|
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement
Minutes 58 / Procès-verbal 58
Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 9:30 a.m.
le mardi 24 octobre 2006,
9 h 30
Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Champlain, 110,
avenue Laurier ouest
|
Present / Présent : Councillor
/ Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)
Councillor /
Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente)
Councillors /
Conseillers G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, D. Holmes, J. Harder, G.
Hunter, B. Monette
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
No declarations of interest were filed.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Ratification dES
procÈs-verbaUX
Minutes 57, Planning and
Environment Committee meeting of Tuesday, 10 October 2006.
STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER THE PLANNING ACT
At the start of the meeting, Chair Hume read a
statement required under the Planning Act,
which advises that anyone who intends to appeal the proposed Zoning By-law
Amendments listed as Items 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 3must
either voice their objections at this public meeting or submit their comments
in writing prior to the amendments being adopted by City Council on 22 November
2006. Failure to do so may result in the Ontario
Municipal Board dismissing all or part of the appeal.
planning
and growth management
urbanisme
et gestion de la croissance
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS
APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
1. COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN FOR MER BLEUE MIXED USE CENTRE
AND ZONING– part of 2201 MER BLEUE ROAD, 2215 MER BLEUE ROAD AND PART OF
2233 MER BLEUE ROAD AND PART OF 2168 TENTH LINE ROAD
PLAN DE CONCEPTION
COMMUNAUTAIRE DU CENTRE D'USAGE MIXTE MER BLEUE ET ZONAGE – une partie du 2201,
chemin mer bleue, 2215, chemin mer bleue ET UNE PARTIE DU 2233, CHEMIN MER
BLEUE ET UNE PARTIE DU 2168, CHEMIN TENTH LINE
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0201 CUMBERLAND (19)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1) Approve the Mer Bleue Mixed Use Centre
Community Design Plan attached as Document 4; and
2) Approve an amendment to the former City of
Cumberland Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 2201 Mer Bleue Road,
2215 Mer Bleue Road, Part of 2233 Mer Bleue Road and Part of 2168 Tenth Line
Road from D-I - Development Industrial and R3C-X2 – Residential Mixed Variable
Setbacks Exception Two to CTC-(XX) - Commercial Town Centre Exception and
R5A-(XX) – Residential Apartments Low Density Exception, as shown in Document 2
and as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
2. ZONING - 420 AND
430 HAZELDEAN ROAD
ZONAGE - 420 ET 430, CHEMIN HAZELDEAN
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0221 KANATA
(4)
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the City of Kanata Zoning
By-law 169-93 to change the zoning of 420 and 430 Hazeldean Road from General
Commercial Zone, Exception Zone (CG-3) to General Commercial Zone, Exception
Zone (CG-x) and (CG-y) as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
3. ZONING - 160 ROBERTSON ROAD
ZONAGE - 160, CHEMIN ROBERTSON
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0209 BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN (3)
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of
Nepean Zoning By-law to change the
zoning of 160 Robertson Road from ML – Industrial Light Zone to MS -
Industrial Service Zone as shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
4. ZONING - 100 LANDRY STREET
ZONAGE - 100, RUE LANDRY
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0045 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)
Mr. G. Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals (West/Central),
Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch (PIA), Planning and Growth
Management (PGM), introduced Messrs Saide Sayah and Douglas Bridgewater,
Planners, who, by means of a PowerPoint, gave a detailed
presentation of the staff report. Also
on hand to answer questions from Committee members were Mr. Larry Morrison,
Manager, Infrastructure Approvals Branch and Michael Wildman, Program Manager,
Infrastructure Approvals.
Chair Peter Hume asked what uses the current zoning allows. Mr. Sayah said that a 19-storey building
with 420,000 feet of commercial office space could be built. Chair Hume inquired about the number of
vehicles this would generate, assuming 4 employees by square foot, or 1,600
employees. Mr. Morrison said the
current zoning estimated 855 vehicles during the a.m. peak hours and 947 during
p.m. peak. Under the proposed
re-zoning, the number of vehicles at p.m. peak hours would diminish to
642. With regard to the number of
vehicles on Landry Street itself, the number would go from 100-150 down to 50
to 100 vehicles.
Mr. Ron Jack,
Manager, DelCan Engineers, introduced Mr. Mark Baker, a Senior Transportation
Engineer with the firm who provided an overview of the Traffic Impact Study for
the proposed development.
Mr. Baker began
by stating that, under the existing conditions, capacity problems exist at the
intersections of Vanier Parkway/Beechwood, Vanier Parkway/Montreal Road (Level
F) and the intersection of Charlevoix Street/Beechwood Avenue that is impacted
by the poor operation of the other two.
Mr. Baker explained that the grading goes from A to F. with F as a
failing mark. The existing traffic
volumes on Charlevoix St. are in the order of 250 vehicles traveling both ways
during the critical p.m. peak hour.
Mr. Baker
continued by saying that, when looking at projections for the proposal and the
current zoning, certain assumptions are made, such as a transit modal share of
30%: this is consistent with the targets identified in the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP). The expected
distribution is as follows based on the Vanier Parkway that runs north to south:
·
70% to and from the south via Vanier Parkway/Montreal Road;
·
20% to and from the west heading towards St Patrick Street;
·
10% to and from the east via Beechwood Ave.
With regard to
the projected new vehicular trips, Mr. Baker said the site plan calls for approximately
588 high-rise apartments, 60 low-rise apartments and 76 town homes. This equates to 360 vehicles per hour in the
a.m. peak and 510 in the p.m. peak.
Under the current zoning, assuming 314 dwelling units and approximately
38,000 sq m of office space, approximately 750 vehicles per hour each peak hour
would be generated. Mr. Baker’s stated
that, during the critical p.m. peak hour, the current zoning represents a 50%
increase relative to the proposed zoning.
The additional site traffic volumes on Landry Street, in the critical
peak hour, will result in an addition 100 vehicles per hour. Approximately half will use Charlevoix
Street to access destinations to and from the west and the other half will use
St Charles Street to destinations to and from the east. Mr. Baker pointed out that the majority
would use the primary access onto VP and head south. The volume increases on Charlevoix Street during the critical p.m.
peak hour is 50 vehicles per hour: this equates to less than one vehicle per minute,
and likewise for St Charles Street.
Responding to an
earlier question from Councillor Legendre about the mixed use at the former CFB
Rockcliffe compared to the Landry Street site, Ron Jack posited that it came
down to a matter of scale. The former
is viewed as a mini version of the city, with as much mixed use as is possible
in any particular community. This will
make it possible for residents to shop locally, work locally, travel by foot or
by bicycle. The size of the CFB
Rockcliffe site provides a good opportunity to maximize through a combination
of convenience and service retail, community-wide retail, schools and
employment such as high tech and research.
The building of a potential 4,000 residential units will result in a
critical mass assuring good interaction between those elements. With regard to the Landry Street site, Mr.
Jack said the kind of office that could be built there under the current zoning
would likely be high density, with potentially 1600 employees, but these may
not be the types of jobs that relate equally to the type of employment.
Councillor
Legendre asked about cut-through traffic, inquiring whether the fact that two
major intersections are at Level of Service F would encourage drivers to
cut-through the site. Mr. Baker
responded by saying that the former Vanier Official Plan had designated a
collector road between the Vanier Parkway and Landry Street. There was some consideration for providing
this road, but as the process unfolded, it became clear that this was not a
valuable link because the design has become circuitous and this would involve
circuitous movement.
Chair Hume asked
whether the internal road network was a private road network. Mr. Wildman confirmed this was the
case. Mr. Bridgewater added that the site
plan contains conditions for traffic calming and for monitoring after a certain
percentage of construction and occupancy of the buildings. Staff did not want to totally isolate the
residential development from the community it is going to become a part of and
staff are facing the challenge of linking and protecting at the same time.
Councillor Bédard
wanted to know whether Committee and Council would make the determination as to
whether or not traffic-calming measures were warranted. Mr. Lindsay indicated that this was the
case. The Councillor also wanted to
know whether staff are proposing to address the problems at the failing
intersections. Mr. Baker said that, at
Vanier Parkway/Montreal Road, a possible solution was taken off the table as it
involved eliminating the transit priority lanes. With regard to Vanier Parkway/Beechwood, there already exists a
double, northbound left-turning lane: an exclusive northbound right-turn lane
was not thought to offer a great deal of benefit. Imposing restrictions at Charlevoix and Beechwood would only
result in shifting the approach from Charlevoix onto Beechwood. Mr. Baker pointed out that these measures
would affect all other users of the network and not just the users of this
site. Ron Jack added that the
Transportation Master Plan does not contain provisions for the widening of the
Vanier Parkway, and this is an issue in terms of resolving the City’s broader
transportation problems.
The
Committee then heard from the following public delegates:
Ms. Céline Heinbecker called the public
consultation process disappointing, and City staff’s response to residents’
concerns, vague and unsatisfactory. She
felt that the Committee should try to satisfy the majority of people. She stated that the proposed reduction in
the size of the towers did not address the community’s concerns and she urged
that a decision be postponed until the community is less frustrated and
satisfactory conclusions can be reached.
Councillor Gord
Hunter pointed out to the speaker that the Committee is charged with hearing
the public’s comments and deciding on the merits of the re-zoning and site plan
applications for this project. He
expressed the hope that the interveners would focus specifically on the changes
they would like to see, not on how the process evolved.
The Councillor
added that the options before the Committee is to approve, reject or defer and
there must be planning grounds to support all three options. In addition, he advised that the proponent
could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) should the Committee refuse
to deal with the matter.
Mr. Bruce McConville, a local
businessman, said the site provided an opportunity for a model community. He stated there is widespread support for
delaying a decision until the new City Council takes office. He noted that residents’ concerns relate to
the size of the proposed towers and whether measures for traffic remediation
are in place. Mr. McConville said he
was not opposed to intensification but it must be balanced. He suggested reducing the height of the
proposed towers while still ensuring a profit for the developer and he called
for a new approach to accountability.
Mr. Andrew Lumsden made
reference to the fact that the entire area, including 100 Landry Street, is
located on a floodplain and he questioned why this was not being
addressed. He said he wondered whether
the proposal to build six storey buildings isn’t in order to pay for the
removal of contaminants on the site.
Mr. Lumsden wondered why there had been no interest on the part of
commercial developers for this site, and why this intense residential
development was happening in “little Vanier”.
When asked by Councillor Bédard to comment on the points raised by
Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Bridgewater said the plan did not included grading,
engineering or drainage issues. Addressing floodplain issues has been delegated
to staff and they must comply with the requirements of the Rideau Valley
Conservation Authority (RVCA). With
regard to drainage, it will be done in such a manner as to ensure there is no
drainage into the underground parking garage.
There will be no habitable spaces below-grade. Mr. Wildman added that all unprotected openings would have to be
0.3 metres above the floodplain grading.
Other issues will be addressed through the grading and drainage plans,
and the RVCA must be satisfied with the design. In addition, staff must be satisfied that concerns have been
addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Stephanie Plante stated
that all the arguments being put forward today were legitimate and not last
minute arguments. She raised the issue of quality of life as it pertains to
transit and traffic, noting that the three bus lines that serve this area are
already at capacity, especially during the peak hours. Ms. Plante stressed the need for clear
numbers when dealing with traffic impacts and it was her view that the word
“assumption” is a fallacy. She thought
that the number of newcomers to the area would impact on existing recreational
facilities, already at capacity. Ms.
Plante also expressed the view that there was enough affordable housing in
Vanier and she wanted other types of housing on this site. She also wanted to know how building towers
could be seen as harmonizing with the local built community and contributing to
the gentrification of the neighbourhood.
In reply to a request from Vice Chair Peggy Feltmate, Grant
Lindsay, explained that affordable housing is defined as a unit costing
approximately $207,000 and is not the same as subsidized or assisted housing.
Mr. David Mueller, Member
of the Executive, South of Beechwood Community Association, referred to the
Transportation Impact Study by DelCan and comments about the fact that two
major intersections near 100 Landry are already failing. He called these the choke points in
accessing the downtown for commuters.
He said he could not see how the developer’s proposal to add one
additional light at the intersection of the Vanier Parkway and restrict access
to the site via Landry Street would address traffic issues. Mr. Mueller added there are serious
implications for pedestrians and cyclists and the enforcement of traffic
by-laws appears to be non-existent. He
advised that a reducing the density might result in ninety percent less opposition
to the project.
Ms. Marilyn Hart, Urban Planning and Urban Design Consultant and a member of the Steering Committee for the Beechwood
Community Design Plan, asked whether the developer, Claridge, would be prepared
to assist with enhancement and sidewalk improvements on Loyer Street. She expressed the hope this could be done
informally through the rezoning application.
Ms. Hart called Loyer Street the natural pedestrian route to the
retailers on Beechwood Avenue. In reply
to Councillor Bédard, Mr. Lindsay advised that this was beyond the scope of the
application, however certain conditions could be imposed as part of the site
plan and the Councillor could move a Motion to this effect if he so desired.
Mr. Patrick O’Keefe, President, Manor Park Community Association, advised that the MPCA is concerned that the proposed residential
development will generate traffic on roads that are already over capacity. There are also concerns with the
implementation of Official Plan policies in terms of residential infill. Mr. O’Keefe said that, in his opinion,
development on this site based on it being within walking distance of a future
transit station is flawed because there have been no final decisions about the
East-West Light Rail route.
Ms. Jane Brammer, Community Action for Rockcliffe Airbase
Development (CARAD began by stating
that the size of this project and the breadth of its impact loomed greatly over
the entire area. She asked that
approval be deferred until the following issues are resolved:
·
Height and density that are greater than allowed under
the current zoning;
·
The negotiation of reciprocal
services;
·
Mitigation measures are put in
place to address the increased traffic generated;
·
Assurances that airborne toxins
will be contained during soil decontamination.
In response
to questions from Councillor Diane Holmes, Mr. Bridgewater indicated that the
provincial Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is responsible for supervising the
removal of contaminated soil, as well as with any requirement or responsibility
for reporting to the public.
Ms. Iola Price, representing the Rockcliffe Park Residents’
Association, expressed the view that staff had
presented no compelling argument for the increase in height for this
project. She posited that a 38% increase
represents a major, not a minor alteration, and that further public
consultation is required. In addition,
Ms. Price stated that 24 and 25 storey buildings are too tall: they represent a
56% increase, again not a minor alteration.
The RPRA requests that a maximum height of 57 metres remain in
place. Ms. Price also felt that, given
the anticipated population increase generated by the Landry Street and the
former CFB Rockcliffe developments, an area wide study should be undertaken
before approval is given. As well, the
need for schools and other amenities has to be considered, and for these
reasons, the RPRA recommends that the decision be deferred.
Ms. Natalie Bélevic, a
resident of Manor Park, said she supports infill development, but she wondered whether
this project isn’t setting a dangerous precedent in the urban core She referred to a recent development at 1002
Karen Way where the community was successful in reducing the building height. Ms. Belevic also felt that more
family-oriented dwellings should be part of the Landry Street project. She wondered whether the developer was
taking advantage of policies in the Official Plan that encourage the
redevelopment of brownfield sites, and potentially of other financial
incentives that are available.
Andrew Shore, Board of Directors, 40 Landry Street, noted that the residents who provided feedback are universally
opposed to the project. Their concerns
revolve around the environmental and traffic issues, pedestrian and cycling
issues, and the impact of intensification on the immediate neighbourhood. Mr. Shore thought that the process should
continue for some time yet and that more be done to accommodate all valid
concerns. He also echoed the concerns
expressed by other speakers about the cumulative impact of this project and the
re-development of the former CFB Rockcliffe
Ms. Deborah Bellinger, Nelligan O’Brien Payne, representing Carleton Condominium Corporation (CCC) 498 (40
Landry Street), stated that, although there has been extensive consultation,
there has been little time to deal with the final plan. She felt that, for this reason, it would not
be appropriate to waive procedure and deal with the item at City Council
tomorrow. Ms. Bellinger said it was
surprising to hear Planning staff recommend public, internal network roads then
state that private owners would have to deal with mitigation measures should
these be required. She pointed out that
there are no policies to tell a developer when enough is enough. Ms. Bellinger stated there is no mention of
the internal workings of the infrastructure and she expressed dissatisfaction
with the traffic studies.
Chair Hume inquired whether the speaker is asking for traffic
mitigation as a condition of site plan approval. Ms. Bellinger replied this was the most complex private
infrastructure proposal ever made, for an incredibly intense development. She said she would like to see the height of
buildings come down, the project have less density and a public road through
the middle of the project. Ms.
Bellinger also indicated, in response to Chair Hume, that the Board of CCC 498
believed they could substantiate, support and defend their position at a Board
hearing.
John Nolan, President, South of Beechwood Community Association, began by stating that his group is not a fringe,
Not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) group and that people are reasonable when it comes
to reasonable development. He expressed
the view that the City’s long-term forecasts were incorrect and that growth is
declining, not exploding. He suggested
the projections needed to be revisited.
With regard to the public consultation, Mr. Nolan expressed the view
that, until they are directly impacted, people are apathetic and now that this
project affects local residents, petitions have been circulating. At the end of the consultation process,
there appears to be more opposition than there was before.
Chair Hume asked what Mr. Nolan would prefer on the site. He responded by saying that the buildings
should be of much lower height such as bungalows and three-storey
walk-ups. He added that what is being
proposed for the east side appears reasonable and that a 16-storey tower might
be acceptable. Mr. Nolan indicated that
the population wants to work with Claridge in order to have a development of
which everyone can be proud.
Mr. Gordon Keith owns a
graphic design store that has been located in the Beechwood area for thirty-two
years. He stated that the Vanier
Business Improvement Area, which he represents, fully supports the Claridge
development. Business owners believe
that development at 100 Landry will result in more people bringing a new
vitality to the locally owned businesses in the area. Mr. Keith said he felt that Claridge has addressed the
community’s concerns with the new site plan and he asked those present to join
him in supporting the project.
Martin Detto, Member of the
Executive, South of Beechwood Community Association, echoed earlier concerns
about the environment, traffic management, environmental mediation and quality
of life. He indicated that soil
remediation was a major concern, as the soil contains above-average levels of
contaminants, many on the immediate surface.
He posited that open trucks carrying contaminated soil would spread the
contamination along the National Capital Commission’s road (the Vanier
Parkway). The spread of contaminated
dust through shoveling is also problematic.
There are also concerns about the fact that not all the soil will be
removed. Mr. Detto asked that, as a
minimum requirement, the developer engage an independent environmental monitor
to ensure that all conditions are met.
In reply to questions from Councillor Bédard, Mr. Wildman
clarified that the Vanier Parkway is a City and not an NCC roadway. He added that permits would be required and
that trucks would not be permitted to access internal, local streets.
Mr. Jim Burghout, representing
Claridge Investments, and Mr. Paul Smolkin, Golder Associates, appeared
before the Committee. Mr. Burghout
indicated that Golder has developed a risk assessment and remediation action
plan and will be on-site during the removal of the soil. The approvals will be posted on the Ministry
of the Environment’s public registry site.
Mr. Burghout then addressed some of the issues raised by the previous
speakers:
·
Traffic concerns: Claridge
recognized the need to keep traffic off local streets and elected to have an
intersection at the Vanier Parkway to optimize pedestrian safety and efficiency
of movement. Internal circulation is
designed not to allow cut-through traffic, since the streets will be narrow in
width.
·
Scope of the project: It is not
viable to under-develop a site designated under the new Official Plan for more
intensive use. Claridge’s approach was
to redesignate the site as residential and develop two-thirds of it as low
residential. Placing a high-rise
building next to the Vanier Parkway is better for access and for transit
purposes. In response to the community’s
concerns, the higher buildings were pulled from Landry Street. This allows the developer to offer various
housing and affordability options.
·
The development being “rushed
through”: Mr. Burghout pointed out that Claridge has been developing this
project for the past year and a half.
Mr. Smolkin
described the process that Golder Associates will follow to rid the site of the
contaminated soil. He pointed out that
the MOE has reviewed Golder’s documentation: the company has responded to the
Ministry’s comments and been given approval in principle.
Councillor Cullen wanted to know whether there are compelling
reasons for Council to deal with this matter on 25 October. Mr. Burghout said Golder Associates’ advice
was to clean up the contaminated soil in cold weather, when fewer people will
be affected and there is less inconvenience to the community. A quick decision by Council would allow the
process to begin as soon as possible.
Chair Hume wondered, assuming there is no appeal to the OMB, how
much work could be done between now and November 22nd when this
matter will rise before Council. Mr.
Burghout responded by saying that some financial decisions need to be made and
having a level of approval would be helpful to the developer.
Councillor Hunter pointed out that the issue of due process is one
that the Committee holds strongly. He
noted that this application has been in process for a long period of time. Mr. Burghout pointed out that Claridge has
been patient throughout the process.
The company agreed to run the site plan process parallel to the rezoning
process and, until one month ago, was scheduled to appear before the Committee
on October 10th. City staff
recommended that the matter be heard today, and advised that there was a
mechanism whereby the item could go to Council the following day.
When asked to comment by Chair Hume, Mr. John Moser, Acting Deputy
Manager, Planning and Growth Management, said staff did not have enough details
from the proponent to complete its work.
In light of the fact that the next regular Council meeting is not
scheduled until November 22nd, staff recommended the item be dealt
with on October 25th. Mr.
Moser added that the major concern related to the site clean-up.
Having ascertained from Mr. Burghout that Claridge was not opposed
to a site plan condition calling for the developer to contribute to the
rehabilitation of Loyer Street, Councillor Bédard asked that the meeting record
contain a statement to this effect.
The following individuals submitted written documentation in
opposition to the development (on file with the City Clerk):
·
Ms. Julie
Leclair, 90 Dagmar Avenue;
·
Mr. Angus W. J. (Ron) Robertson,
211 North River Road;
·
Ms. Marilyn Hart, 79 Laval Street;
·
Mr. Mark Friedman, Douglas Avenue;
·
Mr. Roger Peters, 20 Coupal Street.
Also submitted into the record was a bilingual fact sheet from Claridge
Homes describing modifications the company had made to address community
concerns.
Committee Discussion
Councillor Michel Bellemare sought assurance from staff that the
increase in density for this project was not being driven by the possibility of
a future transit station. Mr. Lindsay
responded by saying that the project was driven by the existing policies and
policy framework. He added that the
rapid transit line has been identified as coming down Montreal Roa at some time
in the future, likely within the lifespan of these buildings but that this had
not been a deciding factor in establishing the density.
Councillor Bédard provided a brief history of a project that has
been in front of the community for one and one-half years. He said there had been a great deal of
consultation, and the public meetings were well attended. Many of the speakers have re-stated the
issues that were raised at the public meetings, and the developer, along with
City staff, has been whittling away at trying to resolve them. Councillor Bédard said the community now has
before it a plan that, although not perfect, is ready. The developer could have chosen to go to the
OMB but elected to follow the process and let Committee and Council deal with
the matter. The suggestion of looking
at the entire community, including the re-development of CFB Rockcliffe, would
result in several more years of community consultation before being able to
move forward. The Councillor said he
was willing to approve the project at this time. Measures such as moving the highrise towers away from Landry
Street, and having traffic exit onto the Vanier Parkway should address some of
the traffic concerns. The interior road
network will eliminate cut-through traffic.
Councillor Bédard made reference to parking, noting that the chronic
shortage of same in this area would be partially addressed by a good number of
visitor spaces. With regard to the
staging of the development, the population increases will dictate what kind of
development goes in. The first stage,
stacked townhomes, will fit in with the existing neighbourhood. Having affordable housing as part of the
project may encourage further development in Vanier. Councillor Bédard stated that the decontamination issue has been
resolved because trucks will be limited to using the Vanier Parkway. He concluded by saying that, in his
estimation, this development would bring about positive changes for the area.
Councillor Cullen pointed out that there are no guidelines to
specify how much is too much when it comes to intensification, nor criteria
when considering limits. In many cases,
communities are not opposed to intensification but to the degree of
intensification. City staff has
indicated that some measures would be put in place, as part of the next
Official Plan review process, to help communities identify the demarcation
lines. Councillor Cullen felt that the
application before the Committee calls for significant changes in density and,
for this reason, as well as for the reasons cited by the previous speaker, he
was prepared to support it.
Councillor Diane Holmes pointed out that the City of Vancouver had
undertaken major greening projects and asked developers to put in parks and
other amenities. She stated that, for
maximum public benefit, there has to be public buy-in. Councillor Holmes felt the project had some
of these aspects and she looked forward to a broader discussion of these issues
during the next term of Council. Chair
Hume agreed that intensification and larger community benefits should be linked
and his office is trying to achieve some of the results for the National
Defense Medical Centre.
The Committee then considered the report recommendations:
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an
amendment to the former City of Vanier Zoning By-Law 2380 for 100 Landry Street
as follows:
1. To change
the Zoning for the northeast portion of the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone to
a Public Use Zone (PU) as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area D in
Document 3;
2. To repeal
exception 104 in the R6-104 Residential Complex Zone and establish a new
exception with provisions as detailed in Document 2 and shown as Area B on
Document 3;
3. To change
the SC-1 Special Commercial Zone pertaining to Area C on Document 3 to R6-104
Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2;
4.
To change the SC-1 Special
Commercial Zone pertaining to Area A on Document 3 to R7 – exception,
Residential Complex Zone with exceptions as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
5.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee direct that this report be heard at the Council Meeting
of October 25, 2006.
LOST
NAYS (5): A. Cullen, D. Holmes, G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, P.
Feltmate
YEAS (4): J. Harder, B. Monette, G. Hunter P. Hume
5. SITE PLAN CONTROL - 100 LANDRY STREET
PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 100, RUE LANDRY
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0217 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)
Please see the preceding item for the discussion on this item.
That the Planning and Environment Committee approve
the Site Plan Control application for 100 Landry Street as shown on the
following plans:
1. "Site Plan, Vanier Parkway, Drawing No. A-101" prepared
by Douglas Hardie Architect, dated January, 2005, revised to October 4, 2006,
and dated as received by the City of Ottawa on October 5, 2006.
2. "Landscape Plan,
Vanier Parkway, Drawing No. L.1", prepared by James B. Lennox &
Associates Inc., Landscape Architects, dated January, 2005, revised to October
4, 2006, and dated as received by the City of Ottawa on October 5, 2006.
subject to the
conditions contained in Document 5.
CARRIED
Moved
by G. Bédard:
That the site plan include a special condition that the applicant
contribute sufficient funds to undertake a streetscape and pedestrian lighting
plan for Loyer Street.
CARRIED
as amended
6. ZONING - 3 CLAREMONT DRIVE
ZONAGE - 3, PROMENADE CLAREMONT
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0192 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE
(13)
The Committee received correspondence
dated 23 October 2006 from Ms. Angie Todesco regarding comments made by the
Manor Park Community Association and calling for the rezoning request to be
rejected and a review of the needs of the community be undertaken with respect
to commercial zoning in a residential zone.
This document is held on file with the City Clerk.
The Committee then considered the report
recommendation:
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an
amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
3 Claremont Drive from R3A (Converted House/Townhouse sub-zone) to R3A -
exception (Converted House/Townhouse sub-zone - exception) as detailed in
Document 2.
CARRIED
7. ZONING - 8465 NORTH SERVICE ROAD
ZONAGE - 8465, CHEMIN NORTH SERVICE
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0012 ORLEANS (1)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Cumberland Urban Zoning
By-Law to change the zoning of 8465 North Service Road from D-CR
(Development-Commercial /Recreation) to R5B-X
(Residential-Apartment-High Density - Exception) and row houses
and CON (Conservation Zone) as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document
3.
CARRIED
8. ZONING - PART OF
2240 TRIM ROAD AND PART OF 2200 TRIM ROAD
ZONAGE - PARTIE DU 2240, CHEMIN TRIM ET
PARTIE DU 2200, CHEMIN TRIM
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0222 CUMBERLAND
(19)
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the
former City of Cumberland Zoning By-law to change the zoning of Part of 2240
Trim Road and Part of 2200 Trim Road from D-R Development Residential to
R1H-(XX) Residential Singles Wide Lots, R3D-(XX) Residential Row Dwellings
Exception, R4B-(XX) Residential Mixed Multiples Exception, R5A-(XX) Residential
-Apartments - Low Density Exception, R1F-X6 - Residential - Singles - Small
Lots - Exception Six and R2D-X4 - Residential - Singles and Semis - Small Lots
- Exception Four as shown in Document 2 and as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
9. APPLICATION
to demolish 90 buena vista and 375 minto place and application FOR NEW
CONsTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT
375 MINTO PLACE
Demande de démolition du 90,
buena vista et du 375, Place minto, et demande de construction dans le
district de conservation du patrimoine du parc ROCKCLIFFE, au 375, place MINTO
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0220 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
That the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) recommend that Planning
and Environment Committee (PEC) recommend that Council:
1. Approve the demolition of 90 Buena Vista Road
and 375 Minto Place, properties designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage
Act and located in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.
2. Approve the construction of a new house at
375 Minto Place, a property designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
and located in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District, in
accordance with the plans filed by Douglas Hardie, Architect received on
September 13, 2006.
(Note: Approval
to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to
meet the requirements for the issuance of a Building Permit.
CARRIED
10. STREET CLOSURE - HUNT CLUB ROAD
EAST OF HAWTHORNE ROAD
FERMETURE DE RUE - CHEMIN HUNT CLUB,
À L’EST DU CHEMIN HAWTHORNE
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0207 GLOUCESTER-SOUTHGATE
(10)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee consider the objection received to the Road Closing
application for an untravelled portion of Hunt Club Road Right-of-Way, east of
Hawthorne Road as shown on Document 2, and re-delegate approval authority to
staff, subject to the conditions included in Document 1.
WITHDRAWN
11. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING - 215 PRESTON
STREET
RÈGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES DU
STATIONNEMENT - 215, RUE PRESTON
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0219 SOMERSET (14)
1. That the Planning and Environment Committee
approve a Cash-in-lieu of Parking application exempting the Owner of 215
Preston Street from providing two parking spaces for an addition to a
restaurant, subject to the following conditions:
(a) That the Owner enter into the standard
agreement required by Section 40 of the Planning Act to the satisfaction of the
City Solicitor;
(b) The payment shall be in the amount of
$6,240.00;
(c) That the cash-in-lieu of parking be for the
floor area occupied by storage and electrical equipment for a restaurant.
2. That this approval be null and void if the
agreement required by 1(a) has not been signed within six months of the date of
this approval.
WITHDRAWN
Planning, Environment and
Infrastructure Policy
Politiques
d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
12. DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW - Interim Report on COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS in the Urban areA
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE PRÉLIMAIRE - RAPPORT
D'ÉTAPE SUR LES COMMENTAIRES REÇUS DURANT LE PROCESSUS DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE
DANS LE SECTEUR RURAL
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0071 CITY-WIDE
/ À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council receive this report for information purposes.
RECEIVED
13. Urban DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GREENFIELD NEIGHBOURHOODS AND GUIDELINES FOR
transit-oriented developmenT
LIGNES DIRECTRICES RÉGISSANT
LES AMÉNAGEMENTS URBAINS DANS LES NOUVEAUX QUARTIERS ET LIGNES DIRECTRICES
RÉGISSANT LES AMÉNAGEMENTS DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0075 CITY-WIDE / À
L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning
and Environment Committee receive this report for information and that staff
report back in 2007 with a report or reports outlining:
1. Urban Design Guidelines for Greenfield
Neighbourhoods; and
2. Guidelines for Transit-Oriented Development.
RECEIVED
14.
rOCKCLIFFE
REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN –
TERMS OF REFERENCE (former CFB Rockcliffe Base)
PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE VISANT LE RÉAMÉNAGEMENT DU SITE DE
L’Ancienne base militaire des Forces canadiennes de Rockcliffe – CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0076 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the Terms of
Reference for the Rockcliffe Redevelopment Community Design Plan, as shown in
Document 1.
The Committee also agreed with a request from Councillor Georges
Bédard to forward this item to the City Council meeting of 25 October 2006.
15. QUEENSWAY TERRACE NORTH
INTERIM CONTROL BY-LAW STUDY
QUEENSWAY
TERRACE-NORD – ÉTUDE DE
RÈGLEMENT DE RESTRICTION PROVISOIRE
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0069 BAY (7)
Mr. Taavi Siitam, Planner, Planning,
Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch (PEIP), gave
a PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk), providing
the Committee with a brief overview of the staff report.
Mr. Henry Swiech, Queensway Terrace North
Public Advisory Committee (QTNPAC), read from a prepared statement and spoke to a slide
presentation, both of which are held on file with the City Clerk. Highlights of Mr. Swiech’s presentation
include:
·
The need to
establish a Community Characteristics Review Mechanism to partner City staff
with residents to ascertain what it is that makes their communities distinct,
and to foresee the potential impacts and/or consequences of over-development or
over-intensification.
·
The need
for more by-law enforcement staff, and for staff to take a proactive approach
to by-law enforcement rather than to merely react to complaints.
·
The need
for improved communications between different City departments in order to
better involve the community in helping to identify and resolve relevant community
issues, and to better act on recommendations from field staff.
·
The need to
address issues involving: front and side yard parking; installation of curbs to
better distinguish City property from private property; identification of
absentee landlords to educate them about bylaw standards; site visits prior to
planning approval to ensure compatibility with existing properties, and;
building and fire marshal inspections to stem the illegal conversion of
residences into triplexes without going through the building permit approval
process.
To conclude his remarks, Mr. Swiech said
the QTNPAC felt its recommendations made sense, offered good direction, and
should be given serious consideration.
The group felt disappointed that many of its recommendations had, in its
view, been diluted in the staff report for ‘future consideration’.
Councillor Alex Cullen advised that he
participated with the community in the review process looking at what to do
about the problem of intensification, partly as a result of duplexes that were
illegally converted into triplexes. He
noted this study, which had first focused on where to draw the line with
respect to intensification had resulted in the community coming up with
proposals on how to draw such a line.
The Councillor highlighted staff recommendation 1f) about taking the
QTNPAC report’s suggestion of a Development Review Mechanism into account
during the examination of intensification policies during the next stage of
Official Plan (OP) Review. He inquired
as to when this could be expected to take place.
Ms. Françoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning
Control, PEIP, said she recognized that since the OP’s approval in 2003, staff were regularly
dealing with applications to intensify development within the urban boundary,
and have identified gaps in policy interpretation and implementation. She noted that the Federation of Citizens’
Associations (FCA) had also expressed its concerns with regard to uniform policy
implementation (held on file with the City Clerk). Ms. Jessop added that staff would meet with all stakeholders to
discuss intensification policies in the OP with a view towards better interpretation
and application rather than policy revision. She hoped to have a better idea as to how to deal with this
issue by the time the OP was next revised in 2008. Speaking to the QTNPAC report, she said staff would prefer to consider
rather than adopt the proposed model, as she was unsure as to whether it
would be uniformly applicable to the whole City.
In response to questions from Councillor
Cullen asking for a comment on QTNPAC’s experiences in dealing with By-law
Services staff, Mr. Swiech said he was puzzled by the City’s response regarding
the need for two additional full-time employees to proactively enforce by-laws
within the QTN community. He stated the
community had never asked for this, and he pointed out that this was a
city-wide problem. Mr. Swiech said the community
was asking that the City have a sufficient number of bylaw enforcement staff to
proactively manage infractions without continually having to be called.
Maryanne Kalibatas, a community resident on Pinewood
Crescent and QTNPAC member, confirmed the community’s intensification-related
problems, noting her neighbourhood’s abundance of duplexes, triplexes, single
dwellings and an apartment building, all of which contribute to the problem of
on-street and front-yard parking. Ms.
Kalibatas said this problem had also been noted by parking enforcement
staff. She expressed frustration with
both the lack of improvement over time, despite numerous regular complaints,
and the lack of enforcement. She
believed the lack of clearly definable street edges was a contributing factor. Ms. Kalibatas further noted that at the
Community Association’s annual general meeting, Mr. Michael Campbell,
Supervisor, By-law Enforcement, Bylaw Services Branch, Community and Protective
Services Department (CPS), spoke to the issue of illegal front yard
parking. Mr. Campbell had recommended
the installation of curbs to delineate City-owned property from private
property, and to stop illegal front yard parking. She noted the latter was not only an eyesore, but presented
safety issues, in that residents parking immediately by their front doors could
potentially impede the progress of emergency services personnel in the
performance of their duties.
Ms. Kalibatas confirmed for Councillor
Cullen that she thought the staff recommendation calling for City staff to work
with the Community Association on public education initiatives to inform
residents of existing bylaws relating about secondary dwelling units and
parking on private and public property, was not enough. She stated that all the community was asking
was that the City defend its boulevards and rights-of-way to stop encroachment.
Responding to a question from Councillor
Bédard as to whether on-road permit parking was allowed, Mr. Swiech said
that to the best of his knowledge, this was not an available option. He added that the street in question was the
only one in the whole community that allowed parking on both sides. Regarding staff’s recommendation that the
community contact the Traffic and Parking Operations Branch to request “No
Parking” signs on one side of the street to resolve this issue, Mr. Swiech said
the community had approached the City as early as March, but had received no
response to-date. Further responding to
Councillor Bédard’s suggestion that the community consider on-street permit
parking as a mechanism to ensure that people did not use their front lawns,
Ms. Kalibatas commented that many of the cars now in violation belong to owners
who have access to driveways. She said
she did not want these individuals to be given permission to use the roadway
instead of their driveways for the sake of convenience.
In conclusion, Councillor Cullen
pointed out that this issue was reminiscent of the proverbial ‘canary in a coal
mine’, in that all residential communities are now feeling the pressures of
intensification, forcing the need for a mechanism to deal with the
problem. He noted that the process
arrived at by the QTNPAC to assess whether the basic characteristics of a
community were changing, and subject to OP review, would be monitored by many
other communities, since the current OP is lacking in protection for
communities suffering from over-intensification.
The Committee then considered the
following Motions:
Moved by A. Cullen
Amend Recommendation 1(a) to insert
“property owners and” in front of “residents” (to read “…property owners and
residents…”)
CARRIED
Amend Recommendation 1(b) to replace “…in
the area located north of Harwood Avenue and Henley Street.” with “…in
Queensway Terrace North.”
CARRIED
Amend Recommendation 1(c) to add:
…and direct Building Services to inspect those
duplexes that have been converted illegally to triplexes listed in the QTN-PAC
Report, to ensure that these units meet Building Code.
CARRIED
Speaking to the previous Motion, Mr. John
Moser, Acting Deputy City Manager, PGM, stated that not only was there
insufficient staff to perform such a task but this was not part of their
mandate, which is to respond on a complaint basis. Councillor Cullen replied that the Motion was drafted in part as
a result of having to go through a process because of the creation of illegal
triplexes that had never been inspected.
Moved by A. Cullen.
Add to Recommendation 1:
g) Direct the Planning and Growth Management Department, Planning, Environment
and Infrastructure Policy Branch; Community and Protective Services, Bylaw
Services Branch; and Public Works and Services Department, Traffic and Parking
Operations Branch, to work with the Queensway Terrace North Community
Association and the Ward Councillor to enforce the City’s right-of-way where
encroachment has occurred, particularly on streets identified in the report
with front yard parking;
CARRIED
Whereas residential properties in
Queensway Terrace North abutting Carling Avenue have higher density zonings
than the properties interior to Queensway Terrace North, in recognition that
these properties would access Carling Avenue, a major arterial,
Whereas Maplewood Avenue is blocked
at Carling Avenue, causing residents to access Carling Avenue through Queensway
Terrace North residential streets;
Therefore
be it resolved, as part of the Zoning Bylaw review, staff be directed to review the
appropriateness of the zoning for the properties at Carling and Maplewood
Avenues.
CARRIED
The Committee was apprised of written
correspondence received from Mr. Swiech and Ms. Kalibatas, as well as from Mr.
John Blatherwick, Chair, Zoning and Development Committee, Woodpark Community
Association Inc. relative to this subject.
All correspondence is held on file with the City Clerk.
The Committee then approved the report
recommendations, as amended:
1. That the Planning and Environment Committee:
a) Direct the Planning and Growth Management
Department, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch; Community
and Protective Services, By-law Services Branch; and, Public Works and Services
Department, Traffic and Parking Operations Branch, to work with the Queensway
Terrace North Community Association to undertake a public education initiative
with respect to informing property owners and residents of existing
City’s by-laws that relate to secondary dwelling units and parking on private and public property;
b) Direct the Public Works and Services
Department, Surface Operations Branch, to initiate a tree planting plan, in
consultation with the Queensway Terrace North Community Association, for
locations where trees could be planted to improve the streetscape in
Queensway Terrace North;
c) Direct the Planning and Growth Management
Department, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, to contact
owners of all duplexes within the study area, and encourage those with existing
third units to regularize their units to meet the new requirements by making
any necessary changes to ensure Zoning and Building Code compliance, and
direct Building Services to inspect those duplexes that have been converted
illegally to triplexes listed in the QTN PAC Report, to ensure that these units
meet Building Code;
d) Direct the Planning and Growth Management
Department, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch to provide
the Queensway Terrace North community association with information on the
issuance of building permits for new dwelling units within the area shown on
Document 1 on a yearly basis until the end of 2010;
e) Direct the Community and Protective Services
Department with the support of the Planning and Growth Management Department,
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, to consider the
Community Characteristics Table contained in Appendix 7 of Document 3 in the
preparation of the Neighbourhood Profile template;
f) Direct the Planning and Growth Management
Department, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, to consider
the Development Review Mechanism model, proposed by the Queensway Terrace North
Public Advisory Committee and described in Document 3, as part of addressing
the interpretation and implementation of the City’s intensification objectives
during the five-year review of the Official Plan in 2008;
g) Direct the Planning and Growth Management Department, Planning,
Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch; Community and Protective
Services, Bylaw Services Branch; and Public Works and Services Department,
Traffic and Parking Operations Branch, to work with the Queensway Terrace North
Community Association and the Ward Councillor to enforce the City’s
right-of-way where encroachment has occurred, particularly on streets
identified in the report with front yard parking;
h) Whereas residential properties in Queensway Terrace North
abutting Carling Avenue have higher density zonings than the properties
interior to Queensway Terrace North, in recognition that these properties would
access Carling Avenue, a major arterial,
Whereas Maplewood Avenue is blocked at
Carling Avenue, causing residents to access Carling Avenue through Queensway
Terrace North residential streets;
Therefore be it resolved, as part of
the Zoning Bylaw review, staff be directed to review the appropriateness of the
zoning for the properties at Carling and Maplewood Avenues.
CARRIED
as amended
2. That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council:
a)
Approve an
amendment to the former Ottawa Zoning By-law, Ottawa Zoning By‑law
1998, to permit limited front yard parking in the Queensway Terrace North
study area, subject to a number of performance standards, as well as to
prohibit rear yard parking, unless there is a side yard access to a rear yard
detached garage, as detailed in Document 2.
b) Repeal
Interim Control By-law 2005-18.
CARRIED
16. LOWER
RIDEAU WATERSHED STRATEGY
STRATÉGIE DE GESTION DU BASSIN
HYDROGRAPHIQUE
DU BAS-RIDEAU
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0080 CITY-WIDE
/ À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning and Environment Committee and the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council:
1. Endorse the Lower Rideau Watershed Strategy
as outlined in Document 3;
2. Direct staff to prepare an implementation plan for the City's
component of the strategy, including any 2008 operating and capital budget
pressures, for Council approval in 2007.
CARRIED
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. ON TIME REVIEW STATUS REPORT
RAPPORTS D’ÉTAPE SUR
L’EXAMEN EN TEMPS VOULU
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0213-IPD CITY-WIDE
/ À L'ÉCHELLE DE
LA VILLE
RECEIVED
B. REVISED PROCESS - FERNBANK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PROCESSUS RÉVISÉ - PLAN DE CONCEPTION
COMMUNAUTAIRE DE FERNBANK
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0077-IPD KANATA
(4), GOULBOURN (6)
RECEIVED
Inquiries
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
Councillor A. Cullen
At the June 28, 2006 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee,
the following Motion was passed:
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
That staff include in the Integrated Waste
Management Master Plan a waste audit project in 2006 for the non-residential
sector in order to identify opportunities for recycling.
What is the status of this request?
Will this project be included in the 2007 budget?
|
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Original signed
by Original
signed by
M.J. Beauregard Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair