2. ZONING - 855 CARLING AVENUE

ZONAGE - 855, AVENUE CARLING

Committee recommendation AS amended

That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 855 Carling Avenue from MC[24] F(2.5) Schedule 129 and MC F(1.5) to MC[24] F(4.1) Schedule 129, as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2, as amended by the following

a. that for Area D on Schedule 129, the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from below grade to a height of 15.0 metres above grade is a rapid transit network;

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

Recommandation modifÉe DU Comité

Que le Conseil adopte une modification au règlement de zonage 2008-250 en vue de modifier le zonage du 855, avenue Carling de MC[24] F(2.5), Annexe 129 et MC[24] F(4.1), Annexe 129, tel qu’indiqué dans le Document 1 et détaillé dans le Document 2, tel que modifié par ce qui suit :

a. que pour la zone D mentionnée à l’annexe 12, la seule utilisation permise dans la zone tridimensionnelle mesurée du niveau du sol jusqu’à une hauteur de 15,0 mètres soit un réseau de transport en commun rapide;

Et qu’aucun autre avis ultérieur ne soit transmis, conformément au Paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

Documentation

1. deputy City Manager’s report Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability dated 13 May 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0077)

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, May 25, 2010

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

13 May 2010 / le 13 mai 2010

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/

Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager/

Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services/

Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Kitchissippi (15)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0077

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 855 Carling AVenue (FILE NO. D02-02-08-0049)
OBJET :	ZONAGE - 855, avenue carling

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 855 Carling Avenue from MC[24] F(2.5) Schedule 129 and MC F(1.5) to MC[24] F(4.1) Schedule 249, as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de  recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de faire passer le zonage du 855, avenue Carling de MC[24] F(2.5), annexe 129, et MC F(1.5) à MC[24] F(4.1), annexe 249, tel qu’illustré dans le Document 1 et exposé en détail dans le Document 2.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Carling Avenue and Champagne Avenue.  The property is bounded on the south by Carling Avenue which is a designated Arterial Mainstreet, Champagne Avenue to the west, Hickory Street to the north and the O-Train corridor to the east.  West of the site is an existing office development consisting of two office towers, nine and seven storeys respectively. 

North of the site is a vacant residential property that is the subject to an application for change in zoning.  East of the site is the north-south O‑Train line and south of the site on the opposite side of Carling Avenue are federally owned lands which are currently vacant.  The property is approximately 0.9 hectares in area.  The property has a frontage of approximately 71 metres along Carling Avenue and is approximately 122 metres in depth.  This property occupies almost an entire city block except for a small irregular parcel known as 140 Hickory Avenue.  The site is currently being utilized as a surface parking lot comprised of 300 spaces servicing Civic Hospital employees.

The property is located within the Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan and is subject to two land use designations under the Secondary Plan.  The southern portion of the property is designated as High-Profile, Offices and the northern portion is designated as Medium-Profile, Offices.

Under the Primary Official Plan, the  property is located at the southern edge of an area designated as a Mixed-Use Centre on Schedule B, Urban Land Use.  The  Mixed-Use Centre designation extends from the subject site to Carling Avenue along the O-Train Corridor, and is currently subject to the Carling-Bayview Community Design Plan (CDP) process.  As a Mixed-Use Centre, the site is identified as offering potential for advancing and achieving the City's intensification objectives through compact mixed-use development focused on the City's transit system. An analysis of the nature and intensity of development for all lands within the CDP area is intended to be completed through the CDP process. 

The section of Carling Avenue abutting the subject property is designated as a Supplementary LRT Transit Intensive Corridor in the City's Transportation Master Plan, to provide a future at-grade LRT connection to the main Rapid Transit Network at Lincoln Fields and Carling Stations within the 2031 planning horizon. Carling Avenue is also subject to the Western LRT Corridor (Bayview to Baseline) Planning and Environmental Assessment Study (ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0050) which is currently underway and may accelerate LRT implementation along Carling Avenue as a Rapid Transit Corridor rather than as a Supplementary LRT Corridor, subject to the requirements of the Transit Project Assessment Process (Ontario Regulation 231/08) under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).  The intersection of Carling Avenue and the existing north-south O-train line is a significant intersection with respect to the future development of light rail transit and as a result, additional land requirements beyond the protected right-of-way outlined within the Official Plan will require protection.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The applicant is proposing to construct two new office towers, which will be connected via a second-storey link as shown on Document 3.  Tower "One" will be approximately 56 metres (15 storeys) in height and front along Carling Avenue.  Tower “One” would be setback approximately three metres from Carling Avenue and six metres from the O-Train corridor abutting the eastern portion of the site.  Tower "Two", which will be located approximately in the middle of the subject property, will have a height of 45 metres (12 storeys) and be setback 19 metres from Carling Avenue and five metres from the O-Train corridor. 

Four levels of underground parking are proposed that will create 742 spaces, to be accessed from Champagne Avenue.  Also, 58 surface parking stalls are proposed to be provided on the northern and western edge of the property.  Vehicular access to the site would be from Champagne Avenue and Hickory Street. There is no proposed access to the site from Carling Avenue. 

Existing Zoning

The property currently has two zoning designations.  The western portion, and the majority of the property, is zoned "Mixed-Use Centre" MC[24] F(2.5) S129.  Exception 24 refers to a maximum building height as per Schedule 129, which varies from a permitted height of 15.6 metres for the northern portion of the site along Hickory Street (Area "A" of Schedule 129), 27.3 metres mid-block (Area "B") and 39 metres for the southern portion of the site along Carling Avenue (Area "C").  Exception 24 also refers to specific yard requirements, which includes a minimum 9.14-metre set back along Carling Avenue, and a 4.7-metre setback along Champagne Avenue and Hickory Street.  Exception 24 also requires that 50 per cent of the required parking be located below grade or within a parking structure.  The permitted floor space index (FSI) for this portion of the property allows for the gross floor area of a building to be 2.5 times the total lot area.

The eastern strip of the property is zoned "Mixed-Use Centre" MC F(1.5).  The permitted FSI for this portion of the property allows for the gross floor area of a building to be 1.5 times the total lot area. 

Proposed Zoning

The applicant is requesting an amendment to Schedule 129 to allow for an increase in the permitted height within Area "A" from 39 metres to 56 metres, and an increase in the permitted height within Area "B" from 27.3 metres to 45.0 metres.  The current permitted height of 15.6 metres for Area "C" of Schedule 129 would remain.  The applicant is requesting a further amendment to Schedule 129 to allow for a reduced front yard setback along Carling Avenue of 9.14 metres to 3.0 metres.  The remaining provisions of Exception 24 would continue to apply with respect to parking.  The applicant is also requesting an increase in the floor space index (FSI) on the west side of the site from 2.5 to 4.1, and an increase in the FSI on the east side of the property from 1.5 to 4.1 to facilitate the proposed development.

DISCUSSION

Strategic Directions

To meet the challenge of managing growth the City will direct growth to the Urban Area, and specifically to areas designated as Central Area, Mixed-Use Centres, Employment Areas, Enterprise Areas, Developing Communities and Mainstreets. These areas include locations that are centred on the rapid-transit network, major roads, commercial streets, and large tracts of vacant land.  The City will encourage a pattern and density of development that supports transit, cycling and walking as viable alternatives to the automobile.

Development in these areas can strengthen the urban structure, balance housing and employment uses, and make transit provision more efficient.

These areas offer substantial opportunities for new development or redevelopment and represent a key element in the Official Plan’s strategy to accommodate and direct growth in the city. Mixed-Use Centres will grow substantially, but in a way that complements the development pattern within and adjacent to them.

A key direction for areas where more intense mixed-use development is to be provided, and specifically for Mixed-Use Centres, is that they be developed as centers of activity in a way that is compact and will contribute to place-building through an organization of uses and urban form that provides for a strong pedestrian environment and orientation to transit along with strong interconnections to and through adjacent areas. 

Mixed-Use Centre and Arterial Mainstreets

The subject property and adjacent areas are designated Mixed-Use Centre and this section of Carling Avenue is designated Arterial Mainstreet on Schedule B of the Official Plan (OP).  Mixed-Use Centres are strategic locations along transit corridors that act as focal points of activity for both the local and regional community.  These areas have a high potential for mixed-use, compact development and are to develop as vibrant places in their own right as components of a complete neighbourhood.  Development within a Mixed-Use Centre should take advantage of the opportunities offered by transit, and for ease of cycling and pedestrian movements.  With a focus placed on urban design and a mix of uses, these areas will contribute to diversity in the area and facilitate the creation of centres of activity. The proposed development concept as shown on Document 3 introduces a density and form of development that is appropriate taking into consideration the policies of Mixed-Use Centres and Arterial Mainstreets.

Along Arterial Mainstreets redevelopment and infill is encouraged to optimize the use of land through increased height (up to eight storeys) and density. Additional increases in height and density along Arterial Mainstreets are to be considered in circumstances where the development is at a gateway location or at a location where there are opportunities to support transit, at a transit stop or station.  The site is located just west of the Preston Street (Little Italy) gateway at the intersection of Carling Avenue and Preston Street.  As well, the site is at a strategic existing transit location, just west of the existing north-south O-Train line, and along existing bus routes on Carling Avenue. Based on the above criteria to be considered in such requests, the proposed increase in height and increased floor space index (FSI) is consistent with the direction of the OP for Arterial Mainstreets that allows for such considerations. The existing maximum permitted height on the southern portion of the site along Carling Avenue would permit a building approximately 11 storeys in height with a 3.5-metre floor to floor plate, which currently exceeds the OP policy.  The proposed building height of 15 storeys for Tower One is considered a minor increase from the current permitted height, and any potential impacts may be further reduced through the Site Plan Control process.

With the placement of the proposed 15-storey office tower a maximum of three metres from Carling Avenue, a strong street edge is created with ample room for improved sidewalks to allow for easy pedestrian movement both within the site and through to access the O-Train station to the east and bus stops along Carling Avenue.  The existing sidewalk along Champagne Avenue allows for movements to the north into the existing neighbourhood and is further enhanced with additional landscaping and courtyard elements at grade within the design of Towers One and Two. 

As a result, the reduced front yard setback along Carling Avenue from 9.14 metres to 3.0 metres is considered appropriate for the site towards advancing the urban design of this Arterial Mainstreet.

Regarding the mix of uses which typically accompany increased density within Mixed-Use Centre developments, the proposed concept plan does not provide any ground floor retail or commercial space which can inhibit the implementation of the Mixed-Use Centre policies that speak to creating lively places with a range of uses that appeal to the local and wider community.  As a result, staff recommends that the implementing By-law as shown on Document 2 require that retail, commercial or personal service type uses be located at-grade along the frontage of Carling Avenue.  The proposed performance standard would implement the intent of the Mixed-Use Centre policies to develop such areas as vibrant spaces which are part of complete neighbourhoods.

Last, as Mixed-Use Centres are strategically located with respect to the transportation system and are accessible by transit, both the existing and planned function of the area must be protected where possible, while not interfering with as-of-right development situations.  As the subject property is designated as a Supplementary LRT Transit Intensive Corridor to provide a future at-grade LRT connection to the main Rapid Transit Network within the 2031 planning horizon, and also subject to the Western LRT Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment Study currently underway, staff have completed an assessment of the site and determined an appropriate area to be protected from the developable area of the property as shown on Document 4.  Staff recommends that a triangular piece of land at the southeast corner of the site preclude any form of development or use other than a public transit use.  As well, the recommended by-law would also restrict development within a vertical area extension of this triangular area for a height of approximately 15 metres, effectively creating a three-dimensional box to be used only for transit infrastructure, the details of which are not known at this time.  As a result, the development concept would need to be revised accordingly to accommodate the excluded area, which will impact the proposed pedestrian walkway along the eastern portion of the site. However, staff feel that through the detailed design and Site Plan Control process an appropriate design can be brought forward that respects the intent of the Mixed-Use Centre and applicable design guidelines.  Due to the strategic location of the site relative to the various land use designations, and the unknown aspects regarding the specific transit technology to be implemented at this site, it is appropriate to secure this portion of the site for future transportation infrastructure needs.

Compatibility and Community Design

Direction is provided in Section 2.5.1 as to the meaning of compatible development.  In general terms, it provides for compatible development meaning, development that although not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings, nonetheless enhances an established community and coexists with it.  The development fits well within its physical context and works well among the functions that surround it.  Broad design objectives are set out as to how the City wants to influence the built environment.  These objectives are generally stated and are applicable to all land use designations either at the city-wide level or on a site-specific basis.  Design principles are further set out to describe how the City hopes to achieve the design objectives, with acknowledgment that all the design objectives may not be achievable in all cases. 

The proposed development is consistent with and implements the various aspects of the design objectives and principles discussed below. The objectives of greatest significance to the application speak to enhancing the sense of community, defining quality public and private spaces through development and providing for the creation of adaptable and diverse places.

The first design objective to enhance a sense of community is achieved by infilling a large, underutilized vacant site that does not continue a built form within a designated Mixed-Use Centre which is also along a transit priority route.  The development will establish a focus at a key location along Carling Avenue, within the southern limit of the Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan that can contribute to the redevelopment of the immediate area as a significant place under the applicable land use policies.

Encouraging a continuous street frontage and being cognisant of pedestrian needs that contribute to public spaces, is the second key design objective.  As a result of the decreased setback along Carling Avenue, a tighter built form is created that is currently absent due to the use of the site as a surface parking lot.  The integration of walkways, landscaping and open spaces at grade provides some variation that serves to create an amenity area and space for pedestrian movement through the site and through the immediate area.  With respect to meeting the needs of pedestrians, the introduction of new commercial or retail uses at grade, as recommended, will create opportunities for social and commercial interactions that previously did not exist. The proposed design will take advantage of the natural focal point along this segment of Carling Avenue and the significant location along the existing and proposed transit network.

The objective of creating adaptability and diversity will be implemented through a more diverse building envelope that efficiently uses land while contributing to the regeneration of Carling Avenue. The development as proposed will create new employment space with additional retail and service uses as recommended.  The development will also help reduce resource consumption by intensifying inside the Urban Area along a Transit Priority Corridor and by providing services to local residents.

Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan

Schedule L of the Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan identifies the site as being located in the southwest quadrant of the Plan area.   The property has two employment designations as per Schedule L with the southern portion of the property designated as High-Profile, Offices and the northern portion identified as Medium-Profile, Offices.  The Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan does not contain specific height limitations but rather outlines various profiles for the land use schedule.  The planned function for this area speaks to a mix of medium-profile and high-profile employment uses focusing on both sides of Carling Avenue including existing buildings.  The northwest edge of the area will be redeveloped with low-profile residential uses to provide a transition to the existing lower-profile residential areas to the north and west.  As well, the policies of the Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan speak specifically to the area around Carling and Champagne Avenue to become a Secondary Employment Centre, and should consider development proposals which provide for a mix of uses, with residential uses integrated within to allow for a decreasing transition in development moving north from Carling, with landscaped spaces and pedestrian links between spaces and to transit. For predominately office-oriented developments, surface parking shall be permitted within the first phase only and limited, with subsequent phases to provided structured or underground parking.  As the concept plan proposes building heights decreasing from 15 storeys on the southern edge to 12 storeys mid-block, serviced with four levels of underground parking and limited surface parking, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan.  Where the project is not consistent with the Secondary Plan relative to providing a mix of ancillary retail and services uses, and as a result the recommendation requires appropriate non-residential uses to be located on the ground floor along the Carling Avenue frontage in order to create a more active street environment.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The zoning for this site has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board as a decision has not been made within 120 days of the application having been deemed complete.  A seven-day hearing is scheduled commencing 7 September 2010.  Should the staff recommendation be adopted, then the hearing can be conducted within staff resources.

Should the recommendation be refused, it will be necessary for the City Clerk and Solicitor Department to seek to retain an outside plan.  It is anticipated that the expenditure required to retain an outside planner for the hearing will be in the order of $35,000 to $45,000.  

In order to achieve Council objectives, Committee and Council may wish to consider amending the applicable zoning in any event to provide for the retail, commercial or personal service type uses at grade and the setback from the rail line.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The application is consistent with the Planning and Growth Management priority which encourages the development of employment lands to promote job creation and minimize infrastructure costs.

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to additional time required for the assessment and analysis of the potential conflicts with the development of the site and the advancement of future transit services.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3    Concept Plan

Document 4    Protected Transit Corridor

Document 5    Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON  K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code:  26-76) of City Council’s decision.

Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                    DOCUMENT 2

Proposed Changes to By-law 2008-250

1.       Replace Schedule 129 with a new schedule as shown on Document 3.

2.       In Exception 24 of Section 239, Urban Exceptions:

(a)        delete the zone code in column II and replace it with MC[24] F(4.1) Sxxx

(b)        delete the provisions in column V and replace them with the following:

• maximum building height, and required Hickory Street yard setback in accordance with Schedule 129
• at least 50% of required parking spaces to be located below grade or in a structure
• only the following uses are permitted on the ground floor of that portion of a building along Carling Avenue for a depth of 21 metres from Carling Avenue:

            artist studio

            bank

            bank machine

            bar

            cinema

            community centre

            community health and resource centre

convenience store

            day care

instructional facility

            library

            medical facility

            museum

            nightclub

            personal service business

            Post office

            recreational or athletic facility

            restaurant

            retail food store

            service and repair shop

            theatre

• lobby area can only occupy a maximum of 25% of the ground floor of that portion of a building along Carling Avenue for a depth of 21 metres from Carling Avenue
• minimum yard setback from the south lot line abutting Carling Avenue: 3.0 m
• minimum yard setback from east lot line abutting the transit corridor of the O-Train: 4.57 m
• minimum yard setback from west lot line abutting Champagne Street: 4.57 m
• In Area D on Schedule 129 the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from grade to a height of 15.0 metres is a rapid transit network 

3.       Rezone the land from MC[24] F(2.5) and MC F(1.5) to MC[24] F(4.1) Sxxx as shown on Document 1.

Revised Schedule 129

CONCEPT PLAN                                                                                                DOCUMENT 3

PROTECTED TRANSIT CORRIDOR                                                            DOCUMENT 4

CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                             DOCUMENT 5

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

Five letters were received from the public and the local community association as a result of the circulation.  A summary of the comments and concerns raised and a response are summarized below.

1.         Concerns were raised with respect to a potential increase in traffic in the area.

            Response:

The applicant has prepared a traffic impact assessment in support of their application which has been reviewed and approved by staff.  Through the Site Plan Control process a detailed analysis of the traffic impacts and site design will be undertaken.

2.         A request was made that the subject application be postponed to allow for the completion of the Carling-Bayview Community Design Plan.

            Response:

The policies within the Official Plan allow for development outside of a completed Community Design Plan, and such an application will be reviewed against the applicable policies of the Official Plan.  Staff are satisfied that the proposal implements the intent of the Mixed-Use Centre policies with a pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and compact development, while having due regard for the policies with respect to compatibility and urban design.

3.         Concerns were raised with respect to the potential increase in shade and loss of sunlight on abutting residential areas to the north

            Response:

Through the Site Plan Control process the applicant will be required to submit a sun-shadow analysis of the proposed development to better evaluate and consider such potential impacts.  

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

Dalhousie Community Association

The Dalhousie Community Association requests that the City postpone considering the current application until such time as the Carling-Bayview Community Development Plan is completed.  The Dalhousie Community Association is also concerned with how the proposed building may restrict a future LRT access Carling Avenue and request the application not be considered until the appropriate studies are complete. 

ZONING - 855 CARLING AVENUE

ZONAGE - 855, AVENUE CARLING

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0077                                                              Kitchissippi (15)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Dorothy Graham

· E-mail dated 22 May 2010 from Kathie Steinhoff andPeter Eady

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Armand Ruffo

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Geoff Poapst

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from James Welsh

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Jennifer Zelmer

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Kathryn and David Williams

· E-mail dated 23 May 2010 from Louise Watson

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Shirley Rayes

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Alayne McGregor

· E-mail dated 26 May 2010 from Rob Fennimore

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Laura Henderson and Sean Crowell

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Mary Wilkinson

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Richard Mason

· E-Mail dated 25 May 2010 from Marshall M. Perrin

· E-mail date 26 May 2010 from Geraldine and Daniel Sutton-Long.

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Christine Fennimore

· E-mail dated 26 May 2020 from Richard Cavanagh and Lil Krstic

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Yavor Kresic

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Keith Hobbs

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Brenda Sangster and Shelly Gosse

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Laurie and Ken Hardage

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Robert Keyes

· E-mail dated 24 May 2020 from Kim Meimaroglou

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Jack B. Kelly

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Amanda Farris

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Inga Dybala

· E-mail dated 28 May 2020 from Joanne Kim

· E-mail dated 28 May 2010 from Jason Bennett

· E-mail dated 30 May from Leanna Haythorne and Anil Naidoo

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from John Doran

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Amanda Farris

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 form Jack B. Kelly

· Letters dated 18 and 20 May, 2010 from Michael Polowin on behalf of Dow’s Lake Court Inc.

Simon Deiaco, Planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval.  He was accompanied by Alain Miguelez, Program Manager, Development Review Process (Urban) and Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Policy Development and Urban Design.  A copy of staff’s PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from the Chair, Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, explained that the matter would be subject to an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing on 7 September 2010. He explained that it was necessary to bring forward the report to the Committee at the present time because in order to provide Legal Services with instructions from Council as to what position to take before the OMB.  He further confirmed that, should Council take a position other than that recommended by staff, the City would need to retain an outside planner to defend Committee and Council’s decision before the board.  

Councillor Holmes observed that it seemed to be an emerging pattern for applications to be appealed to the OMB when the City does not complete its process in 120 days, thus forcing the matter to Council to obtain direction.  Mr. Marc agreed there had been a few such cases recently, citing 187 Metcalfe Street and 801 Albert Street as examples.  He suggested there was a need to wait and if it was a trend.  He confirmed that the need to retain an outside planner to defend Council’s decision was a further reason for the matter to be brought forward sooner, as the earlier the planner is retained, the better it looks to the board.  Councillor Holmes expressed concern that in such cases they were running out of time for public consultation and impacting the ability for all affected to become knowledgeable about the application and provide comments if they so wished. 

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to how the potential rapid transit corridor would be protected on the site, staff provided the following information:

· In “Area D,” on Schedule 129, the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from grade to a height of 15 metres is a rapid transit network.  While this creates an area where no other use would be permitted, it would not preclude building over top of that envelope, allowing the applicant to optimize their land and allowing the City to protect what is needed to allow the potential LRT connection to be made. 

· The specific technology, track alignment and design for the western rapid transit corridor is not yet complete, and there would be many factors considered in the design and location of the station, and whether it could be on this site.

· LRT staff is comfortable that Area D is appropriate and represents a radius of a turn that can be made by a future train. 

· There is the possibility that a building could be constructed prior to Council obtaining information on the potential design of the rapid transit connection or station, which will likely be 1-2 years in the future. Although currently no application had been submitted for site plan control, the applicants could move forward with a site plan control application and construction.  Through the site plan control process staff would look at refinements to the original concept. 

· As to whether the City could prevent the loss of the capacity to build the station into the building, Mr. Marc confirmed the report would not preclude construction before the City understands the station parameters.  He suggested the only way Council could ensure nothing took place on the site would be to impose an interim control by-law that would take away immediate building rights. 

· While the moratorium on development in the Carling-Bayview Community Design Plan Area would not permit rezoning, it would still allow the applicants to build within the existing zoning. 

Councillor Leadman suggested that, as the ward Councillor, she was not consulted on the report.  She expressed concern that the report recommendations should have been brought forward to her prior to them coming to Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the purpose of the report was to give direction before the OMB.  She suggested that part of the delay in consideration of the report was attributable to the fact that planning staff had not acknowledged that the transit corridor would be impacted, and this had to be determined through a separate study.  She questioned the fact that staff were recommending the approval of 800 parking spaces on the site, even as they were recommending additional height because it is a transit corridor, but.  She suggested this was contradictory to the intent of the planning and intensification model.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Deiaco explained that the staff recommendation before Committee was to amend Schedule 129 to allow an increase in height, and to require a performance standard that makes retail uses mandatory at grade along Carling Avenue to further advance the policies of the Secondary Plan and mixed-use centre designation.  As to whether this would be a commercial or residential property going forward on the lot, Mr. Marc indicated that he had not been able to clearly identify whether or not it would be commercial or residential.  He expressed his understanding that the report was prepared on the basis that the site would be an office development; however, the applicant had not confirmed that was their intention. 

Councillor Leadman introduced the following motion, to be moved on her behalf by Councillor Holmes:

WHEREAS the zoning of 855 Carling is before Committee and Council;

AND WHEREAS this provides an opportunity to promote transit in the vicinity of the Carling O-Train station, to protect  for a future transit station and to provide for the enhancement  of the variety of uses within a Mixed Use designation fronting on an Arterial Mainstreet;

AND WHEREAS this rezoning has been considered by the Public, Committee, Council and Staff on the basis that the rezoning  was sought for non-residential purposes and that if a residential rezoning is sought, the matter should be brought back for further consultation and consideration, and therefore Item c) below has been included to express this determination on the part of Council;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT with respect to 855 Carling:

Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that:

A zoning by-law amendment be enacted to provide:

a)  that for Area D on Schedule 129 the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from grade to a height of 15.0 metres is a rapid transit network;

b) The uses along the ground floor are limited in accordance with the third bullet point under item 2) in the Details of the Recommended Zoning; and

c) With respect to the land located within each applicable zone as of this date, a building containing residential uses shall not be permitted to exceed either the height or the f.s.i. in place on 25 May 2010; and

d) The number of automobile parking places be limited to an amount equivalent to the minimum parking requirement for Area A plus an additional 25 places to provide for flexibility.

And that no further changes be made to the applicable zoning at this time

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

She suggested the motion would provide legal staff with the tools they needed before the OMB.  She suggested that the delay beyond 120 days was unfortunate, but unavoidable due to the lack of attention to the transit corridor.  She suggested that, given the investment the City was making in transit, this site was critical.  She encouraged Committee to support the motion.

Committee then heard from the following Public Delegations:

Michael Polowin, Gowlings, Lafleur, Henderson and Murray Chown, Novatech Consulting, spoke on behalf of Dow’s Lake Court Inc, owners of 865 and 875 Carling Avenue and 140 Hickory Street.  Mr. Polowin indicated that his comments applied to the proposal for a commercial office development, and might be different should the application prove to be something else.  He noted that the massing of the proposed development impacted his client’s land, and expressed concern that the staff report had insufficient regard to Official Plan (OP) policies, particularly with respect to transit and arterial mainstreets.  He noted the arterial mainstreet policies concerning suggest a height of eight stories, and the as of right zoning is 11 stories.  He also noted that the arterial mainstreet zoning suggests the lower height should be adjacent to the arterial mainstreet, rising to the back, while the subject proposal does the opposite.  He expressed further concern with access to the Transitway for properties located to the west, suggesting the development would restrict access for his client’s property.  Written submissions from Mr. Polowin were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk

Mr. Chown referenced a Planning Review report Novatech had prepared for Dow’s Lake Court inc., which was provided to Committee members and is held on file with the City Clerk.  While he indicated that he had no challenge to the general objective of the applicants to increase the amount of buildable space on the property, he asked Committee to consider the following:

· Through negotiations on this application, there should be the opportunity for the City and the proponents to discuss the ability to integrate the development with the Transitway, in particular a Carling Avenue transit station. He suggested the opportunity to do so would be lost if not done now.

· While there was the ability, as of right, to locate a structure on Carling Avenue at 10-11 stories in height, he suggested that did not make it the right thing to do.  He noted the policies and design guidelines for arterial mainstreets emphasize the objective of a human scale of development along those streets.  He suggested there may be the ability to negotiate a compromise to achieve those objectives by reducing the scale of development along Carling Avenue, while compensating for that by increasing heights on the north part of the site in order to accommodate same amount of built space.

· The requirement for some pedestrian and public uses on ground level could provide integration to Carling Avenue, and could provide an active and viable link for pedestrians to the transit station.

In conclusion, Mr. Chown suggested there was tremendous possibilities on the site and hoped Council make the right decision and address the issues raised in his presentation.

Janet Bradley spoke on behalf of Soho Champagne Condominiums Inc., owners of the property at 125 Hickory Street.  She indicated her client supported the proposal, as outlined in the report, for two commercial office towers and.  She suggested the proposal was a good fit, in line with the Preston-Champagne secondary plan and the parent OP.  However, she expressed concern with the possibility that the development would be changed to a residential development.  She indicated that her client has concern that the applicants planned a “bait and switch,” telling everyone the development would be an office building in compliance with the secondary plan, securing the zoning to increase the amount of built form, then switching it to residential, noting that the mixed-use designation allowed either. 

Ms. Bradley proposed that office buildings were more in compliance with the secondary plan, as such Council should consider a zoning bylaw that tailors the uses permitted on the site to that which comply with the secondary plan. In summary, she reiterated that her client supported for a by-law that is tailored to permit the development outlined in the report; however, if the by-law continued to permit residential or development further to the north on the site, her client had concerns with the appropriateness of the development.

Councillor Hunter suggested that the time to have raised concern with the possible residential use would have been at the time of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw when the MC mixed use zone was being considered for the site.  Ms. Bradley noted that her client had purchased the land in January 2010, knowing there was an MC zoning on the adjacent property, but knowing that zoning was for a certain height and amount of space.  The concern is that the applicant was seeking a significant increase in height and amount of space.  While she generally had no objection to more residential development in the area, she expressed concern that, while the two proposed commercial towers would front off Carling Avenue, the rumoured residential proposal would have two residential buildings to the rear of the site, immediately adjacent to the low-scale development on her client’s site.  She suggested the issue was one of compatibility of the adjacent use and how the whole area was originally planned

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman as to whether the proposed motion from Councillor Holmes would address her client’s issues, Ms. Bradley maintained that the only way to address the issue was to change the Zoning By-law.  She emphasized that if Council was going to grant more rights, more density, and more height for the site, it should grant those rights in the direction of your official plan, which is office development.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate with regards to the Preston-Champagne secondary plan and its relationship to the Carling-Bayview CDP currently underway, staff explained that the two plan areas overlap, but the CDP area is significantly larger than the secondary plan area.  While the secondary plan is an adopted document, the CDP is in process and there could be some further overlap with their respective policies.

Councillor Doucet suggested the subject site at the junction four wards: River Ward, Somerset Ward, Capital Ward and Kitchissippi Ward.  He questioned why staff had not taken time to consult with the councillors of the abutting wards before the matter came to Committee.  In response to the Councillor’s concerns that the process was being driven by the developers and the OMB rather than the citizens and elected representatives, noted that, while there were certainly concerns with that process, the City had to comply with the rules laid out by the Province.  He reiterated that legal staff required Council to make a decision to provide direction before the OMB, and if that recommendation was not in line with staff’s, additional time was required to retain an outside planner.  He maintained that the application could be delayed no further if they were to present an appropriate case before the board.

Councillor Doucet expressed concern that allowing development on the site would eliminate possibilities for connecting a carling avenue rapid transit corridor with the north-south line, which has enormous consequences for the city.

Mr. Miguelez explained the challenge posed by the fact that, while the results of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the western transit corridor was one to two years away, the City was faced with an application under the Planning Act and an appeal to the OMB due to non response.  He indicated that staff had initiated an accelerated process in order to determine what the City needed to do to ensure the possible transit corridor was removed a result of a development on the.  He explained that, in the absence of a competed EA, Dillon Consultants had been retained to do an analysis to establish the requirements of this particular location and how to safeguard the transit corridor.  He outlined the details of how the potential transit corridor would be preserved in Area D of Schedule 129, which provides the required arc for the vehicles to turn. 

Councillor Doucet indicated that, while he was glad to see an effort to protect the corridor, he lacked confident that it would be adequate, indicated he had remaining reservations about the ability for a train or bus to make the turn in the space identified under Area D.  At the suggestion of the Chair, staff agreed to share the results of the Dillon report with Councillor Doucet, so that he could be confident in its recommendations.

Shirley Rayes, Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association, spoke in opposition to the proposal.  She expressed several concerns, as summarized below:

· The residents and community association received very short notice of the  application, with little time to read and prepare for the meeting

· The community association’s comments are not contained in the report, and they certainly have comments. 

· The community association vehemently opposes the zoning, as it is incompatible with the current neighbourhood.

· The report shows a flawed traffic analysis.  The traffic analysis indicates that there would be serious intrusions into the neighbourhood, as traffic would be directed via a residential street to the failed Queensway ramp at Parkdale.  She suggested that the better access to the Queensway would be via Carling Avenue, noting City traffic experts she had spoken to confirmed this.

· She suggested the community was already being assaulted by a number of development projects, and maintained any request in excess of the current zoning was counterproductive, given the future transit plans, and an affront on the area’s residents.

Ms. Rayes also submitted detailed written comments, which were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk.

Alayne McGregor spoke in opposition to the proposed development.  She also submitted detailed written comments, which were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk. The points raised in her presentation are summarized below

· The proposed development would put significantly more vehicle traffic in a neighbourhood that is already having problems with congestions on many of the streets that are used for neighbourhood traffic.

· The addition of more traffic to the area would make it increasingly difficult for cyclists.

· While the increased height and density of the project is predicated on its immediate proximity to the O-Train, it is still allowing for 800 parking spaces, which she suggested did not make sense. 

· She proposed that, if Council supported the project, should substantially reduce the parking. 

· She noted that the Telus building downtown has 80 per cent of its employees coming in by transit, cycling or walking.  She suggested that, given the excellent transit accessibility of the subject site, the amount of car parking could be reasonably reduced to 160 spaces.

· She suggested the neighbourhood could not support the additional car traffic, particularly in the context of all the new developments which are happening in the same general area.

Councillor Hunter challenged the delegation’s recommendation for reduced parking in development, suggesting this would result in workers seeking street parking in the surrounding neighbourhood.  He suggested this would be to the detriment of surrounding residents and businesses.  Ms. McGregor countered that if there is less parking, many people will look to alternatives such as transit, cycling and walking, and emphasized that there needed to be promotion of those alternatives. 

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, staff confirmed that the modal split being used for the subject property was 30 per cent for the year 2011, rising to 35 per cent in 2016.  Councillor Leadman suggested that, given the transit usage being used to justify the height increase, the amount of parking provided was questionable.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri with respect to the ancillary parking for the Civic Hospital that was currently located on the site, Mr. Deiaco expressed his understanding that the proposed parking structure would not house those 300 parking spaces, so the hospital would need to make alternative arrangements.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to her motion as it pertained to parking, Mr. Miguelez expressed his understanding that the motion limited to an amount equivalent to the minimum parking for area A.  As the Zoning By-law designates lower parking requirements for the more central area A, the motion would have the effect of applying that lower parking limit to the whole property.  Mr. Marc clarified that the motion would limit the parking on the site to 532 parking places.

Mr. Marc further explained that the clause of the motion pertaining to residential development, while somewhat redundant, would to provide the clear intent that if the applicant wished to go ahead with the residential proposal, the matter would have to come back before committee and council for further consultation and decision by council.

Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He was accompanied by Ron Jack, Delcan, Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, and Mike Casey, Campbell Steel and Iron Works Ltd, owner.

Mr Cohen began by thinking staff for taking the time to meet with the applicants through the process, and indicating that they were partly in support, and partly opposed to the staff recommendations.  The points raised in his presentation are summarized below:

· With respect to the comments made by the previous delegations, Ms. Bradley and Mr. Polowin, he noted they had not mentioned the adverse impact on their clients, and suggested that the legitimacy of their positions would be tested before the OMB. 

· He challenged the suggestion that staff was not aware of the potential for potential land requirement for transit or the potential requirement, indicating that it had been known to the applicants for some time and staff had advised the application would not be processed any further until such time as a discovery was made about the requirement.  It was for this reason the applicants appealed the matter to the OMB, as it could have been a considerable before the matter arose.

· With respect to the limitations on Area D, the potential transit corridor, he proposed that if the City wanted the property for transit purposes, they should buy it.

· With respect to the potential for residential use, he clarified that the 2008 zoning, and the preceding zoning, permits both commercial and residential, and suggested this was in conformity with the OP.  He indicated that he had advised both the OMB and staff the lands could be zoned for office, residential or both and that the residential development might see different performance standards.  He emphasized that the applicants would advise staff, the OMB, and every person within 400 feet know if this were to be the case.

· He explained that the Zoning sought applies to residential and office uses, and the applicants showed an office concept because the office use creates the greatest demand for parking.  He suggested that a residential use would be a lesser impact on parking and traffic.

· In summary, Mr Cohen explained that the applicants support the density and height being proposed by staff; oppose the restrictions on Area D.

· With respect to the proposed commercial uses at grade, he questioned the fact that the City was taking Area D for transit use and imposing the commercial.  He also doubted the ability to find tenants for the commercial space. 

Mr. Jack echoed the comments made by Mr. Cohen, and outlined the results of the Delcan report submitted with the application in May 2009.  The points raised in his presentation are summarized as follows:

· The report analyzed this particular concept plan because it was a potential use of the land and because it generated the most impact in terms of servicing, traffic and parking.

· The report stated that the concept plan illustrating an office development represented only one option for the use of the property, and that a residential or a mixed-use concept may be pursued by the owner.  Each of these options at the intensification proposed are supported by the applicable policy and regulatory framework, and all options are actable with respect to existing roadway and hard service capacity.

· The traffic analysis based on the office concept represents the worst case scenario as it relates to traffic generation and municipal services are available and appropriate for all other options.

· The site is currently zoned mixed-use center, which permits a broad range of uses and that reflects the designation of the land, with an arterial main street designation along the frontage of Carling Avenue.

· Mixed-use centers are defined in the official plan as strategic locations with high potential to achieve compact and mixed-use development, are limited in number and represent opportunities for substantial growth.

· The policies encourage transit supportive uses including offices and residential

· The arterial main street designation on Carling Avenue speaks to encouraging redevelopment and infill on those locations.

· While the OP supports eight storeys on arterial main streets, it provides for consideration of greater building heights where the development fosters the creation of a community focus, where it is at a corner lot or a gateway location or at a location where there are opportunities to support transit at a transit stop or station greater heights will be considered.   He suggested the subject site fit those criteria

· The Preston Champaign secondary speaks to this area of Carling as an important entryway into the Preston community.

· With respect to the requirement for retail at grade along Carling, he expressed the opinion that there was no basis in the policy and regulatory framework for either the mixed-use centre or arterial main streets designation or zoning to specifically require ground floor retail in those buildings.

· He suggested the proposal fit with the mix of uses intended for a mixed use centre, in the context of other uses in the area.  He emphasized that the zoning bylaw states the purpose of both the mixed use center zone and the arterial main street zone specifically is a broad range of uses (office, retail, residential etc) and they can occur as mixed-use buildings separate buildings.

· On the issue of parking, he noted the parking in the area was governed by the Zoning bylaw requirement for uses near a transit station, which sets minimum and maximum requirements.  The 800 spaces is within that range, and in full compliance with the OP.

Ted Fobert spoke to the status of the rapid transit study that affects this area, in the context of the development.  The following is a summary of the points raised in his presentation:

· While the West LRT corridor EA underway would likely identify the preferred corridor in year, the overall EA would not be finished for two years. 

· The corridors to be considered in the current study include the Ottawa River Parkway, the Byron Corridor, Carling Avenue, or some combination thereof, and those corridors and alignment have not yet determined.

· While the City is protecting Area D of the subject site, it is not yet clear whether that parcel would be needed, even if the future O-train corridor is on Carling Avenue

· He proposed that area D was not the only way to connect the north-south line and the Carling corridor, and suggested one alternative could be to use the parcel to the south, currently owned by the federal government.

· With regards to access to the transit stations, he suggested that the proposed development would not prevent access to the existing or any future transit station on Carling, given how people currently access the O-Train and the location of the O-Train trench.

· With regard to station locations, he suggested that if the transit route ended up crossing Area D of the subject site, there would not be a station there because the station could not be on a curve.

Mr. Casey also spoke in support of the proposal.  He began by noting that he had advised Councillor Leadman in 2008 that they would be coming forward with a rezoning for the property, and had subsequently attended a public meeting in the community.  He raised the following additional points:

· After months of working with staff, staff advised that the only way to advance the process was to make an application. He indicated that he would have preferred to have come to an agreement at the staff level with respect to the transit turn.

· He noted that there are other parcels of land at the same intersection that could accommodate a potential transit connection, and emphasized that Area D of the subject property was not the only option. He also confirmed that comments by Mr. Jack that a transit station would make sense on the site.

· He noted that his company owns numerous commercial buildings, some residential, and noted that his brother was the owner of Charlesfort, and had been consulted on the project. 

· He suggested that, if they wanted to go with a residential proposal, they would be satisfied with the heights proposed in the report and, while they might come back for a minor variance, there would be no request for additional rezoning.

· With respect to the parking, he suggested the proposed 880 parking was right in the middle of the range required by the by-law. 

· The intent of the rezoning was to protect both the residential and commercial rights, and a commercial proposal was put forward as that had the greatest impact.

· He indicated that, while they had the right to construct both commercial and residential, they were not certain which would be developed.  He suggested this decision would be based on what opportunities and tenants were available. 

· He suggested the purpose of the rezoning was to provide the appropriate parcel, so that he could respond in a timely manner to opportunities that may arise. He noted that he could not, for example, wait until a tender from the federal government for office space before applying for planning variances, given the length of the application process

· With respect to the discussion about putting retail on the ground floor, he suggested there was no justification for retail on this complex.  He noted that there was little retail along that part of Carling Avenue, and noted previous retail initiatives in his neighbouring buildings had been repeatedly unsuccessful.  He proposed that retail would evolve as ne need arose in the developing area, but suggested it was more likely to happen on the other side of Carling.

· With respect to the height and density, de noted that the City had approved re-zonings for additional height and density for several nearby parcels.  He suggested it would be unfair to deny him those same permissions.

· With respect to the neighbours, he noted that they had consulted with them, and made every effort to work with them, but acknowledged not all issues had been resolved.

· He expressed that he did not want to delay the decision on what could be done with the property for an additional two years while the City decides what to do with the transit corridor and the CDP.  He noted the CDP had already been abandoned once, along with the previous LRT plan, and feared this could happen again.

Mr. Cohen provided additional comments with respect to the motion introduced by Councillor Holmes on behalf of Councillor Leadman.  Firstly, he challenged the statement made in the preamble of the motion that rezoning was being considered by the Public, Committee, Council and Staff on the basis that the rezoning was sought for non-residential purposes.  He maintained that the rezoning was sought to permit residential and/or office.  With respect to the resolutions, he suggested that the first two clauses were already contained in the staff report, and that he did not support the third clause pertaining to the restriction to residential.  With respect to the parking requirement, he maintained the position that what the applicant proposed was within the appropriate range. 

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, the delegations provided the following additional comments:

· Regarding the aforementioned public meeting, Mr. Casey confirmed that the meeting had taken place in 2009, and acknowledged that the Councillor had raised the issue of the LRT EA, and had indicated that she was not certain of whether there would be an impact.

· Mr. Fobert indicated that the Preston Champaign Secondary Plan identifies Carling Avenue between Champagne Street and Rochester Street as an important entry way to the community, encourages enhanced treatment to provide an attractive entrance to the Champagne/Preston area, specifically through the provision of generous landscaping, the development of prestigious buildings, locating parking primarily underground and design that provides good pedestrian connections to the site.  He suggested all these objectives were achieved in the proposal, and reiterated his view that retail is not the most appropriate activity. 

· To the issue of pedestrian links, Mr. Fobert suggested the development would be designed to connect appropriately to future transit.  He emphasized that the proposal was at the concept stage and much design work would be undertaken before completion.

· Mr. Casey: noted that at the public meeting, some residents wanted the proponent to build a link over the O-train trench.  He noted they had investigated this possibility, and the cost of doing it exceeded the benefit.  He noted there had also been a suggestions that, as a condition of approval, the developer build a new Queensway interchange at Rochester, and a large retail grocery store, and he had indicated to residents these would not be pursued.

· On the issue of the transit corridor, Mr. Jack indicated that they had reviewed the Dillon consultants’ report and Area protects one of a number of potential transit links.  There would still be additional options for the corridor if Area D is not protected.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Casey reviewed the details of the current arrangement with the Civic Hospital for parking on the site.  He noted that until the site is developed, the lease would likely be renewed on a short-term basis, but maintained it was not his responsibility to provide parking to the hospital.  He noted that the owners of adjacent building rent out 300 spaces, as they have parking in that is surplus to their needs.

Lori Mellor, Preston Street BIA also registered her intent to speak to the item, but was unable to attend.

Having completed public delegations, Committee proceeded to questions and debate on the report recommendations and the motion put forward by Councillor Holmes on behalf of Councillor Leadman.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, staff provided the following additional information:

· The Carling Bayview CDP currently underway encompasses the subject property.

· The purpose of a CDP is to implement OP policies by working out in further detail the land use, design and other considerations and how they might play out in specific areas.

· In this particular CDP, one of the main things staff is looking at is intensification.  It will also examine urban design in light of the City’s new ability under Bill 51 to strengthen their response to urban design, and may look at the types of uses that would be along the corridor in order to support the new urban structure that the City is trying to achieve.

· Infrastructure is a major consideration of this particular CDP, including piped infrastructure.  It is one of the first to include a Master Servicing Study. 

· Another rationale for looking at this particular corridor is its placement beside the rapid transit corridor, which is where the OP strategy targets much of the intensification.

· With respect to the types of uses required along the corridor to support intensification, staff views the uses that would be required as ones that populate the sidewalks with the type of interaction that one would see in a bustling type of urban area.  This would include retail at grade.

· The Dillon consultant study was completed in late 2009 and subsequently peer-reviewed by Delcan in early 2010.

· With respect to the staff report, it was confirmed that once staff prepare their reports internally, and the report was subject to the normal planning circulation process that is standard for this type of report.

Councillor Leadman reiterated her concerns that she had not seen the report until very late in the process.  She confirmed that, while she was not saying staff’s professional advice would have been different if they consulted with her, she did feel it put her in an uncomfortable position as the ward councillor to have not known the recommendations were coming forward, and led to confusion among the community. She suggested the recommendations may or may not have been different had consultation taken place.  She suggested the motion being put forward by Councillor Holmes on her behalf addressed some of the serious issues with the staff report. 

Councillor Leadman noted that the motion before Committee had been reviewed by legal staff, and was intended to provide direction to legal before the OMB.  She suggested consultation was always important, particularly in an area in particular that is going through a CDP.  She acknowledged the concerns of the development community when a CDP comes forward, but suggested the City was faced with many challenges with respect to intensification, transit and infrastructure.  She suggested it was unfortunate to be doing this through a one-off process, given the cumulative impact of individual applications.

In response to question from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Marc confirmed that, should Council approve something other than the staff recommendation, there would be the requirement to hire an outside planner; however, there would not necessarily be the need to retain outside legal counsel.  The City Clerk and Solicitor would make the determination on whether the file would be handled in-house or by external counsel, based on a number of factors such as workload.

With respect to Area D, Mr. Marc explained that while the report recommendation and the motion provide for the preservation of “Area D” as something that could be potentially used by a rapid transit system, they do not mandate that the City acquire Area D.  He suggested if it were later determined that Area D was required, the City would need to enter into negotiations to purchase the land, and if those negotiations were unsuccessful, explore expropriation.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Deiaco explained that the application would have been deemed complete shortly after3 June, 2009 commencing the 120 day timeline under the Planning Act.  He indicated that signs went up on the property on 30 June, 2009, and notice would have gone to the Ward councillor, community associations in Ward 15, and whoever requested notice.  He indicated that, based on the notes left by the previous planner, he did not believe the councillors in the abutting wards were notified. 

Councillor Hunter suggested that the ward councillor should have organized a consultation with the Community, as had occurred with a property owned by the same company in his ward.  Mr. Deiaco confirmed that there was a pre-application community consultation meeting.

As to why it did the matter did not come to Committee and Council sooner, Councillor Hume suggested this was because the City needed to determine what right of way needed to be protected for LRT.  Councillor Hunter suggested there had been plenty of time for the item to have appeared on the Committee agenda.  He further noted that the OP contains provisions directing what should be done when an application to amend the zoning by-law is submitted and a community design plan has not been approved, and suggested these requirements had been met for the subject application.  He suggested committee should be considering the application on its merits and suggested Committee vote in conformity with the staff report.

Councillor Holmes agreed that the subject property was an appropriate site for intensification, and referenced the previous and ongoing CDP processes for the area.  With respect to the motion, she requested its recommendations be split for voting purposes.  She noted that the motion addressed the importance of protecting Area D for the potential rail plan, an suggested to preclude the ability for rail to make the turn would be unconscionable, and to have an underground parking garage at that curve would impede the ability to do so underground, which may be necessary.  She expressed her support for the requirement for ground-floor retail capacity, and questioned the applicant’s assertion that it would be difficult to find tenants.  She suggested it would contribute to the kind of activity that would attract people to Preston Street and surrounding area.  Further, she hoped the development would include pedestrian access through the site to the transit station, and hoped where would be many more people coming by transit bicycle, walking, as hoped for in the OP.

In response to questions from the chair regarding the likelihood for success before the OMB, should the motion be approved, Mr. Marc provided the following assessment.  He suggested that the first four clauses (A-D) of the motion stood a reasonable chance of success before the board.  However, the subsequent resolution that no further changes be made to the applicable zoning at this time, could be a greater challenge given the site’s location.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Hunter that the first clause of the motion did not serve to protect the transit corridor below grade, Councillor Holmes agreed to amend the motion to provide that Area D would be protected for transit from below grade up to 15 metres above grade.

Councillor Hunter suggested that for Council to allow the developer one height for an office, but not allow that height for the residential as recommended in the motion was contrary to the policies that the majority of councillors had approved in the OP.  He suggested staff had done a good job ensuring the application was tested in all aspects of the OP regarding mixed use centres and intensification.  While he recognized the concerns of the councillor and some residents, he felt that from a City-wide perspective, the better use of the site was the one that put forward by in the staff report.  He indicated his opposition to Councillor Holmes’ motion and his support for the staff the recommendations.

Councillor Doucet reiterated that the subject site was located at the junction of four wards, and expressed his dismay that the abutting councillors were not notified.  He suggested the subject site was the only point of connection for a potential Carling transit line to the north-south line is this point, and as such was a very important piece of property for the City.  He suggested all the City’s official planning calls for that to be the location, and expressed concern that the City was not taking all possible precautions to protect it.  He referenced his experiences on a recent visit to Chicago, noting how much public land had been protected in that city, its transit and pedestrian connections and effective planning.  He suggested that, while Ottawa may not be a world-class city like Chicago, it should aim to be best in its class, and to give away such a vital piece of land as the subject site was not the way to achieve it. 

Councillor Leadman spoke in support of the motion.  She reiterated her support for the recommendations of the motion to protect the transit, require main street ground floor retail, require the applicants return to Council to approve any residential use, and reflect in the parking requirement the high transit modal splits are used to support the requested density.  She suggested the motion would provide an appropriate decision for legal staff to bring forward to the OMB, and supported intensification in keeping with the OP and the smart growth principles of intensification.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

WHEREAS the zoning of 855 Carling is before Committee and Council;

AND WHEREAS this provides an opportunity to promote transit in the vicinity of the Carling O-Train station, to protect  for a future transit station and to provide for the enhancement  of the variety of uses within a Mixed Use designation fronting on an Arterial Mainstreet;

AND WHEREAS this rezoning has been considered by the Public, Committee, Council and Staff on the basis that the rezoning was sought for non-residential purposes and that if a residential rezoning is sought, the matter should be brought back for further consultation and consideration, and therefore Item c) below has been included to express this determination on the part of Council;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT with respect to 855 Carling:

Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that:

A zoning by-law amendment be enacted to provide:

e) that for Area D on Schedule 129 the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from below grade to a height of 15.0 metres above grade is a rapid transit network;

CARRIED

f) The uses along the ground floor are limited in accordance with the third bullet point under item 2) in the Details of the Recommended Zoning; and

CARRIED

g) With respect to the land located within each applicable zone as of this date, a building containing residential uses shall not be permitted to exceed either the height or the f.s.i. in place on 25 May 2010; and

LOST

YEAS (2):       Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes

NAYS (5):       Councillors M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, S. Qadri, P. Hume

h) The number of automobile parking places be limited to an amount equivalent to the minimum parking requirement for Area A plus an additional 25 places to provide for flexibility.

                                                                                                                      LOST

YEAS (2):       Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes

NAYS (5):       Councillors M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, S. Qadri, P. Hume

And that no further changes be made to the applicable zoning at this time

                                                                                                           LOST

YEAS (1):       Councillors C. Doucet

NAYS (6):       Councillors M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, D. Holmes; S. Qadri, P. Hume

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

                                                                                                           CARRIED       

Mr. Marc pointed out one additional correction to be made to the staff recommendation, to change the reference to “Schedule 249” to “Schedule 129.”  Committee then approved the report recommendation, as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 855 Carling Avenue from MC[24] F(2.5) Schedule 129 and MC F(1.5) to MC[24] F(4.1) Schedule 129, as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2, as amended by the following

b. that for Area D on Schedule 129, the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from below grade to a height of 15.0 metres above grade is a rapid transit network;

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

Carried as amended

Councillor C. Doucet Dissented