REFERRALS AND DEFERRALS

reports et renvois

1. PUBLIC DELEGATIONS – OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2009 DETAILED AUDIT REPORTS

DÉLÉGATIONS PUBLIQUES – BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL – RAPPORT ANNUEL DE 2009 ET RAPPORTS DE VÉRIFICATION DÉTAILLÉS DE 2009

(Referred from the City Council meeting of 23 June 2010/ Reporté de la réunion du Conseil municipal du 23 juin 2010)

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0034 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville

No public delegations were present to speak to the item. The item was received by Committee.

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive public delegations with respect to the following Auditor General’s reports (2009 Audit Reports) as referred by Council at its meeting of 23 June 2010, for subsequent consideration and approval of the audit recommendations by Council on 25 August 2010:

1. Audit of Eight Specific Building Code Services Files

2. Audit of a Specific House - Drawings

RECEIVED

2. MOTION – WATER BILLING FOR QUALICUM TERRACE BLOCKS F, G AND K

MOTION – FACTURATION D’EAU DES ÎLOTS F, G ET K DE QUALICUM TERRACE

(Referred from the City Council meeting of 14 July 2010/ Reporté de la réunion du Conseil municipal du 14 juillet 2010)

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0032 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville

Michael Loubier was present in support of the recommendations, but was unable to remain for the duration of the meeting.

Dixon Weir, General Manager of Environmental Services, outlined staff’s position on the motion put forward by Councillor Chiarelli. It is staff’s position that it remains necessary to keep a common service for the units in question due to City’s inability to shut off water to individual units without affecting the other service recipients. Staff does not want other service recipients to be affected if they need to shut off the service to one unit as a result of non-payment. Ken Hughes, Deputy City Treasurer, Revenue, explained that the City must terminate water service for non payment on a fairly regular basis.

Councillor Chiarelli explained that the affected residents have one common City service, but each has its own individual water meter. He questioned the rationale for opposing individual billing due to inability to shut off water for non payment, given that there are other ways the City can recover money from people. Mr. Hughes confirmed that utilities have other methods of collecting outstanding payments, including preauthorized payment plans and tax rolling; however, these only work to a point. He noted that the City is often “last in line” for payment if, for example, there are liens on the property or outstanding federal or provincial taxes. He further added that when the delinquent payee is a tenant the City cannot tax roll the charges. He noted that each year there are write offs for water arrears that the City is unable to collect. Further, he suggested that retaining a common service agreement and sub-metering can allow entities such as condominium corporations to identify leaks, and would support conservation, if there was an interest to do so.

Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, confirmed that the units in question were freehold, not condominiums.

Councillor Chiarelli inquired as to the relative costs of installing individual hydro services compared with individual water services. Mr. Weir surmised that it would be more expensive to install the water service, due to the need for underground infrastructure. Councillor Chiarelli questioned staff’s opposition to providing individual billing based on the notion that you could only collect by shutting off water, citing the other means of collection.

Councillor Hunter noted that when a water meter is put into a new development, the developer usually pays, and that cost is passed on to the homeowner in the home price. These homes have the meters, but do not have the individual shut off valves. He wondered if staff would be amenable to billing individually if the homeowners agreed to install individual shut off valves at their own expense. Mr. Weir expressed his reservations, due to the question of who would be responsible for maintaining that infrastructure.

Councillor Hunter noted conservation was an issue. He further noted that the City had greater means of collecting outstanding fees than does a condominium association or similar. He suggested the City could provide a more equitable level of service if they were to put in a shut-off valve.

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

That the motion be amended to add the following requirement: “subject to subject to the installation of individual services to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, and execution of an agreement of all owners, to the satisfaction of the City Clerk and Solicitor.

CARRIED

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that the sub-meters within the individual units of Qualicum Terrace Blocks F, G and K be recognized as meters and that each unit be billed separately for the water usage, subject to the installation of individual services to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, and execution of an agreement of all owners, to the satisfaction of the City Clerk and Solicitor.

CARRIED, as amended

3. COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS - MATTAMY SUBDIVISION, HALF MOON BAY

TROTTOIRS COMMUNAUTAIRES - LOTISSEMENT HALF MOON BAY DE MATTAMY

(Deferred at the the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 8 December 2009 / Reporté de la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement du 8 décembre 2009)

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0035 BARRHAVEN (3)

Committee received the following correspondence with respect to this item, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mails dated 19 August and 22 August 2010 from Klaus Beltzner

In response to questions from the Chair, Derrick Moodie, Acting Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services, confirmed that the motion was required in order to give staff the authority to implement Council’s direction. In this case, the subdivision agreements must be amended to enable particular sidewalks to come out. He further explained that the there was an ongoing exercise to review the policies around pedestrian use and intensification and the goals of council in that regard; this process is a separate undertaking from what was before Committee in this motion.

Klaus Beltzner spoke in opposition to the recommendations to remove the sidewalks. He noted that Councillor Harder had brought forward a similar motion in December 2009, at which time Committee had deferred the matter until such time as a full policy debate could come forward, indicating that the decision should not be done on a one-off basis. He noted that Committee had been presented with the charter for the group moving forward on the policy issues related to intensification, including walkability; however, no action had yet been taken to study the situation and present Committee with information to allow for a policy discussion. He questioned why the same motion was coming forward to delete sidewalks that were part of the Community plan and subdivision agreement, in the absence of that discussion.

Mr. Beltzner suggested the rationale for deleting the sidewalks was not very strong. He suggested there was a discrepancy because in December staff had indicated that some of the houses had been built and some had not, and now staff was saying some homes have been occupied for some time. He noted people with homes in the area were advised in their purchase agreement that sidewalks would be built, and wondered if everyone who purchased a house has agreed in writing that there should not be any sidewalks. He suggested that if there were concerns about how far from the street the houses had been built, this issue should have been identified earlier and addressed as part of the initial subdivision decision.

Mr. Beltzner suggested that there were alternatives to promote walkability besides just deleting the sidewalks and leaving it at that. He cited alternatives used in other jurisdictions, includes signs indicating that pedestrians and cyclists have the right of way or reduced speed limits. He lamented that no proposals had come forward to sustain walkability. In conclusion, he asked Committee to fulfill its previously-stated objectives of having a policy discussion in advance of deleting any sidewalks.

Having concluded all public delegations, the Chair turned the matter over to Committee for discussion and debate.

Councillor Doucet recalled Committee’s previous discussions on this item, noting he had mixed feelings about sidewalks. He suggested the necessity for sidewalks depends on the configuration of the streets in a particular area. He noted that some areas of the City, such as Manor Park, have no sidewalks; however, those areas have large lots, low density and easy street parking. He noted that the Half Moon Bay development was quite different as it was very dense with narrow roadways. He expressed concern with the idea of children sharing the narrow roads with moving vehicles.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Moodie indicated that the policy discussion on this issue was anticipated to be before Committee and Council in the first quarter of 2011. Councillor Feltmate suggested that she would support the deletion of the sidewalks in this case based on the history, but indicated that she wanted to bring forward a motion that no further requests of this nature be considered until that policy discussion occurs at Committee. The chair noted that there were no such requests pending, and the only way such a proposal would come before Committee was if a Councillor were to bring forward a motion. He questioned whether Committee could fetter a Councillor’s ability to bring forward a future motion.

Councillor Feltmate suggested it was regrettable that the policy work had not yet been done as it should have been. She noted that many subdivisions in Kanata had been built without sidewalks, and now residents were asking for them and feel that the streets aren’t safe for the children walking to school. Councillor Feltmate understood Councillor Harder’s concerns with respect to this particular community, and indicated she would be consenting in this instance; however, she emphasized that an important policy discussion needed to take place and suggested it should be a high priority to have that discussion come forward as early as possible in the new term of Council.

Councillor Qadri noted that the issue of sidewalks was just one issue within a broader policy discussion taking shape around developing communities such as Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay or Fairwinds in Kanata West. He noted that he had visited the area in question with City staff and had seen some of the unsafe situations that the sidewalks were creating. He suggested Committee should proceed with the deletion of the sidewalks in this development, and as part of the broader policy discussion look at how to implement sidewalks in developing communities or newer types of developments, such as the high-density development being introduced in Half Moon Bay. He suggested other issues with respect to this type of development, such as landscaping or locations of hydro boxes, would also need to be explored.

In response to questions from the Chair, staff confirmed that the majority of the homes in the subdivision in question had already been built, and the sidewalks were not put in at the time of construction.

Councillor Doucet wondered why Councillor Qadri had suggested sidewalks were dangerous. Councillor Qadri suggested that the sidewalks in this case are dangerous because the visibility for the vehicles backing in and out of their laneways is very limited, and the length of the driveway results in some vehicles actually sitting on the sidewalks.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Moser confirmed that development charges do not cover local roads, and the developer would have to pay for the sidewalks. In this case, although the streets in question are built out, the sidewalks were not constructed and have not yet been required as the phase is not complete. Mr. Moodie explained that the City is still holding securities for those sidewalks, so if Council chooses to go that route the developer would have to put them in.

Councillor Harder wished to emphasize that there was nothing inappropriate going on with respect to the timing of the motion, and that staff had felt it was necessary to bring it back at this time. She noted that, since the matter had previously come before Committee, she had e-mailed every Mattamy homeowner about the issue, including those who had not yet moved in, and had sent a copy of the report. She noted the removal of the sidewalks had widespread community support, and her office had received many expressions of support, and further noted that the only delegation opposing the motion was not from the area in question.

Councillor Harder also wished to highlight the pathway system that would be built in the area, and noted the ample connections school, shopping, parks and bus routes. She suggested the issue highlighted the need to have a policy that is flexible to meet the needs of the suburbs, just as exceptions are made for rural areas. She noted that the density being achieved in this area would be greater than the density being achieved in the inner greenbelt area. In conclusion, she encouraged Committee members to support the motion.

In response to several questions from Councillor Bellemare, staff reviewed the location map and highlighted where the sidewalks were to be deleted, where they would remain, and where no sidewalks were planned in the first place. It was noted that all collector roads had two sidewalks.

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the deletion of the requirement to construct the following sections of sidewalk in Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay Subdivision:

Phase 1

- All of Foxhound Way west of Freshwater Way

- All of Sunset Cove Circle

- All of Watermusic Bay and River Rock Avenue

Phase 2

- All of Baynes Sound Way and Blue Aster Street

- Nutgrove Avenue north of Blue Aster Street

CARRIED

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

PLANNING and growth management

URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance

4. ZONING – 1491-1493 STITTSVILLE MAIN STREET

ZONAGE – 1491 et 1493, rue Stittsville Main

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0120 stittsville (6)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, which were circulated to Committee and Council and are held on file with the City Clerk:

• Letter dated 18 August 18 2010 from Doug Mousseau

• E-mail dated 19 August 2010 from Lyn and Jim Arsenault

• Letter dated 20 August 2010 from Jim Gillick

• E-mail dated 23 August 2010 from Paula and Kevin McGetchie

• Letters dated 24 August 2010 from the Stittsville Village Association

Kathy Rygus, Planner, provided an overview of the proposed amendments and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. She did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. She was accompanied by Derrick Moodie, Acting Manager of Development Approvals, Suburban Services, Michael Boughton, Program Manager of Development Approvals, West District and Guy Bourgon, Program Manager of Development Approvals, Southeast District.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri with respect to the width of Main Street and the Traffic flow, Mr. Bourgon explained that the traffic situation was review by Traffic and Parking Operations staff at the time of submission. Although the application did not require a traffic impact study based on the City’s guidelines, the applicant submitted a traffic brief. Staff’s review indicated that, based on the units proposed, there were not considered to be any traffic implications and no road modifications were required (i.e. widening or turn lanes, and that it was felt that the existing road network could safely accommodate the traffic proposed. He noted that, while Stittsville Main Street was experiencing some congestion at peak times, this proposal was not considered to have any impact on that.

Councillor Qadri suggested that the traffic congestion problems on Stittsville Main Street were due to the development that has happened piece by piece in the area. He expressed his understanding that that the intersection Abbott Street and Main Street was the third highest traffic accident intersection in Stittsville.

Ms. Rygus explained that traffic and parking operations staff reviewed the accident data, and advised that there were no implications as a result of this development. Mr. Bourgon explained that at the intersection where the private entrance would be located, the intersection of Manchester Street and Stittsville Main Street, in the last three years there have been only two accidents.

Councillor Qadri noted that Manchester Street was a one-way street off of Stittsville Main Street, with no cross intersection prior to the planned development. He expressed greater concern with the intersection of Abbott Street and Stittsville Main Street, which was just north of this intersection. Mr. Bourgon confirmed that the traffic study also looked at that proximity, and determined that that the development would not cause any increased traffic tie-ups at the Abbott and Main Street intersection. Mr. Moodie indicated that Councillor Qadri was likely correct in his assumption that the Abbott street intersection was the third highest accident intersection in Stittsville. Mr. Bourgon added that, according to the traffic stud the frequency of accidents is not high on most of the intersections including the Abbott intersection.

Councillor Qadri commented on the fact that a traffic study was not required for this development due to the number of units. He noted that Main Street had been developing and would continue to develop. He noted that, while each individual development had said its piece would not affect traffic on the street, the cumulative impact has been congestion on Main Street. He suggested something had to be done about the congestion on Main Street for the long term. He noted that at Manchester and main, in order to make a left hand turn into this development off of Stittsville Main Street, there would be road modifications required in the future. He suggested there was a need to look at these issues before approving the development.

Councillor Hunter posed questions with respect to the section of the Official Plan (OP) which contains the special clause pertaining to Stittsville Main Street. He noted that this part of the Official Plan was not referenced in the report, and wanted to ensure that it had not been overlooked. He referenced the particular text of the OP, which indicates that any new constructions or modifications which have the affect of altering the exterior character along Stittsville Main Street be evaluated in the context of the existing Stittsville Main Street Master Plans and urban design guidelines. He wondered how that was taken into consideration, given that the Stittsville Main Street Master Plan designates an 11-metre height limit.

Ms. Rygus explained that the Stittsville Main Street design guidelines were prepared in 1988 for the township of Goulbourn, and the staff report refers to Stittsville as a village in the rural area wanting to keep its character and the document has been used to guide development over the past years. While the report, in referencing that document, does not specifically impose the 11 metre height limit, it does identify the area in question as “the railway zone,” which was the area that was specifically targeted for the most intense development. She noted that many of the criteria in that document are satisfied by the development. He noted that the height along Traditional Mainstreets is generally 15 metres, which was what was initially proposed for Stittsville Main Street. During the discussion on the comprehensive By-law, the height limit was dropped to 11 metres to reflect more closely the existing built form of the community. She emphasized, however, that this did not necessarily mean that this limit is what must always remain there. She noted that there are also more recent guidelines for traditional mainstreets that specifically encourage development along the main streets. She suggested that staff was balancing the 22-year old Stittsville Main Street design guidelines with the more current guidelines for Traditional Mainstreets. She noted that the proposed development was very close to what was recommended in those guidelines in terms of design and style.

Councillor Hunter suggested it would be helpful to have rationale in the report with respect to the rationale for breaching the 11 metre height guideline, as just described. He noted that Committee and Council had decided that 11 metres was an appropriate height limit for Stittsville Main Street. He suggested that if they were to be breaching that limit, with the suggestion that this was the wave of the future for Stittsville Main Street, perhaps there should be an OP amendment for the entire street so that this is not a one-off case. Mr. Boughton noted that staff was very cognizant of OP Policy 13, and felt they were striking the appropriate balance between the Stittsville Main Street Master Plan and the other traditional mainstreet policies and urban design guidelines.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette with respect to the height of the existing buildings on Stittsville Main Street, Ms. Rygus explained that most buildings are one or two storeys. There is a three-storey apartment building to the North on Stittsville Main Street and Orville Street and Site Plan has been approved for a three-storey development at the corner of Stittsville Main Street and Orville Street. Mr. Boughton noted that the proposal was higher than what is existing now, but suggested the character of Stittsville Main Street is was presently underdeveloped, despite it being classified a traditional mainstreet. H e noted there had not been a much Traditional Mainstreet redevelopment along that part of Stittsville Main Street, with most of the new commercial development over the preceding 10 years occurring to the north of the community, in the vicinity of the large commercial plaza where Stittsville Main Street meets Hazeldean Road. He suggested that, while the proposed development was slightly larger than the existing development, it could perhaps be the beginning of what could develop along Stittsville Main Street to develop a more traditional type of main street such as those in Almonte, Carleton Place or other smaller towns.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette with regards to the reduction in parking spaces for Area C, Ms. Rygus explained that there would be a slight parking reduction, it would still meet they By-law. The By-law requires 1.2 parking spaces for a stacked unit, plus 0.2 spaces for visitor parking, so a 24 unit development would generally require 34 spaces. The proposal provides 40 spaces, but they require a minor amendment because the By-law specifies that where a unit is without a private garage and driveway, the visitor space must located in a common lot. In the proposed development there are eight units where the parking has been reduced to one space, but there will be an arrangement for shared parking in the parking lot for the mixed-use building on the site, which will have 34 spaces. She noted that there would be a condominium agreement affecting both parts of the site, so parking would be available very close at hand, with ample visitor parking for the entire development. She noted that the OP promotes that there be opportunities to provide shared parking and not to provide more than the minimum required.

Councillor Qadri referenced the comments he had made in the Ward Councillor Comment section of the staff report, with respect to the special Traditional Mainstreet subzone for Stittsville Main Street (TM9) which was approved by Committee in October 2007 and ultimately approved by Council as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. He questioned why, after Council had just passed that By-law, they were now bending its requirements by entertaining height changes from the first applicant to request them.

Mr. Moodie noted that the City has an obligation to review any applications submitted by proponents under the Planning Act and assess them to determine whether they meet current policies, both City and provincial. He noted that, while the policies in the current zoning comply with the Provincial Policy Statement and the OP, staff’s position is that the application also meets the intent of those policies.

Councillor Qadri, while he appreciated staff’s position, felt that since the consideration of this application seemed to indicate that the comprehensive zoning by-law means nothing as long as Council is prepared to flex the policy based on the staff recommendation. Mr. Moodie explained that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law is a tool to implement the policies set by council. He noted that since the comprehensive zoning by-law was put forward, Council had also adopted an update to the OP. He suggested the policies in the OP are supportive of the type of proposal put forward by the proponent. He emphasized that staff was seeking to achieve a compromise between he what is traditionally seen in Stittsville along the mainstreets with the Council-approved traditional mainstreet guidelines.

Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

Mary Jane March, resident, spoke in opposition to the application. She questioned why the Stittsville Main Street guidelines were accorded more authority in the evaluation of this proposal. She suggested that the guidelines never intended anything over 2-3 storeys on Stittsville Main Street, and proposed that the five-storey mixed use building would be a height outlier within the Stittsville landscape. She noted that arguments in the staff report referred heavily to the Provincial Policy Statement and urban design principles. She emphasized that Stittsville was still part of rural Ottawa, and 31 kilometres from the centre of Ottawa. While she recognized that the town was growing, she maintained that its historical character should still be maintained and respected. She noted that many other village plans take into account setbacks when increasing heights of buildings, and suggested an appropriate setback be considered in this case.

Ms March noted that although Stittsville Main Street is a major artery, the site is located within the narrow historical stretch of the street where the older buildings and the distances between them are still preserved. She noted that this part of the street was too narrow for parking or tuning lanes. She suggested that to have a five- storey building right against it was not aesthetically pleasing nor in fitting with the plan for the area. She also expressed concerns with traffic, noting that there would be no space for a turning lane and crossing the street can be dangerous. She encouraged Committee to oppose the application.

Councillor Doucet suggested that in his ward five stories was considered reasonable for a main street, even when the streets are narrow. He noted that, while the shift from two to five stories had been a challenge for his community, they were also struggling against proposals for much higher developments. While he expressed sympathy for the delegation’s concerns, he pointed out that every other main streets in Ottawa were facing similar height increases. In response to the Councillor’s comments, Ms. March noted that she had moved away from the centre of the city to avoid the noise and congestion, and suggested that given the continued rural character of the area there was no need for the buildings to go shooting up yet.

Metin Akgun spoke primarily with respect to the traffic aspects of the development. He noted that the proposed development and the Orville Station development would add a significant number of dwelling units a significant number of dwelling units, as well as business premises, which have access to Stittsville Main Street. He observed that the intersection at Abbott Street was already at capacity during rush hour. He further surmised that there was no opportunity to widen this section of Stittsville Main Street without expropriating properties. He expressed concern with the fact that traffic studies typically consider only a small part of the street immediately adjacent to the proposed development, and thus generally find little or no traffic impact. He suggested the situation was analogous to the situation that has been experienced in recent years with the flooding in Glen Cairn due to the cumulative impact of developments.

Mr. Akgun noted that Stittsville had grown from a village into community many times larger, and maintained that Stittsville Main Street could not be expected to handle such increased population and traffic without some relief. He urged Committee to initiate a comprehensive traffic study for the entirety of Stittsville Main Street, taking into account current and potential developments, in order to assess the street’s capacity to handle further traffic.

David Plouffe, resident of Beechfern Drive adjacent to the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the application. He suggested the development did not enhance and complement existing development and disregarded Council’s previous planning decisions. He wished to emphasize that he was not opposed to development of the site, but suggested that an increase from 11 metres to 15 metres at the rear of the property was incongruent with the surrounding development. He felt it would overpower the surrounding properties and create an oppressive residential mass. He suggested the proposed development proposal ignores the context of pre-existing homes, pre-existing residential heights, and the balance and proportion of the existing neighbourhood

He maintained that the existing R2 zoning was appropriate and was being circumvented without adequate reason, and that the proposed rezoning would undermine the balance of the original R2 zoning height that was intended to be maintained. He further suggested that the Zoning process was being abused in this case, ultimately undermining Council’s own advice and planning objectives. He suggested that the developer, Dharma Developments, knew of the 11 metre height limit when they purchased the property, and their initial proposal reflected that. He suggested that, in order to make more profit, the developers had put forward a proposal that ignores the context of existing homes and businesses, both on the commercial frontage and in the residential area. He suggested the developers actions perhaps did not live up to their corporate image. He argued that it was not the City’s responsibility to protect the developer’s profit margin and that it was the developer’s responsibility to come up with a profitable proposal within the existing limits. He urged Committee to consider the negative impact that a 15 metre height would have on both the residential and the business aspects on Main Street, and encouraged Committee to hold to a vision of development that is reasonable and balanced.

Councillor Harder expressed her discomfort with some of the statements made by the delegation with respect to the developers and their profit motivation, and indicated that she believed them to be a reputable company. She suggested there may be other pressures and motivations for their actions, separate from profit. She appreciated the concerns of residents and emphasized there were similar pressures in her ward and elsewhere. She referenced an infill development in her ward that was zoned for 95 townhouses at the time of purchase, which has come back for a proposal for over 200 units due to changes to the City policies encouraging intensification.

Councillor Harder inquired whether the proposed zoning change was tied to transit or the City’s new intensification policies. Mr. Moodie noted that there were some changes to the site specific zoning for the rear portion of the property currently zoned R2 as a result of committee of adjustment decision to permit a narrower frontage. He explained that there are no specific density targets for this site, and there are no specific density targets for traditional mainstreets, though there are places where staff would like to see density.

Councillor Harder suggested height limits on traditional main streets were an issue that should be discussed by the intensification implementation working group.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, staff confirmed that this would be the first development proposal for Stittsville Main Street to build above the 11- metre height limit. It was noted that the nearby Orville Station development would have a height of three storeys, and an application had been received for further north on Main Street where the applicant had proposed something in the order of five or six stories.

David Jenkins, Stittsville Village Association (SVA), spoke in opposition to the proposal. He echoed the concerns of previous delegations with respect to traffic and density and noted that his association had challenged the parking calculations in the staff report, as outlined in the SVA’s written submission. His presentation is summarized as follows:

· SVA’s main concern is the proposed amendment to allow a height of 15 metres.

· Although the general Traditional Mainstreet zone allows building heights of between 6.7 and 20 metres, the TM9 subzone for Stittsville Main Street, which was approved in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, specifically allocated an 11 metre height.

· He noted that the core commercial zoning for Stittsville Main Street in Goulbourn Township was in place at 11 metres before amalgamation.

· During consultation on the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, the SVA had requested the existing 11 metre maximum building height be retained, and staff had agreed to retain it, in keeping with the existing height and unique character of Stittsville Main Street, and those recommendations were approved by Committee and Council.

· The Comprehensive Zoning By-law states that one purpose of the TM zone is to impose development standards that will ensure that street continuity, scale and character are maintained, and the Official plan states that the City supports intensification in the general urban area where it will enhance and compliment its desirable characteristics.

· The SVA believes that the proposal meets neither of the above-noted criteria, and that its approval would establish an unfortunate and unacceptable precedent for all future development on mainstreet.

· While they recognize that certain aspects of the general Traditional Mainstreet designation lend themselves to development under the City’s urban intensification policies, the SVA feels the construction of a 15 metre, five storey commercial/apartment complex at this or any other site in the TM9 subzone would alter the identity and character of Stittsville Main Street.

· Given the forgoing, and the public opposition from residents of Stittsville, he expressed difficulty understanding why staff was recommending amending the By-law to allow the maximum height on the site to be increased to 15m. The SVA believes the staff recommendation makes a mockery of the whole By-law consultation and development process.

· Given that Council already decided that 11 metres is the appropriate height, the SVA feels there is no reason to reverse that decision, and that to do so would negate theTM9 subzone for the rest of Stittsville Mainstreet and contribute to the disillusionment of the residents.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Jenkins confirmed that in addition to their objections to the 15 metre height limit on Main Street, the SVA also had objections to the fact that there will not be three-story stacked townhouses backing on low rise residential homes, and feel in is not compatible with the adjacent residences. .

Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants, was present on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He was accompanied by Mike LaSalle, Dharma Developments. Mr. Lasalle began by noted that the proposal was the culmination of many months of effort, working diligently and in good faith with City staff, the Ward Councillor and other stakeholders to finalize a design that satisfies the various requirements and maintains the commercial viability of the development. He expressed the belief that, after extended consultations and significant concessions, the design presents a creative and exciting new beginning for Stittsville Main Street north of Abbott Street and expressed a desire to move forward with the support of Committee and Council.

Mr. Tremblay expressed that the development proposal was consistent with the OP in terms of building heights, and compliant with design guidelines. He raised the following specific points:

· The application has been through a very long process, and the consulting team and developer feel they have been very responsive to the input from the Ward Councillor, Staff and the Community. The project was put on hold for approximately nine months to rethink the rear portion of the site, eliminating eight units from a 36-unit development in response to discomfort in the community with respect to the projected densities. The location of parking changed, and building setbacks amenity space increased, and parking reconfigured. He suggested the project had become more conventional in large part to respond to the community discomfort.

· A five storey building is required to make the project work if the developer is going to deliver this kind of building he wants, with the design features such as the carriageway.

· The direction to the architects was to deliver a design in keeping with Stittsville design guidelines, which speak to traditions small town architecture. The applicants believe the current proposal achieves that goal. He cited the carriageway, fourth storey railing, mansard roof and dormers as example of such architectural elements.

· The proposed buildings, while five stories, are intended to read as three storey buildings from a pedestrian perspective, given that the top two stories are set back in a meaningful way. The top floor is designed as a mansard roof, further softening weight of the top of that building. He noted these were purposeful elements in response to the design guidelines.

· With respect to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, he suggested that its purpose was to carry over existing zoning into the new provisions of the by-law, and was not a determination that else was appropriate and that the City would not be in a position to consider future amendments to increase building height.

· The applicants did not appeal the anomalies By-law that brought the height limit back down to 11 metres, and instead prepared an application for the City to consider a site-specific increase.

· He suggested the City was in good position to evaluate the proposal on its merits and challenged the notion that it would set a precedent, suggesting the City would evaluate future proposals on their merits.

· With respect to the issue of setback, he suggested the proposal had an appropriate setback for Stittsville Main Street. He suggested a five storey building did not warrant a larger setback, considering that the OP policies encourage buildings to be close to the street, as do the Stittsville Main Street design guidelines.

· To supplement the shallow setback, the first floor is recessed to provide a pedestrian arcade to accommodate the retailers and supplement the public sidewalk and the pedestrian treatment on Stittsville Main Street. All loading and parking are located in the rear of the building, and there will be landscaping.

· With respect to the Zoning change from R2A to R4Z, he noted that it had not garnered significant interest in the public. He emphasized that the stacked townhouse units were designed to be compatible with single, town and semi-detached homes.

· He noted that the applicants were maintaining the building height in that portion, with rear yards abutting rear yards and in some cases building setbacks in excess of that required by the zoning. . He suggested it was quite rare for the existing zoning to lend itself to construction of infill. In this case here, he suggested the existing zoning would lend itself best to a public street, but a private street is proposed because there is not the depth and the width to accommodate that.

Having concluded all public delegations, the Chair turned the report recommendations over to Committee for discussion and debate.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Moodie confirmed that the intent during the Comprehensive Zoning By-law had been to have a 15 metre height limit in conformity with that of other Traditional Mainstreets, until the SVA came forward with the recommendation to reduce it to 11 metres. He emphasized that the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw process was to carry forward the existing zonings rather than revisit every individual zoning across the City. As to why City staff would not have recommended 15 metres at that point if it was appropriate, Mr. Moodie noted that the intent of that process was largely harmonization, and there was not the level of public notification and consultation that you would see for site-specific zoning changes.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Rygus confirmed that the proposal for this site was always 15 metres, never 11 metres. The applicant did make changes in response to various concerns, which included reduced units at the rear, increased amenity space adjacent to other buildings, and reworked the parking to increase the widths of the spaces. She noted that, while a loading zone was not technically required, the applicants were providing a loading zone.

Councillor Feltmate wondered whether this development could be considered affordable housing, as she suspected the units would be less expensive than other units in Stittsville. She referenced this new type of development, citing the Java development in Jackson Trails as an example, and suggested intensification of this nature was required in order to achieve the Traditional Mainstreet ambience and ensure small retail is successful. Mr. Moodie suggested that there were several factors that contributed to the success of Traditional Mainstreets, including built form, design, and pedestrian friendliness, as well as a concentration of people within easy walking distance.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Moodie confirmed that staff was well aware of the public concerns with respect to the proposal, and was nonetheless recommending approval for the reasons previously stated.

Councillor Qadri reiterated his concerns with respect to proposed development, referencing the detailed comments he had provided as part of the staff report. He encouraged Committee to uphold the Council policy with respect to the 11 metre height limit, as approved in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. While he agreed that the City should be encouraging mixed use developments, he felt this particular development does not fit, is not compatible and does not work.

The Councillor further suggested that the location of the building at the corner close to the street was advantageous to the developer as it would prevent the widening of Stittsville Main Street. He acknowledged that the developer had made changes, as staff had told them they were trying to put too much on the sited, and as a result of concerns raised by the SVA with respect to parking. He urged Committee to reject the five story building, and argued the height limit should remain 11 metres.

Councillor Feltmate noted that she liked the development, including the setback, and felt it could move Stittsville Main Street forward; however, she acknowledged that there was merit to the argument that Council just accepted the 11 metre height limit. She raised the issue of how difficult it was for the City to defend decisions before the Ontario Municipal Board when they are contrary to staff’s recommendations. She indicated that she would be supporting staff in their recommendations.

Councillor Doucet suggested the proposed development was just the kind of development the City wants on Traditional Mainstreets. He cited Almonte as one example of where higher profile, active streetscapes work on main streets, and suggested this development was a return to the kind of development that defined Ottawa Valley towns.

Councillor Monette introduced the following motion:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the mixed sue building to be constructed at 1491-1493 Stittsville Main Street be restricted to four storeys.

In response to questions regarding the impact of the height reduction on the design of the proposed development, staff indicated that the applicants would have to go back and rework their proposal. Mr. Moodie indicated that the design would certainly be quite different from what is proposed. Committee then voted on Councillor Monette’s motion.

Moved by Councillor B. Monette;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the mixed sue building to be constructed at 1491-1493 Stittsville Main Street be restricted to four storeys.

LOST

YEAS (3):Councillors M. Bellemare, B. Monette, S. Qadri

NAYS (4): Councillors C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, G. Hunter

Committee then voted to approve the report recommendations, as presented.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1491 and 1493 Stittsville Main Street from TM9[465]H(11)-h (Traditional Mainstreet Subzone 9, Exception 465, Height 11 metres, Holding Zone) and R2A[1300]-h (Residential Second Density Subzone A, Exception 1300, Holding Zone) to TM9[465]H(15)-h (Traditional Mainstreet Subzone 9, Exception 465, Height 15 metres, Holding Zone) and R4Z[1300]-h (Residential Fourth Density Subzone Z, Exception 1300, Holding Zone) as shown in Documents 1 and 3, and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED

YEAS (4): Councillors C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, G. Hunter

NAYS (3): Councillors M. Bellemare, B. Monette, S. Qadri

5. ZONING – LANSDOWNE PARK (LANSDOWNE PARTNERSHIP PLAN)

ZONAGE – PARC LANSDOWNE (PLAN DE PARTENARIAT POUR LE PARC LANSDOWNE)

acs2010-ICS-PGM-0154 capital/capitale (17)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

The Chair advised that the item would be tabled at the present meeting, for consideration at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 14 September 2010. He indicated that the staff presentation would take place on September 14^th, and all public delegations would also be heard on that date.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate;

BE IT RESOLVED that the report be tabled for consideration at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 14 September 2010.

CARRIED

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to establish a new L2, Major Leisure Facility Subzone to be known as “L2C Subzone – Lansdowne” and to change the zoning for Lansdowne Park shown as Area A on Document 1, from L2[338]F(1.5), Major Leisure Facility exception zone to L2C[338]SXXX-h, Major Leisure Facility Subzone exception zone with a Schedule and holding symbol, to accommodate the Lansdowne Partnership Plan as detailed in Document 2;

2. An amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of the Lansdowne Community Park shown as Area B on Document 1 from L2[338] F(1.5) to L2 F(1.5).

TABLED for Consideration on 14 September

6. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250 - ANOMALIES AND MINOR CORRECTIONS - THIRD QUARTER 2010

RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS MINEURES – troisiÈme TRIMESTRE 2010

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0139 wardS (1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

An e-mail dated 23 August 2010 was received from Bryan Bonell with respect to this matter.

Staff advised that, with the exception of the amendments pertaining to 85 Range Road and 2865 Riverside Drive, insufficient notice had been provided for the remaining items on the List of Anomalies and Modifications to Zoning By-law 2008-250 for consideration by Planning and Environment Committee, listed as Document 1 of the staff report. As a result, Committee did not consider those items, and they will be brought forward to a subsequent meeting.

Committee approved the following motions:

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That report number ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0139 be amended by:

1. Adding the following text to Column III of Document 1, regarding the property located at 2865 Riverside Drive, “Column V – Provisions, of exception [xxxx] to read, “- the use residential care facility is subject to the apartment dwelling, low-rise provisions in the R4N subzone”.”

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

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

WHEREAS the anomalies and minor corrections to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2005-250 listed in report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0139 are scheduled for consideration by City Council on 8 September 2010, after consideration by both PEC and ARAC.

AND WHEREAS there is some urgency to have Council consider the amendments pertaining to part of 85 Range Road, due to an upcoming OMB hearing.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that the zoning amendments for 85 Range Road and 2865 Riverside Drive be approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2005-250 pertaining to part of 85 Range Road be forwarded to City Council for consideration at its meeting of 25 August 2010

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that zoning for 2865 Riverside Drive be considered by City Council at its meeting of 8 September 2010.

And that no further notice be required under section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

CARRIED

7. SIGN BY-LAW MINOR VARIANCE – 1026 BASELINE ROAD

dérogation mineure au règlement sur les enseignes – 1026, chemin Baseline

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0133 knoxdale-merivale (9)

Committee received the following correspondence with respect to this item:

· E-mail dated 23 August 2010 from the Fisher Heights & Area Community Association

· E-mail dated 23 August 2010 from Ken Harten

· E-mail dated 24 August 2010 from Valerie Ryan

Paul Blanchett, Project Coordinator, provided an overview of the application and staff`s recommendation on same. He did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Harder, Mr. Blanchett confirmed that the sign would have internal illumination for the identification area and an LED message centre. Staff is recommending amber illumination rather than the red illumination.

In response to questions from Councillor Harder, Arlene Grégoire, Chief Building Official, noted that staff does not tend to agree to a sign minor variance for twice the size of a sign. She explained that staff’s recommendation was to reject the applicant’s proposal and approve a sign approximately half of what they were asking for, which still represents a 30 per cent increase to the size of the sign. She noted that staff had done everything possible to mitigate a larger sign and felt a 30 per cent increase was reasonable. She confirmed that staff did take into account the fact that Baseline is a major collector road, and the area it is a mixed use location.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Ms. Grégoire confirmed that there were no safety concerns with the sign staff was recommending, as it would be set back sufficiently from the roadway and would not cause any more issues than the other signs along Merivale Road and Baseline Road in the area. She also confirmed that staff had taken into consideration the impacts of an illuminated signs on residents at night. This is why staff has recommended a smaller sign and are requiring that the LED messaging centre be done with amber colour instead of bright red. She suggested that there would likely be more lighting from the street lights than there would be from the sign. She confirmed that, while there are similar signs used by other similar uses in the City, none are for this particular type of use.

Committee then heard from the following public delegation:

Alain Bergeron, Ray Neon Signs, spoke on behalf of the applicants, Centro Marconi/ Villa Marconi, in opposition to the staff recommendation, and in support of the sign originally proposed by the applicant. He was accompanied by Domenico Ricci from Villa Marconi. He noted that he had been approached by the applicant to find a way to promote their facilities – a retirement home, community centre and day care centre. He noted that the facility is located 250 feet from baseline road, and difficult to see from the road. By means of various site photos, Mr. Bergeron described the sight lines of the building, the existing temporary sign and the proposed sign. Thus, the only way to promote the facility is to have a sign as close as possible to Baseline Road.

While he understood that the facility was located adjacent to a residential area, he noted that they were willing to locate their proposed sign 240 feet from the closest residential neighbour. With respect to neighbours’ concerns about privacy, he noted there were large trees blocking the views from the neighbouring homes. He expressed confusion as to why their proposed sign would not be permitted, when there are larger pylons nearby located closer to residences. In conclusion, he asked Committee to take into consideration that his clients were trying to promote valuable services to the community, and the proposed sign was the only way for them to do so.

Councillor Bellemare expressed concern about night time illumination, and wondered if the applicants would concede to turn off the sign’s illumination between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Mr. Bergeron noted that they had never been asked to do so by City staff. Mr. Ricci indicated that shutting down the sign at night could be a possibility; however, he suggested the streetlights and traffic on Baseline posed more of a disturbance than the sign would. Ms. Grégoire noted that the City does not have the authority to regulate when a sign is on or off, nor the resources to enforce it even if it were in the By-law. She noted that the department would be retaining a consultant to provide advice on ways for us to manage the issue of illumination, which would be the subject of a future report to Committee and Council.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Ms. Grégoire confirmed that staff was recommending a sign at approximately the location of the temporary sign, while the proponent was seeking one further west. Mr. Bergeron explained that they were asking for a sign further west so that there would be a greater distance from existing residences. He further suggested that with the sign further back, drivers coming down Baseline Road towards Fisher Avenue will be able to see it from the top of the hill, rather than while going down the hill.

Councillor Hunter noted that based on his consultation with the community association, the major concern was with respect to the size of the sign rather than the illumination. He suggested the existing three metre temporary sign at the present location was visible and effective. Mr. Bergeron disagreed, suggesting the staff photos were misleading, and the sign was not very visible from key areas of Baseline Road.

Having concluded its discussion, Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented:

That Planning and Environment Committee:

1. Refuse variances to Sign By-law 2005‑439, to allow an illuminated identification ground sign with a height of 7.5 metres instead of three metres, with an area of 15.6 square metres instead of seven square metres and with an internally illuminated message centre having an area of 3.7 square metres, whereas the by-law only allows a non-illuminated message centre no larger than 1.75 square metres.

2. Approve variances to Sign By-law 2005-439, to allow an illuminated identification ground sign on the Baseline frontage with a height of four metres, with an area no greater than 9.3 square metres, which includes an illuminated message centre being no greater than 2.3 square metres using amber lighting, provided the sign is located at least 30 metres from the eastern property line and it has the address on the sign.

CARRIED

8. DIGITAL BILLBOARD SIGN - PILOT PROJECT

PROJET PILOTE DE PANNEAUX D’AFFICHAGE NUMÉRIQUES

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0143 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. Waiver of Section 170(2) of Sign By-law 2005-439 pertaining to illumination restrictions prohibiting readograph and electronic messages on billboard signs and permitting digital LED billboard signs as a pilot project for a maximum two-year period at three of the locations set out in the Billboard Advertising Report approved by City Council on July 14, 2010, as determined by the Director of Building Code Services following consultation with the respective Ward Councillor.

2. Authorizing the Director of Building Code Services to impose such constraints as to the illumination intensity, the frequency and manner the images change, etc, as is deemed necessary by the Director, to facilitate the pilot while having due regard to public safety.

CARRIED

9. PARK FRONT-ENDING POLICY AND STANDARD AGREEMENT FORMAT

POLITIQUE INITIALE RELATIVE AUX PARCS ET FORMULATION DU CONTRAT-TYPE s

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0145 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Chair advised that there had been a request from representatives of the home building industry to have the item referred back to staff for further consultation with the industry. In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate as to when the report would come back to Committee, John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management estimated that it would probably take staff into October before they could come back with a response.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That this matter be referred back to staff.

CARRIED

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the following:

1. The Park Front-Ending Policy, as detailed in Document 2, for use effective immediately;

2. That the City Clerk and Solicitor be directed to seek an amendment to the Development Charges By-law to provide for the payment by non-frontenders of the park component of the development charge at subdivision registration or the issuance of the first building permit, whichever come earlier.

REFERRED TO STAFF

10. COST SHARING/Reimbursement FOR OVERSIZING OF Morgan’s Grant/terry fox drive URBAN COMMUNITY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT facility AND OVER-SIZED TRUNK SEWERS and road works

partage des coûts/Remboursement des coûts de surdimensionnement de l’installation de gestion des eaux pluviales de la communauté urbaine de Morgan’s Grant/promenade terry fox et de construction D’ÉGOUTS séparatifs collecteurs surdimensionnés, ainsi que les coûts des travaux routiers

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0151 kanata north/nord (4)

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council authorize the City to enter into a front-ending agreement to reimburse Minto Developments Inc. for costs related to the design and construction to oversize the Morgan’s Grant/Terry Fox Drive stormwater management facility and trunk sewers and road works, subject to:

1. The agreement being to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department and the City Clerk and Solicitor, and

2. The expenditure to reimburse Minto Development Inc. (“Minto”) is not to exceed $891,559.00.

CARRIED

11. VACANT URBAN LAND SURVEY, 2009 UPDATE

ENQUêTE SUR LES TERRAINS RÉSIDENTIELS VACANTS EN MILIEU URBAIN, MISE À JOUR DE 2009

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0135 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

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

RECEIVED

12. ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2009

RAPPORT ANNUEL SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT – 2009

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0144 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

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

RECEIVED

environmental services

services environmentaux

13. PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRINT AT THE WEST CARLETON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE – CITY COMMENT CONFIRMATION

CADRE DE RÉFÉRENCE PROPOSÉES POUR UNE ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DE LA SUPERFICIE D’UN NOUVEAU SITE D'ENFOUISSEMENT AU CENTRE ENVIRONNEMENTAL DE WEST CARLETON

ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0025 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Comments were received from the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) with respect to this item.

The Chair noted that a revised Document 2 to the staff report had been circulated by staff in advance of the meeting. Committee then approved the report inclusive of the revised document.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council confirm its comments on Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Proposed Terms of Reference for an Environmental Assessment of a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre and direct staff to forward the confirmed comments, as set out in Documents 1 and 2, to the Ministry of the Environment.

CARRIED

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE

DÉVELOPPEMENT ET RENDEMENT ORGANISATIONNELS

14. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT TO COUNCIL, Q2: APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30, 2010

RAPPORT TRIMESTRIEL SUR LE RENDEMENT PRÉSENTÉ AU CONSEIL POUR LE 2E TRIMESTRE, DU 1ER AVRIL AU 30 JUIN 2010

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0036 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the service areas’ performance results, as outlined in Document 2.

RECEIVED

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

15. URBAN PARK COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Consultation communautaire sur le parc urbain

ACS2010-CMR-OCM-0005 CAPITAL/CAPITALE (17)

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the refined communication and consultation approach on the Urban Park design and programming proposal as described in this report.

CARRIED

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

SERVICES FINANCIERS

16. 2010 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Q2 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT

BUDGETS DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET DES IMMOBILISATIONS 2010 – T2 – RAPPORT D’ÉTAPE DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0057 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive the June 30 results and the 2010 forecast as outlined in this report for information.

RECEIVED

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

POINTS SUPPLÉMENTAIRES

17. EXEMPTION FROM THE DEMOLITION CONTROL PROCESS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 740-746 GLADSTONE AVENUE

EXEMPTION AU PROCESSUS DE DÉMOLITION POUR LA PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE AU 740-746, AVENUE GLADSTONE

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0038 SOMERSET (14)

The Chair advised that Councillor Feltmate, on behalf of Councillor Holmes was requesting the addition of an item to the agenda, a motion to exempt 740-746 Gladstone Avenue from the Demolition Control process, subject to certain conditions being fulfilled by the owner. The Chair indicated that staff was in support of the motion.

Mehdi Shafiei, owner of the property, was present in support of the motion.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That the Planning And Environment Committee approve the addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law (being by-law no. 2006-462).

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

WHEREAS demolitions of residential dwelling units, located in the former City of Ottawa are subject to the Demolition Control process as set out in the former City of Ottawa Demolition Control By-law;

AND WHEREAS applications are normally submitted by the property Owner or developer of a residential dwelling where the replacement residential dwelling is not slated to be constructed immediately following the demolition of the building, likely to afford the property Owner or developer time to crystallize plans for redevelopment;

AND WHEREAS the properties at 740 and 746 Gladstone Avenue in Somerset Ward 14 have been vacant, and in a state of disrepair, for approximately 4 years;

AND WHEREAS these properties have been subject to numerous calls for service to City of Ottawa By-law personnel;

AND WHEREAS these properties have been subject to numerous calls for service to the Ottawa Police Service;

AND WHEREAS the current condition of these properties present safety concerns that require significant staff resources;

AND WHEREAS as the Site-Plan Control application was approved under delegated Authority in 2009;

AND WHREAS the Committee of Adjustment approved the necessary variances in March of 2008;

AND WHEREAS the proponent has agreed to bollard, seed/sod and maintain the property and not to use the property for any other interim use between the demolition of the existing buildings and the time of construction of any replacement building;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the properties located at 740-746 Gladstone Avenue be exempted, on the condition that proponent agrees in writing to bollard, seed/sod and maintain the property and to not use the property for any other interim use, from the requirements set out in the Demolition Control By-law, so as to enable the owner to obtain, without delay, the demolition permit required under the Building Code Act to demolish these buildings as soon as possible.

CARRIED

18. EXEMPTION FROM THE DEMOLITION CONTROL PROCESS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 817 MONTRÉAL ROAD

EXEMPTION AU PROCESSUS DE DÉMOLITION POUR LA PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE AU 817, CHEMIN MONTRÉAL

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0039 Rideau-rockcliffe (13)

The Chair advised that Councillor Legendre was requesting the addition of an item to the agenda, a motion to exempt 817 Montréal Road from the Demolition Control process, subject to certain conditions being fulfilled by the owner.

Councillor Legendre indicated that the staff was aware of and in support of the motion. He further indicated that the property owner was aware of the motion, supported it, and had requested the exemption.

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet

AND WHEREAS the property at 817 Montréal Road in Rideau-Rockcliffe Ward 13 has been vacant, and in a state of disrepair, for approximately 4 years, and is broken into on a regular basis;

AND WHEREAS these properties have been subject to numerous calls for service to City of Ottawa By-law personnel;

AND WHEREAS these properties have been subject to numerous calls for service to the Ottawa Police Service;

AND WHEREAS the current condition of these properties present safety concerns that require significant staff resources;

AND WHEREAS the property owner intends to file an application for redevelopment;

AND WHEREAS the Ward Councillor has indicated his support for exempting this property from the requirements of the Demolition Control By-law;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the property located at 817 Montréal Road be exempted from the requirements set out in the Demolition Control By-law, on the condition that proponent agrees in writing to submit a development application within 90 days of the passing of this Motion; to seed/sod and maintain the property and to not use the property for any other interim use, so as to enable the owner to obtain, without delay, the demolition permit required under the Building Code Act to demolish these buildings as soon as possible.

CARRIED

19. PROPOSED BUILDING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

BUDGETS DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET DES IMMOBILISATIONS 2010 – T2 – PROPOSITION D’AMENDEMENT AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LE BÂTIMENT

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0040 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

The Chair advised that Building Code staff, through Councillor Hunter, were bringing forward a motion to amend the building By-law. An explanatory Memo from John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management, was previously circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter:

WHEREAS in 2005, as part of the changes introduced to address new statutory requirements of the Building Code Act and in keeping with the requirement to fully cost recover Building Code related activities through user fees, the City introduced a specific fee, in addition to the building permit fee, referred to as the Refundable Inspection Fee;

AND WHEREAS the Refundable Inspection Fee was designed to encourage permit holders to better manage their construction portfolios and their draw on the City’s limited inspection resources by not calling for inspections prematurely or unnecessarily, etc.;

AND WHEREAS the Fee also was designed to encourage permit holders to obtain final occupancy permits for the construction of residential units (low rise) within a reasonable period of time following the issuance of the partial occupancy permit thus ensuring construction was completed in compliance with the Building Code and enabling the City to close the permit files;

AND WHEREAS the Refundable Inspection Fee process has been effective in reducing the number of outstanding files and misuse of the City’s resources;

AND WHEREAS Section 40 of the Building By-law 2005-303 provides for the forfeiture of the Refundable Inspection Fee where the final occupancy permit has not been issued within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the building permit;

AND WHEREAS unanticipated and continued peak construction activity since 2006 in the housing sector has resulted in a substantial backlog of final occupancy inspections for both the permit holders and the Building Code Services branch and the potential for the forfeiture of large sums of the deposits due to peak workloads;

AND WHEREAS this culmination of workloads has had and will continue to have the impact of large sums of the deposits being forfeited, not because of misuse of City resources but rather as a result of an arbitrarily set timeframe that in 2005 appeared to be reasonable and sufficient for the industry to clear its roster of final occupancy inspections;

AND WHEREAS the final inspection entails completion checks of the exterior building elements and that winter will interrupt the completion of exterior elements such as with the final installation of decks, and the grading of yards, etc., thus postponing the final occupancy inspection two to three years after the permit has been issued;

AND WHEREAS it was not the intent of Building Code Services branch to accumulate a windfall of revenue, that is, Section 40 was designed to discourage poor practices rather than generate revenues and while the branch and the industry anticipated that three years was a reasonable timeframe for obtaining final occupancy inspections, workloads have been such that the period of time is not sufficient;

AND WHEREAS building permit related fees must only cost recover the cost associated in servicing building permits and the enforcement of the Building Code Act and Code and not generate surplus revenues, that the Building Code reserve fund is fully funded, and that this windfall is unintended and unnecessary;

AND WHEREAS the Building Code Act and Code requires notice be provided where a change in the building permit fee is contemplated but not with respect to administrative matters and accordingly, there is no requirement for a statutory notice of the proposed amendment to the Building By-law, but that nevertheless, staff have given notice to industry representatives;

AND WHEREAS the Province has introduced new legislation that will mandate the final occupancy inspections and will require changes to the City’s inspections processes, including the administration of the Refundable Inspection Fee, and these changes will take effect in 2012;

BE IT RESOLVED that in the interim, Section 40 of the Building By-law 2005-303 be amended to extend the period of time before the fee is forfeited to four (4) years rather than the present three (3) years to enable the building industry and the Building Code Services branch to deal more effectively with the peak workloads and backlogs;

AND BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to reinstate the fees forfeited since January 1, 2010 subject to the permit holder obtaining the related outstanding final occupancy permit within the four (4) year timeframe;

AND BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief Building Official take the necessary steps to address the backlogs and peak workloads, including establishing additional FTEs and improved technological tools and equipment in the 2011 budget, the costs of which will be covered by building permit fees.

CARRIED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESERVE APPOINTMENT – OTTWA FORESTS AND GREENSPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOMINATION D’UN MEMBRE SUPPLÉANT AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LES FORÊTS ET LES ESPACES VERTS D’OTTAWA

ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0077 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

RECEIVED

NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)

AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)

Councillor C. Doucet

MOTION

WHEREAS the applicant for 1440 Bank Street has been required to install extra sewage pipes to accommodate the city’s new policy that requires the property owner at the end of a line to assume responsibility for issues that arise on other properties,

WHEREAS the city has been aware of the particular issues at this location for some time, specifically the nature of the terrain and the soil conditions,

WHEREAS in order to be compliant with the city policy, the property owner will be paying a significant amount of money to address the issues that have been inherited at this location – costs which normally would not be borne for a development of this size.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT that the Cash in Lieu of Parkland fee $19,451.00 associated with this application be waived.

MOTION

WHEREAS the applicant to develop this property has been forced to reduce the size of the proposed four storey building at this location to a three storey building, and to move the building further from the street as a result of the proximity to high voltage hydro lines on Main Street,

AND WHEREAS the information that there were any issues with the site plan drawings related to the proximity to the hydro wires was not available to the applicant until well into the process,

AND WHEREAS the associated financial costs to the applicant, to entirely redo the drawings and to modify the project from four stories to three and to modify the project from the proposed condominium units to rental units, have been onerous; and do not allow for the full recuperation of costs,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the cash-in-lieu of parkland fee ($11,191.94) associated with this application be waived.

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

Councillor Feltmate

Is Wastewater and Drainage Operations aware of the problems with odour at the Glen Cairn Pond
Has the cause of the odour been identified?
What action is planned to deal with the odour?

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The meeting was ajourned at 1:05 p.m.

PROCHAINE RÉUNION

NEXT MEETING

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Le mardi 14 septembre 2010

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 79 / ProcÈs-verbal 79

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

RECEIVED