CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
Ratification dU
procÈs-verbaL
Minutes 25 of the Planning and Environment
Committee meeting of Tuesday, 22 January 2008 were confirmed.
CONFIRMED
STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR ZONING
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES DEMANDES DE MODIFICATION DE ZONAGE PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS
LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
Chair Peter Hume read a
statement relative to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment listed as
item 2 and the Zoning By-law Amendments listed as items 10, 11 and 12 on the
Agenda.
He advised that only
those who made oral submissions at today’s meeting or written submissions
before the amendments are adopted could appeal these matters to the Ontario
Municipal Board. In addition,
applicants may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council does
not adopt an amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official
Plan Amendment of receipt of the application.
STATEMENT REQUIRED UNDER THE
PLANNING ACT
Chair Peter Hume read a statement required under the
Planning Act, which advises that
anyone who intends to appeal the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendment listed as item 4 and the Zoning By-law amendment listed as items 6, 8
and 9 on today’s agenda must either voice their objections at this public
meeting or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being
adopted by City Council on 13 or 27 February 2008. Failure to do so may result in the Ontario Municipal Board
dismissing all or part of the appeals.
POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS
ET RENVOIS
1. APPLICATION
UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT TO DEMOLISH 204 AND 212 SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMITORY, ASHBURY COLLEGE, ROCKCLIFFE PARK
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE EN VERTU DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE
L'ONTARIO VISANT À DÉMOLIR LES 204 ET 212, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET DEMANDE DE
CONSTRUCTION D'UNE NOUVELLE RÉSIDENCE D'ÉTUDIANTS, DU COLLÈGE ASHBURY, DANS LE
DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0210 Rideau
Rockcliffe (13)
Deferred on January 22, 2008 / Reporté le 22 janvier 2008
The following documentation and submissions
were received on Items 1, 2 and 3 and are held on file with the City Clerk:
·
Email and
submission from Herb Stovel dated February 11, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Iola Price dated February 11, 2008
·
Presentation
from the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee emailed on
February 11, 2008
·
Email from
Marilyn Venner dated February 11, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Brian Murphy dated February 11, 2008
·
Email and
memorandum from David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa dated February 10, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Lorraine Groulx dated February 10, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Catherine Murphy dated February 10, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Andrew Wisniowski, Lindenlea Community Association dated
February 7, 2008
·
Email and
submission from David Dubinski and Sandra Tomkins dated February 7, 2008
·
Email from
Mark Green dated February 5, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Tim Moore dated January 21, 2008
·
Email from
Patrice Stevenson and Dale Ross dated January 21, 2008
·
Submission
from Janet Thomas dated January 20, 2008
·
Email and
submission from G. Alexander Macklin, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
dated January 18, 2008
·
Cultural
Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Laurie J. Smith for 204 and 212
Springfield Road and 333 Maple Road
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner and Simon Deiaco, Planner II provided
PowerPoint presentations (held on file with the City Clerk) on all three
applications pertaining to the dormitory project. Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development Approvals Central/West
accompanied them.
Councillor Desroches compared the growth of Ashbury College with that of
the University of Ottawa. Ms. Coutts advised that both situations are different
but growth is occurring at both campuses.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Coutts explained
that Cultural Heritage Impact Statements are prepared based on draft guidelines
that were prepared based on other models from municipalities across Ontario and
Canada. She indicated that the
statements are paid for by the proponent and the terms of reference are not
circulated to community groups prior to commencement. Ms. Coutts undertook to provide the Councillor with a copy of the
draft guidelines.
Chair Hume advised that he would call the proponent as the first
delegation and would provide an additional few minutes at the completion of
delegations for further response. He
noted Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel is preparing a memorandum with respect to
the order of delegations, as previously requested by Councillor Holmes.
Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright appeared on behalf
of the applicant and was accompanied by the architect and representatives from
Ashbury College. He asked Committee and
Council to support the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments as these sites should
be designated to reflect their inclusion and institutional use. He touched on the history of the College and
the quality education it provides. He
stated the College welcomes 650 students and the new dormitory will allow for
the reorganization of the campus to ensure the main building is better
utilized. The College welcomes 85
borders and 30 countries are represented in the student population. Mr. Cohen commented that 100 per cent of
graduates proceed to post secondary education and 75 per cent receive
scholarships. He stated a number of
business persons count on the College to attract employees.
David McRobie, Architect indicated the
College undertook a master plan in 2001.
He added that extensive consultation occurred with the community and
staff over a one and half year period, including a public meeting in May
2007. He stated that the Cultural
Heritage Impact Statement is complete and meets all requirements. He touched on the orientation of the building
and the provision of greenspace, noting the plans have been changed over the process
reflecting some feedback. He also
presented a revised plan (held on file with the City Clerk) that would orient
the courtyard toward the street. The
revised plan would still require the demolition of both buildings.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. McRobie advanced the homes
must be demolished even with the alternate plan to ensure good land use by
providing adequate landscaping and outdoor areas. He reiterated that the homes have no heritage value. The architect also explained that every
square foot of the campus is already accounted for and this corner is best
situated to accommodate a new boys’ dormitory.
E. Alexander Macklin, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) said the RPRA has no issue with the College but instead is concerned
with the configuration of the proposed dormitory as it would destroy the
character of the corner, which is the entrance to both Rockcliffe Park and
Lindenlea. In order to reduce the
impact, the RPRA requested as a minimum that the building be flipped. Mr. Macklin urged that 204 Springfield Road be preserved due to its
cultural heritage importance and location.
He added that preferably 212 Springfield Road would also be preserved.
Chair Hume asked what distinguishes 204 from 212. Mr. Macklin responded that the buildings are
of similar importance and the RPRA was seeking a compromise, but suggested all
three buildings could be preserved.
Councillor Desroches suggested it would make more sense to locate the
common area within the campus. Mr.
Macklin retorted that the light and windows of the dormitory are better located
away from the street and noted a large common room would face the inside of the
campus should the building be flipped.
Janet Thomas, an adjacent property
owner on Maple Lane for the last 11 years, pointed out that the proposed
building would impact her quality of life in terms of noise, light, loitering
and traffic. She stated adjacent owners
are unanimous in their opposition to the project as proposed. She raised the heritage significance and
character of both 204 and 212 Springfield Road, suggesting the reasons for
demolition are not compelling. She
touched on the gateway nature of the corner, noting the homes act as a buffer
between the residential area and the campus.
She requested that all applications be rejected until such time as a
full environmental audit is undertaken and a true dialogue be pursued between
parties with mutual compromise.
In response to comments from Chair Hume on whether preserving both homes
and flipping the building would alleviate any impact, Ms. Thomas reiterated the
heritage value of the homes, which act as a buffer and gateway to the
community. She suggested ample room
existed on campus to accommodate a new dormitory at a different location.
Lorraine Groulx, a resident of 215
Springfield Road, also spoke in opposition to the proposals suggesting the
dormitory could be accommodated at a different location on campus to alleviate
impact on adjacent owners. She spoke of
the traffic at the intersection, which is very busy at morning peak. She also questioned if the dormitory would
be rented during the summer or the large hall for social events. Ms. Groulx reiterated the importance of the
two existing homes to be demolished, noting their heritage value and
contribution to the neighbourhood as the gateway to both communities.
Mark J. Moher spoke in support of the
LACAC recommendations to reject the application for demolition and new
construction, reiterating earlier comments made by previous delegations. He said the proposed dormitory would result
in a dominating institutional façade on the street and change the residential
character of both Rockcliffe Park and Lindenlea. He suggested the alternate plan represents a starting point and
meaningful dialogue must be pursued to achieve a plan that is acceptable to
residents. He called on Committee not
to approve the applications as currently presented.
In response to a question from Chair Hume with respect to the alternate
plan, Mr. Moher stated the core issue would be addressed by flipping the
building; however, issues such as safety, heritage preservation and visual
impact must also be addressed.
Chair Hume noted the Site Plan could be re-delegated to staff to allow
the Ward Councillor to deal with any outstanding issues.
Gavin Murphy, also speaking on behalf
of Catherine Murphy, stated he grew up at 204 Springfield, recalling
early memories of the area. He spoke in
opposition to the plans as they do not respond to the issues raised by both
community associations. He outlined
concerns with the process, including the conclusions of the Cultural Heritage
Impact Statement. He touched on
feedback received by the City in opposition as outlined in the departmental
reports. He reiterated that both the
community and LACAC do not support demolition of the buildings, which could be
incorporate in a more imaginative development plan.
Chair Hume asked how traffic would increase with the dormitory. Mr. Murphy noted current issues with the
intersection. Many students are dropped
off at the school and some students do drive to the College.
Herb Stovel spoke in support of the
LACAC recommendations, noting significant concerns with the process with
respect to the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, its preparation and
conclusions. He also touched on dealing
with divergent opinion between heritage staff and LACAC, suggesting a number of
changes to the process. He urged that
the buildings be preserved with a revised development plan, noting the heritage
value of the buildings is undisputable.
Responding to comments from Councillor Doucet with regard to process and
the hiring of consultants, Mr. Stovel suggested that the terms of reference of
the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement should be publicly agreed upon in
advance. He also suggested different
ways to fund the exercise to ensure no bias.
He noted the bigger issue revolves around how the advice of the
designated expert committee is received under the Ontario Heritage Act and the Official Plan.
Ms. Coutts explained that Section 4.6.3 of Official Plan outlines the
requirements for a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement.
Acting Chair Feltmate acknowledged concerns with the process but
suggested that discussion could occur at a later date, noting that comments and
concerns have been noted.
Councillor Legendre drew the Committee’s attention to an article he
circulated.
David Jeanes reiterated that this
corner is the main gateway to the village of Rockcliffe Park and
Lindenlea. He noted the homes, ordinary
as they may be, contribute to the heritage value of the district as
contributing elements of the early history of the village.
Brian Murphy focused on the heritage
value of the homes proposed for demolition, stating the process is flawed as
the proponent hired a consultant to prepare the Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement. He questioned the
methodology used, noting the homes represented an early founding cluster and
were inhabited by few families, which demonstrates stability in ownership. He suggested alternatives to their
demolition have not been sufficiently explored.
Heather McArthur, Vice-Chair, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee read from a written submission, noting the
following points:
·
These original houses, which are well over 100
years old, constitute an important part of the streetscape, cultural history,
and heritage of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.
·
LACAC was unconvinced that demolition is
necessary to allow the construction of the dormitory. Both heritage considerations and the needs of the school can be
reasonably accommodated.
·
The houses at 204 and 212 Springfield Road
should be retained.
·
The main part of the dormitory should be
sited behind the existing houses.
·
The shorter faces of the dormitory should be
oriented to face the street.
David Dubinski also spoke in opposition
to the proposal, suggesting alternatives must be explored. He raised existing issues with the
intersection and noted quality of life impacts of the proposed dormitory. He also suggested consultation was
information sharing in nature and Lindenlea was not adequately involved in the
process. He called for a more
imaginative solution through meaningful consultation.
Martha Edmond registered to speak in
opposition to the departmental recommendations, but was unable to attend. A written copy of her presentation is held
on file with the City Clerk.
Anthony Keith presented a diagram,
which showed a plan that would enable the retention of 204 Springfield
Road. He noted both buildings could be
preserved but 204 should be retained as it has particular value.
David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa
suggested the demolition of such buildings represents death by a thousand cuts
compromising the heritage value of the district. He suggested additional research is required to adequately
provide background information on heritage resources. He suggested an excellent case exists to preserve the buildings
in a revised development plan.
Iola Price, Chair of the RPRA Environment Committee, noted that inhabitants of both homes were distinguished, including a
respected lawyer and a gardener consulted by Mackenzie King. She indicated heritage districts are valued
for their whole and not just grand homes.
With respect to the Secondary Plan, Ms. Price advised that the proposal
does not meet the requirements of Sections 2.4.5.2 and 2.4.6 that require
enlargements or changes in public and private schools to be located and
designed in a manner in keeping with the residential character of the
surrounding neighbourhood and to be designed to present an appearance that is harmonious and
aesthetically in accordance with the character of the area. Section 3 also requires the conservation of
the village’s heritage resources and the proposed demolition of both homes does
not meet this test. With respect to the
Zoning and Official Plan amendments, Ms. Price reiterated that residents have
expressed concerns that the dormitory would be rented out to non-students in
the summer and a 50-person dormitory is not included in the list of permitted
uses in the new Institution 1A zone to be applied to the site under the new
Comprehensive Zoning By-law. In regard
to trees, Ms. Price drew attention to the large one metre diameter, very mature and
beautiful sugar maple tree that will be destroyed should the dormitory go ahead
as planned. Two large white spruce
trees will also be demolished for this plan.
She suggested it is time to go back to the drawing board to rethink the
whole plan.
Responding to a question from Chair Hume, Ms. Price stated she supports
the flip but noted the homes should be preserved including the mature
trees. Chair Hume suggested the
preservation of the large mature maple tree could be a condition in the Site
Plan Control Agreement. Ms. Price
cautioned the possible impact of construction to the root zone.
Andrew J. Wisniowski, Lindenlea Community Association, raised points made in his written submission. The Community Association fully supports the unanimous LACAC
recommendation to reject demolition and new construction. With respect to the Official Plan and Zoning
Amendments, Mr. Wisniowski stated the LCA is not necessarily opposed, provided
that it is conditional on the preservation of 204 and 212 Springfield Road.
With regard to the Site Plan, the LCA is strongly opposed to its approval
as it fails to protect both heritage properties, a heritage urban pattern
element at the entrance of a key heritage district, and does not respect long
stated concerns of the local community.
The LCA asked for an accommodation of legitimate interests and
reasonable requests of key stakeholders, as reasonable alternatives have shown
to exist. He also called into question
the fait accompli nature of the application and the lack of constructive early
consultation. He also requested that
Ashbury College fully disclose their long-term development plan to the public
as an opening phase of consultation for the future.
Councillor Desroches asked whether the LCA was contacted through the
standard process. Mr. Wisniowski indicated
the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association was contacted earlier and Lindenlea
was involved later in the process.
Mr. McRobie was provided an opportunity to respond to some of the
concerns raised by other delegations, noting the following:
·
The parking area serves its purpose by
reducing on street parking.
·
The dormitory will not impact the
intersection in any way.
·
All trees will be preserved with the
exception of the sugar maple, which would be kept under the alternate plan.
·
No exterior or flood lighting of the building
is planned.
·
The dormitory will be set back three times
more than the other homes on the street.
·
The windows will only open slightly,
approximately six inches.
·
The College does not have the funds and is
not searching to buy other homes in Rockcliffe Park.
·
The College will not be renting the dormitory
during the summer period but will possibly house visiting sports team, which is
a normal part of campus life.
·
The configuration of the girls’ residence is
not optimal and the greenspace between the homes and the dormitory is not
useful.
·
The applicant requested approval of the
current plan with the possibility of pursuing the alternate plan with the
demolition of the two homes to provide adequate greenspace.
Councillor Legendre stated this application has been a difficult file
involving two community associations, who generally do not oppose the Official
Plan and Zoning Amendments. He
suggested other schemes could be pursued, including a linear model. With respect to the Ontario Heritage Act application, he confirmed his support of the
LACAC recommendations. He referenced an
article he circulated, suggesting political will is required. He commented on the excellence of the
proposed design commending Mr. McRobie for his work. He also asked that the Site Plan application be re-delegated to
staff.
Councillor Holmes advised that she would support the Ward Councillor and
LACAC in rejecting the application under the Ontario Heritage Act. She
indicated other options could be pursued and further discussion could occur to
allow the protection of the heritage buildings while allowing the College to
proceed with its development.
Councillor Doucet noted he was convinced by delegations to preserve both
heritage homes, which contribute to the early history of the village and the
district. He agreed other solutions
could be pursued to ensure their preservation, noting the design of the
proposed dormitory is pleasing.
Councillor Hunter spoke in support of the application, suggesting these
homes are not significant and would not be preserved if located in other parts
of the City of Ottawa. He indicated the
proposal is very good and outweighs heritage considerations. He specified that the plan represents good
urban planning, including a parkette and the orientation of the building to the
street. He commended the architect for
the excellence of his design. He
touched on the importance of Ashbury College and its contribution to the
community.
Councillor Desroches said he preferred the plan before the committee,
noting an internal courtyard would have less impact on the street. He asked Ms. Coutts to comment on the
process with respect to checks and balances.
Ms. Coutts responded that heritage staff does review Cultural Heritage
Impact Statements to ensure they meet the draft guidelines. She indicated the statements are only one
factor in considering applications, as planners use professional judgment is
assessing applications on their merit.
Councillor Monette asked staff to comment on the possible retention of
204 Springfield Road. Mr. Lindsay
responded that a number of options were presented and certain details could be
worked out through Site Plan Control.
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Marc confirmed the
applicant had right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. He also clarified that under the Ontario Heritage Act a tie vote at
Council on an application is considered approval.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council:
1. Reject
demolition of 204 and 212 Springfield
Road;
2. Approve
a design which allows for the retention of both 204 and 212 Springfield Road,
and possibly includes them into a new scheme; and that the new building’s
impact on both Springfield Road and Maple Lane be minimized (for example such
as by orienting the new dormitory so that the ends of its wings face the
streets, as in the girls’ dormitory;
3. Reject
the demolition of 333 Maple Lane unless the requirements of Recommendation 2
are met.
LOST
YEAS (5): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, S.
Qadri, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B.
Monette, P. Hume
Moved
by G. Hunter:
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the demolition of 204 Springfield Road.
LOST
YEAS (5): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, S.
Qadri, P. Hume
NAYS (5): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, B.
Monette, P. Feltmate
Moved
by G. Hunter:
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council approve the demolition of 212 Springfield
Road.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B.
Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
NAYS (4): M.
Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council reject the
construction of a new boys' dormitory according to the application received on
August 14, 2007 and deemed complete on October 31, 2007.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, B.
Monette, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P.
Hume
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the
demolition of 204 and 212 Springfield Road;
2. Reject the
construction of a new boys' dormitory according to the application received on
August 14, 2007 and deemed complete on October 31, 2007.
CARRIED as amended
2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING – 204
SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND 362 MARIPOSA AVENUE
PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE – 204, CHEMIN
SPRINGFIELD ET 362, AVENUE MARIPOSA
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0006 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
Deferred on January 22, 2008 / Reporté le 22
janvier 2008
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
and adopt an amendment to the former Village of Rockcliffe Park Secondary Plan,
Volume 2A of the Official Plan to redesignate 204 Springfield Road and a
portion of 362 Mariposa Avenue from "Residential" to "Special
Uses", as detailed in
Document 2.
2. Approve
an amendment to the former Village of Rockcliffe Zoning By-law to rezone 204
Springfield Road and a portion of 362 Mariposa Avenue from “Residential Zone
RD5” to “Residential Special Use Zone RS” as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
3. SITE PLAN CONTROL - 204 SPRINGFIELD
ROAD AND 362 MARIPOSA AVENUE
PLAN
D'IMPLANTATION - 204, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET 362, AVENUE MARIPOSA
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0007 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
Deferred on January 22, 2008 / Reporté le 22
janvier 2008
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the Site Plan Control application be
re-delegated to staff.
CARRIED
That Planning and Environment Committee approve the
Site Plan Control application for 204 Springfield Road and 362 Mariposa Avenue
as set out in Document 2.
WITHDRAWN
The Committee
recessed and resumed at 1:45 p.m.
4. VACANT URBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND SURVEY,
2006 UPDATE
ENQUÊTE
SUR LES TERRAINS RÉSIDENTIELS VACANTS EN MILIEU URBAIN, MISE À JOUR DE 2006
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0010 CITY-WIDE/À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Deferred on January 8, 2008 / Reporté le 8
janvier 2008
Written correspondence from John
Herbert, Executive Director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association
dated February 11, 2008 was received and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Ian Cross, Program Manager of Research
and Forecasting provided a
PowerPoint presentation on items 4 and 5, which is held on file with the City
Clerk. Richard Kilstrom, Manager
of Community Planning and Design accompanied him.
With respect to the Employment Survey,
Councillor Desroches remarked that the Riverside South retail hub south of the
employment lands was not identified in the full report. Mr. Cross stated that the areas reflect
Schedule B of the Official Plan; however he acknowledged that such areas have
shown growth and could be included for reporting purposes.
In response to further questions from
Councillor Desroches with respect to employment diversification, Mr. Cross
confirmed the total percentage of federal government jobs has decreased from 33
per cent in 1976, down to 22 per cent, but was slightly higher than five years
ago.
Referring to sites 33 and 34, Councillor
Desroches pointed out that job growth will be forthcoming in the South Merivale
Business Park with the arrival of the RCMP, requiring infrastructure, including
a bridge. The new park and ride at
Leitrim should also lead to job growth.
Councillor Wilkinson questioned how the
employment survey assists with other planning processes to ensure adequate
facilities for employment lands. Mr.
Cross confirmed that his group provides basic accurate data for all City
planning. Mr. Kilstrom confirmed the
data is used on a number of planning initiatives from the Official Plan to
Community Design Plans.
Councillor Wilkinson also suggested that it
would be useful to determine what percentage of the vacant urban land is
suitable and ready for development. Mr.
Cross specified that the report on page 7, table 1 provides how much land was
consumed and how many units were built each year. The purpose of the survey is primarily to monitor the supply of
greenfield land and 97 per cent is outside the Greenbelt, except in cases such
as Lebreton Flats were a large parcel of land is vacant and designated for
residential. By definition, the survey
excludes most intensification parcels.
That the Planning and
Environment Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
5. RESULTS
OF THE 2006 EMPLOYMENT SURVEY
RÉSULTATS DE L’ENQUÊTE SUR L’EMPLOI DE 2006
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0071 CITY-WIDE/À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Deferred on January 8, 2008 / Reporté le 8
janvier 2008
That the Planning and
Environment Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
PLanning, TranSIT and thE EnVIRONMENT
urbanisme, transport en commun et environNement
PLANNING
URBANISME
6. ZONING - 100, 110, 120, 130 CENTRAL
PARK DRIVE
ZONAGE - 100,
110, 120, 130, PROMENADE CENTRAL PARK
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0031 River/Rivière (16)
(This
application is not subject to Bill 51)
Councillor Feltmate was in the
Chair.
Erin Topping and Janet Bradley, on behalf of Ashcroft Homes, were
present in support of the departmental recommendations for items 6 and 7.
A PowerPoint presentation prepared by staff was
circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to questions from Councillor McRae,
John Smit, Program Manager of Development Review confirmed the following:
·
The
application calls for an integrated retirement community, including a variety
of unit types with varying levels of care.
·
The
application has evolved and now only deals with performance standards, which
could have been dealt with by the Committee of Adjustment.
·
Community
feedback was received at a meeting hosted by the Central Park Community
Association at which time the nature of the application was clarified and the
scope of the project was explained.
·
With
respect to traffic, the 61 additional units are inconsequential and are within
the order of magnitude originally contemplated when the plan of subdivision was
approved.
Councillor McRae noted that a Delcan report
showed that the traffic at the intersection of Merivale Road and Central Park
Drive was six times over the original estimate and equated to between six and
seven site generated vehicle trips per minute.
Mike Wildman, Manager of Infrastructure
Approvals confirmed the numbers are higher.
He stated the zoning application does not change the level of
service.
Councillor McRae explained that this
application has been very difficult and significant promises were made by the
proponent to work with the community.
She reiterated current traffic concerns at the intersection. She thanked Mr. Smit and staff for their
work to bring together all parties, resulting in an outcome that will be
productive to the community.
This matter will rise to Council on February
13, 2008.
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 100, 110, 120
and 130 Central Park Drive as shown in Document 1 from "R6F [690] H(28.0)
U(100)" to a new R6F - High-rise Apartment Zone with exceptions to modify
performance standards as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
7. SITE
PLAN CONTROL - 100, 110, 120, 130 CENTRAL PARK DRIVE
PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 100, 110, 120,
130, PROMENADE CENTRAL PARK
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0019 River/Rivière (16)
That Planning and Environment Committee approve the
Site Plan Control application for 100, 110, 120, 130 Central Park Drive as
detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
8. ZONING - 720 SILVER
SEVEN ROAD
ZONAGE - 720,
CHEMIN SILVER SEVEN
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0042 Kanata
South/SUD (23)
(This
application is not subject to Bill 51)
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning
By-law to change the zoning of 720 Silver Seven Road from "M1A"
(Light Industrial, Select) and "M1C-2(H)" (Light Industrial, Mixed,
Exception 2, Holding) to "M1C-XX(H)" (Light Industrial, Mixed,
Exception XX, Holding), as shown in
Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
9. ZONING - 907 EAGLESON
ROAD
ZONAGE
- 907, CHEMIN EAGLESON
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0032 Kanata
South/SUD (23)
(This
application is not subject to Bill 51)
Doug
Smeathers and Regis Trudel, Minto Communities Inc.
were present in support of the recommendation.
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
City of Kanata Zoning By-law to change the zoning of part of 907 Eagleson Road
from R3A-3 to CG-3(H) and to amend the provisions of the CG-3(H) zone, as shown
in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED with P. Feltmate dissenting.
10. ZONING - 265 WEST HUNT
CLUB ROAD
ZONAGE - 265,
CHEMIN WEST HUNT CLUB
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0022 Knoxdale-Merivale (9)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering,
was present in support of the recommendation and the technical amendment.
Moved by G. Hunter:
WHEREAS the
applicant has recently acquired additional lands known municipally as 239 West
Hunt Club to be included as part of this zoning application;
AND WHEREAS the
current report recommendation in report reference no. ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0022 does
not reflect the inclusion of the aforementioned lands;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT the current recommendation be replaced with the following:
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning
By-law to rezone the property at 239 West Hunt Club Road from I Block 10 to MM
Block 5, and to amend the site specific MM, Block 5, Industrial Manufacturing
zone applicable to the properties at 239 and 265 West Hunt Club, as shown in
Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
And that
Documents 1 and 2 of the said report are hereby replaced with the attached
Documents.
That no further
notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
City of Nepean Zoning By-law to rezone the property at 239 West Hunt Club Road
from I Block 10 to MM Block 5, and to amend the site specific MM, Block 5,
Industrial Manufacturing zone applicable to the properties at 239 and 265 West
Hunt Club, as shown in amended Document 1 and detailed in amended Document 2.
CARRIED as amended
11. ZONING - 308-328 RIDEAU
STREET AND 263-287 BESSERER STREET
ZONAGE
- 308-328, RUE RIDEAU ET 263-287, RUE BESSERER
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0033 Rideau-Vanier
(12)
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
The following email was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
Martin Laplante
dated February 12, 2008
·
May Morpaw
dated February 111, 2008
·
Robert Stehle, President of Action Sandy Hill
Doug James, Planner II circulated a PowerPoint presentation, which is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Jim Burghart, Claridge and Janet Bradley, BLG,
were present in support of the recommendation.
Cate Walsh, the Lanesborough (CCC671)
noted she understood that the proposed building could be larger than it is
planned to be, but requested that the height be limited at the half block. She spoke of the possible impact on the
adjacent condominium owners.
At Councillor Bédard’s request, Mr. James explained the difference
between what is allowed in the Community Design Plan as opposed to the current
zoning. A height along Rideau Street of
37 metres was permitted, but the Community Design Plan limited this height to
the half block; however the zoning allowed maximum height for 87 per cent of
the block with 19 metres for the remainder of the site. The proposal calls for 37 metres on 60 per
cent of the block, which is a reduction of what is allowed under the current
zoning.
Councillor Bédard summarized that the application represents an
acceptable compromise; however he noted that a considerable reduction in amenity
space was proposed.
Discussion occurred on whether cash-in-lieu of parkland could be
dedicated to the area in which it was collected through Site Plan Control. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel stated no
policy exists prohibiting such a condition.
This matter will rise to Council on February 13, 2008.
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 308 328
Rideau Street and 263-287 Besserer Street, from a Neighbourhood Commercial
CN11[916]F(3.5) zone to a new Neighbourhood Commercial CN11 exception zone as
shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
12. ZONING - 62-64
CHAMBERLAIN AVENUE
ZONAGE - 62-64, AVENUE
CHAMBERLAIN
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0044 Capital/ Capitale (17)
(This application
is subject to Bill 51)
Email
correspondence from Clarence Sheahan dated February 8, 2008 was received
and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Patrick Lecours registered to
speak in opposition.
Barry Padolsky
and Michael Kelly, Barry Padolsky Associates Architects Inc. were present in
support of the recommendations pertaining to items 12 and 13.
Moved by C.
Doucet:
That items 12 and 13 be deferred to the
next meeting.
CARRIED
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to add an exception to the CG9, General Commercial
Zone applying to 62-64 Chamberlain Avenue to permit ancillary parking for 601
Bank Street as detailed in Document 2.
DEFERRED
to
February 26, 2008
13. DEMOLITION
CONTROL 62-64 CHAMBERLAIN AVENUE
DÉMOLITION – 62-64, AVENUE CHAMBERLAIN
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0043 Capital/
Capitale (17)
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the demolition of the
building located at 62-64 Chamberlain Avenue subject to the Owner entering into
an Agreement with the City which Agreement shall including the following
conditions and pay all the costs associated with the registration of said
Agreement.
1. That
the Agreement shall include a restrictive covenant which limits the use of the
property at 62-64 Chamberlain for ancillary parking for the business located at
601 Bank Street existing at the time of the registration of the Agreement only
until such time that the existing business at 601 Bank Street ceases to exist
or until the property at 62-64 Chamberlain Avenue is developed.
2. That
at such time that ancillary parking for the use located at 601 Bank Street is
no longer permitted as stated above, redevelopment of the property at 62 64
Chamberlain Avenue must be substantially completed within five years from the
last date of operation and in default thereof, the City Clerk shall enter on
the collector’s roll the sum of $10,000.
3. That
at such time that a building permit is issued to redevelop the site as 62 64
Chamberlain Avenue and the development is in place, the Agreement will become
null and void and will be released upon request by the Owner. The Owner shall pay all cost associated with
the registration of the release from this Agreement.
DEFERRED
to
February 26, 2008
LOCAL
ARCHTECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE
L’ARCHITECTURE
LOCALE
14. APPLICATION TO ALTER 338
SOMERSET STREET WEST IN THE CENTRETOWN HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE EN VUE DE MODIFIER LA PROPRIETE DU 338, RUE SOMERSET OUEST SITUEE
DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE
ACS2008-PTE-APR-0027 Somerset (14)
Christopher Bariciak, Cole & Associates Architects was present in support of the LACAC recommendations.
LACAC
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the alteration of 338 Somerset
Street West in accordance with the plans by Cole + Associates Architects as
received on December 17, 2007 and included as Documents 4 to 7.
2. Delegate approval of any subsequent
design changes of a minor nature to the Director of the Planning Branch.
CARRIED
15. APPLICATION TO ALTER
234-238 DALHOUSIE STREET IN THE BYWARD MARKET HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION DES IMMEUBLES SITUÉS AUX 234 238, RUE DALHOUSIE,
DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DU MARCHÉ BY
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0026 Rideau
-Vanier (12)
LACAC RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve
the Application to Alter 234-238 Dalhousie Street in accordance with the plans
by Briere, Gilbert + architecture et design included as Document 6 as received
on December 11, 2007.
2. Delegate
approval of any subsequent design changes of a minor nature to the Director of
the Planning Branch.
CARRIED with C. Doucet dissenting.
16. APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH
A BUILDING AT 189 ACACIA AVENUE AND APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 189
ACACIA AVENUE IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE
DE DÉMOLITION ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AU 189, AVENUE ACACIA, DANS
LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMIONE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0028 Rideau
Rockcliffe (13)
LACAC
RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the application to demolish 189
Acacia Avenue;
2. Approve the application for new
construction at 189 Acacia Avenue according to plans received at the Local Architectural Conservation
Advisory Committee meeting on 24 January 2008.
CARRIED
17. GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE CITY
OF OTTAWA
DIRECTIVES SUR LES ENQUÊTES ET LES RAPPORTS GÉOTECHNIQUES POUR LES
DEMANDES D’AMÉNAGEMENTS ADRESSÉES À LA VILLE D’OTTAWA
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0002 City-wide / À
l’échelle de la ville
Mike
Wildman, Manager of Infrastructure Approvals circulated a PowerPoint
presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mike Cunningham, Golder Associates, accompanied him.
Iola Price, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee read from a written statement held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Price touched on the need for a more
transparent system and supported the need for improvements to the process. With respect to consultation, Ms. Price
noted no general public input was sought on Document 1. She called for a more transparent system,
making the following recommendations:
1.
Require the disclosure of all aspects of
mathematical or computer models and raw data used in the production of a
geotechnical report be submitted to the City.
2.
Require the disclosure to the appropriate
City engineer of due diligence data and analysis if in a professional opinion
of the City engineer such data would assist the City to make the appropriate
decisions on the development proposal.
3.
Revise the guidelines in order to take up the
concerns that are expressed here.
4.
In future, open the document development
review process beyond the narrow group involved in the review of this document,
increasing the level of transparency.
5.
Ensure reports on the City website are
readable by members of the public.
Bill Royds, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital raised similar questions, noting the report is good and important. He requested clarifications to ensure future
geotechnical reports are clear by ensuring the model and calculations are
reviewed and publicly available. He
suggested situations such as Kanata West can be avoided by showing not only
conclusions but also the source data, including calculations and models.
Responding to questions from Chair Hume with respect to modeling, Mr.
Wildman clarified these guidelines are the absolute minimum that the City will
accept in terms of review. Modeling
output is not absolutely necessary to produce a geotechnical report; however
inputs, arithmetic and outputs are required and reviewed by staff. He also confirmed that the geotechnical
engineer does a number of tests and the findings are reported.
Mr. Cunningham added the guidelines call for raw test data to be included
in the report. The guidelines also
specify some of the general criteria to be used in the actual design and
describe what must be included in the report.
Geotechnical engineering is by and large not very computerized and the
inclusion of mathematical formula is purely at the discretion of the
geotechnical engineer.
Councillor Feltmate asked how raw data is reviewed by staff. Mr. Wildman noted the review begins with
investigation and provision of raw data, leading to interpretation and
recommendations. Basic arithmetic and
tables are used in the geotechnical field with some modeling in terms of slope
stability. Staff would have the
ability, if concerns are raised, to have the report or data independently
reviewed. He confirmed that many
reports are not accepted at first submission, leading to changes and
resubmission as a result of peer review.
In response to a question from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Wildman
specified that generally speaking the reports are reviewed by the civil engineers
at the City, but are shared with colleagues in Building Services to assist at
the building permit phase.
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS the
Auditor General’s 2007 Report will cover the planning approval process;
AND WHEREAS
recommendations in the report may cause Council to conbsider changes for
procedures related to the planning approval process, including guidelines for
studies required by development;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT these guidelines be adopted on a temporary basis with the final
decision on adopting the guidelines being made after the 2007 Auditor General’s
Report is released.
CARRIED
Moved by C. Doucet:
That the source
of all findings, including the data used, be included in the report.
CARRIED
That Planning and
Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend
Council approve the “Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Guidelines for
Development Applications in the City of Ottawa” as detailed in Document 1 for
immediate implementation in the review of all development related applications,
subject to the following:
a. That these guidelines be adopted on
a temporary basis with the final decision on adopting the guidelines made after
the 2007 Auditor General’s report is released.
b. That the source of all findings,
including the data used, be included in the report.
CARRIED as amended
BUILDING SERVICES
services du bÂtiment
18. SIGN
MINOR VARIANCE - 1145 CARLING AVENUE
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES -
1145, AVENUE CARLING
ACS2008-PTE-BLD-0002 Kitchissippi (15)
The following correspondence was received and is held on file with the
City Clerk:
·
Email from Chris Jarvis dated February
111, 2008
·
Email from Dr. Elizabeth Pattey dated
February 8, 2008
David Stackman, Bernard Sullivan, Karie Chant, Gail McClemens, Julia
Brady, Frank Quinn, Graham Bird and Tracy Shipman, Royal Ottawa Mental Health
Centre registered to speak in opposition to the
recommendation and agreed to a two-week deferral to pursue further discussions
with regard to the application and possible alternatives:
Moved by J. Harder:
That this matter
be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.
CARRIED
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve a variance of Section 78(1) of
Sign By-law 2005-439 to permit two non-illuminated signs on the top storey of
the building as illustrated in Document 1.
2. Refuse the application
to vary Section 78(1) of Sign By-law 2005-439 to permit illumination of the
signs on the top storey of the building, whereas the By-law restricts the
location of wall signs to the first and second storey.
DEFERRED
to
February 26, 2008
Moved
by P. Feltmate:
That the Planning and
Environment Committee consider the following items and reports pursuant to Section
84 (3) of the Procedure By-law.
·
Earth
Hour (ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0011)
·
Tangible
Capital Assets Project Funding (ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0002)
·
594 Rideau Street
- IN CAMERA (ACS2008-CMR-LEG-0006)
CARRIED
Economic
and Environmental Sustainability
viabilitÉ économique et de la
durabilitÉ de l’environnement
19. EARTH Hour
Une
heure pour la PLANÈTE
ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0011 City-wide /
À l’échelle de la ville
That Planning
and Environment Committee recommend that City Council support Earth Hour and
encourage residents and businesses to participate.
CARRIED
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
POINTS SUPPLÉMENTAIRES
20. TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS
PROJECT FUNDING
FINANCEMENT
DU PROJET DES IMMOBILISATIONS MATÉRIELLES
ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0002 CITY-WIDE
/ À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
WHEREAS the City
of Ottawa is required to be compliant with the Public Sector Accounting Board
Section 3150 requirements by 2009 which will result in the inclusion of
tangible capital assets in the City’s financial statements;
AND WHEREAS City
Council has approved a capital project for the implementation of a strategy and
supporting software solution to capture data on the City’s tangible capital
assets in order to meet this accounting requirement;
AND WHEREAS the
City’s water and sewer assets are approximately 50% of the City’s tangible
capital assets and therefore should contribute 50% towards the cost of the
solution;
AND WHEREAS the
contract for the supporting software solution is ready to be signed, but the
water and wastewater budgets for 2008 are scheduled to be approved in April
2008;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that in order to allow this time sensitive project to proceed a
$750,000 contribution to the Tangible Capital Assets project be made from the
water/wastewater reserves in advance of approval of their 2008 budgets and that
this motion be considered at the February 13, 2008 meeting of City Council.
CARRIED
21. 594 RIDEAU STREET - IN
CAMERA – SOLICITOR/CLIENT PRIVILEGE - REPORTING OUT DATE: 90 DAYS AFTER THE
RESOLUTION OF ALL MATTERS
594, RUE RIDEAU - À HUIS CLOS – SECRET PROFESSIONNEL DE L’AVOCAT –
DATE DU COMPTE RENDU : 90 JOURS SUIVANT LE RÈGLEMENT DE TOUS LES DOSSIERS
ACS2008-CMR-LEG-0006 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)
Dealt with
in-camera
INFORMATION
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE
AUPARAVANT
A ON
TIME REVIEW STATUS REPORTS
RAPPORTS D'ETAPE SUR L’EXAMEN EN TEMPS
VOULU
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0039 City-wide / À l’échelle de la ville
RECEIVED
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
Councillor
Feltmate tabled the following inquiry:
The
current process for supporting studies, analysis and modeling related to
development has the developer paying for and directing the creation of the
required supporting documentation. The City receives a "complete
application" and undertakes a review of the information submitted and
develops a recommendation for consideration of Planning and Environment
Committee and City Council.
In view
of difficulties that continue to be experienced with development-related
studies I will be moving a motion to have the city take responsibility for the
conduct of the work, either directly or by hiring and overseeing those who
conduct those studies.
To
assist in the discussion of this proposal could staff respond to the questions
below to the Planning and Environment via an IPD process.
1. It cost $7
million to make improvements to stormwater drainage systems in Glen Cairn after
the flooding of 2002. Does the Planning, Transit and Environment Department
keep track of what other work has been required because systems put in place at
the time areas were first developed experiences problems and what the cost for
taxpayers has been?
2. What type of
process changes and what resources would be necessary to change the planning
process to make City staff directly responsible for the supporting studies,
analysis and modeling related to development applications?
3. How would
the resources required by that process compare to the resources required to do
a complete review of the studies submitted by developers by having staff or
outside consultants attempt to replicate any modelling work or verify data
being used?
4. How much of
the cost of either the city taking over the direction of studies required for
development or improving the review process so errors of the type made with the
study of the Carp River flood plain are caught can be recovered through fees
for development applications?
5. Can staff advise whether the recommendations from the Auditor
General on the planning approval process in his 2007 report have resulted in
any recommendations for changing to the process for conducting studies required
by development approvals?
Councillor
Holmes presented the subsequent written inquiry:
Can the Planning Branch organize a public
meeting at City Hall on March 5, 2008 from 7 to 9 p.m. regarding the rezoning
application for 187 Metcalfe Street to contain a proposed National Portrait
Gallery? Can the Branch provide
logistical support for the meeting, including advertising, flyering or mailing
and advising the applicant of the meeting?
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE
DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Robert Tremblay Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
