Planning and Development Committee/

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

Minutes 4 / Procès-verbal 4

Thursday, 08 March 2001, 9:30 a.m.

le jeudi 8 mars 2001, 9h30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present : G. Hunter (Chair), J. Stavinga (Vice-Chair), M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, D. Eastman, J. Harder and A. Munter

Absent: E. Arnold and S. Little

Declarations of Interest

No declarations of interest were received.

Confirmation of Minutes

The Minutes of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 22 February 2001 were confirmed.

AGENDA ITEMS

REFERRAL

1. zoning - 1172 walkley road /

zonage - 1172, chemin walkley

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0001

(Note : This item was referred back to the Planning and Development Committee by Council at its meeting of 14 February 2001)

Alice Fyfe and Ted Fobert of FoTenn Consultants and Ron Jack, Delcan, representing CP Rail, were in attendance and expressed their support for the staff recommendation.

Chair Hunter drew the Committee’s attention to a memorandum distributed to them, from the Ward Councillor, Wendy Stewart, dated 7 March 2001, in which she relayed her support for this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. As there were no further delegations, the Committee then approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve that the application to amend the Zoning By-law, 1998, of the former City of Ottawa, from L3 and CD4 F(1.0) to a CG F(1.22) H(35.0), to permit a high-rise residential or office development be approved.

CARRIED

DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH/

DIRECTION DE LAPPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’AMÉNAGEMENT ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

2. MAYFAIR DEVELOPMENTS INC., PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE (FORMER) CITY OF KANATA AND ZONING
BY-LAW 168-93 TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLESON ROAD & HAZELDEAN ROAD/

MAYFAIR DEVELOPMENTS INC. - MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AU PLAN DIRECTEUR DE L’ANCIENNE VILLE DE KANATA ET DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 168-93 AFIN DE PERMETTRE UN DÉVELOPPEMENT COMMERCIAL; ANGLE NORD-OUEST DES CHEMINS EAGLESON ET HAZELDEAN

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0033

Committee Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, wherein he advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment, to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to these amendments being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

Councillor Munter suggested the Committee deal with Items 2 and 3 together, as the subject lands were in such close proximity to one another. The Committee agreed.

Michael Boughton, Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Development Services Department, gave the Committee a brief overview of the staff reports for this item and the following item (Item 3). With respect to Item 3 (the Saracino application), Mr. Boughton pointed out there was an error contained in the proposed amending zoning by-law attached to the staff report and he provided members of the Committee with a revised copy of the proposed by-law.

Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, pointed out, with respect to the Saracino application (Item 3), the applicant was not in agreement with the rear yard setback of 7 metres. He noted their contention was that their site was narrower than the adjacent property and he understood they would be looking for some additional relief in the rear yard in order to accommodate their proposal. Otherwise, the applicant is supportive of the over-all designations and the zones that are being recommended.

Councillor Munter pointed out the current designation is residential and the land was bought unconditionally by the current owners knowing it was residential and there is no commitment by the City for anything other than residential. Mr. Boughton confirmed this.

Mr. Boughton also confirmed for the Councillor that an automotive parts and accessories store does not include a garage, a muffler shop or a tire store. He said it would essentially be a retail outlet of automotive parts and does not have service bays associated with it.

Councillor Munter asked if this was defined in the Kanata Zoning By-law and Official Plan. Mr. Boughton stated it was defined in the Official Plan but not in the Zoning By-law. Councillor Munter indicated he would be putting forward a motion to amend the By-law so that the definition is clearly understood.

The Committee then heard from the following delegations.

Lloyd Phillips, Lloyd Phillips & Associates Ltd. and Michael Dumbrell, Mayfair Developments Inc. appeared before the Committee. Mr. Phillips advised he and Mr. Dumbrell were in support of the staff recommendations with respect to the Mayfair Developments application. He felt a workable consensus had been arrived at and that the concerns that had been raised by the Community Association had been addressed.

Committee Chair Hunter asked the delegation to comment on the issue of the drive-through usage. Mr. Phillip stated the rear lane behind the property would serve a number of functions, one of which will be to service an automated teller machine. The lane will also provide occasional service to the back doors of the businesses and access for fire and emergency vehicles. He said it was his belief this arrangement together with the setbacks that have been recommended by staff (i.e. including 3 metres of landscaping) will work. Mr. Phillips also pointed out the lane would be almost 2 metres lower than the level of the adjacent back yards of the residential properties. He said this, combined with a two metre high fence and the proposed plantings, would create a very effective barrier.

Peter McNichol, President, Katimavik-Hazeldean Community Association advised his community association had been dealing with this issue since September 2000 and noted one member had collected 200 signatures in opposition to this proposal. Another member had carried out a great deal of research on what was proposed for this site in 1990 (documentation from Nadia Sgarbossa held on file with the City Clerk).

Mr. McNichol said he had been advised by one of the neighbours that backs onto the subject sites, that he was willing to live with the 3 metre buffer, however, his concern was with the drive through. He said although he realized that what is proposed will not be as bad as a drive-through restaurant, the residents will still have to deal with the possibility of noise pollution and exhaust fumes within 10 feet of their backyards. Mr. McNichol opined the back lane was not necessary to service the lot and he asked that the Committee give consideration to eliminating this back lane.

Vincent Colliza, Architect, appeared on behalf of Mr. Saracino the owner of the subject lands in Item 3. Mr. Colliza advised Mr. Saracino also owned the adjacent land, which is currently developed as a Canada Trust Bank and a strip plaza. He explained Mr. Saracino had attempted to get access from this property onto Hazeldean Road for 20 years. This was granted in 1994 and as part of that transaction, Mr. Saracino exchanged over 500 feet of frontage of the land to the City of Kanata for the purposes of building Irwin Gate access to Hazeldean Road.

Mr. Colizza went on to say that Mr. Saracino’s property is much narrower than the Dumbrell lands and does not offer the same opportunities to develop a building floor plan or parking in an efficient fashion. He said for this reason Mr. Saracino was objecting to the 7 metre setback recommended by staff. Mr. Colizza noted as well, the residential property adjacent to Mr. Saracino’s land is currently undeveloped and pointed out it would actually be a side yard and not a rear yard that would be facing Mr. Saracino’s land. He asked, based on these points, that the setback be reduced from 7 metres to 5 metres (the landscaped strip would be reduced to 1 metre from 3 metres).

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Colizza referred to the quality of development Mr. Saracino achieved with the Canada Trust development and noted in that instance there was a 4.5 metre rear yard setback. He noted the Canada Trust development retained a strong residential character and it was the intent of Mr. Saracino to carry this theme through in the proposed development.

Councillor Munter noted staff were recommending a 7 metre buffer, Mr. Colliza was asking for 5 metres. He asked staff is there was anything that could be done as part of this zoning bylaw amendment to ensure that future residential developments have the same setback on this part of the site that they do on the Dumbrell site (i.e. 7 metres). Mr. Lindsay replied this could not be done. He said they could not, through this process, put a constraint on the adjacent property. The City would have to deal with the zoning of the adjacent property as a separate matter.

Willis Scanlon, Planning Consultant, representing Talos Homes, the owner of the vacant land to the north of the Saracino property. He indicated Talos Homes was prepared to accept the staff recommendation, namely, the 7 metre setback and the 3 metre landscape buffer. He said if these were reduced, Talos Homes would likely appeal. He stated as well, Talos Homes was not supportive of the drive-through.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee.

Councillor Munter stated this whole issue raises the issue of powers available to protect trees. He said there has been a Trees By-law under the Trees Act to regulate the cutting of trees, that was not enforced by local municipalities. There was a clear-cut of trees on this site, and the opportunity to try to preserve trees was lost. He stated the new City of Ottawa should look at this in terms of exercising its authority to protect trees.

The Councillor indicated he would be proposing two amendments. The first would be to add to Item 1 (i) of the by-law, the definition of automotive parts and accessory store that exists in the Kanata Official Plan, to clarify that only retail, counter-style uses are permitted in this zone. His second motion addressed the concerns raised by Mr. McNichol and Mr. Scanlon, concerning the drive-through. He noted his motion would be to add to the by-law that a drive-through for any purpose, would be prohibited immediately abutting the residential zone.

Committee Chair Hunter, read the passage from the Kanata Official Plan concerning the definition of Automotive Parts and Accessories Store, that Councillor Munter was moving be included in the zoning by-law amendments. It read:

11.3.6 Automotive Parts and Accessories Store: means any building or structure or part thereof used for the purpose of retail and/or wholesale sales of equipment, accessories and parts used to repair, service, enhance or customize motor vehicles. This does not include any installations or repairs.

Moved by A. Munter

That the zoning by-law amendments for both the Mayfair and Saracino applications be amended in #1, as follows:

1. In (i), add the definition of “automotive parts and accessories store” that is already in the Kanata Official Plan (Section 11.3.6).

2. Add the following to (ii): “and a drive-through facility for any purpose shall be prohibited immediately abutting the residential zone”.

CARRIED

(G. Hunter dissented on 2.)

The Committee then considered the report as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. adopt Amendment No. 60 to the Official Plan of the former City of Kanata as it relates to Part of Lot 32, Concession 11 (Goulbourn), being Part 1, Plan 5R-154, Part 2, Plan R-46, and Parts 4 and 5, Plan 5R-229, as shown in Document 3.

2. adopt an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 168-93 as it relates to Part of Lot 32, Concession 11 (Goulbourn), being Part 1, Plan 5R-154, Part 2, Plan R-46, and Parts 4 and 5, Plan 5R-229, as shown in Document 4, as amended by the following:

a. In 1.(i), add the definition of “automotive parts and accessories store that is already in the Kanata Official Plan, (Section 11.3.6)

b. Add the following to 1.(ii): “and a drive-through facility for any purpose shall be prohibited immediately abutting the residential zone”.

CARRIED as amended

(G. Hunter dissented on 2. a.)

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE (FORMER) CITY
OF KANATA AND ZONING BY-LAW 168-93 TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; NORTH SIDE OF HAZELDEAN ROAD, EAST OF IRWIN GATE /

MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AU PLAN DIRECTEUR DE L’ANCIENNE VILLE
DE KANATA ET AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 168-93 AFIN DE PERMETTRE
UN DÉVELOPPEMENT COMMERCIAL; CÔTÉ NORD DU CHEMIN HAZELDEAN
À L’EST DE IRWIN GATE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0034

The Committee considered this item in conjunction with Item 2 (Mayfair application). Please see Item 2 for discussion.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. adopt Amendment No. 61 to the Official Plan of the former City of Kanata as it relates to Part of Lot 32, Concession 11 (Goulbourn), being Parts 3, 5 and 6, Plan 5R-10125 and Part 1 on Plan 5R-12097, as shown in Document 3.

2. adopt an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 168-93 as it relates to Part of Lot 32, Concession 11 (Goulbourn), being Parts 3, 5 and 6, Plan 5R-10125 and Part 1 on Plan 5R-12097, as shown in Document 4, as amended by the following:

a. In 1.(i), add the definition of “automotive parts and accessories store that is already in the Kanata Official Plan, (Section 11.3.6)

b. Add the following to 1.(ii): “and a drive-through facility for any purpose shall be prohibited immediately abutting the residential zone”.

CARRIED as amended

(G. Hunter dissented on 2. a.)

4. PUBLIC MEETING - AMENDMENT TO THE KANATA NORTH
BUSINESS PARK ZONING BY-LAW (BY-LAW 132-93) TO PERMIT
A GOLF COURSE AND TO MODIFY THE ZONE BOUNDARIES TO
REFLECT REGISTERED PLAN 4M-1096 /

Réunion publique – Modification au Règlement de
zonage du parc d’affaires de Kanata Nord
(Règlement 132-93) afin d’autoriser l’aménagement
d’un terrain de golf et de modifier les limites de la
zone pour refléter le plan enregistré 4M-1096

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0038

Committee Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, wherein he advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to these amendments being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

There being no delegations on this item, the Committee approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 132-93, to permit a golf course and to modify the zone boundaries within the Kanata North Business Park as shown in Document 2.

CARRIED

5. public meeting - eagleson road business centre inc.,

proposed zoning by-law amendment to add one

industrial use, 500 eagleson road, kanata south

business park /

RéUNION PUBLIQUE - eagleson road business centre

inc., PROPOSITION DE MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT DE

ZONAGE AFIN D’INCLURE UN USAGE INDUSTRIEL AU 500,

CHEMIN EAGLESON, PARC D’AFFAIRES DE KANATA sud

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0042

David Silverson, Burke-Robertson, expressed his agreement with the staff recommendations. As there were no further delegations, the Committee approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council that an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 135-93, to change the zoning of the Kanata South Business Park at 500 Eagleson Road by adding Business Park Retail Outlet as a permitted use be approved as shown in Document 3.

CARRIED

6. PUBLIC MEETING – THE RESIDENTIAL MIXED UNIT ZONE -

ZONING AMENDMENT TO RMU PROVISIONS /

Réunion publique - Zone de logement résidentiel mixte - modification de zonage aux dispositions du LRM

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0035

As there were no speakers on this item, the Committee approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the application to amend Zoning By-laws 39-81 and 100-2000 of the former City of Nepean with respect to the provisions of the Residential Mixed Unit Zone – RMU, as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

(A. Cullen, A. Munter and
J. Stavinga dissented)

7. zoning - 172-180 sparks street /

zonage - 172-180, rue sparks

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0036

There being no speakers on this item, the Committee approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law,1998, of the former City of Ottawa, to alter the existing Central Business District Commercial Zone (CB[736] SCH.152) for 172-180 Sparks Street to permit a parking lot for a temporary period expiring on November 30, 2002.

CARRIED

8. ZONING - 1429 & 1431 WOODROFFE AVENUE /

Zonage - 1429 et 1431, avenue Woodroffe

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0039

Bill Holzman, Holzman Consultants, representing the Applicant, was in attendance and expressed his client’s support for the staff recommendation. There being no further delegations, the Committee approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the application to amend Zoning By-laws 39-81 and 100-2000 of the former City of Nepean to permit the redevelopment and expansion of an existing gas bar/commercial store.

CARRIED

9. Public Meeting - Redwood Pavilion Lands
DRAFT PLan of subdivision - 2790 Baseline Road /

Réunion publique - Terrains du pavillon Redwood;
projet de plan de subdivision 2790, chemin Baseline

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0046

Committee Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, wherein he advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed subdivision or Zoning By-law Amendment, to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to these amendments being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

Rob McKay, Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Development Services Department, provided the Committee with a brief overview of the staff reports for this item and the next item on the Agenda (Item 10 – Public Meeting Redwood Pavilion Lands Zoning By-law Amendments for 2799 Baseline Road).

Councillor Cullen had questions concerning whether or not the contribution by the proponent, of the land abutting the creek would satisfy the City’s requirement for parkland. Mr. McKay advised it did not, and that there would be a requirement for cash-in-lieu of parkland. The lands abutting the creek would be considered environmentally sensitive. He further confirmed for the Councillor that the City would have some discretion on whether or not to require the parkland. He said if the applicant was not in agreement with the conditions (e.g. cash-in-lieu), the matter would have to come back to Planning and Development Committee. If the matter could not be resolved to the satisfaction of the applicant, they could appeal it to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

Chair Hunter pointed out the Committee was not being asked to approve the subdivision plan at this time, rather this was a public hearing.

In response to further queries from Councillor Cullen, the Ward Councillor, Councillor Rick Chiarelli explained this application is a small, key piece of a larger move to revitalize the Leslie Park area. He noted the supposed deal between the Leslie family and Campeau family in the 1960’s, was raised at the City of Nepean last year. He said investigations carried out at that time, found no evidence of such a deal ever existing.

Councillor Cullen asked that staff come back to the Committee with some calculation, based on current policy as to the amount of cash in lieu would be, and what the alternative would be if the City were to require parkland.

Bill Wright, Development Services Department, Nepean Satellite Office, advised the former City of Nepean’s parkland requirement would be 3 acres per population of 1000 or cash in lieu thereof. He said when staff looked at this particular plan, given the fact that the developer is deeding to the City a significant amount of open space (i.e. the ravine lands) at no cost, they felt that given the number of units (i.e. 35 units) the population would only amount to 75 to 100 people; the amount of land the City could take as parkland would be very small and probably not that useable. In terms of the calculation of the market value for cash-in lieu, Mr. Wright explained with would be based on 5% of the appraised value of the property.

The Committee then heard from the following delegations.

Murray Chown, Novatech; Alan Cohen, Solicitor, Soloway Wright; and, Dan Botti, Regional Group of Companies appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant, Redwood Development. Mr. Chown noted in the some of the material the Committee had received from residents of the area, there were questions concerning his client’s legal obligations in terms of maintaining recreational facilities on this property. He advised Mr. Cohen would be addressing this issue.

Mr. Cohen first addressed Councillor Cullen’s questions concerning the parkland requirements. He noted first, title searches revealed there is nothing on title in terms of a restrictive covenant. Further, there was a subdivision agreement for the entire subdivision, of which this parcel forms of one block. At that time, parklands were conveyed to the then Township of Nepean and satisfied the Planning Act requirements. He said one of his duties for his client will be to determine exactly how much and where the land was and in fact whether the full 5% has already been satisfied and therefore whether or not the municipality is entitled to anything at all.

With respect to the claims concerning the Landlord and Tennant Act, Mr. Cohen noted as-of-right the land is zone commercial and could be developed for a plaza. He suggested the question in front of the Committee is whether the proposal is appropriate land use planning. If there were rights between the tenants and his client, as a landlord (which he was not admitting to), those rights would be determined in another forum.

Mr. Chown stated it was his opinion that the subdivision application conforms to the policies of all three applicable Official Plans: the former Region, former City of Nepean’s and the former City of Ottawa. All three Plans support the concept of infill development.

With respect to the issues of environmental protection, Mr. Chown noted the area that is proposed for the development of the residential units is virtually clear of trees and is not actively used for recreational purposes. The area with the substantial tree coverage is within the block that is being conveyed to the City at no cost. Mr. Chown went on to note the second part of the issue, the zoning report, which he stated deals specifically with the question of protecting those lands and in fact recommends rezoning these lands to environmental to protect them in perpetuity. The balance of the land will be re-zoned to a very site-specific zoning that reflects some of the features of this development. Mr. Chown opined, through collaborative efforts on the part of City staff, the developer and his agents, the zoning and site plan application are for a very attractive and innovative form of development.

Finally, Mr. Chown noted the concerns raised concerning traffic and parking have been dealt with through the elimination of the access to Guthrie Street and all of the traffic will be brought out to Monterey to avoid creating a traffic situation at Guthrie and Baseline Road. In terms of parking, the developer is in fact providing more than two spaces per unit on the site; well in excess of the by-law requirement.

Mr. Botti commented that this proposal falls within the overall revitalization of this area. He noted the developer has completed the majority of the refurbishment of the existing buildings and the landscaped areas. Referring to a letter received by the Committee, with respect to marketing practices, Mr. Botti agreed the development was marketed as having mature trees on common elements and each landowner has a percentage of interest in their common areas. However, with respect to the conservation lands along Graham Creek, he noted this was never discussed as being a private owners right. It was acknowledged that these lands were within environmentally sensitive areas and would be best protected by the City or the Conservation Authority. Mr. Botti concluded by saying this high-end townhouse development would add land value to the area residents.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Chown confirmed if there is indeed a parkland requirement, the developer is expecting to pay cash-in-lieu. He noted this site is less than 5 acres and if the City were to take 5% of it, it would be a miniscule park of no real benefit to the City. Further, Mr. Chown advised the subject land was always identified as a development parcel.

Councillor Stavinga noted these were freehold townhomes, yet there is going to be a common elements agreement in terms of roles and responsibilities. She asked if the maintenance of the private roadways would be the responsibility of the owners of these townhomes. Mr. Cohen advised this was similar to a condominium situation where every owner owns his unit and private land associated with it and the common elements are owned in common. A joint use agreement will be registered on title and everyone would contribute to a fund to maintain the common elements. He noted there are a number of existing such developments in the former Cities of Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester that have worked very well.

Russell Larrabie, Vice President, Leslie Park Community Association. Mr. Larrabie conveyed to the Committee the concerns of his Community Association. With respect to traffic and congestion in the area, he said this proposal at Guthrie and Monterey and the recent proposals for a nursing home and a Nortel building at Monterey and Baseline, will add to the already heavy traffic on the street (i.e. there will be five entrances within a block of Guthrie Street). As well, there were concerns that the developer is not completing work in the already developed area and the proposed development may add to the already delayed timetable. He indicated it was the Community Association’s position that work that was promised to Nepean and the homeowners should be completed before work on this new development begins.

Mr. Larrabie stated there were no complaints about the housing proposal, as the upscale units will add to the property values in the area. He indicated however it would be desirable for the developer to provide meeting rooms for the Associations it has created. Mr. Larrabie noted the proposed visitor parking lot will be situated on top of the creek and he suggested that it be a requirement that no heavy vehicles or equipment be parked in this area. Finally, Mr. Larrabie asked that speed bumps or signs be considered on Monterey Drive, at Costello and Guthrie.

Councillor Harder asked if there had been a recent traffic analyses done for Monterey Drive. Mr. McKay stated he was not aware of a specific count done in this area, however, Bob Striker, the traffic consultant reviewed this proposal and advised the development would not make the situation any worse. He noted however, although it is not an issue related to this development, there is a potential for failure at Baseline and Greenbank, in that when traffic is congested, people use this area as a cut-through.

Mr. Larrabie noted there is a problem with parking and advised the previous evening there were between 20 and 25 cars parked on the Pavillion area that will be torn down. This development will have an impact on the existing homes. He stated it was necessary to do a proper traffic study and Monterey Drive must be made safer.

Robert Darling, representing the Phase III Monterey Homeowners Association (the block that borders to the east side of Guthrie, Baseline and Monterey Drive). He said, having spoken with other Homeowner’s Association presidents, he was speaking on behalf of approximately 350 to 400 homeowners. Mr. Darling said all homeowners have had the opportunity to look at these plans by the developer and he said his group looked forward to having the City approve the plan as it now shown. He said the addition of the 35 units will not have an impact on the current homeowners in terms of traffic problems.

Mr. Darling advised he had lived in this area for 20 years and said he and his neighbours were anxious to have their neighbourhood completed. He also pointed out that the homeowners knew from the outset about this proposal and that they would be losing the pavilion area. Mr. Darling noted the issue of the greenspace and the creek should be considered as a separate issue and he urged the Committee to approve the development.

Marlene Burton, a resident of Phase IV, Monterey Drive advised she was speaking on behalf of the following residents of Monterey Drive: Peter Cairns, Susan Tubman, Karen Chamberlain, Kelly Dean, Brian Kennedy and Valerie Burton. She also emphasized that the previous speaker was not speaking for her. Ms. Burton also provided a written submission, outlining her concerns.

Ms. Burton went on to say she did not have an objection to putting houses on this space, however, she said there were issues with the development that she would like to see addressed. She spoke to the issue of pre-existing rights under the old Landlord Tenant Act, noting there were still a number of tenants in the units and have had the right to use the pool and recreational lands and felt they should be compensated for this loss. Ms. Burton also pointed out that photographs of the adjacent forested site (slated to be a nursing home) were used in the marketing brochures for this development and she questioned the correctness of this when the land did not even belong to this vendor. The speaker sought assurance that there would be two parking spaces per unit for the proposed houses. She also noted she had great concerns with the proposed exit onto Monterey Drive and suggested an exit onto Guthrie Street or Baseline Road or both, would help with the traffic problem on Monterey Drive.

The final issue that Ms. Burton addressed had to do with deficiencies at the existing sites. She noted there are four or five phases in progress and none of them are completely finished (e.g. broken concrete bollards and curbs, parking lots and pathways in need of resurfacing, water meters to be severed, etc.). She stated she would like to see the developer finish the development in which she bought before they start another phase. Ms. Burton indicated she would be providing to Councillors an updated version of her written comments to list the deficiencies on the site.

Referencing the deficiencies noted by Ms. Burton, Councillor Stavinga asked if the City would have securities for this project. Mr. Wright stated he was not sure that the City would have held securities on this project, as they were rental conversions.

Councillor Chiarelli advised there is a formula for completion of each element of each phase. He said when he last investigated, despite perceptions, the work was being completed as per the formula agreed upon. At the Committee’s request, Mr. Darling added he has worked closely with the developer and some of the finishing work was postponed for specific reasons.

Councillor Stavinga stated although she realized this issue did not relate specifically to rezoning, she asked for the Committee’s support in asking staff to report back on whether or not there are obligations with regards to securities on this development. Mr. Wright advised there was not a requirement for an agreement. He said there is an approved plan that shows the works that are to be done but there was not new agreement or securities taken. Timelines were provided by the developer to the purchasers of the units.

Committee Chair Hunter advised the delegation that the issues of the deficiencies did not fall within the purview of the Planning and Development Committee and suggested she had other avenues of recourse available to her to ensure that the developer lived up to his commitments.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee for debate.

Councillor Chiarelli referencing comments made by Ms. Burton with regard to the pre-existing tenant rights, noted the vast majority of the tenants have already voluntarily vacated those rights by purchasing the units. He said he did agree that there was however, an issue with the remaining tenants but said he had been assured by the applicant these issues would be addressed on a landlord to tenant basis.

On the issue of the parking problem on Monterey Drive, Councillor Chiarelli advised when this development was first proposed he met with the Leslie Park Community Association and the applicant, and he said he was satisfied by the applicant they would take the necessary steps to ensure this application did not make the situation worse. The Councillor pointed out, the applicant is in fact exceeding the parking requirement.

In conclusion, Councillor Chiarelli stated it was important to look at this application in context. He noted ten years ago the Leslie Park area was plagued with all kinds of social problems (e.g. arson, assault) and property standards problems. He said he was part of the group that proposed several solutions, including a stringent property standards enforcement program, efforts to get the former landlord to sell and to find someone to come in and revitalize the area. All of this happened and the neighbourhood has been completely reformed and it is now a nice place to raise a family. He confirmed there were some “rough edges” that need to be dealt with but he urged the Committee to support this development.

Councillor Cullen indicated he was putting forward a motion with respect to the parkland requirements. He indicated his motion would be added to the recommendations for Item 10 (the Redwood Pavilion Rezoning).

Moved by A. Cullen

That the Department of Development Services report back to Planning and Development Committee on the parkland requirements of this site and possible cash-in-lieu payments thereof.

CARRIED

That the Planning and Development Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

10. PUBLIC MEETING – REDWOOD PAVILION LANDS

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS FOR 2790 BASELINE ROAD/

RÉUNION PUBLIQUE – TERRAINS DU PAVILLON REDWOOD;

MODIFICATIONS AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE DU 2790,

CHEMIN BASELINE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0040

The Committee dealt with this item in conjunction with the preceding item (See discussion – Item 9 – Public Meeting – Redwood Pavilion Lands Draft Plan of Subdivision – 2790 Baseline Road). They then approved the staff recommendation, as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. That an amendment to the former City of Nepean’s Zoning By-laws 39-81 and 100-2000, as it applies to 2790 Base Line Road, and as shown on Document 1, from COMMERCIAL NEIGBOURHOOD – CN BLOCK “C” Zone to RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE -RMU BLOCK “C”, and from COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD – CN zone to RESIDENTIAL MIXED UNIT ZONE – RMU BLOCK 7, respectively, be approved.

2. That an amendment to the former City of Ottawa’s Zoning By-law, 1998, as it applies to 2790 Base Line Road, and as shown on Document 1, from a Residential Low-rise Apartment Zone - R5A U(45) to a Residential Low-rise Apartment Zone - R5A U(45) exception zone, be approved, as detailed in Document 3.

3. That an amendment to the former City of Ottawa’s Zoning By-law, 1998, as applies to 2790 Base Line Road, to rezone those lands shown on Document 1 from a Residential Low-rise Apartment Zone - R5A U(45) to Environmental Zone - ES1, be approved.

4. That the Department of Development Services further investigate the environmental sensitively of City owned lands identified on Document 1 and report back to the Planning and Development Committee on the appropriateness of rezoning these lands as an Environmental Zone – ES1.

5. That the Department of Development Services report back to Planning and Development Committee on the parkland requirements of this site and possible cash-in-lieu payments thereof.

CARRIED as amended

11. West Carleton Official Plan Amendment 84 -

“Agricultural Resource Area - High Priority”

to “Marginal Resource” /

Modification n^o 84 au Plan directeur de West

Carleton - de « Zone de ressource agricole - haute

priorité » à « Ressource accessoire »

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0044

At the outset, the Committee approved an amendment put forward by Councillor Eastman, to delete the proposed modification to the Amendment. Councillor Eastman noted this was a very small portion of the land and did not affect the major portions of the properties under discussion. He noted the abutting landowners were in favour of the deletion of the modification.

Moved by D. Eastman

That the report recommendation be amended by deleting after “the former Township of West Carleton”, all of the following:

“with the following modification: that Schedule A to Amendment 84 be modified to re-designate the eastern part of Lot 16, Concession 3 (Torbolton) from “Agricultural Resource – High Priority” to “Marginal Resource”.”

CARRIED

Myles Mahon, Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Development Services Department, provided the Committee with a brief overview of the staff report.

Tim Chadder, J.L. Richards & Associates advised he was representing several landowners affected by this Amendment in both Huntley and Torbolton. In the Torbolton area he advised he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Scouten, Mr. Wall, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Debley and Mr. Smith; which represents most of the landowners north of the Constance Bay Road and east of Dunrobin Road. Mr. Chadder relayed their support for the staff recommendation, noting it conforms with both Regional and Provincial policies with respect to the requirement to protect agricultural land. He stated although some of the land has agricultural capability, when taken in the context of the uses on neighbouring lands and the significant slope, this limits the agricultural capability on parts of the lands. Mr. Chadder pointed out that both the Regional Official Plan and the Township of West Carleton Official Plan recognize that agricultural uses occur in areas other than agricultural resource and the redesignation of these lands will not necessarily cause the use of the land (i.e. farming) to change. He stated this area has seen a significant amount of development and he offered his opinion the LEAR process was done appropriately.

With respect to the second part of the amendment, concerning the Huntley area, Mr. Chadder advised he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Ken Paul who owns and farms 200 acres in Lot 25, Concession 7 . He noted of the 200 acres, approximately two-thirds of it is Class 6 and 7 soils. The land is tile drained and without the tile drain, he could not farm this land. To the north and the west of the subject land is a great amount of country lot estate development. Mr. Chadder felt the LEAR application in this area was appropriate and he asked that these lands be treated the same as the rest of the lands in West Carleton and that the amendment be approved.

Doris Reid, advised she had submitted a severance application in 1997. She told the Committee she was a senior who was experiencing bad health and she wanted to sever her house and four acres to sell. She indicated if she were granted the severance, she would keep the remainder of the 135 acres of land as a pasture and give it to her son and then sever two acres of land on the other corner to give to her daughter. Mrs. Reid said she wanted to keep the land in the Reid name, which the family has owned since 1917. She indicated she had obtained the signatures of the thirteen neighbours along the road, who are in agreement with this. Mrs. Reid also advised the Committee of the high water table on her land (as a result of the pit across the road) and showed pictures illustrating how her land is eroding.

At Chair Hunter’s direction, Mr. Mahon explained Mrs. Reid has had a severance application before the Rural Alliance Severance Committee for quite some time. He noted the severance had been held up because it is in the Agricultural Resource designation and only farm-related lots are permitted. Mrs. Reid is seeking approval of Amendment 84, which would allow her to have a severance on her property.

Jim Armstrong advised he lived and farmed at 2607 Shanna Road, (Part of Lot 26, Concession 7, Huntley) one of the properties affected by OPA 84 and he expressed his objection to this redesignation. A copy of Mr. Armstrong’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

He noted the subject lands were comprised of approximately 300 acres of Class 2 agricultural land and most of the land has been improved with tile-drainage. He went on to say virtually all of the land is actively farmed and has been for many years. He questioned why, given this information, this land would be part of OPA 84 and offered his opinion the LEAR evaluation was wrong. The LEAR fails to recognize it is the absolute amount of good land in a given parcel that determines its value to a farmer, not the total size of the property or the percentage of good land in the parcel. As well, it fails to recognize that many farmers farm more than one piece of property. Mr. Armstrong also pointed out that a local official plan could have different land use designations than the Regional Official Plan, as long as they were more restrictive.

The speaker referenced a copy of a Township of West Carleton Planning Report dated 2 December 1998, which he had provided to members of the Committee (held on file with the City Clerk) and noted it concluded that staff believed the subject lands to be of sufficient quality to protect them for agricultural use and it questioned the intent of the LEAR system.

Mr. Armstrong cautioned this redesignation would result in less available farmland, increased demands for water, increased traffic and potential for farm and non-farm conflicts. As well, it will make it much easier for farmers to sever and sell their lands and once gone, this land is gone forever when developed. He asked that the Committee support these lands remaining in the Agricultural Resource designation.

Committee Chair Hunter commented that the LEAR system would appear to look at artificial boundaries drawn on a map by lot line rather than the actual agricultural potential of the land. He also noted when the Region was undertaking the Official Plan Review, using the LEAR system, the intent was that local official plans would be more accurate and could be more restrictive than the Regional Official Plan.

Councillor Bellemare had questions concerning the LEAR system and asked to what extent the new City of Ottawa would be analyzing and providing guidance to the Planning and Development Committee as to whether the LEAR system is an appropriate tool or whether the City should be more restrictive. Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Approvals Department advised the policies are currently being applied under “home rules” and staff are trying to provide an interpretation at both the Regional and local level. He noted as the new Official Plan process gets underway, there will be a consolidation of these policies and stated he could not offer any further clarification at this time.

Murray Chown, noted OPA 84 deals with two areas of the former Township of West Carleton and he observed there would appear to be some dispute as to the merits of the change in designation. Mr. Chown advised his interest was in the Torbolton parcel (Lot 16, Concession 4) and he expressed his support for the Amendment and asked that the Committee approve the staff recommendation.

Tara Newman, advised she was appearing on behalf of Wayne Crawford, who owns approximately 123 acres in the Huntley area (Part Lot 23 and 24, Concession 7). Mr. Crawford primarily uses this land for the pasturing of his cattle. Ms. Newman submitted Mr. Crawford was in favour of Amendment 84 and he feels it is not necessary to maintain the land as high priority agricultural land, given the other uses of land in this area.

Committee Chair Hunter drew the Committee’s attention to a number of written submissions distributed to them - from Beth Rohr and Tim Pychl, expressing their support for Amendment 84; and, Ian Grant, (and 7 others) expressing their opposition to Amendment 84.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee.

Committee Chair Hunter noted Councillor Cullen had put forward a motion that Schedule A to OPA 84 be modified to delete lands in Huntley, Lots 23 to 26, Concession 7.

Councillor Eastman stated he hoped the Committee would not support this amendment. He advised he had personal knowledge of these lands and noted they ran from shallow soils to bedrock to stony soils in certain parcels closer to Shanna Road. He pointed out the LEAR system’s purpose is to protect good agricultural land and it indicates this area has poor potential for agriculture . He further noted the Township of West Carleton chose to amend its Official Plan to conform to the Regional Official Plan, moving land from Marginal to Agriculture and vice versa.

The Councillor emphasized that changing the designation will not take this land out of farming; it will still be farmed. He stated it was his understanding that all of the property owners along Shanna Road, with the exception of Mr. Armstrong, are in favour of OPA 84 and he urged the Committee not to support Councillor Cullen’s motion.

Councillor Munter indicated he would be supporting Councillor Cullen’s motion and would not be supporting the staff recommendation. He contended that redesignating this land would eventually take it out of framing and felt the Committee should be cognizant of the long term impacts of decisions of this nature. He said he could not see a rationale for changing the designation.

Councillor Cullen stated the change in designation of these lands from High Priority Agriculture to Marginal Resource increases the potential for development. He offered keeping the land in the agricultural designation would not prevent landowners from coming forward on a case-by-case basis. He emphasized his belief that agricultural uses should be protected.

Councillor Stavinga expressed her support for the staff recommendation. She noted that West Carleton carried out a comprehensive exercise to bring their Official Plan into conformity with the Regional Official Plan and in this process, they took land that was designated Marginal Resource, and brought it into High Priority Agriculture. She felt in approving the staff recommendation, the Committee would be consistent with the Provincial Policy in terms of protection of agricultural high priority land and the Regional Official Plan and integrating into this, a system of flexibility. She felt the discussion clearly indicated that the new City, in order to ensure High Priority agricultural land is maintained, needs to be very strong in the protection of the edges around High Priority agricultural land (i.e. Shanna Road is clearly the boundary).

Moved by A. Cullen

That Schedule A to LOPA 84 be modified to delete lands in Huntley – Lots 23 to 26, Concession 7.

CARRIED

YEAS: M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, G. Hunter and A. Munter….4

NAYS: D. Eastman, J. Harder and J. Stavinga….3

The Committee then approved the report as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council request that the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs approve Official Plan Amendment 84 of the former Township of West, as amended by the following:

1. That Schedule A to LOPA 84 be modified to delete lands in Huntley – Lots 23 to 26, Concession 7.

CARRIED as amended

(A. Cullen, A. Munter and G. Hunter dissented)

12. Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board - Rural

Alliance Severance Committee - RA 105/2000 and RA

106/2000 (Stewart James - Former Township of Osgoode) /

Appel à la Commission des Affaires Municipales de

l’Ontario - Comité de morcellement des terres de

l’Alliance Rurale - RA 105/2000 et RA 106/2000 (Stewart

James - ancien canton d’Osgoode)

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0045

Nigel Brereton, Senior Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Development Services Department, provided the Committee with an overview of the staff report.

The Committee then heard from the Ward Councillor, Councillor Thompson. The Councillor noted this piece of land is not good agricultural land and referenced a letter he had provided to members of Committee from a certified agronomist, who confirmed this. He felt the Committee would agree that there are areas in the Regional Official Plan that are not properly designated and this is one of them. The Rural Alliance Severance Committee had expressed their opinion and agreed that this severance should be granted. He noted he had not supported this appeal when it was before the Township of Osgoode Council and he asked that the Committee support the withdrawal of the Township of Osgoode’s appeal of this severance.

Stewart James, the applicant and Michael Chinkewsky, Solicitor, appeared before the Committee. Mr. Chinkewsky pointed out the minimum lot size in these areas of poor pockets, in the Regional Official Plan is 2 hectares. There is a section that calls for the area to be large enough to be identified on the soils map and he indicated he was advised by Mr. Brereton that this would be approximately 25 acres. Mr. Chinkewsky stated this was not specified in the Official Plan. He submitted the purpose of this section on poor pockets is to clearly identify poor pockets. This piece of land is approximately 11 acres however, he noted an agronomist (Mr. Paul Sullivan) clearly identifies this land to be Class 5 soil (not Class 3).

Councillor Harder indicated she would be moving a motion to withdraw the Township of Osgoode’s appeal of this severance.

Councillor Eastman urged the Committee to support Councillor Harder’s motion. He pointed out Mr. Brereton described this parcel of land as a small, wet, wooded area. The Region’s appeal was withdrawn and he expressed support for the motion to withdraw this appeal to the OMB.

Councillor Cullen drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that planning staff at both Osgoode and the Region had advised that this severance violated Official Plan policies and had recommended sustaining their appeals. He suggested the City should sustain this appeal and allow the matter to go to the OMB, where it would hear arguments from both sides and adjudicate. He said he would rather the OMB made the decision on this issue.

Councillor Harder pointed out if the Committee and Council were to agree with staff all the time, there would be no need for a Mayor and Council to reflect the community’s interest. She urged the Committee to support her motion.

Committee Chair Hunter indicated when this matter was before the Regional Planning and Environment Committee, he opposed the withdrawal of the appeal because the Township Council had an appeal in progress. He said he could now see there was not much substance to the Township’s appeal. He pointed out if the severance is not allowed it leaves this piece of land in limbo, as it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. He indicated he would be supporting the withdrawal of this appeal.

Councillor Stavinga indicated she would not be supporting Councillor Harder’s motion. She said it relates to her statements earlier in terms of respecting the LEAR process and in order to be consistent, she was supporting that the appeal be sustained.

Moved by J. Harder

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council withdraw the appeal launched by the Council of the Township of Osgoode on the Rural Alliance Severance Committee approval of severances RA-105/2000 and RA-106/2000 (Stewart James - Former Township of Osgoode).

CARRIED as amended

YEAS: M. Bellemare, D. Eastman, J. Harder and G. Hunter….4

NAYS: A. Cullen, A. Munter and J. Stavinga….3

13. SIGNS BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE – 1485 LAPERRIERE AVENUE/

Derogation mineure au Règlement municipal sur les

enseignes - 1485, avenue Laperriere

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0009

Councillor Cullen drew the Committee’s attention to the Consultation section of the staff report and noted the Carlington Community Association was in favour of an illumination restriction of 9:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 p.m. The Ward Councillor, Councillor Stewart, has indicated she was in support of the recommendation of the Carlington Community Association. Councillor Cullen advised, as a compromise, he was moving a change to 9:30 p.m. (instead of 9:00 p.m.)

Paul Blanchett, Planner, Development Approvals Department, advised this amendment would not pose a problem.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the staff recommendation be amended regarding the time of illumination by replacing 10:00 p.m. with 9:30 p.m, to read:

“is not illuminated between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.”

CARRIED

The Committee then considered the staff report as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve a variance to the Signs By-law 36-2000, of the old City of Ottawa, to permit an internally illuminated ground sign at 1485 Laperriere Avenue located 19 metres from a residential zone instead of the minimum 30 metres, provided that the sign does not exceed an area of 5 square metres, does not exceed a height of 4 metres, utilizes reverse illumination only and is not illuminated between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

CARRIED as amended

14. street name change

brookside street to brookstone street /

Changement de dénomination -
rue Brookside à rue BrookstonE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0041

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council the approval of a street name change from Brookside Street to Brookstone Street.

CARRIED

15. Naming of Private Roadway - 230 Alvin Road /

Dénomination d’un chemin privé – 230, chemin Alvin

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0031

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to By-law 115-80 (former City of Ottawa), respecting private roadways, by adding the following street name to Schedule “A” of the by-law when all conditions have been met:

DAVENPORT PRIVATE

CARRIED

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY BRANCH/

DIRECTION DE POLITIQUE D’URBANISME, D’ENVIRONNEMENT ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

16. Smart Growth Summit - Ottawa 20/20

Sommett de la croissance intelligente - Ottawa 20/20

ACS2001-DEV-POL-0004

Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Approvals Department, made a presentation to the Committee on the staff report.

Councillor Cullen asked if the output of this conference would set the direction for the development of the new Official Plan. Mr. Lathrop replied he did not think in the short time-frame of the conference a definitive direction would be set but he felt it would provide input and capture issues that the public is most concerned with.

Councillor Cullen had further questions concerning the plenary sessions, the workshops and the webcasts. Mr. Lathrop advised the final format had not yet been decided for the conference. He noted there had been discussions in terms of how much public involvement could be accomodated in the workshop format and as well, it was thought the webcasting would play a major role in allowing the public to view the workshops and provide feedback immediately. Mr. Lathrop could not at this stage, give an indication as to the number of people expected to attend the plenaries and the workshop. The General Manager stated the Councillors should provide as much information/direction as possible at this stage, so that staff can proceed with the plans for this conference.

Linda Hoad, Federation of Citizens Associations, advised she was before the Committee to express concerns with respect to the level of participation for this conference. She recommended that the model used by the former City of Ottawa when they undertook the Central Area Forum, be employed in this instance. She suggested the Development Services Department should contact Larry Spencer, the former Director of Planning at the old City of Ottawa for information and advise on how he ran that forum.

Ms. Hoad went on to say she was very concerned that the notion of webcasting may be used to replace participation. She cautioned that this medium would not be available to a great number of residents and would not be the same as being in the same room as those participating. Although Ms. Hoad felt it important to try available technologies, she said it should not be viewed as a replacement to in-person participation.

Ms. Hoad agreed with Councillor Cullen the plenary sessions should be open to the public and that it would be useful to repeat workshops so as to make them accessible to more public participants. She also agreed that if there were to be discussion groups, there should be sufficient support (e.g. facilitators) to encourage public participation. Ms. Hoad also suggested that pre-registration could help facilitate and encourage public participation.

Councillor Stavinga noted Councillor Cullen had raised an excellent point in terms of clarification of public participation. She noted that in speaking with Mr. Lathrop she had been assured that public participation would be an integral part of the success of this process. As well, she recognized the amount of organization that will be required set up this conference by June. The Councillor went on to say that although technology and the internet are wonderful avenues in which we can interact with one another, the public is saying a variety of mediums need to be used to achieve the greatest public participation.

Councillor Cullen indicated he had three motions to put forward. They were:

That the plenary sessions and workshops be open for members of the public who wish to attend;

That there be sufficient copies of pre-plenary and pre-workshop materials available to plenary and workshop attendees, and any other member of the public on request; and

That there be sufficient staff support to accommodate all attending the workshops to participate in the discussion groups.

Councillor Eastman suggested Councillor Cullen’s first motion be amended to include “subject to a pre-registration process”. Councillor Cullen accepted this as a friendly amendment.

The Committee then considered these motions.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the plenary sessions and workshops be open for members of the public who wish to attend, subject to a pre-registration process.

That there be sufficient copies of pre-plenary and pre-workshop materials available to plenary and workshop attendees, and any other member of the public on request; and

That there be sufficient staff support to accommodate all attending the workshops to participate in the discussion groups.

CARRIED

Committee Chair Hunter then read a motion from Councillor Harder, as follows:

That the Planning and Development Committee support Vice Chair Janet Stavinga as our representative steering committee member and that the balance of Council be canvassed to determine interest and that the second Council member to the steering committee be appointed at the 28 March 2001 Council meeting.

Speaking to her motion, Councillor Harder noted, having spoken with Alf Chaiton (retained by the City to work on this Summit) and other members of Council, there is a great deal of interest in this. She felt it would be unfair to the balance of City Council to forward two names at this time. She said it was important that Planning and Development Committee put forward the name of one of its members and that the balance of Council be canvassed to see who is interested

Councillor Cullen noted in the past, it had been the standard practice in situations such as this, to allow Council to choose the participants. He said he was aware that both Councillors Legendre and Hume were very interested in participating on this steering committee and if the Committee were to accept Councillor Harder’s motion, it would preclude participation by other members of Council.

Chair Hunter noted it is as standard a practice as not, that a Committee which is the lead Committee on a particular issue, would make recommendations to Council. He said he would prefer that both spots be filled by members of the Planning and Development Committee, however, at a minimum it should be one member.

Councillor Munter agreed with Chair Hunter that the interests of the Planning and Development Committee should be represented and he felt that Councillor Stavinga was an excellent choice.

Councillor Harder pointed out that the entire principle of this summit is that this will be “driven” by the Mayor and Councillors. Every member of Council will play a large role in determining what the summit will look like.

Councillor McNeely opined the environment should play a big role in this conference and for this reason, he said he would like to see the Chair of the Environmental Services Committee, Peter Hume, sit on the steering committee.

Councillor Harder offered the Chair of the Transportation and Transit Committee would probably play as big a role in this summit. She also noted that it did not necessarily need to be the Chair of any committee; any Councillor could be chosen to participate.

Responding to a question from Councillor Hume, Chair Hunter noted a mover and seconder would be required at Council for those Councillors wishing to put their names forward for participation on the steering committee.

The Committee then considered the motion from Councillor Harder.

Moved by J. Harder

CARRIED

(A. Cullen dissented)

The Committee then considered the report as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. The convening of a major conference in June 2001 on managing growth in the City of Ottawa;

2. That Vice Chair, Janet Stavinga, be the Planning and Development Committee representative steering committee member and that the balance of Council be canvassed to determine interest and that the second council member to the steering committee be appointed at Council’s meeting of 28 March 2001;

3. That the plenary sessions and workshops be open for members of the public who wish to attend, subject to a pre-registration process;

4. That there be sufficient copies of pre-plenary and pre-workshop materials available to plenary and workshop attendees, and any other member of the public on request; and

5. That there be sufficient staff support to accommodate all attending the workshops to participate in the discussion groups.

CARRIED as amended

17. Kanata west concept plan

PLAN CONCEPTUEL DE KanatA wEST

ACS2001-DEV-POL-0005

Moved by A. Cullen

That the Planning and Development Committee approve the suspension of the Rules of Procedure (Section 82(3)) to consider the addition of Item No. 17, Kanata West Concept Plan, by Committee at today’s meeting.

CARRIED

Councillor Eastman indicated he had to leave but wanted to first make a comment on the report. He referenced the last bullet on the first page of the report which stated: “costs of the development, not including infrastructure in the Regional Official Plan, are to be borne by the development through such means as a special area development charge”. He then referenced the last sentence on page 4, under Financial Implications, which stated “The identified infrastructure will be primarily funded by landowners with the city portion funded through subsequent years’ budgets”. The Councillor felt there was some inconsistency between the two statements and as well he found the bullet on the first page somewhat harsh, as it puts almost the entire burden on the business sector. He cautioned this could jeopardize the entire project.

Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, Development Services Department provided an overview of the staff report.

Councillor Cullen commented, at the time ROPA 9 was approved by Regional Council, he found this to be an unwarranted expansion of the original concept and placed a tremendous burden on the ability to provide infrastructure.

Jeff Kyle, Terrace Corporation and Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consulting Mr. Kyle advised Terrace Corporation was one of the landowners within the ROPA 9 study area. He indicated he was also representing the landowner’s steering committee and expressed their support the staff report.

Committee Chair Hunter referenced the six amendments put forward (three from Councillor Munter and three from Councillor Stavinga) and provided to members of the Committee and others in attendance. He asked if these would present any problems for the delegation.

Mr. Fobert advised, having just seen the amendments, he did not believe most of them would be an issue. He did express concern regarding the motion from Councillor Stavinga, on the prematurity of initiating a study to examine the potential for additional land supply beyond the boundaries of the Kanata West Business Park. Mr. Fobert stated it was important to recognize that ROPA 9 looked at the requirement to do a residential land study to determine the level of housing demand that would be generated by the employment development in the Kanata West Business Park. He felt it important to understand the level of employment proposed, would generate housing demand beyond the boundary. He emphasized the importance of having this study go forward concurrently with the concept plan for the Kanata West Business Park, for example to identify infrastructure linkages and opportunities for cost sharing.

Chair Hunter asked if Mr. Jacobs had any comments on the amendments. Mr. Jacobs stated he too had concerns with the motion regarding the prematurity of the land study beyond the Kanata West Business Park and ROPA 9 lands. In looking at the available land in existing communities, to satisfy and maintain the Regional Official Plan’s ratio between housing units and employment, it would be difficult even at high densities to contain all of the required residential development within the existing West Urban Community boundaries. With respect to the motion on the distinctiveness of the two communities and the need for a buffer, Mr. Jacobs stated his concern was whether the motion would limit it to a specific type of buffer. He noted there are many ways to separate a community that provides a visual barrier and he felt the options should be left open.

Councillor Harder, referencing the motion regarding the pre-maturity of the study, asked how established priorities would be safeguarded and referred specifically to lands in south Nepean. Mr. Jacobs advised the primary means would be by way of decisions made by Planning and Development Committee and Council, when reports come forward. He stated through the process itself, staff will be looking at the residential land inventory for the immediate area (i.e. Stittsville, Kanata and the intervening lands) and assessing the availability of lands in those areas to satisfy growth in that area and the west end. He stated the residential land inventory part of this analysis is not intended to designate new land; rather it is intended to assess the capability of lands already available or that could be available. If there was a recommendation coming out of that study designating new lands, it would be the subject of an official plan amendment process and would require the approval of Planning and Development Committee and Council.

Councillor Stavinga sought clarification, in terms of the residential study and inventory, it will not be including just the areas of Goulbourn and Kanata on the east and west side of the Carp River but will also look at the residential land supply that does exist (e.g. in the area of Fallowfield and Highway 416). Mr. Jacobs confirmed staff would have to take this into account in looking at whether or not the boundary should be expanded in a certain area. He noted the first part of the study will be to determine the number of additional residential units needed to support the proposed development. This would then be applied to the lands that are currently available in the immediate area, to determine whether or not additional lands are needed.

Councillor Munter noted the staff report speaks to development south of Hazeldean Road. He offered there was no question that a development of this magnitude was going to generate the need for housing but he asked if this would not be better looked at through the Official Plan process. Mr. Jacobs responded it was his professional opinion that ROPA 9 directed that the residential land study be undertaken with respect to the lands coming out of ROPA 9, in tandem. He noted as part of the Official Plan process, the need and demand for housing will be looked at and it is staff’s intent to be more high-level in their approach to the Official Plan. The actual delineation of specific numbers relative to housing units may not be part of the mix.

Speaking to his motions, Councillor Munter explained the advantage of this business park is that it is on Highway 417 and along a right-of-way owned by the City. Although this has a lot of planning merit, there is also a concern. Speaking on behalf of the residential community of Kanata, Councillor Munter emphasized that if 36,000 jobs are put here and it is not planned properly, the residential community of Kanata will be destroyed with six and eight lane roads running throughout residential neighbourhoods.

The Councillor opined it is in the City’s best interest, to plan for this development in a different way than has been done for industrial parks in the past. He explained for this reason, his first motion adds such an objective to the steering committee’s objectives. His next motion was to add to the steering committee, a member from Kanata and one from Stittsville and he explained the importance of doing so because of the direct impact this development will have on these two communities. Finally, with respect to his last motion Councillor Munter said the issue that has been of greatest concern to him has been the issue of infrastructure and the costs. He stressed the importance of knowing how the infrastructure both within the development and leading to it, will be paid for. The Councillor said he wanted to ensure that the financial analysis speaks to what these costs will be and who will pay for this.

The Committee then considered Councillor Munter’s motions.

Moved by A. Munter

Whereas this project most directly affects the Kanata and Stittsville communities,

That the composition of the Steering Committee be amended to add one representative of each community (i.e. Kanata and Stittsville) to be selected in consultation with the Ward Councillor;

CARRIED

Moved by A. Munter

That the concept plan include a financial analysis of the costs of infrastructure required to support the additional traffic generated by the Kanata West Business Park, including the road and transit facility enhancements beyond the Kanata West Business Park boundaries required to service the site, and that this analysis identify the means by which such infrastructure will be funded.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Munter

That the objectives of the Steering Committee be amended to add:

· To ensure the concept plan produces an innovative mixed-use urban development where people will be able to live, work and play.

CARRIED

Councillor Stavinga then spoke to her motions. With respect to her motion regarding the healthy main street of Stittsville, the Councillor noted in discussing the Kanata West Business Park there was much attention paid to ensuring it would not impact on the Kanata Town Centre but very little recognition as to the impact it might have on the main street of Stittsville. She said the purpose of her motion was to ensure that the viability of Stittsville’s main street is maintained as a place to live, walk, shop, play and cycle. On her next motion regarding the distinct visual separation between Kanata and Stittsville, Councillor Stavinga noted both communities have indicated very clearly the importance of retaining the natural landscape buffer between the two communities. With respect to her third motion, on the appropriate mix of uses, Councillor Stavinga stressed the importance of emphasizing the mix of uses and how it respects the community boundaries. If the residential land supply study is undertaken now, it will colour the outcome of the residential mixed uses before City Council can even define it. She urged the Committee to support her motions.

At Chair Hunter’s request, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, advised subsequent to the Region adopting the Regional Official Plan in 1997, there were three appeals dealing with the expansion of the urban area: one smaller parcel to the south of Stittsville and two larger parcels to the east of Stittsville. No hearing has taken place on those amendments. The Region brought a motion on 18 October 2000, to have the appeals adjourned indefinitely pending the concept plan and the residential land use study called for by ROPA 9, however, no decision has been issue by the Board on this motion. The Board has been monitoring the progress of the Region and the new City of Ottawa with respect to those matters and Mr. Marc indicated he had been able to advise the Board that this process is ongoing.

Mr. Marc went on to say there is a pre-hearing conference call tentatively scheduled for April 6 with respect to this matter. The landowner of the smallest parcel to the south is seeking to have the hearing brought forward. Mr. Marc offered, if he is not able to advise the Board that the residential land use study is forthcoming, he opined the Board would be inclined to allow the hearing to go forward and he stated it was his belief that it would not simply be a hearing on the smaller parcel to the south but also the two other larger pieces of land. Mr. Marc cautioned the City would risk losing having input into the process if a residential land use study is not carried out.

Councillor Stavinga noted as part of this report, it is agreed that a residential land use study is part of the proposed 2001 work plan for Development Services and will proceed. She stated all she was asking was that it not proceed as part of the Kanata West Concept Plan.

Mr. Marc pointed out the Councillor’s motion stated “that it is premature to initiate a study to examine the potential for additional land supply beyond the boundaries of the Kanata West Business Park…”. He said this paragraph caused him concern because if approved, the message he would feel compelled to convey to the Board is that that study is not going to be forthcoming.

Councillor Munter stated his concern was that doing a residential land study in conjunction with the concept plan, would result in the Kanata West Business Park becoming even larger than it is now. He said he would like to see how much of the residential demand could be accommodated in the 13,070 acres and felt the intent of Councillor Stavinga need to be preserved.

Councillor Stavinga indicated she was amending her motion to read “That a study to examine the potential for additional land supply beyond the boundaries of the Kanata West Business Park be initiated following deliberations on the final concept plan, if required.” She said this would clearly set out that mixed use be looked at within the Kanata West Business Park and then, upon completion of this plan, if medium density cannot be achieved, then the residential land supply study could be carried out.

At Chair Hunter’s request, Mr. Marc commented on this amendment. He noted it would extend the timetable (i.e. after July) that a residential land use study might be commenced. He felt the OMB could have concerns about this. From a planning perspective, Mr. Jacobs advised the amendment would not handicap the planners in carrying out the objectives of the study as outlined in ROPA 9, however, it would hamstring staff’s ability to look at all of the alternatives at the same time.

Responding to questions from Councillor Bellemare, with respect to Councillor Stavinga’s motion on preserving the viability of Stittsville’s main street, Mr. Jacobs noted the scales of the two areas (i.e. the Kanata West Business Park and Stittsville’s main street) are totally different. The types of services that are being provided by the main street in Stittsville are mainly directed towards the people that live in that community. The types of services that would be considered in the Kanata West Business Park, would be focused on serving the needs of that particular area. He said he did not see the two areas being in conflict. He further confirmed that it would not preclude the two areas from having the same franchise (e.g. such as a Starbucks) if there were sufficient markets in each area, to support such franchises.

The Committee then considered Councillor Stavinga’s motion.

Moved by J. Stavinga

Whereas healthy main streets are a measure of a town’s overall economic and social health,

Be it resolved that in the development of the concept plan, retail and commercial services throughout the Kanata West Business Park shall no detract from the vitality of Stittsville’s Main Street.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Stavinga

Whereas the communities of Stittsville and Kanata have repeatedly voiced their strong support for maintaining the distinctiveness of each of their communities,

Be it resolved that in the development of the Kanata West Business Park concept plan, staff be directed to ensure that a distinct visual separation in the form of open space be integrated.

LOST

NAYS: M. Bellemare, J. Harder and G. Hunter….3

YEAS: A. Cullen, A. Munter and J. Stavinga….3

Speaking to Councillor Stavinga’s third motion, Chair Hunter stated he felt it could hamstring the study by limiting the number of options that could take place while the concept plan is underway. He felt it was for artificial means, in an attempt to pre-judge other studies and appeals that might be taking place. The Chair felt that those undertaking the Kanata West Concept Plan should have a free hand to bring forward the best advise that they can.

Councillor Cullen offered his opinion that Councillor Stavinga, in her motion, was trying to ensure that the study does not end up involving more land than it originally anticipated. He urged the Committee to support Councillor Stavinga’s motion.

Moved by J. Stavinga

Whereas it is our intent to encourage the most appropriate mix of uses in the Kanata West Business Park that together create a unique, medium density mix use area that complements and supports both the adjacent residential areas and the prestige employment areas,

Be it resolved that That a study to examine the potential for additional land supply beyond the boundaries of the Kanata West Business Park be initiated following deliberations on the final concept plan, if required;

And that all references to such studies be removed from the terms of reference and request for proposals (RFP); and

Further that the RFP, terms of reference and related documents be amended to include a study as to how to accommodate housing within the boundaries of the Kanata West Business Park in order to meet the goal of an integrated community.

CARRIED

YEAS: M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, J. Harder, A. Munter and J. Stavinga….5

NAYS: G. Hunter….1

Committee Chair Hunter noted that the report did not require Council approval. He asked for a legal opinion on whether or not having added these amendments, if the report would now require Council approval.

Mr. Marc advised that ROPA 9 and the decision taken by Council at its last meeting with respect to the Concept plan provided certain instructions with respect to carrying out the concept plan. The report as presented was consistent with these directions. He said in reviewing the motions, they provided further details to the staff recommendations, but are still are consistent with the general approach of ROPA 9 and the decision of Council on 28 February 2001. He stated it was his opinion the report did not need to rise to Council, subject to the Chair’s discretion or the Committee’s direction to the contrary.

Chair Hunter asked that the Committee Coordinator provide to all members of Council, as soon as possible, the motions arising out of the Committee on this item.

Mr. Lathrop confirmed for Councillor Munter, that in the event the report does not rise to Council, the directions contained in the motions approved by the Committee would be carried out by staff.

Councillor Stavinga noted there was a steering committee meeting scheduled for 23 March and asked if the appointments of the two additional members (one each from Kanata and Stittsville) could be carried out. Chair Hunter confirmed this could be done immediately.

The Committee then approved the report as amended.

That Planning and Development Committee approve this report, as amended by the following and direct staff to initiate the actions necessary to implement ROPA 9:

1. That the composition of the Steering Committee be amended to add one representative of each community (i.e. Kanata and Stittsville) to be selected in consultation with the Ward Councillor;

2. That the concept plan include a financial analysis of the costs of infrastructure required to support the additional traffic generated by the Kanata West Business Park, including the road and transit facility enhancements beyond the Kanata West Business Park boundaries required to service the site, and that this analysis identify the means by which such infrastructure will be funded.

3. That the objectives of the Steering Committee be amended to add:

· To ensure the concept plan produces an innovative mixed-use urban development where people will be able to live, work and play.

4. That a study to examine the potential for additional land supply beyond the boundaries of the Kanata West Business Park be initiated following deliberations on the final concept plan, if required;

And that all references to such studies be removed from the terms of reference and request for proposals (RFP); and

5. That in the development of the concept plan, retail and commercial services throughout the Kanata West Business Park shall no detract from the vitality of Stittsville’s Main Street.

CARRIED as amended

18. 2607 NORBERRY CRESCENT – OMB - HEARING

Councillor Cullen referenced a memorandum from Councillor Stewart dated 7 March 2001, regarding this item, copies of which were provided to members of the Committee.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the Planning and Development Committee approve the suspension of the Rules of Procedure (Section 82 (3) to consider the addition of Item No. 18, 2697 Norberry Crescent – OMB Hearing, by Committee at today’s meeting.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Planning and Development Committee approve that Legal Staff of the City of Ottawa be directed to attend the Ontario Municipal Hearing on Friday, 9 March 2001, with respect to 2697 Norberry Crescent.

CARRIED as amended

INQUIRIES

Councillor Cullen questioned when it could be expected that the various former municipalities’ policies, with respect to commenting on Committee of Adjustment applications, would be harmonized. John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals, advised staff were in the midst of reviewing the existing policies. As well, a report will be brought forward to the Planning and Development Committee (likely the last meeting in April) dealing with the future structure of the Committee of Adjustment. He said a component could be included as to the staff’s relationship with the Committee.

Councillor Harder noted as part of the report on the Delegation of Authority, Councillors were to have received a chart on how the different municipalities dealt with this. She asked when this could be expected. Mr. Moser advised this package of material would be available the following week.

Committee Chair Hunter noted that one of the Committee members had missed three meetings in a row and as a result, the Char had made an inquiry of the Clerk. He received the following advice: “Should any member of Committee fail to attend three successive regular or special meetings thereof, without being authorized to do so by a resolution of the Committee, the Committee may certify such failure and thereupon the membership of such person on the Committee is terminated and the Council may appoint another member in their place. Reception of a written notice of regret by the Committee or Council shall constitute authorization for the purpose of this subsection”. The Councillor in question gave verbal notice for two of the meetings but did not give notice for the other meeting.

Chair Hunter advised Committee he would be speaking with this Councillor, as he considered this a serious matter and noted there were other members of Council who would like to be a member of the Planning and Development Committee. The Chair reminded members that if they were going to miss a meeting, they must submit a written notice (e-mail would suffice).

Councillor Cullen suggested that perhaps the Member Services Committee could review the matter (i.e. whether or not a phone call would suffice). The Chair noted these provisions (for written notification) were contained in the Procedure By-law.

ADJOURNMENT

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair