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. ]
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:
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;
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 NO
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 NO
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:
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. 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 NO
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 NO
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:
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 (as amended below) 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 (as amended below)
and as shown in Document 1;
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:
“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 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.
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 NO PLC 37/5
Moved by Councillor A. Hubley:
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.
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 NO 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