staff Response

There are no areas within the urban park where day to day at grade parking will be provided. The only area where limited at grade surface parking would be provided is within the mixed-use area and possibly adjacent to Blocks C and D. This is to serve as convenient short term parking or areas for pick up and drop off by Para-transpo or taxis, and would also accommodate off peak period loading for the smaller commercial uses within the mixed-use area.

Sylvia Holden Park, 945 Bank Street – While there has been some public consultation

on the LPP, there has never been a public consultation to specifically address the

decommissioning of Sylvia Holden Park located at 945 Bank Street. Normally City staff

would meet with residents, the Ward councillor and the Glebe Community Association to

discuss any changes to a local community park.

Staff Response

All the plans presented to the public since the summer of 2009 depicted development along the Holmwood frontage of Lansdowne and at the corner of Bank and Holmwood. Consequently, the public had the opportunity to formally comment on this proposed aspect of the LPP through the public delegations received by Council on November 12 and 13, 2009 and June 23 and 24, 2010. Further, the City’s Planning and Environment Committee received public delegations on this aspect of the LPP on September 14, 2010 prior to dealing with the proposed zoning for the LPP. The City’s legal staff provided oral advice to Council on September 22, 2010 that although Sylvia Holden Park may have some status as a City Park, it was never legally described and dedicated as a park. Above is the updated legal input on Sylvia Holden Park provided on November 8, 2010.

Urban Mixed-Use Area – The 16 and 20 story towers planned for the site are out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Both towers will be taller than the Lord Lansdowne across the street from Lansdowne Park. The proposed tower by the canal and the Bank Street Bridge will ruin the scenic view from the Queen Elizabeth Driveway. The townhouses planned for Holmwood will be taller than neighbouring homes and will destroy existing green space. The site plan indicates access and egress to a parking garage on Holmwood Avenue. This is surprising given that residents were previously told that this would not happen.

Does the City intend to sell a strip of land on Holmwood Avenue to a developer to build townhomes? If not, will the properties be subject to long-term leases?

Staff Response

The establishment of maximum building heights for new development at Lansdowne was the subject of the rezoning that Council approved on September 22, 1010. Council at that time had a detailed staff report assessing the zoning required to implement the LPP in the context of various planning policies, including the Official Plan, and received public representations on all aspects of the zoning including the proposed building heights.

All the plans available to the public since the summer of 2009 identified access from Holmwood to serve the parking for the residential uses proposed along Holmwood. Residents have consistently been advised that the public parking to be provided to support day to day activities and events would not have any access to Holmwood. The Integrated Site Plan recommended for approval reflects this, with access to the public parking area being only from Bank Street and the QED.

Council, in its approval given in June 2010, provided clear direction that no lands be sold. Only air rights will be sold or leased. The final determinations on whether the air rights will be sold or leased will be made through the air rights RFP process that has been initiated as directed by Council.

Bicycle lanes – Where are the bike lanes throughout the site? It is very difficult to tell from the site plan drawings. Motion 92/21 carried at the June 28, 2010 Council meeting specifically states that the site plan include “a formal integrated cycling connection from Bank Street to the Queen Elizabeth Driveway, and to the cycling paths on the far side of the Driveway and that his be co‑ordinated with the NCC.” This condition does not appear to have been met. Has this been co‑ordinate with the NCC? Where will on site bike parking be located?

Staff Response

The Integrated Site Plan provides for various cycling connections across the site by way of multipurpose pathway systems. These connections also support achieving LEED ND sustainability objectives for the development. The proposed multi-purpose paths connect with Bank Street and with the path system along the QED. As the site plan approval does not deal with NCC lands and as the implementation of the park design on NCC lands requires a formal approval process through the NCC, modifications required to achieve full integration will be advanced through the NCC approval process. Conditions dealing with future integration of the park on City lands with the NCC lands must be satisfied prior to final site plan approval.

Bike parking will be located in accordance with the requirements of the zoning by-law and would be a design detail incorporated into the site plan prior to final site plan approval. Conditions for both permanent bike parking and temporary bike parking to support events are set out in Document 6 that must be satisfied prior to final site plan approval.

Environmental Assessment – Why was the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated March 2010 not provided to members of Council prior to the “final” LPP vote in June 2010 although it was provided to OSEG and the short-listed urban park design teams? This information was only provided to Council and members of the public on September 27, 2010. The ESA identifies serious problems with soil and groundwater contamination on the site.

Staff Response

The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was publically available on the City’s web site prior to June 2010 and was made available to the park design teams who were selected to respond to the park design competition RFP. The ESA study was also posted as one of the support studies to the site plan in accordance with Council and Official Plan requirements and as a result was not given directly to Council. Conditions are included in the site plan approval dealing with site contamination and remediation requirements in the same manner as they are dealt with for any other site proposed to be developed where there is site contamination.

Public consultation – The Public Open House on October 14 at Lansdowne was very frustrating for those who attended. For the most part, there wasn’t enough time for people to ask questions after the presentations. The landscape plan presented on display boards, showed trees throughout the site in full bloom, which obfuscated what is really planned for the site at ground level. No 3-D model of the site was presented though members of the public have repeatedly requested this in the past.

Staff Response

The format and messaging for the Open House was developed in consultation with and agreed to by both the Glebe and Old Ottawa South Community Associations.

Development of a 3D model is very costly and, given the pace of the development of the design through the process over the past year, would have been difficult to maintain. As such, use was made of computer modeling. All the images presented at the Open House were generated through this detailed computer model. In addition, an animated video of the proposed development was created and posted on the City’s web site early in the process to allow the public to understand the project in three dimensions.

Impact on Community Schools – There are long-term capacity issues at local community schools. New housing at Lansdowne will bring more families to the neighbourhood putting more pressure on local schools. Has the Ottawa Carleton District School Board trustee been consulted about this?

Staff Response

Local school boards are mandatory agencies to be circulated planning applications. Although the trustee in question was not specifically consulted, the site plan was circulated to all the local school boards and none provided any comments or expressed concerns.

LEGAL/RISK MANGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

After voting day, where less than 18 Members of the current Council will be Members of the new Council, the Municipal Act, 2001, Clauses 275(3)(c) and (d) apply to Council. These clauses provide that Council cannot:

· dispose of any real or personal property whose value exceeds $50,000 at the time of the disposal; or make any expenditure or incur any liability which exceeds $50,000.

However, Subsection 275(4) of the Act provides however that the above two limitations do not apply if the disposal, expenditure or assumption of the liability were in a budget approved by Council prior to Nomination Day (i.e. September 10, 2010).

By e-mail, the City Clerk and Solicitor advised City Council on October 26, 2010 the following:

By way of a preliminary view, Legal Services is of the opinion that there would appear to be no issue of the restrictions in Section 275 affecting this planning report as the costs related to it have already been approved by Council.

That being said, Legal and operational staff will continue their due diligence in reviewing this matter as the report in question is finalized, as well as with regard to any other reports that may be considered by Council prior to the end of the term.

At the Special Meeting of Council held on 17, 23, 24, 25 and 28 June 2010, Council approved the Implementation Plan for the Lansdowne Partnership Plan. The City’s external financial consultant, Price Waterhouse Cooper, and the City Treasurer have compared the financial impact to the City of the details for the redevelopment of Lansdowne as contained within the current report. As noted elsewhere in this report, it is their opinion that the development as represented in this report will not represent any increased cost or liability to the City. Therefore, it continues to be the opinion of Legal Services that Council has the authority at this time to approve the site plan for Lansdowne in accordance with this report.

Finally, should amendments be made to the site plan or conditions of site plan approval such that the cost/liability to the City would exceed by $50,000 or more that contemplated by the June 28, 2010 City Council decision, Council would not have the authority to approve such amendments until after the commencement of the next term of Council (i.e. December 1, 2010).

Horticulture Building

Questions have been raised with respect to the ability of Council to approve the relocation of the Horticulture Building on account of the limitations within the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 275. While the Horticulture Building is recommended to be relocated, neither the land under the Horticulture Building, nor the building itself is proposed to be disposed of by Council. Further, the relocation (and related costs) were elements contemplated by the Council approval on June 28, 2010. As such, it is also the opinion of Legal Services that Council has the authority to approve, on November 19, 2010, the relocation of the Horticulture Building.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Sustainable, Healthy and Active City

Objective 3 – Expand the amount of City-owned green space in Ottawa
Objective 6 – require walking transit and cycling oriented communities and employment centers

Planning and Growth Management

Objective 1 – Manage growth and create sustainable communities by:

Becoming leading edge in community and urban design
Ensuring that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities
Ensuring that new community facilities are built in tandem with new development

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Approval of the Integrated Site Plan for the Revitalization of Lansdowne Park as presented in this report, does not change the financial implications for the City of Ottawa from those reported in the June 9, 2010 Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) Implementation report approved by City Council on June 28, 2010. That report indicated that the capital cost to the City would be $129.3 million for the stadium renovation and parking, $35 million for the Urban Park and $8.5 million for the Trade Show and Exposition Hall. These costs have not changed.

The previous report also indicated that the debt servicing for the Stadium renovation and parking would be partially covered by the increased taxation generated from the Lansdowne re-development. These tax revenue projections have not been modified as a result of this site plan.

Finally, Council also requested to be kept informed of any changes to long term interest rates at the June meetings dealing with Lansdowne. Since June, the long term rates have continued to decline. As of November 8, 2010, the Infrastructure Ontario 40 year interest rate available to municipalities is 4.56 per cent. The interest rate assumed in the model used to forecast the financial impact of the Lansdowne re-development is 5.35 per cent, a difference of 0.79 per cent. The impact of a quarter percent rate increase or decrease on the yearly cost of debt servicing would be approximately $240,000.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Plan

Document 2 Response Matrix and DRP Third Party Site Plan Evaluation Report

Document 3 Integrated Site Plan (Technical Plan)

Document 4 Integrated Landscape Plan

Document 5 Integrated Engineering Plan (Site Servicing, Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management)

Document 6 Conditions for Site Plan Approval

Document 7 Consultation Details

Document 8 Public Comments As Received

DISPOSITION

Subject to Council approval, staff will implement the recommendations as outlined in this report. In addition, the programming plan for the urban park, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building, which is being led by Philips Farevaag Smallenberg Landscape Architects (PFS) in partnership with a staff led technical committee, is ongoing. Stakeholder meetings on park programming are currently being scheduled. A consultation process that engages key community stakeholders is being undertaken in the development of the programming proposal. Staff will report back on the outcome of this consultation and recommend programming options for consideration by Council.

Staff will also provide a report for information to the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Document 6.

Staff will report on the results of ongoing negotiations with the Ottawa Farmers’ Market on the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and on the finalization of a business plan to accommodate the market at Lansdowne.

Staff will provide information on the funding associated with the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project for Council consideration during the 2011 budget deliberations. This will provide for Council consideration of the implementation of the rehabilitation project in 2011 subject to Council approval of the 2011 Budget. The information provided will include a capital budget item for commencing the rehabilitation along Bank Street between the Queensway and the Bank Street Canal Bridge and also identify the 2012 and 2013 budget requirements for the completion of the Bank Street rehabilitation work in 2013.

As approved by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on September 7, 2010, staff has initiated a two-stage Request for Offer process for the air rights for the residential and office components within the mixed-use area. Staff will report back to Council on the results of the first phase and seek approval for Stage 2 Terms of Reference in early 2011. Staff will then proceed with Stage 2 and report back to Council with the final recommendations in April 2011.

As directed in June 2010, staff will report back in Q1, 2011 on the potential governance structure for Lansdowne Park including a recommended structure for a Municipal Services Corporation and the eligibility requirements for the Board of Directors.

Staff will undertake the work to respond to Motion 92-31 related to 170 Second Avenue as discussed in Staff’s response provided to this motion in Document 2 following the decision on the Integrated Site Plan for Lansdowne and report back to Council in early 2011 to provide a roadmap for moving forward and detailing the Local Area Parking Study and RFP Process.

LOCATION PLAN DOCUMENT 1

RESPONSE MATRIX AND DRP THIRD PARTY SITE PLAN

EVALUATION REPORT DOCUMENT 2

June 28, 2010 Council Directions Response Matrix

LPP Motions/Directions

City Council - 17, 23, 24, 25 and 28 June 2010

Response

MOTION

#92-10

Deans / Bellemare

The City of Ottawa add a condition to the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) that, if OSEG does not have a signed, legally-binding contractual agreement with the CFL for an Ottawa team within 90 days of the Council approval of the LPP, Council approval of the LPP is automatically terminated.

The City Manager on June 28, 2010, confirmed to City Council that the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) already had in place an agreement with the CFL for a CFL franchise for Ottawa subject to certain conditions.

MOTION

# 92-18

Doucet/Holmes

WHEREAS the Bank Street Reconstruction project is ongoing; and

WHEREAS this reconstruction is in the area of Lansdowne Park; and

WHEREAS these two projects should align and enhance one another as much as possible;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Panel review and recommend the Bank Street Reconstruction project, in consultation with the Bank Street Reconstruction Advisory Committee (consisting of the Ward Councillor, the Glebe Community Association, and Glebe BIA) and staff as it relates to any modifications required to support the Lansdowne Park Master Plan implementation; including the technical feasibility and costs related to proposed provisions for direct access from Bank Street and in accordance with the following principles:

· That the Bank Street reconstruction streetscaping be integrated with the streetscaping along the Lansdowne Park Bank Street frontage to create a unified environment;

· That there be integration in way-finding between the site and the rest of the Glebe BIA (i.e. maps of Lansdowne Park should list businesses throughout the Glebe as BIA maps should profile and promote Lansdowne Park businesses);

· That the proposed underground parking should be integrated as well, and provide clear directions to Bank Street;

· That any parking validation programs should be extended to include Bank Street merchants; and

· That programming at Lansdowne Park and within the rest of the Glebe BIA should be integrated and cross-promoted to maximize exposure and participation.

Meetings have been held with Public Works staff and the Bank Street Reconstruction Public Advisory Group to restart the Bank Street Reconstruction project and address required integration items with the Lansdowne project. These relate to the Bank Street cross section, ensuring transit requirements can be met, increasing sidewalk widths to better accommodate pedestrian and transit patrons, streetscape design, construction scheduling and construction staging.

A key issue identified where clarity and direction is required relates to the burial of overhead hydro wires for the area of Bank Street north of Holmwood as an element of the Bank Street works to be included in the reconstruction project. Recommendation 7 has been provided to address this item.

The DRP has been kept informed of the restart of the Bank Reconstruction project. The plans that will be developed to provide for the integration of the Bank Street project with the Lansdowne project will be subject to design review for the details of the integration as set out in this report and is addressed in the conditions for finalizing the site plan approval.

Elements related to way-finding, parking validation programs and overall programming related to cross promotions have been addressed through conditions for the site plan approval as matters to be included in the traffic and parking operations and/ or through the project agreements with OSEG.

MOTION#

92-20

Deans/Bellemare

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the relevant agreement between the City of Ottawa and OSEG be changed so that the City of Ottawa can book a number of dates at preferred rates to be negotiated for special sports and cultural events that are of community interest and that couldn’t otherwise afford market Lansdowne Park rental rates and report back to City Council.

This will be discussed with OSEG in mid-November 2010 to seek to achieve this objective as part of finalizing the Stadium Lease, which is one of the agreements within the Project Agreement Framework approved by Council on June 28, 2010.

MOTION

#92-21

Hume/Jellett

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Panel (DRP) be directed to ensure that in accordance with winning park design and the direction of City Council that the master plan and the Integrated Site Plan include the following items:

 A multi-purpose farmers square in the same general area and orientation to the Aberdeen Pavilion as the winning park design;

 The new park and open space shall not be used for day-to-day parking on the surface and there be no parking on the great lawn;

 A home for the new Ottawa Art Gallery to the satisfaction of the board of the Gallery and Design Review Panel, should Council approve;

 A formal integrated cycling connection from Bank Street to the Queen Elizabeth Driveway, and to the cycling paths on the far side of the Driveway and that this be co-ordinated with the NCC;

 Shuttle drop-off and pick-up that has no impact on the great lawn.

The items noted in Motion 92-21 are incorporated in the Integrated Site Plan or are addressed through conditions on the site plan approval as noted below:

The Integrated Site Plan includes a multi-purpose farmers square north of the Aberdeen Pavilion as directed by Council. PFS, the park design team will be further defining the design details and developing a programming plan for the square that will include accommodating a farmers market in accordance with conditions set out for the site plan approval. The other inputs that will be considered in the design refinement and programming plan development include the Farmers’ Market MOU, and implementation of the Council approved retail strategy.

The Integrated Site Plan does not provide for day to day parking being accommodated within the urban park (either hard or soft surfaced areas). Some of the hard surfaced areas within the urban park however, are planned to function as multi- purpose hard surface areas to be used for staging and marshalling activities to support events/activities/programming within the urban park and stadium.

A preferred location for the OAG at Lansdowne that is considered acceptable to the OAG and the DRP has been identified and is addressed by Recommendation 6 and through conditions for more detailed design development to be undertaken should Council decide to approve having the OAG located at Lansdowne.

Cycling/pedestrian path connections and shuttle loading/unloading areas have been conceptually defined on the Integrated Site Plan with further design detailing required through conditions to be reflected on the final site and landscaping plans to have the site plan approval finalized.

Discussions have been had and will continue with the NCC to provide for co-ordination of the implementation of the park design on the NCC lands. This implementation cannot be addressed through the City’s site plan approval which can only apply to City lands and will need to be addressed through the formal federal approval process. Conditions however are included in the site plan approval process to ensure seamless integration and connectivity between the park design on City lands and on NCC lands.

The shuttle drop off and pick up area has been integrated in the design for the urban park and has no impact on the Great Lawn.

MOTION

#92-22

Deans/Bellemare

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation 17 be amended by inserting at the beginning: “Subject to Recommendation 17A”

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following Recommendation 17A be added:

17A. As a condition precedent to the closing of the Project Agreements, the City Manager shall certify to Council that he, on behalf of the City and Shenkman Corporation have executed the agreement for the Exposition Hall Facility project and that Shenkman has provided the City Manager with reasonable evidence that the required funding is in place, and that a building permit has been issued; and construction on the project has commenced.

City staff have been consulted by Shenkman Corporation on its financing for the Exposition Hall and have provided the necessary input on behalf of the City. The project agreement for the Exposition Hall is expected to be finalized on or before the end of November, 2010. Thus, as of November 8, 2010, it is anticipated that the required funding will be in place, that a building permit will be issued and that construction on the project will commence prior to the closing of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan as contemplated by the Project Agreements for the LPP.

MOTION

#92-24

Holmes/Deans

WHEREAS there are 10,000 households on the City of Ottawa’s waiting list for affordable housing;

AND WHEREAS these citizens are currently housed in unacceptable, substandard and unsafe housing;

AND WHEREAS the city-owned housing corporation Ottawa Community Housing has a capital need of $60,000,000 per year to catch up with its building condition needs;

AND WHEREAS other affordable housing providers in the City of Ottawa are also in need of capital investment;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa’s Housing First Policy stipulates that 25% of the net proceeds from the disposal of surplus property be dedicated to the Housing Reserve;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation #22 be deleted, and that the Housing First Policy be adhered to.

Item to be addressed through the project agreement. As indicated to Council on June 28, 2010 this is capable of being implemented but will be a cost to be borne by the City and not by OSEG as it is a City policy.

MOTION

#92-25

Deans/Bellemare

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa’s Public Art Program identifies that one per cent of the project construction costs for city construction projects will be used to finance Public Art; and

WHEREAS the one percent Public Art requirement should apply to both the Lansdowne Partnership Plan and the Front Lawn according to City Policy;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT a per cent of the construction costs for both the Lansdowne Partnership Plan and the Front Lawn be used to finance public art at both locations in accordance with the City Policy;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT The City’s standard Public Art selection process be utilized and run by the City.

REFERRED by the following motion:

THAT Motion No. 92/25 be referred to staff and staff report back to Council.

Conditions are included in the site plan approval requiring that a heritage interpretation plan and public art plan be developed prior to finalizing the site plan approval and that the final plans identify locations for interpretive and public art elements. Commonwealth Historic Resources has been mandated under their contract to develop the interpretation plan and PFS under their contract has been mandated to develop the public art plan. These plans will be integrated and serve as the basis for implementation of interpretation and public art elements as part of the Lansdowne project. More details related to implementation will be set out in conditions to be included in the final site plan approval once the integrated interpretation and public art plan has been developed.

MOTION#

92-28

Doucet/Hume

WHEREAS the success of the Lansdowne Park Master Plan is dependent on the use of effective Transportation Demand Management measures; and

WHEREAS Lansdowne Park is adjacent to the City’s network of bike paths;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansdowne Park Master Plan include a permanent and secure on-site bike parking facility for up to 1000 bicycles, to be paid for by the City and OSEG; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Master Plan incorporate provision for 0.2 bicycle parking spaces per one hundred square meters of general office uses as well as of offices and restaurants.

Permanent and secure on- site parking for bicycles will be provided as required by the Zoning By-law for all of the uses to be provided through the revitalization program. Based on the uses proposed, this would provide for approximately 300 bike parking spaces.

It is further noted that the rates set out in the Zoning By-law for office, commercial and restaurant uses are greater than the rate of .2 spaces for every 100 sq m of GFA for theses uses directed be provided by the second part of Motion 92-28.

The Zoning By-law requirements for bike parking have been reviewed and are considered adequate and appropriate and are consistent with supporting bicycle use related to day to day activities. For major events, temporary secure bicycle parking facilities would be provided in a location that is accessible to support increased use of bicycles by event patrons. The amount of temporary bicycle parking that would be provided would be dependent on the scale of event. These determinations will be made through the detailed TDM plan that is set out as a plan to be completed prior to the site plan approval being finalized. The final site and landscape plans will detail the locations for the permanent on-site bike parking to meet zoning requirements and will identify the locations for accommodating the temporary bike parking to be provided to support events.

MOTION

#92-30

Doucet/Legendre

WHEREAS the success of the Lansdowne Park Master Plan is dependent on the use of effective Transportation Demand Management measures; and

WHEREAS traffic congestion and parking shortages are realities of locating the stadium at Lansdowne Park and it is unfair to make local businesses pay for this decision with lost business and revenues; and

WHEREAS traffic congestion on game days will encourage attendees to take the shuttles if shuttles are run for events with over 12,000 people; and

WHEREAS additional measures are needed to help ensure that Glebe and Old Ottawa South businesses are not hurt on event days

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the following additional measures be added to the Transportation Plan:

 That, as recommended by the transportation consultants, McCormick Rankin, shuttles to Lansdowne Park need to be provided for all events with over 15,000 in attendance;

 That shuttles access Lansdowne Park from Queen Elizabeth Drive with NCC agreement; and

 That there be no removal of parking on Bank Street during events with under 15,000 attendees.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following issue be referred to staff and staff report back to Council:

 That one hour parking restrictions a half block in on all side streets connecting with Bank Street be imposed and enforced on event days so that some proximate short term parking can be kept free for Bank Street customers and clients to staff;

Conditions are set out for the site plan approval requiring the completion of the following prior to the site plan approval being finalized :

· A transit operations plan for day to day and for different event sizes;

· A shuttle operations plan for events catering to 15,000 plus attendees where shuttle serves will be required as identified in the MRC transportation study. This plan is required to be developed in accordance with the requirements set out by the NCC for the pilot project to utilize the QED for shuttle operations;

· A traffic and parking operations plan for day to day and for different event sizes dealing with both on-site and off-site traffic and parking operations; and

· A detailed TDM plan for all proposed uses with conditions also included requiring implementation of the TDM plan on an ongoing basis post construction.

Items identified in the motion to be addressed within the above noted plans will be developed by MRC. Any specific requirements to be secured through either additional conditions for the final site plan approval or through project or other possible agreements with OSEG will be determined through these studies and be included in any additional requirements that will determined through the process to finalize the site plan approval.

The direction dealing with enforcement of parking restrictions will be addressed through the traffic and parking operations management plan based on consultation with Parking Operations staff.

10.

MOTION

#92-31

Doucet/Legendre

WHEREAS if the City is to help build an expensive underground garage for the benefit of shoppers at Lansdowne Park, and the new development will exacerbate parking shortages in the Glebe, then it’s only fair that the city address the parking issue in the Glebe by building needed facilities; and

WHEREAS the Glebe BIA has serious and legitimate concerns that their customers will have difficulty finding parking in the Glebe area as a result of the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park; and

WHEREAS a new parking garage will help to address this problem;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff be directed to commence an RFP process for the parking area, with new parking spots, at 170 Second Avenue and report to Committee and Council at each stage of the process.

Staff will be proceeding in phases to respond to this motion.

The first phase is focused on information gathering and consultation with the new Ward Councillor and the Community Association and Local BIA to discuss the motion itself, site history and nature of their support for the motion.

This is to provide for a shared understanding of various issues including whether the number of additional spaces needed can be accommodated within a parking structure on the site given lot size constraints and whether the existing zoning can accommodate the built form required. There are also issues related to the timing of any construction as interim replacement parking would need to be provided during the construction period.

Following consultation, there is a need evaluate built form options within the context of the existing zoning and Official Plan designation to determine compatibility with the existing zoning and whether amendments would be required.

The above work is required to be undertaken prior to initiating any RFP. Staff will undertake this work following the decision on the Integrated Site Plan for Lansdowne and report back to Council in early 2011 to provide a roadmap for moving forward and detailing the Local Area Parking Study and RFP Process

11.

MOTION

#92-33

McRae/Doucet

WHEREAS 95% of those surveyed at a public consultation held by Parks and Recreation stated that they want to keep the community park separate from Lansdowne and 84% of those surveyed stated they wish to retain the existing physical separations around the park; and

WHEREAS it would be a waste of tax dollars to undertake unnecessary and unwanted changes to this community park; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Front Lawn design be modified so that Sylvia Holden Community Park remain as it is now, bounded by Queen Elizabeth Drive, Fifth Avenue, Holmwood and the existing Lansdowne site, including the barriers which prevent cut-through traffic from the Lansdowne site (see map below);

Be it further resolved and that the community park remain under the City of Ottawa ownership, management and control, and that the City Parks and Recreation Department continue to be responsible for its maintenance and programming.

The Lansdowne community park has been removed from the Lansdowne project and will remain as is. Details of the separation between the community park and Lansdowne will be reflected on the detailed urban park landscape plan that is required for finalizing the site plan approval.

12.

MOTION

#92-34

Hume/Feltmate

WHEREAS the timelines to address the zoning issues related to the implementation of the Lansdowne Park Master Plan should be in line with the remaining work to be done on the

Master Plan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Recommendation 18 be amended to delete the phrase, “at their respective meetings in July 2010” and replaced with the following, “at a Planning and Environment Committee meeting to be determined by the Chair and Council meeting to be determined by the Mayor, in consultation with City staff”.

The rezoning was considered and approved by Council at its September 22, 2010 meeting.

13.

MOTION

#92-35

Hunter/Jellett

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following technical amendments be made:

a) Recommendation 4 be amended to read:

Approve that the Master Plan for Lansdowne Park including related process issues, be comprised of the selected Urban Park Design Plan in conjunction with the Stadium and Mixed-Use Design Plans, incorporating any refinements as described in the supplementary report on integration directions from the City Manager

(Document 27);

b) That the fourth bullet under “Outdoor Farmers‟ Market” on page 3 of Document 12, Farmers‟ Market Report Summary, be amended to remove the words “A maximum of”, so as to read: 150 Stands measuring 3m X 6m.

These items are reflected on the Integrated Site Plan and associated conditions to be approved.

14.

MOTION

#92-36

Hume/Jellett

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the role of the Design Review and Advisory Panel (DRP), found on page 8 of Document 27, be replaced with the following:

The Role of the DRP

It is recommended that the DRP continue to play a formal role through the integration and design refinement processes. This role is to be formalized through a published meeting schedule, minutes and city staff support to achieve the formal mandate. This role will be to provide continued guidance, third party review and advice to the City Manager and the Lansdowne Park Revitalization Project Team through the integration process as set out in June 9, 2010 Lansdowne Partnership Plan and Implementation report (Ref N°: ACS2010-CMR-REP-0034) and to provide peer review advice to the City Manager for the Stage 1 site plan.

The role will also be expanded to include recommending the site plans, zoning and any other mandates given to the DRP by City Council to City Council. The Plan refinements and integration matters to be reflected on the site plan(s) will give consideration to advice and input from the DRP. The comments and input of the DRP along with a final third party peer evaluation of the Stage 1 site plan will be prepared by the DRP and will be provided along with recommendations to Council sitting as Committee of the Whole along with the Stage 1 site plan report. Staff in this report will provide a response as to how the comments of the DRP have been addressed in the Stage 1 site plan.

The Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, in consultation with the City Manager and the Chair of the DRP, will confirm the make-up of the DRP throughout the plan refinement and integration process.

A DRP review process and schedule was developed in consultation with the chair of the DRP to reflect the directions provided in this motion. The DRP participated through a series of meetings in the integration process to develop the Integrated Site Plan and associated conditions being recommended for approval.

The DRP provided its recommendations to Council on the zoning change that was approved by Council on September 22, 2010 and received the Integrated Site Plan and draft conditions prior to staff finalizing the site plan approval report to be considered by Committee of the Whole. The DRP third party peer review report is included in the staff report with comments from staff to the DRP evaluation report.

The make-up of the DRP as initially constituted was confirmed for the plan refinement and integration process. There was some consideration given to augmenting the DRP with a professional with expertise in sustainability matters, however, in light of the City retaining a sustainability consultant to develop a sustainability plan for Lansdowne, this was not pursued.

15.

MOTION

#92-37

Doucet/Leadman

WHEREAS the Urban Park Steering Committee must have a balance of representatives from both the City and the community; and

WHEREAS the current proposed membership includes the City Manager and representatives from the National Capital Commission, Parks Canada, and the Ontario Heritage Trust; and

WHEREAS; there is a need to improve communication and consultation between the Ward Councillor, the surrounding communities and the City of Ottawa with regards to the Urban Park design and implementation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Ward Councillor and the presidents of the Glebe and Old Ottawa South Community Association be added to the membership of the Urban Park Steering Committee.

This motion has been addressed through the City Manager’s report on the urban park public process approved by the Planning and Environment Committee on August 24, 2010.

16.

MOTION

#92-38

Leadman/Hume

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lansdowne Partnership Plan be modified to debenture the costs for the Stadium ($129M) and Urban Park (up to $35M) simultaneously to facilitate timely and coordinated construction;

The debt issuance for the Urban Park was forecast to be issued in 2011 and the debt for the Stadium in 2012. The reason for the Stadium issue in 2012 was so that the debt servicing would be added to the budget the same year as the new taxation revenue from the LPP is added to the tax roll. Keeping with this concept, the debt issue for the Park will now be made in 2012. As interest rates are at all time low levels, this delay in issuance will likely result in increased debt servicing costs for the Urban Park.

17.

MOTION

#92-39

Jellett/Hume

WHEREAS it has always be the intent of the City to have the Farmers Square and associated Farmers Market, Aberdeen Pavilion, the new urban park to have the City of Ottawa oversee programming and continue to be responsible for the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticultural building as a public buildings.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council confirm that Farmers‟ Square and associated Farmers‟ Market, Aberdeen Pavilion, Horticultural Building and the New

Urban Park continue to be the programming responsibility of the City of Ottawa and any decision to assign operational responsibility be at the sole discretion of Council.

As part of their contract with the City for the design development of the urban park, PFS has also been mandated by the City to develop the programming plan for the urban park, farmers square, Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building. The development of this programming plan is set out as a condition in the site plan approval and will be an item that will require formal approval prior to finalizing the site plan approval. The plan will address programming responsibilities and costs. If the programming plan identifies ongoing financial obligations to the City, the programming plan will be brought to Council for its consideration and approval.

18.

MOTION

#92-40

Feltmate/Wilkinson

WHEREAS the Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and the Transportation Demand Management Plan recommends a number of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that are seen as essential for achieving the modal splits the plan says are necessary to accommodate traffic from the residential and commercial development proposed for Lansdowne and from events; and

WHEREAS the Peer Review of the Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and the Transportation Demand Management Plan emphasized the need for aggressive implementation of the TDM measures proposed for the plan to work; and

WHEREAS some of these recommended measures that are new to Ottawa or controversial like requiring business on the site participate in the EcoPass program, providing annual passes to residents as part of their purchase agreements, pricing parking at the site to discourage long-term parking; and

WHEREAS the wording of Recommendation 13 describes the Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and the Transportation Demand Management Plan as only forming a “basis” for what will finally be put in place; and

WHEREAS changes to development or transportation plans have lead to congestion problems in the past;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Recommendation 13 be amended to add a new Recommendation 13.a. as follows:

a. That all relevant Agreements ensure that the following TDM measures listed in the Transportation Impact and Assessment Study are fully implemented:

For Day-to-Day Activities:

 Provision of showers and bicycle parking for office uses

 Bike parking on-site for the retail and cinema components

 Promotion of carpooling through preferential parking spaces and carpooling programs

 Ecopass transit payroll-deduction programs, preferably subsidized

 Targeted information packages

For Events

 Include the cost of transit, offsite parking and shuttle services, and secure on-site bicycle parking corrals in the ticket price

 Special direct services recommended for stadium events to reduce travel times to a minimum

 Any special events that exceed 15,000 require the development of off-site parking along with a shuttle bus service running between the off-site lots and Lansdowne Park

Items identified in the motion will be addressed within the various plans to be developed by MRC dealing with shuttle operations, transit operations, traffic and parking management and more specifically through the detailed TDM plan required to be developed under conditions set out in the site plan approval prior to the site plan approval being finalized. Conditions are also set out requiring that implementation, in particular of the TDM plan to be developed be an ongoing obligation following completion of construction.

19.

MOTION

#92-41

Hume/Jellett

WHEREAS Council has never contemplated selling any of Lansdowne Park. The direction has been very clear -- retain ownership. At the end of the leases all parts of Lansdowne Park -- the park and open space, the stadium and commercial components -- are owned by the City of Ottawa.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council confirm its policy of not selling any of the land that comprises Lansdowne Park.

As indicated to Council on June 28, 2010 the City will be entering into long-term leases of varying terms with OSEG pertaining to the LPP. However, save and except for the possible sale of freehold air rights for residential development in the commercial component (which Council will be asked to consider in April, 2011), the City will not be selling its freehold interest in Lansdowne Park. Consequently, after the expiration of the long-term leases the property will be owned by the City free and clear of any leasehold interests.

20.

MOTION

#92-42

Leadman/Brooks

WHEREAS Recommendation 20 asks City Council to declare almost one-third of Lansdowne Park lands as surplus to the City’s needs; and

WHEREAS the City Clerk and Solicitor has advised that it is not necessary for the City to

declare any Lansdowne Park lands surplus in order to proceed with a partnership and

Council therefore does not intend to declare the lands surplus.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Recommendation 20 be deleted in its entirety and

replaced with the following:

a. The real property containing an area of 4.8 ha (11.86 acres) , shown hatched and described as “Proposed Mixed Use Development Lands” on the attached revised Document 19 to the Lansdowne Partnership Plan report, together with the salon areas of the Civic Centre building to be identified on a stratified legal survey, be leased to OSEG for the proposed mixed use development as provided for in the report with its fair market value being recognized as deemed equity for the City and, further, permit the sale or lease, at the sole option of the City, of air rights and underground parking rights for residential development as described in the report and,

b. Waive the requirements of BY-LAW NO. 2002-38, as amended, to declare the property surplus, to circulate such City properties to internal City departments and agencies as well as external parties and to publicly market such City properties.

The items noted in Motion 92-42 are matters that relate to the OSEG Lease Agreement and the Air Rights RFP initiative, as approved by Council, and are addressed through the project agreements with OSEG and future Air Rights RFP agreements. Bill 130 amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 in 2007 make it unnecessary to declare municipal property surplus before leasing or selling it.

21.

MOTION

#92-43

Leadman/Deans

Whereas specific clauses in the OSEG agreement provide exclusivity to sports facilities to OSEG for a period of thirty years;

Whereas these clauses will unfairly constrict the city's ability to pursue these other sports opportunities;

Whereas the OSEG commitment to operating a CFL team is for five years;

Therefore be it resolved that the following clauses be deleted from the agreement:

"During the first 30 years of the operating term of the stadium lease, the city will NOT construct a new stadium facility which competes with the Lansdowne stadium (being a facility with over 5,000 seats) unless it exercises its termination for convenience right in respect of project related agreements."

"Pursuant to an agreement from the stadium lease, the limited partnership which owns the CFL team will be granted a right of first opportunity to lease the competing new stadium facility if it contains football facilities."

"Pursuant to an agreement separate from the stadium lease, the limited partnership which owns the OHL team will be granted a right of first opportunity to lease the competing new

stadium facility if it contains hockey facilities."

As directed by this Motion, these conditions will not be incorporated into any of the Project Agreements between the City and OSEG for the Lansdowne Partnership Plan. Thus, OSEG will not acquire any of these proposed rights.

22.

MOTION

#92-50

Jellett/Doucet

That recommendation 24 be amended by the addition of the following:

“And that staff be directed to review a seat for the Ottawa Farmers‟ Market and a seat for the Glebe BIA in the development of the Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) and/or any other board which may be formed to govern operations at Lansdowne Park.”

City staff will report back to Council in Q 1 of 2011 on the potential governance structure for Lansdowne Park including a recommended structure for a Municipal Services Corporation and proposed eligibility requirements for its Board of Directors.

23.

MOTION

#92-51

Legendre/Desroches

WHEREAS Lansdowne Park is a municipal heritage gem; and,

WHEREAS all citizens of the City can take pride in this unique site; and,

WHEREAS this tourist attraction is one of UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites and part of the national heritage of the National Capital, which benefits all Canadians and visitors; and,

WHEREAS the revitalization project currently being studied will give the park an even more significant tourist vocation; and,

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated time and time again that bilingualism constitutes an added value for the economy of our region; and,

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has committed to pursuing service excellence in both languages in all of its initiatives; and,

WHEREAS City Council has indicated many times that it wishes to see all of the City’s decision-making entities (present and future) governed in some way by the City’s Bilingualism Policy;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council and City managers take every measure to ensure that the spirit of the Bilingualism Policy be adhered to, particularly with respect to recognizing the equality of both official language groups, and that this spirit govern the management of the park and stadium complex as well as that of the trade show

facility near the airport that is now being planned and all of the services to be provided

there;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned provisions also apply to any governance model proposed to manage the park.

City staff have vetted proposed language through the City’s French Language Services Branch that will be incorporated into the Stadium and Retail Leases for the Lansdowne Partnership Plan. City staff will also be mindful of the direction in the Motion when they report back to Council in Q 1 of 2011 on the potential governance structure for Lansdowne Park.

Design Review Panel Report Recommendations

(endorsed by City Council June 28, 2010)

Staff Response

1. Sustainability

No specific information on the environmental performance of this proposal was provided in the review package or during the review process.

A detailed and comprehensive sustainability strategy and review process, with specific references to the stadium and mixed-use area and the urban park, should be considered an absolute starting point for the detailed development of the plan and inform all aspects of the design.

The City has retained Enermodal Engineering, one of the leaders in sustainability and green building practices, to develop a sustainability plan for the Lansdowne redevelopment. Focus of the work to be undertaken includes:

· Review master plan relative to LEED Neighbourhood Development (ND) and identify additional opportunities for achieving LEED ND sustainability at the master plan level;

· Develop sustainability targets for the project to be pursued with design and development of elements of the project;

· Develop approaches/guidelines for initiatives/measures to allow targets to be meet; and

· Provide compliance review.

The Integrated Site Plan has been assessed under LEED ND and was found to have sufficient features to achieve LEED ND Silver. Conditions are set out for the site plan approval to strive to achieve LEED ND Gold and will be undertaken prior to having the site plan approval finalized. Enermodal has concluded, given the Council directed development program that it is impossible to achieve LEED ND Platinum under the considerations set out under the LEED ND program.

The development of the sustainability plan that will set out the LEED building targets and guidelines is set out as a condition for the site plan approval. The condition also sets a LEED Gold target for new buildings. Sustainability features for the existing heritage buildings and stadium complex to achieve the highest degree of sustainability possible given their constraints will also be defined.

The process for developing the sustainability plan will involve engagement with stakeholders including the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)

The approach to dealing with sustainability has been reviewed with the DRP and the DRP has provided their comments in their evaluation report on the Integrated Site Plan.

2. Programming

No information was provided regarding programming and ongoing operations of this complex project and site.

While at one level the submission is for the physical dimension of the city, the Design Review Panel cautions that the programming of this site is equally important to the physical structures, and a better understanding of programming aspects must inform any further design development.

Under their contract with the City for designing the urban park, PFS has also been mandated to develop a programming plan for the urban park, farmers square, Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building. OSEG is responsible for developing an event management /programming plan for the stadium. These are set out through conditions in the site plan approval as requirements to be fulfilled prior to site plan approval being finalized. Both PFS and OSEG have developed preliminary plans to inform the design development for the Integrated Site Plan to ensure that the key physical elements that are required to support programming/event management are reflected. These deal with the multi-purpose hard surface areas to support staging and marshalling, on-site circulation for various modes, and areas to accommodate different programming needs such as the farmers square.

As the programming plan is developed, further plan detailing will be undertaken to ensure that the final plans that are required to be approved to finalize the site plan approval will incorporated.

3. Parking, loading, servicing, access to and function of below grade areas

The Design Review Panel supports the location of parking and service functions below grade to create an urban plan. The Design Review Panel also notes that detailed resolution of all underground spaces is critical to their proper functioning specifically as below grade areas will be accessed through the public realm; resolution of the underground areas is also critical to the success of the public realm and detailed understanding of the location, scale and operation of the ways to gain access to below grade facilities is critical. These access points if not carefully studied and reviewed can be very detrimental to the quality of the public space.

Comprehensive site vehicular circulation plans for both at grade and below grade, including parking and loading have been developed and are reflected on the Integrated Site Plan. These have been informed by the preliminary event management plans that have been developed to identify various needs for day to day activities and for different scales of events.

The refined circulation plans have been provided to the DRP through the plan integration process and comments provided by the DRP in particular related to public realm matters and areas where additional design development may be required are either reflected on the Integrated Site Plan or are identified as conditions for more detailed design prior to finalizing the site plan approval. Staff is satisfied that the key circulation needs are reflected on the Integrated Site Plan and will work to provide for any further refinements that may be required and have these reflected on the plans that are required to finalize the site plan approval.

3.1 Parking, loading, servicing, access to and function of below grade areas

The OSEG submission included a single conceptual plan A1-01, illustrating below grade areas. In that plan the OSEG proposal appears to have the following five access points to below grade

parking:

a. Access via ramps built into the street within the central travel way of Bank Street. In the submission there is no detailed information or drawings of these ramps, nor a design proposal for Bank Street redesigned for transit purposes. This feature will be very

prominent and visually dominant to the street and must be reviewed from a total design standpoint before concluding this feature should be part of the proposal and move to design development.

b. Access points internal to the site to underground parking servicing and loading. There appear to be several large and small ramps, loading and service areas on the various plans. There is no detailed description of the plan for access and servicing and, in

particular, servicing of the stadium. As they will have a profound effect on the operation of the facilities and on an intense pedestrian environment, each of these servicing and loading areas will need a much higher level of detail to be certified.

c. Access from the QED, through the park to an underground entrance and then continuing into the mixed use site. The Design Review Panel notes that access to the below grade parking from the Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED) is subject to review and resolution

with the design team of the urban park and the National Capital Commission.

d. Access from the QED adjacent to the Bank Street bridge through an extended driveway parallel to the QED to a service and drop off court. There are several depictions of this in the package including several renderings of the stadium with a large wall and service area

in this location. The Design Review Panel does not support any of the various versions, in the package, of the parallel driveway along the length of the QED or a large exposed loading area in this location. These should be removed from the plans.

e. Access from Holmwood Avenue. There is a ramp shown on Holmwood in the centre of the second building that does not show on the underground plan. The ramp shows up in the first building in the detailed sections of the Holmwood part of the package. This

feature, its location and design will need confirmation and study.

In addition to the above identifying the manner in which the comment from the DRP on this issue has been addressed through the Integrated Site Plan, the following identifies the specific response provided through the integration process to specific items raised by the DRP in their evaluation of the OSEG plans approved by Council in June.

· Access ramps from Bank Street have been eliminated and are no longer being pursued. All access to the below grade parking is shown on the Integrated Site Plan and are entirely contained on site.

· A preliminary event management plan was developed for the stadium and mixed-use elements to identify how needs related to circulation, loading, staging would be accommodated for day to day and for various sizes of events. This plan has informed the circulation routes and marshalling/staging areas now reflected on the Integrated Site Plan.

· The access points from the QED shown on the Integrated Site Plan include modifications to improve its integration with the urban park plan and address operational and functional requirements. The location of the driveway access points which are across NCC lands are fixed. There may be some ability for adjustments at a later date and the plans have been developed to allow for this once the NCC pursues implementation of the park on their lands through the federal approval process.

· The issue of a possible connection and drop off area adjacent to Building K to support having this area accommodate the OAG has been an ongoing item of review with the DRP through the integration process. Given the requirement for a fire route south of the south side stands and given the public nature of an art gallery, providing for some sort of face for Builidng K to the Canal Corridor and drop off is an item that requires further assessment and review. This item and others related to the OAG at this location will be addressed once Council renders its decision on the OAG. This further work is addressed through conditions included in the site plan approval as matters to be further detailed prior to finalizing the site plan approval.

· The required fire/emergency routes along the south side stands and any drop off area adjacent to the QED would be designed as multi- purpose hard surfaces whose principle focus would be to serve as pedestrian/cycling areas able to support fire routes and other occasional vehicles as required.

· The parking access from Holmwood is dedicated to residential parking that will be on a second level below the public parking garage. The plans for the below grade parking reflecting this has been provided to the DRP.

4. Public Realm Design

The Design Review Panel notes that the public realm is notionally addressed in the OSEG package, although the distinction between public and private outdoor areas is often unclear.

This public realm must be more fully considered and explained. The Panel also notes that the concept for the urban park design is to be extended into the stadium and mixed-use area.

The Design Review Panel proposes that the winning design team from the urban park competition be charged with creating the design for public spaces, streetscape and intermediate spaces in the mixed-use and stadium areas of the plan.

The panel also advises that the park design team should detail the cross sections and conceptual design of the three primary east-west “streets” through the site; these are: Holmwood Avenue, the connection from Bank Street to the Horticulture Building and the connection from Bank Street to the Aberdeen Pavilion in the OHT defined easement and view line. The same design study is required of Bank Street with a special emphasis put on how the design can co-ordinate and reinforce the entire Bank Street retail zone, of which this site will be a part. Each of these streets needs to be detailed to reflect the nature of their function, how pedestrian systems work

and the streetscape and landscape elements of the plan.

The Panel notes that the design of the Bank Street to Aberdeen connection, in particular, must take into consideration the appropriate visual and physical width and the OHT easements to 5

achieve an attractive and functional pedestrian realm and the important views to the Aberdeen Pavilion.

The Panel notes that the development area will be on top of an underground parking structure and the extensive use of street trees in planters be exchanged for in ground street trees with proper technology and structural implications to support full street trees on a slab condition.

The Integrated Site Plan (landscape plan) and the associated conditions provide direction for the final design of the public realm in the mixed-use area to be reflected on the final detailed landscape plan prior to having the site plan approval finalized. The direction, drawn from DRP’s Guiding Principles and the design rationale for the stadium and mixed-use elements of the project (included as Document 5 to the June LPP report) that was approved by Council in June 2010, details all elements of the public realm including public courtyard areas for programming, areas for patios, entry courts to buildings, landscape approach for corridors/streets, areas for hard and soft landscaping and a focus for the public realm to be a pedestrian area where some vehicular use is allowed.

Conditions included in the site plan approval requires that the language of the landscape treatment for the urban park be extended into the mixed-use and stadium areas with respect to matters such a paver styles and patterning, lighting, street furniture styles, way finding, etc.

The responsibilities of the OSEG design team for the design of the mixed-use area (including the public realm elements) are established by the project agreements between the City and OSEG approved by Council in June 2010. The City, in recognition of the need for an integrated public realm design has under its contract with PFS provided a mandate for PFS to serve as the City’s advisor related to detailed landscape treatment for the open space areas in the mixed-use area and around the stadium. . Conditions are also included in the site plan approval for the design teams to participate with the City as required to achieve overall cohesion in landscaping language and treatment related to matters such as materials, uniformity in design detailing, and for fixtures to be provided (lighting, benches, etc) in developing the landscape plan details that will be part of the final landscape plan.

The degree of encroachment into the OHT easement along Aberdeen Way is a matter being pursued with the OHT. Information regarding cross sections, perspectives, the concept for the public realm design for the corridor and assessment of needs related to constructability and retail viability is part of the material for the OHT application to give the OHT a better understanding of impacts of possible encroachments. The preliminary material for this was presented to the DRP.

The focus for Aberdeen Way as identified by the DRP is to “achieve an attractive and functional pedestrian realm” and to achieve the right answer related to views to the Aberdeen Pavilion that also takes into account historical precedent. This is set out as a requirement in the conditions of approval.

Requirements related to landscaping over an asphalt slab have been investigated. The Integrated Landscape Plan reflects the provision for tree planting to be at grade and conditions are included in the site plan approval to require this unless other design objectives are being pursued. Details related to tree planting will be reflected on the final detailed landscaping plans that will be required to finalize the site plan approval.

5. Heritage

The plan suggests encroachment into the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) easements and view corridors west of the Aberdeen Pavilion. The Panel understands that these changes will be discussed at length with the OHT, but feels the intent of these encroachments is not well communicated in the plan to illustrate how the Bank to Aberdeen space is supposed to feel and function. The Panel is aware this is a primary route to and from both the stadium and hockey facility and the main entry to the park from Bank Street. It is the crush space and outdoor lobby for the multi-use stadium complex. The Aberdeen Pavilion must also be allowed to maintain a strong presence on Bank Street. As such the Panel believes that the space north of the stadium, leading to the Aberdeen should be broader, that is to be more a plaza than a street. The panel feels specific and detailed design exploration of this space in concert with the OHT discussions is required to determine the ROW width and character of this main public space.

The Panel has reviewed the issue of the relocation of the Horticulture Building. From time to time in this process, the Horticulture Building has been proposed in- situ, moved to a completely different location in the park and angled and reduced to a smaller building. The Horticulture Building is a designated City of Ottawa asset and the Panel does not propose reduction of the

building in any way. Through the evidence of Mr. John Stewart, the project’s heritage consultant, the Panel has been given an explanation that if the building is to move there is only one location possible, that being in the exact mirror location with relation to the Aberdeen Pavilion, preserving the existing 90 degree relationship and distance separation with the east wall. The heritage impact of this move must be assessed and certified by the appropriate

process. The Design Review Panel only supports relocation to the exact specifications set out by Mr. Stewart upon successful completion of the heritage impact assessment.

The Panel, in very strong terms, suggests the Horticulture Building receive an allocation of resources significant to ensure its integrity and usefulness into the next century. The reworking, adaptive reuse, architectural modifications, restoration and programming of the Horticulture Building should be a separate design undertaking put in the hands of seasoned building restoration and adaptive reuse design professionals.

The Panel notes that while significant attention is paid to the east and west facades of the Aberdeen Pavilion, the north and south facades are visually much more grand in scale and complex architecturally. The plan for both the urban park and the mixed use area should consider how to take much more advantage of these building faces. The Panel is of the view that the relocation of the Horticulture Building opens possibilities for an open space on the north side of the Aberdeen Pavilion that would achieve this goal.

As suggested by the DRP and as noted above, specific and detailed design exploration of Aberdeen Way has been ongoing to prepare the material to submit to the OHT with the application requesting OHT approvals for works within lands covered by the OHT easement agreement. This additional design work has included:

· decreasing the extent of encroachments to ensure that there is minimal and no impact on the view of the Aberdeen Pavilion from what could occur with development that fully respected the view corridor easement;

· further development of the design concept for the public realm to be a unique element of the mixed-use public realm experience that would accommodate multiple uses for high volumes of pedestrian, serve as a pedestrian priority retail corridor, accommodate vehicular circulation needs;

· integration with event plazas and spaces where programmed activity could occur.

The formal application to the OHT will be made prior to Council consideration of the Integrated Site plan and staff will be working with the OHT through their review process to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the approvals required from the OHT. Conditions have been included in the site plan requiring final OHT approvals prior to the site plan approval being finalized.

The Horticulture Building is proposed to be relocated in accordance with the determinations made by John Stewart of Commonwealth Historic Resources Management. A comprehensive Heritage Assessment Impact (HIA) has been prepared as required to process the approval for the relocation of the Horticulture Building under the OHA. The HIA has been provided to the DRP. Council will give consideration to giving its formal approval to the relocation when it considers giving approval to the Integrated Site Plan at the special Council meeting scheduled for November 19 and 22.

A very experienced team is being engaged to undertake the work to affect the relocation. The detailed planning for this would occur following Council’s decision on November 22.

Under the contract with PFS, Julian Smith (heritage architect), a sub-consultant to the PFS team is developing the rehabilitation plans to provide for the adaptive re-use of the Horticulture Building to accommodate the programming that will be put forward by PFS through the programming plan that they are developing for the urban park, farmers square, Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building.

Flowing from the direction of Council, the integrated site plan provides for an open farmers’ square to be located on the north side of the Aberdeen. This will provide for full view of the north face of the Pavilion from within the square. Also, the view line from Adelaide is being protected. The south face will be fully visible from the QED and urban park with the PFS park design. Finally, with the proposed low scale pavilion buildings proposed for Block G, the view of the Aberdeen pavilion from within the view corridor will open up to a greater extent than would be provided if development occurred in a way the extends fully to the OHT easement line as is permitted.

6. The Overlap Area

The Panel’s review of the ‘Overlap Area’ and specifically the parcels labeled D, E and F reveals that this portion of the site requires further thinking and a much stronger design concept. The Panel advises that the design of the Overlap Area be undertaken by the OSEG team and urban park design team working in concert. The design discussion must consider the location of the Horticulture Building and the importance of the location and position of the Farmers Market or similar large outdoor multi-function area in the Overlap Area.

The Panel has a concern that the single storey restaurants in Block F, the single story retail in Block E and the two floors of retail in Block D are too deep in the site, away from Bank Street and away from the retail core to sustain successful uses. The Panel feels that the single storey buildings crowd both the Aberdeen and the Horticulture buildings; these heritage buildings form such an important focal point in the plan. The generic nature of the development proposal seems weak and does not create a strong relationship between the two historic walls. The Panel also

Suggests that the cinema, both as a building and as a use play more significantly into the total concept for this area. The Panel suggests that the retail areas in Block F, Block E and Block D could be deployed within the retail core to strengthen the program and space in Block G or T to strengthen Bank Street.

The Panel recommends thought be given to the nature of the Holmwood streetscape right up to the relocated Horticulture Building and does not agree that retail should occur at the neighbourhood end of the street fronting onto Holmwood.

A key focus for the integration of the urban park plan with the urban mixed use are has been the overlap area. Through the integration process, the HBC team and PFS have determined the design solution for the overlap area responding to Council’s direction to locate the farmers market north of the pavilion. Further detailing for the farmers square will be undertaken and will be reflected on the final plans to be developed to finalize the site plan approval.

The design resolution reflected on the integrated site plan provides for the removal of Buildings E and F and modifications to Block G to frame the west side of the square. The Cinema block has also been modified to increase the area of the square while still ensuring that the cinema block will support at grade retail uses to animate the north side of the square.

The further design detailing of the square including its programming which are the responsibility of PFS will involve discussions with the farmers market and the city’s retail consultant to ensure that the square and the activity around the square will support the square being an active and vibrant element of the overall revitalization program. This is addressed through conditions set out in the Site Plan approval.

Building D is proposed to be retained with residential fabric introduced along Holmwood to provide for a continuous residential edge along the full length of Holmwood to the Horticulture Building.

7. Ottawa Art Gallery

The proposed location of the OAG in the submission is unclear. The panel stresses that this function be in a highly visible and accessible location on the site and not be located entirely below grade or spread across the site

Discussions have been on-going through the integration process with the design teams and OAG to determine the preferred location for the OAG. Detailed assessments were undertaken for two sites identified as possible locations. Through these assessments, determinations have been made that a location within Building K adjacent to the south side stands along Bank Street would be the preferred location for the OAG at Lansdowne. This is addressed in the Discussion Section of this report and by Recommendation 6.

Conditions are included in the Site plan approval requiring that the details for incorporating the OAG within Building K be determined should Council decide to have the OAG at Lansdowne while also responding to other needs for the overall revitalization program. The final determinations for Block K will be made once Council renders its decision on the location of the OAG at Lansdowne and will be reflected on the final site plan to be developed to finalize the site plan approval.

8. Architecture

The architectural quality of the proposal has not been assessed and the panel has not reviewed architectural intent, design, materials or the cost per square foot of the proposed structures.

The integrated site plan is focused on site organization, definition of the public realm and functional needs related to circulation, access, loading, grading etc. Notional architectural directions have been explored in developing the LPP; however, detailed architectural plans will not be able to be developed until after approval of the Integrated site plan which then allows OSEG to formalize leasing arrangements which is required for developing conceptual and final architectural plans. Also, the architectural plans to be developed for the residential and office air rights cannot be developed until after a determination is made on the sale/lease of air rights to third party residential/office development interests who would then need to work with the commercial development architects in developing the conceptual and final architectural plans.

A condition is included in the Site plan approval requiring that conceptual architectural plans be developed for approval to finalize the site plan approval. Conditions are also set out requiring final approvals for architectural plans prior to permits being issued for above grade works for the various buildings to be constructed. The approval of the conceptual architectural plans will be subject to design review as will the final architectural plans through the City’s recently established design review process.

9. Stadium

The panel fully supports the idea of a stadium in the park. This concept must be maintained and strengthened as the plan evolves

A key feature of the revitalization is integration of the stadium with the urban park. Through the integration process, further design development between Cannon Design and PFS has resulted in a very strong integration for these elements of the revitalization program. This is reflected on the integrated site plan with conditions set out to have further detailing related to integration elements incorporated into the final plans to have the site plan approval finalized.

10. Additional residential

The mixed use portion of the site, in particular adjacent to Bank Street could support additional residential development. The panel will require a housing program.

The zoning has been developed to allow for more intense residential development than was identified on plans developed to date.

The residential development is intended to be undertaken by a third party residential development interest to be determined through an RFP process to sell/lease air rights for the residential. The residential development interest selected will determine the residential fabric to be introduced based on market conditions and within the parameters of the approved integrated site plan and associated conditions

11. Retail Uses

The retail plan does not extend the full length of Bank Street and the shops stop at the north side stands. Bank Street requires detail.

The retail leasing plan developed for the mixed use and Bank Street portions of the site extends along Bank Street. This material has been provided to the DRP as part of the integrated plan materials provided to the panel for their review.

12. Public Art

Notional public art suggestions included in the package required detail and a public art program and strategy.

A condition set out in the Site Plan approval is requiring that an interpretation and public art plan be developed prior to the site plan approval being finalized and that locations for accommodating public art be identified on the final plans.

DRP THIRD PARTY INTEGRATED SITE PLAN EVALUATION REPORT AND STAFF RESPONSE

Lansdowne Park Revitalization

Design Review Panel Report

Stage One Site Plan Review Process

November 1, 2010

Subject: A report on the process and findings of the Design Review Panel related to progress on the issues identified in the June 7^th 2010 report and the work undertaken subsequently to produce the Stage One Site Plan documents presented to Ottawa City Council.

The Stage One Site Plan process provided the Panel with an overview site plan for the project that combines all of the elements that make up the Lansdowne Revitalization. The site plan presents the design concepts for the entire site, but it does not carry the plan to a level of detail in either architectural or landscape design. As such it must be considered subject to change as further detail is added in the Stage Two Site Plan Process.

On the matters outlined in the June 7^th 2010 report and as a general discussion the Panel offers the following :

(NOTE: Marianne Mckenna did not participate in the drafting of comments on the OAG in this final report as she is a partner in KPMB Architects who had been engaged by the OAG, prior to consideration of the Lansdowne site.)

1. Sustainability

A consultant has been hired to produce an overall sustainability strategy, gap analysis of the plan, building guidelines and a compliance regime for the ongoing project.

The Panel encourages the City to pursue as robust and diverse an environmental strategy as possible, we encourage LEED Gold as the target standard for all buildings and to use the project to inform the newly created LEED ND process on the possibilities of a project like Lansdowne to bring value to the LEED process and demonstrate method.

The panel also encourages the City, with help from the Environmental Committee, to show leadership in making Lansdowne a model of how the City of Ottawa is using this type of reurbanization to demonstrate how to advance the sustainability of cities, through both public and public/private projects.

Staff Response

The conditions set out in Document 6 sets out a requirement for the overall project to strive to achieve LEED ND Gold rather than using the project “to inform the newly created LEED ND process on the possibilities of a project like Lansdowne to bring value to the LEED process and demonstrate method”. In this regard, staff feels that not only should the project be used as suggested by the Panel, but that it should also strive for the highest LEED ND ranking possible. The City’s sustainability consultant has concluded that LEED ND Gold is the highest possible rating given the development program that Council mandated.

The conditions set out in Document 6 also require that new mixed use buildings achieve LEED Gold for buildings and that single use commercial buildings achieve LEED Silver. The City’s environmental consultant has advised that achieving LEED Gold is best directed for mixed use buildings due to opportunities to include features that are not typically provided for in single use commercial buildings and, if provided, would add a significant premium to the cost that may be difficult to support from a building feasibility perspective. Also, for retrofitting existing building to meet a LEED standard, especially the existing stadium/Civic Centre complex and the heritage buildings, would be cost prohibitive or could result in interventions not supported from a heritage integrity perspective. Recognizing this, the City’s sustainability consultant has suggested that these buildings accommodate sustainability elements to improve their sustainability but that they not be targeted for a LEED certification.

2. Programming

The City of Ottawa has engaged PFS Vancouver to undertake a comprehensive program development process and plan and this is well underway. The details of the plan will help to inform the park design. The programming of the stadium has not been reviewed by the DRP. There has been a stated commitment to maintain a pedestrian throughfare through the stadium from the park to Bank Street which will require review if the intent is to maintain as a sustainable urban connection

Staff Response

The programming for the stadium, unlike the urban park where there is potential for both planned and unplanned activities and events, will all be planned and date scheduled. The opportunities for the events that would be accommodated have been identified as CFL football (late summer and fall held on Sunday afternoon), USL soccer (from spring to fall), college/University sporting events (Football, Hockey, other varsity games throughout the school year), medium size and large concerts in both the stadium during fair weather and within the Civic Centre during winter, community sporting events throughout the year (capital marathons, little league tournaments, etc), indoor and outdoor convocations for post secondary and high school convocation ceremonies, and fashion shows. This information, while not reviewed, was provided to the panel.

Unlike the urban park programming, which is geared to more public type activities and events that will be determined by public agencies including the City, programming within the stadium and Civic Centre (while being open to the public) will be determined by OSEG as part of their responsibilities to operate the stadium and Civic Centre. As a result, programming will be more focused on sporting and entertainment events requiring paid admission to support business requirements under the partnership agreement between the City and OSEG with potential for some community focused events. Developing a detailed schedule for events within the stadium will be undertaken by OSEG who will be looking to maximize the use of these facilities.

Parking, Loading, Servicing, access to and function of the below grade areas.

a. The access ramps from Bank Street have been removed

b. The underground plan has been redrawn to reflect the change in a. above and access points match surface entry conditions that have been integrated into the park.

c. We are of the understanding the access from the mid -point on the QEW is still to be resolved related to access to the stadium.

The panel anticipates further evolution of these plans in the Stage Two Site Plan Process.

Staff Response

Plans for below grade parking facilities are generally not included as part of a site plan approval which is focused on at grade and above grade site works and below grade engineering works. However, they are required to be submitted as support plans for a site plan to ensure that the at grade elements such as access points work with the overall site development and to ensure functionality of the below grade parking and compliance with zoning requirements. As the plans for the above grade elements are further detailed prior to final site plan approval, there will be ongoing refinement of the below grade parking, particularly below Building K, once determinations are made by Council as to the OAG’s location at Lansdowne.

3. Public Realm Design

The June Design Review Panel report suggested that the winning design team for the urban park be charged with creating the design of the public spaces, streetscape and intermediate spaces in the mixed-use and stadium areas. This did not occur. Instead OSEG hired a separate landscape firm to undertake this work. While it seems some explorations and preliminary work has been undertaken, the Panel has not seen a conceptual framework and design direction sufficient to guide the Stage Two Site plan work. This deficiency will be acknowledged in the Stage One Condition proposal from the Panel.

Staff Response

OSEG’s responsibility for the design of the urban mixed use (including the public realm elements) was established by the project agreement framework between the City and OSEG approved by Council in June 2010. The City, in recognition of the need for an integrated public realm design, has under its contract with PFS provided a mandate for PFS to serve as the City’s advisor related to detailed landscape treatment for the open space areas in the mixed use area and to assist in compliance. Conditions for final site plan approval also require that the design teams (PFS and OSEG) will participate with the City as required to achieve overall cohesion in landscaping language and treatment related to matters such as materials, uniformity in design detailing, and for fixtures to be provided (lighting, benches, etc) to develop the landscape plan details that will be part of the final landscape plan.

As part of its approval of the LPP Implementation Report in June 2010, City Council approved the Guiding Principles developed by the DRP and approved the Design Rationale (included as Document 5 to the LPP Implementation report) which reflects the Guiding Principles and defines the design approach for the public realm along Bank Street and for the mixed use area. Given that the Integrated Landscape Plan has not identified all the design elements, conditions for final site plan approval require that the detailing for the public realm design, including the mixed use area and urban park, be reflected on the final detailed landscape plan prior to final site plan approval. Further, consistent with the Guiding Principles and the design approach set out in Document 5 (June 2010 LPP report), direction that the public realm, both within the mixed use area and the urban park, serve as a pedestrian priority area with defined spaces and areas to support programming and various activities is also set out as a condition prior to final site plan approval. Most of the programming of public realm space is focused on the urban park and Aberdeen square and the event square proposed to be part of Block G. This event square would support patio spaces and open space suited for larger crowds before and after stadium and Civic Centre events. The other public realm spaces in the mixed use area that require design detailing to support their function include public courtyard areas (the main area being the event square), areas for patios, entry courts to buildings, open space corridors and connections, internal multi- purpose retail corridors that can also accommodate vehicular uses, areas for hard and soft landscaping all with an overarching direction to have the public realm reflect a focus that is geared first to pedestrian and programming and where some vehicular use is allowed.

Conditions included in the site plan approval requires that the language of the landscape treatment for the urban park be extended into the mixed-use and stadium areas with respect to matters such as paver styles and patterning, lighting, street furniture styles, way finding, etc.

4. Heritage

At this time, heritage issues related to the OHT agreements are still unresolved. The Panel is prepared to deal with changes arising under the conditions outlined by the City staff as part of the Stage One Site Plan process.

The Horticulture building is now the responsibility of the park design group and, as proposed, the adaptive reuse planning and design has been put in the hands of a seasoned and respected restoration and adaptive reuse architect, working in concert with the landscape architects for the park. We look forward to the outcome of this work.

The park designers are working successfully on having the facades of both the Aberdeen Pavillion and the Horticulture building featured prominently in the park.

Staff Response

As noted by the DRP, conditions related to the approvals required from the OHT for works on lands covered by the OHT easement agreement will be included as part of the site plan approval. Staff will have initiated the formal application with the OHT prior to the site plan being considered by Committee of the Whole and will be working with the OHT towards attaining the required OHT approvals. This process is elaborated on in the main body of the report. Also, as noted by the DRP, Julian Smith (part of the PFS team) has been given the responsibility under the City’s contract with PFS for developing the rehabilitation plans for the Horticulture Building to support the programming for this building which is also the responsibility of PFS to make recommendations to the City on.

5. The Overlap Area

The DRP’s suggestion to the remove buildings E and F and create of Aberdeen Square have been accepted.

The possibility of using Block D as a possible location for the Ottawa Art Gallery is still under consideration. The Panel would indicate that substantial use of the Horticulture building for the purposed of the art gallery would diminish the ability of Horticulture to serve as the primary park building.

In the retail version of Block D residential uses have been added along Homewood as requested. These parcels should have a depth equal to Block A1, A2 and B.

The cinemas located in Block C will form an important part of the Aberdeen Square. Details on the ground floor uses and how the cinema will animate and participate in Aberdeen Square were not finalized during the stage One Site Plan process and will need to be reconsidered prior to detail development in the Stage Two Site Plan Process.

Staff Response

Through the assessments undertaken of possible locations for the OAG at Lansdowne, a determination has been made that Building K would best serve the needs of the OAG and meet the overall objectives of the overall Lansdowne project. Building D is no longer a location being considered. Staff agrees that it is important to ensure that the activities within Aberdeen Square and the uses at grade within the buildings defining Aberdeen Square need to have synergistic relationships to ensure that this area of the site will be an active animated area. Conditions to collaborate with the City’s retail consultant to confirm both the focus for the programming as well as for the retail activity around the square will be established through the site plan approval for the PFS team in developing the programming plan. Staff is satisfied that the Integrated Site Plan provides the necessary framework to ensure that the needs for the square and adjacent uses work together, and that ultimately, the creation of a dynamic square will be achieved through the programming with the required detailed design elements prior to final site plan approval.

6. Architecture

Beyond the massing diagrams and renderings created for the June 2010 report no architecture was reviewed by the Panel for the Stage One Site plan process.

The massing of Block I and Block K is still in evolution and the Panel expects to see changes to these blocks when they are actually designed. If Block K becomes the location of the Art Gallery of Ottawa the Panel would expect significant change in this Block.

Architectural design has been scheduled by the City as a Phase Two Site Plan item for panel review. The Panel recommends that in light of the fact that architecture has not been a part of the Masterplan Approval process or the Stage One Site Pan Approval process, an overall approach to architecture and materiality should be created and reviewed prior to undertaking detailed design.

Staff Response

In response to the suggestion by the DRP, conditions requiring that conceptual architectural plans be developed and approved prior to final site plan approval will be included in the site plan approval process. These conceptual plans would then serve as the basis for the detailed architectural design work that will be undertaken after final site plan approval. The final architectural designs under the conditions (Document 6) will also require that final architectural plans be approved prior to issuing building permits for the above grade structures. Finally, the conditions will also require that elements/features that will need to be reflected on the conceptual and final architectural plans and also that they be in accordance with Council approved design guidelines and advance the Guiding Principles established for the overall Lansdowne Project.

7. Stadium

The integration of the stadium design and the park plan is singled out by the Panel as being particularly successful in creating the desired expression of a “stadium in the park.” The use of topography around the stadium, the resolution of the shuttle system, the access system for events and staging has been very well integrated between the park and stadium designers.

Block K, Block I, the gap between these two blocks and in total the image, layout, design and function of the Bank Street frontage has not been comprehensively outlined at this time. The Panel feels that Bank Street, one of the most important and nationally recognized Ottawa Streets, deserves a significant level of design study and review. This will be taken into account in a Stage One Condition proposal from the Panel.

It is noted that a major entrance to the stadium is located on Bank Street, and this may conflict with the demands of modes of transportation on Bank Street A careful review of the layout and programming for this space will be required if the Ottawa Art Gallery locates to K. The Panel supports the prominence of the Aberdeen Way entrances which allow for mustering large crowds away from Bank Street in advance and after events in the stadium.

The panel understands Block J on the north face of the stadium to be an issue in the ongoing OHT discussions and appreciates the problems of construction on the existing building condition. We recognize the need to repurpose and rework the entrances to the stadium, the salons and the at -grade relationship of the stadium. We encourage this building to be scaled in height with a reference to Aberdeen and to be as simple a structure as possible while using the smallest possible footprint within the defined easement.

The interface between the upper level walkway, the wooden veil and the wall of the inside of the stadium is being presented as an important public feature. The panel suggest a greater level of design exploration between the park designers and the stadium designers to optimize this feature for public use at times when the stadium is not in use.

Staff Response

Staff agrees with the comments of the DRP regarding the integration of the stadium with the park. With respect to Bank Street, Document 6 sets out conditions related to advancing the integration of the Bank Street Rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne project prior to final site plan approval. This, as directed by Council, also involves further design review and recommendations on the integration, as well as for finalizing the site plan related details for both Buildings I and K. Furthermore, consistent with the DRP comments regarding Building J, and the south side stands wooded veil, conditions are included in Document 6 requiring the development of design detailing and conceptual architectural plans prior to final site plan approval.

8. Ottawa Art Gallery

The OAG is currently evaluating two possible locations and this process may continue into Stage Two site plan. If the location is Block K the Art Gallery will have to be integrated into the pedestrian flows being mandated for the stadium to allow for park access and community integration. If Block D is the chosen location the panel recommends that the Horticulture building not be substantially used for the purpose of the OAG such that it loses its primary role as the park building.

A circular drop off at the Canal has been shown on plan drawings and is not yet fully resolved. Servicing to the stadium is still in progress and will require further review.

Staff Response

As noted in the main report, Block D is no longer being considered for the OAG. Staff agrees with the comments from the DRP regarding Block K and conditions are included in Document 6 that require details for accommodating the OAG in Block K to be reflected on the Integrated Site Plan prior to final site plan approval.

9. Retail Uses

An updated retail tenant plan or location plan was not reviewed as part of the Stage One Site Plan Process

Staff Response

On June 28, 2010, Council approved the retail strategy developed by the City’s retail consultant, and, through the project agreement framework, required that the retail strategy be implemented through the leasing of retail space by OSEG. This direction is reinforced through conditions set out for the site plan approval.

An updated retail leasing plan consistent with the retail strategy and that reflects the modifications for the mixed use area as a result of the integration process, was presented but not reviewed by the DRP.

Discussions by OSEG with potential retail tenants are ongoing. As such the final retail leasing plan has not yet been determined, however, as noted, it will be consistent with the Council approved retail strategy.

10. Public Art

No details of public art were reviewed as part of the Stage One Site plan process

Staff Response

Conditions are included in Document 6 requiring that an interpretive and public art plan be developed prior to final site plan approval, and that locations for public art be identified on the final Integrated Site Plan.

The Design Review Panel recommends that Council receive this report and make the suggestions contained within it an active part of the approval of the Stage One Site Plan process for Lansdowne. Additionally the panel calls for two specific tasks to be undertaken at the beginning of the Phase Two process.

1. The site plan approval should contain the requirement that the full Sustainability Strategy and the gap analysis be published for public use as soon as possible and that an approach to close the gaps be developed as a first order of business in Site Plan Stage Two process.

2. The site plan approval should contain the requirement that prior to detailed plan development for the mixed use area, that a fully considered and explained conceptual direction for the public realm of the mixed use area be prepared and approved. It is to include Holmwood, the new east/west street, north south movement corridors, Aberdeen Way and all other open spaces and public realm areas within the zone of the mixed use portion of the project be prepared.

3. The site plan approval should contain a condition requiring that prior to detailed plan development for any aspect of the project along Bank Street that a fully considers and explained urban design and public realm concept be prepared to illustrate how Bank Street will look, function and become a significant new Ottawa urban street . This request includes the west side of the street, the integration of the historic bridge and the important area under the bridge at Bank Street.

Staff Response

As part of Recommendation 2, staff has recommended that Council receive the Third Party Peer review report from the DRP along with the staff responses that Council had directed be included as set out in Council Motion 92-36 approved on June 28, 2010.

With respect to the specific tasks recommended by the DRP, staff would respond as follows:

1. The overview of the sustainability strategy and a LEED ND scorecard of the Integrated Site Plan has been prepared and posted on the City’s web site. Also, conditions set out in Document 6 require that a sustainability plan be developed and that the Integrated Site Plan incorporate sustainability features to strive for LEED ND gold prior to final site plan approval.

As noted in the staff response to the DRP comment regarding the public realm, Council as part of its approval of the LPP Implementation Report in June 2010, approved the Guiding principles developed by the DRP and approved the Design Rationale (included as Document 5 to the report) that builds on the Guiding Principles and defines the overarching design approach for the public realm along Holmwood Avenue and for the mixed-use area. The conceptual direction explained in the Council approved materials provides for the following:

· An overarching principle for the spaces and organizing principles to be informed by the site’s history so as to have all of Lansdowne revitalized as a truly public realm place;

· A residential face along Holmwood with pocket parks and courts intended to provide portals and gateways from the immediate neighbourhood into the mixed use precinct;

· A quality urban residential streetscape along Holmwood with the appropriate setback, landscape and architectural scale to complete what has historically been a single loaded residential street;

· Providing new and protecting existing historic accesses and view corridors from the Glebe into the park and in particular to the Horticulture Building and Aberdeen Pavilion;

· Employing an urban grid as an organizing principle for the mixed use area to provide a block pattern, street cross section and building scale that are familiar and pedestrian friendly;

· Building on the Public realm implied by the block organization to have as a key objective of the design giving of a sense of place and public ownership;

· Overlaying the public realm spaces through design detailing to establish unique precincts defined as a series of laneways, courtyards, pocket parks and event plazas that will create an obvious sense of pedestrian precinct for the entire mixed use area and retail development;

· Providing for staggered storefronts and curb lines to create pedestrian friction to slow people down and draw them in with corner elements, tangential connections to the north and diagonal connections to the south;

· Providing for pavilion style buildings in the central portion of the mixed use area that will be animated on all four sides to ensure active integration with the entire mixed use public realm area;

· Recognize several distinct and significant public open spaces including Aberdeen Way and the central piazza space at the end of Aberdeen Way in front of the Aberdeen Pavilion;

· Providing for the central event piazza to be detailed in its design to function at multiple levels – at an intimate level as quasi proprietary space for the restaurants to be concentrated around the piazza and at a more public level as a civic space for pre and post events for larger festival and game day events;

· Detailing the design of the piazza to provide for possible passive and active water features, unique and interesting landscaping to distinguish the piazza as a unique space; and,

· Provide, through the design detailing, an interpretive pathway that would extend throughout the Lansdowne property punctuated with commemorative pieces, historical artifacts and commissioned art work that would each convey a story or historical dimension of the park.

As such, staff is of the view that the approved conceptual direction for the public realm design provides the necessary focus for developing the design details to support its realization. Further, conditions contained in Document 6 will build on this conceptual direction, and require further design detailing with respect to Aberdeen Way and Block G in particular, prior to final site plan approval. These conditions further set out specific directions for the design detailing required for the different public realm spaces including: the proposed public courtyard areas for programming (the main area being the event square), patio areas, entry courts to buildings, open space corridors and connections, internal multi- purpose retail corridors that can also accommodate vehicular use, areas for hard and soft landscaping, Holmwood as a residential streetscape and generally to have the public realm reflect a focus geared to pedestrians and where some vehicular use is allowed. This design detailing would include both plan detailing and cross section detailing.

Conditions also require that there be consistency in the language of the landscape treatment for the urban park, the urban mixed use area and stadium areas with respect to matters such a paver styles and patterning, lighting, street furniture styles, way finding, etc. and provides for the OSEG design team and PFS to work collaboratively in the detailing for the public realm area to ensure cohesion in approach and design expression. Also, a role has been established for PFS as the City’s landscape architect to provide advice to the City on the public realm design detailing for the urban mixed use area so as to achieve a cohesive public realm experience for all of Lansdowne.

Based on follow-up discussion with the Chair of the DRP, while staff are satisfied that the conceptual direction has been established, staff would agree that there is value to have the established directions reflected on a more refined concept plan that builds on the integrated landscape plan so as to have the established directions articulated on a plan to serve as a frame of reference for the design detailing to be provided. Towards this end, staff has included conditions requiring this in Document 6.

Through Motion 92-18, Council directed the integration of the Bank Street reconstruction streetscaping with the Lansdowne Park Street frontage in order to create a unified environment. In response to this direction, meetings have been held with Public Works staff and the Bank Street Reconstruction public advisory group to restart the Bank Street Reconstruction project and address required integration items. These items relate to the Bank Street cross section, ensuring transit requirements can be met, increasing sidewalk widths to better accommodate pedestrian and transit patrons, streetscape design, construction scheduling and construction staging. This process will be informed by the design objectives established for the Bank Street Reconstruction Project and by Council direction, including the design concept in Document 5 (June LPP Implementation Report), for the Lansdowne project and the further articulation to be represented on the more refined concept plan included as a condition added in response to Recommendation 2 of the DRP as noted above.

Given that there is a separate process that has been initiated related to integration of the projects, staff will take the condition recommended by the DRP to be part of the Lansdowne site plan as direction to be addressed through the restart of the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project. Ensuring that the determinations made through the restart of this project be reflected on the plans prior to the site plan approval being finalized are included as conditions set out in Document 6 which also provides for the review and recommendations on the final plans by the City’s recently established design review panel.

INTEGRATED SITE PLAN (TECHNICAL PLAN) DOCUMENT 3

INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE PLAN DOCUMENT 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING PLAN

(Site Servicing, Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management) DOCUMENT 5

CONDITIONS FOR LANSDOWNE INTEGRATED

SITE PLAN APPROVAL DOCUMENT 6

Note: References to DRP means the recently appointed City Design Review Panel as set out in Recommendation 3.

STANDARD CONDITIONS

Agreement

The Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) as part of having the site plan approval finalized shall enter into a standard site development agreement that will also be binding through the RFP Air Rights lease/sale agreements with the Developer(s) of the air rights for the air rights development elements. This agreement will include the standard conditions set out herein, and all the special conditions set out herein as conditions to be satisfied before commencing construction, conditions to be satisfied during Construction and conditions to be included in the agreement, subject to any modifications that may be made and any additional conditions that may be determined and approved by the General Manager Planning and Growth Management through the process to finalize the site plan.

Permits

Permits as may be required from Municipal or provincial Authorities shall be obtained and copies thereof shall be filed with the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.

Water Supply for Firefighting

Adequate supply for firefighting for every building shall be provided. Water supplies may be public water works system, automatic fire pumps, pressure tanks or gravity tanks.

Private Agreement for Common Elements

(a) Should the site be severed in the future, a Private Agreement which shall be binding upon the owners and all subsequent purchasers that it shall ensure that the future Owner of any freehold units shall be entered into to deal with the joint use, maintenance and liability of the common elements, including but not limited to common party walls, exterior walls; common structural elements such as the roof, foundations; common parking areas; private sewers; and watermains for the mutual benefit and joint use of the owners; and any other elements located in the common property; and the private Agreement shall be filed with the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

(b) An opinion from a solicitor authorized to practice law in the Province of Ontario that the private Agreement is binding upon the owners of the land and all subsequent purchasers to deal with the matters referred to in (a) shall be filed with the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

(c) The Joint Use, Maintenance and Liability Private Agreement shall be registered on title at no cost to the City, and a copy shall be provided to the City.

Construction of Sidewalks

A 1.8m wide unencumbered concrete sidewalk along the entire Holmwood Avenue frontage as may be determined by the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management Department shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and approved by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

Reinstatement of City property

Any City property including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, boulevards that are damaged as a result of the subject development shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.

7. Waste Collection

Accommodation for waste collection shall be determined through the plan detailing required to finalize the site plan approval to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management with consideration given to the standards and requirements set out below for commercial and residential waste collection.

For Commercial Uses

Waste collection and recycling collection is not provided by the City. Appropriate arrangement with a private contractor for waste and recycling collection are to be made. This would include consulting with a private contractor regarding any access requirements for waste and/or recycling collection.

For small commercial developments (Yellow bag program)

All prospective tenants of commercial units shall be informed through a clause in the Lease Agreements that the City will collect up to 8 bags per week per unit and a waste collection above this limit shall be arranged by the unit tenant with a private contractor.

For residential units, with driveways, fronting on a public street.

Curbside waste collection and curbside recycling collection will be provided by the City.

For residential units with private accesses

A common concrete pad for the collection of waste and recyclables and an adequately constructed road access to the common pad area, suitable for waste/recycle vehicles is to be provided.

For mulit-level residential buildings

Container waste collection and cart (and/or container) recycling collection will be provided by the City. An adequate storage room or space for waste containers and recycling carts (and/or containers) is to be provided. It is recommended that the containers and carts be placed on a concrete floor. An adequately constructed road access to the waste/recycling storage room or area suitable for waste/recycle vehicles is to be provided. Direct access to the containers and carts is required. Any additional services (i.e. winching of containers) may result in extra charges.

Requirement for Grease Trap

In accordance with the Sewer By‑law (By‑law Number 2003-514, as amended), a grease trap on the internal sanitary plumbing system must be installed when a restaurant is established.

Water Servicing

1. The site shall be serviced by two connections to existing Municipal Watermains. One connection will be Holmwood Avenue and the other shall be the existing connection to the QED.

2. Existing water service off the QED requires to be assessed as to level of service.

3. Any other existing water services to Municipal Watermains shall be disconnected and the service blanked at the main.

4. Perimeter Water Meters shall be installed at each point of connection to the Municipal Water Main. Coordinate metering requirements with Fern Marcuccio at ext 22228, Environmental Services Department.

Construction fencing

Construction fencing acceptable to the NCC for fencing along the NCC property and acceptable to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management for other locations shall be installed as may be determined by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.

Tree Protection Measures

The following mitigation measures for retained trees as per the Tree Conservation Report Guidelines shall be implemented during all construction on site:

· Erect a fence at the critical root zone (CRZ) of trees;

· Do not place any material or equipment within the CRZ of the tree;

· Do not attach any signs, notices or posters to any tree;

· Do not raise or lower the existing grade within the CRZ without approval;

· Tunnel or bore when digging within the CRZ of a tree;

· Do not damage the root system, trunk or branches of any tree;

· Ensure that exhaust fumes from all equipment are NOT directed towards any tree's canopy.

The critical root zone is established as being 10 centimetres from the trunk of a tree for every centimetre of trunk diameter at 1.2 m above the ground. It is calculated as diameter in cm X 10. Prior to tree removal, the City Planning Forester shall be contacted to set up a site inspection and ensure that the appropriate mitigations measures are in place and that the boundaries for tree removal have been properly marked.

Completion of Works

No building to be constructed as per the site plan approval will be occupied, nor will title to any building be conveyed outside of any conveyances affected as a result of the project agreements between the City and OSEG or through the air rights RFP process until all requirements with respect to completion of the works identified in the final site plan approval and related agreement have been carried out and received approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management, including the installation of municipal numbering provided in a permanent location visible during both day and night and the installation of any name sign on relevant streets. Provided that notwithstanding the non-completion of the foregoing works, conveyance and/or occupancy of a structure may otherwise be permitted if in the sole opinion of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management, the aforesaid works are proceeding satisfactorily toward completion for which consent of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management must be obtained in writing.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Conditions to be Satisfied to Finalize the Site Plan and Execute the Required Site Plan Agreement

Other Approvals

Prior to finalizing the site plan approval and prior to the execution of the required site plan agreement, the following must be obtained:

1. Final zoning approval from the Ontario Municipal Board. All plans required to finalize the site plan approval are to be in compliance with the approved zoning.

2. Approval from the Ontario Heritage Trust in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Heritage easement agreement between the OHT and the City for works to be undertaken within those lands subject to the OHT easement agreement. All plans required to finalize the site plan approval are to be in compliance with any requirements of the OHT for these works as set out in its approval or as may be set out in its conditions for approval for works on lands subject to the OHT approvals.

3. Approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management of any requirements related to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) approval for the relocation of the Horticultural Building including but not limited to the following:

· A Conservation Plan for the Horticulture Building

· Details for the works to be undertaken for the relocation

Final Plans

Prior to finalizing the site plan and prior to the execution of the required site plan agreement, the following plans must be submitted for review and approval as set out below:

1. A final site plan for review by the DRP for its recommendations to be considered by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management in giving his approval reflecting the approved Integrated Site Plan and incorporating any refinements and modifications as may be required to ensure compliance with the approved zoning and with any requirements of the OHT and that may be determined dealing with but not limited to such items as final plans for the Bank Street rehabilitation project integration with the Lansdowne plans and the location for the Ottawa Art Gallery based on any decisions by Council for having the Ottawa Art Gallery at Lansdowne and any specific requirements set out in Condition 3 of this approval.

2. A detailed landscaping plan developed jointly by PFS and the OSEG Design team through a collaborative process to ensure cohesion of design expression for all public realm areas for review by the DRP for its recommendations to be considered by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management in giving his approval reflective of the approved integrated landscape plan for both the urban park and mixed use area and adjacent streetscapes (Bank and Holmwood) providing details of the landscaping and public realm elements to be provided and that incorporates any requirements of the OHT for those lands covered by the 1996 OHT agreement, any specific requirements set out in Condition 3 of this approval and any requirements as may be determined in satisfying any other conditions set out in this approval.

3. A final site servicing, grading and drainage, and stormwater management plan or plans for review and approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management reflective of the integrated engineering plans (site servicing, grading and drainage, and stormwater management) providing the details of the site servicing, site grading and drainage and stormwater management and that incorporates any requirements of the OHT for those lands covered by the 1996 OHT agreement, any specific requirements set out in Condition 3 of this approval and any requirements as may be determined in satisfying any other conditions set out in this approval.

4. Conceptual architectural design plans depicting the massing, exterior design treatment and articulations, and materials for review by the DRP for its recommendations to be considered by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management in giving his approval. The approved conceptual architectural plans shall serve as the basis for developing detailed architectural plans for all new buildings and for the stadium renovation. The final exterior design for all new buildings and for the stadium renovation shall be subject to review by the DRP for its recommendations to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management who will give final approval to these prior to any permits being issued for these works as set out in Condition 3. The conceptual architectural plans shall incorporate any requirements of the OHT for any buildings that may be located on lands covered by the 1996 OHT agreement, any specific requirements set out in Condition 3 of this approval and any requirements as may be determined in satisfying any other conditions set out in this approval and all final architectural plans developed shall be consistent with the conceptual architectural plans that are to be approved prior to final site plan approval.

Specific requirements to be reflected on final Plans

The final plans required by Condition 2 shall reflect and/ or incorporate the following:

Site Plan

· Sustainability Features and/or elements, as set out in the Sustainability Plan to be prepared by Enermodal as set out in Condition 4 to have the Lansdowne project strive to achieve a LEED ND Gold certification.

· Master Plan accessibility features to provide for universal accessibility for the site as identified by Betty Dione Enterprise, the City’s accessibility consultant for the Lansdowne Project.

· Final plans for the Bank Street reconstruction that are to be determined in accordance with the Council Motion 92-18 of June 28, 2010 to integrate the Bank Rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne project so as to satisfy requirements for both projects.

· Site organizational requirements to support the programming plan for the urban park and other public programming places (Aberdeen Square, Aberdeen pavilion, Horticulture Building).

· Site features for accommodating all on-site circulation requirements (staging/marshalling needs, para tranpso, emergency access, short term parking/loading, event crush spaces, etc) and physical site TDM needs including bike parking to satisfy zoning by-law bike requirements for day to day and temporary bike corrals for events to be determined through the Final Event Management Plan and TDM Plan to be developed as set out in Condition 4

· Location, sizes and public access points for all ground floor commercial spaces identifying the type of ground floor commercial use consistent with the Council approved retail strategy.

· Subject to Council’s decision on having the OAG located at Lansdowne at Building K as shown on the Integrated Site Plan, reflecting on the final site plans the building footprint to accommodate the needs of the OAG along with associated site features to support the OAG at this location within the podium area for this mixed use building that will accommodate a tower with upper floor residential uses and that provides for integration of the OAG with the overall development framework and objectives for the overall Lansdowne development.

Landscape Plan

· The design teams will participate with the City as required to achieve overall cohesion in landscaping language and treatment related to matters such as materials, uniformity in design detailing, and for fixtures to be provided (lighting, benches, etc)

· Design details for the various open space/public realm elements to support functional and programming needs consistent with conceptual directions established and approved by Council for the public realm (which includes the Guiding Principles developed by the DRP, the OSEG Plans for the stadium and urban mixed use areas and the PFS park design) to establish a dynamic public realm environment as noted in the following.

o To provide for all hard-surfaced areas to be designed as multiple use areas that are focused on ensuring a strong pedestrian focused public realm and to meet programming requirements and that will also serve, where required, to accommodate vehicular circulation, at grade loading, convenience short term parking and drop offs (within the mixed use area), event staging and marshalling, fire routes, etc.

o To integrate the Bank Rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne project so as to satisfy requirements for both projects as directed by Council Motion 92-18 of June 28, 2010 through a process that provides for the DRP to review and provides recommendations to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management for the final plans to achieve the directed integration.

o To accommodate the needs for establishing an ongoing farmers market for 150 market stalls measuring 3m X 6m as a required programming element for Aberdeen Square. The final plans are to be developed in consultation with the OFM following the OFM entering into an MOU with the City for operating the market at Lansdowne and the City’s retail consultant to ensure the market square area will also support achieving the council approved retail strategy

o To define the Aberdeen Way view corridor as a unique area within the mixed use public realm that integrates with the event square in accordance with the refined concept plan required as set out in Condition 4 that builds on the Integrated landscape plan developed for Aberdeen Way and the public realm for the mixed use area.

o To provide for separation between the urban park and the Lansdowne Community Park

· Identifying locations for interpretive elements and public art features and elements to be provided as set out in the Interpretive/public art plan to be developed as set out in Condition 4 and including an interpretive element to reflect the Algonquin First Nations culture and relationship to the Rideau waterway system.

· Details for tree planting on a slab for the urban mixed use area that provides for at grade tree planting and avoids the use of above grade planters unless expressly being provided to advance other design objectives in defining public realm areas.

· Details for retention, removal and relocation for existing trees where applicable.

· Details/elements to provide for future integration of the urban park on City lands with the NCC corridor lands once a decision is made by the NCC to modify their lands to provide for a seamless integration of the urban park with the NCC lands to the Canal edge.

Site servicing and stormwater management plan

· Specific requirements as may be identified through the detailed technical review of the plan and in conformance with the City of Ottawa Guidelines, Standards and Specifications.

Conceptual Architectural Plans

· The conceptual and final architectural plans shall provide for the following:

o Urban Mixed Use Area Buildings

§ Accommodating continuous at grade retail types uses along all public realm spaces so as to provide for animation and interest within the mixed use area recognizing that there will be interruptions in the retail space to accommodate residential and office lobbies/entries for upper floors

§ Accommodating the retail strategy approved by Council and providing direct access at regular intervals consistent with a main street commercial corridor for retail uses and the directions set out in the approved retail strategy

§ Designing upper facades for non residential podiums and buildings with transparent glazing and architectural detailing to ensure that upper facades will contribute to a dynamic visual environment and add to the animation of the public realm with minimal blank wall conditions.

§ Integrating roof top mechanical equipment where provided into the architecture of the building so as to avoid roof top clutter.

§ Respecting all building design directions set out in the Official Plan and in Council approved design guidelines such as but not limited to the City’s tall building design guidelines and residential infill design guidelines, and directions set out in the Guiding Principles approved by Council for the Lansdowne project.

o Holmwood Avenue Residential

§ Designing street oriented residential units to have a strong street presence through the use of front porches, direct entrances, front yard areas and ground floor windows that are associated with main living areas for the residential units

§ Design integration between upper floor residential elements and lower floor commercial podiums for mixed use buildings as reflected on the conceptual architectural plans developed by B.J. Hobin for the LPP

§ Limiting the number of residential stories for the mixed use buildings for Blocks A-2 and B to 9 stories comprising a four storey residential edge along Holmwood of townhouse and/or stacked town house units with four to five upper floors of residential apartments over a two storey commercial podium

§ Limiting the number of residential stories for Block A-1 to 12 stories over a two storey commercial podium

o Stadium

§ Respectful integration of proposed new elements for the stadium including any enhancements to the existing ramps and the proposed commercial element along the north face of the stadium with the architecture of the current stadium related to materials and overall styling and design and in a way that respects the expression of the stadium’s defining elements as set out in the Statement of Cultural Values Heritage Impact Assessment study report prepared by Commonwealth Historic Resources dated September 2010.

§ Respecting directions set out in the Guiding Principles approved by Council for the Lansdowne project.

o Bank Street Esplanade Buildings

§ Designing the Bank Street Buildings (siting and design) to work with and contribute to creating a node and focus for the Bank Street traditional mainstreet at Lansdowne and to support the streetscape design for the integration of the Bank Street Rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne project with buildings accommodating continuous at grade animation and retail type activity with public accesses from the street and locating buildings to provide sufficient space to accommodate high pedestrian volumes. Towers are to be positioned over podium structures with a defined setback or architectural detailing to distinguish the podium from the tower and contribute to creating a human scale street environment.

Studies and Plans

The following studies and plans shall be completed and/or undertaken. All of the following are to be submitted for approval prior to finalizing the site plan approval and prior to the execution of the required site plan agreement. Approval of the following studies/plans rests with the General Manager Planning and Growth Management under delegated approval authority unless otherwise stated.

1. Sustainability Plan that sets out elements/ features to be included as part of the site plan so as to strive to achieve a LEED ND Gold certification for the Lansdowne project with a minimum LEED ND Silver target for the project and to set a LEED Gold target for all new mixed use (commercial retail with residential and offices) buildings, a LEED Silver target for single use commercial retail buildings, and sustainability features to be pursued for existing buildings and that details a compliance plan.

2. Accessibility Plan that identifies universal accessibility features to be reflected on the final site plan, universal accessibility features to be included in building plans and that details a compliance plan

3. Final stormwater management and site servicing report and final geothechnical report for approval by all required agencies as may be required. At a minimum, the following plans and reports submitted to process the Integrated Site Plan for approval by Council are to be finalized:

§ Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report For Lansdowne Live Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Project No. 09-378, rev. 2 dated September 2010 prepared by Adam Fobert, P. Eng. David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. This report shall include but not be limited to completing the details on underground storage, major system storage and flow, and storm outlets.

§ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Lansdowne Park Redevelopment, Bank Street at Holmwood Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Report No. PG1744-1 dated March 17, 2010 prepared by Carlos P. Da Silva, P. Eng. Paterson Group. This report has been reviewed and a determination has been made that a further geotechnical analysis will be required prior to the final acceptance of the geotechnical report. A final geotechnical report based on the final engineering plans and specifications shall therefore be submitted. The Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure that the recommendations of the Final Geotechnical Report, are fully implemented and provide certificates of compliance, with respect to all recommendations and provisions of the report, prior to construction of the foundation and at the completion of the works, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

§ As part of the final engineering study requirements, the infiltration capacities of the proposed Stormwater Management System will need to be defined and confirmation of the life span/life cycle costs to maintain the system will need to be provided.

4. Transit Operations Plan detailing the Transit Services and operational needs for providing transit service to meet day to day needs, and needs for different events for attendance thresholds of 7,000 to 14,000 patrons (Civic Centre, smaller stadium and urban park events), 15,000 to 24,000 patrons (full stadium events and larger urban park events) and 25,000 plus patrons (expanded stadium events) and including a monitoring plan

5. Shuttle Operations Plan detailing shuttle service and associated operational requirements consistent with terms under the pilot project agreement with the NCC for accommodating shuttle service on the QED to meet needs for different events for attendance thresholds of 15,000 to 24,000 patrons (Civic Centre, full stadium events and larger urban park events) and 25,000 plus patrons (expanded stadium events) and including a monitoring plan

6. Traffic and Parking Operations Plan for both on and off-site traffic and parking operations for day to day and related to events with attendance thresholds of 7,000 to 14,000 patrons (civic center, smaller stadium and urban park events), 15,000 to 24,000 patrons (full stadium events and larger urban park events) and 25,000 plus patrons (expanded stadium events) and that includes way finding, parking validation programs, cross promotions, etc. as set out in Motion 92-18, and including a monitoring plan

7. Detailed TDM plan for the different land uses to be provided (residential, office, retail/entertainment, and events) and in particular for reducing single occupant vehicles (SOV) and automobile use by patrons attending events and a monitoring plan. The TDM plan will at a minimum include the following strategies:

a. For day to day activity/uses

i. Provision of showers and permanent bike parking to meet zoning by-law requirements for office uses

ii. Permanent bike parking for on-site retail, residential and cinema uses to meet Zoning By-law requirements

iii. Promotion of carpooling through preferential parking and carpooling programs

iv. Ecopass transit payroll-deduction programs and potential subsidy initiatives

v. Targeted sustainable transportation information packages

b. For events

i. Amount and location of temporary bike parking to be provided for different scales of events.

ii. Inclusion of the cost for transit, off-site parking and shuttle services and secure temporary bike parking corrals in event ticket prices.

iii. Recommendations on special direct transit services for stadium events to reduce travel times to a minimum

iv. Provision of off-site parking and shuttle services for events that exceed 15,000 patrons.

8. Finalizing the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Study.

10. Refined concept plan that builds on the integrated landscape plan to reflect in plan the established direction for the public realm in the mixed use area for review by the DRP to serve as a frame of reference for the design detailing to be incorporated into the integrated site plan and to ensure a consistent and cohesive public realm environment.

11. A comprehensive signage and way finding plan.

12. Draft Programming Plan dealing with programming for the urban park, Aberdeen Square, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building and that identifies programming responsibilities and costs. Should the programming plan indentify ongoing cost responsibilities for the City, the programming plan shall be provided to Council for its consideration and approval.

13. Interpretive/public art plan identifying interpretive/ public art elements through the use of interpretive elements and as part of the public art plan to be provided throughout the site and the location for these in the Lansdowne site to allow these to be shown on the final landscape plan and including an interpretive feature to be located within the urban park area that will celebrate the history of the Algonquin First Nations, particularly its relationship to the Rideau River.

14. Site Lighting Plan prepared by a professional with expertise in site lighting that responds to the City’s lighting standards and will address the site lighting needs and advance a unique lighting concept for Lansdowne. The site lighting is to be reflected on the final site and landscape plans to finalize the site plan approval. The following criteria for site lighting as set out in the City’s site lighting policy are to be respected to the extent possible recognizing objectives to be met to achieve LEED standards:

o Site lighting designed using fixtures that meet criteria for full cut off classification as recognized by the Illuminating Society of North America (IESNA or IES)

o Site lighting resulting in minimal light spillage onto adjacent properties. As a guidelines, 0.5 fc is normally the maximum allowable spillage and

o Upon completion of the works, certification satisfactory to the City that the site lighting has been constructed in accordance with the site lighting plan shall be provided.

15. A Noise Attenuation Study in compliance with the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department. The noise control attenuation measures recommended in the approved noise study must be implemented.

5. Phasing for Finalizing Site Plan Approval

The General Manager, Planning and Growth Management may at his discretion provide for phasing of the finalization of the site plan approval to allow construction to commence for elements of the development program where the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management is satisfied that the requirements related to that element of the development have been fully addressed, including the posting of any securities as may be required.

Items to be completed of various other works and obligations that will need to be meet prior to construction commencing and matters to be addressed during construction

Roadway Modifications

a) Bank Street Rehabilitation Project

Detailed functional design plans shall be submitted for approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management for the Bank Street roadway modifications to be implemented as part of the Lansdowne Revitalization Project in conjunction with the Bank Street rehabilitation project implementation that integrates the needs for the Bank Street Rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne project so as to finalize the Roadway modification approvals that will be given as part of the finalization of the site plan approval under delegated approval authority.

All costs associated with the roadway modifications along the site’s Bank Street Frontage that are outside the scope of the Bank Street Rehabilitation Project and other associated off-site works on Bank Street are to be covered from the Lansdowne project budget as set out in the costs identified for Stage 2 Implementation of the Lansdowne project that have been approved by Council and these works shall integrate with works for the ongoing City’s Bank Street Rehabilitation project. In this regard, the following specific requirements are to be addressed:

1. That the Lansdowne Park Bank Street frontage be integrated with the Bank Street reconstruction streetscaping to create a unified environment.

2. That all required municipal servicing for the Lansdowne Park redevelopment fronting onto Bank Street be coordinated with the Bank Street Rehabilitation project.

3. That all required utility servicing (power, gas, communication) for the Lansdowne Park redevelopment be coordinated with the Bank Street Rehabilitation project.

4. That the construction of the Lansdowne Park redevelopment project be coordinated with the impending Bank Street Rehabilitation construction project.

b) Traffic and off-site works

1. All applicable recommendations set out in the Council approved Transportation Impact Study that has been prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer with expertise in undertaking such studies and that complies with the City of Ottawa’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines in identifying Transportation Demand Management measures and analyzing traffic impacts, transit impacts and implications for pedestrian and bicycle movements and that was approved by Council on June 28, 2010 are to be implemented.

2. Sidewalk(s) within public right-of-ways or on other City owned lands (to provide a pedestrian connection from or to the site) as may be determined by the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management Department are to be designed, located and constructed to City Standards and prior to construction are to be approved by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

3. Any property of the City, including, but not limited to, sidewalks and curbs, boulevards, that are damaged as a result of the subject development shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

4. The installation of all permanent and temporary street name signs and traffic signs that may be required shall be provided in accordance with City specifications and be installed and located to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

5. Any required paved transit passenger standing areas, or shelters, shall be designed and constructed to the specifications of OC Transpo.

6. The works that are to be undertaken related to roadway modifications includes contract drawing preparation, utility relocations, advertising, road work, traffic signal lights installation, construction supervision, as built drawing preparation, and other engineering and administrative items for the modification of any intersection(s) and installation of any additional traffic lane(s) along any adjacent road.

Park Implementation Phasing

A Park Implementation phasing plan shall be developed that identifies the elements of the park plan and associated costs for phased implementation and that will provide for the first phase of implementation to meet needs to accommodate activities and events for priority programming as set out in the draft programming plan and that also addresses issues of future phasing for integration of the park plan on City lands with the NCC lands once the NCC implements the NCC approved park design on their lands.

Construction Traffic Management Plan

A Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared for approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management to address needs for interim stages of the project construction and that will include consideration for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and any temporary way finding measures.

Record of Site Condition

The comprehensive Phase I ESA (dated March 2010) and the Phase II ESA (dated June 2010) reports both prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental for the area known as Lansdowne Park and Sylvia Holden Park, submitted as a required study for the processing of the site plan for Lansdowne Park has been reviewed and has confirmed areas of site contamination. As the overall development program includes some residential uses, a record (s) of site condition will be required for those areas as per O. Reg 153/04, as amended, and by Section 4.8.4 of the Official Plan, as this would constitute a change to a more sensitive land use. Records of site condition can be prepared for subareas where required for separated legal properties which include the areas of residential and mixed uses.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the Phase I and II ESA reports the following broad conditions will be included as part of the final site plan approval:

· Record of Site Condition - A Record of Site Condition (RSC) completed in accordance with the O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, and acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment shall be required and shall be submitted to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department and to the Director, Building Code Services Branch. The RSC shall confirm that all or part of the site will be suitable for the proposed use in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended. The City may issue a building permit on a phased basis to allow for site investigation and remediation activities, and if permitted by O. Reg. 153/04, as amended. No further site works will be permitted until the RSC is submitted.

· Soil Management - Analytical testing for contamination of any soil to be removed from the site during redevelopment shall be undertaken. If the soil is found to be not in compliance with MOE soil standards for the intended land use, it must be disposed, treated or recycled at a waste disposal site or landfill licensed by the Ministry of Environment for that purpose.

· Groundwater Management - Testing of groundwater to be removed from the site during redevelopment (construction dewatering), shall be undertaken and if through further testing the groundwater samples are found to be contaminated, all groundwater must removed, managed or treated in accordance with appropriate Ontario regulations and/or discharged in accordance with the City of Ottawa Sewer Use By-law 2003-514, as amended.

· Decommissioning of on-site monitoring wells – Any on-site monitoring wells are to be removed/decommissioned in accordance with O. Reg. 903 (as amended), under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

An erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and approved by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management and all recommendations of this plan shall be implemented during the construction process.

Designated Substances Survey

Prior to any on-site demolition work, a designated substances survey shall be completed with the recommendations of this survey being implemented in accordance with best management practices, including but not limited to:

o Asbestos in construction projects (O.Reg 278/05)

o Lead in construction projects (ISBN 0-7794-6774-4) made under the Occupational health and safety act

o Registration Guidance for Generators of liquid industrial and hazardous waste (O-Reg 347)

o Waste Management – PCBs (O.Reg 362)

Construction Traffic Monitoring

Ongoing monitoring of construction traffic during all phases of construction shall be undertaken and where issues or concerns are indentified with construction traffic matters, remedial actions and adjustments to the construction traffic management plan shall be made in consultation with and for the approval of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.

Archaeological Monitoring

Archaeological monitoring shall be undertaken for all excavation in accordance with the requirements set out in the Stage 2 Archeologically Assessment.

Requirements and ongoing obligations to be set out in the agreement

Ongoing Retail Strategy Implementation

Leasing of the retail space shall be in accordance with the Council approved retail strategy and as set out in the project agreement between the City and OSEG

Operational plans and Monitoring (Transit, Shuttles, Traffic and parking)

The operational plans developed for transit operations, shuttle operations and traffic and parking operations shall be implemented as set out in the approved operations plans including ongoing monitoring of the operational plans with any operational issues identified and measures to address these being implemented to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management. Any operational changes made from that set out in the operational plans will be reflected as revisions to the operational plans to ensure that these remain current to serve as the framework for ongoing operational implementation and monitoring of these.

TDM Plan implementation and monitoring

The TDM measures identified in the approved TDM plan shall be implemented and maintained for all the identified land uses and the effectiveness of the measures shall be assessed on a regular interval in accordance with the monitoring schedule set out in the plan. The need for adjustments to the TDM plan will be determined based on these regular assessments with any required adjustments made to the TDM plan being implemented as may be determined by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management.

Approval of final architectural plans

The final exterior design for all new buildings and for the stadium renovation shall be subject to review by the DRP for its recommendations to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management who will give final approval to these final exterior design plans prior to any permits being issued for these works. All final architectural plans developed shall be consistent with the conceptual architectural plans approved to finalize the site plan approval.

Parties Obligated by Approval

For purposes of this site plan approval, OSEG under the partnership agreement with the City shall fulfill all obligations set out in this approval that applies to the area of the site that OSEG is responsible for under the project agreements with the City with certain obligations also being the responsibility of any other development proponents that may be involved in the implementation of the Lansdowne project including but not limited to the air rights proponents. Specific obligations of the air rights proponents are detailed in Condition 6.

Obligations for air rights RFP proponents

The successful proponents to the Air Rights RFP will be required to adhere to any requirements/conditions set out in the Site Plan and will be bound through their air rights agreements to fulfilling all final site plan approval obligations and Site Plan agreement requirements as they relate to the air rights development. In addition, the proponent of the air rights development must design their air rights development in accordance with the following requirements:

· The air rights development must be within the envelop established by the Zoning By-law and must be consistent with requirements of the Integrated Site Plan approval (plans and conditions).

· The air rights proponents must design their air rights development in collaboration with the designers of the commercial elements that the air rights development will integrate with.

· The air rights proponents’ design, along with the designs for the commercial elements that the air rights development will integrate with, will be subject to design review for the conceptual architectural designs and for the final architectural designs as set out in the conditions for the Integrated Site Plan approval.

New or Amended Conditions

Throughout the process to have conditions satisfied to finalize the site plan approval, new or amended conditions may be determined. These will be incorporated as required into the final site plan approval and will be included in the required site plan agreement

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 7

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Site Plan Applications. In addition, a public information session was held on October 14, 2010. Seventy-two (72) comments were received as a result of the public notification process and the public information session.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

All public comments received are included in Document 8 as they were submitted. The comments have been reviewed and generally fall into the following broad categories:

Category 1 Opposition to the project in general for reasons that have already been addressed through the LPP approval process

Category 2 Opposition to the project for reasons as noted in the first category and also expressing significant concerns with various aspects of the proposed development

Category 3 General support for the project with some areas of concern and/or suggestions for changes

Category 4 Miscellaneous comments that do not speak directly to the project

The following provides the approximate percentage breakdown of the comments received that fall into each of the above categories:

Category 1 Approximately 50 per cent

Category 2 Approximately 35 per cent

Category 3 Approximately 10 per cent

Category 4 Approximately five per cent

Overview of predominate reasons given in opposition expressed within the Category 1 comments:

The process that was followed for the developing and giving approval to the LPP;
Continued opposition stemming from public views related to sole sourcing;
Inclusion of Sylvia Holden park at 945 bank Street in the development area;
Opposition to the City’s financial contribution to the implementation and the ongoing tax obligations that the project will result in for residents and views that additional costs will be incurred that will also be placed on taxpayers as an additional tax burden;
Continuing issues related to traffic, the Council approved traffic study and views on its failure to fully assess impacts and the feasibility of the transportation plan and parking strategy as set out in the Council approved Transportation study;
Inadequate parking to support the proposed development and all the uses proposed – will result in significant spill over into the community

That an open air stadium needs to be located along a transit route with Bayview identified by many as the location where the stadium should be constructed;
The sale of public land to the private sector to support private sector profit objectives;
Cancellation of the initial design competition process to enter into a sole source arrangement;
Absence of any options having been developed and openly debated through a full public consultation process;
Opposition to the scale of the retail and the overall profile of development for the residential elements along Bank Street and Holmwood - items addressed by Council in June and through the rezoning in September 2010;
Reduction in the size of the existing park;
Impacts of the proposed commercial on existing Bank Street Businesses, an issue that was reviewed by Council in giving its approval in June 2010.
Wanting to restart the design competition that was cancelled to “do it right”;
The wisdom of refurbishing the stadium given the failure of previous CFL franchises in Ottawa;
A Public consultation process that some feel did not provide for the public to input in a meaningful way;
Opposition to commercial extending into Lansdowne rather than being limited to Bank Street
Absence of any mass transit to support retaining the stadium at Lansdowne and to support the level of intensification for commercial and residential uses.
View that Lansdowne should be transformed into an open green park space with much less intense activity then will result from the LPP
Issues related to heritage, which while associated with the site plan are items subject to separate approval processes.

Overview of predominate reasons expressed within Category 2 comments that in addition to expressing opposition for reasons noted by Category 1 comments are focused on specific aspects of the development

Scale of development is too great;
The Sylvia Holden Park green strip along Holmwood should be retained with the intensity of townhouses reduced and located behind this green strip;
The Farmer’s market area has insufficient size to accommodate the market
Inadequate space for pedestrians and not a pedestrian focused environment;
Access points will cause spill over of traffic accessing the site onto the roads;
Lack of adequate information to allow for meaningful understanding of what is proposed
Sight lines to the Aberdeen Pavilion will be obscured from Holmwood and from Bank Street
Development in general is out of character with the surrounding community – too much and too high;
Should not have a through traffic connection – will not make it a pedestrian place and will result in safety issues;
Inadequate provision for bike parking;
Wind tunnel effects resulting from the scale of the development;
Insufficient green space for recreational activities and for public events;
No discernable sustainability features to advance sustainability needs for new development;
Too much happening on the site – too many activities and events are trying to be accommodated that will result in significant impacts for the area;
Insufficient integration between the different elements
Degree of excavation required for the parking and cistern;
No public consultation on the changes to the plans from what was presented in June;
Need a more spacious public realm area in the mixed use portion so it has more of a park feel – plan appears to be a recipe for on-site congestion, conflicts and chaos;
Insufficient access points and connections – require more points to access the site to better distribute traffic and not focus vehicles through the north sector
Proposed shuttle loop reduces green space and the park feel for the northeast sector;
The impact of the development on Holmwood with respect to shadows, views and overall residential intensity is too much for this street;
The development along Bank Street is not considered to be consistent with the City’s guidelines and directions for traditional mainstreets;
There is a need for a new road connection between Bank and the QED to relieve pressure for streets in the Glebe;
The amount of detailed and technical information is too much for people to understand and does not help to convey what will actually be built causing concerns with the overall project.
Service roads and fire routes will fragment the park and reduce its functionality as a park;
The park plan is significantly different from the design competition plan and it diminishes the overall park space that was expected.
The plans reflect a shopping mall experience and not a unique destination experience;
The key issue is not what is shown, but what will result – a regional mall rather than an urban village, an urban park that will remain a parking lot, and new road connections through the site;
Plans do not show the details necessary to truly understand what is proposed – a three dimensional model should have been prepared to help better understand the project and its relationship to the surrounding community – the plans reinforce concerns that the project is too much for Lansdowne.
Some of the buildings shown should be removed or reduced such as Building J to keep the view lines to the Aberdeen Pavilion;
The height of the residential along Holmwood needs to match the height of existing buildings along Holmwood

Overview of predominate reasons given in support and concerns/suggestions presented in Category 3 comments:

The Plan is very positive with many positive features and reflects that a great deal of thought has gone into developing the plan;
Need to develop more details for on-site circulation for bikes and pedestrians;
The mixed use is fine and the stadium looks good but more architectural detail is required to make it a village and to integrate the stadium with the village;
A restaurant use in the park would be a good addition;
The location of building K seems to close to the Bank Street Bridge
Internal roadways need to be pedestrian friendly;
The plans for the mixed use area need to be refined and have more detail to achieve the intention for this area to have it integrate with Bank Street and Holmwood.

Overview of miscellaneous comments provided in Category 4 comments:

Request for information to purchase a residential unit;
Request for clarification on documents posted on the City web site;
Request to receive notice of future meetings

Staff Response

Given the magnitude of comments received, it is not possible to provide detailed responses to all the comments provided by the public. As such, the comments have been included in their entirety in Document 8 to allow Committee of the Whole to have the full set of comments provided for its consideration prior to rendering a decision on the site plan approval for the Lansdowne project. Below is a high level response from staff to each of the categories of comments received.

Category One Comments

The comments within this category are focused principally on expressing opposition for reasons that Council has already made decisions on and do not deal specifically with any site planning matters.

Category Two Comments

Many comments within this category include expressions of opposition for reasons similar to those expressed in the category one comments but also focused on identifying a variety of concerns/ opposition to specific aspects of the proposed development. Some of these deal with development matters where decisions have been made such as the amount of parking to be provided and the scale of the proposed development with many others addressing matters that relate to design details associated with the site development. The integrated site plan and the conditions included to have the design details over-layed into the plan prior to finalizing the site plan approval will address many of these that are focused on design details in the context of the development program that has been approved by Council through its approval in June 2010 of the LPP Implementation.

Category Three Comments

The comments within this category generally express support for the project and provide some suggestions for consideration in finalizing the site plan approval.

Category Four Comments

No Site plan matters were raised in the category four comments which focused more in information type requests submitted through the on-line comment tool.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee

The following comments are forwarded on behalf of the OBHAC:

- Buildings H, G, G1, J and J1 are shown overlapping the OHT easement respecting site lines of the Aberdeen Pavilion. Construction on this easement is inappropriate and will likely have a detrimental impact on the views of the Pavilion. Additionally, buildings C and D are obstruction the view from Adelaide. While this view is not officially protected, this view is important for the connection with the greater community, and site lines into the park from the community should be considered an important part of the Cultural Heritage Landscape of Lansdowne Park and the Glebe Community as a whole.

- Buildings C and D are shown on the site of the Horticulture, a site designated by the City of Ottawa under the Ontario Heritage Act. The OBHAC is consistently on record against the movement of this building. The justifications given have not been sufficient to warrant the relocation of a heritage structure. Relocating a heritage building to allow for the installation of a parking lot for condominiums and a stadium is not acceptable. The City as owners of this unique piece of national architecture should be far better stewards of that site than they have been, and are continuing to be through this development. Privately held heritage properties in the city are being held to a far higher account than the City itself is, and it is shameful that the staff and Councilors don't have enough respect for the citizens of the City to act in the same way that private land owners are expected too. The City should be setting an even higher example for the treatment of heritage buildings, not pushing them aside at the behest of private partners.

- Given the high architectural value of the Stadium, noted in Commonwealth's report. The OBHAC is concerned that the J buildings may have a negative impact on another unique piece of architecture.

Staff Response

The OHT easement agreement provides for allowing for works on lands covered by the OHT easement agreement subject to a process being followed with the OHT to obtain their approvals. The City will be making its formal application to the OHT prior to November 19 to obtain approval from the OHT for those works requiring OHT approval on those lands covered by the OHT easement agreement in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.

The relocation of the Horticulture Building is a matter that will be considered by Council at its special meeting of November 19 and 22 pursuant to the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act with the site plan. Council in making its decision on the horticulture relocation will have before it the heritage impact assessment that was prepared, the recommendations of staff, from OBHAC, and the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole who will also hear public delegations on the proposed relocation.

The additions to the north side of the stadium are proposed as infill elements to be fitted into the current fabric of the stadium. Conditions are also included in the site plan approval that any new elements for the existing stadium be respectfully integrated into the architecture of the existing stadium related to materials and overall styling and design and in a way that retains the expression of the stadiums defining elements as set out in the HIA prepared by CHRML.

Accessibility Advisory Committee

As Chairperson of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC), I am writing to convey our concern that universal design principles and accessibility standards are not being given priority as design criteria for the development of Lansdowne Park. The City has a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate leadership in this regard by overseeing a project which becomes a showcase for inclusion. Indeed it would be nothing short of shameful if the end result at Lansdowne Park is a development that is not accessible for citizens who have disabilities. You can prevent this from happening.

Despite the fact that the principles of universal design and accessibility standards are well documented and readily available, new facilities continue to be built which incorporate barriers for people with disabilities. Developers simply cannot be counted on to follow the principles of universal design or to be aware of accessibility requirements. The only way to avoid embarrassment and the added costs associated with retrofits for the purpose of eliminating barriers is to supervise the process from beginning to end. For this reason, AAC strongly recommends that an expert on the principles of universal design and accessibility standards be hired and given the authority to oversee the development process for Lansdowne Park.

I trust that you will give this matter the attention it deserves.

Staff Response

The City has retained an accessibility consultant to develop an accessibility plan and work with the design teams to ensure the Lansdowne project and its buildings meet the highest universal accessibility standards possible. The conditions set out in the site plan approval requires that this plan be developed prior to the site plan approval being finalized.

Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

OFGAC General Concerns:

- We are concerned that existing trees on the site including along Holmwood Avenue and behind the stadium on the south side of the property will be eliminated in this plan.

- We are concerned that existing NCC trees outside the property line of Lansdowne Park will be damaged, both above and below ground, by construction work along the perimeter of the project

- We are concerned that the South Berms will have a deleterious effect on the NCC trees outside the Lansdowne property by, for example, changing the water regime for these trees.

- We are concerned that the buildings shown on the site plan do not reflect the best opportunities for green roofs, green terraces and other greening techniques.

- We are concerned that the City Forestry Department has not been circulated on these plans for their comments.

OFGAC Recommendations:

- That as many existing trees be retained and worked into the site design as possible.

- That the City Forestry Department be contacted for advice and recommendations about how the NCC trees outside the perimeter of the project can best be protected from construction damage.

- That studies be done to determine any possible deleterious effects of the new South Berms on existing NCC trees outside the perimeter of the project.

- That every effort be made for the inclusion of green roofs and terraces on all new buildings within Lansdowne Park.

- That, if clay soils are a factor on the Lansdowne Site, special consideration be given to using the most up-to-date information and techniques available for planting trees to reduce loss and allow greater flexibility in the choice of appropriate tree species. Consultation with the City’s Forestry Department could provide this material.

- That the following Tree Protection Guidelines developed by the City’s Forestry Department be utilized as common practice in the development work at Lansdowne:

Tree Protection Guidelines

A tree shall not be removed, trimmed or altered unless authorization is obtained from the Deputy City Manager;

No signs, posters or notices shall be affixed to any tree;

No guy lines or other fastenings, fixtures or structures shall be affixed to a tree;

A tree paint is not to be utilized unless approved by the Deputy City Manager;

A snow fence or other approved barricade one (1) meter in height shall be placed around all trees or groups of trees prior to construction. The fencing shall be placed at the critical root zone or at a location approved by the Deputy City Manager to ensure minimal damage to roots, trunks and branches and shall stay in place until construction is complete;

Where proposed hard surfaces are to be extended into the critical root zone of any tree, the installation of the hard surface shall not occur without written approval from the Deputy City Manager;

All branches of any tree which may be approved for removal by the Deputy City Manager are to be cut using proper arboricultural practices;

The existing grade around any tree shall not be raised or lowered without prior consultation with and approval from the Deputy City Manager;

Tunnelling or boring shall be carried out when digging is required within the critical root zone of any tree;

Equipment shall not be allowed to operate, park, be repaired or refuelled; nor shall construction materials be stored or any earth materials be stockpiled within the barricades or within five (5) meters of the outer edge of the critical root zone of a tree;

If any tree roots are exposed during construction, they shall be immediately reburied with soil or covered with filter cloth or woodchips and kept moist until they can be buried permanently. Woodchips are to be placed for a distance of five (5) meters outside the critical root zone. The material used shall be spread to a minimum thickness of seven (7) centimeters;

If no other means exists and if excavation must take place within the critical root zone of a tree, approval must be sought by the Deputy City Manager and a trench shall be dug carefully by hand or with a root-cutting (stump grinder) or stone cutting (cut-off) machine along the furthest reach of the cut;

Waste or volatile materials, such as mineral spirits, oil or paint thinner shall not be disposed of within the critical root zone of a tree. Emissions from equipment shall not be directed in such a way as to come into direct contact with the foliage of a tree. Flooding or deposition of sediment shall be prevented where trees are located.

Staff Response

Conditions are included in the site plan approval requiring that details be provided with respect to tree retention, removal and/or relocation in determining the landscaping to be provided that will be detailed on the Integrated Landscape Plan prior to finalizing the site plan approval. The development program provides for the existing trees along Holmwood and on city property to the south of the south side stands to be removed. Through the details to be developed as noted, there is potential that some of these trees may be relocated to other areas of the site.

Trees located outside the City property on NCC lands will not be affected as a result of development on the City property. The NCC will be consulted on protection measures for their tress and conditions are included in the approval requiring this.

Issues of sustainable building measures to be introduced will be determined through the sustainability plan that is to be prepared as a condition prior to site plan approval.

The site plan approval includes standard conditions that respond to the comments from OFGAC regarding tree protection. In addition, it is expected that additional conditions will be identified for inclusion in the site plan agreement as the landscaping details to be incorporated into the integrated landscape plan are defined. The determination of any additional conditions will respond to needs identified to ensure best practices and city requirements as well as requirements of the NCC as it relates to trees on their lands.

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION COMMENTS

Glebe Business Improvement Area (BIA)

The Glebe Business Improvement Area (BIA) has received the Stage 1 Site Plan materials mailed by the City of Ottawa, reviewed the materials posted on-line and attended the public open house held October 14th. The Glebe BIA has significant concerns with and does not support the Stage 1 Site Plan as proposed. Further, the Stage 1 Site Plan is premature given that the Zoning By-law for the site has not yet been approved and will be the subject of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Glebe BIA will therefore not be providing specific comments to the Stage 1 Site Plan as such comments might be perceived as prejudicing our OMB appeal of the Zoning By-Law. Catherine Lindquist, Executive Director Glebe BIA

Glebe Community Association

The Glebe Community Association has received and reviewed the Stage 1 Site Plan materials from the City of Ottawa. We also attended the public open house held on October 14th. The Association approved the following comments at our Board meeting of October 26, 2010. Please note that we were informed that it would be acceptable to submit our comments by the end of October.

The Association has significant concerns about the Stage 1 Site Plan as proposed, particularly the:

· height, scale, massing, and placement of buildings;

· relocation of the heritage designated Horticulture building and the obstruction of views of the Aberdeen Pavilion National Historic Site;

· inadequate space provided for the Ottawa Farmers Market;

· lack of respect for the traditional main street character of the neighbourhood;

· patterns and location of site access and egress, internal roadways and bus drop offs;

· amount of parking provided;

· residential development on parkland and size of urban park;

· traffic and parking impacts on the community.

Overall we believe this development is out of scale and not compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood, and that the resulting traffic and parking impacts will have an adverse effect on the quality of life of residents and the liveability and vibrancy of our community.

However, since the Zoning By-law for the site has not been approved and is being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Glebe Community Association and others, we do not wish to provide more detailed comments at this time as it might be perceived as prejudicing our OMB appeal.

We also have comments on the public consultation process. While we are pleased that the City did hold a public meeting on the site plan, we would like to register our concern that the plan was not presented in an integrated way and that attendees could not submit comments on the spot but were expected to go home and submit comments online. We believe that this placed an undue burden on citizens and that those who attend public meetings should be able to give comments at the meeting itself. We also note that the online information provided by the City was too technical for the general public and that the City failed to fulfill its duty to provide information in a way that is accessible to citizens.

Finally, we would like to bring forward three serious concerns about timing and process.

1. City Council proposes approving the Stage 1 Site Plan on November 19th, in the period between the Municipal Election of October 25th and the date the new Council takes office on December 1st. In this “lame duck” Council time period, Council should limit its activities to routine matters. The approval of a site plan for Lansdowne Park has major financial implications and is not routine, and therefore we respectfully request that, in the interests of due public process, consideration be delayed a few weeks until the new Council takes office. This should have no effect on the project timelines as the appeals to the zoning bylaw will not be heard until early 2011 and the site plan approvals cannot take place until the zoning is resolved.

2. At the Council meeting of June 28th, 2010, the President of the Glebe Community Association was named to the steering committee of the Urban Park. However, since then, the Association President has only been included sporadically in meetings and has not been included in discussions on substantive issues like the relocation of the Horticulture building or the site of the shuttle bus drop-0ff area. We ask Council to direct staff to invite the GCA to all meetings where other members of the steering committee (e.g. NCC, Parks Canada) are present.

3. Finally we note that there have been significant changes in the plans for both the mixed-use area and the urban park since Council (and the public) saw concept designs for both areas of Lansdowne Park in June 2010. Given that the plans seem to be continuing to undergo significant revisions, we request that authority for site plan approvals not be delegated to staff but continue to be the responsibility of Council.

Old Ottawa South Community Association

Old Ottawa South is a community of over 8,500 people directly south of Lansdowne Park.

OSCA, the Old Ottawa South Community Association, has represented the interests of our community for over 35 years. OSCA has been clear throughout the recent process to rezone the Lansdowne site that while we support, and indeed welcome a redesign and reuse of the site, the proposed design represents poor planning and is not acceptable. Most importantly the transportation infrastructure does not support the proposed uses. Also there is too much retail space, and it is poorly sited. Finally the height of the buildings in the new zoning is completely out of scale with the neighbouring communities and the main street they are on.

We do not believe the area was rezoned properly and plan to dispute this at the Ontario Municipal Board.

We will not provide detailed comments on the site plan at this time as we feel it is premature as the zoning is not yet settled. Without prejudicing our objections to the zoning by law we do wish to be on the record as attending the site plan open house, and make some general comments.

Bank Street is an important commercial corridor, but for much of the day it is effectively a two lane road and traffic is often bumper-to-bumper, especially on weekends. To expect Bank Street to accept significant extra volumes of traffic is courting gridlock. Nor is there much capacity to improve transit on Bank as the two bus routes that serve it can only move as quickly as the congested car and truck traffic. To succeed, Lansdowne needs rapid transit, which it does not have.

This proposal will create a mall and stadium on an urban peninsula, well away from rapid transit with poor road connections. If a modal shift is a priority, as City staff has indicated, bicycle lanes should be added to Bank Street as a first step. The Bank Street Bridge needs not only bike lanes but also wider sidewalks. It is only possible for people to walk in single file to allow travel in both directions which is likely to be completely inadequate after the proposed redevelopment.

There is too much, poorly sited retail space in this development. The addition of well over 300,000 square feet of commercial space represents a doubling the commercial space in the Glebe. This will be devastating to this historic commercial street, both in the Glebe and Old Ottawa South. And further, the traffic gridlock it will create will hurt local merchants.

The Lansdowne mall detracts from the main street because it leaves Bank and juts east into a residential section of the Glebe. This commercial development will add car traffic to local roads and pull commercial activity off Bank Street. It will endanger the very fabric of this historic main street which has evolved over the last 100 years. Official Plan objectives include ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas. This proposal will create a mall with 1000 parking spots and includes buildings 16 stories tall or taller in a streetscape dominated by 2- 4 story buildings. This is not respecting the character of the existing neighbourhood.

Finally we would like to see all public comments on the site plan reported, accounted for and responded to. In the past, comments from community groups and the wider public on this project appear to have unacknowledged, unreported and completely ignored.

Staff Response

The comments provided by the Glebe BIA, Glebe community association and Old Ottawa south community association reconfirm their opposition to the Lansdowne project as developed to date and have elected not to provide specific comments on the Integrated site plan in light of their appeals filed to the zoning approved by Council on September 22, 2010. Consequently there are no specific site plan matters for staff to provide a response to.

Ottawa East Community Association

A. Commercial / Residential Component

Towers: the two "end" towers on Bank Street as well as the middle building on Bank should be a maximum of six storeys, as per the City's policies on Traditional Main Streets. There is no good argument for saying the corner towers are "landmark" buildings because the real landmark is the Aberdeen pavilion with the stadium itself being rather "landmark-ish." The towers, the middle block on bank Street and the 6-8 storey buildings behind the Holmwood condos/row housing will all detract from the current and delightful skyline dominance of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

Holmwood Condominiums: The condos on Holmwood should not be built on what has long been a community park. Also, the proposed 6-8 storey buildings to their south do not fit into the fabric of the Glebe

Interior Commercial Buildings: The mass and scale of pavilions/commercial buildings between the east side of the stadium and Holmwood townhouses is excessive, contrary to the spirit of the Traditional Main Street policy and potentially injurious to existing Bank Street enterprises.

Horticultural Building: This should not be moved from its present location.

Urban Park Component

Lack of Consultation: Quite simply there has been grossly inadequate consultation on what should be in the urban park. Although the OECA strongly supports the creation f a large urban park on the Lansdowne site, a number of the proposed features really are not going to contribute to the park being well-used and, indeed, the potential lack of use will undermine the vitality of the urban park. Further, a number of the features are going to be unreasonably expensive to maintain relative to their number of users.

- Specifically:

- the outdoor curling rinks may be a “nice” idea but an outdoor skating rink – with a cooling plant like Toronto City Hall’s rink) would allow skating for four to five months, vs the canals two months max. Indeed linking this rink to the canal skateway would have real merit. The rink should also be of a size that will allow hockey games, clearly one of the most important parts of outdoor winter activity. A skating rink would be less expensive to maintain than an outdoor curling rink and could be used by many more people.

- the orchard: although the idea of more trees is sound, an orchard dominating the park consumes far too much space and the nature of fruit trees (low to the ground, sprawling) really will limit the use of the terrain that the trees occupy. The cost of maintaining fruit trees also is not warranted.

- the children’s garden: Old Ottawa East has a wonderful children’s garden but its success depends on committed volunteers and neighbourhood children working on it … given the location proposed on the Lansdowne site plan it’s not clear how the Lansdowne Children’s Garden could be a success. It might work were it to be on Holmwood, near residents, but the site plan has other purposes for Holmwood.

- the Beacon: this piece of urban art seems contrived and could detract from the dominance of the Aberdeen Pavillion’s dome. We’re all for public art but to focus it on one large piece may be the wrong way to go.

Staff Response

The comments provided by the Old Ottawa East community association related to the commercial residential component identify issues and concerns on matters that Council has made decisions on through its approval of the LPP implementation in June 2010 and through its approval of the zoning changes in September 2010. The staff response to the comments specific to the urban park are as follows:

Consultation – The urban park as set out in the urban park design competition RFP is to accommodate a variety of activities and events. Part of the work to be undertaken for the City by the urban park design team is the development of a programming plan. This plan will be developed through a process involving various stakeholder groups. The design detailing that will be introduced into the park plan will be developed to ensure that the programming plan will be supported by the final park design.

Outdoor Rinks – The competition plan identified outdoor curling rinks and these are being carried forward into the integrated site plan. As part of the programming plan, determinations will be made as to whether these are best retained as curling rinks or whether the option for an outdoor skating rink may serve better programming objectives for the park.

Heirloom Orchard, Children’s Garden and Beacon – These elements were all key elements of the urban park design selected as the winning design by the urban park design competition jury and have been endorsed by Council through its decisions of June 28, 2010. These elements are therefore reflected on the integrated site plan recommended for approval, However, as noted in the conditions of approval, there may be design refinements that will affect these elements as determinations are made for the programming of the park through the programming plan that will be developed by the urban park design team.

COMMUNITY INTEREST GROUP COMMENTS

Heritage Ottawa

Heritage Ottawa agrees that Lansdowne Park has been neglected for too long, and neglect is the enemy of heritage. We have consistently supported the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park and many specific aspects of the plan. But Ottawa deserves enlightened development that showcases, rather than diminishes, the heritage value that could provide historic, aesthetic and commercial value to Lansdowne Park. There are elements of the Phase 1 Site Plan that end all pretence of the City's commitment to the protection of its built heritage.

Like the Zoning Report, the Site Plan constitutes the City's formal endorsement of the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group's insistence that the Horticulture Building be moved for their convenience in realizing their commercial pursuit.

All generally excepted national and international standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage designated buildings recommend that the relocation of a heritage-designated building should only be considered in the rare case when a building is in physical danger from causes such as erosion or other environmental damage. The inconvenience of its location to a private developer who wants to build a parking garage and offer more retail outlets does not come close to being a credible reason for moving the Horticulture Building.

Although moving a large masonry structure like the Horticulture building might be technically possible, it will significantly diminish its material integrity and could easily result in its ultimate destruction.

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" is spurious because this would hold true, and more so, in its current location. The only reason for relocating it is that OSEG wants to build on and under the present site. This is not a justification that would even be considered under any international and national standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places.

The City estimates the cost of demolishing and relocating the Horticulture Building at $3 million. This cost, to be borne by Ottawa taxpayers, amounts to nearly 9% of the $35 million budget allocated to the Urban Park component of the Lansdowne Limited Partnership. One implication of the relocation would be that the Horticulture Building would never qualify for federal government funding as a national historic site and therefore would not benefit from the federal cost-share program for restoration of heritage properties. The Aberdeen Pavilion, by comparison, has received $1 million of such federal funding.

This is a travesty for taxpayers who do not want their dollars wasted on the unnecessary relocation of a heritage building, as well as for citizens who care about a culturally rich future for this city. It is evident that city staff, the mayor and the majority of councillors are putting the wishes of developers before the need to protect our built heritage.

The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) have already expressed their concern that the proposed Site Plan contravenes the legal easement on the Aberdeen Pavilion that they entered into with the City of Ottawa. Heritage Ottawa support the position taken by the OHT and urge council to instruct city planning staff and OSEG to abide by the terms of the heritage easement.

We also request that staff and OSEG be instructed to amend the current Site Plan to permit the retention of the Horticulture Building in situ, thus saving the taxpayers at least $3 million and demonstrating that the city supports the proper retention of its buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Staff Response

The items raised in the comments provided by Heritage Ottawa are items relevant to the report on the relocation of the Horticulture Building that will also be considered by Committee of the Whole and Council at its special meeting of November 19 and 22 where the site plan for Lansdowne will be considered. The staff report dealing with the proposed relocation of the horticulture building addresses these comments from heritage Ottawa on this item. With respect to the OHT easement agreement, the city will have made prior to Council consideration of the Integrated Site Plan its formal application to the OHT to seek approval for the works requiring OHT approval within lands covered by the OHT easement agreement. This application will be addressed by the OHT in accordance with the provisions of the easement agreement and conditions are included in the site plan approval requiring that required OHT approvals be obtained prior to having the site plan approval finalized.

NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

Thank you for providing the NCC with the opportunity to comment on this Stage 1 Site Plan application for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. This is a parcel of publicly owned land which is approximately 16 hectares (40 Acres) in area, in the heart of Canada’s Capital. As a result of a partnership opportunity with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), the City has initiated a redevelopment and revitalization plan for Lansdowne Park.

The NCC does have an interest in this development proposal as this site is adjacent to and visible from the NCC-owned Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED) Corridor and the World Heritage Site Rideau Canal, on one of the most valued scenic entries to the Capital Core area. The NCC participated directly with the City and Parks Canada in the oversight of the Design Competition for the Urban Park component of the Lansdowne redevelopment, and welcomes the integration of the park with the mixed-use/stadium components of the overall undertaking.

The site plan features many significant improvements from earlier iterations, and we commend the City of Ottawa for its leadership in steering this plan to its current stage. The most notable of these improvements from the perspective of the NCC include:

- the retention of Aberdeen Square,

- the pavilion-style, low-profile buildings in the mixed-use zone north of the stadium,

- the resolution of the urban park-stadium-mixed use area interface,

- the ample provision of public spaces interspersed throughout the built form areas, and

- the targets for LEED certification both for new buildings and for the redevelopment scheme overall.

The following are more detailed comments and conditions regarding particular aspects of the site plan of greatest interest to the NCC.

A. Sustainability – LEED and LEED ND

1. Lansdowne redevelopment offers many opportunities for LEED building and LEED ND certification. In addition to the accreditation achieved for individual buildings, the following components are of particular interest to the NCC for the broader neighbourhood development scoring: bicycle network and storage, steep slope protection (for the berm along the south side stands), transportation demand management (including a special program for large events), ‘walkable’ pedestrian-friendly streets, access to public and recreational spaces, historic resource preservation and adaptive reuse, and stormwater management.

2. The NCC looks forward to the early initiation of a TDM strategy for special events, in concert with the City and OSEG, as articulated in the “Letter of Intent” for the Queen Elizabeth Driveway event shuttle pilot project.

Staff Response

Conditions are set out in the site plan approval to require that a sustainability plan be developed and to set out LEED ratings that the project is to strive to achieve for both ND and individual buildings. Also a conditions are set out requiring that a detailed TDM plan be developed and implemented consistent with the recommendations of the Council approved transportation study and the “Letter of Intent” for the Queen Elizabeth Driveway event shuttle pilot project.

B. Site Access and Mobility

Site Access Points from the QED

1. Consistent with McCormick Rankin’s transportation study which modeled one vehicular connection to the Driveway, the NCC supports, subject to its qualification, the northerly access point from the Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED) as the vehicular entrance to the site.

2. The NCC supports the Southerly QED access as the primary pedestrian and cyclist access to the Park, i.e. accommodating priority pedestrian and cyclist modes of movement to and from the site. This connection could also provide for emergency vehicle access. No other use for this access is to be considered.

3. It is critical that the function and targeted travel modes for each of these accesses be clarified, and that the opportunity to segregate the major movements of pedestrians/cyclists from that of cars and event shuttles be provided. The assignment of the two existing access points, one to pedestrians and cyclists, and the other to cars and event shuttles satisfies this objective.

4. As has been communicated by the NCC to the City and its representatives on several occasions in the past, the Driveway does not permit commercial vehicles and is closed to vehicular traffic at various points during the year.

Northerly Entrance from the QED:

1. The NCC supports the identification of the northerly access as the exclusive car access from the QED to the site and to the parking garage, and as the event shuttle access to and from (via the shuttle loop) the QED. We require that the ‘opening’ to the parkade ramp be at a level and of an orientation that make it invisible from the Driveway and we encourage the planting of vegetative screening to further mitigate its visual effect and presence.

It is not clear whether or not the ‘entrance’ to the parkade is an entrance only, or whether this location is intended for both entry and egress from the parkade. NCC staff requests that the technical analysis that addresses and illustrates the complete internal vehicular circulation on the site be provided without delay.

2. The site plan notes that the roadway north of the Aberdeen Pavilion that extends from Bank Street to the Queen Elizabeth Driveway is a ‘Tabled Roadway’. In order to mitigate vehicular speed and the amount of cut-through traffic, we encourage the tabling of the full length of this roadway, to the limit of City property at the QED connection.

3. We also recommend that you consider a lengthy ‘tabling’ of the roadway adjacent to the Shuttle Queuing/Shuttle Lay-by 1, so that a pedestrian realm can be visibly demarcated for the normal daily movement of people between the Civic Gardens and the Heirloom Orchard. This could also feature a special paving material to demarcate a pedestrian crossing area.

4. The possible conflicts between cars and event shuttles that might prevail in the vicinity of this northerly access to the QED during the special events should be monitored by the City and OSEG. The City may wish to consider closing this northerly QED access to cars, and dedicate this access to event shuttle access and egress only during certain events.

5. The site plan must also provide for a gate or other access control device so that the access to the Driveway from the site can be restricted when the QED is closed to vehicles during special events and activities.

Southerly Entrance from the QED:

1. The route or lane identified along the south side of the stadium is labeled as ‘Emergency Access Route’ on the Site Plan. The NCC supports this designation. The NCC does not endorse any other use by vehicles, at any time.

2. The NCC is pleased that this southerly entrance is not intended to serve the shuttle buses or car access, as this entrance leads directly into the major programmed event and open space of the Lansdowne redevelopment, the Great Lawn. The proximity of the festival stage, the toboggan hill, the seated walls, and the public artwork screen feature, should all likewise be privileged public realm features that exist in a vehicle-free zone so that there are no conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles.

3. In order to ensure that only emergency vehicles gain access to the site via the southerly access from the QED, the NCC will require the installation of collapsible hinged bollards at this entrance. Emergency vehicles would be equipped with access rights, but regular cars and other vehicles would not. This would not preclude the NCC considering requests, on an individual basis, for vehicular access to support special events and purposes on an as-needed basis from this southerly access. Otherwise, “The Crossing” access point is to be designed and designated as the safe entry and exit for pedestrians and cyclists, in keeping with the objective of the urban park proposal and to accommodate as best as possible active mobility to and from the site. This is consistent with the City’s “key considerations” for Site Plan review that urge “ensuring that the site provides for an environment where pedestrians’ needs, movement and connections are the priority” (“Bringing Lansdowne to Life – On-site Circulation”, public meeting circular, October 14, 2010).

South Berms and Integration with Proposed Emergency Access Route

1. The proposed berm structure (South Berms) along the southern façade of the stadium appears to have a significant slope. The plans do not presently identify the details on a need for retaining walls/structures to ensure the stability of the berm’s slope stability. The NCC requests clarification on the proposed design grade/slope/terracing along this façade to ensure that all required elements (geotechnical and landscaping) are able to be adequately provided on City property. NCC lands are not available for inclusion in this design.

2. The Stage 1- Illustrative Landscape Plan identifies, conceptually, this berm as having significant landscape elements and some hard surface pedestrian connections from the upper tier grades to the emergency access route surface. We recognize that details on planting materials, final slope/terracing may not be available at this time, however, the NCC clearly views this feature as having an impact on the cultural landscape of the parkway corridor and wishes to participate in future design scenario discussions.

3. The Stage 1 Site Plan indicates a dimension of 4.9 m in width for the emergency access route below the berm. Please provide clarification as to whether this is proposed to be entirely asphalted surface, stone dust, innovative landscape treatments, decorative pavers, etc.

4. The NCC requests that the City indicate how stormwater runoff from the South Berms and emergency access surface is to be directed into the detention facility proposed on site.

5. The plan is unclear as to how the (western) end of the emergency access route integrates into the western edge of the berm structure. Some plans appear to suggest a dead end lane, others a connection. Please clarify what types of emergency vehicles this access is being designed to accommodate.

6. As noted, the NCC does not support open access to Building K, nor the stadium complex, from any point along the proposed emergency access. Please modify all drawings (i.e: drawing A1-01) to clearly remove any suggestion of future connection access/below grade “to stadium access laneway”.

Staff Response

The Integrated site plan maintains the existing 2 access points from the QED with no changes proposed. The north access will be the vehicular access to both the parking garage and for shuttle service. The detailed comments provided by the NCC are design detail elements that will be addressed through the design detailing that will be layered onto the integrated site plan prior to finalizing the site plan approval. Where the design detailing has potential impacts on NCC lands and interests, these will be addressed with the NCC prior to finalizing the site plan approval.

Based on discussions with the NCC regarding the southern access identified as a key area of interest to the NCC, staff acknowledge that the comments provided by the NCC are focused on previous comments that one (the north) access from the QED serve as the day to day access with the second (south) access having limited and defined use for very specific purposes. Staff understands that the comment that the access be limited to emergency vehicles is to highlight this principle. Staff are committed to work with the NCC to determine what if any other limited access the south driveway to the QED may provide such as providing a ceremonial access for vehicles for certain events or other restricted, defined and limited access possibilities that may occasionally be desired and that would be limited.

C. Building K: Proposed Sixteen Storey TBD Use/Residential Building and Requirement for NCC approval

1. The NCC recognizes and commends the City of Ottawa’s objectives of intensification and quality architectural design in the Lansdowne redevelopment scheme. Furthermore, Lansdowne will benefit from a sizeable on-site residential population.

2. In terms of vehicular access and egress, the NCC insists that Building K have and utilize a Bank Street address only, for residents, and for service and delivery. It is not evident from the Stage 1 Site Plan whether or not this has been ensured in terms of surface access, orientation of building entrances, clarity in the parkade circulation below grade, etc. Details of the building and of its circulation (vehicular and pedestrian) are to be provided to the NCC without delay.

3. The NCC will not support, at any time, the connection of the “emergency access route” (along the south side of the stadium) to the parking garage under Buildings I and K, or to the lower concourse level of the stadium complex. Normal vehicular access to this underground parking area must be provided from the Bank Street side, and not the QED side.

Accesses/egresses to and from the QED for new private developments, particularly multi-unit private buildings, are not permitted. Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the Driveway. Closures of the Driveway by the NCC will continue, and may increase in frequency.

Further, and to reiterate, the southerly access from the QED is to be give priority to pedestrian and cyclist movements, with provision for emergency vehicles only.

4. The profile of Building K has increased over the course of the refinement of the plan. The NCC would urge the shifting of the 12 storey tower component of this building to the northern end of the building footprint, thereby reinforcing a Bank Street entrance along the northern façade and minimizing the visual impact of the upper building massing on the QED and Canal corridor.

5. Given that Building K is located in close proximity to the federal realm, in particular the World Heritage Site Rideau Canal, the NCC supports the highest quality design resolution for the Building, with special attention to its unique context. The NCC offers, to the City and the building developer, the benefit of an NCC Federal Design Review, including a presentation to the NCC’s Advisory Committee on Planning, Design and Realty for comment. The NCC would involve Parks Canada staff in this review process.

Staff Response

Building K has been identified as the most appropriate location for accommodating the OAG at Lansdowne. As such, the design detailing required for Building K is subject to council making a determination on whether to locate the OAG at Lansdowne. Conditions are set out in the site plan approval regarding this and the design detailing that will be required for Building K to have the site plan approval finalized. Where the design detailing has potential impacts on NCC lands and interests, these will be addressed with the NCC prior to finalizing the site plan approval.

D. The Screen and Signage

1. The site plan package does not provide the degree of detail necessary to make conclusive comments on the Public Art ‘Screen’.

2. Given the land elevation at the base of the screen (estimated to be 73 masl at its highest mid-point), the NCC is concerned about the visibility of this screen from the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site/National Historic Site and the Queen Elizabeth and Colonel By Driveways, and also the implications for the National Historic Site Aberdeen Pavilion.

3. Third party advertising is not to be visible from the NCC lands and parkways/driveways, nor from the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site, nor from any Parks Canada lands, at any time. In consideration of this requirement, could the City inform the NCC as to the nature and range of displays or display types that are proposed to appear on this screen? While the site plan indicates ‘public artwork’, is this screen also intended for third party advertising and for information display? If so, the NCC requires that the City assess and demonstrate the visibility and visual impact of the screen and of its supporting structure on NCC and Parks Canada lands, and on both sides of the Rideau Canal corridor. The City may need to consider the lowering of the profile of the screen and of its structure, and/or an alternate location and orientation, to ensure that it is not visible from - and to mitigate any visual impact on - NCC and Parks Canada lands.

4. The NCC urges the City to respect this position regarding any signage proposed for other Lansdowne facilities and activities, now and in the future.

5. Similar to the offer for Building K, the NCC would offer the same Federal Design Review/ACPDR presentation opportunity for the Screen design development and approval.

Staff Response

The screen is a design detail that will be more clearly reflected through the design detailing to be layered into the integrated site plan prior to finalizing the site plan approval. With respect to signage, a condition is included requiring that a signage plan be developed for Lansdowne. Where the design detailing has potential impacts on NCC lands and interests, these will be addressed with the NCC prior to finalizing the site plan approval.

E. NCC Trees

1. The site plan recognizes that no modifications are proposed to NCC trees or landscape at this time. In order to ensure that the mature and quality tree stock on NCC lands is protected during construction, the NCC requires that a 5 metre wide ‘no excavation or storage’ buffer strip be designated and respected, on City lands, along the entire length of the boundary on City lands and NCC lands. The NCC requires that a temporary fence be erected along this buffer, and maintained in good condition by the City during all construction activity. This is to ensure that no damage or compaction occurs to the root balls of these trees, and that there is no damage to lower branches and tree trunks.

Staff Response

A condition is included in the site plan approval requiring construction fencing and requiring that fencing along NCC lands be acceptable to the NCC.

F. Stormwater Management

1. The NCC supports, in principle, the stormwater management solution proposed by DSEL, and appreciates the simulation data provided for future events and flows which predict a reduction in flows to the Canal.

2. The NCC is pleased with the planned installation of a CSD storm sewer filtering device on the intake sewer to the infiltration bed, which will vastly improve the quality of effluent reaching the Canal.

3. The NCC would encourage the City to negotiate long term maintenance and monitoring contracts with the infrastructure provider in order to ensure the performance of the CSDs and to monitor the performance of the system, post-construction, to ensure that the projected results are consistently achieved.

4. The stormwater management plan does not mention the intake of water from the Rideau Canal for on-site irrigation or other uses such as the Beacon, and we trust that this is the case.

5. In support of achieving the highest LEED ratings possible, building developers should be encouraged not only to retain stormwater on rooftops, but also to use this rainwater for grey water purposes in the buildings and for irrigation on bordering lands.

6. The NCC would like to receive more information regarding the underground retention facility. Has the City’s consultant conducted percolation tests to support the facility’s design and location? Does the consultant have information regarding the projected performance of the system during extreme events, very low temperatures, and flood conditions? How will the staging of events on the Great Lawn affect the condition and performance of the facility?

7. The NCC presumes that Ontario Ministry of the Environment will be asked to comment on this application. Parks Canada and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans may also have comments on the stormwater management proposal, particularly given the recent confirmation of high quality fish habitat in the Rideau Canal.

Staff Response

Conditions are included in the site plan approval requiring detailed designs to be developed for the stormwater system for approval through the agency approval process (MOE, and as required NCC and Parks Canada) prior to having the site plan approval finalized.

G. Additional Monitoring by the City

1. A monitoring of the presence and extent of conflict between event shuttles and automobiles at the northerly access from the QED is suggested.

2. A more comprehensive monitoring of all vehicular volumes, turning movements, types of vehicles, and related matters on the Queen Elizabeth Driveway is recommended.

3. Pedestrian and cycling movements, “desire lines”, safety issues, routing to and from event shuttles/public transit stops, crossing of the QED, etc. will need to be monitored.

4. The Letter of Intent for the Event Shuttles on the QED and Bank Street requires a monitoring of the performance of the overall transportation network. The NCC would suggest that a monitoring of all modes of movement be conducted beyond the Driveway as well, so that measures can be implemented in the early years following the project’s launch that will improve clarity, capacity, and safety for all modes. The comparative assessment of the alternate shuttle routes (QED and Bank Street) can then also be conducted with the benefit of full data.

Staff Response

Flowing from recommendation included in the approved transportation study by MRC, conditions are included in the site plan approval requiring that plans for transit operations, shuttle operations, and traffic and parking operations and a detailed TDM plan be prepared prior to finalizing the site plan approval. These plans will also be required to include a monitoring program to allow adjustments to be made after completion of the project where needs are identified for adjustments to any of the operational plans or TDM plan.

H. Period of Construction Activity

1. During the period of construction, the existing fencing between NCC and City lands shall remain in place.

2. During construction activities, all surface water shall be retained on site.

3. Access will not be permitted to NCC lands for any construction use, including marshalling, storage, parking, etc. These uses must be confined to City lands.

4. The NCC will retain the right to close the gates from Lansdowne to the QED during the construction period

Staff Response

The foregoing are standard items addressed through the standard site plan agreement and will be respected during construction.

Could you please ensure that the NCC is provided with a copy of the refined Stage 1 Site Plan package, including the proposed Conditions of Stage 1 Site Plan Approval, as soon as this material is available?

We look forward to collaborating with the City to achieve a high quality building and site design scenario for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

PARKS CANADA

Parks Canada’s interest in the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park relates to the Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada and World Heritage Site, which runs adjacent to the property, and the Aberdeen Pavilion situated within the Lansdowne Park site itself. Our comments are offered in the spirit of producing a result that will protect the Rideau Canal and the Aberdeen Pavilion in their unique historical setting.

Following a review of the Lansdowne Site Plan Control Proposal, Parks Canada has concerns regarding the:

1. Proposed sixteen storey (60m) mixed-use ‘Building K’ on the southwest corner of the site

2. Reduced sightline from Bank Street east to the Aberdeen Pavilion

3. The Screen

4. Stormwater management

1. Sixteen storey (60m) ‘Building K’

In addressing the future management of the Rideau Canal, the World Heritage Committee made reference to the visual setting of the canal. The Committee recommended that consideration be given to strengthening its visual protection outside the buffer zone, in order to ensure that the visual values of the setting are protected. It is important that the site plan control proposal pay attention to specific sightlines and broader viewsheds pertinent to this sector of the canal, and how they contribute to the quality and understanding of the canal in this urban setting.

Through the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site Management Plan (2005), Parks Canada is committed to safeguard the canal’s visual setting.

The proposed sixteen storey (60m) building is significantly larger in scale than its surrounding environment and as such, will dominate its environ. The proposed building height has been justified as it “will allow for the stadium to be physically integrated into the site so as to minimize its visual and physical dominance.“[1] However, the proposed tower will be significantly taller than the new south side stands. These new south side stands are proposed to be lower than the current stands, as well as being integrated into the urban park with a landscaped berm. The maximum permitted height for the stadium area is 38m.

The proposed 60m tower is located on the southwest corner of the site and adjacent to the 30m buffer zone of the Rideau Canal. In the document Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles for the Redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, Parks Canada provides guiding principles for the Rideau Canal, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the site in general. One such principle states that any redevelopment scheme will “maintain and enhance the unique park-like environment and its constituent parts along the Rideau Canal.”[2] Due to its significant height and location, the building as proposed has the potential to negatively impact the visual setting of the canal and may diminish the quality and understanding of the canal in this park-like environment.

2. Reduced Sightline to the Aberdeen Pavilion National Historic Site of Canada

The Aberdeen Pavilion National Historic Site of Canada is owned by the City of Ottawa. Through its National Cost-Sharing Program, Parks Canada entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the City of Ottawa in 1993 for the restoration of the Aberdeen Pavilion. To protect the commemorative integrity of the national historic site, this agreement requires that the use of the building and any alterations to the site will not diminish its architectural significance and historic integrity.

A heritage conservation easement was established between the Ontario Heritage Trust and the City in 1998. It places specific restrictions on the use and development of Lansdowne Park in order to preserve the heritage values of the Aberdeen Pavilion. This easement emphasizes a broader consideration of the setting and viewplanes; sightlines towards the Pavilion from the Driveway were identified for protection as well as an unobstructed view of the Pavilion from Bank Street.

These documents are supported by Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles for the Redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, specifically[3]:

“respect the established heritage values of the Aberdeen Pavilion and the requirements of the cost-share agreement and the legal conservation easement on the property, including the protection of key views and viewsheds; and
maintain and enhance the key views and viewsheds related to the Aberdeen Pavilion, including the views toward the entrances of the pavilion (especially from Bank Street) and those between the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Rideau Canal and its adjacent park-like corridor, that are identified in the conservation easement.”

Parks Canada is pleased to see that the identified sightlines from the Rideau Canal to the Aberdeen Pavilion will be protected. Parks Canada will respect the decision of the Ontario Heritage Trust with respect to the sightline from Bank Street to the Aberdeen Pavilion.

3. The Screen

Parks Canada requests further design details for The Screen, a structure located east of the stadium overlooking the Great Lawn. In particular, we are interested in the size of the structure, how it is intended to be used, and the nature and range of displays proposed for this feature. As it is proposed to be located on land approximately 73 masl, Parks Canada is concerned about the visibility of this screen from the Rideau Canal National Historic Site and World Heritage Site.

4. Stormwater management

Parks Canada recognizes that the proposed stormwater management system should serve to meet the Ministry of the Environment’s requirements of reducing flows to the canal and improving water quality. The modeling presented appears to demonstrate the aforementioned.

Of particular interest to Parks Canada is the use of an infiltration bed to reduce flows and service as a catch basin for water to enter the CSD storm sewer filtering device. This should improve water quality significantly. While the simulation appears to meet the Ministry of the Environment’s requirements, the Ministry should be consulted for approvals as they set the standards and requirements for water quality. Parks Canada would like to receive confirmation that the system is approved by the Ministry of the Environment.

Parks Canada would also like confirmation that the stormwater management system is properly functioning once installed. As such, a maintenance and monitoring program should be developed and implemented to ensure the system’s performance and expected results are achieved.

Parks Canada is interested in reducing nutrient loading to the canal waters where possible and where opportunities arise. At the July 19, 2009 meeting, DSEL noted that nutrient loading to the Rideau Canal would still be a concern even with the installation of a CSD storm sewer filtration system. This is a concern for Parks Canada as this section of the Canal experiences significant aquatic vegetation growth. Parks Canada requests further information regarding the impact of the proposed infiltration beds and increased green space on the nutrient input to the Canal in downtown Ottawa. Of particular interest is the methodology the City will apply to the maintenance of the “Great Lawn” to ensure that fertilizers will not need to be applied or will be used in such a way that phosphorus and nitrogen loading to the Canal will be significantly minimized or eliminated.

It is noted that there is no information regarding the taking of water from the Rideau Canal to service the site for irrigation and for use at the Beacon. Parks Canada anticipates that this element of the project has been eliminated from the original design and requests confirmation.

Conclusion

Parks Canada looks forward to working in collaboration with the City of Ottawa and the NCC to develop an integrated landscape between Lansdowne Park and the Rideau Canal which enhances the visitor experience, public appreciation and understanding of the Canal in this historical setting.

Staff Response (Require confirmation from Don Marrin that the response is acceptable to Park)

Building K

Building K is part of the Bank Street Edge of Lansdowne and while adjacent to the Canal Corridor, will be part of the Bank Street urban fabric between the new south side stands and the foot of the Bank Street Bridge. The zoning has been approved by Council to allow the proposed Height for Building K.

The integrated site plan recommended for approval locates the building on the site outside the 30 m buffer zone. Also, the site plan approval will not be giving approval at this time to the design of the building to be located in the area identified for Builidng K. This, as set out in the conditions for the approval will be determined through the process that will follow approval of the integrated site plan based on the following:

· Council’s decision related to the OAG,

· Determinations to be made for the integration of the Bank Street rehabilitation project with the Lansdowne project and

· Conceptual architectural plans that will be developed for all the new development at Lansdowne.

Through these processes, consideration will be given to ensuring integration of Builidng K with the Bank Street corridor, the overall Lansdowne development objectives, the south side stands and the canal corridor. From staff’s perspective, while the building at the height approved will be visible, it is the design detailing that is considered critical to ensure appropriate integration of the building with its surroundings, including the characteristics and qualities of the Rideau Canal corridor. Conditions are included in the approval to address this.

Staff is also of the view, that as a result of the prominence of the both the south side stands and the Bank Street Bridge for this section of the canal, and that Builidng K is located between these with a further setback from the canal, that the building will be more of a backdrop building perceived as being part of the urban fabric of the city similar to many other high profile buildings within the city that are visible from the canal, and that it will not be a dominating visual element for the canal corridor or impact the park like environment of the canal corridor. It is further noted that there were several objectives established for the Lansdowne revitalization including providing for an urban face along Bank Street (that Building K is responding to) and significantly improving the relationship of Lansdowne with the canal environment. The later is being achieved as a result of the south side stand berms to provide an improved relationship between the stadium and the canal corridor and through the transformation of the existing surface parking area now adjacent to the canal into a new public park area that will also improve the relationship between the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Rideau Canal, both national historic sites. Through the design development for Building K, staff will ensure that full consideration will be given to its relationship with the all elements of its surroundings including its relationship to the canal corridor.

Sightline to Aberdeen Pavilion

The Aberdeen Pavilion will be used in full accordance with the provisions of the Cost Share agreement between the City and Parks Canada. The use will be determined as part of the programming plan to be developed by PFS that is focused on using the pavilion as a public use building. Any interventions that may be considered to support the programming would be fully respecting the heritage of the building and its fabric.

With respect to Views, as noted by Parks Canada, the integrated site plan respects the importance of maintaining views of the Aberdeen pavilion from the Canal and will provide for enhancing significantly the relationship between the Aberdeen pavilion and the canal, both designated as National Historic Sites. It is further noted that Parks Canada acknowledges that the Bank Street view corridor is an item covered through the OHT easement agreement and that any works within this corridor will be subject to OHT approvals. Staff would further advise in response to the interest expressed by Parks Canada to retain views of the Pavilion from Bank Street, while some building encroachment is proposed into the OHT Bank Street view corridor, that the encroachments will not block the view of the Aberdeen Pavilion from Bank Street. Rather, the development will frame the view and will provide for having the view of the Aberdeen Pavilion open up closer to the Pavilion than from what would result if development occurred that extended to the OHT easement line. Furthermore, with the Aberdeen Square and the urban park, complete open vistas of the entries to the Aberdeen Pavilion, and in fact for the full facades of the Pavilion, will be provided. The Screen

The screen proposed for the urban park as an element between the park and stadium reflects the screen that was part of the passarel of the Phillips Farevaag and Smallenberg (PFS) design proposal that was selected as the winning design through the urban park design competition. While the bridge element has been removed as required by the Competition Jury, PFS is proposing to retain the screen as a park feature. The screen is conceptually identified and will be subject to design detailing to confirm its final scale and design. Staff will provide to Parks Canada the additional details requested once they have been determined.

Stormwater Management

The confirmation requested by Parks Canada will be provided. It is also noted, that a condition is included in the site plan approval requiring a monitoring program for the proposed stormwater management system.

PUBLIC COMMENTS AS RECEIVED DOCUMENT 8

The following documents all the comments received up to October 29, 2010 from the public through the public notification and as a result of the Community meeting held on October 14, 2010 regarding the stage 1 Site Plan for Lansdowne

_____________________________________________________________________________

I am a resident of Old Ottawa South. Even though council has voted to proceed with this project, I want the City, the Mayor and Council to know that there is still a great deal of concern out there about the way this process has unfolded. I must register once again my concerns with the selection process (sole source), the "delisting" of Sylvia Holden park and rezoning to allow for construction of high rise condos facing Holmwood Avenue, the uncertainties surrounding the value for money debate, and finally the lack of a substantive response to the traffic issues associated with the new stadium.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I continue to strongly object to the details of the project as well as to the lack of meaningful input from citizens. The current plans for Lansdowne Park will be an economic and environmental disaster. I have yet to receive any response to my questions re traffic, sent in August. There appears to be no realistic plan for traffic. Thanks to councillors who have been working for a better process and project.

Overall comment:
The Site plan as presented on Oct. 14 lacks integration, and has far too
little open green space.
It is also unworkable to build so much commercial space on public land and
still call this a park.

Specific comments:
1. The tall buildings anchoring the site at the north and south along Bank
Street are too high and out of keeping with the stated height for a
'traditional main street'. These are also out of keeping with the local
community.
2. Sylvia Holden Park, at the corner of Bank & Holmwood IS a PARK and
should be retained including the adjacent portion (with its trees) along
Holmwood.
3. The proposed 'stacked' townhouses along Holmwood are too dense. They
should be limited to 2 storeys -- behind the row of trees.
4. The Farmers' Market space is too small.
5. The Horticulture building should NOT be moved and should be integrated
with the Farmers' market.
6. The cinemas are unnecessary.
7. There is not enough space for pedestrians, carriages, and bicycles.
8. Trees should not be growing in pots, rather they should be planted in
the ground.
9. Cars --and buses -- should not pour out onto the Driveway, which
becomes congested quickly and becomes dangerous for pedestrians and
cyclists.
10. Cars trying to access the underground parking will be backed up along
Bank Street, causing gridlock.

Confirmation Number: P589827

______________________________________________________________________________

The Lansdowne refurbishment plan as it stands was arrived at undemocratically and ill-advised in approach. The city ignores its own research that shows the Bayview Yards as the ideal location for a multi-purpose stadium which would be located at the main intersection of the city's own mass-transit plan.

The wholesale ceding of public land to shameless profiteers is inexcusable. Now that same group is trying to bully the city into approving its plans to build a convention center on wet lands near our airport! The gall of these pushy businessmen is unbelievable and unending.

Do it once and do it right. I know that our current city government is stuck in the "do something - do anything" mode but, ladies and gentlemen, un-stick yourselves and try the democratic approach for a reasonable, economically viable plan. Please take a stand on a democratic and reasonable approach!

I am absolutely opposed to the Lansdowne Live plan and particularly appalled at how City Council has handled this whole process of sole source bid - which I now understand was against this City's bylaws.

I am so not impressed by the plan put forth and it breaks my heart to think this is what our future looks like. To me its a concrete town built around commerce, giving big business a license for revenue for decades in the future...there is so little originality or vision it truly depresses me.

As a tax payer and voter I feel lost in this process and wonder where my voice is and how this process got to where it is today.

What I saw put forth by John E. Martin - Lansdowne Park Conservancy WAS inspiring and visionary, and green and flowing and a legacy owned and controlled by the City and one we Ottawans could be proud of.

Where is that plan in the process of fair democratic assessment and review??

Who has the right to make such momentous decisions on the future of this incredibly valuable space? This should be going out to the citizens of Ottawa for a vote, not to a small group of politicians and big business people

Its time for this City to listen to ITS people and not big business

Before detailing our comments and concerns regarding the Lansdowne Phase 1 site proposal, we wish to comment upon the public consultation of October 14. We were very disappointed in the format of this "consultation." Instead of soliciting our feedback, we were given a series of presentations. Presenters and city staff were neither able nor willing to answer many of the questions that came from the audience. This apparent disregard for public input suggests that city staff is putting the demands of the developers ahead of the wishes of the public.

As to the proposed site plan, we do not feel there is enough information to fully understand the scope and magnitude of the proposed plan. One attendee of the consultation requested that the city provide a to-scale 3-d model of the site proposal and surrounding area; we second this request. We are concerned about the height of many of the buildings proposed. They do not fit within the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood. The impact of traffic on streets surrounding the site (traffic due to new residents, shoppers and event attendees) has not been adequately addressed. The 240 proposed residential units along Holmwood alone is more than triple the number of units currently in existence along Holmwood, O'Connor and Adelaide combined. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children, is at risk due to the increased traffic flow around the site.

Regarding the Ottawa Farmer's Market - this has been one of the few high points of the Lansdowne site over the past few years. Reducing the area allocated to the market by half will limit future growth of the market. Furthermore, cramming the stalls together into such a compact space may prevent many vendors that require large trailers with refrigeration units from attending.

Finally, we are concerned for both historic buildings on the Lansdowne site. Despite the wishes of the urban park design firm, the Horticultural Building will be moved from its current location. As to the Aberdeen pavilion, the new development encroaches upon it from two sides and site lines do not appear to be preserved (glimpses through alleyways between buildings do not count as sightlines). In fact, given the height of buildings proposed along Holmwood, it appears that it will be impossible to see the Aberdeen pavilion at all from the North side.

As residents of the surrounding neighbourhood we are not opposed to revitalization of the Lansdowne site. However, we are opposed to development that is out of character with the existing community. Further, thus far, the city does not appear to be interested nor responsive to citizens concerns regarding this development.

I am one of the many that viewed the slides at the recent public presentation at Lansdowne. All the prepared slides masked the fact that huge towers are being planned for Holmwood and for the base of the Bank Street bridge.

My husband and I are very opposed to these towers. The thrust of the whole Lansdowne plan was to maintain the main street that exists along Bank Street in the Glebe and Ottawa South. These towers are totally out of place given the surrounding communities. Some height (lower than proposed) may work near the bridge but the Holmwood tower is totally wrong.

And how did the square footage of the retail plan increase by such a huge amount? The Glebe BIA was very clear that the original amount was too high, and now look what has happened.

Please ensure that these concerns are added to whatever report goes to Council.

I am furious at the City for allowing the developer to abolish or restrict the size of the existing park, and for obscuring the site lines of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

My view is that City Staff has lost its ability to provide solid, objective planning advice. The traffic problems on Bank are already impossible. I ask that you take a drive down Bank Street at 5 pm on a night when there is a 67"s game. You might benefit from a quick reality check.

I'm surprise to hear that there will be an other round of consultation. Will these be held in the same format then the previous "public consultation" sessions? By that I mean, will individual voices be heard or is this mainly a sell job on the part of the city?

Some of my questions that remained un-answered by O’Brien and friends are;

Is council evaluation the Lansdowne Park Conservancy proposal?

Why are we not receiving any support from the Feds or Provincial government for this project?

If Lansdowne wasn't built on Bank St., would it not make sense to build the stadium at Bayview?

What will our tax dollars buy us other then big box stores and subsidize condo living for the rich and powerful? Shouldn't it be put to better use?

I wish I could put a stop payment on my taxes as I don't want to fatten the pockets of O’Brien and his friends....hope you can understand.

Looking forward to your input

Could you let me know (keep me up to date on) how one could get in a line-up to purchase a home in the new development?

Attached are a number of deficiencies that need to be addressed. The councillors need to do a better job at looking at the details and asking questions when things don't look right. Otherwise, you aren't going to get what you voted on. It's funny how the initial pretty architectural pictures of pedestrians waking down flowered walkways morph into two lane access roads when you aren't looking. It is a bit like money; stop looking at it and it disappears. Good luck, we all need it.

Confirmation Number: P773433

References:

1) * Application Summary Lansdowne Park Site Plan D07-12-10-0220

Application Summary Lansdowne Park Site Plan D07-12-10-0220; (84 Kb)

2) * Environmental Site Assessment Phase I D07-12-10-0220 Environmental

Site Assessment Phase I D07-12-10-0220; (74 M)

3) * Lansdowne - Landscape Plan D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne - Landscape

Plan D07-12-10-0220; (903 Kb)

4) * Lansdowne - Parking Levels Plan D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne - Parking

Levels Plan D07-12-10-0220; (501 Kb)

5) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Report - Figure 1 - SAN D07-12-10-0220

Lansdowne - Site Servicing Report - Figure 1 - SAN D07-12-10-0220; (1 M)

6) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Plan 1 - Existing D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne -

Site Servicing Plan 1 - Existing D07-12-10-0220; (1 M)

7) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Plan 2 - SSP D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne -

Site Servicing Plan 2 - SSP D07-12-10-0220; (888 Kb)

8) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Plan 3 - Grading D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne -

Site Servicing Plan 3 - Grading D07-12-10-0220; (735 Kb)

9) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Plan 4 - SWM D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne -

Site Servicing Plan 4 - SWM D07-12-10-0220; (1 M)

10) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Report - Figure 2 -SWM D07-12-10-0220

Lansdowne - Site Servicing Report - Figure 2 -SWM D07-12-10-0220; (686 Kb)

11) * Lansdowne - Site Servicing Report2 D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne - Site

Servicing Report2 D07-12-10-0220; (13 M)

12) * Lansdowne - Technical Plan D07-12-10-0220 Lansdowne - Technical

Plan D07-12-10-0220; (1 M)

13) * Overview 2 Stage Site Plan Approval Process D07-12-10-0220 Overview

2 Stage Site Plan Approval Process D07-12-10-0220; (91 Kb)

14) * Planning Rationale D07-12-10-0220 Planning Rationale D07-12-10-0220;

(1 M)

15) * Statement of Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment D07-12-

10-0220 Statement of Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment D07-12-

10-0220; (11 M)

16) * Transportation Impact Study D07-12-10-0220 Transportation Impact

Study D07-12-10-0220; (18 M)

17) Google Sat View Billings Bridge Plaza.

18) Mixed Retail and Office info http://www.20vic.com/retail.html

Issues:

1) The site currently comprises predominately a surface parking area

accommodating approximately 2,200 parking spots (*1). Current proposed

below-grade parking for approximately 1,300 vehicles (*1). Many of the

parking locations will be reserved for retail, office, hotel and residential units.

That only makes sense if these are to be commercially viable.

One just needs to look at Billings Bridge Shopping Mall for a comparison to

see that this number is considerable. Counting the parking spaces at the front

and sides of Billings Bridge shows (*17) that there is approximately 700 spaces

(non-government spaces). This ignores the further 425 parking spaces behind

the mall. Then you add in the office space and hotel and residential.

Q: How many parking spaces will be available for Stadium, Rink, and

Convention type activities? It is going to be well below 600 right? But, how

many?

Q: The initial proposal had overflow parking on the "front lawn" for 350 cars.

How is that going to be incorporated? Why is it not shown?

Q: Will the storm water tank under the "front lawn" be sized to handle the load

for cars when the extra parking is needed.

2) I see nothing in the summary (*1) about the initial plan for a design

competition being cancelled by city and the authority under which this was

done. This should be clearly stated.

3) A public square (Aberdeen Square) north of the Aberdeen pavilion that would

accommodate the necessary space and facility for the Ottawa Farmers

Market and provide opportunities for programming of various other public

events and activities throughout the year that will develop synergies with the

urban park and mixed use area. This public square is located in the area that

was identified as the “overlap area” to achieve integration between the urban

mixed-use and urban park. (*1)

This pubic square is surrounded on all four sides by roadway and is a thin

strip less than 20 m wide. (*3)

Q: How does this space compare with the existing space used by the

Lansdowne farmer's market? Considering that it is surrounded by road, can

this space be fully utilized? Do you consider an island surrounded by traffic

pedestrian friendly?

4) On the Landscape Plan (*3) adjacent to building J1 the "Access down to

South Parking" ramp (*4) is not shown. That will change the traffic flow.

It is not clear that the entrance to parking level P2 is going to be off of

Holmwood under building A2 (*4). It needs to be clearly shown.

It appears that (*4) shows a Hotel delivery entrance to the "To Stadium

Access Laneway" at the P1 level. This does not show up on landscaping

dwg. (*3). (*1) says : The current second access from the QED, closer to the

Bank Street Bridge, would also be retained. It is misleading to not show this

connection as it changes many traffic routing, pedestrian and bicycle access

considerations.

As a general note - both parking level plan (*4) and landscaping plan (*3) do a

substandard job of showing entrance and exits from the underground parking

areas. Clarity is lacking here and the City should be demanding a better job

from the engineers and architects.

5) What protection is there for the existing bicycle path from Bank St to the canal

on the east side of the bridge? Nothing is shown.

6) In (*1) it states: … below-grade parking for approximately 1,300 vehicles… .

Shortly after it states (*1): Approximately 1350 below grade parking spaces…

This is a minor problem, but shows that the summary was sloppily put

together.

7) One of the major problems with the current layout is the lack of parking on

site. Why isn't the area under the stadium field being used? Several hundred

more cars could be fit under there.

8) The building heights 14, 14, 8 and 16 stories are ludicrous along Bank Street.

No other buildings are that high until you get to Billings Bridge Plaza. If you

want to put buildings in attach them to the south side stands and forget the

fancy veil. Why weren't the street views along Bank and Holmwood

presented to show us the heights and sightlines. Surely someone has

thought about this?

9) Early in the design process the architects provided some nice drawings of

people walking down a lane with outdoor cafes, flowers in planters on the

walkway and boutiques along the side. In the background was the west

façade of the Cattle Palace. All very nice. Looking at the Landscape Plan

(*3) this pedestrian area has now morphed into a 2 lane access road. The

councillors really need to have a look to see that they are going to get what

they voted on.

10) What is the yearly budget for keeping the "green" part of the park maintained

along with things like the outdoor curling rinks? Has this been included as

part of the yearly operating costs and who will be paying for it?

11) I'm now on page 6 of the summary (*1) and I've seen conflicting numbers

about underground parking, but no numbers about above ground parking.

From what I can on (*3) there may be 20 or so.

What I find very surprising (stunning) is that there is no comment about:

a) Number of seats in the stadium - 29,000

b) Number of seats in the civic center - 10,000

c) Outdoor amphitheatre - 2,000-seat

d) How many Hotel units?

e) How many Retail Square Feet? How many people?

f) How many Office Square Feet? How many people?

g) How many Housing Units?

The numbers just don't work. Currently there are 2,200 parking spots and

there is no Retail, Office, Housing or Hotel. This plan is to have 1300 spots of

which will be reduced to maybe 600 parking spots once you remove the ones

for the Retail, Office, Housing and Hotel.

So on a cold day in January when there is a 67's game or a major ringette

tournament or something else that fills the 10,000 seats in the in the Civic

Center, what are you going to do? You have 70% less parking spots than is

currently there. People are going to ride their bikes?

There is lots about process in the documents, but very little common sense.

12) As an example of how poor the documentation is the first information about

the size of this project is buried in the Recommendations and Conclusions

section of the of Site Servicing Report (*11)!! Yes, the site servicing report

about sewers…

So here it is:

Furthermore, the design plan will include

19,033m2 of retail and (204,655 sq ft)

12,000m2 office space, (129,032 sq ft)

256 residential apartment units,

23 residential townhouse units, and …

Nothing about Hotel? Hmm, I wonder if Hotel has been forgotten, or if the

"residential apartment units" are really the Hotel. Sloppy.

Now we can go back to point 1) above and do a better comparison about

parking.

From (*18):

Billings Bridge

Total Leasable Area: 488,426 sq ft (45,400 m2)

Retail Area : 341,676 sq ft ( 31,700 m2)

Office Area : 146,750 sq ft (13,600 m2)

Total Parking Spaces : 1,341

BRENT WOOD TOWN CENTRE

Total Retail Space 539,159 sq ft

Total Parking Spaces : 2000

CARLINGWOOD SHOPPING CENTRE

Total Retail Space 525,934 sq ft

Total Parking Spaces : 2400

LANSDOWNE PLACE (Peterborough)

Total Retail Space 436,267 sq ft

Total Parking Spaces : 2,200

HALIFAX SHOPPING CENTRE ANNEX

Total Leasable Area: 419,776 sq ft

Retail Area : 365,930 sq ft

Office Area : 53,846 sq ft

Total Parking Spaces : 2,200

HALIFAX SHOPPING CENTRE

Total Leasable Area: 641,585 sq ft

Retail Area : 527,447 sq ft

Office Area : 114,138 sq ft

Total Parking Spaces : 2,456

WESTBROOK MALL

Total Leasable Area: 398,777 sq ft

Retail Area : 346,616 sq ft

Office Area : 52,161 sq ft

Total Parking Spaces : 2,350

Using Regression analysis on the above data you can predict the need for

parking based on the amount of office and retail space.

The results show:

Lansdowne

Results

Required Parking

For Mall and

Office

Coefficients Sq. ft.

Retail

(sq. ft)

0.004678 204,655 957

Office

(sq. ft.)

0.000626 129,032 81

1038

Therefore, for only the Mall and Office it would normally require 1038 parking

locations.

So, how many parking locations are available for the Stadium (29,000 seats),

Civic Centre Rink (10,000 seats), Civic Centre Show Area, or Outdoor

amphitheatre (2,000 seat)?

Proposed underground parking 1,300 vehicles

Minus

Reserved for Hotel 256 units * 75% = 192 vehicles

Reserved for 23 Residential units = 23

Required for Mall = 957

Required for Office = 81

Parking Locations available for other venues at Lansdowne

(stadium, civic centre, amphitheatre)

Available = 47 parking locations during office hours - (9-5pm) weekdays

Available = 128 parking locations during Mall Hours - Weekends and

Evenings

Clearly this is complete stupidity and the underground parking has only been

sized for the Mall, Office and Hotel with NO other thought given to other events

taking place.

Lansdowne is also very different from Billings Bridge Mall as Billings is

integrated into the transit way.

It is a complete fallacy to think that people will walk or bicycle to Lansdowne

in the eight coldest months of the year.

13) There are major deficiencies in this project that need to be addressed. If any

part of it fails for whatever reason and the expected revenue is not realized,

then who is going to be paying for the shortfall? It is going to be the group

that gets paid last in this partnership and that is the City. In my opinion this is

doomed to fail to pay its way and the taxpayers will have a large liability on its

hands. The small shortfall that currently exists (revenue - costs) will seem

like peanuts.

14) I've spent enough time on this when I should be working. It makes me

ashamed to think that this project has got so far without city staff or city

councillors asking some easy questions after performing a simple sniff test.

And this project doesn't smell pretty. Just follow the money, baby

It was very difficult to get an idea of what the site will actually look like. The little snippets, without the surrounding neighborhood are not useful. It is very unsatisfactory to have cars going through the park, from Bank Street, almost all the way to the Aberdeen pavilion. The Farmer's Market area is too small and we would like it to be permanent, not shared with other activities. Where is bike parking? You need a lot of space if you hope to attract them to major events. High-rises and their accompanying wind tunnels will make walking along Bank Street unpleasant. Sad loss of views of the Aberdeen Pavilion from Bank and Holmwood. Way, way too much "mixed use." I feel for the Bank Street merchants and Holmwood residents.

Confirmation Number: P64520

Site Plan for Lansdowne does not respect the character of the Old Ottawa South, Old Ottawa East & Glebe neighbourhoods and is inconsistent with the City's Official Plan in particular with respect to Traditional Main Streets. Buildings of 14 and 16 stories do not currently exist in these neighbourhoods and are far higher than the standards set in the Official Plan. In addition, the density proposed for the mixed-use residential/commercial area is far too high and completely out of character with surrounding neighbourhoods.

Confirmation Number: P719868

The Preliminary Stage 1 Site Plan for Lansdowne Park is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Period. The Site Plan embodies many critical defects and fatal errors: ➢ Insufficient green space for recreational activities and inadequate open areas for public events and gatherings in the Urban Park; ➢ On-site circulation that conflicts with pedestrian and public uses in the park and requires inappropriately high volume of vehicle traffic and public transit on the adjoining NCC scenic driveway; ➢ Neat sustainability features (LEED buildings, stormwater management) that fall short of mitigating the key issue of carbon footprint of planned land uses; ➢ Oblivion to sightlines to the Aberdeen Pavilion and failure to envision uses that respect the historic values of heritage buildings; ➢ Inappropriate residential development that obliterates an existing City park and conflicts with the residential character of the adjoining neighbourhood; ➢ Overly costly renovations (at taxpayers expense) to an old Stadium and Civic Centre for financially-risky sports events and entertainment enterprises; ➢ Grossly excessive commercial development for private profit on public land. The City of Ottawa should simply disapprove this site plan for Lansdowne Park.

Confirmation Number: P566525

Lansdowne Park Phase 1 Site Plan We are totally against the flawed plan, that proposes renovations to the existing stadium complex, a new urban mixed use area for the northwest sector of the site and along Bank Street and a new urban park along the Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Canal Corridor. The sole sourcing has produced a totally unrealistic plan that will negatively impact the residents as well as cost the City and its taxpayers a huge sum with little risk or cost to the developers involved. Indeed the sole sourcing has been criticized by the Province and is in contrast to good governance.

Confirmation Number: P605869

Our overall observation of the site plan is that it tries to do too much, filling the site with

too many features and therefore not meeting any of the needs well. The actual amount of

open free green park space, for example, has been greatly reduced with too much taken

up with roadways, bus loops, parking entries, paved “porches”, etc.

There also appears to be insufficient integration of the three areas – stadium, urban park

and mixed use/retail, and not enough space between them.

The overall plan for Bank Street is overwhelming with two towers that are completely out

of place. The shopping areas and housing are too dense and the proposed housing on

Holmwood overshadows existing housing and eliminates green space.

In general, it appears that the design itself and locations and density of all components are

all driven by the business plan rather than an overall vision for Lansdowne. If this

business plan is not viable without all this development, then it should be rejected or

significantly modified.

Finally, the proposed underground parking together with the storm water system and

cistern take up most of the site. Imagine the excavation needed for this over the next three

years and the impact this will have on the local communities.

The plan is quite different from what was shown to the public earlier this year, and there

is no indication as to why the above changes have been made without public consultation

or council approval.

Our detailed comments and recommendations are as follows:

Urban – Mixed Use Area

As noted above, the design of the mixed use area appears to be driven primarily by the

Business Plan - loading up the area with commercial space to make it viable OSEG. This

is not good public policy. A public vision and good design should drive the Business Plan

– not vice versa.

1. The two corner towers on Bank Street far too tall

⇒ They are out of character with rest of Bank Street – far too high – there is nothing

this high between Billings Bridge and Laurier.

⇒ They will produce a “canyon” effect on Bank Street that will destroy any benefits

from widening of roadway.

⇒ They will overwhelm and shade Bank Street and destroy the views of Rideau

Canal, NCC lands, and Aberdeen Pavilion from the Bank Street Bridge

We Recommend:

⇒ That the Bank@ Holmwood tower limited to 7 stories (like Lord Lansdowne)

⇒ That the tower at Canal eliminated and replaced by low rise building

containing the Ottawa Art Centre

2. Vehicles are now being allowed into the retail area through the two road loop and

across to the QED, when previously they were not:

⇒ Having two full roadways limits the size and spacing of pedestrian courtyards and

plazas

⇒ Having two 2 lane roads will mean a narrower space close to Stadium which will

limit the view of Aberdeen Pavilion from Bank Street.

⇒ Vehicles will affect air quality in retail area.

⇒ Roads will encourage more car use and cause more car congestion.

⇒ The dense spacing forces residential townhouses along Holmwood far too close to

road destroying the green space.

⇒ Stacked buildings behind the townhouses are too high and too close to

Holmwood. Existing homes on Holmwood will be overwhelmed and shaded in

winter

⇒ Vehicles entering the site on Holmwood will restrict access for residents.

We Recommend:

⇒ Removing vehicles from both “roadways” and its connector road in front

of Aberdeen Pavilion – replacing them with drop off loop for retail and

stadium at Bank Street entry

⇒ Replacing the northern “roadway” with single more spacious plazas, lanes

and courtyards, bringing all buildings fronting Holmwood further south to

retain green set back on Holmwood

⇒ Widening the remaining “roadway” near stadium into a pedestrian

boulevard

⇒ The result will be a more spacious and pleasant space.

3. There will be too much traffic coming in off Bank Street (especially delivery trucks

and retail users)

⇒ Current access from Bank Street is bad enough – the plan will just produce chaos

⇒ The link to QED from Bank Street west of the Bank Street bridge is far from

adequate now – and will completely fail in the new scheme.

We Recommend:

⇒ Adding a road connection between Bank and QED to the east of the Bank

Street bridge to take the pressure off the west side one (it could be placed in

a tunnel through the new berm.

⇒ Add a new entry to the underground garage located under the Bank Street

bridge from QED.

⇒ Scaling back the tower at the bridge to a low rise would allow both of

these changes.

⇒ Most car traffic should be encouraged to use the two QED entries for the

retail and stadium parking

Urban Park:

1. Aberdeen Square is too small and too multi-purpose to satisfy any purpose and is cut

off from the rest of the Park.

⇒ The roadway across the square reduces size and limits use and safety and link to

Aberdeen Pavilion

⇒ The square is not big enough for the Farmers Market – in fact no space has been

allocated for a permanent summer expansion of the market.

⇒ Moving the Horticulture building will cut off square from other Park areas with

which it need to be more integrated

We Recommend:

⇒ Leave Horticulture Building where it is making Aberdeen Square larger and

connected to into urban park

⇒ Remove roadway and replace with small drop off circle at its east end

⇒ Eliminate buildings to the North of the square so there is good connection and

main entry from Holmwood/O’Conner.

2. There is too much vehicle access and bus loops from QED into urban park:

⇒ The main entry to parking and the two bus loops take up a lot of space; they limit

the size of park; and destroy its versatility and free green space – e.g. miniscule

heritage orchard.

⇒ Traffic entering parking cuts off existing park areas (Sylvia Holden) from the new

ones and takes up space

⇒ The proposed bus loops limit size and scope of green features

We Recommend:

⇒ Moving the QED entry to underground parking garage much closer to the

QED so it goes underground under the park

⇒ Remove both bus loops and replace them with an underground bus loop using

the same QED entry point (doubled in size) as the parking entrance.

I wonder why the passing of this plan has to be rushed through by the present council, when the new council will have already been elected and will take office two weeks later than the first scheduled meeting and only a week after the second. Shouldn't the newly-elected council make these decisions? What's the rush? I have serious concerns about the height of the two towers on Bank Street. From the original 7-12 storeys proposed in the June presentation, already too high, they have grown to 20 storeys, to tower over the surrounding 2-6 storey buildings and dwarf the senior residence, which, incidentally, was refused permission to build higher. Why, then, is it OK now to have TWO buildings taller than their original request? None of the drawings presented show the full height of these buildings in relation to the surrounding structures, a serious defect in the plans. As to slim and tall being preferable to short and squat, how can we compare when we have no representation of either plan? Squat, but not short enough, seems to be fine for the condos behind Holmwood. The scale of development shown has grown since June and the 20-storey towers and 10-storey condos will dwarf the Aberdeen Pavilion and interfere with sightlines. Shouldn't we wait until permission has or has not been granted for encroachment on the easement and moving the horticultural building, along with a neutral engineering study on the structural viability of moving this beautiful building, definitely destroying its heritage status and possibly destroying the building itself? With the increased number of condos proposed, access planned from Holmwood, a definite plan for truck access off Bank, plus a plan for 6 lanes on Bank, shrinking to 4 & 2 on either side of Lansdowne, shouldn't a new traffic study be commissioned, and maybe this one could include the truck traffic generated by the increased size of the commercial area and the possibility of even greater bottlenecks as traffic expands and merges in a very short distance, particularly in the already heavily used Old Ottawa South section? The original plan was incomplete and with this plan it is obsolete. Vehicular traffic is now allowed all through the development, where it was originally proposed as a pedestrian precinct. This changes the whole proposal. Through traffic from Bank to the Driveway is now possible. The Farmers’ Market, a huge success story, has shrunk to half its size, but the developer claims there is room for more stalls - we are also assured there are no problems with trucks moving between stalls, or pedestrian movement but how this will actually work is not elaborated on. As in all parts of the plan, "Trust us" seems to be the answer to any request for more detail . Please do the right thing and postpone a decision on this plan until all questions have been satisfactorily answered, all problems completely resolved and a clear idea of how this new development will look and operate, not just pretty pictures, is available to us all. An actual scale model of the site at completion would be an effective way of doing this and would conform to common practice for a development of this size. It should already have been done.

Confirmation Number: P74876

Firstly, I am very concerned with the way this project is being presented to the public, and likely to the City Council as well. The pictures we see are always pretty, and never the same. What is more disturbing is that these pictures and diagrams don't show what will actually be done. Here is one example: Fig. 39 on p. 50 of the Statement of "Cultural Values and Heritage Impact Assessment" pictures a lovely tree-lined pedestrian walkway from Bank St to the Aberdeen Pavilion, between what must be Buildings G1, G2 & H, and Bldg I & the Stadium. The drawing on the "Servicing Site Plan" clearly indicates a roadway to give access to the underground parking entrance in Building H. No pretty tree-lined pedestrian walkway is actually in the plan - was this drawing given to Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd to smooth out their decision to approve this project? Secondly, I am deeply concerned about public access to the sports field during major events. The City Council seems to think that parking for 9,000 cars will be enough for a world class stadium. I do not want to see NHL Football fail for a third time in Ottawa - and if fans can't get to the game easily they will choose to stay home and watch on TV until the team goes bankrupt once again. I want to see a revitalization plan that is practical, not this pie-in-the-sky dreaming. Thirdly: The building at the corner of Bank & Holmwood is MUCH TOO TALL. This city needs to intensify, but this can be done without airdropping enormous towers into the middle of thriving neighbourhoods.

Confirmation Number: P237329

I am very concerned about the traffic gridlock on the Queensway that the development of Lansdowne is ramping up to make a major contribution to. It will make traffic and emergency services management very difficult. The fact that Parliament is less than a mile away makes the RCMP's duties a nightmare in this age of heightened security concerns. The fact that there so much depends on the Queensway which is not a ring road but linear makes this development at the centre with the major sports facility and rail service a real disaster for anyone going east to west or vice versa, or going to the hospital. Fire trucks will have to avoid the Queensway if they want to do their job. At certain times of day that might not be so easy as the Glebe especially on weekends can be totally chocked and will be. Someone needs to address these issues before it is too late.

Confirmation Number: P216949

I would like to send you my comments about the re-development of Lansdowne park. Particularly the residential portion. I am concerned about the height of the buildings as well as to the number of residential units going in. I can only imagine the congestion of buildings on what now sits a beautiful park that is loved and enjoyed by many people young and old. I am worried the sun will be blocked from my front yard especially in the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky. I am concerned about the increase in traffic down Holmwood Ave. with the parking garage coming out onto Holmwood Ave. I am open to Lansdowne being redeveloped but I think this residential plan is just too much. Can you not reconsider the magnitude of what you are planning and scale it down a bit. I feel sorry for the senior citizens who live in the Lord Lansdowne on the corner of Bank Street and Holmwood Ave. Now they have a beautiful view of the canal and then they will have a view of a building in which they can wave hi to the person across the street on the 14th floor. What a shame for them. What a shame for us all to have to lose the green park area, which the city refuses to call a park, one which I personally have organized a Spring Clean the Capital every year for the last five years or more. Ok. If we have to lose the park, can we at least keep the sun? Please, lower the buildings heights. Do you really need to build so many condos? Please listen to the residents that this redevelopment will have the biggest impact on.

Confirmation Number: P460679

One of the stated goals of the stated goals of the Lansdowne projects is to "participate in the rejuvenation of Bank Street as a traditional main street." The current site plan fails to do so. To rejuvenate a traditional main street the development has to conform to the traditional main street zoning guidelines. Anything else encourages further deterioration of the main street. If the city itself cannot conform to its own guidelines, how can it impose the same guidelines on other developers? The chief deviation from traditional main street zoning is building height, which is a maximum of 20 metres. If the city is serious about encouraging traditional main streets. The two towers must be reduced to this height. On the other hand, the grocery store sets a poor example on the other direction, by allowing a single storey building without mixed commercial and residential. All the buildings along Bank should meet traditional main street guidelines. The other break from traditional mainstreet design is the median on Bank Street. Divided lanes are intended highways and throughways, not traditional main streets. If this is to encourage pedestrian traffic the street at this point needs to be narrower and include multiple pedestrian crosswalks. Confirmation Number: P194804

The McCormick Rankin traffic impact report is completely flawed and should be rejected by the City as a reliable document for assessment. It is not clear what information was provided to this consultant, and by who, but it begs the question if this was reality. As an example in section 6.2.2 they suggest a traffic signal at Bank & Third would be a good idea for local traffic use. There has been a signal at this intersection for at least 30 years. Bank Street in the Glebe and Ottawa South is already jamb packed with traffic during rush hour and on most weekends. To suggest that adding the equivalent density of Carlingwood Shopping Mall (400,000sq.ft.) to this area, and expect the traffic to be 'normal' is ridiculous. Carlingwood is serviced on four sides with 16 lanes of traffic and 5 signalized intersections. Lansdowne is serviced by 3 lanes on Bank Street during rush hour with one signalized intersection, and an awkward access to the 2 additional lanes on the Queen Elizabeth Driveway. The Mayor, his supporters, and OSEG can spin this any way they want to, but who in their right mind would think this is acceptable???

Confirmation Number: P273518

I believe it is unfair to residents of Fifth Avenue, Holmwood, O'Connor, and Queen Elizabeth Place to proceed with no road modifications. A new commercial road connecting Queen Elizabeth Driveway to Bank Street would at least help to alleviate and distribute traffic that will otherwise weave through these residential streets to avoid congestion.

Confirmation Number: P719937

The councilors who voted in favor of this proposal have not exercised due diligence to ensure a proper process, have not exercised due diligence to ensure that they have secured a good deal for Ottawa (my understanding is that the nature of the P3 agreement is impossible to understand even for those with experience in reading such agreements), have not exercised due diligence to ensure that their own by-laws are met, and have not exercised due diligence to ensure that the concerns of the affected citizens are sincerely heard. Concerns over transportation, heritage, financing, process, sole-sourcing, and so forth have been perpetually dismissed with no sincere willingness to have such concerns influence their support for the project. The project, if it does indeed go through as it seems it might, will stand as a monument to a tragic undermining of the democratic process. Its a sad moment in this city's history.

Confirmation Number: P583324

Ottawa Site Plan Phase 1 Commentary

Legal

- Basic question – Will Lansdowne be legally considered a public space or a privately controlled space?

- Some examples...

- Will there be a permanent right of public access to the Lansdowne site? Or will the property be controlled and supervised as one would expect a private development to be?

- Will the corporation responsible for the property be able to dictate who uses it? For example would the City still be able to give licences to street vendors on the new streets on the property – or would this occur at the discretion of the corporation?

- Is it possible that the corporation could deny access to members of the public to the Lansdowne property?

Process

- The timelines imposed on this project, the large volume of detailed information and the technical language used in most of the reports and diagrams mean that it will be almost impossible for most citizens to truly understand what is being proposed here – nor the relationship of this information to the this first stage of the site plan control process. A public open house – with a largely hostile community in attendance - is not a good venue to have a proper and open dialogue with the community as a whole.

Parking and Traffic

- The parking study appears to assume it is reasonable for people to walk up to 2km from cars parked in surrounding streets. This is not reasonable. The actual practical capacity of the surrounding streets is likely much less than the several thousand spaces assumed to make up the walking catchment area.

- Many of the visitors to the retail portions of the site will be from the surrounding suburban areas where it is common to drive to shopping centres and park for free within a hundred yards of the front door. On this basis the very first spaces to be used will be the free on-street parking spaces in the neighbourhood – found after 10 or 15 minutes of ‘trolling’ through the surrounding streets.

- It will be very important to develop a comprehensive parking management plan that will mitigate the effects of this project – including street closures, parking permits for residents, traffic calming strategies and the like.

- This study notes that a number of intersections will have a reduced level of performance. I assume this has been deemed to be acceptable, but my personal experience is that traffic on many Saturdays and evenings barely functions on Bank Street. It is very difficult to believe that this street can take more cars – without drastic changes that would destroy the character of Bank Street as a ‘Main street’.

- Children use many of the streets in the surrounding neighbourhoods for play. What is the plan to ensure their safety?

- The concept of satellite parking lots is theoretical. Have the owners of these lots all agreed to this plan?

- What is the plan if the NCC does not agree with the proposed use of Queen Elizabeth Driveway for the majority of cars and buses on the site?

- The report on traffic engineering is technical and limited in scope – it would be very useful for urban design experts to review and comment on the impact of the proposed parking and traffic engineering solution on the quality of the surrounding urban environment.

Heritage

- Heritage experts – independent of the City of Ottawa/OSEG have already publicly and repeatedly noted that the relocation of the Horticulture Building will significantly compromise its heritage value.

- The proposed plan doesn’t address the issue of protected sight lines established by Ontario Heritage Foundation hasn’t been addressed. What is the plan if the Ontario Heritage Trust does not agree to the proposed change?

Building Design

- Basic features of the proposed site development (building massing) are not addressed in the posted information.

- Setback along Holmwood Avenue is not consistent with the general pattern of set-backs on the opposite side of the street. It would appear reasonable to increase the set-back to mitigate the impact of the residential development on the existing neighbours.

- It is likely that many of the properties on the north side of Holmwood will be in permanent shade through the winter months. This is not reasonable.

- There are references to constructing ‘pavilion’ buildings on the site. This pattern of development may end up resembling the free standing buildings that sit in suburban big box parking lots. Each ‘pavilion’ will come with a requirement for garbage removal and loading. These ‘dirty’ service functions will be very difficult to accommodate in a ‘pavilion’ seen in the round.

Site Design

- Roadways and service/fire access lanes between the south stand and the Queen Elizabeth Driveway will divide the open landscaped space into thin slivers – and thereby significantly reduce its use value and appearance as green open public space. The existing path in this area ends up sandwiched between roads.

Confirmation Number: P936333

______________________________________________________________________________

My overall impression of the site plan is positive, in particular the attention given to broad pedestrian walkways. The staggered promenade along Bank St. is a very positive element of the plan that should be kept. I like the central square design, but would prefer to see a more traditional square with buildings and businesses opening directly onto all sides of the square. Two areas of the plan which could use more attention include dedicated cycling facilities including right of way and parking, and pedestrian crossing of QE drive.

Confirmation Number: P550543

I'm most concerned that the roads around Lansdowne are not going to be able to handle the extra traffic. I know the City has done a study that show they can handle it, but there is already gridlock even without the Lansdowne development. I guess it depends on how long you believe people should accept being stuck in the same place. I don't think ordinary people will accept it. I don't think it's fair to put all those buses and regular traffic on Sunnyside. I don't like the fact that the buildings are taller now than I've ever heard in the past. The park is too small and I fear it won't be built due to lack of money. The inundation of new stores is going to damage the existing character of Bank St and the whole neighbourhood. I'm very disappointed that the City plans to turn so much of its (our) own property into private hands. Please provide feedback. I fear these comments will disappear into oblivion as they have in the past.

Confirmation Number: P956189

I attended the public meeting for the Lansdowne Development Site Plan Phase 1 Review. I note on the website that the review is to include transportation, but transportation issues were not presented. Many people had questions about transportation, but were referred to staff standing on the sidelines and the transportation issues were not included in the slide show presentations. I feel this was a great omission. In order to ensure success of the project, the adjacent neighborhoods must be provided with sufficient information. My second concern is that after building the Mixed Use and Stadium projects, the City will have run out of funding and the Urban Park will not be built. Instead, it will be used for additional parking. In order to ensure a successful project, the Urban Park should be included in the first phase of construction.

Confirmation Number: P511779

Lots of people. Poor public transport (no chance of improvement) Not much onsite parking. Therefore residential streets as de facto parking lot for a private development. What a nerve - a disgraceful plan for 21C.

Confirmation Number: P93297

A terrible, terrible idea and plan. Please send this back. Get another plan. We are the nation's capital not a North Dakota shopping mall!

Confirmation Number: P425513

I am really appalled at the way the city has moved this project along and how the project is developing. After a discussion at the official level has been made public, it seems that items of great concerns are being discussed at other venues and "sneaked in" the project e.g. steps to be taken to allow higher buildings, gutting of the size of the Sylvia Holden park, etc., etc. the list is getting longer by the day. I am also appalled at the way the views of our institutions responsible for maintaining our heritage are being ignored. My main points against the current proposal are: - too many buildings - no serious evaluations of the transportation system serving these buildings, - dramatic changes to our heritage buildings (moving of one and not enough perspective on the other) - a disastrous financial deal for the Ottawa citizens which means more taxes for several generations - dramatic increase of the number of businesses bringing an unfair competition to the already established business of the Glebe It is a bad process and a bad project. Let's do it right and have an open competition process which will bring about more considerate and surely better proposals.

Confirmation Number: P556834

The top priority is to TEAR DOWN Frank Clair stadium that used to be primly for football. The reasons why: 1) The CFL does not have a healthy financial future when most of the existing eight teams are losing money. 2) There is less interest on the CFL than ever that CBC no longer broadcast the annual Grey Cup Game. 3) Frank Clair Stadium takes too much space of Lansdowne that become wasted unused land in prime city space. 4) Public transit is inadequate without any nearby rapid transit corridor.

Confirmation Number: P0154

You need to listen to the public prior to the design. In this case the design process and the public consultation are completely divorced from each other. As a facilitator myself who delivered training programs for RMOC's department of planning, I find this process insulting. You need to be honest about your public consultations. What is currently referred to as consultation is fake. This project is wrong-headed on so many ways. This is clearly a developer-driven process with their interests only taken into consideration.

Confirmation Number: P46445

1) Please do not move the Horticulture Building. There are many creative ways to build the proposed development around it and still feature it, while honoring the original intent of its position. 2) The mixed use is fine, but the look of the proposed retail building facades does not say "urban village" to me. Urban, yes, but it looks way too commercial for a "village". Suggestion: less glass, more stone and wood. 3) Stadium looks great. Only criticism is the proposed new building J (Frank Clair Retail). The architect explained that the intent was to "calm" the sight lines to the Aberdeen, and provide a buffer between the stadium metal cantilever and the Victorian Aberdeen elevation. The proposed glass block design falls short on 4 counts: a) It is too abrupt a look to be "calming" b) It intrudes rather than accentuates the sight lines to the Aberdeen Pavilion. c) Again, the primary glass component is out of place in the urban "village" d) It lacks imagination - unlike the brilliant new stadium South Side design, which calls for something equally brilliant and imaginative on the North Side.

Confirmation Number: P594893

1. We were told that we were getting rid of asphalt so we could have green space. Based on the current version of the proposal there is not much green space. Please make more of the area of Lansdowne green. 2. As indicated by one of the members of the Board of Lansdowne Farmers' Market, the space for the market is large enough for 150 stalls. However, it fails to be large enough to allow trucks to deliver produce to the stalls. More space for the market is required in a configuration that allows easy access for the farmers' trucks. In addition there is a need for more space around the stalls for people to mingle. 3. In describing the "Holmwood Edge" much was made of the breaks in this so-called edge. It was even suggested that these breaks would become small parks. To work in this manner these breaks need to be at least twice as wide as currently proposed. In fact, a much larger break is required so that the northern facade of the Aberdeen Pavilion can be seen from points north of Lansdowne. This would also improve the accessibility to the farmers' market, both for the farmers' truck and for shoppers. 4. The two very tall towers at the north west and south west corners of the proposed development are far too large for the park itself and for the neighbourhood in which they are proposed for. They will cast a very long shadow and will generate far too much traffic to be appropriate. They are out of character for the Park and the area that surrounds the park. 5. The north west corner should be left as a park that honors Sylvia Holden. The notion that it is not a park is just ludicrous. There is a sign erected by the City. In addition the park is on the list of Ottawa parks. And benches and other park amenities have been installed by the city. 6. Based on the information available to date it is clear that this development will create major transportation problems. This will have a seriously negative impact on the existing businesses in the area. It is also likely to make the proposed commercial development of Lansdowne unsuccessful as potential customers will avoid Lansdowne for fear of being caught in horrible traffic snarls. That threatens the financial viability of the whole project. Since the rationale for the so-called mixed use development is to help pay for the stadium and football team, it would appear the project is headed for financial failure. That will mean serious tax increases for all Ottawa property tax payers. This project is so flawed it needs to be scrapped and a new more viable plan found.

Confirmation Number: P931485

I attended the Site Plan Review last week and was very unimpressed. The buildings fronting Bank St and Holmwood Ave give a fortress-like impression, cutting the park off from the streetscape even more so than it is today. The pictures and diagrams offered very limited views of what would be seen from the immediate neighbourhood, but it looks like except in very specific places the appearance would be one of a great wall of glass and steel. The diagrams seemed designed to trick the eye rather than to inform. The density is far out of proportion to the surrounding area and to the capacity of the road network. The green areas are criss-crossed by roads and hard surfaces and to me look nothing like what was in the design competition. The Horticulture building has been moved, and we were assured that this was not to happen during the design competition. The space reserved for public uses such as for the Farmer's Market is woefully inadequate. The design, what one could see of it from the limited diagrams available, appears to be boring glass and steel boxes that are totally out of character with the existing structures and the surrounding streetscape. Far from being a unique destination, this is just another boring shopping mall, only this time on a public park. This design to my eye utterly fails to achieve the objectives laid out in the proposal.

Confirmation Number: P5437

I was reviewing the plans in the lobby at City Hall today and discussed a few things with a member of the public. We both agreed that it is unfortunate that the NCC could not see fit to add a Ritz-style restaurant overlooking the canal as part of this project. As an aside, I am representing the City on a Parks Canada-led landscape strategy which will likely be looking at identifying future natural and people places along the entire route. So, if we can't get a Ritz 2 now, perhaps the plan could be designed to accommodate one later. A suggestion would be to extend the central spine plaza to the canal now and add the restaurant through NCC processes later. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Confirmation Number: P419977

pls let me know the deadline for comments

Confirmation Number: P671390

I believe that building K is much to close to the southern limit of the Par and too close to the Bank Street bridge. The site plan architectural renderings are neglecting to show that this 16 stories building will encroach upon 1/3 to 1/2 of the bridge's north span and thus obstructing any visual appreciation of the grounds.

Confirmation Number: P7717

I think the new roadways are not very pedestrian-friendly. Plus the planned development in the NW corner is too much commercial development for the site.

Confirmation Number: P800646

Dear City of Ottawa Mayor and Councillors: Re: Lansdowne Park: This design proposal is terrible. We need to reject the sole-source OSEG / Lansdowne Partnership Plan completely. Any sole-source proposal is unacceptable. And we need to restart the competitive process by holding a National Design Ideas Competition for the ENTIRE 40 acres of Lansdowne Park. .

Confirmation Number: P652233

Congratulations to OSEG team, architects, and others involved in pulling together a fabulous multi-functional site plan for the Lansdowne property! Thank you to all the representatives who took the time to speak to participants at the Thursday evening event in spite of the many rude and obnoxious residents who set out to disrupt the sessions. There is one consideration I would like to submit regarding the stadium stands. Please consider the pitch of the stands to allow maximum viewing potential for all the seats. I have attended sporting events in several Canadian cities and seating in venues like Ivor Wynne (Hamilton) and Percival Molson (Montreal) stadiums offer better viewing than the Rogers Center in Toronto or the Olympic Stadium in Montreal. The seating at the latter two facilities has people sitting too far away from the on field action which results in a feeling of detachment from the event. I would also encourage Council to establish an art gallery at this site to showcase the city art collection including the pieces from the Firestone collection that was given to the city. There are so many positives associated with the plan, the new stadium is beautiful, integrating the site with the canal and NCC land works so well and provides for a substantial increase in greenspace, farmers' market, the artwork which serves multiple purposes is very creative and the new building construction showcasing modern design creates an exciting tension with the older majesty of the Aberdeen Pavilion. It is very obvious that a great deal of thought and research was given to all of the site plan details. I learned a tremendous amount from the experts at the event and gained a deeper appreciation for their passion for excellence in design. I am looking forward to the successful return of the CFL to Ottawa. Bravo!!! Linda

Confirmation Number: P233397

I will keep it brief and direct: All my comments relate to the mixed development aspects: 1. The design for city scape and street scape along Bank Street is jagged and not integrated in form or in style to the Glebe urban fabric. Examples of better sensitivity are found on the other side of the Canal Bridge (new construction) or even the recent addition to Preston Street, Preston Square. This is not the place to prominently display a food store at the formal entrance to a public area and axis to the Aberdeen Pavilion. 2. The axis to the Aberdeen Pavilion from Bank Street is part of a reserved space and right of way protected by the Ontario Heritage Trust. That the city is even entertaining reducing this right of way and allowing encroachment by the commercial development is totally wrong. Commercial development will always ask for more. They did see the reserves when they applied for their scheme. They should abide by them. In fact any reduction takes away the full view of the historic pavilion. 3. There is considerable car traffic expected on that same central spine entry from Bank Street, and a parking entrance is provided there. This should be a pedestrian axis like Sparks street with cafes and the like. Cars should not be there. 4. The residential and mixed section closer to existing housing is unimaginatively plunked there in fact generating simply another street block. No imagination in that rectilinear design. What are we doing, just rezoning public land for private use? 5. The illustrated architecture does not recall any Ottawa style or material. We need to have an architectural control mechanism, or anything can be built there, at the lowest cost to the developer. 5. While not directly related to the mixed use scheme, traffic issues are not resolved, no matter what the consultants say. "Event days" will be a problem.

Confirmation Number: P2825

I attended the open house on Oct 14 to get information on the site plan and the site plan application. The dwgs presented showed very little concrete information. There were no bldg hts. and no bldg area stats so it was very hard to get a feel for the scale of the bldgs. After today reading on the web site the description of the bldgs proposed for the Holmwood edge ie 3 to 4 stories with another 4 to 6 floors set back for a total ht. of 7 to 10 stories. This is not in scale with the bldgs on the exiting street. The 4 stories without the added 4 to 6 stories would be much more in scale and would allow solar access to the residents of Holmwood. The 16 storey office bldg is much higher than any other bldg in that area. A set of sections through the site would have been helpful as would a site axonometric so that the scale of the complex could be understood and how it relates to the scale of the surrounding area. Given that this plan requires new zoning designations it would have been very helpful to have had the proposed zoning document at the presentation for review it was not available and I was asked to search council minutes for it. Again not a very good way of providing information to the public who were asked to come to get information on the proposed plan. I am not against development but to make an informed choice about a proposed plan good information is required. This was not the case at the Oct 14 open house.

Confirmation Number: P314778

I attended the public meeting on October 14th and was part of the generally skeptical, or downright hostile, reaction to the Stage 1 Site Plan. The fundamental problem is not with the pretty pictures or the heart-warming hypothetical programming (with no indication of who is paying for it). The problem is one of credibility. Local residents assume that the developers are in charge and that whatever is done - the good, the bad and the ugly - will be driven by profits, rather than by the public interest. The good news is that the developers are no doubt sincere about wanting to sell condos and rent out commercial space, so they will be designed to be attractive to potential customers. I was also pleased to see that the existing City park land to the northeast is excluded from the site plan, reducing the risk that it will be privatized or paved over, and that the NCC lands also appear unaffected. The bad news is that the developers are unlikely to care about the existing or future public uses on the site, unless there is some benefit to them. That leads to concern that the farmers market, the Horticulture Building and the Aberdeen Pavilion are being given short shrift. Worse yet, the supposed urban park, conveniently deferred to the end of the construction schedule, is likely to remain a parking lot. The really ugly news is what cannot be seen on the site plan – the impact of the project on the surrounding neighbourhoods. The nature of that impact depends largely on the commercial part of the development. We are asked to believe that the development will be an urban village - a prettified version of the Byward Market. If it relied primarily on local customers, such a development would suck the lifeblood out of the urban villages we already have north and south of Lansdowne. However, it seems more likely that we will end up with a cuter version of Billings Bridge or South Keys – a regional mall with big box stores, lots of surface parking, and high weekend and evening automobile volumes, not to mention truck traffic. The Stage 1 Site Plan lacks credibility because it does not show where the parking is going to be and how the traffic is going to flow to and from the site. In due course, we will no doubt be told that some very unappealing solutions are necessary. Will the “urban park” remain a parking lot? Will traffic flow be expedited by removing on-street parking from Bank or from residential streets such as Holmwood and Fifth? Or are the ominous references to a historical connection to Elgin Street a prelude to gouging a wider approach route along O'Connor or Queen Elizabeth? Local residents have no confidence that the City will protect the interests either of the surrounding neighbourhoods or of taxpayers across the City. Moreover, we assume that the pretty pictures we are being shown are the lipstick on the pig, while the pig itself is either hidden from view or waiting in the wings until later. If that leads to a rather hostile tone at public meetings, you should hardly be surprised.

Confirmation Number: P30296

I have a number of comments; I was truly shocked and dismayed that the city has deemed it 'acceptable' that this development will diminish the functionality of Glebe intersections from an existing 'A' level (as reported by the McCormick Rankin Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and Transportation Demand Management Plan) to 'D' and 'E' functionality. I am also still looking for the public document from June that transparently indicates that the vehicular traffic from the residential portion of the development is directed onto a one-way (eastbound) city local roadway, Holmwood Avenue; essentially doubling the peak traffic on this small street. This does not appear to have been communicated with the local community and residents, who are directly affected by these design decisions, in consultative manner at all. In connection with the above issue is the lack of a proper description of where the condominium residents will park. The Site Plan Control drawings indicate that residential parking is in the large 1000+ parking garage; this leads to the assumption that game attendees and commercial shoppers would also be exiting onto Holmwood Avenue. This needs to be clarified. All of the photos in the slide show by the architects of the mixed use showed examples of two-four storey residential units with beautiful blue sky behind them, whereas the development along Holmwood will have 7 plus storeys directly attached onto the back of the townhouses. Why were there no images shown of this type of development to give the public a truthful image of what this will actually look like. Where are the precedents in Ottawa for this type of densification along a residential (mostly single family homes) one-way street? Where are the shadow and sun studies? and, Who reads these? Who answers these? How are these public concerns actioned by the city?

Confirmation Number: P37537

A large percentage of the promised green space has been converted to service roads, emergency lanes, shuttle management, and parking. This plan does not reflect the vision or the promises that were made at previous meetings. The site plan must be changed or the process restarted. The children accessible park space along Holmwood is eliminated and there is no equivalent space provided in the plan. Holmwood traffic must be re-evaluated based on condominium access volumes.

Confirmation Number: P276700

At the public consultation last night I was most impressed by the presentation by the Lansdowne Park Conservancy of maintaining 100 per cent park at zero cost to the taxpayer. While the City's proposed new stadium design seems OK, I and still troubled by the double problems of parking and accessibility. A grand-scale stadium would be better located at Bayview, say. And the encroaching commercial office towers and condos have no place in this special public space.

Confirmation Number: P239821

I was very disappointed and discouraged at the Oct. 14 meeting. It was really a series of lectures and pretty pictures. However the pictures did show how dense the commercial and residential components are. Do you think that people will really want to live on a shopping mall? The fact that there was no session on transportation, one of the most important issues related to the development, is outrageous. I can't believe that city staff feel comfortable promoting such a flawed proposal. 14 councillors have never had the courtesy to listen to the logical, sound arguments that many groups have presented. They have simply rubber-stamped the developers' plans. Above all, the city has never explained clearly to all Ottawa taxpayers the huge tax implications of this unsolicited proposal.

Confirmation Number: P551845

We attended the "Mixed Use: Residential and Commercial breakout presentation (1) on the Stage 1 Site Plan for Lansdowne last night. This session was far to short 45 minutes which was to include a 20 minute presentation at the beginning. This was fractured by numerous questions that disrupted the flow and quality of the presentation. It did not allow the presenters to complete their presentation (Mr. Hobin was cut short) and did not allow sufficient time for questions from the audience. If fact, one woman dominated the brief question period with concerns about whether she would be able to drive around the site in her car. In addition, there were no three D models or any presentation materials that would allow anyone to clearly understand and appreciate the "feel" and or the impacts of the proposed 2 high-rise commercial residential buildings and the residential development on Holmwood would have on the current North East and West sight lines to the Aberdeen Pavilion, the wall and shadow effects on residences on the north side of Holmwood nor exactly where the parking entrance/exit for the residences was located on Holmwood. Further, given there were no models, it was impossible to determine how and if the proposed residential component on Holmwood Avenue South would blend in with the existing residences on the North side of Holmwood Avenue. It is our view, that if you really want meaningful input, mock-ups of the building proposed for this component as well as all others on the Lansdowne site are required. A second session of public consultations must be conducted with models where there is sufficient time for presenters and audience to fully understand was is being proposed and to participate in an open and rigorous dialogue process. In addition, a separate session with City planners and the architects should be held with the residences of the north side of Holmwood as we are the folks that are going to be impacted the most by all the developments at Lansdowne. We hope our comments will in fact encourage the City to conduct a second more comprehensive public consultation process to get meaningful input on the Stage 1 site design.

Confirmation Number: P714673

Driving and parking on bank st and area is already severely congested - we can see this every single week. This is so evident that there is no doubt the congestion is past acceptable in the current state. There is no way a mall and stadium can thrive with such conditions. People will not attend without proper transportation. The plan will fail in many ways, but this aspect is simply past question. The plan should be halted until the driving and access situation is resolved. and by the way there was a tiny bit of rain the other day and severe congestion happened along the QE driveway, on Bronson, on bank, etc. Clearly the traffic report is flawed and not reliable. Please do not proceed until you resolve this issue in a credible way.

Confirmation Number: P812211

I am unable to attend the public consultation tonight, due to exhaustion. I have not yet received a response to my request for replies to the many concerns described by the Transportation Advisory Committee, and I think that those concerns are so serious that failure to address them would result in enormous problems with traffic and finances for the entire city. Re the new plans for the site which have only recently been made public, they raise even deeper concerns re traffic, costs, noise, fumes, and crowding. I am too exhausted to describe these concerns yet again tonight. I continue to request that the city fully and adequately respond to the concerns raised by the transportation and heritage advisory committees, by Glebe Community Association, and by the Lets Get it Right group. I look forward to a meaningful and detailed response from the City.

Confirmation Number: P277678

Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the public consultation on October 14 regarding the Lansdowne site plan. I was also not able to review all the documents posted on the website as they crashed my web browser. However, from what I could see, these are my comments. The sightlines to the Aberdeen Pavilion are too obstructed. There appears to be no need for building(s) J, and they should be eliminated. The proposal to move the Horticulture Building is contrary to all advice from credible heritage experts. It should remain where it is. As I recall, one of the designs for the "front lawn" incorporated the Horticulture Building into the site in its present location. This is the plan that should take precedence. The transportation aspects of the proposal are still sub-standard. How can all those residential units, offices, stores and (perhaps) the Ottawa Art Gallery be added to the site with no improvements in public transit? This is a disaster waiting to happen. Thank you.

Confirmation Number: P40140

In June, Council directed that the detailed design for Lansdowne provide for a fully integrated Master Plan to be developed cooperatively by the City, the Stadium and Urban Mixed-Use Architectural Team and the Urban Park Design Team through the Site Plan Approval process, under the guidance of the Design Review Panel. The City has “quietly released” the Site Plan. Approval of this site plan would mean: * Excessive commercial development * Insufficient park space * Excessive traffic resulting from “70 vehicles an hour” onto Holmwood Avenue “during morning and afternoon rush hours” * Excessive roadways throughout the site * Reduced sightlines between the Aberdeen Pavilion and Bank Street * inappropriate moving of the Horticultural Building * Excessive intensification of residential units * inappropriately higher buildings * Reduced space for the Ottawa Farmers Market * there is no mass transit and none planned for the future I recommend that council reject this plan for the reasons above. The world is awash in debt at the national, provincial and municipal level with tax payers squeezed to the limit. It may be extremely imprudent to assume people will have the means to pay the revenue streams upon which the development of this project is based. It may be better to bulldoze the site and turn it into a park, owned by the city than give up rights to the property for the next sixty years. Further, in this time of economic restraint it may be worth reconsidering the plan to re establish CFL in Ottawa, it having failed twice in the past. Perhaps the more ideal location for a stadium for special events is not Lansdowne at all but rather, at the North end of Bayview, an area which serves as a snow dump currently, which is served by both rail and bus mass transit.

Confirmation Number: P391587

The "Public Consultation" page on the Lansdowne PP states the public is invited to review and comment on the plan online. The link leads to the page with various supporting documents, but no single document called the Stage 1 Site Plan. Which document is the Stage 1 Site Plan and which are supporting documents? Also - how will comments on the site plan be used or not used? Will all comments be provided to all members of council before the vote, or will they be filtered and summarized? Will the entire set of comments be available to the public?

Confirmation Number: P453821

Unable to attend the meeting on Oct. 14, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the present Lansdowne Site Plan. I urge Councillors to vote against this plan on November 24. Reconsideration should be given to the negative impact of most elements of the plan as currently developed: increased traffic flow, reduced parkland, destruction of heritage elements, preference to private interests over elements for public enjoyment of municipal land. My votes in the coming election will be largely governed by responses of candidates to such considerations. Take note Larry O’Brien and Rick Chiarelli -- And I will be speaking to voters about these matters to voters in many other wards!

Confirmation Number: P200404

The revitalization program comprises three inter-related elements including Point 3 - "A new urban mixed use area at the northwest sector of the site and along Bank Street, providing a mix of commercial, cultural and residential uses reflective of an urban village and for animating and redefining the site's relationship to Bank Street." What about the site's relationship to Holmwood Avenue??? The impact of the rumored traffic flow from the residential portion is completely unacceptable. Why have there not been discussions and advice from planners about the negative impact to residents of Holmwood, Adelaide and O'Connor. The traffic flow into the neighbourhood must be minimized by reversing the flow out to Bank and reducing the parking times from 3 hours to one hour only. Many other options must be available to better control parking from all those going to events, shopping, movies and all the other expected uses. Connection between the neighbourhood and the redevelopment must be kept to a minimum. It is absurd to consider that the residential [parking access and egress will be via Holmwood and O'Connor as these streets just cannot accept such a daily load of new traffic. The Sylvia Holden Park is to remain as-is including the ball diamonds and dog park but there must also be parking available for these activities or absolutely every user will want to park on Holmwood and O'Connor - which is completely unfair to the residents of these streets. Attention to the connection between the development and existing residential has been completely ignored and we will face the brunt of the impact between them. This is ridiculous and unacceptable. The height of the residential is to match the existing community where 2 and 3 storey buildings at the norm - why have the residential developments gotten so much taller?

Confirmation Number: P809939

This is going from bad to worse. Scrap this development "vision" with its massive structures that do not fit in the community; nor can they be supported by the community (meaning traffic impact, public transit deficit and parking chaos). The "recognition" given to the heritage buildings is meaningless. I am strongly opposed to this plan and everything that has been presented to date serves to confirm my opinion. It is not a public private "partnership" as there is no equitable sharing of risk and reward. There is no reason to destroy Sylvia Holden park, a vibrant well-loved and heavily used play area for families when there are no other substitutes in the neighbourhood. For those who have supported this "development", think about your ward's public areas - how content would your voters be when the developers decide your ward is next? Most of the Citizens Associations (I've listed to presentations from Beaverbrook, Manotick, Orleans, etc.) are against the proposal for these reasons. Just do the right thing, which is consistent with international best practices both in business and in government, and go to an international bid. Your own legal advice confirms that you have abdicated your fiduciary responsibility and are outside your own rules. Fix it.

Confirmation Number: P405988

I'm am still shocked at how one unsolicited bid could become a development project on the largest and most prestigious parcel of land in Ottawa, Lansdowne Park. Using this wonderful public land for a shopping mall and private condos is unthinkable but is actually trying to be done. On top of that this council is willing to sacrifice a mature city park for private condos. What happened to affordable public housing? It is a group of uncaring and vision-less people that would engage in such a dastardly project. I hope it can be stopped before it goes to far. We need leaders with more vision and more ethics.

Confirmation Number: P549914

I do not understand how moving the Horticulture Building will provide a dynamic backdrop to the proposed urban park and why restoration to give it a new life and featuring programming for all weather conditions and seasons, which the building already had before it was turned into a storage warehouse, cannot be done without moving this heritage designated building. This building was designated by City Council nearly twenty years ago and yet the city's administration chose to let the building deteriorate by willful neglect. This heritage building should be left where it is and the Farmers Market should continue to operate at its present site. The proposition to have the Market operate on a restricted multifunctional open-air commercial patio similar to what is found within the confines of any contemporary shopping mall and commercial buildings will deaden and ruin the very essence of such a market.

Confirmation Number: P803761

I'd like to receive notice of public meetings related to the Lansdowne Site Plan and receive a copy of the final decision.

Confirmation Number: P403743

For what it is worth, my comments on this Lansdowne/OSEG monstrosity are as follows:

"For a project of this size we taxpayers should be given the best assurance that we shall be getting value for money, and the City should have put in place procedures to ensure this. This it has not done. Not only did it sole source this project, but it also has tried to sell it by claiming tax revenue neutrality in an overly complex and murky financial model that few, if any, professionals can understand. There is no provision for independent audit to internationally recognized auditing standards (which have apparently not been met by the City's Auditor General), of either the model or its application. Therefore I cannot support this project for this reason alone.

Aside from this I think it is foolish to:

(1) invest a huge sum of money in a stadium which is located far from rapid transit/light rail, particularly when we are about to invest at least $2.1 billion in light rail;
(2) essentially alienate public lands to private developers for long periods of time, with no transparency with respect to outcomes for taxpayers, and developer profits.

As do many others, I have many concerns with what's proposed, starting with transit access.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Irene's Pub has significant concerns with the Stage 1 Site Plan as proposed but it notes that zoning By-Law for the site has not yet been approved and will be subject to appeals to the OMB. Irene's Pub therefore will not provide specific comments to the Stage 1 Plan to avoid prejudice to the OMB appeal of the zoning by-law.

Confirmation Number: P973534

Please pass on to the councillors that if they can reduce the amount of buildings going in to Lansdowne there would be happier residents. People don't like the tall towers, the cinema, the retail space going further back then just Bank Street. There's just too much there. Keep it simple. The re-zoning to let higher buildings is too much. The residential and retail, being built on Public land is too much. The 18 hour per day activity is too much. The traffic is going to be too much. Yet there's not enough room for the Farmer's Market. It's a quiet residential area not a downtown Rideau Street. I would have moved to rue Guigue if I really wanted the downtown feeling around my kids. Thank you Lynn

Confirmation Number: P14515

Further to my earlier comments P71473 regarding the significant deficiencies of the public presentation on the Stage 1 site plan I would like to add the planned residential tower at Bank and Holmwood and the planned hotel at the Bank Street and the QE Driveway are not in keeping with the traditional mainstreet that flows through Ottawa Sound and the Glebe. These massive towers will dwarf all the existing buildings except one and they themselves will become the focal point rather that the revamped stadium and especially the Aberdeen Pavilion which no one can see now especially if you are driving along Bank Street. They massive structures will further block view scapes of the Aberdeen Pavilion that is supposed to be at the centre point of this redevelopment. Similarly, the massive residence complexes planned along Holmwood Avenue will completely block the numerous excellent view scapes of the Aberdeen Pavilion currently enjoyed by pedestrians and folks driving east on Holmwood Avenues. These 4 and 10 story building are completey out of character with the 2.5 story residences on the north side of Holmwood. The mass and concentration of these residential buildings as well as the highrise and hotel are completely out of character with anything else in the oldest part of Ottawa. Further reducing the parking at Lansdowne will only drive the overflow on to the the streets of the Glebe which is already a grid lock for buses and cars during any large event at Lansdowne. I am confident that no councilor would allow this to happen in their own backyards and they should not allow it to happen in ours. Let's show some respect for the character of the Glebe and produce a plan for development that "fits". Back to the drawing boards gentlemen!!!!!!!

Confirmation Number: P607884

This site plan is unsuited to the Lansdowne site and its heritage buildings, to the surrounding area, a poor excuse for vision and just plain bad planning. At approximately 400,000 square feet of commercial space, it dwarfs neighbouring commercial areas. At 17 stories of residential highrises and 4 stories of townhouse backed by 8 stories of condos, it towers over any other building in any adjacent neighbourhood. It does not consider traffic to and from a 24,000 seat stadium, nor does it have adequate access routes or public transit. It does not provide adequate parking for an undefined number of residential units but reasonably supposed to near 750 (at 0.5 parking space per unit), adequate parking for users of the stadium and commercial properties. Commercial development is massively out-of-scale with and uncomplementary tolocal businesses. It does not provide adequate recreation facilities. The city standard is 4 hectares/1000 population. This plan does not provide enough recreational space for redidents of residential units, never mind replace Sylvia Holden Park absorbed without neighbourhood consultation into the plan. Fortunately, the so-called "Great Lawn" is too small to accommodate and existing local festival. It does not respect the heritage status and existing legal agreements pertaining to the Aberdeen Pavilion and hte Horticulture Building. Even teh developers' drawings hide the Abrerdeen Pavilion from view anywhere but from the Canal. It provides less than 2/3 the space currently used by the Lansdowne Farmers' Market, blocking its ability to expand. The Horticulture Building in the accompanying drawings has been moved, presumably to accommodate a new "mixed use" structure, north east of the Aberdeen Pavilion where it encroaches even further onto what remains of canal-side "parkland". This is a travesty of a "partnership". Its financial implications for the City of Ottawa and its taxpayers are stunningly irresponsible. There has been no meaningful environmental assessment of existing brownfields and how they will be remediated. This plan is a blight on the city and will kill neighbouring communities.

Confirmation Number: P894690

1 Message that we better behave given at the beginning of the public meeting was inappropriate and sent the wrong message. 2. The number of detailed documents attached do not make this a user friendly public consultation process. Public would benefit by informative summaries of the main documents. 3. Plans are difficult to read. A 3 dimensional model would have helped people understand the various components. 4. 14 and 16 storey buildings at either end of Lansdowne Park would not appear to be in keeping with traditional main street designation for Bank Street or Official Plan which emphasizes compatibility with existing neighbourhood. 5. It does not appear that the plans are setting environmental standards and aiming high, e.g. LEED gold or platinum. This would have been an opportunity to showcase the best in "green design". 6. This is not really a park, too many commercial buildings but too little space for the Farmers Market to expand and grow into a year round operation. 7. The horticultural building should not be moved on both heritage and cost grounds. 8. I am sceptical about assurances that Bank Street can handle the increased traffic and that the surrounding neighbourhood will not bear the brunt of increased demand for parking, increased traffic, e.g. shuttle buses, pollution from congestion/idling vehicles, etc. 9. And of course we have been presented with only one option rather than a range of desgins for the whole park.

Confirmation Number: P316366

I attended the October 14, 2010 Public Meeting on Lansdowne Park redevelopment and have participated in several other pubic forums on this topic. While something must be done about Lansdowne Park, there are numerous reasons why Council should vote against the LLP Implementation as it stands (in addition to inadequate public consultation and the absence of a competitive bidding process – which might otherwise have forced proponents to provide more detail and a better rationale).

The vision is incompatible with the existing or long-term vision that the Glebe community has put forth. As it currently exists, the Glebe is one of the few examples in Ottawa of a self-contained sustainable community where residents can walk to most of their local shopping. The size of the proposed new retail space would dwarf the existing neighbourhood and probably put lots of local stores out of business

With this in mind, I offer the following specific comments:

1) Lack of business case to support the stadium and new CFL franchise at Lansdowne location. According to your remarks to the June 4 combined meeting of the Roads and Cycling and Pedestrian and Transit advisory committees in your capacity as the City Project Manager, the CFL game traffic is predicated on 15-18,000 attendance for most games, only about 60-70 per cent of stadium capacity. This contradicts the picture OSEG has painted in its public statements of sell-outs. Without having a detailed business case for the new CFL team, it is impossible to know how the City can believe a CFL team will succeed in a venue where two teams have failed in the past 15 years.

2) This is the wrong location for a new stadium complex – even the City planning officials admitted this when they ranked several locations, including Bayview, much higher than Lansdowne.

3) As a result of the LLP plans, the trade show centre would be banished from the present centrally located Lansdowne Park site to a new location near the airport, not well served by public transit. This new site calls for 2000 new parking spaces – which runs counter to the Ottawa Official Plan goals of promoting a modal shift to get people out of their cars and onto public transit or active transportation. Moreover, the only bidder for the new trade show Shenkman Corp (which coincidentally happens to be one of the four partners in LLP) is asking the City of Ottawa to provide it with $8.5 million towards the cost of constructing the new facility near the airport.

4) The plan would also see the EX moved from Lansdowne to a site on Albion Road that lacks public transit and which would require road widening. (I am not even going to hazard a guess as to how much it will cost to dismantle and move the Horticulture heritage building brick-by-brick)

5) Size and nature of proposed residential and commercial establishments (high-rises, multiplex cinema, big box grocery store) are out of character with the Glebe-- a good example of a sustainable, liveable community with lots of smaller, locally owned and run shops who will be threatened by the new competition from the shopping complex on Lansdowne. The vision is incompatible with the existing or long-term vision that the Glebe community has put forth. As it currently exists, the Glebe is one of the few examples in Ottawa of a self-contained sustainable community where residents can walk to most of their local shopping. The several hundred thousand square feet in new retail would dwarf the existing neighbourhood and jeopardize lots of our local stores. No need for large grocery store (41,000 Square Feet) or multiplex movie theatre when there are existing amenities close-by (E.g. Metro and Loblaws already in the Glebe, Billings Bridge is nearby; Mayfair Theatre and downtown cinemas also not far away). Glebe residents already have sufficient access to these amenities.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Please reduce the height of the towers to traditional Main Street, as the Official Plan specifies. Please reduce the unacceptable amount of retail and residential, and return more of the park to greenery. Also, please re-instate the Market space--why was it reduced?

Confirmation Number: P78553

I've attended all of the public consultations on Lansdowne Park and have even spoken to City Council in June. I live directly across the street from the park. My main concern with the proposal as it stands is that our streets can not sustain that amount of additional traffic for an "18 hour a day" park. There's not enough parking so we won't be able to park on our Glebe streets or have visitors over. There's not enough entrances into the park either. There needs to be a Bank Street North exit off of Queen Elizabeth Drive before the Bank Street Bridge (heading West). Currently the only exit to Bank Street from QED is at Queen Elizabeth Place, which forces cars to have to turn left on Bank Street. You can check with the Ottawa Police on how many accidents happen at that intersection every month. I watch them daily. Plus it's completely unsafe for pedestrians, especially children trying to go to Hopewell School. I am a big supporter of developing Lansdowne, but I'm not a big supporter of the surveys that have been done on this huge project, especially the traffic survey. I don't know how busses can be shuttling people to special events down Bank Street when it's always so congested already. I don't know how 18 wheeler trucks are going to get to the park and underground to unload. Certainly not down Bank Street and right now, they're not allowed to drive on QED. The whole project leaves me extremely concerned for my children and for my wonderful neighbourhood. I really hope you know what you're doing and are actually listening to the concerns of residents. This is our neighbourhood, our home, our community and we certainly don't want this wonderful neighbourhood to become a gridlock of cars and people 18 hours a day/365 days a year. Neither would you if it was your backyard. Thanks for the opportunity to comment (once again).

Confirmation Number: P357367

My husband and I attended the Oct 14 public meeting concerning the Preliminary Stage 1 Site Plan. We found it disappointing because most of the meeting time was taken up with presentations of material which we had already reviewed on planning diagrams before the meeting. As a result there was little time for questions or comments from the participating public.

In addition, some of the questions that participants did manage to squeeze in ( e.g. what will be the sight-lines for the heritage buildings) could have been answered by making a 3-D model of the proposed site plan available for the public to examine. Is it the case that no such model has been developed? Or was the model simply not made available for the meeting? Either possibility seems less than ideal.

After the meeting, I reviewed the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and learned that the proposal includes a significant improvement to the current, very unsatisfactory system of stormwater “management”; it is currently so inadequate as to make the term, “management,” laughable. The problem with the proposed improvement is that a large section of the limited greenspace in the site plan ( looks to be about 25% of the Urban Park space) – The Great Lawn – is obviously a drainage area for the stormwater.

Clearly, a development site with as much paved and building-covered surface as is being proposed here requires massive infrastructure for stormwater management. The result on this site is that a major portion of the little, real park space will be left treeless – a lawn rather than a park.

My husband attended a different “breakout” discussion from mine. His main concern was traffic/parking associated with the site. His group was told that 700 underground parking spaces would be developed, but during major events at the stadium these spaces would be inaccessible or used by those attending at the stadium. Won’t condo occupants be using some of those parking spaces during major stadium events? How will they get to them?

The breakout group I attended (The Urban Park) was told that 1,500 underground parking spaces would be built. I subsequently attempted to clarify this issue by looking at the background document concerning parking (Lansdowne-Parking Levels Plan) on the City’s Development Application website; but that document is not civilian-friendly.

Further, it became clear to my group that the space for the Farmer’s Market is proposed to be so limited that there is no room for farmers’ trucks to load/unload. We came away with an understanding that cars, and parking, and trucks serving the market are going to be major problems in this Site Plan proposal. My husband learned that there was provision for night and early-morning arrival and unloading of trucks serving the commercial part of the development. We’re sure the rumble of trucks every night will improve the slumbers of Glebe residents.

Overall, the meeting confirmed our fears that the Lansdowne Live proposal is very unsatisfactory. We do not live in that area, but we consider the current proposal to be a misguided sellout of precious public land.

[1] City of Ottawa. 10 August 2010. Report to Planning and Environment Committee and Council, p.16.

[2] Parks Canada Agency. 10 February 2010. Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles for the Redevelopment of Lansdowne Park (Ottawa, Ontario): Protecting Heritage Values, Promoting Public Understanding, and Creating Opportunities for Visitor Experience, p.9.

[3] Parks Canada Agency. 10 February 2010. Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles for the Redevelopment of Lansdowne Park (Ottawa, Ontario): Protecting Heritage Values, Promoting Public Understanding, and Creating Opportunities for Visitor Experience, p.9.