Planning and Development Committee/

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

Minutes 12 / Procès-verbal 12

Thursday, 12 July 2001, 9:30 a.m.

le jeudi 12 juillet 2001, 9h30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

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

Declarations of Interest

No declarations of interest were received.

Confirmation of Minutes

The Minutes (Regular and Confidential) of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 28 June 2001 were confirmed.

DEFERRED ITEM /

REPORT

1. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT / ZONING AMENDMENT –
525 COVENTRY ROAD/

MODIFICATION DU PLAN DIRECTEUR / MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE – 525 CHEMIN COVENTRY

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0092

(Item deferred from meeting of 12 June 2001)

As required under the Planning Act, Committee Chair Hunter read a statement 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.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve an amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan for 525 Coventry Road as outlined in Document 1.

2. Approve an amendment to Zoning By-law, 1998, to add exceptions to the IP F(1.0) H (10.7) zone for the property at 525 Coventry Road as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

(D. Eastman and A. Munter dissented)

2. SUBDIVISION – 2930 ALBION ROAD /

LOTISSEMENT – 2930, CHEMIN ALBION

acs2001-dev-apr-0155

(Committee Deliberation - Public Meeting held 28 June 2001)

Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals and John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch appeared before the Committee on this item.

Mr. Lindsay advised since this item was deferred from the meeting of 28 June 2001, staff have been in active negotiations with CN Rail in determining a list of conditions that both the City and CN Rail can agree with. Staff received a set of conditions the previous day, which they feel are appropriate. In addition, the developer has met with the Councillor for the area and has agreed to allow for some additional greenspace and contributions in that regard.

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Wendy Stewart advised she had drafted a number of motions, which Councillor Cullen had agreed to move on her behalf. She advised the Committee that these motions had been agreed to by the Ridgemont community, the developer and City staff. The Councillor then briefly reviewed these motions.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

A. Milliken Heisey, Papazian Heisey Myers, Solicitor representing CN Rail. Mr. Heisey advised CN wanted to protect its operations from residents and ensure that residents are protected from its operation. He noted the Walkley rail yards, although not owned by CN, were a vital component of their operations. Mr. Heisey then referenced his letter dated 11 July 2001 (held on file with the City Clerk) and noted he was requesting approval of items 1 through 5 (of his letter) as conditions of subdivision. These conditions were as follows:

1. The Subdivider grant CN an environmental easement registered against the Subdivision Lands in favour of CN.

2. The developer enter into an agreement directly with CN registered against the Subdivision Lands in favour of CN.

3. CN’s consent be required prior to clearance of the aforementioned conditions and any subdivision condition addressing the requirements for a noise report.

4. The warning clauses as requested in Mr. Woods’ letter of 10 July 2001, attached.

5. The Subdivision Agreement as it relates to the requirements above is not to be cleared and is to remain on title in perpetuity.

Councillor Cullen asked for a staff response with respect to the request for an environmental easement. Mr. Lindsay advised staff had reviewed the conditions and were content with the wording of the conditions. He continued that staff feel CN’s interests, as well as the City’s can be accommodated, such that Claridge can proceed with their development. He said he was not sure if the developer was in complete agreement with the proposed conditions.

Councillor Cullen advised he was prepared to put forward a motion, subject to the comments from delegations, to include in the subdivision agreement an easement with respect to the issues raised by CN.

Councillor Eastman related CN’s request to warning clauses in agricultural areas and noted these state “normal farm noises, smells, etc.”. He observed CN’s proposed clauses do not speak of “normal” operations and he asked for comment from the delegation. Mr. Heisey replied with a rail yard, there is no such thing as a normal operation but he did state the clause was intended to restrict it to rail operations.

Chair Hunter referenced conditions 2 and 3 in Mr. Heisey’s letter, and asked for staff comment with respect to the City signing away their normal responsibility for “policing” a subdivision agreement. Mr. Lindsay suggested the condition could be reworded to include “to the satisfaction of CN and the City of Ottawa”.

Barbara Barr, noted she had addressed the Committee on this issue at the public meeting of 28 June 2001 and at that time she encouraged the Committee to resolve the issues that CN had, with respect to noise. She said she was pleased to see the Committee proceeding in this direction. Ms. Barr advised she had also spoken of the piece-meal planning of this site. She noted a plan of subdivision was before the Committee at this time, but there is another development adjacent to this site for which no application has yet been submitted. She stressed that all development proposals for the entire site should come forward at one time. As well, Ms. Barr spoke of the Municipal Environmental Evaluation Report (MEER) and felt this should have been done before the plan of subdivision was accepted.

Ms. Barr stated she was pleased that one of the motions put forward by Councillor Stewart addressed her suggestion concerning the pathway connection on Jasper Street. And finally, she suggested some of the houses should be required to be bungalows to blend in better with the existing community.

Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes, referred to the letter and the comments made by Mr. Heisey on behalf of CN and stated he found it disturbing that CN was trying to impose their will on Claridge and the City, and in effect were proposing to be the approval authority. He said Claridge was prepared to accept the conditions CN was asking for, however, he asked that the City be the agent to clear these conditions rather than CN.

With respect to the motions put forward by Councillor Stewart, Mr. Burghout spoke of the donation from Claridge in the amount of $35,000 for parkland improvements. He expressed support for these motions but said it would be up to the Ward Councillors (i.e. Councillor Deans and Councillor Stewart), the Committee and the community how these funds are allocated. He urged the Committee not to allow this issue to hold up the development.

Councillor Deans noted there had been concerns about how the donation for parkland would be allocated. She said she was hopeful that at least $10,000 would be spent in the Heatherington Park. She requested that someone on the Committee move this as an amendment to Councillor Stewart’s motion (i.e. $10,000 for Ridgemont, $10,000 for Heatherington and the remaining $15,000 for the on-site park).

Councillor Stewart then addressed Councillor Deans’ proposed amendments to her motions. She noted this is a former greenspace, on Albion Road that borders two wards. She said the $25,000 is earmarked for improvement for the park in this community at the northern most end, at the corner of Walkley and Albion Road. Directly across from this site is another piece of greenspace that has also been redesignated for high-density development. This playground will serve not only the existing communities (including the community in Councillor Deans ward) and the subject development but also the proposed new highrises to the north. She noted the park Councillor Deans is attempting to have $10,000 allocated to, is quite removed from this area and not readily accessible to the existing communities. She asked that the Committee support her motions (being moved by Councillor Cullen) and not support the proposed amendment.

Councillor Deans stated this was an important piece of greenspace to the Heatherington community; one of the lowest income communities in the entire City of Ottawa. This area is made up of highrises and the families are mostly single parent, immigrant households. These children are losing their greenspace to a development. Councillor Deans commended Claridge Homes for being so generous in allocating this $35,000 for park improvements in this area. The Councillor said she did not accept the argument that residents from the proposed highrises to the north would use this park as Walkley is a very busy road and the apartment complexes would likely have their own park. She said she was agreeable to working out the details with Councillor Stewart as to the actual allocation of these funds.

Councillor Stewart suggested, and Councillor Deans agreed, that the $10,000 earmarked for off-site improvements be split - $5,000 for Ridgemont Park and $5,000 for Heatherington Park.

Chair Hunter asked if the monies were in addition to the normal parkland dedication requirements. Mr. Lindsay advised these contributions were over and above the requirements of the Planning Act. The Chair then asked if this was a common practice, to which Mr. Lindsay replied that it was not, in his experience.

Councillor Stavinga noted although the Planning Act requires 5% for parkland dedication, she said it was very common for communities to demand much more. She said it behoves Council and the developers to look beyond what is legislated.

The Committee then considered the motions put forward.

Moved by A. Cullen

Whereas City staff has identified the need to move existing recreational equipment (swing sets) from the area proposed for development in the Draft Plan of Subdivision for 2930 Albion Road;

And Whereas a City park exists adjacent to this site at the corner of Walkley Road and Albion Road;

Be it therefore resolved that Claridge Homes be required to move, to City staff’s satisfaction, this equipment and sand to the adjoining park as a Condition of Subdivision approval.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

Whereas the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for 2930 Albion Road includes a north-south pedestrian link and greenway corridor;

And Whereas the Ridgemont community has expressed an interest in being able to access that corridor from Notting Hill Avenue;

And Whereas Claridge Homes has agreed to convey to the City a 6-metre wide pedestrian link complete with a 1.5 metre asphalt path and landscaping to City staff’s satisfaction;

Be it therefore resolved that this be included as a condition of subdivision approval for this site.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

Whereas Claridge Homes has provided written confirmation of their commitment to pay the City of Ottawa $5,000 for the purpose of improving park facilities in Ridgemont Park and $5,000 for the purpose of Heatherington Park;

Be it therefore resolved that this payment be included as a condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval for 2930 Albion Road.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

Whereas Ridgemont and Heatherington communities enjoyed recreational uses on the proposed development site of 2930 Albion Road;

And Whereas this was greenspace owned by the National Capital Commission;

And Whereas it is important to re-establish recreational facilities that can be easily accessed by residents in the vicinity of this development;

And Whereas the City owns parkland at the corner of Walkley Road and Albion Road;

Be it therefore resolved that Claridge Homes be required to provide $25,000 to the City of Ottawa for future recreational improvements in the Walkley/Albion parkland as a condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Planning and Development Committee direct staff to amend Section 11.0 Noise Attenuation of the Conditions for Draft Plan Approval to incorporate conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5 contained in the July 11, 2001 letter from A.M. Heisey on behalf of CN;

And that Condition 3 contained in the July 11, 2001 letter from A.M. Heisey on behalf of CN be referred to staff for resolution within the requirements of a noise report;

And further, Conditions 2 and 3 of this letter include approval of the City of Ottawa in addition to CN.

CARRIED

The Committee then approved the staff recommendation (with the revised wording provided by staff), as amended by the foregoing.

That the Planning and Development Committee endorse the granting of draft approval to the Plan of Subdivision pertaining to Part of Lot 1, Concession 3 (Rideau Front) Geographic Township of Gloucester; as certified by Andrew Shelp, Ontario Land Surveyor, dated 08 January 2001, showing 28 lots, 3 blocks for residential purposes and one park block in the City of Ottawa, as shown on Document 2, subject to the conditions detailed in Document 3 and the following:

1. Whereas City staff has identified the need to move existing recreational equipment (swing sets) from the area proposed for development in the Draft Plan of Subdivision for 2930 Albion Road;

And Whereas a City park exists adjacent to this site at the corner of Walkley Road and Albion Road;

Be it therefore resolved that Claridge Homes be required to move, to City staff’s satisfaction, this equipment and sand to the adjoining park as a Condition of Subdivision approval.

2. Whereas the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for 2930 Albion Road includes a north-south pedestrian link and greenway corridor;

And Whereas the Ridgemont community has expressed an interest in being able to access that corridor from Notting Hill Avenue;

And Whereas Claridge Homes has agreed to convey to the City a 6-metre wide pedestrian link complete with a 1.5 metre asphalt path and landscaping to City staff’s satisfaction;

Be it therefore resolved that this be included as a condition of subdivision approval for this site.

3. Whereas Claridge Homes has provided written confirmation of their commitment to pay the City of Ottawa $5,000 for the purpose of improving park facilities in Ridgemont Park and $5,000 for the purpose of Heatherington Park;

Be it therefore resolved that this payment be included as a condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval for 2930 Albion Road.

4. Whereas Ridgemont and Heatherington communities enjoyed recreational uses on the proposed development site of 2930 Albion Road;

And Whereas this was greenspace owned by the National Capital Commission;

And Whereas it is important to re-establish recreational facilities that can be easily accessed by residents in the vicinity of this development;

And Whereas the City owns parkland at the corner of Walkley Road and Albion Road;

5. That Planning and Development Committee direct staff to amend Section 11.0 Noise Attenuation of the Conditions for Draft Plan Approval to incorporate conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5 contained in the July 11, 2001 letter from A.M. Heisey on behalf of CN;

And that Condition 3 contained in the July 11, 2001 letter from A.M. Heisey on behalf of CN be referred to staff for resolution within the requirements of a noise report;

And further, Conditions 2 and 3 of this letter include approval of the City of Ottawa in addition to CN.

And redelegate to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals the authority to complete processing of this subdivision.

CARRIED as amended

DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH /
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’AMÉNAGEMENT ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE

3. REGIONAL AND LOCAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE VILLAGE OF MANOTICK

MODIFICATIONS DES PLANS DIRECTEURS RÉGIONAL ET LOCAL CONCERNANT LE VILLAGE DE MANOTICK

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0141

Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, wherein he advised that anyone who intended to appeal these proposed Official Plan Amendments, 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.

Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals and Myles Mahon, Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch appeared before the Committee on this item. Mr. Mahon gave a brief presentation on this report. He noted Councillor Eastman would be moving three administrative modifications to the amendments to correct errors and clarify policies.

Councillor Brooks, the Ward Councillor, advised this report was as a result of almost seven years of intensive consultation with the community and two studies undertaken by the Township of Rideau. He indicated the plan was supported by the steering committee, the Manotick Business Improvement Association and the Chamber of Commerce. He stressed the importance of moving ahead with this initiative.

Chair Hunter referenced Schedule A and noted there was an area designated Village in the former City of Nepean. He said years earlier it was requested that this area should be part of the Village of Manotick and so it was designated Village in the Nepean Official Plan, however, Rideau Township never did acquire this piece of land. He asked for the status of this piece of land. Mr. Mahon advised there are policies in the Nepean Official Plan that deal specifically with those areas. The policy states there needs to be a concept plan completed which will be compatible with the overall plan for the Village. When staff looked at the plan for Manotick, they determined that an amendment to the Nepean Official Plan was not necessary to incorporate this land into the Village (as it is already Village) and the policies that are in the Nepean Official Plan would serve to permit development of those properties as part of the Village.

Jack Watson, advised he had lived in Manotick for 60 years and posed a number of questions with respect to the proposed plan. These questions were: Does this new plan mean Manotick can only develop west of the River? Are we not one City now? Why are we taking more good farmland south of Manotick? Is this good planning? Should we not fill in to the North? With respect to the sewer, is all of the development on this land held up until the sewer comes? Does this amendment have any merit in the new City of Ottawa? He said he could not decide whether this amendment was premature or obsolete in the context of the new City.

Responding to some of the questions posed by the delegation, Councillor Brooks noted Rideau had set boundaries and the secondary plan is designed to the year 2021. The total population will be approximately 6,500 to 7,000. The lot sizes will be determined based on the hydrogeological study for those areas to be serviced by well and septic and the area west of Mud Creek will not be developed until the central services are in place.

Peter Mirsky, Leimerk Developments Ltd., referenced recommendation 3, regarding approval of Official Plan Amendment 3 to the Rideau Official Plan. Mr. Mirsky explained Leimerk Developments is the owner of the Manotick Mews and owns a small piece of the land west of Mud Creek. He said Leimerk wants to ensure that the spirit and intent of the by-law passed by Rideau Township (with respect to his client’s land) is carried forward. Mr. Mirsky noted the technical amendments referenced earlier by Mr. Mahon would address his client’s concerns.

Mr. Mirsky went on to say there was one final matter that he was not able to resolve with staff. This had to do with Section 3.7.2.5.2 h) which read in part, “Council may permit the area on Schedule A designated as “SDA: Estate Residential and Open Space” to be developed as a residential area, without amendment to this Plan, provided the following conditions are satisfied:…” Mr. Mirsky felt the item should be worded as follows: “The area designated on Schedule A as “SDA: Estate Residential and Open Space” shall be developed as a residential area, without amendment to this Plan, provided the following conditions are satisfied:…” He explained the word “may” was discretionary yet, no guidelines are provided.

At Chair Hunter’s request, Mr. Mahon advised the word “may” was used deliberately and explained that development may be permitted without amendment to the plan however, opportunity is provided for an official plan amendment if required by proposed land uses.

Mr. Mirsky advised the intent originally was that development could proceed without an amendment. He stated that Mr. Mahon’s interpretation deviated from what was originally approved.

Councillor Brooks commented the feeling of the residents, the steering committee and the former Rideau Township Council was that development would take place within this area subject to the hydrogeological and terrain analysis (i.e. the lot size was the concern). He felt the word “may” provided some flexibility but stated it was clear that country estate lot development would take place west of Mud Creek.

Ian Hawkins, advised he owned property affected by this Official Plan Amendment and stated he objected to the Amendment. He said during the public consultation process, his objections and concerns were not dealt with. His legal counsel has assured him his objections were duly submitted and he therefore felt he had been denied due process. He asked that the Amendment be deferred until his objections are dealt with.

Responding to questions from Councillor Munter, Mr. Hawkins advised he owned a gas station in the Village of Manotick that has a dual zoning (i.e. the front half of the property is zoning commercial and the back 15 feet of the property is zoned residential) and it just does not work. He said the entire property should be zoned multi-residential and commercial.

Councillor Brooks advised Mr. Hawkins’ property is located on Bridge Street, across the street from a residential community. Mr. Hawkins applied to rezone the entire property commercial so that he could develop on that property and the matter went before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The OMB ruled against the rezoning and the property remains with the commercial zoning on the front portion and residential on the rear.

Councillor Brooks went on to say that Mr. Hawkins had raised this issue with him the previous day and the Councillor went through all of the submissions and lists of people who had submitted concerns or objections to the plan. He said he could find no mention of opposition from Mr. Hawkin’s solicitor either verbally or written. Councillor Brooks advised the residents in the southern part of Long Island were opposed to any change to commercial and he drew the Committee’s attention to correspondence sent by David Blaikie dated 11 July 2001 (held on file with the City Clerk).

Chair Hunter asked Mr. Hawkins if he could provide the Committee with a copy of his submission to Rideau Township on this Amendment. Mr. Hawkins said he would obtain a copy from his solicitor and submit same.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Lindsay advised this is a very site specific zoning land use issue and Mr. Hawkins would have the right to make an application to amend the zoning by-law to add the additional uses he feels are appropriate.

Wayne Duff, advised he was before the Committee to speak in support of the sewers for Manotick. He noted he spoke on behalf of the majority of the people in Hillside Gardens. Mr. Duff said most of the development on the island is 30 years old and the lots are approximately half an acre in size. This size of lot cannot withstand both a septic system and a well. Two years previously Hillside Gardens had City water put in because of problems with contaminated wells. Mr. Duff went on to point out that the City sewer was only three to four kilometres away (i.e. the Riverside South development) and he expressed the hope that the cost to the residents of Manotick would not be too great.

Christropher Hawes, advised he too was a resident of Hillside Gardens and expressed his support for this Amendment to bring the City sewer to Manotick. Mr. Hawes stressed the urgency of moving forward with the sewer but also of bringing City water to this area. He said although his area received City water a couple of years earlier because of health issues, there are still areas that do not have City water (including Manotick Public School) and he spoke of the serious health concerns due to septic waste that is contaminating the earth. In closing, Mr. Hawes emphasized that the sewer and water situation had to be dealt with on an emergency basis.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee and the motions referenced earlier were approved.

Moved by D. Eastman

i) “That Section 3.7.2.4 Policy E 4, The Post Office District, be modified by adding the following policy:

f) Notwithstanding a) above, retail uses shall be encouraged to locate within the Historic Village, Main Street, and the Mews Character Areas. However, retail uses shall be permitted within the Main Street of the Post Office District Character Area provided they are located on the ground floor and are accessory and clearly secondary to the permitted professional and business services and offices.

Retail uses shall be restricted to the ground floor and shall not occupy more than 45% of the gross floor area.

Special consideration to signage and the building facia shall be implemented through the site plan review process to ensure the retail component is clearly accessory to the primary use.”

ii) “That Section 3.7.2.9, Village and Utility Servicing, policy A 2 e) be modified by changing the reference at the end of the policy from “Policy 3.7.2.9 A 2 a) ii) above” to “Policy 3.7.2.9 A 2 b) ii) above”.

iii) “That Section 3.7.2.5, Housing in the Village (Outside the Village Core), policy 2 h) v) be modified by deleting text and replacing it with the following:

All development shall be on the basis of private services. All residential plans of subdivision must have a density of development that conforms to the Township of Rideau approved hydrogeological report, “Hydrogeolical Suitability Extension of Manotick Development Area” by GeoAnalysis dated 4 April, 1989 “(i.e. average minimum lot size:0.4 to 0.6 hectares), or as determined by more current investigations;”

CARRIED

Councillor Eastman then introduced a motion to amend Section 3.7.2.5 2 h), which addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Peter Mirsky (i.e. changing “may” to “shall”). Responding to questions from the Committee, Mr. Lindsay advised staff supported this amendment.

Moved by D. Eastman

That Section 3.7.2.5 2 h) be amended to read as follows:

“Council shall permit the area on Schedule A designated as “SDA: Estate Residential and Open Space” to be developed as a residential area. The development may be permitted without amendment to this Plan, provided the following conditions are satisfied:”

CARRIED

The report as amended, was then approved.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve Amendment No. 22 to the Regional Official Plan to extend central services to Manotick;

2. Rescind By-law 28/2000 adopting LOPA 2 of the Former Township of Rideau;

3. Approve Amendment No. 3 to the Rideau Official Plan, a land use plan for the Village of Manotick as amended by the following:

i) “That Section 3.7.2.4 Policy E 4, The Post Office District, be modified by adding the following policy:

Retail uses shall be restricted to the ground floor and shall not occupy more than 45% of the gross floor area.

Special consideration to signage and the building facia shall be implemented through the site plan review process to ensure the retail component is clearly accessory to the primary use.”

iii) “That Section 3.7.2.5, Housing in the Village (Outside the Village Core), policy 2 h) v) be modified by deleting text and replacing it with the following:

iv) That Section 3.7.2.5 2 h) be amended to read as follows:

4. Increase the High Priority – Manotick Service Engineering Project from $100,000 to $250,000 with funding from the Sewer Reserve Fund;

5. Pre-commit $250,000 in the 2002 Capital Budget for the “High Priority – Manotick Main Street Improvement project.

CARRIED as amended

4. PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT, PART OF LOT 13, CONCESSION 9, DIAMONDVIEW ROAD, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF WEST CARLETON /

PROJET DE MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LE ZONAGE, PARTIE DU LOT 13, CONCESSION 9, CHEMIN DIAMONDVIEW, ANCIEN CANTON DE WEST CARLETON

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0089

At the outset, 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.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law, to allow the lot frontage and special building setback provisions for this vacant parcel on Diamondview Road to be as provided in the Rural-RU-46 zone.

CARRIED

5. PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT – 26 CASTLEFRANK ROAD/

PROPOSITION DE MODIFICATION DU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL DE ZONAGE – 26, CHEMIN CASTLEFRANK

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0159

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.

Councillor Munter stated his concern was with the preservation of the 1859 stone house on this property. He said he was delighted that this proponent had purchased the subject land and intended to use the stone house for a private school, as there had been earlier proposals to build a strip mall on this property. The Councillor said he wanted to ensure that the intentions existing at the outset, carry through over the long term. In this regard, the Councillor put forward a motion requiring the owner to enter into an agreement with the City of Ottawa to preserve the stone house.

Moved by A. Munter

That the enactment of the zoning by-law be conditional on the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Ottawa to substantially preserve the 1859 stone house on the site, known locally as the “Sparks House”.

CARRIED

The Committee then approved the staff recommendation, as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve

1. An amendment to the former City of Kanata’s Zoning By-law #169-93 to rezone 26 Castlefrank Road from a Residential Holding Zone (“RH”) to an Institutional Exception Zone (“I-3”); and

2. That the enactment of the zoning by-law be conditional on the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Ottawa to substantially preserve the 1859 stone house on the site, known locally as the “Sparks House”.

CARRIED as amended

6. ZONING AMENDMENT TO FORMER CITY OF NEPEAN BY-LAW 100-2000 FROM FUTURE GROWTH - FG TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED UNIT ZONE – RMU /

MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE DU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL 100-2000 DE L’ANCIENNE VILLE DE NEPEAN, DE ZONE DE CROISSANCE FUTURE - FG À ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE MIXTE – RM

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0158

As required under the Planning Act, Chair Hunter read a statement 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.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve amending the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law amendment to rezone the subject lands as shown on Document 1, from Future Growth Zone-FG to Residential Mixed Unit Zone-RMU subject to the Public Hearing process.

CARRIED

7. REZONING APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE HOLDING (H) PROVISION – 200 FRASER PARK, FORMER CITY OF GLOUCESTER

DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE AFIN D’ENLEVER LE “H” SUR LA ZONE – 200, PARC FRASER DE L’ANCIENNE VILLE DE GLOUCESTER

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0160

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.

Karen Currie, Manager, Area and Park Planning and Carolyn Walsh, Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, appeared before the Committee on this matter. Ms. Walsh provided a brief presentation on the staff report.

Councillor Cullen noted the Committee had received much correspondence on this item, expressing concern about the stability of the slope. The staff report indicates there was a goetechnical study undertaken which addressed slope stability issues. He asked staff to expand on the results of this. Larry Morrison, Manager, Design and Construction, advised the soils report indicates the slope can be stabilized. He noted that the house that is proposed is situated well behind the safety line and in staff’s opinion the geotechnical study had demonstrated that this property can be developed without problems.

Councillor Stavinga asked if the supplementary geotechnical study, requested by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), in their correspondence dated 8 November 2000, was completed and if any conditions were being put in place with regard to the lifting of the Holding. Ms. Walsh advised the former City of Cumberland entered into a development agreement for the extension of services on Fraser Park. Included in the development agreement is the additional requirement for soils reports for the foundations for the building permits. As well, the owner must provide a geotechnical engineer to oversee the construction and a pre-construction survey of the adjoining property. Ms. Walsh confirmed the RVCA is satisfied with the conditions in the development agreement.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

Edward Hearn, advised he was the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Hearn provided members of the Committee with written documentation outlining his concerns. As well Mr. Hearn filed supporting documentation with the City Clerk and all of these documents are held on file.

Mr. Hearn expressed his objection to lifting the holding provision, noting he had serious concerns about the long-term effects to his property and advised the Committee there is no insurance for slope slip. Mr. Hearn asked that the Committee implement the Golder recommendations from 1975 (a copy of which was included in Mr. Hearn’s submission). One of these recommendations was that the ravine be filled up to 18 feet with fill to stabilize the slope. In the alternative, Mr. Hearn asked that Committee provide proof to refute the findings of the Golder report or provide him with insurance on his house for the next sixty-five years.

The speaker went on to note that his concerns stemmed from the history of his house. Built in 1967, the foundation of his house has cracked several times and he has had to move the drainage pattern away from his house. As the climate gets more extreme, as is predicted, the lack of moisture in the winter and the probability of excessive rain will almost certainly cause his house to slip. Mr. Hearn also expressed concerns about the proposed retaining walls for the house, and the effect excessive run-off or extreme dry weather will ultimately have on his home.

In his closing remarks, Mr. Hearn stated he was also concerned about the effect on his house from the vibrations of heavy equipment that would be used in construction of the proposed house. He also stated that he was not convinced the concerns of the RVCA had been addressed.

Councillor Cullen asked if the Golder report (referenced by Mr. Hearn) was taken into account by staff. Mr. Morrison advised that in 1975, there had been discussions about piping in some of the ravines out through the Gloucester/Cumberland area. Since that time, however, the Province came out with guidelines to keep the ravines and stream cores as natural as possible; they felt it would be better to leave the slopes and if necessary stabilize them. The Conservation Authorities, who are responsible for slope stability, have been working towards the Province’s guidelines of slope conservation. Mr. Morrison said, if Mr. Hearn has concerns about the stability of his property while this work is being undertaken, staff will ensure that the soils information, that is done for the construction of the home itself and the retaining walls, takes into consideration the stabilization of the slope, ensuring that further damage will not be done to Mr. Hearn’s property.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Cullen, Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services Department advised, as this development is not subject to site plan approval, the Committee could direct that the by-law be amended to implement site plan control for this development or could simply direct staff to report back to Committee as if it were being dealt with under site plan control.

Richard Mullens, provided Committee with copies of his presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Mullens expressed his objection to the development of the subject site and spoke of the potential for slope slippage and damage to adjacent properties. He noted he had purchased a ravine lot (paying a premium for this land) and was of the understanding that no man-made structure would be erected behind his property. The speaker also felt that the process for the development of this land had not been open and transparent, noting that he and his neighbours were not advised that this meeting would be held to consider the removal of the holding provision to allow the construction of the residence.

Mr. Mullens proposed that he and his neighbours be allowed to negotiate the purchase of the subject lands from the current owner, as well as additional lands from the City. This proposal would eliminate any additional risk to the slope of the ravine and adjacent lands that could result from the construction of this house.

In response to questions posed by Councillor Cullen, Ms. Currie advised it was normal practice for the City of Gloucester to put holding zones on any land that was not immediately proceeding with development. She pointed out a portion of the subject land is in the City of Cumberland, is zoned residential and is not subject to a holding provision.

Councillor Arnold had questions of the delegation with respect to the development line on his property. Mr. Mullens explained when Claridge Homes developed this area a condition was imposed that no in-ground construction could occur between the line of the development and the ravine. He said he could not comprehend how, when the risk of slope slippage was recognized and such strict conditions were imposed, the development of this house (behind the imposed line of development) could be allowed to proceed.

At Councillor Arnold’s request, Mr. Morrisson advised there actually is a limit of development line on the subject lot. The Province’s Natural Hazards policy identifies the line of development and this must be followed. He said this same standard was applied to the Claridge development (where Mr. Mullens resides).

Councillor Stavinga asked if the lifting of the holding provision could be made contingent on resolving the issue of slope stability. Mr. Lathrop pointed out the experts are saying this is a lot that can be developed but, as part of the staged development process (i.e. during excavation, construction, etc.), that it be supervised by a geotechnical engineer so that any necessary changes or modifications can be made.

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Kreling asked if the studies referred to by staff would address the potential impact on adjacent homes. Mr. Lathrop said the engineering study would ensure that the development of this property would not result in any further damage to Mr. Hearn’s house (i.e. it will be no worse than exists now).

Roch Chatelain, representing the owner of the subject land. He said the owner had been working on this project for the last four to five years and has carried out the many studies and completed the drainage plan to satisfy the City. Mr. Chatelain advised the project’s soil engineer has assured them that there will be no problem with this project going ahead and in fact, the stability of the slope (and therefore the stability of Mr. Hearn’s house) will be improved as a result. He noted the engineer had been monitoring Mr. Hearn’s house for the last six months and there had been no movement. Mr. Chatelain asked that the Committee approve the lifting of the holding provision so this project can proceed.

Gamal Elbanna, advised he was a former neighbour of Mr. Hearn’s. Mr. Elbanna pointed out the proponent will not be able to provide any security to Mr. Hearn’s property as a result of the vibrations from the heavy equipment needed to build the house. This type of vibration will definitely disturb the clay soil. Another concern was the level of the water table and when heightened it could affect the cohesion of the clay soil, which would also result in slope slippage.

Mr. Elbanna said, as an engineer, he was not aware of any methods that could be used to prevent further damage to the neighbouring property. He said he was in contact with Dr. Halim at Carleton University to obtain his viewpoint on this matter. Mr. Elbanna asked that the Committee defer their decision until Mr. Hearn is provided with the geotechnical reports and other studies that he has requested from staff.

Carolyn Hearn, advised she had taken a geography class at the University of Ottawa, where she did a study on slope stability. She discussed with the Professor the situation of their house and he had said that studies should be done on a long-term basis (i.e. not merely the six month monitoring of the Hearn house referred to by Mr. Chatelain). She also noted in 1972, the house next-door experienced slope slippage two years after their house was built, proof that any impact would not necessarily be immediate.

Councillor Cullen then introduced the following motion:

That this item be deferred to the next Planning and Development Committee meeting, and that in the interim all site, geotechnical and servicing information be shared with interested parties, and,

That the questions A), B), C) and D) in Mr. Hearn’s submission letter be addressed by staff, and,

That at the next meeting (to which the issue is being referred) the staff presentation include the site, geotechnical, and servicing information that is being used in evaluating this application.

Councillor Kreling urged the Committee to support Councillor Cullen’s motion. He said, as this matter has gone on for four or five years, an extra month, in order to try to address the community’s concerns, would not put the proponents at a disadvantage.

Councillor Eastman stated he was not in favour of the deferral. He stressed it was a single-family residence. The neighbours clearly do not want this house developed and he felt the sharing of information would not remove their objections. Councillor Eastman felt the Committee should make a decision one way or the other.

Councillor Stavinga encouraged the Committee to support the motion. She said although it was a single dwelling, there was sufficient concern, that she did not feel comfortable approving the lifting the holding provision. She felt the exchange of information would facilitate the dialogue and that the additional few weeks would not be an impediment to the long-term process.

Chair Hunter felt it would be better if the technical information was shared with the neighbouring owners and then staff could make a recommendation based on this to the Committee. In this regard, Councillor Stavinga suggested a friendly amendment to Councillor Cullen’s motion and also suggested that the Ward Councillor be part of the discussions. Councillor Cullen accepted the amendment.

Mr. Lathrop advised it would be difficult to have a report back to Committee at its 09 August meeting and rather it would have to be the first meeting in September. The Committee agreed.

Moved by A. Cullen

That this item be deferred to the 13 September 2001 Planning and Development Committee meeting, and that in the interim all site, geotechnical and servicing information be shared with interested parties (i.e. between staff, the neighbours and Ward Councillor), and that staff come back to Committee with a recommendation in this regard; and,

That the questions A), B), C) and D) in Mr. Hearn’s submission letter be addressed by staff.

CARRIED

YEAS: E. Arnold, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, J. Harder, G. Hunter, S. Little and J. Stavinga…..7

NAYS: D. Eastman….1

At this juncture (12:50 p.m.), the Committee adjourned for lunch and resumed the meeting at 1:20 p.m.

8. ZONING - 225–245 RICHMOND ROAD

ZONAGE - 225–245, CHEMIN RICHMOND

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0161

Councillor Little referenced a letter from the proponent’s agent requesting deferral of this matter and put forward the following motion.

Moved by S. Little

That this item be deferred until the 13 September 2001 Planning and Development Committee meeting to allow for time for further review and consultation.

CARRIED

9. HILL REZONING TO COUNTRY ESTATE /

REZONAGE HILL À ZONAGE PROPRIÉTÉ DE CAMPAGNE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0162

At the outset, Chair Hunter read 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.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law 16-1971, to change the zoning from Rural to Country Estate as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

10. JAMES REZONING TO COUNTRY ESTATE /

REZONAGE JAMES À ZONAGE PROPRIÉTÉ DE CAMPAGNE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0163

CARRIED

11. BAIRD REZONING TO RURAL EXCEPTION /

REZONAGE BAIRD À ZONAGE EXCEPTION RURAL

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0164

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law 16-1971, to change the zoning from Extractive Industrial Holding to Rural Exception as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

12. SITE PLAN – 435 DONALD STREET

PLAN D’EMPLACEMENT – 435, RUE DONALD

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0149

Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals and Julie Sarazin, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch presented this item to the Committee. Ms. Sarazin provided the Committee with a brief overview of the staff report.

Councillor Cullen had questions with respect to the width of the surrounding roads. Staff advised Dieppe Street is a local road, the right-of-way is approximately 15 metres (less than the standard right-of-way (i.e. 18 metres) required for a local road in the former City of Ottawa) and it has a pavement width of approximately 9 metres. Donald Street has a right-of-way of 24 metres and has a pavement width of approximately 11 metres.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

Louise Bégin, advised she was a resident of Dieppe Street and was speaking on behalf of many of her neighbours. Ms. Bégin expressed her support for this development by Centre Franco-Ontarien de Ressources Pedagogiques and stated she and her neighbours were happy the loading dock would be located on Donald Street. Ms. Bégin noted Dieppe Street is a narrow local road, while Donald Street has an additional six feet between the sidewalk and the road. The delegation then had a question concerning the condition that requires the driveway access to the rear parking area from Dieppe Street to be increased to 6.7 metres. She sought clarification that this requirement was to accommodate city vehicles and snow removal equipment turning around. Staff confirmed this was exactly what the turnaround was for.

Janet Bradley, representing the owners of the land, Centre Franco-Ontarien de Ressources Pedagogiques (CFORP). Ms. Bradley introduced Gilles Leroux, CFORP and Helene Tremblay and Patrick Debuc, Griffiths, Rankin, Cook Architects and advised they were present to answer any questions the Committee might have.

Ms. Bradley advised CFORP provides educational material to francophone and immersion educational institutions throughout Ontario. CFORP currently operates out of a smaller facility on Dupuis and bought this building, which is ideal for the intended use. At this site, they will have offices to prepare materials, a small bookstore and publishing facilities exclusively for their own material. Ms. Bradley went on to say this site is somewhat awkward because it is long and narrow. At the present time, it has a vacant bowling alley on it and is in need of redevelopment. All of the access and parking for the bowling alley, which was open seven days a week, came from Donald Street.

Ms. Bradley explained the CFORP proposes to maintain and substantially renovate the building and to add an addition (as shown on the site plan). There would be 93 parking spaces with access from Donald Street, 20 parking spaces (for staff) with access from Dieppe. This project complies with the zoning by-law and does not require any variances. Normally, this would be a fairly straightforward site-plan application, usually considered by staff. She noted it has become a very controversial issue in the community because this building fronts on two streets and this is the ward boundary between two communities. Neither the Dieppe community nor the Donald community want the loading bay off of their street.

The speaker advised CFORP initially thought the loading bay should be on Dieppe Street (as the publishing will be done in the existing building). There will only be approximately nine vehicles a day (mainly vans or cube vans, with the largest being two 26 foot trucks, for paper and supplies). She said during the process, it became evident to the architects, through their discussions with City staff, the loading bay would be better off of Donald Street (i.e. it’s a collector road, with a wider right-of-way, intended to take heavier traffic). The plan was changed to reflect that and this is what is being recommended by staff. She urged the Committee to support the staff recommendation.

Councillor Stavinga noted the landscaping along the loading bay is very narrow and asked staff for comment. Mr. Lindsay advised when staff reviewed the site plan, they asked the applicant to provide additional landscaping treatment to contain and buffer the loading bay functions as much as possible from the properties to the west along Brant Street. The drawing submitted shows additional landscaping at the entrance of the loading bay and along the west side of the property. He agreed it was not a great width but noted one of the requirements will be for a noise retention fence (i.e. a 1.8 metre high, solid wood fence) along the west side of the property. Another thing that staff might investigate with the applicant is the possibility of one loading bay, thereby allowing for more landscaping.

Peter MacFarlane, Overbrook Community Council, advised his community welcomes the CFORP and considers this development a significant improvement to the present land use. He expressed his opposition to the truck access from Donald Street and provided the following reasons for this opposition :

· McArthur Street (which would access the site via Dieppe) is a major arterial route, with four lanes, designed for higher volume than Donald Street;

· Donald Street’s truck counts already surpass the counts recommended for a collector road and the surrounding residential streets (i.e. Lola, Brant, Spartan, Eve and Beudry Streets) also have high truck counts. The majority of these trucks are using Donald and the other streets as a short-cut to truck routes. McArthur Street is the designated truck route;

· If McArthur is used the trucks would travel along a residential street (Dieppe Street) for approximately 200 metres as opposed to going along Donald Street (a residential street) for one kilometre;

· Land use along Donald is overwhelmingly residential, whereas along McArthur the land use is overwhelmingly commercial;

· There are three daycare centres in the immediate area, one adjacent to the proposed truck entrance on Donald Street. As well, a school is also adjacent to the proposed truck access.

Mr. MacFarlane advised the Overbrook Community Council passed a unanimous resolution that the truck access to the CFORP be from McArthur Avenue and not Donald Street.

Germaine Dazé, a resident of Telford Avenue, stated she was against the truck access on Donald street as there is already too much traffic on Donald Street. She said there are elementary schools, daycare centres and a high school on Donald Street, as well as many seniors in this vicinity. Ms. Dazé urged the Committee to protect the children and seniors and not put more traffic on Donald Street.

The matter then returned to Committee. Councillor Cullen indicated he had three motions he would be moving on behalf of Councillor Legendre.

Councillor Legendre then spoke to the issues at hand, noting his community was not happy at all but he stressed that he did support the redevelopment of this site. He noted he had provided the members of the Committee with a copy of a letter from CFORP, which indicated their intent to cap the intensity of their commercial (i.e. printing) operations on the site. He asked that this letter be placed on the record.

On the issue of access for service vehicles, the Councillor stated the Dieppe route is the closest route for the proper use of the truck network. He noted the next closest street would be Brant Street, which is even narrower than Dieppe. The Councillor spoke of the existing traffic situation and the problems with speed on Donald Street, and noted there is nothing on this street that would generate the amount of traffic that exists. He noted the Transportation and Transit Committee recently approved some resources to have some traffic calming works done. He said adding more trucks on a street that is already problematic, would be wrong. Councillor Legendre posited that Donald and Dieppe Street were of comparable widths and noted that Dieppe, which is a dead-end street, would be used to access the 20 staff parking spaces in any event. As well, access by Donald Street would result in the trucks mixing with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic; whereas there will be no pedestrian traffic off of Dieppe Street.

Councillor Legendre went on to highlight the problem with the location of the loading bay so close the backyards of residences on Brant Street. He said the required fence will not do much to alleviate the noise associated with the trucks.

In terms of the front access off of Donald, Councillor Legendre asked that the Committee consider shifting the entrance further away from the elementary school and also the reduction of parking spaces at the front. He advised the proponents were in agreement with these changes and would alleviate many of the safety concerns of the residents.

Councillor Legendre stressed it was not his intention to delay this development and he noted that staff had assured him that any changes made by Committee would not engender any delays. He asked that the Committee make this development as friendly for the community as possible and support the motions being moved by Councillor Cullen.

Councillor Meilleur stated this project has divided the two communities but noted she welcomed the redevelopment of this site. She emphasized that moving the loading area back to Dieppe Street was not negotiable. Dieppe is a local road, with no sidewalks or boulevards, as there are on Donald Street. The residents of Dieppe are agreeable to using the reserve at the end of the street for turn-around access for city vehicles and are also accepting of the street being used to access the staff parking lot.

The Councillor noted the nine trucks that will be coming to the centre will be coming between 10 :00 a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. and there will be no additional trucks after 3 :00 when the school day is ending. She pointed out the bowling alley was open seven days a week, until late in the evening, which generated traffic all day, every day.

With respect to the motions to reduce the parking spaces and to reduce from two loading bays to one, Councillor Meilleur noted if these are approved it will require a minor variance and will result in at least a three month delay. Time is of the essence for this project as CFORP is leasing their current site and their lease ends in April 2002. It is imperative that they proceed with the construction now so that they can move at the end of their lease. She said the developer does not have any objection to reducing the number of parking spaces or loading bays but it could delay the project up to one year. Councillor Meilleur asked that the Committee support the staff recommendations.

Councillor Munter had questions concerning the requirement for 113 parking spaces and two loading bays. John Moser, Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, advised that on the basis of staff’s initial review (i.e. their best estimate), the 113 parking spaces are required. However, he said staff believe that on the basis of the detailed plans that will be submitted, the requirement for 100 parking spaces could likely be accommodated and would meet the requirement of the by-law. Councillor Munter stated it was clear that the motion to reduce the number of parking spaces was clearly out of order, as the Committee cannot direct an amendment to a site plan that is in contravention of a zoning by-law. He suggested that it be amended to read the minimum number of spaces required by the zoning by-law.

With respect to the loading bays, Mr. Moser stated the zoning by-law clearly states that two loading bays are required for this size of building. Again, Councillor Munter pointed out this motion was out of order.

Councillor Munter stated it was clear to him, that if there were not a truck problem on Donald Street, the neighbours from Overbrook would not have come before the Committee. He said the issue really is not the nine trucks that will be accessing this location rather the issue is the volume that already exists and the desire not to contribute further to that. He said rerouting these trucks down a smaller, local street is not the solution. He said he would be happy to support the measures Councillor Legendre will be bringing forward to Transportation and Transit Committee to deal with the truck problem on Donald Street. Councillor Munter indicated he would be supporting the staff recommendations.

Councillor Cullen stated he would amend his motion regarding the parking spaces, to indicate the minimum number required by the by-law. Mr. Moser advised staff would look to minimize the parking (while still meeting the by-law) and that any reduction in the parking would happen at the point nearest Donald Street, the access point would be shifted as much as possible to the west, and the rest of the area would be landscaped.

The Committee then considered the motions.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the Service access be from Dieppe Street and that the consequent modifications be made to the site plan - e.g.

- change location of loading bay

- modified parking on the rear lot

- that currently indicated loading bay ramp be modified for employee uses (picnic area) and/or greenspace.

LOST

NAYS : J. Harder, G. Hunter, S. Little, A. Munter and J. Stavinga…..5

YEAS : A. Cullen..…1

Moved by A. Cullen

That the total number of parking spaces be no more than the minimum number required by the zoning by-law.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That the driveway entrance from Donald be moved westward (further from the school) and that additional greenery be incorporated near that entrance.

CARRIED

The staff recommendations as amended were then approved.

That the Planning and Development Committee approve the Site Plan Control Application for 435 Donald Street as shown on the following plans:

1. “Site Plan & Details: Centre Franco-Ontarien de Ressources Pedagogiques”, Drawing Number A000, prepared by Griffiths Rankin Cook Architects, dated May 2001, revised June 15, 2001, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa June 15, 2001.

2. “Landscape Plan: Centre Franco-Ontarien de Ressources Pedagogiques”, Drawing Number L-1, prepared by James B. Lennox and Associates Landscape Architects, dated March 2001, revised June 15, 2001, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa June 15, 2001.

subject to the conditions contained in Document 1 and as amended by the following:

1. That the total number of parking spaces be no more than the minimum number required by the zoning by-law.

2. That the driveway entrance from Donald be moved westward (further from the school) and that additional greenery be incorporated near that entrance.

CARRIED as amended

13. SITE PLAN CONTROL – 401 SMYTH ROAD

Réglementation d’un plan d’emplacement – 401, chemin Smyth

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0138

Denis Charron, Planner and John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch presented this item to the Committee. Mr. Charron provided an overview of the staff report.

Garry Cardiff, CEO; Dr. Robin Walker, Neonatal Intensive Care; Dr. Alex MacKenzie, Research and Teaching; and, Bernie Schmidt, VP, Planning and Development from the Children’s’ Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Mr. Cardiff began by saying that many of the diseases, afflictions and technology that are common today, were not even dreamt of 30 years ago when CHEO was planned. He said in order for the hospital to keep up the standard required by the community, this redevelopment is desperately needed. He felt this development should not be thought of as an expansion, but rather as a redevelopment or a renovation.

Dr. Walker advised that the facility is not aging well and pointed out the type of technology needed to provide high quality care to children, was not envisioned at the time the hospital was built 27 years ago. The Phase 4 redevelopment of the paediatric and newborn intensive care units does not involve any expansion in beds whatsoever. In order to accommodate modern technology and good care, the hospital simply must have more space. As well, he noted the redesign would allow more natural light into the hospital and would allow room for parents to stay with their children. Research has shown that both of these things assist children in recovering quicker.

Dr. MacKenzie advised when he came to CHEO in 1983, much of the equipment was 10 years old and is still being used today. With respect to the research area, Dr. MacKenzie advised this consists of a 30,000 square feet doubling of the current research capacity. This expansion was enabled by a $5 million grant from provincial and federal agencies to help built the infrastructure for research into program cell death. He stated the hospital will be able to retain and recruit the best people by having a good research capacity. As well, studies have shown that children do better at centres with an active and vibrant research program.

Mr. Schmidt advised much of the redevelopment is a consolidation of space. Programs and services are spread throughout the hospital and in portables. He said the hospital does not foresee any significant impact in terms of patient volume or staff increases. Where beds are being added in rehab and mental health, they are not adding beds in the critical care areas. The main thrust of this project is to ensure that the hospital has the appropriate environment for patients and their families to participate together in the care they are receiving. Mr. Schmidt stated this redevelopment is long overdue. The hospital acknowledges the concerns of the community and will do all it can to minimize these issues. He said CHEO takes great pride in its community roots and wants to continue to be an asset for all of Ottawa and Eastern Ontario and felt this project needs to move forward.

Committee Chair Hunter noted in correspondence received from Faircrest Heights Community Association, they had raised concerns about the parking spaces and the presumed additional traffic. He asked the delegations to address this issue. Gord Brown, Director, Plant Services, CHEO advised an initial traffic study had been done and through discussions with the City Planner, it has been determined that additional data needs to be obtained. The initial study indicated there would be some volume increases based on the fact that an increase in activity in the ambulatory clinics of about 18% is projected.

Councillor Stavinga said another issue that came up in the many e-mails received by the Committee, was with regard to the helicopter landing pad and the noise and emissions that the helicopters generate. She asked for the delegations’ comment on this. Mr. Cardiff advised he lives 1000 yards from the landing pad. He said there is approximately 1 flight per day (1 per day for CHEO and 1 per day for the General Hospital) and for approximately 60 seconds (30 seconds to land, 30 seconds to take off), there is an annoying noise. He emphasized the importance of keeping in mind that every time there is this annoying noise, a life is being saved. Mr. Cardiff said there is nothing proposed in the redevelopment that would affect the number of helicopters landing.

Don Melick, President, Faircrest Heights Community Association, commended CHEO for striving to provide excellent service and trying to meet the needs of the future with this proposed redevelopment. He said the community’s concern was that there had been no matching infrastructure work going on. Mr. Melick advised at a presentation by CHEO to the community council, they had acknowledged the need for this infrastructure, including, a transfer of the ring road from the hospital complex to the city, signalization on Smyth Road, a link from Smyth Road, certain changes on the Alta Vista Parkway and new transit hubs.

Mr. Melick noted the Alta Vista Parkway will not be in place for a number of years. There are currently over 10,000 employees at the hospital, with a certain requirement for transportation and there are only two bus routes servicing the hospital (Nos. 16 and 85). He concluded by saying the Community Association supports the work of the hospital and he urged the Committee and Council to start things moving towards providing the quality infrastructure needed.

Abbey Evenchick, Vice-President, Faircrest Heights Community Association, advised that pursuant to the 1996 Alta Vista/Smyth Road Study a request was made to the Region of Ottawa-Carleton by the Planning Department of the former City of Ottawa, to approve an amendment to the Official Plan to consider the construction of that portion of the proposed Alta Vista Parkway which would link the Alta Vista/Smyth Road to Riverside Drive. If this was implemented, the community would not have the problem it has today.

Mr. Evenchick went on to express the Association’s concern with the absorption of surface water. The paving over of hospital lands has placed an extreme burden of spring run-off water on the capacity of the Moses-Pepper drainage coverts. As well, with every helicopter pass comes fumes and oil slicks on neighbouring swimming pools. He stated this health care facility is a health hazard to the residents of the community. He contended that there was more than one helicopter landing per day and said there were in fact up to four each day and these helicopters land at all hours of the day and night. Mr. Evenchick stated the helicopter pad must be relocated to satisfy the community’s needs.

In conclusion, Mr. Evenchick stated that the last three development projects in the area, all claimed there would be minimal traffic impact. However, when the projects were completed there was a cumulative result that was damaging to Faircrest Heights community residents. He stressed a freeze should be put on all construction until an independent study ascertains whether the noise, the environmental and traffic are not exceeding the allowable standards and what solutions must be found before construction is allowed to proceed.

Joyce Wright, Faircrest Heights Community Association, advised when CHEO was built in the 1970’s no one could envisage the tremendous growth that would take place in the next 20 years at this health complex (i.e. Ottawa General Rehabilitation Institute, the University of Ottawa, the cancer clinic and the eye clinic). She said Faircrest Heights community, directly across Smyth Road from the complex, bears the brunt of the lack of supporting roads and parking.

Ms. Wright went on to speak of the problems with traffic through the community, the noise levels and emissions that the community must endure. She suggested a road (below level or even underground) to handle emergency vehicles, delivery trucks and hospital staff, patients and visitor should be a major use of the proposed Alta Vista transportation corridor. She said a roadway from Riverside providing access to the health complex and the ring road, was a major requirement of the two studies undertaken in the 1990’s.

The speaker concluded by saying that the proposed expansion of the complex demands that a temporary road be built from Alta Vista Drive to handle all construction traffic going into the complex. She said construction should not be allowed in this complex until this temporary road is in place. In addition, Ms. Wright said that parking garages are required to meet the existing shortfall and to meet the growing requirement.

Councillor Stavinga asked if a temporary road would be viable. Mr. Lindsay advised that temporary roads for construction had been used previously (e.g. during the construction of the Corel Centre and Jetform Park). He said it could be a possibility for this location, however, he said he did not know where it would be located. This would be something that would have to be considered by the Transportation and Transit Committee. He said this would involve a rather significant amount of time. Larry Morrison, Manager, Design and Construction advised an interim access road could likely be looked at as part of the impact study that will be undertaken. Councillor Hume pointed out the use of an interim road had already been approved by Regional Council.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Morrison advised the issue of stormwater management would be looked at as part of the design stage.

Councillor Hume stated CHEO is doing a great job in health care; it is the City that has let the complex down in not providing appropriate infrastructure. He noted the community came forward in 1999, requesting that a strategy be developed to deal with the problems. As a result, the Alta Vista/Smyth Road Transportation Strategy which included seven recommendations, was ultimately approved by Regional Council. Unfortunately, the only recommendation that has moved forward was the Environmental Assessment of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor. He said the other six recommendations were:

· Negotiate the adoption of the Hospital Ring Road as a public road for the new City of Ottawa

· Ensure that at the time of each individual site plan approval the appropriate infrastructure be put in place as a condition of development to enhance the attractiveness of walking, cycling and transit to and within the complex. This may be accomplished by:

o Improving connectivity between sites;

o Providing safe and secure bicycle parking; and

o Providing good locker and shower facilities

· Initiate negotiations with National Defence Medical Centre for the construction of an on-site ring road link between Alta Vista Drive and the hospital ring road along with a signalized intersection at Alta Vista Drive and the provision of a south bound left turn lane

· Provide the following local transportation network modifications at the appropriate time and through the appropriate jurisdiction:

o A connection between the General Hospital temporary parking lot and Roger Guindon Avenue (to be constructed this year as a condition on the parking lot lease agreement);

o An interim connection between the Hospital Ring Road and the Roger Guindon Avenue (prior to the construction of the Alta Vista Parkway); and

o Reconfigure Lynda Lane and the General Hospital/Smyth Road intersection to create an appropriate intersection with respect to access, safety and capacity.

· Throughout the development of the subject sites, measures should be taken towards providing high quality and efficient transit service by:

o Providing on-site transit hubs at major development sites (General Hospital, CHEO, NDMC) to increase transit user comfort and to disseminate transit-related information; and

o Consulting and encouraging employers in the study area to take part in programs such as ‘Smart Commute’ and ‘Ecopass’.

In addition, further study should be undertaken to determine the feasibility of a centrally located transit-only spine road running east-west through the middle of the campus.

· Undertake further study to determine the feasibility of a pedestrian link from Rideauview Park across or under the CNR tracks to the Abbey Transitway Station

Councillor Hume stated there needs some focus and direction to move these recommendations forward. He indicated Councillor Munter would be moving a motion on his behalf.

Moved by A. Munter

Whereas CHEO is the first hospital to present expansion plans for approval; and

Whereas on September 13, 2000 Regional Council approved the Alta Vista Transportation Strategy which recommended walking, cycling, transit and road improvements to accommodate hospital complex expansion; and

Whereas only one of the seven recommendations have been implemented – that being the completion of the Environmental Assessment of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor; and

Whereas the other 6 recommendations are equally important;

Therefore be it resolved that Staff be directed to create a lead department to implement the remaining 6 recommendations and that a report be prepared outlining an implementation plan for the remaining 6 recommendations and submitted to Transportation and Transit Committee in September.

CARRIED

The staff report as amended, was then approved.

That the Planning and Development Committee approve:

1. Whereas CHEO is the first hospital to present expansion plans for approval; and

Whereas only one of the seven recommendations have been implemented – that being the completion of the Environmental Assessment of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor; and

Whereas the other 6 recommendations are equally important;

2. the Site Plan Control application for 401 Smyth Road as shown on the plans listed in Document 1, and subject to the conditions contained in Document 2.

CARRIED as amended

14. APPEAL BY CAMPANALE HOMES LTD. – ZONING FOR 42 STEEL STREET /

APPEL DE CAMPANALE HOMES LTD. – ZONAGE DU 42 DE LA RUE STEEL

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0175

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council advise the Ontario Municipal Board that it has no objection to rezoning the property known as 42 Steel Street to permit semi-detached housing in addition to single family housing.

CARRIED

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

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

15. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2001 WORK PROGRAM/

PROGRAMME DE TRAVAIL 2001 DES SERVICES D’AMÉNAGEMENT

ACS2001-DEV-POL-0022

Councillor Cullen had a number of questions, which Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services, undertook to provide answers for directly to the Councillor by e-mail. These questions were:

· When will the report on the harmonization of the signs by-law be coming to Committee?

· On page 175 it states, NOSS Terms of Reference – City Wide, starting in the third quarter. Yet on page 173, it states the NOSS implementation Phase 1 has already been completed. He asked for clarification.

· He asked what “Rivercare 2000” (page 176) was.

Councillor Arnold had follow-up questions to an e-mail response she had received from staff. With respect to the issue of municipal address numbering, the Councillor noted this was suppose to have been done a few years earlier at the former City of Ottawa, but was not done for a number of reasons. The Councillor understood it was then supposed to be addressed in concert with the duplicate street naming project. However, she had been advised by Catherine Junop, Director, Building Services Branch that this was not the case. She asked that this be brought forward, noting it is an important issue from a safety point of view.

Mr. Lathrop replied in the rural area this has been (for the most part) completed. In the urban area, the specifics are much more complicated. He stated staff would take the Councillor’s comments under advisement and would respond directly to Councillor Arnold in terms of the process.

The second issue addressed by Councillor Arnold had to do with studies that are scheduled for a certain quarter. She asked that before a study is launched in a ward, the Councillor be involved in developing the terms of reference. She referred specifically to Above-grade Restaurants in Centretown study in her ward, for which she had not yet received any background information. Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Design and Environment advised no work had yet been undertaken on this study and said it would not be a problem to do as the Councillor suggested.

Councillor Harder advised she had received numerous calls from constituents regarding the Rosetta stormwater basin (in the Tartan Havenlea Area). She noted she had been working with staff on this matter but stressed that it really needs to be done this year. Karen Currie, Manager, Area and Park Planning advised funding for Rosetta Park was not approved as part of this year’s work program. There have been some discussions about the possibility of bringing forward funding and if funding were brought forward, the project would be added to the work program. Councillor Harder cautioned that the residents are threatening legal action if the work is not done.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve this report and attachment as the 2001 Work Program for the Development Services Department.

CARRIED

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

16. APPLICATION TO ALTER 240 DALY AVENUE, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE UNIT ROW HOUSE /

DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION AU 240, AVENUE DALY, PRIORIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO, PAR LA CONSTRUCTION DE CINQ MAISONS EN RANGÉE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0130

Chair Hunter noted as this item was added as an additional item to the Agenda, the Rules of Procedure would have to be waived to consider the matter. Councillor Cullen agreed to move a motion to this effect.

Moved by A. Cullen

That Planning and Development Committee waive the rules of procedure to consider this matter at today’s meeting.

CARRIED

Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals and Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch appeared before the Committee on this matter. Ms. Coutts provided an overview of the staff report.

Councillor Munter asked if this was a permitted use under the zoning by-law. Ms. Coutts replied it would have to go to the Committee of Adjustment for variances. The Committee of Adjustment had deferred the matter and would consider it in late July.

Raymond Stern, advised he lived at 230 Daly Avenue and stated he was opposed to this proposal. He said he believed it to be alien to the Official Plan policies which address development in Heritage areas. Mr. Stern opined the development would be disrespectful to the existing Moore house at 240 Daly Avenue and pointed out that LACAC had unanimously rejected the proposal.

Mr. Stern went on to say he felt the project to be extremely dense, with little greenspace and potential for great impact on the traffic and parking problems in the area. He also spoke of this development going against the orientation of the neighbouring properties (i.e. the pattern in this area are blocks, two lots deep with development on the two frontages and a corridor of greenspace between them), as it is development on a side lot line and not the front lot line. The scale and character are not in the same context as the rest of the homes in the area; the proposed townhouses are narrow with garages at the front of the house, which he opined would look quite ugly. Mr. Stern stressed he was opposed to this development but would be in favour of residential development on the Stewart front lot line with vehicular access from Stewart Street. This would preserve the integrity of Friel Street.

Keith Richardson, advised he was representing a group of concerned neighbours. He noted the group had made presentations to LACAC and the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. Richardson spoke of the Heritage Walk in Sandy Hill (bounded by Laurier, King Edward, Daly, Wilbrod and Augusta) and noted there are nine architectural jewels on this walk, of which Moore House is one.

Mr. Richardson spoke of the high density of the proposed development and the narrowness of the residences and pointed out the houses in this area are typically situated on large lots. He said the five driveways on Friel Street will cause safety and snow clearing concerns, will displace five on-street parking spaces on Friel Street and the current parking for visitors to 240 Daly Avenue. He noted the proposed development will be extremely close to the existing Moore house and there will a loss of greenspace and vegetation.

Mr. Richardson emphasized the issue of overcrowding is the major issue to the neighbours. He said they appreciate the efforts of the monastery to preserve Moore House but asked that the Committee reject the staff recommendation and agree with LACAC that the development is inappropriate for the site.

Bill Stewart, advised he lived at 226 Daly and expressed support for the points raised by the previous two speakers. He referenced his submission dated 10 July 2001 (held on file with the City Clerk), which identified seven neighbours that supported LACAC’s position. He stated he was in support of residential development and the existing monastery at 240 Daly, however, he was opposed to this inappropriate plan.

Mr. Stewart said he had perceived a failure in process in this instance. By way of example, he noted that Action Sandy Hill (ASH) had made written submissions in support of this proposal. However, Mr. Stewart said ASH had not consulted with the neighbours or even their own members. As well, he felt there was a failure in the mediation process. He said he had repeatedly requested a meeting with the Ward Councillor to present the neighbours’ views but was unable to have such a meeting. He said there was, however, a mediation meeting between the two parties on the previous Tuesday.

Mr. Stewart emphasized the key objection of the neighbours was the density of the proposal and felt this lot simply could not support this density. He pointed out that variances will be needed on every side. The speaker also addressed the safety concerns with Friel Street (i.e. with the garages proposed on Friel Street), saying that in a recent traffic count he undertook, there were 150 cars in a one-hour period. Mr. Stewart said this is the wrong plan for this area and he asked that the Committee support the LACAC recommendation.

Councillor Arnold asked what would be required for this development in terms of minor variances. Mr. Lindsay advised minor variances would be required for the far side yard, the interior side yard and possibly the density requirement. He said staff had not yet taken a formal position on the variance application.

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Meilleur addressed the comment made by Mr. Stewart that she had not met with the parties. The Councillor felt, because the parties were so far apart, meeting with them would not resolve anything. She therefore hired a professional mediator to meet with a representative of each side and as a result, the two sides understand each other better.

Joan Shikai Woodward, representing the monastery located in the heritage building at 240 Daly. Ms. Woodward advised her order (a registered charitable organization) purchased the building in the autumn of 1996 and have worked hard to maintain it inside and outside, as funds permit. The order wishes to develop the parking lot at the rear of the property to help relieve its financial burden and to continue to maintain the property.

Ms. Woodward advised that her order is very sensitive to their surroundings. They had been approached two years earlier to develop an apartment building on the land but chose not to because they felt it would not be appropriate. She said with this development, she and her monastics have worked very closely with the developer to ensure that it respects the aesthetics, and respects and enhances the heritage building. Ms. Woodward pointed out the proposed building does not touch the heritage building and does not add to nor diminish from the heritage house.

The speaker advised the process started last October and involved consultation with the City and the community association (Action Sandy Hill) and was pleased to have their support. As well, she said she had consulted with the neighbours on many occasions, even before any formal applications were filed. Many of the neighbours are either supportive or at the very least not opposed to this development. She asked that the Committee support the staff recommendation.

Stan Levine, Sherbrooke Urban Developments, advised he was the developer in this proposal. He assured the Committee that both he and the monastics were very much concerned with the heritage aspect of the property and doing what is appropriate. He noted an alternative to this development would be a four storey, 15 or 16 unit apartment building (requiring much fewer variances than the five townhouses) but neither he nor the monastery wanted to see this happen.

Mr. Levine stated much time was spent last October/November determining how the project could fit into the by-laws. A draft site plan was then taken to Ms. Coutts and at that time, with the information available to her, she was of the opinion that an alteration permit would not be required. He said that he and the architects, in conjunction with the monastery, set out to design housing that would be suitable for the neighbourhood and incorporating rights-of-way and easements so that the monastery can continue with the exterior maintenance of their property.

The draft design was finished in January/February and Mr. Levine advised they consulted with the Ward Councillor and with the community association. Subsequently, the plans were brought back to the City for review and at that time, Ms. Coutts felt the plan would be subject to Heritage control. Several meetings were spent adjusting the plan so that it would be comfortable from a heritage perspective. At the end of March and again in early April, Ms. Woodward on an informal basis, invited the immediate neighbours to meet with her to review the plans. In conclusion, Mr. Levine stressed that the zoning permits a much more dense use of the site than what is proposed and the architecture speaks to the neighbourhood.

Jane Ironside, reviewed the technical aspects of the proposal. She noted the architect balanced a number of considerations including the intensification policies of the Official Plan, the requirements of the zoning by-law, the heritage characteristics of the Moore house, the characteristics of the community, the needs of the property owners and the requirements of the future townhouse owners.

Ms. Ironside explained it was decided to go with a lower density form of housing (i.e. townhouses (a common form of housing in Sandy Hill) as opposed to an apartment building). She said many of the variances required are associated with the fact that the property is subject to a heritage overlay in the zoning by-law, which prevents development within a property that is designated under Part IV of the Heritage Act, unless a variance is sought. As well, many of the variances are required because there was a conscious decision not to attach the townhouses to the existing building or to demolish any portion of the existing building.

The speaker went on to say the zoning by-law requires townhouses in this zone to have a lot area of 110 square metres and a lot width of 4.5 metres. This property has five units on 552 square metres, which exceeds the by-law requirement for lot area. With respect to the lot widths, the requirement for five units would be 22.5 metres and this property has a frontage of 30.84 metres. The reason for the variances is because the unit width and area has had to be distributed in an irregular pattern to preserve the existing building.

Ms. Ironside spoke of the characteristics of the proposed building which she said picked up on some of the architectural features found in the Moore house and elsewhere in the neighbourhood. The building height of the proposed development will be lower than what is permitted by the by-law so that the Moore house remains the predominant feature on the property. She asked that the Committee approve the development proposed.

Councillor Meilleur asked if the position taken by the Committee would impact the decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. Lindsay advised the Committee of Adjustment would take into consideration the Committee’s decision but would make an independent decision.

Councillor Stavinga stated she would be supporting the staff recommendation. She noted the proponent could have opted to propose a four-storey apartment building and felt this proposal would be a better option.

The Committee then approved the staff recommendation.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the proposed alteration of 240 Daly Avenue, a building designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, through the construction of a five unit row house in its rear yard.

CARRIED

17. 50 LAURIER AVENUE EAST

Moved by A. Munter

That Planning and Development Committee waive the rules of procedure to consider this matter at today’s meeting.

CARRIED

(G. Hunter dissented)

Councillor Munter indicated he would be moving a motion, provided to members of the Committee, on behalf of Councillor Meilleur.

Councillor Meilleur advised the development on 50 Laurier Avenue East, was welcomed by the community. There are five heritage homes on the property that are in need of repair. The developer who bought the land from the National Capital Commission, agreed to keep four of the five heritage houses and build a 150-unit apartment building, with commercial uses on the main level, on the site. The Councillor said she was asking that the development be granted an exemption from the payment of building permit fees and cash in lieu of parklands. She noted there was enough parking underground for the building. She stated the reason for the urgency was that the developer wanted to start construction at the beginning of August.

Councillor Arnold stated she would be willing to support this on the premise that a condition is included that four of the five heritage buildings will be maintained. She felt it important, if fees were going to be waived, the decision should include the conditions the City requires. The maintenance of the four heritage buildings was a compelling argument for the Councillor.

Councillor Meilleur agreed to include this as a friendly amendment. She noted it would cost the developer $200,000 to move the houses while the apartment building is being constructed and to bring the houses back.

Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services Department, advised staff were in support of the motion proposed by Councillor Meilleur. He said the reasons for this support was because of the preservation of the heritage houses and the need for residential development (and in particular rental housing) in the downtown area. The General Manager also pointed out this would be an entrance feature to the City and would be an asset.

Responding to questions, Councillor Meilleur advised the developer had indicated this building will remain rental and in fact their goal is to build 1,000 rental units in Ottawa within the next five years. The Councillor also advised that the renovated heritage houses will be offered to non-profit organizations in the community for their headquarters free of charge.

Councillor Cullen questioned why this development was not following due process. Mr. Lathrop replied the developer wants to get in place the financial arrangements before proceeding with the planning process.

Councillor Cullen expressed concern in approving this motion, when the developer has not followed due process and Council has not approved or even seen the proposed plans. He cautioned this could set a very wrong precedent.

Mr. Moser advised the required public meetings were held and the zoning was approved at the former City of Ottawa conditional on approval of a site plan. The site plan is almost complete and once finalized, the zoning by-law amendment will be forwarded to Council for approval (likely the August meeting). He said the former City of Ottawa considered the application and approved it.

Moved by A. Munter

Whereas the Downtown Revitalization Action Plan of the former City of Ottawa contains building permit fee and parkland levy exemptions as incentives to attract new residential development to the downtown area west of the Rideau Canal;

And Whereas a staff report recommending the extension of the downtown area subject to the fee exemptions to incorporate the area east of the Rideau Canal will be presented for consideration by Planning and Development Committee this fall;

And Whereas the proposed mixed use development at 50 Laurier Avenue East to contain 150 rental apartments will be located in the area east of the Rideau Canal, adjacent to the University of Ottawa;

And Whereas the private apartment rental vacancy rate in the City of Ottawa has steadily dropped from 4.9% in 1996 to 2.1% in 1998, reaching a record low of 0.7% in 1999 according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation rental market surveys;

And Whereas the strong employment situation in the City of Ottawa has resulted in a surge in demand for rental accommodation;

And Whereas the market continues to yield a negligible amount of new rental housing stock, with fewer than 100 private apartments completed in 2000;

Be It Therefore Resolved that Planning and Development Committee recommend that City Council grant an exemption for the proposed development at 50 Laurier Avenue East from the payment of the building permit fee and cash-in-lieu of parkland levy, subject to the retention of four of the five heritage building on site.

CARRIED

(A. Cullen dissented)

INQUIRIES

Councillor Munter submitted the following inquiry.

It is common for development companies to clear-cut parcels of land before site plan, subdivision and occasionally even zoning or official plan approvals have been received. There are provisions of Provincial statute(s) that would allow the City of Ottawa to prevent such clear-cutting in advance of development approvals, in order that tree preservation planning can be incorporated into the development approvals process more effectively. Can staff advise:

What options are open to the City to prevent such clear-cutting?
What steps are required for the City to exercise such options?

ADJOURNMENT

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair