Planning Committee Comité de l’urbanisme MINUTES 34 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 34 Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 9:30 a.m. le mardi, 8 mai 2012, 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 J. Harder (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente) Councillors / Conseillers S. Blais, R. Bloess, R. Chiarelli, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, B. Monette Absent / Absent : Councillors / Conseillers S. Qadri and M. Taylor DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT No declarations of interest were filed. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RATIFICATION DES PROCÈS VERBAL Minutes 33 of the Planning Committee meeting of 24 April 2012. CONFIRMED STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT FOR 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 required under the Planning Act, which advised anyone intending to appeal the Zoning By-law listed as Items 1, 2 and 4 on the agenda that they must either voice their objections at the public meeting or submit comments in writing prior to the Amendments being adopted by City Council on 23 May 2012, failing which, the Ontario Municipal Board might dismiss all or part of the appeals. In addition, it was noted that applicants could appeal the matters to the Ontario Municipal Board if Council did not adopt amendments within 120 days for Zoning, or 180 days for an Official Plan Amendment, of receipt of the applications. REMARKS ANNONCES At the outset, Chair Hume noted that Councillor Qadri would be absent due to the recent death of the Councillor’s father. 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 (Deferred from Planning Committee meeting of 10 April 2012 - Issued Previously) ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0017 COLLEGE / COLLÈGE (8) Note: Subsequent to Committee’s deferral of this item, staff is recommending a replacement recommendation outlined in supplementary report ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0125, listed as Item 2 below. 2. ZONING - 2781, 2791, 2797 BASELINE ROAD AND 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734 DRAPER AVENUE - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ZONAGE - 2781, 2791, 2797, CHEMIN BASELINE ET 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734, AVENUE DRAPER - RAPPORT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0125 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 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper Avenue from R5A[1700] S247 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedule 247 Zone) to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedules 247 and 282 Holding Zone) as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Document 1, 3 and 4. The Committee heard from Mr. Simon Deiaco, Planner, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department, who spoke to a brief PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) which served to provide an overview of the reports. Chair Hume noted that Councillor Chiarelli had been working with the community and the developer to arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise on this file, and that the Councillor would be introducing a Motion on the matter. Further noting that Committee was dealing with introducing a unit count with respect to the maximum number of units, the Chair asked Mr. Deiaco for possible options, should the developer return with other than agreed-upon numbers. Mr. Deiaco explained that the developer could either apply for a variance to deal with changing performance standards, or consult with staff to work on a zoning By-law amendment for the 21,000 square metre property. The Committee then heard from the following delegations: Mr. Art Stothart, an area resident, spoke about his four-year involvement with the project, originally slated for 334 units, which he said the community had originally found acceptable. He also lauded Councillor Chiarelli for intervening when the developer had tried, and failed, through the Committee of Adjustment, to alter this to 598 units, and to lower the parking variance from 1.2 to 1.0 spaces per unit, which had raised concerns regarding safety and above-ground neighbourhood and visitor parking. Mr. Stothart did admit, however, that the community had found the developer’s compromise of lowering the original height of the buildings from 12 storeys to four and a half, much more acceptable. Regarding what the community would accept as a maximum allowable number of units, the speaker suggested 400 as a maximum, and noted that the developer’s request for plus-or-minus three per-cent unit count flexibility (with a range from 387 to 413) would likely result in 413 units being built, as this would represent approximately $4 million in revenue, based on a cost of $300,000 per unit. He expressed the opinion that it was prudent to properly work out details in advance when dealing with developers. Mr. Deiaco clarified that the By-law currently recommends a required rate of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit, representing 80 spaces for the 400 units proposed. He also noted that the concept plan currently indicated an over-dedication of 84 spaces. Messrs. Lloyd Phillips, Planning Consultant, and Rod Lahey, Architect, on behalf of Greatwise Development Corp. Mr. Phillips said the developer supported the proposed staff recommendations and he thanked Councillor Chiarelli and the community for the work they had undertaken to date. Mr. Lahey explained that Greatwise was attempting to create an innovative development with larger, well-priced units incorporating a range of types, but that there was a concern as to whether there would be a market for townhouses with larger footprints. Per the current design, build-out would be at around 400 units, but should the townhouse concept not prove successful, a greater number of traditional one-storey units could be built, increasing the number of units within the same envelope. Mr. Lahey explained this concern was the reason for the developer’s request for flexibility, as a fallback position. Mr. Phillips added that the proposed zoning would permit limited commercial uses on the ground floor of the buildings facing Baseline Road, and that while the intention was to strike a balance in providing a certain amount of required parking, the overall desire was to create a neighbourhood destination for people to access by walking. Councillor Chiarelli then introduced the following Motion: MOTION NO. PLC 34/1 Moved by Councillor Rick Chiarelli: Whereas it is Committee's intention to keep the proposed development to the form and community impact described to residents and Committee prior to approval; And Whereas it is Committee's intention to permit very minor adjustments in order to appropriately address site attributes and requirements, construction eventualities and community concerns; And Whereas it is Committee’s intention to include in the project commercial elements as described in the plan with appropriate parking availability; Therefore Be It Resolved That the residential unit count limit be subject to 3% flexibility (i.e. 400 units + or - 3%; i.e. 388 - 412 units) upon review by Planning staff and subject to the concurrence of the local Councillor; And That any proposed unit count beyond the 3% range of flexibility or within the 3% but which fails to gain concurrence of the Councillor will require a new Hearing; And Be It Further Resolved That parking for any commercial use is required at the rate of 1 space for each 92.9m of gross floor area; and, And That parking for commercial uses is permitted on in Area B on Schedule 247. Speaking to the above, Councillor Chiarelli explained that the community had two primary concerns dating back to 2008; the first had been with the height of the then-proposed project at 12 storeys, with the second being the traffic that it was believed the development would generate, particularly at Baseline and Greenbank Roads. He added that a great number of meetings attended by all participants had led to revisions and redesigns, the end result of which was the current compromise. Speaking to the issue of parking, the Councillor explained that allotting 1.2 spaces per unit could raise an expectation in purchasers that they would be given a second parking space. He pointed out that at 1.0 spaces per unit, it would be clear that no additional spaces would be available, which would help to achieve the goals of reduced vehicular use and the resulting traffic. As for the three per-cent flexibility, Councillor Chiarelli pointed out that a drop in unit count to below 388 could signal a significant redesign, at which point the community would want to have input. The request for the Ward Councillor’s concurrence for variances above 400 units would serve to address both the community’s and the Committee’s concerns over a specific unit count which, if exceeded, could require variances on the basis of geology, etc., with the intent being not to require the matter’s return to Committee if a solution could be more easily achieved with the Ward Councillor’s involvement. In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Corporate Development and Environmental Law Branch, noted that while unusual, the desired outcome could be achieved by enacting a By-law that would permit 400 units. If a request were received to add more, a subsequent By-law could be enacted with the Ward Councillor’s concurrence, for between one and 12 units. Both By-laws would be subject to routine appeal processes. In conclusion, Councillor Harder congratulated Councillor Chiarelli and Messrs. Phillips and Lahey for their efforts in helping to bring the community together. She expressed that the current proposal was a good use for the five-acre school property, and suggested that this was an example that other school boards could follow for similar surplus lands, in order to both create a good community and as a way of generating income. That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper Avenue from R5A[1700] S247 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedule 247 Zone) to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedules 247 and 282 Holding Zone) as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Documents 1, 3 and 4, as amended by the following: 1. That the residential unit count limit be subject to 3% flexibility (i.e. 400 units + or - 3%; i.e. 388 - 412 units) upon review by Planning staff and subject to the concurrence of the local Councillor; 2. That any proposed unit count beyond the 3% range of flexibility or within the 3% but which fails to gain concurrence of the Councillor will require a new Hearing; 3. That parking for any commercial use is required at the rate of 1 space for each 92.9m of gross floor area, and; 4. That parking for commercial uses is permitted on in Area B on Schedule 247. The report recommendations, as amended by Motion No. PLC 34/1 were then put to Committee and CARRIED. OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA 3. DESIGNATION OF THE BETHANY HOPE CENTRE, 1140 WELLINGTON STREET WEST UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT DÉSIGNATION DU CENTRE BETHANY HOPE, SITUÉ AU 1140, RUE WELLINGTON OUEST, EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0042 KITCHISSIPPI (15) REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Committee recommend that Council issue a notice of intention to designate the Bethany Hope Centre, 1140 Wellington Street West as per the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value as detailed in Document 3. Chair Hume noted that Councillor Hobbs had requested deferral of this item to the next meeting of the Planning Committee (22 May 2012) to ensure that the City would not hinder an appeal currently underway on this property. The following delegation spoke in opposition to the deferral request: * Ms. Linda Hoad, Hintonburg Community Association. Following the speaker’s presentation, the Committee considered Councillor Hobbs’ request to defer this item to the subsequent Planning Committee meeting. MOTION NO. PLC 34/2 Moved by Councillor K. Hobbs: BE IT RESOLVED that this report be deferred to the Planning Committee meeting of 22 May 2012. The Motion was put to Committee and CARRIED, deferring this item to the next Planning Committee meeting. PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE URBANISME ET INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE 4. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: ANOMALIES AND MINOR CORRECTIONS - SECOND REPORT RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS MINEURES - PREMIER TRIMESTRE DE 2012 ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0110 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve the amendments recommended in Column III of Documents 1 and 3 to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law 2008-250. CARRIED NOTE: The Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee considered its portion of the above report on 10 May 2012; Council will consider it on 23 May 2012 in Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 19. 5. FRONT - ENDING AGREEMENTS - TRAFFIC SIGNALS FOR HUNTSVILLE DRIVE AT KANATA AVENUE ACCORD DE FINANCEMENT INITIAL - FEUX DE CIRCULATION SUR LA PROMENADE HUNTSVILLE À LA HAUTEUR DE L'AVENUE KANATA ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0093 KANATA NORTH/NORD (4) REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Planning Committee recommend Council: 1. Authorize the City to enter into a Front-Ending Agreement with Kanata Road Inc. for the installation of traffic signals for Huntsville Drive at Kanata Avenue 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 2012 for the reimbursement to Kanata Road Inc. in accordance with Document 4, subject to the option for deferral of payment in Document 3, for traffic signals for Huntsville Drive at Kanata Avenue subject to the execution of the Front-Ending Agreement. CARRIED 6. CONFIRMING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES FOR CHARITABLE AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS CONFIRMATION DE L'ADMISSIBILITÉ AU PROGRAMME DE REMBOURSEMENT DES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT POUR LES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE OU SANS BUT LUCRATIF ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0118 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: That Planning Committee recommend Council approve the amended listing of organizations eligible for reimbursement from the Reimbursement Program for Development-Related Fees for Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations. Chair Hume noted that a request had been made by the Ottawa Hospital, seeking deferral to allow for time to study the potential impacts of the policy changes. No Motions were submitted to defer this item, hence the item was CARRIED as presented. 7. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONNECTION OFFICE PRÉSENTATION AU BUREAU DE LIAISON AVEC LE VOISINAGE ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0103 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Committee receive this report as supplemental information to the 2012 budget. The Chair informed the Committee that the City Clerk’s office had requested deferral of this item in order to clarify jurisdictional governance issues between a number of the City’s Standing Committees. MOTION NO. PLC 34/3 Moved by Councillor J. Harder: BE IT RESOLVED that this report be deferred to a future Planning Committee meeting, pending the City Clerk’s Department’s clarification of the required jurisdictional governance issues. The Motion was put to Committee and CARRIED, deferring this item to a subsequent Planning Committee meeting. CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL 8. 2011-2014 CITY STRATEGIC PLAN PLAN STRATÉGIQUE DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA 2011-2014 ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0009 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Committee consider and recommend to Council, approval of Appendix E to the 2011-2014 City Strategic Plan. CARRIED Note: The Planning Committee’s recommendations for this item will be contained in Finance and Economic Development Committee Report 20-A for Council’s consideration at its meeting of 23 May 2012. CITY CLERK AND SOLICITOR GREFFIER ET CHEF DU CONTENTIEUX 9. STATUS UPDATE /PLANNING COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 24 APRIL 2012 RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 24 AVRIL 2012 ACS2012-CMR-CCB-0041 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Committee receive this report for information. RECEIVED COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS COUNCILLOR/ CONSEILLER D. CHERNUSHENKO 10. WAIVING OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR 164 MAIN STREET RENONCIATION AUX REDEVANCES D’AMÉNAGEMENT POUR LE 164, RUE MAIN ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0008 CAPITAL/CAPITALE (17) REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Committee recommend Council waive municipal development charges in the amount of $18,258.00 in respect of three apartment units, which is part of a mixed use development with no front yard parking, at 164 Main Street. This item was originally held to allow Councillor Chernushenko, whose arrival had been delayed, to speak to his item. In the interim, Committee asked questions of Mr. Marc for clarification. Chair Hume emphasized that due to the nature of this file, Committee’s consideration of this item should be seen as a stand-alone approval, and not as a common occurrence. As the Councillor had not yet arrived following questions, and as the Committee’s general mood was one of support, the item was CARRIED as presented, with Councillor Bloess dissenting. COUNCILLOR/ CONSEILLER A. HUBLEY 11. MONAHAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTED WETLAND UPGRADE INSATALLATION DE GESTION DES EAUX PLUVIALES MONAHAN RÉHABILITATION DU MARAIS ARTIFICIEL ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0007 KANATA SOUTH/SUD (23) REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve: 1. That the City permit the South Kanata Development Corporation to front-end the design and construction of the Monahan Stormwater Management Facility Upgrade subject to entering into a front-ending agreement with the City in accordance with the Council-approved Front Ending Policy; 2. That the City reimburse the South Kanata Development Corporation for the rehabilitation component of the works from the funds previously budgeted under the Monahan Constructed Wetland Rehabilitation capital project 905757, once these works have been accepted by the City; and, 3. That staff be directed to bring forward amendments to the Development Charge By-law to increase the area specific storm water development charge to include the balance of the development charge eligible costs associated with this upgrade. CARRIED Note: Council was asked to waive the Rules of Procedure to consider this item at its meeting of 9 May 2012 in Planning Committee Report 30. ADDITIONAL COUNCILLOR’S ITEM POINT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE DU CONSEILLER COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLER R. CHIARELLI 12. ZONING REVIEWS / COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN AND SECONDARY PLAN REVIEWS ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0010* CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE MOTION NO. PLC 34/4 Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli: That the Planning Committee approve the addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-Law (being By-Law No. 2006-462). CARRIED MOTION NO. PLC 34/5 Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli: WHEREAS there is an identified need to respond to community requests for specific small-scale reviews of existing zoning where a problem has been identified; and WHEREAS these requests may be in response to work arising from a development application, a neighbourhood needs assessment, or from a community meeting; and WHEREAS to further reduce development uncertainty, existing Community Design Plans and Secondary Plans also need to be reviewed to ensure that policies, and the implementing zoning, are consistent and clear in order to resolve lingering or potential ambiguities; and WHEREAS a number of Community Design Plans will be revisited to look at specific sites, or small areas, which were not considered or re-zoned at the original time of approval; and WHEREAS planning issues dealt with through this process would be carefully selected, with a goal of quickly producing a report and an accompanying action plan; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT funds in the amount of $500,000 be allocated from the one-time and unforeseen account to fund the program to undertake small-scale reviews of existing zoning and to revisit a number of Community Design Plans to resolve ambiguities. Chair Hume explained that this item pertained to funding for Zoning Reviews and Community Design Plans announced by Mayor Watson at the City’s recent Planning Summit, and that resources for same would have to be allocated, as they were not contained within the existing framework of the Planning Budget. Councillor Rick Chiarelli requested that the Planning Committee approve the above Motion, and he further asked that Council be requested to waive the notice required under the Procedure By-law to consider the Motion at its meeting of 9 May 2012. The Committee approved the item as presented, and concurred with the Councillor’s request that it be waived on to Council. Notes: 1. Council was asked to waive the Rules of Procedure to consider this item at its meeting of 9 May 2012 in Planning Committee Report 30. *2. This item was also originally listed on the above report in error as ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0009. ADJOURNMENT LEVÉE DE LA SEANCE The Committee adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. Original signed by Original signed by C. Zwierzchowski Councillor P. Hume Committee Coordinator Chair Note: Except where otherwise indicated, reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 23 May 2012 in Planning Committee Report 30. Nota : À moins d’avis au contraire, les rapports nécessitant un examen par le Conseil municipal seraient normalement présentés au Conseil le 23 mai 2012 dans le rapport no 30 du Comité des l’urbanisme. PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES 34 8 MAY 2012 14 COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME PROCÈS-VERBAL 34 LE 8 MAI 2012