STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING
ACT MATTERS SUBMITTED POST JANUARY 1, 2007
DÉCLARATION POUR LES QUESTIONS SOUS LA LOI SUR L’AMENAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE
PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007
The
Chair read a statement relative to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendments listed as Item 3, and the Zoning By-Law Amendments listed as Items 1
and 4 to 8 on the agenda. He advised
that only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions
before the amendment was adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB.) In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the OMB if
Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days for Zoning, and 180 days
for an Official Plan Amendment, after receipt of the application
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
Responses to Inquiries/ Réponses aux demandes
de renseignements
PLC 01-12 Affordable Rental Buildings / immeubles de
location abordables
PLC 02-12 Iraq
Embassy Property at 187 Lansdowne Road/ Ambassade d’Iraq, située au 187, promenade
Lansdowne
CC 04-12 MAP Access for Members of Council and
Councillor’s Assistants / Accès au système MAP pour les membres du Conseil et
les adjoints aux conseillers
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY
DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉ
AUPARAVANT
A. UPDATE ON STAFF REPORT ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0017, ZONING
2781, 2791, 2797 BASELINE ROAD AND 2704, 2706, 2724 AND 2734 DRAPER AVENUE
MISE À JOUR SUR LE
RAPPORT DU PERSONNEL ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0017, ZONAGE DES 2781, 2791 ET 2797,
CHEMIN BASELINE ET DES 2704, 2706, 2724
ET 2734, AVENUE DRAPER
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0105 - IPD COLLEGE / COLLÈGe (8)
POSTPONEMENTS
AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET RENVOIS
1. ZONING
- 2781, 2791, 2797 BASELINE ROAD AND 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734 DRAPER AVENUE
ZONAGE – 2781, 2791, 2797, CHEMIN BASELINE ET 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734,
AVENUE DRAPER
ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0017 COLLEGE / COLLÈGe (8)
Deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 10 January
2012 /
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning
provisions of the Residential Fifth Density Subzone A
Exception Holding Zone (R5A[1700] S247-h) for 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper
Avenue as detailed in Document 2.
Lloyd Phillips,
for Greatwise Development Corporation, was present in support of
deferral. He also submitted a letter
dated 29 March 2012, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.
Committee
deferred this report by means of the following motion:
WHEREAS discussions have continued with respect to the rezoning of this
development;
AND WHEREAS these discussion have resulted in the proposal below;
AND WHEREAS, prior to Committee and Council consideration of this
proposal, it is appropriate that there be one further opportunity for
consultation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following amendments to the zoning
for 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road and 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734 Draper Avenue be
tabled, to be listed with the disposition of this Committee meeting so as to be
available through the City’s website
·
Maximum number of residential units
permitted-400
·
Residential uses of the R5A zone are
permitted in Area A and Area B
·
Maximum Gross Floor Area permitted-34000 m2
·
Maximum permitted building heights to be
regulated through a revised schedule
o
Area A: 17.0m. above grade to a maximum of 4.5
storeys.
o
Area B: 18.0m. above grade to a maximum of 5 storeys.
o
Area B only - A
structure that accommodates gym, party room, other amenity uses but no
residential units is a permitted projection above the maximum building height,
to a maximum of 4.0 m.
·
Minimum Setbacks
to be regulated with a revised schedule in accordance with the following :
o
Baseline Road -
3.0 metres
o
Morrison Drive -
6.0 metre
o
Draper Avenue -
6.0 metres
o
Interior Side
Yard - 6.0 metre
s
·
Permitted Projections
·
Minimum Parking Rates for
o
commercial uses:- 1 space per 92.9m2 of GFLA
for any commercial use
o
residential uses: 1 space per unit, visitor 0.2 spaces per unit
o
non-required commercial parking is permitted
to be shared with residential visitor spaces only in Area B.
·
Permitted
commercial uses: bank machine, restaurant, bar, convenience store, retail
store, retail food store, office, outdoor commercial patio, personal service
business, instructional facility and recreational and athletic facility.
·
Commercial use provisions
o
Commercial uses
are permitted only on the ground floors of buildings adjacent to Baseline Road
in Area B.
o
Maximum gross
leaseable floor area per individual tenancy
for commercial uses -325.15m2
o
Total maximum
gross leaseable floor area for the zone - 1115 m2
·
Outdoor patio’s Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 85 of the zoning by-law,
an Outdoor Commercial Patio is permitted only in and anywhere in Area B,
except within 30.0m of the east side of this zone.
·
Areas A and B are shown on the following
page.[0]
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this matter be
deferred to the next 8 May 2012 meeting of Planning Committee at 9:30 a.m.
CARRIED
2. FRONT
– ENDING AGREEMENT – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND 3, TRIBUTARY ALTERATIONS AND
OVERSIZED TRUNK STORM SEWERS, RIVERSIDE SOUTH COMMUNITY
ENTENTE DE FINANCEMENT PRÉALABLE – BASSIN DE
RÉTENTION DES EAUX PLUVIALES NO 3 ET DES ÉGOUTS PLUVIAUX SURDIMENSIONNÉS,
COMMUNAUTÉ DE RIVERSIDE-SUD
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0199 gloucester south nepean sud (22)
Deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 25 October
2011
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning Committee recommend
Council:
1.
Authorize
the City to enter into a Front-Ending Agreement with Riverside South
Development Corporation for the design and construction of the Riverside South,
Stormwater Management Pond 3, based upon the principles set forth in Document 1
and the Council Approved Front-Ending Policy in Document 2 with the final form
and content of the Front-Ending Agreement being to the satisfaction of the
Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability and
the City Clerk and Solicitor;
2.
Approve
the expenditure of $18,472,000 plus applicable taxes and indexing for the
design and construction, and land costs of Pond No. 3 from development charges
collected pursuant to By-law 2009-217 subject to the execution of the
Front-Ending Agreement;
3.
Approve
the expenditure of $1,145,000 plus applicable taxes and indexing for
alterations to Tributary No. 3, $489,900 plus applicable taxes and indexing for
alterations to Tributary No. 4, $396,060 plus applicable taxes and indexing for
alterations to Tributary No. 7A, $861,120 plus applicable taxes and indexing
for alterations to Tributary No. 7B, $1,462,800 plus applicable taxes and
indexing for alterations to Tributary No. 10, and $2,760,000 plus applicable
taxes and indexing for fish compensation from development charges collected
pursuant to By-law 2009-217 subject to the execution of the Front-Ending
Agreement;
4.
Authorize
the City to enter into subdivision agreements which provide for the repayment
of storm sewer oversizing set at $9,877,000 plus applicable taxes in accordance
with the principles set forth in Document 2;
5.
Authorize
the City to enter into subdivision agreements, which provide for the
remuneration of land costs associated with Pond 3; and
6.
Authorize
the City to establish a new internal order in the amount of $35,463,880 plus
applicable taxes and indexing.
Mary Jarvis, Riverside South Development
Corporation, was present
in support of the recommendations.
planning and infrastructure
Urbanisme et Infrastructure
PLANNING
and growth management
3. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING – 3311 WOODROFFE AVENUE
MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE –
3311, AVENUE WOODROFFE
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0079 gloucester south nepean sud (22)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council:
1.
Approve
and adopt an amendment to Volume 2A of the Official Plan – Secondary Plan
Nepean Areas 4, 5, and 6 to redesignate 3311 Woodroffe Avenue from Business
Park to Business Park – Special Policy Area, as detailed in Document 2; and
2.
Approve
an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of
3311 Woodroffe Avenue from DR to GM5 [XXXX] and from DR to GM9 [XXXX] as
shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.
Whereas report ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0079 recommends zoning changes to the lands known
municipally as 3311 Woodroffe Avenue;
AND
WHEREAS the intent of report
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0079 is to permit the uses allowed under Section 2.1.1 Business
Park - Permitted Uses of the South Nepean Urban Area - Areas 4, 5 and 6
Secondary Plan with regulations that require primary uses to occupy at least
51% of the floor area and ancillary uses to occupy a maximum of 49% of the
floor area;
AND WHEREAS Document 3 of said report
does not clearly differentiate between the primary and secondary uses;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the said report
be amended by replacing Item number 1 of Document 3 with the following:
That
the report be amended by replacing Item number 1 of Document 3 with the
following:
1. A new
exception, GM5[xxxx], will be added to Section 239 - Urban Exceptions and will
contain provisions that implement the following:
a. the
following uses be added to column III - Additional Land Uses Permitted of
exception [xxxx]:
-
bank
-
convenience store
- day
care
-
post office
-
research and development centre
-
service and repair shop
-
technology industry
-
training centre
b. the
following uses be added to column IV - Land Uses Prohibited of exception
[xxxx]:
- bed and breakfast
- hotel
c. the
following provisions be added to column V - Provisions of exception [xxxx]:
- the total cumulative gross floor area of the
following ancillary uses may not exceed 49% to a maximum of 1560 square metres:
-
artist studio
-
convenience store
-
personal service business
-
restaurant
-
retail store
-
service and repair shop
- where a drive through facility is provided in
combination with an ancillary use it must be included in the maximum gross
floor area set out above
- Table 103 which provides a maximum parking
restriction for lands situated within 600 metres of a designated transit
station does not apply
That there be no further
notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning
Act.
4. ZONING – 337 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE
ZONAGE – 337, AVENUE SUNNYSIDE
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0083 capital / capitale (17)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the
zoning of 337 Sunnyside Avenue from Residential Third Density Subzone Q
(R3Q[487]) to Residential Fourth Density, Subzone V, Exception [xxxx]
(R4V[xxxx]), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
Kersten Nitsche,
Planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for
recommending approval. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file
with the City Clerk.
Committee
received the following written submissions, copies of which are held on file
with the City Clerk:
·
Joint letter dated 9 April 2012 from Tawnia Albert
and Daphné Lahens; Michael Assal and Gill Alexander-Assal; Shoshana Magnet and
Robert Smith; Tim Boreham and Cindy Tutt; Graham and Karen Cowen; Tom Regan
·
Comments dated 10 April 2012 from Brendan McCoy, Old
Ottawa South Community Association.
Committee heard
from the following public delegations:
Brendan McCoy,
Old Ottawa South Community Association* was opposed to the
application as proposed. As outlined in
his written comments on file, the Community Association was prepared to refrain
from objecting to the proposal conditional on the roof top patio being removed
from the design and site plan. However, with the patio in place they could not
support it.
Michel Assal and
Daphne Lehens,* residents of Sunnyside Avenue, spoke on behalf of four other sets of
neighbours, as noted in their written submission on file. *They opposed the
application as presented. As outlined in greater detail in the comments on
file, they opposed the spot-zoning of the site and the proposed through-lot
designation of the site, and expressed concerns with Hydro line clearance, massing
and shadow casting.
David McNicoll, resident of
Sunnyside Avenue, was opposed to the report recommendations as presented. Specifically, he was opposed to spot-zoning
the property to R4, given that the surrounding area is almost exclusively R3.
He suggested consideration of R4 Zoning for the area would be best considered
as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law review.
Vincent Colizza, project architect,
was present for the applicant in support of the application. He indicated that they had stepped back the
roof top patio, in addition to providing a landscaped buffer.
* Comments held on file with the
City Clerk
5. ZONING – 145-151 MEADOWLANDS DRIVE
ZONAGE – 145-151, PROMENADE MEADOWLANDS
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0100 COLLEGE / COLLÈGE (8)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the
Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning
By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 145, 147, 149 and 151 Meadowlands Drive,
shown in Document 1, from Residential R1FF
(Residential First Density Subzone FF) to R4Z[XXXX] SXXX (Residential Fourth
Density Subzone Z, Exception zone with a Schedule, as detailed in Documents 2
and 3.
Committee
received an E-mail dated 9 April 2012 from Reynald and Leanne Thompson, a copy
of which is held on file with the City Clerk:
Committee heard
from the following public delegations:
Deanna Stearns,
Meadowlands Steering Committee was present in support of the staff
recommendation. Based on Negotiations with the applicant, the steering
committee is willing to accept the revised plan as long as it complies with the
performance standards outlined in the report.
Nancy Meloshe was present in
support on behalf of the applicant, in support of the report recommendations.
6. ZONING – PART OF 90 WOODRIDGE CRESCENT AND PART OF 100 BAYSHORE DRIVE
ZONAGE – PARTIE DU 90, CROISSANT WOODRIDGE ET
PARTIE DU 100, PROMENADE BAYSHORE
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0085 bay / baie (7)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning
of part of 90 Woodridge Crescent from R5A[1164] H(34) to R5A[XXXX] H(34) and by
amending Exception [1160], and to change the zoning of part of 100 Bayshore
Drive by amending Exceptions [199] and [433], all of which is to permit a
temporary parking lot for a period of three years, as shown on Document 1 as
detailed in Document 2.
Ron Clarke, Delcan, was present for the applicant in support
of the application.
7. ZONING - 200 LOCKHART AVENUE
ZONAGE - 200, AVENUE LOCKHART
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0077 bay/baie (7)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment
to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 200 Lockhart Avenue from
Community Leisure Facility Zone (L1) to Residential Fifth Density Subzone P
exception zone with a height limit of 26 metres, R5P [XXXX] H(26m) as shown in
Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
Brian Casagrands, FoTenn Consultants, was present for the applicant in support
of the application.
8. ZONING – 145 CLARIDGE DRIVE
ZONAGE – 145 PROMENADE CLARIDGE
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0054 BARRHAVEN (3)
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning
of 145 Claridge Drive from Minor Institutional Zone (I1A) to Residential Third
Density Zone, Subzone YY with an Exception (R3YY[XXXX]H(12)) as shown in
Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.
9. FRONT
– ENDING AGREEMENTS – TRAFFIC SIGNALS FOR BANK STREET AT ANALDEA DRIVE, NORTH
INTERSECTION
ENTENTES DE
FINANCEMENT PRÉALABLE – FEUX DE CIRCULATION SUR LA RUE BANK À LA HAUTEUR DE LA
PROMENADE ANALDEA, INTERSECTION NORD
ACS2012-pai-PGM-0080 gloucester south nepean (22)
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council:
1.
Authorize
the City to enter into a Front-Ending Agreement with Claridge Homes (Leitrim)
Inc. for the installation of traffic signals at the Bank Street and Analdea
Drive north intersection as set forth in Document 2 and the Council approved
Front-Ending Policy in Document 3 with the final form and content of the
Front-Ending Agreement being to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager,
Planning and Infrastructure and the City Clerk and Solicitor; and
2.
Approve
the expenditure of $175,000 plus applicable taxes in 2018 to reimburse Claridge
Homes (Leitrim) Inc. in accordance with Document 4, subject to the option for
deferral of payment detailed in Document 3, for traffic signals at the Bank
Street and Analdea Drive north intersection, subject to the execution of the
Front-Ending Agreement.
10. LOW-RISE INFILL HOUSING IN MATURE NEIGHBOURHOODS
AMÉNAGEMENTS
INTERCALAIRES DE FAIBLE HAUTEUR DANS LES QUARTIERS BIEN ÉTABLIS
rideau-Vanier
(12), Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0097 Somerset (14),
Kitchissippi (15), Capital (17)
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning Committee recommend Council
approve:
1.
An
amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to include a new section which provides
regulations for infill development as detailed in Document 2;
2.
The
Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing as detailed in
Document 3;
3.
The
proposed changes to the City’s submission requirements and procedures –
including procedures and fees for new planting, the Urban Tree Conservation
By-law and the Drainage By-law as detailed in Document 4 and direct the
appropriate branches to implement these changes within eight months of Council
approval of this report; and
4. The addition of one Full-Time Employee for the Forestry
Services Branch as a pressure to the draft 2013
budget, in order to ensure that the amendments to the Urban Tree Conservation
By-law can be implemented;
Committee received the following written
submissions, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk.
·
Letter
dated 10 April 2012 from Action Sandy Hill
·
Comments
dated 10 April 2012 from the Westboro Community Association
·
Comments
dated 10 April 2012 from the Wellington Village Community Association
·
Letter
dated 10 April 2012 from the Westboro Beach Community Association
·
Letter
dated 9 April 2012 from the Dalhousie Community Association
·
Comments
dated 10 April 2012 from the Old Ottawa South Community Association
·
Letter
dated 9 April 2012 from the Glebe Community Association
·
Comments
dated 5 April and 10 April 2012 from the Champlain Park Community Association
·
E-mail
dated 5 April 2012 from Patrick Quealey on behalf of the Environmental Advisory
Committee
·
E-mail
dated 29 March 2012 from Don Paskovich
·
E-mail
dated 10 April 2012 from David Orfald
·
Speaking
Notes dated 10 April 2012 from George Georgaras
·
Comments
dated 10 April 2012 from Michael Wright
·
E-mail
dated 9 April 2012 from Katherine Bennett
·
Comments
dated 10 April 2012 from Lynne Bankier
·
Presentation
dated 10 April 2012 from Mary-Ellen Kot
·
E-mail
dated 10 April 2012 from Patricia Baumbach
·
E-mail
dated 9 April 2012 from Paul McConnell
·
E-mail
dated 9 April 2012 from Stephen Pope
·
E-mail
dated 31 March 2012 from Tiina Baumbach
Selma Hassan,
Planner, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. She did so by means of a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
Committee heard
from the following delegations:
Rosaline Hill, representative
of industry working group that participated in the consultations on the report,
spoke on behalf of Prestwick Building Corporation. She requested the item be deferred to staff
to consult further with stakeholders and refine their proposal. She suggested
that the consultation undertaken to date was not sufficient. She noted that the industry group had
submitted substantial comments, and while staff had addressed some of those
concerns, they had not gone far enough. There remained issues requiring
clarification, reconsideration. For
example, she pointed out that the wording of the proposed provision limiting
roof top projections did not meet staff’s intent because it included parapets
and chimneys within the allowable square footage limit.
George Georgaras,*
representative of the industry working group, spoke on behalf of Uniform Urban
Developments. As detailed in the
comments held on file, he expressed concerns with the proposed changes and
recommendations with respect to existing and new trees, changes to drawing
requirements, final grading inspection/ certification and landscape
implementation. He requested Committee refer the report back to staff to
continue consultations with stakeholders to refine and revise the
recommendations.
Michael Wright,*
representative of the industry working group, spoke on behalf of Bedrock Developments,
Legacy Homes, Jose Dinis and Jose Dires.
As detailed in the comments held on file, he expressed concerns with
respect to the proposed provisions for rear yard parking and the potential
effect upon the building industry. Specifically, he felt the amendments to
limit carports and garages, and requirements for rear yard parking would
severely impact the ability of small home builders to meet the expectations of their
market. He requested that the report be deferred for further review and
consultation between staff and stakeholders.
Miguel Tremblay, representative
of the industry working group, spoke on behalf of Surface Developments, Marino
Construction, Doyle Homes and Fanto Group. He sought deferral to allow for more
consultation between staff and stakeholders. He expressed discomfort with the restrictions
on garage doors and carports fronting on public streets. He suggested these issues were better handled
within the City’s Urban Design Guidelines, rather than Zoning, as the former
approach allows more flexibility for staff and developer to adapt to community
context. He expressed the importance of
also considering the needs of new homeowners when considering these matters.
Jacques Hamel,
Hamel Design Inc, representative
of the industry working group, spoke for Petrelli Construction, Conti Corp and
Sirois and Sons. He expressed concerns with
respect to the provisions relating to calculation of existing grade, suggesting
they would result in a net loss in permitted building heights. He made the following recommendations with
respect to calculation of existing grade:
·
Eliminate
all street centre line points from the calculation
·
Use
the four points at corner of the required or varied setback rather than the
four corners of the lot
·
Use
average grade calculations along the setback lines in an averaging situation
rather than individual points, as this is more indicative and eliminates local
anomalies.
·
More
thought needs to be given to when grade is calculated, as there are frequently
legitimate reasons to vary the grade during construction, including
accommodating civic infrastructure.
He requested
that approval of this section of the report be deferred so that a more reasoned
and equitable method for calculating grade can be proposed.
Murray Chown, Novatech, representative
of the industry working group, spoke for Haslett Construction, Falsetto Homes,
Tony Cassone and Miroca Design. He supported the concerns of previous speakers
and recommended deferral of the report to allow for more discussions with
industry and community associations. He suggested there had not been sufficient
time to review the revised guidelines.
He further spoke to the value the infill industry provided to the city
by developing ground-oriented family housing in developed and serviced areas.
He suggested such development, which mitigated urban boundary pressures and
supported the City’s planning objectives, should be encouraged, not
discouraged. He was concerned that the
proposals would harm the industry.
Michael Polowin, representative
of the industry working group, spoke for Marino Group and Roca Homes. He supported the remarks made by previous
speakers, and indicated that the others supported his remarks. He asked for deferral and direction to staff
to work further with the industry on the report. He identified two legal concerns with the
City proceeding as staff recommends. Firstly,
he expressed concern with zoning provisions applying differently to new
construction. He suggested there was no
authority in the Planning Act to do
this. Secondly, he questioned whether it
was within the authority of the municipality to include landscaping and
external design features in zoning provisions.
He noted that Section 41 of the Act
(Site Plan Control) spoke to external design, but Section 34 (Zoning) did
not, arguing such matters were firmly an issue of site plan control and not
zoning.
Mary-Ellen Kot* spoke in
support of approving the report and recommendations. Her PowerPoint presentation outlined examples
of good and bad infill, and identified issues arising from infill and their
impact on her neighbourhood in Wellington Village. A copy of her presentation is
held on file.
Heather Pearl,
Champlain Park Community Association (CPCA)* spoke in support of approving
the report and recommendations. The comments held on file outline the specific
points of agreement with the Zoning by-law changes and infill guidelines. She indicated that the CPCA looked forward to
participating in the study that will address building height, mass and scale.
Lynne Bankier,* resident of
Champlain Park, spoke in support of approving the report and
recommendations. As outlined in detail
in the comments held on file, she spoke to how the proposed provisions
addressed concerns with infill in her neighbourhood.
Gary Ludington
Westboro Community Association* spoke in support of approving the
report and recommendations. However, he expressed some minor concerns with
wording and implementation of some provisions. These are outlined in detail in
the comments held on file.
John Dance and
Paul Goodkey Ottawa East Community Association, Ottawa East Community
Association,*
spoke in support of approving the report and recommendations. They suggested
the guidelines and associated Zoning by-law amendments, while not perfect,
supported their supported the association’s objectives, would clarify expectation
of infill in mature neighbourhoods, reduce the burden at Committee of
Adjustment, and provide a fair and reasonable constraint on local developers.
Daniel Buckles spoke in support
of approving the report and recommendations. In particular, he supported the
recommendations with respect to protection of trees, including protection of
critical root zones for trees on neighbouring properties. He suggested the
proposed amendments would contribute to protecting existing trees and the
City’s tree canopy. He supported early
engagement of Forestry Services in the planning process, and the proposed
development of guidelines for engaging with communities on these issues.
Bobby Galbreath,
Glebe Community Association (GCA)* indicated that, while the GCA had
supported the study, it had some concerns with respect to the effects of the
proposed measures.
As outlined in
detail in the comments on file, these concerns included the impacts of the Zero
parking requirement on on-street parking; loss of permeable surface and green space
as cars move off the street into backyard, and the fact that the design control
measures outlined in the Guidelines overstep the boundaries between planning
and design. He argued that the effects of the proposed provisions needed be
better understood before they were adopted.
Brendan McCoy,
Old Ottawa South Community Association* spoke in support of approving the
report and recommendations, but expressed disappointment that the present study
did not deal with the issues of massing, heights and setbacks. His detailed comments are on file.
Sophie Beecher,
Action Sandy Hill (ASH)* spoke in support of approving the report and
recommendations, but raised additional concerns with respect to Sandy
Hill. As detailed in the comments on
file, ASH proposes that the concept of infill must be better defined in the
guidelines to clarify their scope of application, and that further study be
done to have the bylaw changes and the guidelines should apply to converted
dwellings.
Linda Hoad,
Hintonburg Community Association spoke in support of approving the
infill guidelines, noting that staff’s analysis confirmed some of the community
concerns with respect to the form infill developments were taking. She specifically supported the provisions
with respect to garages, and the enhanced application requirements for infill
projects. She emphasized the importance
of the proposals in building infill that fit within the community context.
Don Stewart,
Westboro Beach Community Association* spoke in support of the infill
guidelines. However, he had some additional comments and concerns with respect
to no parking space required, front yard soft landscaping and rooftop
projection above the height limit. These
are outlined in detail in the comments on file.
Katie Paris, Wellington Village
Community Association*
spoke in support of the infill guidelines. However, he had some additional
comments, concerns and requests for clarification. These are outlined in detail
in the comments on file.
Councillor Clark spoke on behalf of the
community associations in his ward, in support of the recommendations.
*Presentation and/or written
comments held on file with the City Clerk.
This report will be presented
to Council on 8 May 2012
11. 2011
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO THE BUILDING
CODE ACT
RAPPORT
ANNUEL DE 2011 PRESCRIT PAR LA LOI SUR LE
CODE DU BÂTIMENT
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0069 city-wide /
À l’Échelle de la ville
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning Committee recommend that Council
approve the 2011 Annual Report pursuant to the Building Code Act.
12. Building
Code Services - Vacant building official Positions
SERVICES DU
BÂTIMENT – POSTES VACANTS D'AGENTS DU BÂTIMENT
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0098 city-wide /
À l’Échelle de la ville
The
Planning Committee recommend that Council receive and approve:
1.
That the Building Official I position
#10031455 remain open; and
2.
That if any Building Official Intern,
Building Official I, II, III, or Specialist position remains open (vacant) for
a period greater than two years from the date that it last had an owner, or the
original creation date, the position not be declared as surplus to the
Corporation’s needs and that the budget allocation and FTE(s) associated with
the position not be removed from the corresponding departmental budget.
ADDITIONAL ITEM
POINT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE
13. EXEMPTION
FROM THE DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 807 MAPLEWOOD
AVENUE
EXEMPTION AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES DÉMOLITIONS POUR LA
PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE AU 807, AVENUE MAPLEWOOD
ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0006 BAY/BAIE (7)
Moved by
Councillor M. Tayor:
That the Planning Committee approve the
addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting,
pursuant to subsection 84(3) of the procedure by-law (Being By-Law No.
2006-462).
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor M. Taylor:
WHEREAS
the Demolition Control By-law was
introduced by the former City of Ottawa to control or reduce the depletion of
residential rental units, either being demolished outright or converted into
condominium units;
AND WHEREAS the
By-law provides the property owner the choice to apply to Council for an
exemption to the by-law, which if approved requires the applicant to enter into
an agreement with the City to demolish and build within a fixed period of time,
failing which a penalty applies;
AND WHEREAS the owner of 807
Maplewood has met with Planning and Growth Management staff and has indicated
that he will be filing applications related to the development of the site
shortly and expects to be in a position to begin development of the site in the
Fall of 2012;
AND WHEREAS the Ward Councillor has
indicated his support for exempting this property from the requirements of the
Demolition Control By-law;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT that 807 Maplewood be exempted
from the requirements set out in the Demolition Control By-law in order to
enable the demolition of the building immediately subject to the following
conditions which shall be incorporated into a registered agreement prior to the
exemption taking effect:
1. The Owner ensures the property is graded, sodded or se
eded and
maintained to the standards set out in the Property Standards By-law pending
development;
2. The property is not used or occupied for any other interim
use; and
3. The Owner submits planning applications within one year of
April 24, 2012; the building permit is submitted within two years of April 24,
2012 and construction substantially completed within three years of April 24,
2012.
14.
DRAFT
BILL 20, AN ACT TO AMEND THE BUILDING CODE, 1992
PROJET DE LOI 20, LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CODE
DU BÂTIMENT
ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0004 City-Wide/
à l’échelle de la ville
Moved by
Councillor J. Harder
That the Planning Committee approve the
addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting,
pursuant to subsection 84(3) of the procedure by-law (Being By-Law No.
2006-462).
CARRIED
Moved by
Councillor J. Harder
Be It Resolved That Planning Committee recommend to
Council that
1.
Council
endorse the expression of concerns with respect to Bill 20 contained with the
letter attached as Document 1 to this motion.[1]
2.
The
Chair, Planning Committee be requested to forward this letter to the Standing
Committee on Social Policy
CARRIED
This report will be presented
to Council on 11 April 2012
NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION
AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS DE MOTION (POUR
EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
No
notices were submitted.
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
No inquiries were submitted.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SEANCE
The Committee adjourned the
meeting at
3:50 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Caitlin Salter-MacDonald Councillor P.
Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
