Planning Committee

Minutes 32

Tuesday, November 10, 2020
9:30 am

electronic participation
This Meeting was held through electronic participation in accordance with Section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended by Bill 197, the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020.

Present:

Chair: Councillor J. Harder
Vice-chair: Councillor G. Gower
Councillors: R. Brockington, L. Dudas, A. Hubley, C. Kitts, J. Leiper, S. Moffatt, T. Tierney, E. El-Chantiry (ex-officio)

Absent:

Councillor R. Chiarelli

Statement Pursuant to the Planning Act

The Chair read a statement required under the Planning Act explaining that this was a public meeting to consider the proposed Comprehensive Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments listed as Items 2, 3 and 6 on today’s Agenda.

She advised anyone intending to appeal the proposed amendment to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that they must either voice their objections at the meeting or submit comments in writing or over the phone, by contacting the Committee or Council Coordinator, prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council.  The Chair noted that applicants could appeal the matter to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal if Council did not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of an application for Zoning and 120 days for an Official Plan Amendment.

Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes 31 - October 8, 2020

CONFIRMED

Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development

1.

Proposed Residential Mural One-Year Pilot Program

ACS2020-PIE-GEN-0002

City Wide

Report Recommendations

That Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1.        approve a one-year pilot for the Residential Mural Program, including the Residential Mural By-law and corresponding fee schedule, attached as Document 1 and as described in this report, to commence on the effective date of the by-law;

2.        delegate authority to the City Solicitor, Chief Building Official and Director of By-law and Regulatory Services to make any minor amendments to and finalize the Residential Mural By-law, and to amend the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law accordingly, to reflect the intent of Council; and

3.        direct staff to report back no sooner than 12 months following the implementation of the program and by-law with the results of the pilot and recommendations.

CARRIED

2.

Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment – Part of 100 Bayshore Drive

ACS2020-PIE-PS-0103

Bay (7)

Report Recommendations

1.         That Planning Committee recommend Council:

a.         approve an amendment to the Official Plan, Volume 1, Section 3.6.1 - General Urban Area, Policy 17, for part of 100 Bayshore Drive, adding site specific policies, as detailed in Document 2; and

b.         approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 for part of 100 Bayshore Drive to permit a residential development including two towers with heights up to 30-storeys, as detailed in Document 3.

2.        That the implementing Zoning By-law does not proceed to City Council until such time as the agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act is executed; and

3.        That Planning Committee approve the Consultation Details Section of this report be included as part of the ‘brief explanation’ in the Summary of Written and Oral Public Submissions, to be prepared by the Office of the City Clerk and submitted to Council in the report titled, “Summary of Oral and Written Public Submissions for Items Subject to the Planning Act ‘Explanation Requirements’ at the City Council Meeting of November 25, 2020”, subject to submissions received between the publication of this report and the time of Council’s decision.

Laurel McCreight, Planner II, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development provided a presentation and responded to questions.  The following staff of the Transportation Services Department also responded to questions:

·         Pat Scrimgeour, Director, Transit Customer Systems & Planning

·         Phil Landry, Director, Traffic Services

Ward Councillor Theresa Kavanagh was present and took part in discussion

The committee heard 10 delegations on this matter, as follows:

·         Jean-Christophe Huot spoke in opposition to the height of the proposed towers and the negative impacts they would have on his property in terms of shadowing as well as on the landscape, surrounding neighbourhood and community at large in terms of demand on existing infrastructure and lack of amenities to support existing and new growth. He suggested the development would not fit in with the existing or long term vision for the neighbourhood, and would set a precedent for similar development nearby.

·         The Crystal Beach Lakeview Community Association, as represented by the following persons, provided a joint presentation[1]: Bill Fenton; Mark Hollett; Kate Twiss; Ian McConnachie. The main points of their presentation, in opposition to the proposal, touched on the following:

Ø  tower height that is inconsistent with the character and scale of the surrounding communities, as well as with expectations of the Official Plan for the property, that would overshadow nearby properties and dominate the skyline, that could set a height precedent for the area, and that interrupt the flight path of and pose danger to migratory birds

Ø  impacts to traffic and pedestrians that would result from having a transit oriented development of this scale and design on a non-arterial residential street 

Ø  impacts on wayfinding and pedestrian access to Bayshore Station

Ø  considerations as to how the development would impact the functionality and usability of the Bayshore Station as the terminus for the future Baseline Rapid Transit, and how it potentially impacts the long term vision of this previously identified Special Study Area in advance of a Secondary Planning process

Ø  proposed alternatives for development that could meet the City’s intensification objectives, satisfy the developer’s goals and be a more acceptable fit within the community

Ø  caveats for approval, should the City not reject the application, including (but not limited to) restrictions on parking spaces, uses for lower floors, pedestrian access/connections to the LRT station

·         Sue Fu spoke in support of the comments of the Crystal Beach Lakeview Community Association, and in opposition to the height of the proposed development, as one that does not fit with the community, with the long-term plan for urbanization, or with the desire to build Ottawa into an urban city that has character and personality, is open and vibrant, eco-friendly and world-stage worthy.  She also raised concerns that many in the community might not have been consulted or made aware of the proposal because of Covid19 limitations.

·         Diane Houston spoke in opposition to the proposed tower heights and raised concerns about impacts on neighbourhood character, area tourism, transit station wayfinding and lack of proper community consultation.

·         Erin Ramsay, Qualicum Community Association, spoke in support of the comments of the Crystal Beach Lakeview Community Association. He expressed concerns about tower height, sun reflection from the glass windows into the Qualicum neighbourhood, and impacts on pedestrian access to Bayshore and vehicular traffic congestion.

·         Cliff Grossner supported the views of the Crystal Beach Lakeview Community Association and suggested the towers are not in character with or a good fit for the area, and there are better ways to integrate the same square footage, achieve the same purpose, support the developer, meet the community’s needs and make it a show case for the future for a smart city.

·         The applicant/owner, as represented by the following persons, provided a presentation[2] and/or were present to respond to questions: Christine McCuaig, Q9 Planning + Design; David Hook, Transportation Engineer (IBI Group); Graeme Silvera, Ivanhoe Cambridge; Barry Hobin and Patrick Bisson, Hobin Architecture.  The presentation provided an overview of what the project will provide to its residents and the community, including: affordable housing; green building initiatives; (targeted) LEED certification; contribution to local amenities; direct linkages to transit; podium design that can be adapted to various future uses.

In addition to the presentations noted above, the following correspondence was provided to the committee coordinator between October 30 (the date the report was published to the City’s website with the agenda for this meeting) and the time the matter was considered on November 10, 2020, a copy of which is held on file:

•                 Email dated November 1 from Mark Hollett

•     Email dated November 1 from Mete Pamir

•     Email dated November 3 from Keith Neuman and Joan Campbell

•     Email dated November 3 from Christopher Gendron-Wright

•     Email dated November 4 from Kristine Osgoode and Tony Whitaker

•     Emails dated November 6 from Kate Twiss

•     Email dated November 6 from Bill Fenton, containing submissions from the Crystal Beach Lakeview Community Association

•     Email dated November 8 from Thomas and Lea Doumas

•     Email dated November 9 from Dr. Sampat Sridhar

•     Email dated November 9 from Cliff Grossner

The Committee CARRIED the report recommendations on a division of 10 yeas and 0 nays and, as follows:

YEAS (10):

Councillors L. Dudas, T. Tierney, J. Leiper, R. Brockington,
C. Kitts, S. Moffatt, A. Hubley, E. El-Chantiry (ex-officio), Vice-Chair G. Gower, Chair J. Harder

NAYS (0):

3.

Zoning By-Law Amendment – 433, 435 Churchill Avenue North, 468, 472 Byron Place

ACS2020-PIE-PS-0105

Kitchissippi (15)

Report Recommendations

1.        That Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 for 433 and 435 Churchill Avenue North, and 468 and 472 Byron Place, to permit a six-storey mixed-use development, as detailed in Document 2.

2.        That Planning Committee approve the Consultation Details Section of this report be included as part of the ‘brief explanation’ in the Summary of Written and Oral Public Submissions, to be prepared by the Office of the City Clerk and submitted to Council in the report titled, “Summary of Oral and Written Public Submissions for Items Subject to the Planning Act ‘Explanation Requirements’ at the City Council Meeting of November 25, 2020,” subject to submissions received between the publication of this report and the time of Council’s decision.

Councillor Leiper introduced the following motion that he proposed to move:

Motion N⁰ PLC 2020-32/1

WHEREAS Report ACS2020-PIE-PS-0105, Zoning By-law Amendment – 433, 435 Churchill Avenue North, 468, 472 Byron Place, recommends a four-storey built form along Highcroft and within 2.4 metres of the abutting “R3” zone; and

WHEREAS private terraces are permitted within 1.0 metre of the roof edge; and

WHEREAS the proposed building does not adequately transition to the low-rise residential R3 neighbourhood to the south and east, nor respect the private relationship in a manner consistent with the Official Plan;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the report be amended as follows:

a)            Document 2, Details of Recommended Zoning, clause 3(c)(vi) be amended to replace “1.0 metre” with “1.5 metres” as it relates to the outdoor roof-top terraces; and

b)           Document 3, Schedule YYY, be amended by replacing Document 3 with the attached.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17). no further notice be given.

Document 3 – Revised Schedule YYY

Andrew McCreight, Planner III, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, responded to questions

The committee heard 8 delegations on this matter, as follows:

·         The ‘Coalition for Highcroft’, as represented by the following persons, provided a joint presentation[3]: Helen Ries; Lisa Foss; Murray McClure; Plamen Iliev; Naomi Katsumi.  The main points of the presentation, in opposition to the proposal, focused on:

Ø  inappropriate intensification that would be a dramatic departure from existing zoning, would encroach on neighbouring low-rise residential property, and would occupy too much of the lot to permit the requisite soft landscaping

Ø  incompatible scale and mass for the surrounding and historically significant low-rise residential neighbourhood

Ø  the overbuilt site will result in loss of trees and greenspace, as only 17.5% of greenspace would be available for landscaping

Ø  disingenuous community engagement, as there has been no significant change in form and mass to address community concerns and to comply with Official Plan policies on compatibility and transition

Ø  inappropriate transition between the existing low-rise residential community and the proposed 4-5 storey midrise development, which doesn’t respect the Westboro Infill Study recommendations and doesn’t transition to the future planned heights for Highcroft Ave.

Ø  incompatible streetscape character, as there are no similar examples of the proposal in the neighbourhood and the proposal does not seek to conserve the existing low-rise residential character or offer architecture that makes sense for the community

Ø  parking garage and street parking concerns, as the proposed access to the parking garage would be directly adjacent the low-rise residential community; the traffic study does not consider the actual number of units, the already dense parking conditions on nearby streets and snow management

Ø  acceptable compromises: the building should read as 3 storey building on Highcroft; 4 storeys on Churchill would be preferable to 6; soft landscaping should be on 30% of the lot; the setback from the adjacent Highcroft home should be 6 metres; the garage access should be on Byron Place

·         Kristi Ross, Kristi M. Ross, Barrister and Solicitor, representing the Coalition for Highcroft[4], submitted that the proposal does not conform with the City’s Official Plan policies on compatibility and transition, nor is it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement in respect of compatibility policies, and further, does not respect the Westboro Infill Study in terms of planned function of the area. The proposed height and mass do not complement or fit well within the existing low-rise residential community and will result in undue adverse effects, including overlook, loss of privacy, noise, light and air pollution (from the placement of the garage access directly beside the closest home on Highcroft), loss of open space context and reduced landscaping coverage. The Coalition could support Councillor Leiper’s proposed motion, as a compromise to address some of their concerns, to step the building back so that it reads as a 3 storey, and to move back the overlook of the terraces.

·         The applicant/owner, as represented by the following persons, provided a joint presentation[5] and/or were present to respond to questions: Murray Chown, Novatech; Brad Byvelds, Novatech; Peter Vice, Vice and Hunter.  The main topics of their presentation included:

Ø  the traffic impact assessment, the traffic conflicts that necessitate the need for the garage access on Highcroft, and expected traffic and parking conditions

Ø  site context and overview of proposal, including comparison to previous proposal, proximity to transit, proposed amenity space, landscaping and setbacks

Ø  clarification about the requirements of the Westboro Interim Control Study requirements for this area

In addition to the presentations noted above, the following correspondence was provided to the committee coordinator between October 30 (the date the report was published to the City’s website with the agenda for this meeting) and the time the matter was considered on November 10, 2020, a copy of which is held on file:

• Email dated November 7 from Gary Ludington, Westboro Community Association

The Committee CARRIED Motion 32/1 on a division of 9 yeas and 0 nays, as follows:

YEAS (9):

Councillors L. Dudas, T. Tierney, J. Leiper, C. Kitts, S. Moffatt, A. Hubley, E. El-Chantiry (ex-officio), Vice-Chair G. Gower, Chair J. Harder

NAYS (0):

The Committee CARRIED the report recommendations as amended by Motion 32/1.

4.

Stormwater Management Design Criteria for the Pinecrest Creek/Westboro Area

ACS2020-PIE-IS-0002

Bay (7); College (8); Knoxdale-Merivale (9); Kitchissippi (15); River (16)

Report Recommendation

That Planning Committee recommend Council approve the Stormwater Management Design Criteria for the Pinecrest Creek/Westboro Area as described herein and listed as Document 2.

Motion N⁰ PLC 2020-32/2

Moved by Vice-Chair G. Gower  

WHEREAS report ACS2020-PIE-IS-0002 details the adoption of specific stormwater management design criteria for development in the Pinecrest Creek / Westboro Area in order to mitigate impacts on the creek and local reach of the Ottawa River; and

WHEREAS it has been identified that the French recommendation does not accurately reflect the intent of the English recommendation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Committee recommend Council replace the French recommendation with the following:

« Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver les critères de conception des installations de gestion des eaux pluviales dans le secteur du ruisseau Pinecrest et Westboro présentés dans ce rapport et joints en tant que document 2. »

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17), no further notice be given.

CARRIED

The Committee Carried the report recommendation as amended by Motion 32/2

5.

Bird-Safe Design Guidelines

ACS2020-PIE-EDP-0032

City Wide

Report Recommendation

That Planning Committee recommend Council approve the Bird-Safe Design Guidelines, attached as Document 1.

Vice-chair Gower introduced the following motion:

Motion N⁰ PLC 2020-32/3

Moved by Vice-chair G. Gower

WHEREAS the report on Bird-Safe Design Guidelines (ACS2020-PIE-EDP-0032) sets out to inform building, landscape and lighting design at the planning stage of private or public development projects to minimize the threat of bird collisions; and

WHEREAS since the committee agenda was released on October 30, 2020, concerns have been raised regarding when and how the guidelines would apply to development applications, and

WHEREAS staff have developed review criteria (see attached - Bird-Safe Design Guidelines – Development Application Review Criteria) based on the guidelines in the report to assist development review staff on when and how to apply the guideline;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Committee recommend to Council to add the following to the Disposition section of the report

“3. Post the Bird-Safe Design Guidelines – Development Application Review Criteria on the City’s website, in an accessible format, to provide clarity to Planning Services staff and applicants when applying the guidelines.”

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached[6] Bird-Safe Design Guidelines – Development Application Review Criteria be appended as Document 2 to the report.

Councillor Brockington introduced the following Direction to Staff:

That Planning Committee direct staff to report back on the implementation of the guidelines, including their application to both public and private projects, as part of the PIED Annual Report starting in 2022.

The committee heard one delegation on this matter:

·         Heather Bryson, Safe Wings Ottawa[7], spoke in support of the guidelines as a crucial step in education and in the protection of local birds and helping to prevent some of the near quarter of a million local bird-building collisions annually. They support the motion and direction raised at this meeting, expect the guidelines are a living document that can be revisited and strengthened in time as the initiative matures, and offer to help as needed, such as with advice for monitoring existing city buildings, for identifying areas and prioritizing them for treatment, or providing performance indicators for reporting on progress.

In addition to the submission noted above, the following correspondence was provided to the committee coordinator between October 30 (the date the report was published to the City’s website with the agenda for this meeting) and the time the matter was considered on November 10, 2020, a copy of which is held on file:

• Email dated November 8 from Iola Price.

The Committee Carried Motion 32/3 and then Carried the report recommendations as amended, along with the Direction to staff raised by Councillor Brockington.

6.

Zoning By-Law Amendment – 3288 Greenbank Road

ACS2020-PIE-PS-0107

Barrhaven (3)

Report Recommendations

1.        That Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 for 3288 Greenbank Road to rezone the lands from Development Reserve (DR) to Mixed Use Centre (MC[xxx1], MC[xxx2], MC[xxx3]), Minor Institutional / Mixed Use Centre (I1A/MC[xxx1]), and Parks and Open Space (O1), to facilitate the development of 850 residential units within a draft approved subdivision and an associated public park, as shown in Document 2 and detailed in Document 3.

2.        That Planning Committee approve the Consultation Details Section of this report be included as part of the ‘brief explanation’ in the Summary of Written and Oral Public Submissions, to be prepared by the Office of the City Clerk and submitted to Council in the report titled, “Summary of Oral and Written Public Submissions for Items Subject to the Planning Act ‘Explanation Requirements’ at the City Council Meeting of 25 November, 2020”, subject to submissions received between the publication of this report and the time of Council’s decision.

The following persons representing the applicant/owner were present in support and to answer questions if needed: Paul Black, Fotenn; Hugo Lalonde, Caivan Communities; Zeyad Hassan, Caivan Communities.

The committee Carried the report recommendations as presented.

Additional item

Motion - Council Resolution regarding Section 45 of the Planning Act, in respect of 335 Sandhill Road

Motion N⁰ PLC 2020-32/4

Moved by Vice-chair G. Gower (on behalf of Councillor J. Sudds)

That the Planning Committee approve the addition of the following Item to the agenda for consideration by the Committee at this meeting, pursuant to Section 89(3) of the Procedure By-Law, in order to give timely consideration to this matter as the applicant would like to apply to the Committee of Adjustment as soon as possible.

•     Council Resolution Regarding 335 Sandhill Road pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act,

CARRIED with Councillor J. Leiper dissenting.

Motion N⁰ PLC 2020-32/5

Moved by Vice-chair G. Gower (on behalf of Councillor J. Sudds)

WHEREAS report ACS2020-PIE-PS-0051, Zoning By-law Amendment for 335 Sandhill Road, was approved by Planning Committee on May 28, 2020, and by Council on June 10, 2020; and

WHEREAS the report in question outlined the zoning amendment required to permit a planned unit development consisting of 40 townhouse dwellings and 30 back-to-back townhouse dwellings on private streets; and  

WHEREAS a request has been received to proceed with a Minor Variance request for one block of townhomes (Block 10 on the proposed 4M-Plan) to permit a reduced side yard setback of 1.2 metres, as the current zoning requires an interior side yard setback of 5 metres; and

WHEREAS Subsection 45 (1.3) of the Planning Act does not permit an application for minor variance before the second anniversary of the initial zoning amendment which, in this case, would be June 10, 2022; and

WHEREAS to wait until the June 10, 2022 deadline would delay the construction of this development; and 

WHEREAS Subsection 45 (1.3) of the Planning Act permits Council to declare by resolution that such an application would be permitted;

THEREFORE IT BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Committee recommend Council approve that, pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, an application to the Committee of Adjustment be permitted in respect to the property at 335 Sandhill Road for a minor variance associated with the proposed development for Block 10, limited to the interior side yard setback, as per Urban Exception 2630 of By-law 2008-250, as amended; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there be no further notice pursuant to Subsection 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED with Councillor J. Leiper dissenting.

Location Map

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:33 PM