· Shared parking for soccer pitches and the proposed school site

· Reduce width of recreational walking paths connecting Beaver Pond to Trillium Woods

· Retain and protect significant trees and other features north of Beaver Pond via Tree Preservation Plan

· Minor Modifications:

o Retain Plan A Kizell Pond recreational path to protect the wetland from degradation

o Reduce railway buffer

In response to Councillor Holmes relative to reducing the width of the walking trails,
Ms. Oblak explained they had gone up to 40m and the original discussion was 20m, which is a fairly large path. Ms. Reeves advised there is one 40m pathway (land area) connection running from Beaver Pond to Trillium woods. That is intended to create a natural environment to Trillium Woods, which will be either stone dust or wood chips. The community has requested this be kept as wide as possible to allow as much forest on either side of the path.

As a result of the presentation, staff provided the following clarification:

· Plan A followed the focus group discussions where there was an obvious split in views, so staff and the environmental committees saw West Block as being a priority in terms of preservation. The community groups generally saw lands north of the Beaver Pond as a priority. KNL came back with three plans, A, B and C. Plan A shifted the priority to West block, originally supported by staff, to H as a compromise, which lost some of West block, encroached into the south side of Kizell and shifted that land essentially to the north side of Beaver Pond as much as staff is comfortable with.

· Plans A, B, and C were acceptable to KNL

· Staff supported only Plan A.

Karen Noseworthy, member, Kanata Lakes Community Association and Kanata Survey Group that put together Plan D. Ms. Noseworthy provided a detailed written submission, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, in opposition to Plan H, as well as Plans A, B and C. She urged the Committee to re-allocate a significant amount of land north of the Beaver Pond. These plans do not preserve adequate forested areas.
Ms. Noseworthy’s presentation focused on: 40% Agreement; Brunton Report; Kizell Drain; Clearcut Area; Fish Habitat; Playing Fields; Tot Lots; and, A Better Plan

Responding to questions from the Committee, staff provided the following clarification:

· Shirley’s Brook has more natural characteristics on the east side, but as it proceeds westerly it has been altered by past agricultural activities. Staff is asking that the creek be realigned by using natural channel design techniques to improve the habitat. The proponent will need to submit plans to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to receive compensation. Under the Fisheries Act, once habitat is moved, you are into Harmful Alteration Destruction (HAD) of a fish habitat and under those provisions you must improve existing conditions under the new creek alignment.

· Aligning it along the creek provides a corridor and creates a recreational linkage along with that ecological corridor.

· It is a risk to the developer and there are conditions in the subdivision that the City will not assume ownership until it is approved, constructed and satisfied by DFO.

Ron Tolmie provided a detailed written submission opposing Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Tolmie stated the primary objective of the Campeau Agreement was to preserve forest land and posited the following recommendations follow that plan as closely as possible:

1. West Block (north of Kizell) – Designate as NEA land, following the outline of the Kanata OP (with one minor exception that is the need to conform to the new OP).

2. Kizell low land – Designate as UNF, following the outline of the lowland contours, with minor variations along the southern edge.

3. Man-made stormwater ditch along the rail line. – Does not qualify for NEA or UNF protection.

4. Knoll in NW corner. – Does not qualify for NEA or UNF protectin.

5. Stormwater storage in NW corner. – Move to other side of Terry Fox Drive.

6. Parkland. – All of the parkland allocation provided in the Campeau Agreement has already been used up in the previous development of the Kanata Lakes portion of the lands.

7. Beaver Pond forest. – The Balance of the NEA allocation should be applied to this forest, less enough of the allocation to provide park space for tot lots and walkways.

This application does not meet the terms of the contract. PEC should reject this application and recommend that KNL develop a design that provides for development of the 60% private allocation without damaging important natural resource lands. The contract requires that both parties agree to any modifications to the Concept Plan.

Jim Malone, President, Kanata Lakes Community Association (KLCA) (with Lyn Winters, Vice-President). Mr. Malone provided a detailed written submission, in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk. KLCA provided the following three suggestions:

· Review “utility space” for more efficient use.

· Identify possible land swaps to provide the developer compensating lands for areas not developed; and,

· Perhaps the developer could give up some land as a gesture of good faith to the community –cost could be offset by the tax advantages of setting up a trust fund.

KLCA suggested the following wording for inclusion in the Subdivision Agreement:

· “The developer agrees that they will not clear more trees than is absolutely necessary to permit development for a one year supply of lots.”

· “The required supply should be based on historical consumption in Kanata Lakes.”

· “Tree cutting shall occur only during the late fall and winter to minimize the effect on wildlife.”

· “A safe, accessible and visually appealing recreational trail should be maintained around the complete circumference of the Beaver Pond throughout development.”

Following the presentation, Councillor Holmes received clarification from staff on the possibility of including the points in the Subdivision Agreement:

· P. 110 of the agenda, Tree Preservation and Land/Streetscaping, outline conditions in the Draft Plan of Subdivision the proponent must satisfy. It is understood by the developer that where possile they will maintain as many trees as possible, but it must be recognized that when grades are altered through subdivision development some trees may not survive.

· With respect to the point that required supply be based on historical lot consumption, that decision would rest with the Committee.

· Tree cutting during late fall and winter to minimize the effect on wildlife can be addressed with the developer.

· All recreational trails will be safe, accessible and visually appealing to meet City standards.

Walter F. Michel provided a detailed written submission opposing Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Michel provided background on the geology of this area complete with maps. He asked the Committee to consider alternative ways to retain more of the existing forests, especially north of the Beaver Pond.

Following the presentation, Mr. Michel responded to questions posed by the Committee and declared that he supported Plan Y, which will be presented later. He also explained that blasting could affect any existing instability and create movement. There is insufficient information available.

Sophie Gong provided a detailed written submission on behalf of the children in Kanata, opposing the development, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Plans D (preferred), K and Y were generally supported, following a survey she undertook. Beaver Pond should be protected.

Jackie Chow provided a detailed written submission in opposition to the staff recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Chow supported Plan Y.

Correspondence from Ivan Chow in opposition to the staff recommendation was circulated to the Committee and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Marianne Wilkinson, represented the Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association (KBCA), on behalf of Gordon Henderson (who could not attend). KBCA supports the preservation of as much land as possible in the environment areas. The initial 40% Open Space Agreement was amended in 1988. Statements have been made about lands that should be part of the open space not being included, particularly excess lands. There is a 4.46 acre parcel in the Beaverbrook Community, which is being included in the 40% lands that should not be. She quoted from the 1988 Agreement “The 40% Agreement, and this Agreement, shall only apply to the current lands. The current lands are defined by Appendices”, and there is an additional Appendix called Excess Lands Dedication. The developer states the 4.46 acres is in the excess lands because it is not mentioned in the Appendices. It was in a Plan of Subdivision at that time and other blocks in that same Plan of Subdivision are listed in the Appendices as part of the current lands. The agreement states he can have 60% lands for all of the development, which includes schools, roads and houses, etc.; and, 40% for open space. The community has continuously maintained that 40%, although the Kanata Lakes suggestion to trade some lands is a very good suggestion. Those 4.46 acres should be added north of the beaver pond.

The NCC is looking at the Carp Hills, with a study coming out at the end of this month. The former Region blocked 630 acres outside the urban area. Within the urban area, the City should preserve as much as it can, and where it cannot be preserved, the corridor should be wide enough to allow for movement from smaller NEA’s to larger NEA’s. The agreement never intended it to be a fixed location, but at the time of subdivision to provide an opportunity to determine where that land should be. Now they are fixed in OP’s.
Ms. Wilkinson referred to the walkway to Trillium Woods, which is also needed along the Beaver Pond. The connection to Trillium Woods becomes swamp once you cross the road, which is not a good idea. Originally the developer portrayed it at a location that crosses the railway track onto an existing path up to Morgan’s Grant. It should be shifted over to make it more attractive. The fish habitat is not in the 40% Agreement and did not exist at that time. Placing it next to the railway track makes it convenient for the developer since he will no longer need to provide a buffer, which he would otherwise be required to do. At least half that land should be considered to be the developer’s buffer and that half (12 acres) could then be applied in other areas. A small part of Kizell is flood plain and most of the pond has been created by beavers since it flows into the Beaver Pond area. The other half of Kizell flows to Carp. Ms. Wilkinson urged the Committee to look at her suggestions.

In response to Chair Hume on the wetlands, Mr. Marc explained the agreement would only apply to lands that were set forth within it. He understood Ms. Wilkinson to be saying there are lands in this application that go beyond the limit of the 40% Agreement. He could delve into that aspect if the Committee so directed.

Doug Williams was present in opposition, but did not address the Committee.

Bruce Story provided a comprehensive written submission opposing the recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Story provided the Final Results of the Kanata Community Survey on the Future Development of Kanata Lakes North and elaborated upon same, some of which are outlined below:

· 92% of respondents consider the preservation of natural environment as very important.

· Priority preferences to be preserved: #1 – North of Beaver Pond (Over 75% of Beaverbrook and Kanata Lakes residents); #2 – Trillium Woods; #3 – West Block; #4 – Kizell Drain

· 69.4% of respondents indicated that inappropriately clearcut NEA should be excluded from 40% lands, possibly permitting houses to be built to preserve more desirable areas

The communities of North Kanata have demonstrated over a 20-year span that they place a high value on preserving NEA’s and especially the areas adjacent to the Beaver Pond. Plan Y has been put forth as an alternative plan that would preserve significantly more of this area. It offers a compromise that would come closer to preserving the community’s wishes while continuing to meet the commercial objectives of the developer.

Amy Kempster, on behalf of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GACC), provided a detailed written submission opposing the recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. GACC believes all forested area, wetlands and Shirley’s Brook area should be preserved and are in favour of a revised plan, which saves land in the Beaver Pond area as the community wishes and provides a better connection between the Beaver Pond area and Trillium Woods, but not at the expense of the West Block. GACC is in opposition to the replacement of the phrase “location of the Black Cherry trees on the north side of Kanata Pond” (now Beaver Pond) with “wetland boundaries” in the Kanata OP.

Christopher Busby provided a detailed written submission in opposition to Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Busby supported Plan Y, which allows for more Shield highlands of Beaverpond Ridge to be preserved and a greater connectivity between adjacent environmentally significant lands.

Mikelis (Mik) Svilans provided a comprehensive written submission (complete with maps) in opposition to Plan H, which is held on file with the City Clerk, and in support of Plan Y. Mr. Svilans’ presentation touched upon the following points:

1. Brunton’s Report (1992) on the Ecological inventory of the Development Lands.

2. The ill-conceived Trade-off between Kizell and West Block/North Beaver Pond.

3. Deviations from the 40% Agreement.

4. Proposed OP amendments.

5. Terry Fox Drive alignment.

The Kizell Drain Complex should be removed from the 40% lands and not included within the EPA, except the portion bounded by the 93m elevation contour extending 150-200m west from the Goulbourn Forced Road. The lands so released should be appropriated to the West Block and north of the Beaver Pond. All other areas which do not qualify for inclusion within the 40% land should be removed from such designation and applied to areas worthy of conserving for the enjoyment of all Ottawa residents. No extra lands need to be purchased to achieve an optimum solution if strict adherence to the current OP and the principles spelled out in the 40% Agreement is maintained. In this way, both residents and the developer receive what is rightfully and legally theirs. Plan H must be re-worked taking all the existing agreements and policies fully into account before approval is conferred.

Karmena Svilans provided a detailed written submission opposing the recommendation, which is held on file with the City Clerk, on behalf of 3 neighbouring landowners (Marlene and Norbett Puetz, Sarma and Mikelis Sviland and Jim Tierney and family). The main concerns are:

a) Safety – due to a 3-5m sheer drop created when a corner of a lot was excavated.

b) Unauthorized removal of existing lot survey pegs remains uncorrected.

c) Snow, salt and other debris from snow clearing of the Witherspoon roadway being pushed onto our gardens and damaging plants.

d) Intrusion of headlight beams of passing cars at night, which due to the elevated road grade are aimed directly into the living room windows.

e) Intrusion of people taking shortcuts across lots from Witherspoon to Kenins.

f) Pollution of back yards by wind-borne dust, construction debris and other garbage.

g) Deprivation of privacy due to raised roadways grade, 2m above back yard.

Debbie Graham submitted the following comments/requests:

· Signs on both sides of the Goulbourn Forced Road state it is parkland (By-Law 44-81).

· A canopy along the Goulbourn Forced Road since it is a heritage road.

· Removing trees reduces air quality.

· By diverting Shirley’s Brook, the City is taking water from her home, which is the last heritage property in this area.

· Would like to see heritage fencing.

· Flat land around Morgan’s Grant could be used for soccer fields.

· A resource centre and school should be constructed where the land was clear cut.

· Concern about blasting since she does not on have a concrete foundation (stones and wood tiles) and asked for protection and no trespassing.

· A levy on residents’ property tax to purchase land.

· Save part of the north woods and cut back on Trillium Woods, which does not have many trilliums – they are on the side of the road that is to be cut down.

· The family has been in the house for 75 - 100 years and would like to see it protected.

· She suggested building smaller homes, which would allow residents to remain in their homes.

Following the presentation, staff responded to questions posed by the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and summarized as follows:

· The land use designation for the property is shown as residential in the OP.

· The owner does not want to participate in this development plan and there is no detail provided.

· There will need to be a possible road connection from the northwest side of the property to provide linkage through to the collector road.

· The lands are outside of the 40% open space agreement, since they are separately owned, but if developed would be subject to the rules of the day, currently 5%.

Pieter Prins, forester, provided a detailed written submission in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Prins’ presentation touched upon, but was not limited to the following points:

· 1992 Daniel Brunton’s Environmental Assessment Kanata Lakes Study Area. Identified 14 Habitats.

· Two dominant upland forest habitats are of particular significance.

· The Brunton Assessment identified four significant areas.

Trillium Woods; West Block; Beaver Pond Ridge; and, Snake Road Outcrop.

· Brunton Consulting Services concluded that conservation of the greater part of the significant features and complexes can be contained in two large NEA’s: Trillium Woods; West Block

· The Centre for Environmental Studies at Brown University of Providence, Rhode Island (U.S.A.) has done extensive research on the environmental, economic and social benefits of trees and forests as parts of a City’s infrastructure.

· Planning and implementation of tree preservation.

Des Adam was involved in this project since 1980, as an Alderman and as Mayor of Kanata. He supports Plan H because the community and staff have put in a tremendous amount of work, and it makes sense from a development point of view. There was advanced planning by the former City of Kanata and the Region in the early 1980’s. This is the fruit of that labour. After hearing residents convey that they moved into Kanata Lakes and are now devastated by what is happening, he pointed out this agreement is registered on the title of every property in Kanata Lakes and the concept plan was passed in 1986. There are many economic repercussions in moving the development around the north side of the Beaver Pond.

Staff and Mr. Adam responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· What is before Committee is not far off what was envisioned. The 40% agreement was registered to protect residents and to ensure Campeau Corporation met the 40%.

· There has been discussion about the golf course - there is a clause that states if it ceases to be a golf course, it is conveyed to the City for $1 because there was considerable concern that a golf course would be built, homes sold and the golf course divested.

· It is a very integral part of the 40% agreement and one of the reasons Kanata Lakes is such a great community.

· The 40% agreement is registered and there is a clause in that agreement that refers to the Concept Plan, which is presented and depicts the development on the north side of the Beaver Pond.

· The agreement makes reference to the Concept Plan – the lands will be developed in accordance with the approved concept plan, a copy of which is kept in the municipal offices.

· It was never intended the city would own the golf course. The City had a side agreement to use the golf course for cross-country skiing. If it were sold, the City would be offered first Right of Refusal, which did take place and Kanata Council refused to purchase the golf course. It continues to be privately owned.

Peter van Boeschoten presented a comprehensive written submission outlining Plan Y, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Plan Y is a modification of Plan H, which was proposed by the developer on 1 April. The changes proposed:

· The Solandt Drive connection has been re-inserted to accommodate the anticipated increased traffic. The connection was deleted in December without any traffic study as a basis. No new traffic study has been made available.

· The open space connection with Trillium Woods was moved east to its former location to be more central and to ensure a better connection to a less swampy area of Trillium Woods.

· The greenspace north of the Beaver Pond has been increased by approximately 20 acres. This is in accordance with the environmental studies by Brunton in 1992 and Dillon in 1999. Two extensive community surveys have also confirmed that the neighbouring communities would like to see environmental land protected in this area.

Mr. van Boeschoten provided a table that identifies the areas where accommodations could be made elsewhere in the plan:

1. South side of Kizell Pond – 5 – 20 acres

2. Knoll at the NW corner (Block 682) – 2.63 acres

3. Fish Habitat Blocks 683, 685 – 0 – 12.67 acres

4. Playing fields (Block 704) – 3 acres

5. Open space at Walden and GFR (Block 484) – 3.46 acres

6. Terry Fox Extension into City owned NEA – 0 – 6.11 acres

7. Allocation of City road allowances – 0 – 2 acres

8. Fentiman Park allowance – 0 – 2.58 acres

9. Campeau Drive green space at the hydro easement – 4.46 acres

For a total of 18.55 – 61.91 acres. The community asked for 20 acres and have identified over 60 acres.

Staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· The Shirley’s Brook realignment is part of the 40% Agreement.

· Shirley’s Brook does have fish habitat and requires protection. It must be zoned open space since it is not developable land. However, it is not specifically written into the 1988 40% agreement and the community is telling staff it is wrong to say it falls within the 40% agreement. The 40% agreement states that NEA’s, parks, open space and buffers fall within the agreement. It is impossible to argue that Shirley’s Brook does not fall within those definitions.

Chris Hearn, Vice-President, Briarbrook and Morgan’s Grant Community Association, and an active member of the Kanata Community Survey Group since its formation in October. He understood the intent of the 40% agreement was to preserve as much NEA in the Marchwood/Lakeside community as possible when these lands were considered for development. The total Marchwood/Lakeside area was 1,400 acres. Plan H considers for forested Canadian Shield rocky areas: Trillium Woods, the strip north of the Beaver Pond, the area near Kimmens Court and the West Block. By his calculation that amounts to 9.8% of the total Marchwood/Lakeside. In the currently developed Kanata Lakes there is little that could be called NEA. There is a golf course, parks, but no NEA. The other large area is the Kizell Drain area, the Beaver Pond area and the rerouted Shirley’s Brook area (wetlands), which amounts to 10.2%. The NEA and these areas amount to 20% of the 40%. Brunton did not identify the Kizell Drain or the Beaver Pond as NEA and he would agree. 20% is lost through previous decisions by the former City of Kanata during the Kanata Lakes development. 12.5% is lost to the golf course and that does not include the buffers previously mentioned. The balance is active parks, etc. There is only 9.8% NEA, which should be increased. Surveys in the community concluded the areas truly valued are the forested shield areas and the area north of the Beaver Pond. Plan Y is a good compromise, although many residents would like to see all the land north of the Beaver Pond remain as forest. It considerably widens the strip and leaves more forest. Morgan’s Grant and Briarbrook residents are pleased Trillium Woods will remain, but feel this is a contiguous area and regularly use these trail systems. Residents are very concerned about transportation impacts since the transportation study has not been completed and tend to be carried out by subdivision, not globally. It is uncertain when the Terry Fox Extension will be built or the Goulbourn Forced Road paved. It is suggested that the linkage to March Road be removed. There are safety issues - Walden Drive will be a major road, with two grade level crossings.

On the notion of phasing, Mr. Lindsay explained that generally developers respond to market demand. Staff does ask the developer to provide a breakdown on their scheduling, but much is contingent on the marketplace. There are conditions in subdivision approval that require the developer to identify mature trees and species that could be retained after the development is complete.

John Mlacak (former Reeve, March Township), Kanata Beaverbrook Community, opined there are serious deficiencies in the staff report. The principle and intent of the 40% land was to preserve the woodland. But, undevelopable land is being conveyed to the city, which he does not support. The community recognizes development rights and acknowledges a mistake was made 15 years ago, allowing development and zoning change. In his view, the intent of the 40% is being interpreted incorrectly. What is the 40%? Where is it? Why are lands such as the fisheries included? Development is not allowed in lands that can be flooded, yet that is included in the 40%. The definitions have been subverted and there is a major flaw in the plan. Bill Teron has proved you can build without destruction. OP’s are changed to allow development, but not decrease development. He opined that developers are subsidized in their capital cost. The City should review the capital levy since taxpayers bear a large part of development costs. The double zoning and 7 year horizon for schools is a strategy to promote future development in a short time frame since that 7 year time frame is impossible. The land should be zoned for schools and if there is a need for a change, it should follow the zoning amendment process.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering, for NorthTech Campus (Canderel), provided a written submission (with a plan), which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Chown addressed the extension of Solandt Road. His clients own Block 12, Plan of Subdivision registered for the NorthTech Campus. Unfortunately, this land has no access to a public street. Solandt Road extension as shown on the former City of Kanata OP provides that access both from the Kanata North Business Park to the east and from the Kanata Lakes Marchwood community to the south. Draft Plan Condition 17 speaks specifically to the requirement to construct Solandt Road and two conditions that would relieve the owner from constructing that road. Mr. Chown recommended that the second condition that must be satisfied before KNL is relieved of the responsibility to build this road be amended to read: “That the City secures alternate public road access to Block 12, Plan 4M-1075, to the satisfaction of the owner of Block 12, Plan 4M-1075.” To be consistent, Mr. Chown asked the relevant policy in the OPA should also be amended. He asked that Section 5, p. 79, be amended to delete the last two sentences of this policy and be replaced with the: "Deletion of the Solandt Road connection will only be considered if alternate access to Block 12 on Plan 4M-1075 in the Kanata North Business Park can be provided to the satisfaction of the owner of Block 12, Plan 4M-1075. Should deletion of this road connection be approved by City staff, and should an alternate access be provided to Block 12, Plan 4M-1075 to the satisfaction to the owner of Block 12, Plan 4M-1075, then no further amendment to this plan, including Schedule 'C' - "Urban Area Roads & Community Phasing" shall be required."

Following the presentation, Mr. Morrison clarified that there is a previous subdivision agreement tied to the Kanata North Business Park that identifies the need for Solandt Road to be extended to the subject parcel of the property. Part of the traffic review entails whether Solandt needs to be extended.

Mr. Chown pointed out there is a portion of Solandt Road, from Hines Road coming into the property that is not part of that registered plan of subdivision. A portion of Solandt requires acquisition of additional lands from adjacent property owners and there has been no progress on those negotiations. As such, there is no guarantee there will be access. There is an opportunity to provide access through the subdivision before Committee as a requirement of that Plan of Subdivision which would assure an access. Having said that, the through connection is important to the community and to his client.

In response to Councillor Hunter, Mr. Marc confirmed it is not typical to have third party provisions in an agreement since a difficulty may arise if the third party does not cooperate and he would not advise the City to include a clause that would be to the satisfaction of a particular land owner.

Barbara Barr, on behalf of the Federation of Citizens’ Associations, provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Federation’s concerns focused on the forested land, transportation and posited the OPA, Zoning changes and Subdivision Plan should be considered premature and delayed until a proper transportation plan, including a transit plan, has been completed.

Ms. Barr also addressed the Committee, in opposition, as an individual and focused on possible purchase or land exchange for NEA lands; include the City Forester and legal specifics on the agreement. A copy of her presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Keith McLean provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. McLean’s referred to the OP – Sections 4 and 2, Schedules C, I & J, D and E; Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.) Guidelines; Environmental Assessment; and, Inconsistency in Process. The KNL Development does not meet the requirements of the OP, nor satisfy the T.I.S. Guidelines. Staff report proposes:

· Removing connection of Walden to Terry Fox – would provide connection to Kanata West.

· Removing Solandt connection (between KNL and March) provides important link to March as expressed by City staff.

· Aggravating the existing “cut through” traffic volume in the Beaverbrook (Varley) area.

· Protecting for the use of the rai corridor ROW for possible future use as a transportation corridor – transportation includes cycling and walking.

Better Alternative:

· Remove proposed connection of Walden to existing Walden and realign Solandt (this road is required to be constructed by an agreement between City and Canderel) to connect to Walden thus providing a direct connection to March and eliminates staff concern about the proposed “broken back” curve in Walden

· Resolves the aggravation of existing “cut-through” condition and preserves the environmentally favourable connection between Beaverbrook area and the Beaver Pond

· Use rail corridor for cycling/pedestrian path per OP

In summary the Marchwood-Lakeside Plan (KNL Development) is premature until all of the issues – including transportation – are addressed in a much more comprehensive study of the area than is available at this time. If there is a requirement to support a plan at this time – support Plan Y.

Following the presentation, Mr. Morrison clarified that through the public process several ideas surfaced from the community, one of which resulted in the condition that the owner undertake an update to the traffic study submitted a year ago and built off the original master study for transportation in this area. Once that information is available, it can better determine whether Solandt should be connected. Any change resulting from that traffic impact analysis would not have a drastic impact on this plan. Mr. McLean’s alternative could be introduced, but additional traffic information is essential.

Councillor Harder received confirmation that by not moving the alternative today does not necessarily preclude it from taking place during the transportation work, unless there was a problem from a transit or distance perspective.

Rob Davis had a concern with respect to traffic. Phase 1 of the Plan of Subdivision, the area north of the Beaver Pond, which does not contemplate arterial roads will increase traffic on Varley Drive. Varley is a crescent, 2k in length, and is currently used as a cut-through. Mr. Davis supported Plan Y.

Kelly Buckley registered in opposition to the recommendation, but left before she could address the Committee.

Pat Suwalski presented the following arguments in opposition to Plan H:

· The compensation land is waste land; it can be replanted, but will not be useful for a long time.

· The big issue is the wet lands.

· Road cannot handle the additional traffic.

· There are more and more power outages in Kanata.

Mr. Suwalski suggested there have been recent studies conducted in the area, specifically citing rock structures and formation; roads and traffic, etc. The area has dramatically changed and he questioned the validity of proceeding, based on outdated studies.

Mary Jarvis, Director of Planning, Urbandale Corporation, majority shareholder in the KNL Developments Inc. (KNL) introduced her team and would highlight some of the issues addressed in some of the previous presentations. KNL purchased the lands in 1999 for development. They worked diligently with staff, the community and Councillors to address concerns from the stand point of land development, the needs of the community and PDD.

Don Kennedy, as the planning consultant of record, provided a history of the development. In particular his presentation revolved around community building and steps that were taken to work with the existing Community (Beaverbrook) and the new communities (both existing and proposed) of Marchwood and Lakeside. A series of plans were shown to supplement the staff drawings in the staff report which demonstrate how closely KNL has followed the approved and registered documents. Mr. Kennedy provided a written submission, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Historically, the plan before Committee was prepared in 1979 and submitted to the community, Kanata Council, Regional Council in 1980-1981 and eventually to the OMB in 1983. The plan covered 1,451 acres, with 571 acres of open space, but the City removed some golf course and medium intensity development in favour of Centrum, reduced the development to 1400 acres. The true calculation is 39.35% provided for open space, rounded to 40%, hence the 560 acres. KNL cannot accept Plan Y for the following reasons:

· Short streets – huge loss of yield in the immediate and best area and undesirable lots

· Costs of Kizell Pond.

· Staff wants soccer pitches.

· Sufficient buffers and credits have been provided.

· Need to look after the new community and residents who have bought into it.

· Timing of proposed alternate lands.

· Environmental Issues – DFO, MVC, City.

The plans have been labelled as A, B, C, D, H and Y. A is the closest to the approved OP, B favours the Beaver Pond, C favours the West Block, H is KNL’s compromise plan and the subject of the staff recommendation. The difference in the amount of land north of the Beaver Pond according to the various plans: A – 10.38; B – 19.92; C – 12; H – 17. Mr. Kennedy urged the Committee to support the staff recommendation for Plan H.

Bob Wingate, Servicing Engineer, Cumming Cockburn Ltd (CCL), is the engineer of record since early 1980’s. Mr. Wingate spoke to municipal servicing. This strategy started in 1984 with the approval of a Master Drainage Plan for all of Kanata Lakes and that plan identified the preferred alternative for stormwater management as the Beaver Pond and Kizell Pond to handle the run off from major storm events. Over $1 Million has been spent installing infrastructure, dredging the lower end of the Beaver Pond and putting control structure under Walden Drive. In addition to the Master Drainage plan in the mid 80’s there was a Master Water Plan, and Master Wastewater Plan. These became the blue print and basis for all municipal servicing in the Kanata Lakes Area. The Wastewater Master Plan seems to be the most controversial because it determined the best servicing scenario for sanitary sewers was a trunk sewer on Kimmins Court, with two minor trunks, one running north of the Beaver Pond and one running south of the Beaver Pond. The one south of the Beaver Pond has been installed to Goulbourn Forced Road and drains a good portion of the land south of the Beaver Pond. The one to the north of the Beaver Pond would be part of Phase 1 construction and needs to connect to the north end of Kimmins Court. That sewer will drain all urban development seen on the concept plan north of the Beaver Pond. The most logical, direct, economic route is to follow Walden Drive. There seems to be controversy about this sewer, which is perplexing since that sewer is an 18-inch diameter sewer (local sewers in a subdivision are 10-inches). Another benefit to the sewer in Walden Drive is that the blasting is shallower. That sewer is of minimal impact because it is marginally deeper than a local sewer in a subdivision street (0-1m). It is 3m deep along the east half of the site and 4m deep along the west half of Goulbourn Forced Road. It does go through some rock knobs, but they will be removed as part of the urban development. There will need to be some blasting and grading due to the topography of the site.

Filling along the south side of the Kizell Pond, north side of Phase 2 of the development - There was preliminary analysis since there has never been any detailed geotechnical information taken on the depth of peat in the Kizell Pond since development had not been anticipated and the Master Drainage Plan attempts to maintain water levels so the natural wetland will remain as is and thrive. There is peat in the order of 4m deep and a significant grade change from the development shown in white and the levels of the existing ground along Kizell Pond. That grade change requires more than just sloping roads to make up that difference. The estimate is in excess of $8 Million using 2m of peat as a conservative number. There is also a significant amount of dewatering required. That does not make that proposal viable.

David Hatton (CCL) addressed transportation and traffic issues and, in particular, how this proposal is consistent with the approved Transportation Master Plan. Mr. Hattan agreed the Marchwood/Lakeside study is an old study (17 years). That study was used as an overview in their current work. The study assumptions were reviewed in terms of land use. The current Urbandale Master Plan has 3,753 units as opposed to the 3,700 in the original Marchwood/Lakeside Plan. In terms of the traffic generated from that land use, 2,700 trips were anticipated in the afternoon peek hour. Some of the conclusions in the report are still appropriate and the report did recommend a network that included the Solandt connection. Points are well taken and require the need for transit input, at each phase. If Solandt is included, it would be KNL’s recommendation that it be at grade since Walden Drive is essentially fixed in position in the current concept plan. Other items looked at on Solandt were the potential for additional cut-through traffic coming from the areas north of March Road heading through the community to Centrum or Corel Centre. He concluded by illustrating on the rail and grade separation issue that current usage being looked at is a very low usage, one train per day, and on that basis KNL was not recommending grade separation with this concept plan.

Bernie Muncaster delineated the limits of the NEA and addressed the proposal in relation to the original proposals. Mr. Muncaster explained the priorities in selecting the NEA lands that started with Trillium woods, which has the greatest selection of ecological features and functions in the study area and tremendous mature deciduous trees. It also has the only mature wetland swamp habitat in the immediate study area and encompasses Shirley’s Brook. When talking about a pathway coming up to the east of the Forced Road, there is a dry portion of the Trillium Woods the pathway can access into the core of the woods to avoid the open water to the east. Trillium Woods ranks #1 as it did in Dan Brunton’s 1992 study. The second area is the West Block area, another area of mature deciduous trees, especially maple and beech trees and significant rock outcrops. All of the West block was not included in the NEA lands. The top priority areas were identified and as land becomes available, the next priority is to add to the West Block. Number 3 is north of the Beaver Pond and many presenters spoke to the mature trees, but it does not have quite the same ecological function seen in the other two; also reflected in the Brunton report as third. It is ecologically distinct from Trillium Woods. The next area was the Kizell Pond and Wetland Area, which has become of more interest recently. The Kizell wetland deserves greater consideration than the Beaver Pond because it does contain diverse wetland habitat. There was tree cutting, but it is in a regeneration program. Kizell pond together with the west block form a continuous area that provides a large natural environment area. In terms of moving the development line further north on the south side of the Kizell pond area, approaching Forced Road, there would be some difficulty from a fish habitat authorization stand point. On the west side approaching the First Line Road allowance, the grade is very steep and provides an excellent buffer to the wetlands between the core of that natural environment area and the residential to the south. DFO is entertaining realignment of Shirley’s Brook 400m west of the Forced Road because it is highly degraded and basically a ditch now.

Doug Kelly, Soloway, Wright, the solicitor of record, was the Regional Solicitor and responsible for the OMB Hearing, which approved this project and registered it on title. In the original ROP in 1974, there was conservation and recreation designation and the OMB allowed that to be approved, subject to a study being conducted by the Region which was completed in 1978. That study became Amendment 12 to the ROP and before the Board in the early 1980’s. The Board refused to approve it since there was no acquisition policy in the plan. At the same time, Campeau came forward with their proposal; and, Regional Council was considering the appropriate boundary to the western community north of Highway 417 and routes. There is an agreement between Kanata and the Campeau Corporation dated May 26, 1981, which identified 4 portions of this area to be preserved – the proposed 18-hole golf course; the Stormwater Management Area (Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond); the Natural Environment Areas (NEA); and, the 5% park dedication. The Region conducted studies that identified the important Environment Areas (EA’s) contained in Amendment 24 and attached to that agreement. #1 - Trillium Woods - EA Class 1; Kizell Pond and Beaver Pond - EA Class 1 (River Corridor); and, the West Block - EA Class 2. There was no Environmental Designation on the land north of the Beaver Pond, south of the railway tracks. The land north of the Beaver Pond was designated residential.

There were no detailed legal descriptions and it was unknown how large the golf course would be since it had not been designed. There is an agreement between Campeau and Kanata on the design and in 1988 there is better clarification and a further agreement between Campeau and Kanata. There was a desire to buffer Beaverbrook from Marchwood-Lakeside and that buffer was dealt with in a Council Minute of April 1, 1986 where an increased buffer is provided between the two communities, which is part of the 40% agreement. There was clarification of the 40% Agreement in 1988 – Plan 4-M-651; those two blocks in 651 are added into the legal description as part of the 40% Agreement as part of the current lands. The compromise (Plan H) preserves more land north of the Beaver Pond, but also remains true to the principles established when this was dealt with in all the OP’s as former Mayor Adams has addressed to the Committee.

Ms. Jarvis closed by stating that KNL has been working closely with PDD staff and the community and thanked everyone for their patience. Plan H achieves the goals and objectives of the City’s OP. It is a step towards addressing some of the current concerns with respect to the lands north of the Beaver Pond and also achieves the overriding goal of staying true to the 40% Agreement. Since September, KNL has worked rigorously in trying to find ways to extract land and be more efficient with the subdivision to achieve the 560 total acreage of open space in the area, meet their development needs, provide a development that is economically feasible as well as aesthetically pleasing, treat the edges of both the Kizell Pond and the Beaver Pond in such a manner that in the future there are desirable viewscapes and reasonable recreation and outdoor amenity spaces for the public as well as to address community concerns with respect to the existing trail system through the properties and the natural features. With regard to Plan Y, the consultants were selected in an order to highlight concerns with the southern edge of Kizell Pond and filling in that area; the issue with Shirley’s Brook and maintaining and enhancing that natural feature; and, dealing with the 40% Agreement. In closing, KNL supports Plan H and asks the Committee to recommend approval of Plan H to City Council as submitted by PDD staff.

Subsequent to the presentation, the delegation responded to questions posed by the members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· There will be grade blasting south of the Kizell Pond that removes the extremes from the topography to allow construction with appropriate slopes. There is a cut-fill balance and analysis to determine appropriate elevation to avoid a huge excess of construction material. That is the problem with the northern limit of the Kizell Pond, which would entail considerable excess material.

· This subdivision does follow standard City practice for subdivisions of this size.

· Outlets for traffic were identified, which still exist, although somewhat modified – rather than have Walden Way connecting directly onto Terry Fox, there will be a jog to pick up another street that takes you out to Terry Fox to avoid the NEA lands. Goulbourn Forced Road will still be connected to Terry Fox. The need for Solandt Road will be investigated. Kanata Avenue is being extended to tie into Terry Fox. It is critical to identify, as each phase of development comes on stream, the threshold that will trigger what is being constructed first.

· Phase 1 is north of the Beaver Pond, east of Goulbourn Forced Road; Phase 2 is south of Kizell; and then they were going to travel to the north side of Kizell Pond, developing the lands north of the rail line as the fourth and final phase.

· Goulbourn Forced Road will have to be upgraded to build Phase 1.

· Any land exchange would have to entail like land for like land; or, if purchased, at fair market value.

· If the City were to exercise its option to put a levy on the Beaverbrook and March-Lakeside community to purchase land south of Walden Drive at market value, a levy would be placed on the community for the next 10 +/- years? Ms. Jarvis stated that would need to be discussed with the principles of the company.

· It is important to place the sewer where it is most useful, which is on Walden Drive; it is centrally located and the two sewers come together in that regard. The main cost for a sewer was excavating the hole and whether the pipe is 10” or 18”, the depth is approximately the same. If the sewer was constructed along the railway tracks, the rock knobs would still be removed to level the topography. The 15m setback has been incorporated into the proposed zoning by-law before Committee as it relates to the railway.

· Phases 1A, 1B, 2 and 3, what was the time horizon for build out? Ms. Jarvis responded it would be 10-15 years, possibly longer.

~~With the development shown on the plan, KNL needs to remove the tops of some of the hills to make it buildable.~~ ~~When you start to go over the edge you have without the cut-fill balance getting completely out of hand.~~ ~~You have to fill up to it. That is when you get into retaining walls and the engineered fill and the peat removal.~~ ~~He assumed the Councillor was asking why can’t KNL get the approved down to make the stuff to north more usable and the problem is as soon as you start~~ ~~to got down you make huge amounts of excess material. In~~ ~~response to a question from Chair Hume, Mr. Wingate responded that it is one of the major factors in developing~~ ~~sites like this~~ ~~is the~~ ~~cut-fill balance.~~

~~Councillor Feltmate referred to the traffic study and part of that is what is the normal practice. Has this been the normal practice. This is a huge subdivision or a huge area of land to be developed.~~ ~~In essence, it is 4 areas being developed at one time. With the 4 different phases, in many ways often, it would have been completed per phase as opposed to all 4 together. Is~~ ~~that correct? Having said that, she wondered if this was the normal process with such a large area to be developed that KNL would not have taken into account new developments developed since the~~ ~~original plan was completed in 1985 or 1987.~~ ~~???~~ ~~Mr. Hatten ?– if you look at the situation back in 1985/87, that was a very comprehensive study and very expensive. It covered the whole of the area being discussed today and more. It has external traffic zones, which dealt with traffic coming to and from Kanata. And, it projected background traffic up towards Marchwood-Lakeside community.~~ That set the overall picture and what he alluded to in his earlier comments. That because the number of units and trips out of the area are roughly the same, it provided the boundary conditions can be addressed; i.e. ~~intersection improvements and provided the infrastructure can be put in place at the right staging, then things should still work.~~ ~~The condition in Clause 17~~ ~~covers that. You can still do the stages that come as part of the development.~~

~~Chair Hume clarified that Councillor Feltmate’s question~~ was – is what the City is going through now the standard City practice for subdivisions of this size. He asked Mr. Morrison or Mr. Moser – is this the case or is KNL being given special dispensation. Mr. Morrison responded that this is the process the City would follow. There is a master plan that was essentially put together a number of years ago. That plan has been looked at as part of this proposal. It states there are various optio~~ns available. The City would now go away with this Draft Plan Approval and start to piece together the critical issues that are unknown until you know what the plan is.~~ ~~For~~ ~~example~~ ~~and Mr. Hatten has addressed this, the City will identify~~ ~~thresholds~~ ~~as to when certain roads and certain connections will be required.~~ ~~You will identify the total area looking beyond it to know what the background impacts willl as well as the in pacts coming from within the~~ ~~development; look at the various thresholds, plan it out and know the direction you are taking and at the same time as it phase comes onstream, the City typically~~ ~~what staff does is to go back and take another look at~~ it and have it monitored to determine if anything has changed . and what usually has changed is the background influences rather than what is coming from within, unless there has been major zoning changes or OPAs that have taken place.

Councillor Feltmate asked if when the traffic study in the late1980’s did staff envisage the type of development that has occurred in Kanata, particularly around March Road and the issue that exists between the Centrum-Morgan~~’s Grant community, all of the development~~ on ~~March Roa~~d ~~and~~ ~~now this development and the impact on the surrounding communities and the difficulties that exist even today without adding 3,250 units, was that understood at that point in time?~~

The following documentation was received and circulated to the Committee

· E-mail dated 21 March 2004 from Lesley and Dave Lander outlining concerns with the development.

· E-mail dated 6" May 2004 from Henrietta Gibson in opposition.

· E-mail dated 7 May 2004 from Mark Gibson in opposition.

· E-mail dated 9 May 2004 from Conrad Y. Levesque in opposition.

· E-mail dated 9 May 2004 from Martin Matthews outlining concerns with the development.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Nola Murphy outlining concerns with the development.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Lorie Gourley in opposition.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Ann Shilts in opposition to Plan “H” and in support of Plan “Y”.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Dr. Peter C. Mason in opposition.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Morley W. Connell in opposition to Plan “H”.

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Ian Lowrie in opposition to Plan “H” and in support of Plan “Y”.

· E-mail dated 11 May 2004 from Glen Chochia in support of Plan “Y”.

· E-mail dated 11 May 2004 from Tracy Field-Folch and Santiago Folch outlining concerns with respect to the description of the required buffer of Shirley’s Brook.

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

Staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· Based on the presentation and staff report, the Committee can direct staff whether or not it will increase the lands on north of the Beaver Pond, decrease Kizell Pond lands in order to have additional land as compensation; whether or not the land shown as a triangle near the corner of Terry Fox in the upper left hand corner should be used as well as compensation for development; and, whether or not the sportsfields should be reduced in size to provide additional acreage north of the Beaver Pond.

· If the golf course lands cease to be a golf course, it can be turned over to the City for $1. In all likelihood, the City would be looking at that option quite significantly to acquire the lands. If the current owners apply for a rezoning, given the confines of the signed agreement the re-zoning application would be recommended for refusal.

· The NEA lands by Terry Fox are not part of the application and any land swap would need to be subject to a future report to Committee and Council and it is assumed it would rise in the context of Terry Fox Drive construction. The City would then be responsible for acquiring other lands to deal with stormwater.

· The proponent does not own this land and cannot include it in the Plan of Subdivision, although staff has asked the proponent to illustrate how it could be developed, which the proponent has done and staff is satisfied it is a logical extension of the existing subdivision. If, in the end, the City determines not to sell or exchange the land with KNL, then the plan will be revised. That land has not been ignored and there is flexibility.

· The 7 year horizon on institutional lands does not take effect until the Plan is registered; and, these lands will not be registered in one phase. While those lands may not be developed for 10 years, they will in all likelihood not be registered for 8 or 9 years and then the 7 years kick in. That is reflected in the Conditions in the report; it ties it to registration.

Chair Hume referred to the technical amendments presented by staff.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Document 4 to report ACS2004-DEV-APR-0054 be revised to change “Residential Type 3A-7” to “Residential Type 3A-10” and to change “Residential Type 3A-8” to “Residential Type 3A-9”.

And that Recommendation No. 2 to the report be revised accordingly.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That Document 3 be amended to include Schedule B to the Official Plan Amendment being an amendment to Schedule C of the Former City of Kanata Official Plan.

CARRIED

Chair Hume noted the package of Motions presented by Councillor Feltmate.

Mr. Marc advised that should any of Councillor Feltmate’s Motions be carried the following Motion should be added:

And that the necessary amendments be made to the Official Plan, Plan of Subdivision and the zoning details. And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

Councillor Feltmate begged everyone’s indulgence and thanked everyone for their patience. This is an emotional issue for Kanata as was shown through the number of delegations in attendance. It is not only about recreation, ecology, environment, trees and paths and the pond, but also about identity. There is an opportunity as was repeatedly stated by the community to influence this development and provide a beautiful parkland as a contiguous massing into the lands already owned for the whole community. The process has been time-consuming and intense for all parties and all are cognizant of the need to maintain control within the community as opposed to an OMB Hearing. She was putting forward a number of resolutions crafted with the community and which reflect the community’s desires. She asked for the Committee’s consideration by amending Plan H to a certain extent, by directing the developer and the community, to make some further accommodations for a better plan. She posited for the Committee to seek the best vision for the new City and its future in the long term.

On Motion 1, Ms. Reeves pointed out it is not staff’s recommendation to compromise active parkland for further NEA. Further to the concept plan in 1988, there was an entire open space master plan approved by Kanata Council, based on the concept plan. In terms of active parks, two active parks were conceptually approved - approximately 12.6 ha. In Plan H there is 8.5 ha., already reducing the amount of active parkland. This would require a needs analysis from People Services and the same comment would hold true for Motion 2.

Councillor Feltmate spoke to her Motion and remarked that there are several experiences in Kanata where parkland has been tied to and awaiting schools. She is convinced schools will be built in this area and referred to the strategy from People Services at the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee (HRSSC) two weeks’ ago on the Sportsfields Strategy. There will be a renewed effort to partner with schools. As taxpayers, it makes sense to partner around parking lots, for playing fields, to ensure there is enough space without paving over “paradise”. Residents are drawn to this community because of the 95 acres of trails and it has to be accepted that the City is investing in recreation trails with pathways, cross-country skiing, biking trails, walking and running trails and possibly there will not be the same level of sportsfields. Given the downtown core has one sportsfield for 42,000 residents, Kanata can give up one sportsfield to accommodate the obvious wishes of the community. She asked the Committee to support this Motion.

Councillors Cullen, Hunter and Chair Hume pointed to the dire shortage of playing fields across the City (67 sportsfield deficit) with many residents unable to come by playing time in their own community. Chair Hume averred it should be absolutely clear to residents in Kanata and the community of March-Lakeside that when this is built out, the City is sacrificing a soccer field for NEA lands; and, the City will not remove resources from underserved communities.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

1. That the active park be reduced by three acres by sharing parking and playing fields with the adjacent schools and that the three acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver pond.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That Councillor Feltmate’s Motion be amended by replacing the words “north of the Beaver Pond” by the words “of West Block”

CARRIED

YEAS (4): Councillors D. Holmes, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

NAYS (3): Councillors H. Kreling, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter

Motion 1, as amended.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

NAYS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, H. Kreling

On Motion 2, Ms. Reeves explained that 3.4 acres allows the provision of a mini-soccer pitch and a Tot Lot. The Motion will delete the park area, removing the road frontage and as such will no longer be open to the community it is intended to serve. It will only be accessible through the main collector.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

2. That the park at Goulbourn Forced Road and the Railway be reduced by 3.4 acres to accommodate a children’s play park and the fish habitat park and that the 3.4 acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver Pond.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors P. Feltmate, A. Cullen

NAYS (5): Councillors G. Hunter, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, J. Harder, P. Hume

On Motion 3, Ms. Murphy noted the Committee heard about the servicing constraints related to the Motion and provided some history. There was a 10m buffer to protect the wetland and provide some buffer between a walkway and the residential development, which elicited several complaints. The buffer was removed and the boundary changed to as much as possible. That land was placed north of Beaver Pond, which was presented in Plan H. The development has already been pushed up in this area.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

3. That the developer (KNL) be instructed to develop a further five acres south of the Kizell Pond area and that five acres of Open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver pond.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors P. Feltmate, J. Harder

NAYS (5): Councillors A. Cullen, H. Kreling, D. Holmes, G. Hunter, P. Hume

On Motion 4, Mr. Lindsay commented that the Committee clearly heard from the proponent that this will be very expensive land to develop. He believed the Concept Plan did show these lands for development at one time, therefore the staff position is neutral.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

4. That rocky knoll at the north-west corner of the development be designated Medium Density Residential (as per the Concept Plan) rather than Open Space thus saving 2.6 acres and that 2.6 acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the Beaver Pond.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That Councillor Feltmate’s Motion be amended by replacing the words “north of the Beaver Pond” by the words “of West Block”

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors D. Holmes, A. Cullen, P. Hume

NAYS (4):` Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter

On Motion 4.

LOST

YEAS (3): Councillors P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, D. Holmes

NAYS (4): Councillors H. Kreling, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

On Motion 5, staff provided the following clarification:

· Approval of this recommendation would require concurrence by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) since it is a land transaction, which is not within this Committee’s purview.

· The OP would need to be amended to incorporate these lands; the lands would need to be zoned and incorporated into a Plan of Subdivision; and, the City would need to declare these lands surplus as per the requirements of the Municipal Act.

· An appraisal would need to be carried out on the property that would determine the appropriate land value; and, once all that information is before Committee, the Committee would need to determine if it wished to pursue that course.

· A roadway currently cuts through the NEA, with a sliver of the NEA remaining remnant below the roadway, which is the six acres.

· There is a preliminary design document and it is recommended to retain that as a buffer between the development and the NEA, but the practicality and feasibility of that is as yet unknown.

· The land is needed for drainage for the roadway.

· Staff will need to investigate it further and information could be made available at Council.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

5. That the incursion into City owned NEA lands by the Terry Fox Drive extension be traded with the developer for equivalent forested lands within the development (six acres).

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That staff be directed to investigate the Councillor Feltmate’s Motion and report back before the matter rises to Council.

CARRIED

On Motion 6, Ms. Reeves advised that staff has not yet dealt with how the pathway would connect, but she pointed out that staff shifted it to save land and put it back towards the buffer. She also pointed out that if the connection is moved to a central location, it will require an additional buffer to cross the rail line. There is a narrow band of green along the rear lots to the existing pedestrian crossing. Staff does not want to encourage residents to cross the railway line at an uncontrolled location.

Moved Councillor P. Feltmate:

6. That the 40 meter corridor connecting the Beaver Pond NEA with Trillium Woods be relocated easterly to a more central location.

LOST

YEAS (1): Councillor P. Feltmate

NAYS (6): Councillors A. Cullen, J. Harder, H. Kreling, D. Holmes, G. Hunter,
P. Hume

On Motion 7,

7. That the Solandt Road connection be reflected in the Plan of Subdivision until such time as formal traffic study confirms that it is not required.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

8. That item 50 in Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision be changed to 15 years.

On Motion 8, Mr. Marc remarked that the 7 year time limit is established by long established jurisprudence and he echoed the comments made by Mr. Herweyer that it runs not from the date of Draft Approval, but from the date of registration. In effect, these lands may be reserved for much more than 7 years.

Councillor Feltmate suggested that another option is not to have it dual zoned, but to have it zoned institutional. Mr. Lathrop advised it is possible, but could be a big issue in the future. In fairness, the difficult time that staff have with this is that on one hand, there is a benefit in saying that this will be park; on the other hand, is the City being fair to the public if it is not informing them now that if it is not park it may be residential and staff opined that is the fair way to deal with it.

Councillor Feltmate withdrew her Motion.

On Motion 9, Mr. Herweyer commented that it could be done. The staff position is clear that it is part of the environmental land and the 40% open space agreement. Chair Hume added that if the Committee approved the Motion, the City could find itself at an OMB Hearing and staff could not support the Committee’s position. Ms. Murphy stated that in terms of the two water courses, (Kizell and Shirley’s), they were identified in the Concept Plan, not to the full extent seen today, but were included in the Environmental Protection Areas (EPA). In terms of the fisheries, it was included within the open space areas, but not to the full extent recognized today.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

9. That the fish habitat land not be considered part of the 40% agreement and the acreage be applied north of the Beaver Pond.

LOST

YEAS (2): Councillors P. Feltmate, G. Hunter

NAYS (5): Councillors D. Holmes, H. Kreling, J. Harder, A. Cullen, P. Hume

Councillor Feltmate commented on the delegation with a private well and asked if there are any conditions that protect ground water for existing private wells and provide for remedial measures if such private water sources are detrimentally affected. Staff was not aware of anything specific, but given the amount of blasting will do due diligence. Chair Hume pointed out Ms. Jarvis is aware of the situation and is nodding her head.

The Chair asked Ms. Jarvis, staff and Councillor Feltmate work on something that can be included as an amendment when the matter rises to Council.

Councillor Holmes noted a request made by the Kanata Lakes Community Association “the developer agrees that they will not clear more trees than is absolutely necessary to permit development for a one year supply of lots.” Mr. Marc responded that from a legal aspect, it won’t apply until Draft Approval is formally given, but that such a condition can be imposed. From a practical perspective, Mr. Lathrop commented that primarily it will revolve around an ability to service. Councillor Holmes asked if staff can have a Motion for Council along the lines of removing only sufficient trees to perform the servicing needed for that season’s work. Mr. Lathrop undertook to provide that wording for Council.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

And that the necessary amendments be made to the Official Plan, Plan of Subdivision and the zoning details. And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

The Committee congratulated Councillor Feltmate on the excellent job in her first foray with a major development in her Ward, bringing together the different factions. Chair Hume also maintained the proponent was extremely reasonable in agreeing to the numerous deferrals.

The Committee approved the recommendations as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee:

1. Recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Official Plan to shift boundaries of current land-use designations of 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road, as shown in Document 3, as amended by the following:

To include Schedule B to the Official Plan Amendment being an amendment to Schedule C of the Former City of Kanata Official Plan.

2. Recommend Council approve an amendment to remove the land at 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road from the former March Township Zoning By-law No. 552 and amend former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 167-93 to zone the land "Residential Type 3A-10", "Residential Type 3A-9", "Residential Type 6A-1", "General Commercial-1", "Institutional-1" and Open Space-1" as detailed in Document 4.

3. Authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft plan approval to the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision shown in Document 5, and subject to the Draft Plan Conditions detailed in Document 7.

4. Recommend that Council approve the active park be reduced by three acres by sharing parking and playing fields with the adjacent schools and that the three acres of open space be added to the NEA lands north of the West Block.

5. Direct staff to investigate the following Motion and report back before the matter rises to Council:

That the incursion into City owned NEA lands by the Terry Fox Drive extension be traded with the developer for equivalent forested lands within the development (six acres)

6. Recommend that Council approve the Solandt Road connection be reflected in the Plan of Subdivision until such time as a formal traffic study confirms that it is not required.

CARRIED as amended~~That the Planning and Environment Committee:~~

2. Recommend Council approve an amendment to remove the land at 300 Goulbourn Forced Road and 535 Goulbourn Forced Road from the former March Township Zoning By-law No. 552 and amend former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 167-93 to zone the land "Residential Type 3A-7", "Residential Type 3A-8", "Residential Type 6A-1", "General Commercial-1", "Institutional-1" and Open Space-1" as detailed in Document 4.

~~CARRIED~~

with Councillor P. Feltmate dissenting.

5. ZONING - 5992 Perth Street

ZONAGE - 5992, RUE PERTH

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0099 Goulbourn (6)

Steve Belan, Planner, Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Morrison appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 19 April 2004.

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

George Conlin was concerned with the lot being subdivided into two on a dead-end street. The main problem is related to wells since it is an old subdivision with 4” wells in the area and future water problems could arise at any time. 50-60 feet off this dead-end street has been greenspace for the 30+ years he has lived on the street. Now it has become road allowance. It was always thought of as a children’s park. There are drainage ditches, with the inherent drainage problems, and no one has approached residents in that regard. Residents would like to see a proposal for the site. Existing lots are 100 x 150, but infill lots are being reduced to 15m (45 feet). McCasland Street is only one vehicle wide. The diagram presented to Committee is not accurate and presents a false impression. There will be increased traffic and risk to children playing on the street. Neighbours are opposed.

As a result of the assertions made during the presentation, staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:

· The application was the result of a Committee of Adjustment decision and when that Committee considered the applications, it conditionally approved the consent.

· The lots will be fronting onto McCasland Street and the diagram did not properly represent the situation.

· The issue that arose at the Committee of Adjustment revolved around whether this type of house is consistent with the neighbourhood and there were concerns related to paving over a grassed area near McCasland Street. That Committee chose to approve the consents conditional upon the appropriate zoning being put in place.

· Drainage will need to be addressed at the time that plans are presented for construction. At the time severance was considered, staff was aware there would need to be special consideration given to the drainage and the overall servicing to the lot.

· One of the conditions presented was that the owners had to enter into a development agreement with the City to construct the following: extend the City sewers, construct a turnaround for the City trucks and snow storage, fill in the ditch for concrete headwalls and piping; and, all works had to be designed by a professional engineer. This would rectify the drainage situation on this property.

Councillor Stavinga referred to the concerns related to the wells because although Richmond has sanitary sewers, it is a partial service community. Having said that, there was concern with intensification impacting wells and she asked if there was a condition related to the quality as well as the quantity. Mr. Lindsay responded that the Committee of Adjustment imposed a condition asking that the owners provide certification to the City that a well has been constructed in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) guidelines and that the quality of water meets MOE Ontario Drinking Water Standards and there was sufficient quantity for the intended use. That is also a condition the owner must satisfy before the lots come into existence.

Jonathan Allen echoed Mr. Conlin’s concerns and provided a scale of the proposed zoning of the land. The zoning is uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood, which is a major concern. The community would possibly accept one house. Wells are another concern. A hydrogeological study was carried out, but there are external factors involved outside of those studies because the neighbourhood is on a shallow well system. That study takes into consideration the depth of the well and the existing aquifer, but what of the wear and tear of tractors during construction that could affect the shallow well veins feeding everyone in the neighbourhood. The community is not set up for infill with no sidewalks for traffic or pedestrians. The safety of the neighbourhood is at risk.

David Wightman posited that the concerns relative to drainage will be alleviated by a professional engineer. Originally it was planned to construct two 2-storey, 1,800 square foot homes on the lot. Since then, it was realized that was a problem and the intention is to build two 1,200 square foot bungalows, which will fit comfortably on a 45-50 foot lot. They are zoning to match the neighbouring property. As far as water issues, the hydrogeological study was part of the last meeting to appease the neighbours, which he questioned. Rather he proposed that if anyone does have a water problem, he would drill them a new well. He would rather apply the money towards a well as opposed to a hydrogeological study.

The Committee received correspondence to the Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment from residents of Richmond appealing the Consent Approval for the proposed rezoning at (3) and (5) McCasland Street and asking that the application be rejected. The concerns revolved around: 1) Single Family Dwellings; 2) Wells; and, 3) Sidewalks.

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 5992 from General Commercial (C) and Residential Type One (R1) to Residential Type One Exception 13 (R1-13) and Residential Type Two Exception One (R2-1) to permit a single residence with a reduced rear yard fronting on Perth Street and two semi-detached dwellings fronting on to McCasland Street as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

6. ZONING - 60-62 Florence Street and 421-435 GlAdstone Avenue

ZONAGE - 60-62, RUE FLORENCE ET 421-435, AVENUE GLADSTONE

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0104 Somerset (14)

Chair Hume noted the applicant, Jim Burghout, Development Manager, Claridge Building Corporation, requested that item 6 be WITHDRAWN.

(The following correspondence was circulated on this item:

· E-mail dated 10 May 2004 from Jim Burghout, Development Manager, Claridge Building Corporation, withdrawing the proposal.

· From Dr. Donald S. Sharp, in opposition.

· From Paul Couvrette, President, Couvrette Inc.; Famy Savasta, Savasta Motors; and, Suzanne Begin, representing the Centretown Committee, in opposition.)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, for 60-62 Florence Street and 421-435 Gladstone Avenue, from a R5C[82] H(10.7) Residential Zone and a R6I H(13.0) Residential Zone to a R6I [902] SCH. 259 Residential Zone to permit residential development as detailed in Document 4 and shown on Documents 1 and 2.

~~WITHDRAWN~~

7. SITE PLAN CONTROL - 774 Echo Drive

REGLEMENTATION DU Plan d’IMPLANTATION - 774, promenade Echo

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0069 Capital / Capitale (17)

Chair Hume noted there was a resolution to the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 4 March 2004 with a replacement Motion and that all parties (staff, applicant, Ward Councillor and the community) were in agreement.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

~~That Planning and Environment Committee APPROVE the Site Plan Control application for 774 Echo Drive as shown on the following plans:~~

~~1. “Site Plan, RSCPSC National Headquarters” prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd., dated January, 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.~~

~~2. “Landscape Plan, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons” prepared by Larocque Levstek Consulting Services, dated January, 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.~~

~~3. "General Plan of Services, R.C.P.S.C. National Headquarters" prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd., dated January 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.~~

~~4. "Grading Plan, R.C.P.S.C. National Headquarters" prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd., dated January 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.~~

~~5. "Erosion Sediment Control & Storm Drainage Area Plan" prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd, dated January 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.~~

~~subject to the conditions contained in Document 4.~~

A. THAT the Site Plan application for 774 Echo Drive be amended in accordance with the attached plan detailing changes to the surface parking lot on the east side of the main building, with respect to:

1. Location, setback and configuration of the parking lot,

2. Number of parking spaces, and

3. Variation of parking space sizes.

B. THAT the following Site Plan application plans be amended accordingly:

1. “Site Plan, RSCPSC National Headquarters” prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd., dated January, 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.

2. “Landscape Plan, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons” prepared by Larocque Levstek Consulting Services, dated January, 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.

3. "General Plan of Services, R.C.P.S.C. National Headquarters" prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd., dated January 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.

4. "Grading Plan, R.C.P.S.C. National Headquarters" prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd., dated January 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.

5. "Erosion Sediment Control & Storm Drainage Area Plan" prepared by Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd, dated January 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004.

C. THAT the “Landscape Plan, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons” prepared by Larocque Levstek Consulting Services, dated January, 2004, and dated as received by the City on January 30, 2004, be the subject of further discussions between the Director of Planning & Infrastructure Approvals, the applicant, and the Ottawa South Community Association to amend the Landscaping Plan in a way that is suitable to all parties.

D. THAT the Landscape Plan, AS AMENDED, be approved by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals.

E. THAT Planning and Environment Committee approve the Site Plan Control application for 774 Echo Drive, AS AMENDED, subject to the conditions contained in Document 4.

CARRIED as amended

~~CARRIED~~ ~~as amended~~

8. CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING - 1140 Morrison drive

DEMANDE DE RÈGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES DE STATIONNEMENT - 1140, PROMENADE MORRISON

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0105 Baseline (8)

Julie Sarazin, Planner, Ned Lathrop, General Manager, PDD, and Mr. Lindsay appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 29 April 2004.

Councillor Harder brought the Committee’s attention to an e-mail circulated by the Ward Councillor, Rick Chiarelli, who supported granting the cash-in-lieu, but did not believe the applicant should pay $109,200.

Phillip Blake, Starr Gymnastics, was present in opposition to the amount of the Cash-in-lieu contained in the recommendation.

Councillor Cullen noted that Councillor Chiarelli indicated in his e-mail that the business has been in place for many years and using the existing parking, with the deficiencies only recently discovered. Ms. Sarazin confirmed that was correct.

Councillor Bellemare noted the Committee had an application before it at the last meeting and at that time asked for information on the cash-in-lieu of parking Reserve Fund. He inquired if that information was available. Mr. Lathrop noted he had agreed to provide that information, which staff is attempting to compile. Responding further, Mr. Lathrop indicated he had intended to discuss with his staff an appropriate timeframe to bring forward a policy discussion on the matter and undertook to provide that at the next meeting.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve a Cash-in-lieu of Parking application for 42 parking spaces in the amount of $1 per space ($42) ~~$109 200~~ for a private recreational facility (Starr Gymnastics) at 1140 Morrison Drive, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The Applicant enter into a Cash-in-Lieu of Parking agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and that full payment be received upon execution of the agreement;

(b) The approval be considered null and void if the provisions of condition a) have not been fulfilled within six months from the time of Committee approval.

CARRIED as amended with Councillors G. Bédard. M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate dissenting.

LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE
L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

9. APPLICATION TO ALTER 240 MANOR AVENUE, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DEMANDE EN VUE DE TRANSFORMER LE 240, AVENUE MANOR, UN BIEN DÉSIGNÉ EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0090 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
8 April 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the application to alter 240 Manor Avenue in accordance with the plans filed by Elisabeth Stikeman, Architect, received on March 24, 2004, included as Document 2.

CARRIED

10. APPLICATION TO ALTER the Turkish Ambassador's residence, 3 CRESCENT ROAD, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DEMANDE EN VUE DE MODIFIER LA RÉSIDENCE DE L’AMBASSADEUR DE TURQUIE, 63, CHEMIN CRESCENT, PROPRIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0091 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

The Committee received a memorandum dated 4 May 2004 from the Coordinator, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), with the attached extract of Draft Minutes. LACAC supports the departmental recommendation conditional on obtaining a written assurance from the applicant that the building will only be used for residential purposes.

The Committee heard from the following delegation:

Peter Thompson advised the Committee that after some discussion with the representatives of the Turkish Embassy and, subject to comments he would like to make, he would withdraw the request for conditional approval and that the matter proceed as an unconditional approval as recommended. Mr. Thompson iterated the LACAC recommendation did have a condition with respect to assurances of the use for residential purposes. There was an issue as to whether that condition is or is not appropriate to a recommendation by this Committee, not as a condition to any approval, but on a voluntary basis; and, in the interest of good neighbour relations, the Embassy has kindly agreed to file with its application a letter confirming the intended use is for residential purposes and that it will comply with the zoning by-law applicable to Rockcliffe and, with that voluntary commitment, the community was prepared to withdraw the opposition to the unconditional recommendation.

The Committee approved the recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the application to alter the Turkish Ambassador's Residence, 3 Crescent Road, in accordance with the plans filed by Andre Godin, received on March 26 , 2004 included as Document 2.

CARRIED

Planning and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Services d’urbanisme et d’aménagement

BUILDING SERVICES

DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT

11. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PRIVATE ROADWAYS BY-LAW 2002-521 (housekeeping)

PROPOSITION DE MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES RUES PRIVÉES NO 521-2002 (D'ORDRE ADMINISTRATIF)

ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0011 Somerset (14)

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
16 April 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve to amend Section 5 of By-law 2002-521, as amended, to establish the public notice requirement for private street naming to one notice in both a French and an English newspaper having general circulation.

CARRIED

corporate services department

services généraux

real property and asset management

Gestion des actifs des biens immobiliers

12. underground storage tank management strategy

STRATÉGIE DE GESTION De RÉSERVOIRS DE STOCKAGE SOUTERRAINS

ACS2004-CRS-RPR-0011 CITY-WIDE

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
3 May 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a strategy for the City of Ottawa to proactively manage Underground Storage Tanks on city-owned properties to address Ontario Regulation 215-01 (Fuel Oil Code); and

CARRIED

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor / Conseillère J. Harder

Councillor Harder raised the following inquiry on behalf of Councillor Thompson:

To remove two restrictive covenants on a vacant Country Estate Lot – Part of Lot 16, Concession 6, former Township of Osgood – Part 1, Plan 4R – 8752.

Attached is a letter from the prospective purchaser’s lawyer.

Louise Sweet-Lindsay is the City Staff person who is dealing with this file.

~~REFERRALS/deferrals~~

~~RENVOIS/reports~~

~~1. Zoning - 186 Lyon Street~~

~~ZONAGE - 186, RUE LYON~~

~~ACS2003-DEV-APR-0223~~ ~~somerset (14)~~

~~Chair Hume noted that this Item was withdrawn~~

~~2. SITE PLAN CONTROL - 186 Lyon Street~~

~~RÉGLEMENTATION DU PLAN D’IMPLANTATION - 186, RUE LYON -~~

~~acs2004-dev-apr-0076~~ ~~somerset (14)~~

~~Chair Hume noted that this Item was withdrawn~~

~~Planning and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT~~

~~Services d’urbanisme et d’aménagement~~

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

~~D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE~~

~~3. OFFICIAL PLAN, zoning and subdivision - 800 Cedarview Road~~

~~PLAN OFFICIEL, ZONAGE ET LOTISSEMENT - 800, CHEMIN CEDARVIEW~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0077~~ ~~bell-south nepean (3)~~

~~Prescott McDonald, Planner, Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Planning and Development~~ ~~Department (PDD), John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals, Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals,~~ ~~and~~ ~~Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals,~~ ~~and~~ ~~Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 30 January 2004.~~ ~~Subsequent to a comprehensive presentation by Mr. McDonald, staff responded to questions and the following summarizes the points:~~

Councillor Hunter noted the issue of water service struck him on this application. It seems to him that lots are required to go on private wells because that is what is contained in the former City of Nepean OP. In a subdivision of this density, with municipal water service available at the street edge, is this a good idea? Is there not a risk attached to the municipality in the future in not requiring municipal water service up front, which would be paid for by the developer and passed on to the property purchaser as opposed to wells going bad in the future and we have all seen it over the years, the municipality is then required to retrofit the community, at some cost to all of the other taxpayers. If there is so much notification on the risks in the shallow aquifers and doing studies, etc., should it not be done correctly the first time? Ms. Curries advised there were two issues and possibly Mr. Morrison could speak to the details of the water. There were two issues when this application came forward to deal with the water servicing question. This is outside the urban area; ~~According to the policies of the OP,~~ ~~the extension of water services outside the urban area~~ ~~as per the policies of the OP are~~is ~~only permitted if there are existing problems within those areas, so if there are situations with contamination or problems have been identified, the City can look at expanding the urban water services to the rural area~~. ~~There is no such indication in this area. This is a new development; they haveThe proponent~~ ~~provided~~ a ~~hydrogeology analysis~~;~~. The~~ ~~lots are two acres in size and can accommodate the wells and septics,~~ so ~~therefore there~~ wai~~s no technical justification~~ ~~at this point in time~~ ~~to expand the urban~~ ~~service~~ ~~water service.~~ ~~The existing subdivisions~~ ~~(Cedarhill and Orchard Estates)~~ ~~are an anomaly~~; , ~~they are~~as ~~a serviced area~~ ~~that is~~( ~~not a village~~), ~~that is~~ ~~outside the urban area, but to expand the water service beyond that did not comply with the policies of the OP~~.

In ~~the event there are problems with wells,~~ ~~the City could outline~~, ~~in a condition, its~~ ~~intent~~ ~~to proceed~~ ~~with a Local Improvement (LI), but the City could not make it mandatory.~~

S~~eptic tank~~ ~~technology,~~ ~~including the types of beds that can be used~~, ~~has improved considerably with the ability to treat on smaller tile fields and beds. Traditionally, there has been a balance between large lots and the ability for a septic tank to function. In some villages lot size~~ ~~was reduced~~ ~~to a minimum .5 acre at one time. But, that is now~~ ~~increasing~~ to ¾ acre, if not larger. There is an attempt to balance the area required to distribute the effluent vs. the amount of density. That also has to be balanced with terrain analysis issues where septic beds are put into suitable terrains vs. unsuitable terrains, which also can increase lot sizes. On balance, ~~the~~ ~~minimum two acres with the technology available for septic tanks in the rural area would mean it would be sufficient; soils and hydrogeology reports support the use of septic systems in this area.~~

Councillor Hunter referred to the neighbouring subdivisions (Cedarhill and Orchard Estates, specifically Cederhill – was it not on municipal. water. Ms. Currie confirmed the neighbouring subdivision are on existing water systems. Councillor Hunter posited it did not make sense to exempt this subdivision unless there is a specific registration on title that states if there is trouble with the wells, the City will connect a water system as a Local Improvement (LI) at a cost to be borne 100% by those purchasers. Ms. Currie commented that it is a difficult policy issue that staff struggled with. The situation of extending water into the subdivision would be akin to taking one of the serviced villages and having a subdivision on that having water service connected. The policy framework has been very clearly defined to preclude that or to have a subdivision on the edge of the urban area. As a result, throughout the City where there are villages and urban areas with development across the line, water service is not extended to that development. It is contrary to policy and proposals have been rejected on those grounds. Although these subdivisions are not a village, they are an existing area that has an existing water service and there is no provision to expand that boundary; and, if the City were to consider expanding into this subdivision, there would be nothing to preclude the City from looking a similar situations throughout the City outside the villages of Carp, Vars or any of the other villages that have urban water services where the adjacent developer is looking to take advantage of that opportunity and on those grounds staff did not feel water service extension could be supported beyond the existing subdivisions.

Following on the previous comments, Mr. Lathrop asked Mr. Marc if there was anything that preclude the City from putting a condition on the Subdivision that said if something were to happen in the future, a LI charge would be the only way that water would be provided? Or would that conflict with City policy? Mr. Marc advised that first, the City is bound by the OP and as such, the City could not extend water supply unless the subdivision was brought into the urban area or made a public service area within the OP. Secondly, the wording suggested by the General Manager would be preferable as opposed to that suggested by Councillor Hunter. The City cannot take away the right of individuals to petition against a LI and the City could not require them to pursue that route without them having the option of going to the OMB to have the LI refused. In a condition the City could outline the intention to proceed in that way, but the City could not make it mandatory.

Councillor Feltmate asked if rather than individual septic systems it was possible to treat the waste in a group. She had understood there was a small system around Manotick. 95 separate systems seemed like a lot when the City was concerned about the possibility of the water and the wells and close proximity to the City boundary. Mr. Lathrop had understood that the fact these were two acre minimum lots means that these were very large lots within which the septic tank can operate. He also understood the technology of septic tanks, including the types of beds that can be used means that septic tanks in rural areas can better be dealt with as opposed to 10-15 years ago. The ability to be able to treat on smaller tile fields and smaller beds is where the technology is moving. Traditionally, there has been a balance between large lots and the ability for a septic tank to function. In fact, in some of the villages the lot size went down to a minimum .5 acre at one time. But, that is now moving up to ¾ acre, if not larger. There is an attempt to balance the area required to distribute the effluent vs. the amount of density. That also has to be balanced with terrain analysis issues where septic beds are put into suitable terrains vs. unsuitable terrains, which also can increase lot sizes. On balance, he was hearing that minimum two acres with the technology available for septic tanks in the rural area would mean it would be sufficient; and, he would assume that Mr. Morrison would agree with that. Mr. Morrison agreed, but added that the City did have soils and hydrogeology reports that support the use of septic systems in this area.

~~The Committee heard from the following delegations:~~

~~John W. Bienko~~ ~~pointed outreferenced~~ ~~the Ottawa Environmental Strategy 20/20 Plan, which is a component of the City Growth Management Strategy.~~ ~~The proposed rezoning~~ ~~refutes~~ ~~every word of~~ ~~Goal #1~~ identifies this to be a Green City. A Green City strives to eliminate the demand of an endless network of pavement, concrete and buildings that can confine trees to concrete baskets. A Green City also strives to preserve water quality and quantity, terrestrial habitat such as urban and rural forests and wetlands, biodiversity and eco-system integrity. The rezoning proposed directly breaks every word of that goal~~. His presentation covered the main points of his letter dated 28 February 2004, which is held on file with the City Clerk.~~ ~~Additionally, Mr. Bienko submitted the following:~~ ~~The~~ ~~Draft Conditions of Sudivision Approval –~~ ~~Docuemnt~~D~~ocument~~ 5 ~~contains a number of warning clauses – 75, 76, 80, 88, 90, 91 – that were not in the original documentation and only emerged as a result of his submission.~~ ~~These are indicative of the serious nature of the points in his letter.~~ ~~The warnings specifically identify the significant levels of risk to~~ ~~the~~ ~~future residents, which~~ ~~on these rural lands~~. ~~The proposed re-zoning will create a subdivision designed by the devil. The Planning Department is conducting a live human test on 40 lots.~~ ~~The risks~~ ~~are not acceptable to the health and quality of life of their community.~~ ~~He read out the specific warning clauses – 75, 76, 78, 88, 90 and 91.~~ ~~In the~~ ~~last~~ ~~latter~~ ~~part of the 20~~^th ~~Century,~~ ~~Audrey Moodie, Andrew Haydon, Ben Franklin and Mary Pittformer Reeves and Mayors~~ ~~planned~~ ~~this~~ a ~~wonderful, natural green space for the people, now~~ ~~the Planning Department~~ ~~PDD~~ ~~will replace this~~ ~~beautiful place~~ ~~with a concrete jungle.~~ ~~And the weapon of mass destruction will be the bulldozer.~~ ~~The rezoning of 800 Cedarview Drive must be denied.~~ ~~The Subdivision is being built on Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Stoney Swamp swampland and a quarry.~~ ~~It does not comply with~~ ~~a specific term specified inSections of~~ ~~the former City of Nepean By-Laws 39-81, 73-92 and the Ottawa 20/20 Environmental Plan.~~ ~~During the first week of March the City~~ ~~of Ottawa~~ dispatched a work crew, trucks and water pumpers to pump the swamp water dry for the developer. The bulldozer will de-forest and de-vegetate 50% of the 113 ha. of rural zoned lands causing irreparable harm to the biosphere. , ~~The bulldozer will~~ ~~devastat~~e~~ing~~ existing rich habitat wetlands, coniferous and deciduous trees, streams and water courses, flora and fauna. Parkland and connecting paths between trail number 11 on the Cedarhill golf course and trails #1 and 5 on the Stoney Swamp, as designated by the ~~Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)MNR~~, ~~have been abandoned by the plan~~. The risk of sewage pollution will endanger the health of the residents and downstream properties, specifically creating high levels of methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and e-coli, precipitating potential hepatitis and cancer threats. Noise and vibration will increase significantly. The proposed noise control measures are not effective and are visual monstrosities. The electro-magnetic radiation on the walking path, under the hydro lines will be a serious health risk. 8. The aquifer and the Ottawa and Rideau River watersheds are at risk by the contamination of the sewage seeping through the cracks in the earthquake zone and quarry dynamite blasting. ~~The 113 ha. must be limited to five lots~~ of ~~comprising~~ ~~20 ha. with conservation lands between~~ or follow the plan of 1997, the James R. Duboy Plan to extend the golf course to these properties. The Committee has the responsibility to do due diligence, others its decision will be flawed. The City must study carefully the stated documents he referred to and files supporting them. The City must stop along highway 416 to see personally the rock face and few inches of soil, then stop at 800 Cedarview Road and walk on the MNR Stoney Swamp where the first 40 homes are to be built during the spring thaw and after a thunderstorm. The City does not pay attention to the geographic and biological realities; and act as if the political subdivisions of land are meaningful, but fail to preserve the realities of bio-regions, eco-systems and watersheds to which living beings have evolved and fit through the eons of time.

~~Mr. Bienko~~ ~~had twopresented the following~~ ~~motions:~~

~~Whereas FoTenn Consultants represent the owners and provide City planning services to the City, there is a definite conflict of interest;~~

~~Therefore a forensic investigation is in order of all principals and parties connected to this re-zoning process, directly or indirectly.~~

~~Whereas the applicant has contravened several conservation and rural zone by-laws which have not been made known to the Committee as Councillors~~;

~~Whereas the rezoning does not comply with the former City of Nepean By-law 39-81, 73-93 and the Ottawa 20/20~~ ;;.

~~assertions made during the~~ ~~commentedreceived~~ ~~on the statement the application is in violation of a number of policies and by-laws and having read the report, he did not see that. Was he missing anything? Mr. McDonald edationfollowedadhered toall the~~ is ~~unusual. That means that her well wicould~~ll~~have it~~ be ~~ing someone else~~’sa~~of property was afraidfearedto access the new property thereby causingresulting ina lot ofconsiderable~~., ~~with approximately~~ ~~ing~~ ~~As a result of the presentation,~~ ~~Mr. McDonald~~s~~taff~~ ~~plotting out and locating wells and septic fields, the subject property and beyond has to be taken into consideration; therefore, . The minimum distance is (Mr. Morrison) – not exactly sure, but it, whichout l~~l.~~, which~~ ~~This~~ ~~report/ittheretthe~~ ~~also~~ ~~that the ; therefore~~ ~~the City would need to approve~~ ~~and that anythe ny, which is~~ ~~would involveissues the City and community knew were important upfront~~ ~~discussed throughout the one year process~~ ~~working with the City and itengaged~~ ~~has been in process. The accessfor one year and it was one of the first concerns raised~~ – ~~the access. It definitely will not be openone of the first concerns raised and it will definitely not be open.~~.. ~~with~~e~~ing~~s~~At this point, lessLesscome to the association stating~~ ~~raised~~ ~~She was present in support of the applicant. In a perfect world, all would prefer that the land remain open green space; however, o~~O~~for a~~ ~~very this particular usage forthe proposalssimilar to and with the existing rural neighbourhood~~of ~~for the most part the~~ ~~thatapproval of~~ ~~be approvedconfirmed that the process has been ongoing for over one year, with the first meeting at the Cedarhill Golf Course in the winter. She recalled at the first meeting the showstopper for Ms.~~ ~~Mackay wasreceived confirmationnew two-acre developments and tosubdivision wouldthe onesthatthe~~ ~~She asked if that issue was settled? Ms. Mackay understood that it had. It is not apparent in the application, but that these will be made a part of the deed of the individual properties and the covenants drafted and reviewed are indeed very similar to those in existence for Cedarhill and Orchard Estates.~~ ~~of ingion of, etc.~~.~~if there were to be residential abutting the propertieswasthat through~~ ~~the proposal would place a road behind him and~~ a ~~In response,~~ ~~was an dthat struggled with the longest and that was where to place the road.~~ ~~She pointed to the map and noted that was the location of the mailboxes on Cedarhill with a road coming in. The next choice was where the lagoon was on Cedarhill~~ ~~Driveaddressed at lengthand that was an environmental issue. That was addressed~~ ~~deemed to be~~ ~~afternew~~ ~~same~~ in terms of what the application will doIt is a beautiful area and full of deer, although there are fewer deer since the 416 (there is a noticeable change in the wildlife in terms of decrease since they moved to the area). ~~HerMs. Bainwas edis the~~ ~~, specifically~~ ~~and was not aware of the depth of study in terms of noise levels the area is subjected to now because ofsince,, because~~ ~~andof path (before they purchased their home 12 years ago).~~ ~~Rather the traffic has substantially increased and asked why it did not just loop back up~~ ~~and hook onto the road northcurrently~~ ~~presently~~ ~~that much. If the developer wants to develop the land~~ ~~and if the City agrees, as long as these concerns are addressed then the road should be looped back to the northexplained~~ ~~in detail~~ ~~that although the issue~~ ~~commented that issued~~ ~~and reason – it has~~ ~~restriction on~~ ~~to do with~~
~~the . Its purpose is to~~ ~~ands(that is all for emergency purposes). Councillor Harder referred to the~~ ~~longest~~ ~~street in the entire plan of subdivision~~ and there are only 11 homes in the small portion that meets with the mailbox across from Ms. Bain’s street and the thinking was when seriously looking into the situation because of the concern with a dumping effect, but looking at the ability to access straight out onto ~~Cedarview as opposed to coming onto Cedarhill and then back out, there are only those home that would have a win at all or a benefit to come out to where her street comes into Cedarhill.~~ ~~Also, the bottom end closer to the south end of the diagram, there is an easement along the last homes that was kept, which the community worked hard to allow for possibly another exit when that development takes place to the south as well~~.. ~~Councillor~~

~~Ms. Bain referred to the noise issue – most residents in Cedarhill and Orchard Estates are evidencing an increase in noise levels. With the clearing of trees and land, she asked if there would be some noise level testing is conducted throughout the community prior to any development~~ ~~as a benchmark. Councillor advisedreported~~ ~~thatthat has taken place. She referred to in the report that~~ ~~maplotthe noise wall~~ ~~the applicant~~ ~~be ed~~ ~~the noise wallis no interference or water quality or quantity issuesis no interference or water quality or quantity issueallow~~s~~alloware~~ ~~Phase II (40 lots)~~ ~~they~~ ~~be ed~~ ~~Phase II,~~ (~~40 lots~~)~~the onservation uthorityis ,~~ ~~and~~ ~~only at intersections and curbs. The applicant conduct~~ed ~~an environmental site assessmentopposition, thatopposition, whichcould/~~ ~~or even will be taken from that wetland area.~~ ~~???~~.~~spentexpended~~,~~and who~~ ~~engaged~~ ~~worked~~ ,

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:~~

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the former City of Nepean to redesignate 800 Cedarview Road from General Rural Area to Country Lot and Open Space, as detailed in Document 2.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 73-92 to change the zoning of 800 Cedarview Road from RU, Rural Agricultural Zone, to RCL, Residential Country Lots Zone, and RCL Block "A", Residential Country Lots Zone, to permit development of detached family dwellings and to Con, Conservation Zone, and to Con, Conservation Zone Block "A", to enable the preservation of wetlands and wetland buffer that will also function as a flood control facility, as shown in Document 3 and detailed in Document 4.

3. Authorize the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to grant draft plan approval to the proposed Plan of Subdivision pertaining to Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25, Concession 4 (Rideau Front), Geographic Township of Nepean, formerly City of Nepean, now City of Ottawa, as shown on Document 5, subject to the conditions detailed in Document 5.

~~CARRIED~~

~~4. ZONING - 1717 BEARHILL ROAD~~

~~ZONAGE - 1717, CHEMIN BEARHILL~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0001~~ ~~west-carleton (5)~~

~~Timothy Chadder, representing the owner,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 24 February 2004 and the staff technical amendment. The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.~~

~~Moved by Councillor J. Harder:~~

1. ~~That the recommendation be amended to read as follows:~~

“That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of West Carleton Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1717 Bearhill Road from “Open Space, Exception 10” (OS-10) to “Residential Country Lot, Exception 53” (RCL-53) ~~and "Residential Country Lot, Exception 55" (RCL-55)~~ ~~to permit a residential country lot subdivision as detailed in Document 4.”~~

2. ~~That the text of the report be amended as follows:~~

~~Under the heading “Proposed Zoning”, the first paragraph be amended and replaced to read as follows:~~

“The details of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment are attached as Document 4. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment would rezone the subject lands from "Open Space, Exception 10" (OS-10) to "Residential Country Lot, Exception 53" (RCL-53) and “Residential Country Lot, Exception 55” (RCL-55). The RCL-53 and RCL-55 zones would permit a fully-detached dwelling house and a home occupation.

Minimum front building setbacks of 30 m and 20 m are proposed for the RCL-53 zone and RCL-55 zone, respectively. These setbacks are intended to address comments on the application provided by the developer of the Country Meadow Estates subdivision. Under the standard RCL zone provisions, the minimum rear building setback is 7.5 m for a main building and 1.0 m for an accessory building. Some of the tee boxes, fairways and greens for the golf course are located in proximity to the rear lot lines of the proposed subdivision. For example, one fairway is located approximately 40 m from three of the proposed lots. Staff are proposing a minimum 15.0 m rear building setback to increase the separation distance between the golf course and the residential buildings.”

3. ~~That the “EXPLANATORY NOTE Document 3” be amended as follows:~~

~~Under the heading “Proposed Zoning”, the first paragraph be amended and replaced with the following:~~

“The proposed zoning would change the zoning designation from “Open Space, Exception 10” (OS-10) to “Residential Country Lot, Exception 53” (RCL-53) and “Residential Country Lot, Exception 55” (RCL-55). The RCL-53 and RCL-55 zones would permit one fully-detached dwelling house per lot. Site-specific zone provisions are proposed for the RCL-53 and RCL-55 zones.”

4. ~~That the “DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING Document 4” be amended as follows:~~

~~That the text included under Item 1 be amended and replaced with the following:~~

“1. ~~Area A rezoned from OS-10 to RCL-53~~

~~All of the provisions of the standard RCL zone shall apply except the following:~~

a) ~~BUILDING SETBACK, FRONT (minimum): 30 metres~~

b) ~~BUILDING SETBACK, REAR (minimum): 15 metres~~

c) ~~DRIVEWAY SETBACK (minimum): 1.0 metre except when a shared driveway is located along a common lot line in which case no driveway setback is required”~~

~~That the following text be added after Item 1:~~

~~“2.~~ ~~Area B rezoned from OS-10 to RCL-55~~

~~All of the provisions of the standard RCL zone shall apply except for the following:~~

a) ~~BUILDING SETBACK, FRONT (minimum): 20 metres~~

b) ~~BUILDING SETBACK, REAR (minimum): 15 metres~~

c) ~~DRIVEWAY SETBACK (minimum): 1.0 metre except when a shared driveway is located along a common lot line in which case no driveway setback is required”~~

5. ~~That “Schedule A to Draft Zoning By-law” be amended and replaced with the attached “Schedule A to Draft Zoning By-law”.~~

6. ~~That the “CONSULTATION DETAILS Document 5” be amended as follows:~~

~~On page 89 under the heading “Response”, that the second paragraph beginning with the sentence “The standard RCL zone provisions require a minimum 12 m front building setback” be deleted.~~

7. ~~And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the~~ ~~Planning Act.~~

~~CARRIED~~ ~~as amended~~ ~~with Councillor A. Cullen dissenting.~~

~~5. ZONING - 3131 Stoneridge Drive~~

~~ZONAGE - 3131, PROMENADE STONERIDGE~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0051~~ ~~west-carleton (5)~~

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
26 January 2004. The Committee received correspondence dated 10 March 2004 from
~~K. W. Armitage, which is held on file with the City Clerk.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former West Carleton Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 3131 Stoneridge Drive from Rural (RU) to Country Lot Residential (RCL) as detailed in Document 3.

~~CARRIED~~

~~6. ZONING - 2006 Aylwin Road~~

~~zonage - 2006, chemin aylwin~~

~~ACS2004-dev-apr-0085~~ ~~west-carleton (5)~~

~~Allan A. Grunder (current~~ ~~Owner~~), ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 22 March 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former West Carleton Zoning By-law to implement Council's direction to add the use "accessory dwelling~~ ~~house~~ ~~unit" to the existing CR‑26 exception zone for 2006 Aylwin Road as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.~~

~~CARRIED~~

~~7. ZONING - 3185 Joy's Road~~

~~ZONAGE - 3185, CHEMIN JOY'S~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0080~~ ~~goulbourn (6)~~

~~Adrian Schouten, A & A Schouten,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 15 March 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 3185 Joy's Road from Agriculture Zone (A1) to Agriculture Special Zone 8 (A1-8) to permit a lot area of 18 hectares, and restrict any future residential use as detailed in Document 2.

~~CARRIED~~

~~8. ZONING - 294 Liard Street~~

~~ZONAGE - 294 rue Liard~~

~~ACS2004-dev-apr-0084~~ ~~goulbourn (6)~~

The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated
22 March 2004.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-Law, for a Temporary Use Bylaw to change the zoning of 294 Liard Street from Residential Zone, R1 to Residential Zone R1-x to permit a Garden Suite attached to the main dwelling, for a 10 year period as detailed in Document 3, subject to the following condition:

~~That the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Ottawa as specified by Section 39(1.2) of the Planning Act , setting out that:~~

~~i. the Garden Suite is to be occupied exclusively by the owner's parents;~~

~~ii. the Garden Suite is to be removed at such time as it no longer required by the occupants, at any time prior to expiry of the 10 year period; and~~

~~iii. the Garden Suite is to be removed at the end of the 10 year period, unless an extension has been requested and approved by City Council, prior to the expiry of the Temporary Use Bylaw.~~

~~CARRIED~~

~~9. ZONING - 770 Silver Seven road~~

~~ZONAGE - 770, rue silver seven~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0014~~ ~~Kanata (4)~~

~~Roslyn Houser, Goodmans,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 March 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-Law No. 138-93 to change the zoning of 770 Silver Seven Road from "Light Industrial, Mixed, Exception 2, Holding" (M1C-2H) to "Light Industrial, Mixed, Exception 7" (M1C-7) to permit a Large Retail Warehouse as detailed in Document 4.

~~CARRIED~~

~~(M. O’Rourke attended following approval of the item and~~ ~~was asked to~~ ~~submit~~ ~~his~~ ~~comments in opposition to the recommendation prior to the City Council meeting.)~~

~~10. ZONING - 500 TERRY FOX DRIVE~~

~~ZONAGE - 500 Promenade Terry Fox~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0072~~ ~~kanata (4)~~

~~Dave Krajaefski, Trow Associates Inc. and Lorena Toscani (Canadian Tire Corporation). Mr. Krajaefski requested the Committee to move the item forward to City Council on~~ ~~14 April~~ ~~2004 as the construction time lines will be compromised due to the problem~~ of ~~scheduling this item on previous agendas~~.

~~Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:~~

~~That the item proceed to City Council on 14 April 2004.~~

~~CARRIED~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 10 March 2004~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 500 Terry Fox Drive from M1C - 1H Light Industrial Mixed - Exception Holding, to M1C - 2 as a further exception to the M1C Light Industrial Mixed zone, to permit the development of an Automotive Service Centre and Accessory Restaurant as detailed in Document 3 and shown in Document 1.

~~CARRIED~~

~~11.~~ ~~ZONING - 1150 Old Carp Road~~

~~ZONAGE - 1150 ancien chemin de Carp~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0083~~ ~~kanata (4)~~

~~Rod Price, Minto Developments Inc.,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 30 March 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-Law No. 74-79 to repeal the zoning of a portion of 1150 Old Carp Road, and an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 161-93 to include these lands within By-law 161-93 and to zone them Residential Type 3A (R3A) as detailed in Document 1.

~~CARRIED~~

~~12. zoning - 3100 bankfield road~~

~~zonage - 3100, chemin bankfield~~

~~ACS2004-dev-apr-0087~~ ~~bell-south nepean (3)~~

~~Greg Winters, Novatech Engineering,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 30 March 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 3100 Bankfield Road from RU, Rural Agricultural to RIA Block "A", Residential Special Density (Special Permitted Uses and Provisions) and Re Block "A" Restrictive (Special Permitted Uses and Provisions) as detailed in Document 3.

~~CARRIED~~

~~13.~~ ~~ZONING - General amendment to the former city of nepean urban zoning by-law to resolve technical anomalies~~ ~~AND TO ADDRESS HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO 19 CENTREPOINTE DRIVE AND 300 MOODIE DRIVE~~

~~ZONAGE -~~MODIFICATION GÉNÉRALE AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE URBAIN DE L’ANCIENNE VILLE DE NEPEAN visant à RÉGLER DES anomalies TECHNIQUES et À apporter des modifications à L’entretien ménager du 19, promenade centrepointe et du 300, promenade moodie ~~Bell-South Nepean/Bell-Nepean sud (3)~~

~~Bay/Baie (7), Baseline (8)~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0068~~ ~~Knoxdale-Merivale (9)~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 30 March 2004~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve amendments to the former Nepean Urban Zoning By-Law to correct technical anomalies, and to approve a building separation of 40.0 metres between dwellings on the west side of Centrepointe Drive and any building on 19 Centrepointe Drive, and to zone 300 Moodie Drive MS Industrial Service, as detailed in Document 1 and shown on Documents 3 to 5.

~~CARRIED~~

~~14. ZONING - 71 Woodroffe AveNUE~~

~~ZONAGE - 71, avenue Woodroffe~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0086~~ ~~Bay/Baie (7)~~

~~Dan Marandola,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 30 March 2004. The Committee received an e-mail dated 12 April and correspondence dated 8 April 2004 from~~ ~~Beverley Binette, Development Officer, Woodroffe North Community Association, and David Madeley, ”, which is held on file with the City Clerk. The purpose of the letter was to “record our concerns, improve the public record on this issue and formally record commitments made at a January 15~~^th ~~public meeting on the application. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (1998) to add an exception to the R2A - Semi-Detached House Zone applying to 71 Woodroffe Avenue to allow a 'triplex house' as an additional permitted use with a parking requirement of two spaces as detailed in Document 3.

~~CARRIED~~

~~15. ZONING - 2367 ROGER STEVENS DRIVE~~

~~ZONAGE - 2367, PROMENADE ROGER STEVENS~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0081~~ ~~rideau (21)~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 17 March 2004~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Rideau Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 2367 Roger Stevens Drive from Environmental Protection Zone (EP) to Village Residential Zone (RV) as detailed in Document 1.

~~CARRIED~~

~~16.~~ ~~ZONING - 1002 KITOMAN CRESCENT~~

~~ZONAGE - 1002, CROISSANT KITOMAN~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0062~~ ~~osgoode (20~~)

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 23 February 2004~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 1002 Kitoman Crescent from C1[114], Commercial Use to R, Residential as detailed in Document 2.

~~CARRIED~~

~~17. ZONING - 7116, 7122 BANK STREET AND 2517 SCRIVENS DRIVE~~

~~ZONAGE - 7116, 7122, RUE BANK ET 2517, PROMENADE SCRIVENS~~

~~acs2004-dev-apr-0075~~ ~~osgoode (20)~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:~~

~~1. Approve an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 2517 Scrivens Drive from RU, Rural to~~ ~~RU[333],~~ ~~Rural, Exception to permit parking of landscaping and snow equipment, and to change the zoning of 7116 Bank Street from RU, Rural to~~ ~~CE, Country Estate,~~ ~~as detailed in Document 2.~~

~~2. Refuse an amendment to the former Township of Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 7122 Bank Street from RU, Rural to C1, Commercial General and C2, Highway Commercial.~~

~~CARRIED~~

~~18. ZONING - 2322 Tenth Line Road~~

~~ZONAGE - 2322, CHEMIN TENTH LINE~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0056~~ ~~cumberland (19)~~

~~Dan Paquette, Paquette Planning Associates Ltd.,~~ ~~was present in support of the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 27 February 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Zoning By-Law, to change the zoning of 2322 Tenth Line Road from D-I, Development Industrial to CA1-X1, Commercial Automotive Exception 1, to permit additional uses as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.

~~CARRIED~~

~~19. ZONING - 3883 NAVAN ROAD~~

~~ZONAGE - 3883, CHEMIN NAVAN~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0073~~ ~~Cumberland (19)~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 8 March 2004~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Cumberland Rural Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 3883 Navan Road from R1 (Residential One) and GR (General Rural) to I (Institutional) to permit a place of worship and private school as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 2.

~~CARRIED~~

~~20.~~ ~~ZONING - 835 Taylor Creek Drive~~

~~ZONAGE - 835, PROMENADE TAYLOR CREEK~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0071~~ ~~Orléans (1)~~

s ~~at this time~~he~~taffpaying~~ , ~~and, etc.~~ ~~necessary for~~ ~~employment centres such as Place d’Orléansthe~~ up ~~applicant,~~ ~~users~~i~~. Self-storage is created for individuals that need affordable storage space that is not available nor practical in their offices or their homes or business, but it is a service industry. The~~ ~~application provides a design that will be in accordance to building and site development guidelines for th~~is ~~business park.~~ ~~As referenced earlier, there were a number of special conditions for the Taylor Creek Business Park created by the City or municipality at the time.~~ ~~This applications follows well within these guidelines. Mr. Mailing will point out the elevations of this particular building that will be put in place. They~~ ~~very much appreciate that it backs onto Highway 174 and does see a lot of traffic and they want to keep up the appearance of the business park. As well, the~~y ~~plan to have~~ ~~a number of mini-offices available within the complex. This will provide for individuals to come out of their basements or homes to start an office situation or business and~~ ~~share~~ ~~self-storage and~~ a ~~small office and potentially grow.~~ ~~When speaking of the use of the particular lots in the park, he believed the park was created approximately 15-20 years ago~~ ~~and of the 28~~ ~~lots~~ ~~lots on the site 12 remain for sale. This has not be a high demand area for the industry envisioned at the time and he believed their proposal will fill a need for the existing community~~.

~~Mr. Mailing~~ ~~explained that w~~hen he was first approached, he had the same image of self-storage that many have, but that was not the intention of the applicant. Self-storage units are typically placed at the back of industrial parks and appear rudimentary ~~and it is assumed if they are brought forward to the forefront, which is not the case. In~~ ~~numerous projects in the U.S. self-storage buildings have come into the community and have put on a neighbourly face to the surrounding area.~~ ~~Their concept is to ensure that clients that want to use self-storage that might be reluctant do go into shabby neighbourhood~~ ~~foruse. It~~ ~~is brought to the forefront and they are~~ ~~diligently~~ ~~trying~~ ~~to be good neighbourhoods~~ ~~in the community and in this particular park.~~ ~~They are~~ ~~using materials that are foreign to self-storage projects; e.g. stucco, brick, a lot of detail; they are paying close detail to the highway exposure to ensure it is not one long building. There~~ ~~is no outdoor storage or outdoor storage of containers. It is completely enclosed and is intended to be totally complimentary to the site.~~ ~~Mr. Mailing~~ ~~pointed out the unit that is a second floor apartment, which the manager will occupy and for reference~~ es~~a resident manager~~ ,is ~~common in th~~e ~~indusry.~~ ~~The unit is an apartment that is intended to occupy the second floor of the business component of the project and blend in.~~ The ~~applicant~~ is ~~attempting~~ ~~to incorporate an executive office building that isinged of~~ ~~5,000 square feet, possibly two storeys, which will provide a mini-office, which is needed in the area.~~ ~~That will also tie in with the~~ ~~proposed~~ ~~buildings to give a complete package.~~

Councillor Kreling refered to the last point of the office space. Is the office building a possibility or is it a part of the proposal. Mr. Koshman responded that it is an integral part in that the apartment is directly above, ~~it and it cannot be opened without having somepone operate it.~~ ~~There needs to be an office and an apartment and therefore will be one of the first buildings built. Councillor Kreling asked if the~~ ~~elevation of the~~ ~~office building was~~ ~~anticipated to be~~ ~~the elevation along Taylor Creek Drive – Yes. He asked if the~~ ~~storage buildings would be across the~~ ~~other three~~ ~~exposures – Yes.~~ ~~On the question of the office space,~~ M~~r. Koshman~~ ~~explained that those spaces are small and can be leased as individual offices or a floor plan was available in that several placed together~~ as a suite, but these will be entirely as an office component. Responding further, he advised that along with the 5,000 square feet of office space there would be 45,000 square feet of storage area. Councillor Kreling inquired how many employees might be placed within the 5,000 square feet of office space and commented that one of the concerns was that the application would not provide sufficient employment opportunity and he was trying to determine the applicant’s thoughts on that premise. Mr. Koshman stated he foresee up to 20 offices initially in the space and at one person per office plus site staff that would be available. Councillor Kreling noted the elevation depicted on the drawing and commented that ~~typically storage facilities had a myriad of doors and did not see that in the plans.~~ ~~Mr. Koshman explained that the planned displayed the exterior elevations from the outside. All~~ ~~this proposal~~ ~~intends~~ ~~to be.~~ tT~~he doors will be accessible from the inside without any doors coming from the outside in. They were trying to conain the site completely following the~~ ~~various~~ ~~guidelines~~ ~~and something quite appealing to the community and to passersby. Mr. Mailing added by demonstrating through an elevation for the surrounding buildings facing Taylor Creek Drive. The~~ top elevation faced the highway. The elevation on the far left is the office component. Councillor Kreling noted that one of the buildings was two storeys, but all the others, save and except for the office are one storey buildings.

~~Councillor Kreling asked staff, noting the comment made by Mr. Lortie, and was not aware there was a premium paid to the former municipality~~ ~~for the lots – what was the nature of this premium and what is the City now charging? Is~~ ~~the municipality now charging premiums for lots? Ms. Currie explained the Taylor Creek Business Park was developed by the former municipality of Cumberland. The~~ ~~subdivision was created and roads were installed and lands sold. The vision of the business park was as a premium business park. There were not specific premium~~s ~~on individual lots, not as when a homeowner would pay a~~ ~~homeowner~~ ~~because it baced onto a ravine ($10,000 e.g.).~~ ~~The premium referred to was the nature in which the Park would be developed.~~ Each lot was negotiated individually; the lot price was reflective of the market of the day for that type of zoning, whch was more restrictive and at that time the zoning did not foresee mini warehouses. It was not so much a premium as the marketing of a product that has a vision attached to it. It was a premium business park with landscaped standards and building material standards, etc. that were going to be implied. ~~Councillor Kreling acknowledged tTthe~~ ~~Park~~

~~Ms. Curries responded that this proposal meets the criteria. Those~~ ~~design criteria were administrative~~ ~~; they did not have Council endorsement; they were applied through the site plan approval process. The~~ new City has continued to try to apply those standards. This proposal, given that it was subject to a rezoning was clearly at the time of application discussed with the applicant, that the City wanted to ensure it satisfied those criteria~~; and, it meets and exceeds those criteria. Use asided, if it was not the subject of a rezoning, this building more than meets the Taylor Creek design guidelines.that~~

~~Councillor Jellet noted the concern was the aesthetic look of the building and that it will take away from the value of the other businesses, but the staff opinion was that that was not the case.~~ Ms. Currie explained that in staff’s opinion this is a very attractive proposal that exceeds the guidelines. To the delegation, Councillor Jellet noted there is another mini-storage facility on 10^th Line, Innes area, behind Precision Automotive – this has nothing to do with that, it does not look the same and is completely different. That is the type referred to by Councillor Kreling with all the doors.

~~Councillor~~ Bédard asked if this is approved, is it being approved in accordance with the plans provided. Is it site plan specific? Or, if approved, can anything else be developed as a result of the rezoning. Ms. Currie responded that the Committee was only dealing with the rezoning; however, there is a site plan being processed and there is no reason to ~~believe~~ ~~that this is not the product going forward. It is certainly what staff was looking to approve.~~ ~~the zoningproposal~~ ~~Responding to Chair Hume, Ms. Currie explained that the By-Law contained wording that the zoning did not come into full force and effect until the~~ ~~new~~ OP ~~is in effect. If the Committee desired, staff could hold passing the By-Law pending the Site Plan Approval. She noted the applicant would be in support of that step if necessary. Mr. Koshman did not have any objection with holding the By-Law until approval of the site plan.~~

~~Moved by Coun cillor G. Bédard:~~

~~That the Zoning By-Law Amendment not be forwarded to Council until such time as the Site Plan is approved.~~

That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act

~~CARRIED~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Zoning By-Law 1-84 to change the zoning of 835 Taylor Creek Drive from MR - Industrial Restricted Zone to MR-X4 Industrial Restricted Exception No. 4 to permit a mini-warehouse and public storage use, and a dwelling unit as detailed in Document 3.

~~That the Zoning By-Law Amendment not be forwarded to Council until such time as the Site Plan is approved.~~

That no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

~~CARRIED as amended~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Cumberland Zoning By-Law 1-84 to change the zoning of 835 Taylor Creek Drive from MR - Industrial Restricted Zone to MR-X4 Industrial Restricted Exception No. 4 to permit a mini-warehouse and public storage use, and a dwelling unit as detailed in Document 3.

~~CARRIED~~

~~21.~~ ~~CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING - 950 bANK STREET~~

~~RÈGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES DE STATIONNEMENT - 950, RUE BANK~~

~~acs2004-dev-apr-0078~~ ~~alta vista (18)~~

~~Chair Hume noted that~~ ~~Councillor Holmes was putting forward a Motion to reduce the amount to be paid for the cash-in-lieu of parking.~~ ~~Gordon Lorimer, Barry J. Hobin & Associates Architects Incorporated, and K. M. Dawn O’Leary, The Glebe Centre,~~ ~~were present and in support of the Motion to reduce the amount.~~

~~Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:~~

~~That the payment for the 8 parking spaces cash-in-lieu for the non-profit Long Term Care Facility at 950 Bank Street be $1.00 per space.~~

~~CARRIED with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.~~

~~The Committee approved the departmental recommendation contained in report dated 30 March 2004 as amended.~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee approve a Cash-in-Lieu of Parking application for eight parking spaces in the amount of~~ $1~~$20, 800~~ ~~for~~ ~~the non-profit~~a ~~Long Term Care Facility being constructed at 950 Bank Street, subject to the following conditions:~~

~~(a) The Applicant enter into a Cash-in-Lieu of Parking agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and that full payment be received upon execution of the agreement;~~

~~(b) The approval be considered null and void if the provisions of condition a) have not been fulfilled within six months from the time of Committee approval.~~

~~CARRIED~~ ~~as amened~~

LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE
L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

~~22. DESIGNATION OF 273 WILBROD STREET UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT~~

~~DÉSIGNATION DU 273, RUE WILBROD EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO~~

~~acs2004-dev-apr-0074~~ ~~rideau-vanier (12)~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 18 March 2004~~

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the designation of 273 Wilbrod Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Reason for Designation, attached as Document 3.

~~CARRIED~~

~~OTTAWA FORESTS AND GREENSPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE~~

~~Comité consultatif sur les forêts et les espaces verts d’Ottawa~~

~~23. STRATEGY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COMMUNITY GREENSPACE UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE~~ ~~ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ACT~~

~~STRATÉGIE POUR L’ACQUISITION D’ESPACES VERTS COMMUNAUTAIRES AUX TERMES DES DISPOSITIONS DE LA~~ ~~LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS DE L’ONTARIO~~

~~ACS2004-CCV-OFO-0002~~ ~~city-wide~~

~~Barbara Barr, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, and Joanna Dean, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC),~~ ~~were present in support of the recommendation contained in the OFGAC report dated 9 February 2004. The Committee approved the recommendation.~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee and Council:~~

~~Approve that the City of Ottawa Greenspace Acquisition Strategy include the use of special services levies and local improvement charges;~~

~~Direct staff to ensure that these tools are used in consultation with the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee and in accordance with the principles and processes outlined in this report.~~

~~CARRIED~~

~~Planning and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT~~

~~Services d’urbanisme et d’aménagement~~

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS BRANCH
DIRECTION DE L’APPROBATION DES DEMANDES

~~D’URBANISME ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE~~

~~24. ON TIME REVIEW INITIATIVE~~

~~PROJET D’EXAMEN EN TEMPS VOULU~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0055~~ ~~City-Wide~~

~~Mr. Moser~~ ~~and~~ ~~Mr.~~ ~~Marc~~ ~~appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated~~ ~~9 March~~ ~~2004. Subsequent to a~~ ~~comprehensive PowerPoint~~ ~~presentation~~ ~~by Mr.~~ ~~Moser, staff responded to questions~~ ~~posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:~~

~~Staff responded to questions posed by members of the Committee. A number of points of clarification were made and are summarized as follows:~~

Councillor Cullen noted there was no action contemplated from today’s report and it was being circulated for consultation. There were some issues that concerned him in particular. Page 245, under pre-application ~~public~~ ~~consultation~~ ~~– it speaks to the fact that staff will be consulted. He asked if the Councillor will be informed when that happens~~ ~~because it seems to convey a benediction~~ ~~when an applicant indicates to him that he/she has met with the Planner. He~~ ~~wanted to know earlier in the process. If~~ the applicant is meeting with the planner he would like to be informed so that he could speak to the planner to determine what is happening. Will the Councillor be informed? Mr. Moser posited it is valid feedback. He was aware that when The Pre-Application Public Consultation does not negate the public participation process and does not guarantee Committee/Council approval, nor does it guarantee that delegated authority will be forthcoming. Staff consults on a daily basis with proponents; provides opinions, points them in the direction of policy, to the Ward Councillor, to the community associations; and, should put in place a ~~formal~~ ~~process that provides for a heads up to the Councillor on these discussion~~s. The public process of the consultation takes place after the application is made. The meeting with staff is to receive an opinion and determine how the proposal fits in the planning context and to inform the proponent of the process. ~~Once,:~~ ~~and;,a listfvicinitySsto informthe Ward Councillor oncehas taken place, but did not see any problem providing a heads up~~ ~~to the Councillor~~ ~~once there is pre-consultation.~~ ~~There~~ ~~is a process~~ ~~in place~~ ~~when there is no pre-consultation taking place, a heads up~~ ~~is provided to~~ ~~the Councillor is received~~ ~~where~~ ~~no consultation~~ ~~has taken place~~.

~~P. 248~~

P~~. 248~~ to ()~~in funding($225,000 in 2003)~~ ~~continue tonot~~ un~~. Basically, staff~~ ~~and~~ ~~setestablish~~ ~~that 1) a major development; 2) an application~~ is ~~on file; 3) controversial item~~s ~~in the communityalso~~ ~~staff~~

~~In the past, staff has attended meetings that do not relate to a bone fide application and/or~~ ~~there was a~~ ~~lack~~ of ~~issues, which level it can no longer sustain. If a need arises an~~d ~~staff cannot attend on OT, then a decision might be taken to have management staff attend to maintain continuity.~~ ~~The possibility of flexible hours has been and will continue to be pursued~~.Councillor Holmes asked why the faster timeline was coming forward. As previously explained at the outset, Mr. Moser responded that this relates to a number of initiatives, one being the universal programme review where staff looked at opportunities for streamlining the process and save funds. It also relates to the 2004 budget where again there were reductions made to the budget and the increases to the fees. The fees were substantially increased and there was an expectation that with those increases that staff would be able to use that revenue to hire additional staff to meet the timelines agreed to. It is a two-pronged reason why this is brought forward and to advance some of the streamlining. Councillor Holmes iterated that because the City has increased fees, the development community is asking for faster service. Mr. Moser added that they asked that the City meet the targets agreed upon a number of years ago. City is not changing – e.g.oom~~from~~ ~~has been met 50% of the time. In 2003 that was accomplished 50% of the time. S~~ ~~and sbetterimprove~~Staff is not saying it will not deal with the issues and not have public notification, but it was looking to have a better on time delivery. Councillor Holmes assumed that part of the previous delays were partly the applicants, partly the technical circulation; there would be a number of reasons for those delays. Mr. Moser confirmed that everyone had a story. Councillor Holmes posited that the Committee would reports coming forward saying that there were technical groups that did not respond or that the application was missing certain component to finalize it and the Committee would send the report back to staff to say – continue on? Mr. Moser responded thatIf ~~staff’s intention was that if~~ ~~one page~~ ~~that would havebefore Committeeone page that would statedetailing– this is the~~ans~~which did~~ ~~did at Committee~~ ~~the~~ ~~April 13 and would explain whyAgenda~~. One of the reasons might be that the proponent and the Ward Councillor agreed that there should be a further public meeting. Staff is trying to bring accountability into the process and explain the reasons that staff was not able to meet the timelines and relate it to the reality that staff has to deal with on a day to day basis

S~~taff is~~ ~~endeavouring~~ ~~to place the onus on the other stakeholders to live within the timelines agreed to. The~~ CA’s M~~emorandum of~~ A~~greement spells out~~ ~~that a~~ ~~response~~ ~~is expected within~~ ~~28 days or the City assumes the CA is~~ ~~satisfied. The department has worked within the organization to have its colleagues meet the timelines as well.~~ ~~In essence,~~ ~~if a comment is received on the 33^rd day it will be incorporated~~ ~~into the report, but if it is received on the 45^th day when the report is signed off that information will come forward~~ at ~~Committee~~ ~~with a staff comment~~. T~~he report speaks to accountability and allows the department to recognize there are circumstances that make it~~ im~~possible for staff to meet its timelines.~~

~~Recommendation 2~~ ~~does~~ ~~includes consulting with community associations.~~

~~P. 250 – Site Plan Control – By-Law Amendment~~. A L~~etter of~~ U~~ndertaking is enforceable against the person who signed the letter, but~~ ~~unless there is a provision in a by-law elsewhere, the provisions in the~~ L~~etter are not enforceable against subsequent owners.~~

~~Mr. Moser undertook to provide Councillor Holmes with additional information on the impac~~t~~/affect on three door rows since these were contentious as infill developments.~~

~~Document 3 provides~~ ~~an indicator of what~~ is ~~required~~ ~~for~~ ~~the various types of applications. In this way, stakeholders will know the rules of engagement and~~ ~~can~~ ~~respond accordingly. Staff is attempting to eliminate the mystery and confusion from the process.~~ I~~f a process is introduced where~~by ~~there is a heads up to the Councillor once pre-consultation~~ ~~has~~ ~~taken place, then staff can inform the Councillor what is being looked for and if that information is not received the application will not proceed forward.~~

~~The process would continue to make allowances for the summer months.~~

~~Councillor Cullen was particularly concerned with p. 248~~ – ~~Issue Resolution – Staff Memorandum or~~ ~~Committee Report Preparation~~ ~~– one of the issues outlined states~~ ~~the department is no longer able to hold a series of meetings in the community to deal with an application. He posited that when the community is aware there is an application coming~~ ~~forward~~ and wants to better understand that application and issues being considered in evaluating that application – is there a notion there will not be staff representation at public meeting that comprises the presence of the Councillor, the developer, with full notification that there will not be ~~representation~~ ~~from a professional perspective on what the City planning criteria are.~~ Is that the intention? Mr. Moser explained the intent was facing the reality there was approximately $43,000 in funding for staff overtime curtailing the ability for staff to work and it limits the overtime to attend meetings. The ~~intent was to attend public meetings, but staff will not be able to attend a series of public on one specific issue. Basically,~~ ~~staff will like to meet the criteria that 1) is a major development; 2) there is an application on file, since the number of meetings staff attends where there may not b~~e an application in (?); 3) it would be seen as a controversial item in the community. Staff is not stating it will not attend, but looking to the Ward Councillor to be selective in inviting staff to meetings and staff will attend where it was felt to be the greatest need for staff to attend. Councillor Cullen repeated his understanding that staff attendance was limited to the complexity of the application and the number of meetings. Responding further, Mr. Moser explained that staff could not afford to attend three or four times to a meeting due to the limited overtime budget. ~~There was also the possibility to attend at meetings during the day although that was not always the best scenario for the community.~~ ~~Staff was also saying that at times it will entail negotiation at the Committee and it might not always be possible to come to Committee~~ with a consensus on a given issue. It is understood there had to be a certain sensitivity with infill and some of the issues are not concluded in one meeting, but it may reach a point with more of the detailed discussion taking place at Committee ~~as opposed to the past.~~

Councillor Cullen referred to the Site Plan Control Process – Street Townhouses – public consultation will still be followed in this respect. Mr. Moser advised there was nothing in the report that negates staff~~’s existing public consultation. Staff is simply stating that if an application is received at the same time as a subdivision, it is done at the same time.~~ ~~Councillor Cullen commented that it was an abbreviated form of site plan control – yes.~~

~~Councillor Cullen questioned what was changing~~ ~~100m~~² ~~to 200~~m²~~as the break~~ ~~point for a~~s~~signed planner approvals? Mr. Moser explained that when there was an addition, previously~~ ~~an assigned planner could deal with those that were~~ ~~100m~~² ~~they could deal with revisions, now staff is saying that will be bumped to~~ ~~200~~m²where the planner would have the authority to deal with those minor additions and it mirrors the suggestions being made under site plan control by-law revisions that would reflect going up from 100 to 200 being the cut-off point ~~for additions.~~ ~~Mr. Moser clarified that this related more to industrial, commercial~~ ~~(as opposed to residential)~~ ~~with a small revision being put forward and the break point where an assigned planner would be the sign off as opposed to the Director. He provided an example for ease of reference.~~ ~~The notification process, etc. would not change.~~

~~Councillor Holmes~~ ~~asked why the faster timeline was coming forward. As previously explained~~ ~~at the outset, Mr. Moser responded that this relates to a number of initiatives, one being the~~ ~~universal programme review where staff looked at opportunities for streamlining the process and save~~ ~~funds. It also relates to the 2004 budget where again there were reductions made to the budget and the increases to the fees. The~~ ~~fees were substantially increased and there was an expectation that with those increases that staff would be able to use that revenue to hire additional staff to meet the timelines agreed to. It~~ ~~is a two-pronged reason why this is brought forward and to advance some of the streamlining. Councillor~~ ~~Holmes iterated that because the City has increased fees, the development community is asking for faster service. Mr. Moser added that they~~ ~~asked that~~ ~~the City meet the targets agreed upon a number of years ago.~~ ~~The City is not changing – e.g. 98-day target for the receipt of a zoning from~~ ~~application~~ ~~to a report before Committee. In 2003 that was accomplished 50% of the time.~~ Staff is looking to better that. Staff is not saying it will not deal with the issues and not have public notification, but it was looking to have a better on time delivery. Councillor Holmes assumed that part of the previous delays were partly the applicants, partly the technical circulation; there would be a number of reasons for those delays. Mr. Moser confirmed that everyone had a story. Councillor Holmes posited that the Committee would reports coming forward saying that there were technical groups that did not respond or that the application was missing certain component to finalize it and the Committee would send the report back to staff to say – ~~continue~~ ~~on? Mr. Moser responded that staff’s intention was that if this process was in place today, there would be a report that would~~ ~~have one page that would state – this is the status of the applications intended to be at Committee but did not arrive at Committee on April 13 and would explain why. One~~ ~~of the reasons might be that the proponent and the Ward Councillor agreed that there should be a further public meeting. Staff is trying to bring accountability into the process~~ ~~and explain the reasons that staff was not able to meet the timelines and relate it to the reality that staff has to deal with on a day to day basis.~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendations.~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:~~

~~Receive this report.~~

~~RECEIVED~~

~~Direct the Planning and Development Department to consult with stakeholders on the proposed changes to the development review process.~~

3. Direct the Planning and Development Department to report back to the Planning and Environment Committee and Council by June 8, 2004 on the consultation with a detailed Action Plan on implementing changes to the development review process by June 30, 2004.

~~CARRIED~~

~~25 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPEALS~~

~~APPELS À LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-APR-0061~~ ~~city-wide~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation contained in departmental report dated 27 February 2004.~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.~~

~~RECEIVED~~

~~BUILDING SERVICES~~

~~DIRECTION DES SERVICES DU BÂTIMENT~~

~~26. SIGNS BY-LAW Minor variance - 2870 Sheffield Road~~

~~DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES ENSEIGNES - 2870, CHEMIN SHEFFIELD~~

~~ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0004~~ ~~alta vista (18)~~

Chair Hume noted there was a technical amendment related to the departmental recommendation contained in report dated 23 March 2004 agreed to by the applicant (as noted in e-mail dated 8 April 2004 from Randy Allen, National Accounts Manager, Ray Neon Signs Inc.

~~Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:~~

~~WHEREAS the staff report for this proposal recommends refusal in recommendation 1 and approval of a smaller sign in recommendation 2;~~

~~And WHEREAS, following discussion with staff, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal, as attached, that is acceptable to the Department;~~

~~And WHEREAS the applicant has requested that the revised submission be added to the report as Document 3, Revised Elevation;~~

~~THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that report reference number ACS2004-DEV-BLD-0004 be amended to add Document 3, as attached, and to revise Recommendation 2 as follows:~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a Recommended Minor Variance to Signs By-law 36-2000, of the former City of Ottawa, to allow a wall sign built above the roof-line~~ ~~and to permit an increase in the maximum permitted sign face area to 35 square metres, as illustrated in Document 3,~~ ~~instead of the maximum permitted sign face area of 20 square metres.~~

~~The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.~~

~~That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:~~

1. Refuse a Requested Minor Variance to Signs By-law 36-2000, of the former City of Ottawa, to legalize an existing wall sign built above the roof-line with a sign face area of 46 square metres instead of the maximum permitted sign face area of 20 square metres.

2. ~~Approve a Recommended Minor Variance to Signs By-law 36-2000, of the former City of Ottawa, to allow a wall sign built above the roof-line~~ ~~and to permit an increase in the maximum permitted sign face area to 35 square metres, as illustrated in Document 3,~~ ~~instead of the maximum permitted sign face area of 20 square metres.~~

~~CARRIED~~ ~~as amended~~ ~~with Councillor A. Cullen dissenting.~~

~~INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED~~

~~INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉ ANTÉRIEUREMENT~~

A. ~~Advisory Committee Reserve Appointment - Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee~~

~~Nomination d’un membre suppléant au Comité consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale~~

~~ACS2004-CRS-SEC-0026~~

~~RECEIVED~~

B. ~~Referral Motion - Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy 20/20 - Phase 1~~

~~Motion de renvoi~~ - ~~Stratégie 20/20 D’esthétique Urbaine Pour Le Centreville d’Ottawa - Étape 1~~

~~ACS2004-POL-0019~~

~~RECEIVED~~

~~INQUIRIES~~

~~DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS~~

~~Councillor / Conseillère D. Holmes~~

~~VERBAL CONCURRENCE BY STAFF ON REQUESTS FOR RE-ZONINGS PRIOR TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION~~

~~TRANSLATION~~

~~Councillor D. Holmes raised the following inquiry:~~

I have been informed of two recent instances in which applicants were informed by city staff that their requests for re-zoning would receive Departmental support, prior to circulation of the applications. The applicants were then advised to ascertain if I would also agree in advance to their applications.

~~These are the examples:~~

~~Somerset Street West – to rezone a property from R6 (Residential) to CN (Commercial).~~

~~Bank Street – to rezone a property from CN6 [3.0] to CN6 [5.0], to permit an 66% increased in GFA.~~

~~Regardless of the possible merits of these two requests, I wish to clarify the procedures for issuing verbal approvals on re-zoning applications:~~

~~What is the policy on this procedure, and how long has it been an established practice?~~

~~Does this practice contravene the City of Ottawa’s public consultation policy on planning matters?~~

~~Is the authority of City Council being abrogated by this procedure?~~

~~OTHER BUSINESS~~

~~AUTRE QUESTIONS~~

~~Appeals – Official~~ ~~Plan~~

~~Appels du plan officiel d’Ottawa~~

~~Mr. Marc~~ ~~advised the Committee that the~~ p~~re-hearing on the new OP has been scheduled for 22 – 28 June 2004. Further information would be provided to Committee and Council as it is forthcoming. He did not expect there~~ ~~would~~ ~~be one long hearing as~~ i~~n the 19~~8~~8 OP, but~~ ~~it would be more in keeping with the 1997 OP~~ ~~with~~ ~~separate hearings on the~~ ~~various~~ ~~appeals~~. ~~Mr. Marc~~ ~~did not anticipate~~ ~~the first~~ ~~hearing would be~~ ~~scheduled before January 2005.~~

~~CONFIDENTIAL AGENDA 3~~

~~ORDRE DU JOUR CONFIDENTIEL 3~~

~~Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:~~

~~That the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee move~~ ~~In Camera~~ ~~pursuant to Section 12(1) (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including staff, of the Procedure By-law, to consider Confidential Agenda 3.~~

~~CARRIED~~

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at ~~11:35 a~~7:30 p.m.

Original Signed by Original Signed by

Lorenzina Ferrari Peter Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 911/ Procès-verbal 911

Andrew S. Haydon HallChamplain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West