STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT
FOR MATTERS SUBMITTED POST JANUARY 1, 2007

The Chair read a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised anyone intending to appeal the proposed Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments listed as Items 1, and 8 to 13 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 11 July 2012, failing which, the Ontario Municipal Board might dismiss all or part of the appeals. In addition, it was noted that applicants could appeal these 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.

planning and infrastructure

PLANNING and growth management

1. ZONING - 96 NEPEAN STREET

(Deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 8 May 2012)

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0120 SOMERSET (14)

REPORT RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 96 Nepean Street from Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception 482, FSI 3.0 (R5B (482) F(3.0)) to Residential Fifth Density Zone, Subzone B, with a new exception, schedule and a holding provision (R5B-h[xxxx] Syyy-h) as detailed in Document 2 and 3 and as shown in Document 4.

The Committee received a brief PowerPoint slide overview (held on file with the City Clerk) from Mr. John Smit, Manager, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, Planning and Growth Management (PGM), to address concerns raised at the Committee’s meeting of 22 May 2012 pertaining to potential geological instability at the site due to possible groundwater changes as a result of alleged de-watering due to construction at a nearby site. Messrs. Richard Buchanan, Program Manager, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, PGM, and Peter Black, Manager, Building Inspections, Building Code Services Branch, PGM, were also present to provide additional detail and to respond to questions.

The following delegations spoke in opposition to the report recommendation:

· Ms. Joan Spice, Centretown Citizens’ Community Association;

· Ms. Debbie Bellinger, Nelligan O’Brien Payne*, on behalf of Place Bell Canada (H & R Management).

The following delegation spoke in support of the report recommendation:

· Ms. Janet Bradley, Borden Ladner Gervais, and Mr. Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants.

Ms. Bradley also noted that the following experts had made themselves available to answer questions on behalf of the applicant, as required and/or necessary:

· Mr. Troy Skinner, Golder Associates (Re: hydrogeology);

· Mr. Graham O’Neil, Novatech Engineering (Re: traffic);

· Mr. Nathan Godlovitch, Hanganu Architects, and;

· Mr. Greg Macdonald, Novatech Engineering (Re: servicing).

Written submissions were received from all those marked above with an asterisk ( * ), with additional comments provided by:

· Mr. Neil Malhotra, Vice-President, Claridge Homes*, in support of the report recommendation.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

Consideration of this item was originally deferred from the Committee meeting of
22 May 2012, at the request of Somerset Ward Councillor D. Holmes, to allow staff to address concerns raised at that time regarding geotechnical, hydrogeological and other issues related to this, and a neighbouring construction site. Councillor Holmes was also present at the current meeting to ask additional questions and to participate in Committee discussions.

Following discussions involving building design, appropriate setbacks, concerns regarding the potential effects of nearby construction on area groundwater, non-compliance with the area’s Community Design Plan (CDP), and questions regarding the need for further studies, staff offered that their reviews had provided them with confidence that the project at the subject site could proceed. The report recommendation was then put before Committee and was CARRIED as presented.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

2. application to alter 19 kindle court, a property protected under the ontario heritage act and located in the briarcliffe heritage conservation district study area

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0152 BEACON HILL- CYRVILLE (11)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application for construction of a rear addition as per drawings submitted on May 22, 2012 and included as Document 4 subject to the shape of the rear addition being changed to rectangular instead of semi-circular and inset 60 cm from the east and west sides of the rear elevation;

2. Refuse the application for a one storey flat roofed addition at the east side of the building included in Document 4;

3. Refuse the application for the new garage as per the drawings attached in Document 5; and

4. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August 6, 2012)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

The Committee received a brief PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) from Ms. Lesley Collins, Planner, Heritage Services Unit, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, PGM, who spoke to the heritage attributes of the site in terms of the directives given by Council in December, 2011 to “…undertake a heritage conservation district study in the heritage conservation district study area in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act for the purpose of examining the character of the area to determine if the area or any part thereof should be preserved as a heritage conservation district…”. Ms. Collins noted that an application under the Ontario Heritage Act was required as the neighbourhood was part of the Briarcliffe Heritage Conservation District study area. Responding to questions from Committee on the nature of the study area, Ms. Collins noted that, had the area not currently been under study, the applicants could already have applied for a building permit.

The following delegations spoke in support of the report recommendation and existing heritage designation:

· Ms. Danielle Jones and Mr. Stephen Gallagher*, residents of Briarcliffe, who submitted a 29-name petition (held on file with the City Clerk) also in support of the report recommendations and existing heritage designation, and;

· Ms. Jane Brammer*, President, Rothwell Heights Property Owners’ Association.

The following delegations spoke in opposition to the report recommendations:

· Ms. Seema Narula Aurora* (Applicant), who submitted a 20-name petition in support of the proposed alteration (held on file with the City Clerk);

· Mr. Farhad Derakhshan, and;

· Mr. Art Avantchouk, Principal Consulting Engineer, Art Engineering Inc., speaking to the attributes of the proposed structural alteration.

Written submissions were received from all those marked above with an asterisk ( * ). Additional comments were also received from the following, originally submitted to the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) in support of the report recommendation and existing heritage designation:

· Mr. Tom McElhone*, Briarcliffe resident;

· Advocacy Committee, Heritage Ottawa* (unsigned).

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

Committee discussions centred on the appropriateness of allowing alterations to a building originally built as part of a neighbourhood designed in a modernist architectural style, and to the scale of those alterations, considered by opponents to be both out of proportion and out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. The applicant expressed that she had not been approached by neighbours in reference to the application, and asserted that there was no intention to demolish the existing home, citing the reason for applying for the construction of a larger garage was to provide for the storage of a boat, and to provide for additional storage space in general, as the existing space in the home was inadequate. The applicant also provided the Committee with photographs of area residences to demonstrate the different sightlines of the properties along Kindle Court (held on file with the City Clerk). Committee discussed the option of not supporting the report recommendations, and Councillor R. Bloess called for yeas and nays on the first three recommendations as follows:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

YEAS (8): S. Blais, R. Bloess, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, B. Monette, S. Qadri,
J. Harder, P. Hume

NAYS (0):

CARRIED

2. Refuse the application for a one storey flat roofed addition at the east side of the building included in Document 4;

YEAS (4): K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, B. Monette, P. Hume

NAYS (4): S. Blais, R. Bloess, S. Qadri, J. Harder

LOST

3. Refuse the application for the new garage as per the drawings attached in Document 5; and

YEAS (2): K. Hobbs, P. Hume

NAYS (6): S. Blais, R. Bloess, A. Hubley, B. Monette, S. Qadri, J. Harder

LOST

Councillor Blais then introduced the following Motions to replace report recommendations 2 and 3:

MOTION N^O PLC 37/1

Moved by Councillor S. Blais:

That Planning Committee recommend that Council:

2. Approve the application for a one story flat roofed addition at the east side of the building included in Document 4;

YEAS (6): S. Blais, R. Bloess, A. Hubley, B. Monette, S. Qadri, J. Harder

NAYS (2): K. Hobbs, P. Hume

CARRIED

MOTION N^O PLC 37/2

Moved by Councillor S. Blais:

3. Approve the application for the new garage as per the drawings attached in Document 5.

YEAS (5): S. Blais, R. Bloess, B. Monette, S. Qadri, J. Harder

NAYS (3): K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, P. Hume

The report recommendations were then put to Committee and were CARRIED, as amended by Motions PLC 37/1 and PLC 37/2.

That Planning Committee recommend that Council:

2. Approve the application for a one storey flat roofed addition at the east side of the building included in Document 4;

3. Approve the application for the new garage as per the drawings attached in Document 5; and

4. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August 6, 2012)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

CARRIED, as amended

3. APPLICATION TO ALTER 216 CATHCART STREET, A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LOWERTOWN WEST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0134 RIDEAU-VANIER (12)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application for new construction at 216 Cathcart Street, in accordance with plans submitted by Tito Jurado, received on May 7, 2012;

2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department; and

3. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August 5, 2012)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

The Committee received a brief PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) from Ms. Sally Coutts, Planner, Heritage Services Unit, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, PGM, who spoke to the heritage attributes of the site and the reasons for recommending that the proposed application for new construction be allowed.

The following delegations spoke in opposition to the report recommendation:

· Mr. Marc Aubin, President, Lowertown Community Association* (LCA), and;

· Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier, Co-Chair, LCA Heritage Committee.

The following delegation spoke in support of the report recommendation:

· Mr. Tito Jurado (Applicant).

Additional comments were also received from the following, originally submitted to the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) in opposition to the report recommendation and in support of the existing heritage designation:

· Advocacy Committee, Heritage Ottawa* (unsigned);

· Ms. Pamela McCurry*;

· Ms. Helen Banulescu*, and;

· Mr. Erik Bjornson*.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

Discussions centred on the appropriateness of allowing a modern design to be constructed at the rear portion of a traditional working-class turn-of-the-century wood framed home versus the applicant’s desire to construct a functional home to house three generations of his family. The LCA asked for deferral of this item for further study. In response to questions from Committee, staff explained that there had been little response to a mailout to between 30 and 50 local residents. Following Committee discussions, the report recommendations were CARRIED as presented.

4. application to alter 129 howick street, a property designated under part v of the ontario heritage ACT located in the rockcliffe park heritage conservation district

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0137 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application to alter 129 Howick Street as per plans submitted by S.A.I. Consulting on May 7, 2012 included as Documents 3 and 4;

2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department; and

3. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August 6, 2012)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

CARRIED

Written submissions were received from the following, originally submitted to the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) in support of the report recommendation:

· Mr. Michael Borish *.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

5. application for demolition and new construction at 220 sandridge road, a property designated under part v of the ontario heritage act and located in the rockcliffe park heritage conservation district

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0138 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application for demolition of the existing building at 220 Sandridge Road;

2. Approve the application for new construction at 220 Sandridge Road as per drawings by Ilg Ilg Design dated May 7, 2012 included as Documents 3, 4, 5 and 6;

3. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department; and

4. Issue the heritage permit with a two year expiry date from the date of issuance.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August 6, 2012.)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

CARRIED

Mr. Bobby Ilg, Project Designer, Ilg & Ilg Design, was present in support of the report recommendation, but did not speak.

Written submissions were received from the following, originally submitted to the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) in opposition to the report recommendation:

· Mr. Anthony Keith, Secretary, Heritage Committee, Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association*;

· Dr. Claude and Ms. Carole Massicotte*;

· Mr. Thomas Goodwin and Ms. Megan Malone*;

· Mr. Richard and Ms. Kathleen Day*, and;

· Mr. Allan Lutfy*.

Written submissions were received from the following, originally submitted to OBHAC in support of the report recommendation:

· M. Marcel et Mme Ghislaine Cadieux*;

General comments were received by OBHAC from the following:

· Mr. Grant Lindsay, Principal Municipal Planner, NCC*.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

6. APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 165 CRICHTON STREET, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT AND LOCATED IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0136 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)

The Chair noted that the incorrect report recommendation had been included in the Committee agenda for this item, and asked that Committee approve its substitution with the report recommendation below, as amended by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee at its meeting of 7 June 2012.

MOTION N^O PLC 37/3

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Planning Committee approve the replacement of the report recommendation erroneously included in Planning Committee Agenda 38 for Item 6, with the following revised recommendation, as amended by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee at its meeting of 7 June 2012.

CARRIED

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application to construct a new detached garage on River Lane at the rear of 165 Crichton Street as per plans submitted by Peter Boole on May 7, 2012 included as Documents 3 and 4 and subject to the following amendments:

a) Increased separation from the adjacent property line on west side of property from 4 ft to 5 ft, and;

b) Reduction in garage area from initial proposed 26’x24’, to 25’x24’, and;

c) Landscaping modifications as agreed with the adjacent property owner on the west side of the property.

2. Designate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department.

3. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on August 6, 2012.)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

CARRIED

Mr. Paul McConnell* was present to express support for the report recommendation as amended by OBHAC, but did not speak.

Written submissions were received from the following, originally submitted to OBHAC, expressing concerns with the scale and setback of the design:

· Mr. James Turpie and Ms. Michal Anne Crawley*;

· Ms. Sylvie Cameron*, and;

· M. Guy Saint-Jacques*.

Written submissions were also received from the following, originally submitted to OBHAC in support of the report recommendation:

· Ms. Alexandra Reid and Ms. Isabelle Hyndman Reid*.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

7. Application for new construction in the centretown heritage conservation district at 406-408 bank street

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0122 somerset (14)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application for new construction at 406-408 Bank Street, in accordance with plans by Brian Clark, Architect, received on April 19, 2012;

2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department; and

3. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on July 17, 2012)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

CARRIED

Ms. Joan Spice, Centretown Citizens’ Community Association, and Mr. Brian Clark, Architect, were present in support of the report recommendation, but did not speak.

Written submissions were also received from the following:

· Mr. Ray Sullivan, Executive Director, Centretown Citizens’ Ottawa Corp.* in support of the report recommendation (originally submitted to OBHAC);

· Ms. Debbie Belfie, D.G. Belfie Planning & Development Consulting Ltd., on behalf of Egg Farmers of Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the owners of 20 James and 21 Florence Streets, expressing concerns with a lack of parking for the subject site (submitted to both OBHAC and Planning Committee), and;

· Mr. Jordan Charbonneau, President, Centretown Citizens Community Association*, in support of the report recommendation.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

planning and infrastructure

PLANNING and growth management

8. OFFICIAL PLAN And Zoning By-law AMENDMENT -

Various Addresses

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0047

KANATA NORTH, WEST CARLETON-MARCH

STITTSVILLE, KANATA SOUTH (4, 5, 6 AND 23)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Planning Committee recommend:

1. Council approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan to add a special policy area for the Carp River Restoration Area as detailed in Document 2 and;

2. Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to:

a) amend the flood plain hazard overlay as shown on Document 4;

b) add a holding symbol and establish conditions for the removal of the holding symbol for the developable lands within the Carp River Restoration Policy Area;

c) remove the flood fringe provisions on lands at 5487 Hazeldean Road and 20 Frank Nighbor Place.

CARRIED

Mr. Tom Flood, McGarry Family Chapels, and Ms. Kathleen Willis, Kanata West Owners’ Group, were present in support of the report recommendations, but did not speak.

A written submission was also received from the following:

· Ms. Faith Blacquiere*, expressing concerns with the report recommendation.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

9. ZONING - 800 CEDARVIEW ROAD

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0143 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 800 Cedarview Road from Rural Residential Fourth Density (RR4) and Parks and Open Space Sub-zone(O1A) to Rural Residential Fourth Density (RR4), Rural Residential Fourth Density Exception [xxxr] (RR4[xxxr]) and Parks and Open Space (O1), as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

Mr. Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants, was present on behalf of the applicant in support of the application, but did not speak.

Written correspondence was also received from the following:

· Mr. Richard Stead, President, Cedarhill Community Association* in support of the report recommendation.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

10. ZONING - 927 Richmond Road and 108 Woodroffe Avenue

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0159 BAY (7)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve:

1. An amendment to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 927 Richmond Road and 108 Woodroffe Avenue from a Traditional Mainstreet zone with a height limit of 25 metres(TM (H25)) to a new Traditional Mainstreet (TM [xxxx](H47)) exception zone with a height limit of 47 metres to permit a mixed-use development as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 1; and

2. The implementing by-law go forward to City Council for approval after Site Plan Control Approval is obtained and the agreement registered on title.

CARRIED

Mr. Kevin Harper, Associate, IBI Group (Agent on behalf of the owner) and Ms. Bev Binette were present in support of the application, but did not speak.

Written correspondence was also received from the following, in opposition to the report recommendation:

· Ms. Elzbieta and Mieczyslaw Surazski*, and;

· Mr. David McDonald and Ruth Zowdu*.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

11. ZONING - 486 AND 500 preston street

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0165 somerset (14)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Planning Committee recommend Council

1. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 486 and 488 Preston Street from TM[86] Traditional Mainstreet, Exception 86 to a new Traditional Mainstreet zone with an exception and schedule (TM[XXXX] SXXX), as detailed in Documents 2 and 3 and shown in Document 1;

2. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 490 and 500 Preston Street from TM[86] F(6.5) H(67) Traditional Mainstreet with an exception to a new Traditional Mainstreet zone with an exception and schedule (T M[XXXX] SXXX), as detailed in Documents 2 and 3 and as shown in Document 1; and

3. That a holding symbol be added to the new TM[XXXX] SXXX zone requiring the Owner to enter into a related Site Plan agreement with the City, which shall include the requirement to provide funding for community benefits, before the holding may be lifted.

The Committee received a brief PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) from Messrs. Alain Miguelez, Program Manager, Development Review, and Douglas Bridgewater, Planner, Inner Core Unit, Development Review, both with the Urban Services Branch, PGM, which served to provide an overview of the report. Mr. John Smit, Manager, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, PGM, was also present to respond to questions.

The following delegations spoke in general support of the recommendations, but with concerns as noted below:

· Mr. Rod Lahey, Roderick Lahey Architects;

· Mr. Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, and;

· Ms. Katherine Grechuta, FoTenn Consultants.

Written correspondence was also received from the following, as noted:

· Mr. Michael Powell, President, Dalhousie Community Association*, outlining concerns that planning decisions were being made in advance of the completion of the Bayview-Carling Community Design Plan;

· Mr. Michael Rowan*, expressing concerns with increased shadow and other potential negative impacts of the proposed high-rise development, and;

· Ms. Sylvie Lapointe, Owner, Esthetique Facial Angle Ltd.*, to note concerns regarding inadequate parking, construction noise and the potential impact of same on her business.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

Although generally supportive, Mr. Cohen expressed concerns regarding the application of Section 37 of the Planning Act, which “…authorizes a municipality with appropriate Official Plan provisions to pass Zoning By laws involving increases in the height or density otherwise permitted, in return for the provision by the owner of community benefits. The community benefits must be set out in the Zoning By-law amendment and then secured in an agreement registered on title”. Mr. Cohen stated that there was a desire to ensure that the value of such contributions be known. Additional concerns were expressed with the zoning aspects prohibiting the inclusion of balconies due to the required podium setback, with Mr. Lahey suggesting that balconies should be included above the 24-storey level, as the objectives of the zoning would, at this height, have been achieved. Following discussions involving overall building design and designs including the incorporation of balconies above the 24-storey level, Councillor R. Bloess moved the following:

MOTION N^O PLC 37/4

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

That the Planning Committee recommend Council:

4. Approve that the following changes be made to the details of the recommended zoning contained in Document 3 of the staff report:

Replace the following text in the existing Column V changes:

Replace:

“Balconies are not allowed to project into Areas A and B on Schedule XXX from that part of a building greater than 15.6 m in height up, facing Preston Street and located in Area D on Schedule XXX.”

With:

“Balconies are not allowed to project into Areas A and B on Schedule XXX for that part of a building between 15.6 metres in height and up to 80.0 metres in height, facing Preston Street and located in Area D on Schedule XXX.”

CARRIED

Further discussions involved the aesthetics of the overall building design, the nature of the review process by the Urban Design Review Panel, the holding symbol within the recommendation pertaining to Section 37 requirements (noted above), and the appropriateness of situating a 30-storey building in the subject area. Ward Councillor D. Holmes participated in the discussion, and expressed that the building was too high for its Traditional Main Street location, further noting the concerns of a number of Community Associations and Business Improvement Area boards regarding the precedent-setting nature of approving a zoning that would allow the construction of the first of possibly many future high-rise towers in the area. In his concluding remarks, Chair Hume noted that the current proposal offered a better relationship to the street, and was an example of ongoing design evolution, as the original design had incorporated five storeys of above-grade parking, which would now be hidden underground.

Committee discussions having been concluded, the report recommendations, as amended by Motion 37/4, were then put to Committee and were CARRIED, with Councillor S. Blais dissenting.

That the Planning Committee recommend Council:

3. Approve that a holding symbol be added to the new TM[XXXX] SXXX zone requiring the Owner to enter into a related Site Plan agreement with the City, which shall include the requirement to provide funding for community benefits, before the holding may be lifted; and,

4. Approve that the following changes be made to the details of the recommended zoning contained in Document 3 of the staff report:

Replace the following text in the existing Column V changes:

Replace:

With:

CARRIED as amended, with Councillor S. Blais dissenting.

12. zONING - 4471, 4479 and 4487 Innes Road

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0141 CUMBERLAND (19)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Planning Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 4471 Innes Road from General Mixed Use, Subzone 15, Height Limit of 8 metres (GM 15 H(8)) to General Mixed Use, Subzone 15, Exception zone, Height Limit of 8 metres with a schedule (GM 15 [XXXX] H(8) SXXX), as shown in Documents 1 and 3 and as detailed in Document 2; and

2. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 4479 and 4487 Innes Road from Residential, First Density, Subzone HH, Exception 1173 (R1HH [1173]) to General Mixed Use, Subzone 15, Exception zone, Height Limit of 15 metres with a schedule (GM 15 [XXXX] H(15) SXXX); as shown in Documents 1 and 3 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

Mr. Dennis Jacobs, Momentum Planning and Communications Consultants (on behalf of the owners), was present in support of the report recommendations, but did not speak.

13. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT and zoninG -
350 Cresthaven Drive

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0150 gloucester-south nepean (22)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Planning Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to Volume 2a of the Official Plan to redesignate 350 Cresthaven Drive from Business Park in the South Nepean Secondary Plan Area 4, 5 and 6 to Mixed Density Residential, as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2; and

2. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 350 Cresthaven Drive from Development Reserve - DR to Residential Fourth Density Zone, Subzone Z Exception XXXX (R4Z[XXXX]) as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 4.

CARRIED

Ms. Jamie Kipp, Minto Communities Inc., was present in support of the report recommendations, but did not speak.

14. Statement of Work To review and update the 2013 Official plan and infrastructure master plan

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0170 City-widE

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the scope and timing for the review and update of the Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan contained in this report.

2. Approve a Sponsors Group, Industry Panel, Agency Panel and Community Panel as outlined in this report to oversee the review of the Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Infrastructure Master Plan.

3. Confirm 2031 as the planning horizon for the review of the Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and the Development Charges By-law.

The Committee received a brief PowerPoint slide presentation overview of the report (held on file with the City Clerk) from Mr. John Moser, General Manager, PGM. Ms. Marica Clarke, Program Manager, Land Use and Natural Systems, and Mr. Ian Cross, Program Manager, Research and Forecasting, both with the Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, PGM, were also present to respond to questions.

The following delegations spoke in opposition to the report recommendation:

· Messrs. Rob Pierce and Ted Phillips, Greater Ottawa Home Builders Assoc., who asked for a minimum 20-year planning horizon timeframe, and;

· Mr. Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants, who similarly asked for a longer timeframe to ensure better long-term planning.

Written correspondence was also received from:

· Councillor D. Deans*, submitting comments with regard to:

Ø Administrative functions for the development review process;

Ø Community consultation and engagement;

Ø Development charges to address the transit envelope;

Ø Traffic calming measures for new community development;

Ø Zoning interpretation for shelters / group and institutional homes;

Ø Building heights for a well-designed, integrated streetscape;

Ø Supplementary planning report impartiality;

Ø Parking requirements for development applications, and;

Ø Zoning for car dealerships / auto malls.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

Committee discussions centred on the determination of available land supply, rural growth, the possible ‘dovetailing’ of policies with regard to transit-oriented development, and planning horizon and Official Plan review timeframes and methodologies. At the conclusion of discussions, the report recommendations were put to Committee and were CARRIED as presented.

15. Vacant urban residential land survey, 2011 update

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0157 City-widE

REPORT RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

16. 2012 Green building Promotion program

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0127 City-widE

REPORT RECOMMENDATION:

That Planning Committee recommend that Council receive the 2012 Green Building Promotion Program, as attached in Document 1.

CARRIED

Mr. Roger Peters, Volunteer, and Member of Steering Committee, Ecology Ottawa, was present in support of the report recommendation, but did not speak.

17. EXTENSION OF SERVICES AND
FRONT-ENDNG AGREEMENTS - FERNBANK LANDS

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0140 stittsville (6)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Planning Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The City to entering into an Extension of Services Agreement with the Fernbank Landowners Group for the installation of trunk sanitary services as set out in Document 2;

2. The City to entering into a Front-Ending Agreement with the Fernbank Landowners Group for the design and construction of a 2.4 kilometre trunk sewer, based on the Front-Ending Principles set forth in Document 3 and the Council Approved Front-Ending Policy in Document 4, with the final form and content of the Front-Ending Agreement to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Infrastructure and the City Clerk and Solicitor; and

3. Payments with upset limits of $982,704 from the 2011 Capital Budget, $517,296 from the 2013 Capital Forecast, $500,000 from the 2015 Capital Forecast and $500,000 from the 2017 Capital Forecast plus applicable taxes and indexing in accordance with the Council Approved Front-Ending Agreement Policy and subject to the execution of a Front-Ending Agreement to the Fernbank Landowners Group for design and construction of the Fernbank Trunk Sanitary Sewer.

CARRIED

Mr. John Riddell, Novatech Engineering Consultants, was present in support of the report recommendations, but did not speak.

18. Recommended council position for urban boundary - phase 2b hearing - ontario municipal board

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0167 city-wide

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. To resolve tied scores between two or more parcels that, first, any new information that may affect parcel scores or developable land areas be taken into account, and second, that the parcel or parcels that in combination result in a total cumulative developable land area closest to the 850 hectares ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board be added to the urban area; and

2. The parcels shown in Document 1 as Schedules R47, R48 and R49 as the City’s submission to the Ontario Municipal Board to form the balance of the urban area expansion; and

3. An amendment to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law, By-law 2009-200, effective 27 June 2012, extending the application of the by-law to the additional parcels shown in Document 1.

This item was discussed in conjunction with Item 19 (below), Urban Boundary Phase 2B Witness Statements (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0168). The Committee received a detailed overview of the report from Messrs. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Corporate Development and Environmental Law Branch, City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department, and Nick Stow, Planner, Land Use and Natural Systems Unit, Policy Development and Urban Design Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department. Mr. Marc provided a brief history of the issues involving the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Phase 2B Hearing pertaining to Council’s decision on recommended additions to the Urban Boundary. Mr. Stow provided background on potentially sensitive environmental features that may exclude Area 2 as a possible Blanding’s turtle habitat area.

The Committee spent approximately three and a half hours on this item, which included the receipt of the public delegations noted below, the receipt of information from staff for purposes of clarification, and discussion by the Committee.

The following delegations spoke in opposition to the report recommendation:

· Mr. John Dempster, Richcraft Homes;

· Mr. Chris Ellingwood, Niblett Environmental Associates Limited;

· Mr. Roufa Therrien;

· Mr. Paul Webber, Bell Baker*, on behalf of 4840 Bank Street Inc.;

· Mr. David Gilbert*, patersongroup consulting engineers, and Ms. Mary Jarvis, Urbandale Developments.

[ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by email; such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ]

Following Committee discussions, Councillor Hubley introduced the following:

MOTION N^O PLC 37/5

Moved by Councillor A. Hubley:

WHEREAS Planning Committee, and its predecessor Planning and Environment Committee, has in a series of reports spanning February 2009 to September 2011 stated that Area 2 on the list of candidate urban expansion parcels had 47.2 developable hectares of land;

AND WHEREAS in the report “Recommended Council Position for Urban Boundary – Phase 2B Hearing – Ontario Municipal Board” on the June 26, 2012 Planning Committee agenda it is noted the land area in the absence of the matter of Blandings Turtles should be corrected to show 38.7 developable hectares in Area 2;

AND WHEREAS the need for the deduction of additional lands from gross developable hectares on account of Blandings Turtles was not identified by the City in the report approved by Council on 12 October 2011;

AND WHEREAS a witness statement has been provided by the Owner of Area 2 that indicates that it is not likely that significant habitat for Blandings Turtles will be located on the 38.7 hectares of land that would otherwise be held to be gross developable hectares

AND WHEREAS 3 parcels are tied with a score of 48;

AND WHEREAS the time horizon is for a long-term period of 2031;

BE IT RESOLVED that Council:

Provide that in respect of Area 2 in the report “Recommended Council Position for Urban Boundary – Phase 2B Hearing – Ontario Municipal Board” it be shown that it has 38.7 gross developable hectares.

It is further recommended that Council:

Revise Tables 1 and 2 to include in Table 1 parcels 2 & 8A and that the necessary modifications be made to Document 1.

Following the receipt of legal counsel, the report recommendation was then put to Committee and was CARRIED, as amended by Motion N^O PLC 37/5, on a division of nine yeas to one nay:

That Council approve:

1. That in respect of Area 2 in the report “Recommended Council Position for Urban Boundary – Phase 2B Hearing – Ontario Municipal Board” it be shown that it has 38.7 gross developable hectares;

2. A revision to Tables 1 and 2 to include in Table 1 parcels 2 & 8A and that the necessary modifications be made to Document 1;

3. The parcels shown in Document 1, as amended by the foregoing, as Schedules R47, R48 and R49 as the City’s submission to the Ontario Municipal Board to form the balance of the urban area expansion; and

4. An amendment to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law, By-law 2009-200, effective 27 June 2012, extending the application of the by-law to the additional parcels shown in Document 1 as amended by the foregoing.

YEAS (9): S. Blais, R. Bloess, R. Chiarelli, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Taylor and J. Harder.

NAY (1): P. Hume

Council was asked to waive the notice required under the City’s Procedural By-Law (By-Law 2006-462) to consider this matter at its meeting of 27 June 2012.

19. urban boundary phase 2b witness statements

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0168 city-wide

REPORT RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Committee and Council receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

Planning Committee considered this item in conjunction with Item 18 (above), Recommended Council Position For Urban Boundary - Phase 2B Hearing - Ontario Municipal Board (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0167).

COUNCILLOR’S ITEM

Councillor K. Hobbs

20. REDUCTION IN CASH-IN-LIEU OF
PARKING FEE FOR 401 RICHMOND ROAD

ACS2012-CMR-PLC-0012 KITCHISSIPPI (15)

REPORT RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Committee approve the reduction of the Cash-in-Lieu of parking fee for 401 Richmond Road from $5,751.92 to $1.

CARRIED

ADDITIONAL COUNCILLOR’S ITEM

COUNCILLOR M. TAYLOR

21. eXEMPTION FROM THE DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW FOR THE
BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 927 and 929 RICHMOND ROAD and 108 Woodroffe avenue

acs2012-cmr-plc-0016 BAY (7)

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 Section 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 927/929 and 108 Woodroffe Avenue has met with Planning and Growth Management staff under File D02-12-0002 which is also before Planning Committee this morning for consideration of their re-zoning application;

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 the buildings at 927/929 Richmond Road and 108 Woodroffe Avenue 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 agreed prior to the exemption taking effect:

1. The Owner ensures the property is graded 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; except for the construction and occupancy of an on-site sales office and accessory parking and

3. The Owner obtains all required planning approvals within two years of June 26, 2012; the building permit is submitted within three years of June 26, 2012 and construction substantially completed within five years of June 26, 2012.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.

Original signed by Original signed by

C. Zwierzchowski Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 37

4. Approve that the following changes be made to the details of the recommended zoning contained in Document 3 of the staff report:

4. Approve that the following changes be made to the details of the recommended zoning contained in Document 3 of the staff report:

C. Zwierzchowski Councillor P. Hume