Planning and Environment Committee Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement MINUTES 81 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 81 Tuesday, 28 September 2010, 9:30 a.m. le mardi 28 septembre 2010, 9 h 30 Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest Present / Présent : Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président) Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri Regrets / Excuses: Councillor / Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice Chair / Vice-présidente) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT No declarations of interest were filed. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RATIFICATION DES PROCÈS-VERBAUX Minutes 80 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of Tuesday, 14 September 2010 were confirmed. At the outset, Councillor Holmes objected to the fact that large and controversial items were being placed on the Committee’s agenda during this election period, which she felt did not give the public their due. While he sympathized with the councillor’s concerns and frustrations, the Chair explained that he tried to keep the agendas as reasonable as possible through this busy period, but it was not always possible to do so. He recognized that the Committee would lose quorum by 4:00 p.m. and, given the numerous delegations to be heard, remarked that it was possible the Committee would be recessed until 4 October to conclude its’ business. STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS SUBMITTED POST JANUARY 1, 2007 DÉCLARATION POUR LES QUESTIONS SOUS LA LOI SUR L’AMENAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007 The Chair read a statement relative to the Zoning By-law Amendments listed as item 2-6 on the agenda. He advised that only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions before the amendments were adopted could appeal to the OMB. The applicant may also appeal the matter if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days (zoning) and 180 days (Official Plan) of receipt of the application. He also advised that there were comment sheets available for those wishing to submit written comments on the above-cited application. OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA 1. APPLICATION TO ALTER 294 MANOR AVENUE, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT AND LOCATED IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE AU 294, AVENUE MANOR, DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO ET SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0163 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13) That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council: 1. Approve the application for alterations at 294 Manor Avenue according to plans submitted by Denis Kane, ARC Associates, August 3, 2010; 2. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance; 3. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department. CARRIED (Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on October 31, 2010) (Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.) INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE 2. ZONING – 90 RICHMOND ROAD, 114 RICHMOND ROAD AND 380 LEIGHTON TERRACE ZONAGE – LE 90 ET LE 114 DU CHEMIN RICHMOND AINSI QUE LE 380, TERRASSE LEIGHTON ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0146 KITCHISSIPPI (15) (This matter is Subject to Bill 51) Committee received the following written submissions with respect to this matter, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk: * * Letter dated 23 September 2010 from the Wellington Village Community Association * Letter dated 28 September 2010 from the Westboro Community Association * Presentation dated 28 September 2010 from the Champlain Park Community Association * Presentation dated 28 September 2010 from the Hampton Iona Community Group * Presentation dated 28 September 2020 from the Island Park Community Association * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Wendy Atkin * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Andrew Balfour * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Marnie Beaubien * E-mail dated 26 September 2020 from Katie Bonnar * E-mail dated 26 September 2010 from Ian Bowles and Louise Patry * E-mail dated 18 September 2010 from Daniel Buckles * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Archie Campbell * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Sam Carson * E-mail dated 27 September 2010 from Al Clark * E-mail dated 22 September 2010 from G. R. Clarke * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Julie Creasey * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Dino Cule * Email dated 17 September 2020 from Bonnie Dinning * E-mail dated 27 September 2010 from Stephen Downes * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from David Drynan * Letter dated 26 September 2010 from Brenda Fawcett * Letter dated 27 September 2010from Patrick and Anne Finn * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from John A. Fraser * E-mail dated 27 September 2010 from Gwen Gall * Letter dated 27 September 2010from Jacques Itie * E-mail dated 22 September 2010 from Jack Jensen * E-mail from dated 28 September 2010 M. Kavanagh * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Amy Kempster * E-mail dated 9 September 2010 from Jeffrey Knoll * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Gary Larkin * E-mail dated 2 September 2020 from Peter Larson * E-mail dated 27 September 2010 from David Long * E-mail dated 1 September 2010 from Ian Matheson * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Dom McAlae * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Shannon McCarney * Letter dated 10 September 2010 Jennifer McKenzie, OCDSB Trustee * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Margo Milligan * E-mail dated 25 September 25 from Claire Mullen * E-mail dated 27 September 2020 from Paul Murray * E-mail dated 31 August 2010 from Ian and Kate Murton * E-mail dated 28 September 2010 from Kevin O’Donnell * E-mail dated 2 September 2010 from Franca Palermo * E-mail dated 27 September 2020 from Mona Pare * Letter dated 27 September 2010from Katie Paris * E-mail dated 9 September 2010 from Paul Richer * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Jennie Riddick * E-mail dated 30 August 2010 from Tudor Robbins * E-mail dated 12 September 2020 from Mark Rollins * E-mail dated 26 September 2010 from James Rossiter * E-mail dated 23 September 2010 from Naomi Short * E-mail dated 26 September 2010 from Justin Slootsky * Letter dated 27 September 2010from Elaine Taylor * Letter dated 23 September 2020 from Jason Thomson * Letter dated 23 September 2010 from Heather Thomson * E-mail dated 27 September 2010 and comments date 28 September 2010 from Margaret Thomson * E-mail dated 26 September 2010 from Andrea Tomkins * E-mail dated 27 September 2010from Núria Vila Perexés and David Cheney * E-mail dated 10 September 2010 from Irene Warner * E-mail dated 18 September 2010 from Krista Waugh * Letter dated 28 September 2010 from Mari Wellman * E-mail dated 30 August 2010 from Kerri Weller * E-mail dated 22 September 2010 from Abi Lyon Wicke * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Robert Wild * E-mail dated 4 September 2010 from Carly Wood * Comments dated 28 September 2010 Catherine Wood With the will of Committee, the Chair advised at the outset that this item would be considered last due to the large number of delegations that were registered. Committee began its discussion if this item at 1:30 p.m., after recessing for lunch. Chair Hume explained that Councillor Holmes would be moving a motion on behalf of Councillor Leadman that asked staff to create a Section 37 agreement under the Planning Act. He stated that in addition to creating a Section 37 agreement, which provides for community benefits in return for increases in height and density, it has the operative effect of deferring the application to a future meeting. He advised that if the motion passed the Section 37 agreement would then rise to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 16 November 2010 and the Special City Council meeting of 19 November 2010. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, explained the Planning Act permits a municipality to enter into an agreement with an applicant by which community benefits are conveyed to the municipality in return for receiving height and/or density. There is authorizing language in the Official Plan (OP) for Council to enter into Section 37 agreements. He explained that, as the OP requires that public consultation occur before such is done, Committee could not undertake such an agreement immediately; as such, the matter would have to be deferred to the meeting of 16 November 2010. Chair Hume indicated that if the direction to negotiate the agreement was approved, the agreement and the implementing by-law would come back before the Committee in November. Councillor Holmes then introduced the following motion: WHEREAS the Planning Act, section 37 permits the Council to require agreements for the provision of services, facilities and other matters in return for increases in height and density; AND WHEREAS the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa permits Council to utilize section 37 agreements; AND WHEREAS it is deemed appropriate for the City of Ottawa to require such services and facilities in return for height and density in the instance of 90 Richmond Road, 114 Richmond Road And 380 Leighton Terrace; BE IT RESOLVED That the rezoning in respect of 90 Richmond Road, 114 Richmond Road And 380 Leighton Terrace be referred back to staff with the direction that a by-law and agreement be brought forward pursuant to the Planning Act, section 37 providing for services, facilities and other matters in return for the increases in height and density to be submitted to Planning and Environment Committee on November 16, 2010. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That, pursuant to the Official Plan, public consultation on what would be appropriate services, facilities and other matters to be provided be conducted prior to the submission of a report back to Planning and Environment Committee and Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such consultation consider and the report back to Committee and Council address as possible services, facilities and other matters: (a) The conveyance of the convent to the City; (b) Restoration, accessibility, improvements and programming for the convent; and (c) Use of the convent by community groups, not-for-profit groups and/or recreational organizations. Councillor Leadman advised that the motion was her initiative. She stated that when looking at the high level of intensification recommended for this particular site, there had yet to be any agreement on what community benefits there would be in return. She noted there had been nothing solidified with regards to the convent site, though the building itself appears to be the one area of recognition. She informed Committee that she had received information from individuals they had been in discussion with regards to the convent property, and nothing had been achieved and no commitments had been made. She felt that, when looking at the overall project and the elements that are critical to the community, the Section 37 application would be prudent. She thought it would allow for the opportunity for discussions to be restarted with a broader scope and would capture issues the community had raised, which had not been identified in the current application. Chair Hume reiterated that Councillor Holmes’ motion would defer Committee and Council consideration of the application until November. He advised that Committee would first consider the motion and invited all public delegations to speak specifically to the motion if they wished. He explained that if the motion was then approved, the matter would be before Committee on 16 November and everyone would have the opportunity to speak to the agreement at that time. If the motion was not approved, then all registered public delegations would have the opportunity to speak to the substance of the application itself, as presented in the agenda. The Chair asked delegations to confine their comments to whether they support the proposal that staff develop a By-law and agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to be brought before PEC on 16 November 2010 and Council on 19 November 2010. Committee then heard from the following delegations: Lorne Cutler, President, Hampton Iona Community Group, commenced by indicating he had initially been involved with the group that developed to look at the adaptive use of the convent. He further explained that this group, which had started with residents and merchants from the immediate area, had expanded to include arts groups, social enterprise groups and other organizations interested in the use of the site. The process had been led by the head of the Ottawa Community Foundation, himself and another representative of Hampton Iona. He noted that in early April they had organized a neighbourhood summit to see what they wanted the convent to become if the developer decided to use it for community use. He noted that his involvement in the group had subsequently been terminated because they deliberately wanted the community association, which had broader concerns, to not be part of the process. With respect to the Section 37 agreement proposed by the motion, Mr. Cutler noted that, notwithstanding the potential to use the convent for community uses, there is still widespread opposition to several aspects of this development. He expressed concern with what would happen if the community does not come up with an agreement on the use of the convent that is sufficient to resolve these others problems. Chair Hume advised that if the agreement was not satisfactory and Committee and Council did not support the application as it sits today, it would have to come back to the table. Mr. Cutler emphasized that the community use of the convent was never supposed to be a trade-off with Ashcroft for how they develop the site. He questioned the objective of the delay and asked who Ashcroft would actually be talking with on behalf of the community. Chair Hume advised the developer would talk to the City through Councillor Leadman. He indicated staff would undertake public consultation with the community with the goal of coming back with an agreement crafted between Ashcroft and the City under section 37 of the Planning Act. Mr Cutler expressed reservations with that approach, citing concerns with how the City interprets the interests of residents and questioned what final say they would really have. Councillor Leadman noted that the Section 37 agreement would require public consultation about what would be appropriate services, facilities and other matters to be provided, and would serve as an opportunity for conversation. She acknowledged it did not necessarily mean that the end result would be acceptable to the community, in which case the matter might end up back at the table again. Mr. Cutler responded that, given that the use of the convent was always being dangled in front of them, and that for most people in the community that insufficient rationale for the height and density being proposed, they would want to see more. He hoped the motion would not limit the discussion. Councillor Leadman clarified the motion did not set specific parameters around what could or could not be included in the discussions. She inquired whether the community would be amenable to reviewing the entire scenario again. Mr. Cutler suggested the community group might be in favour of it but could not comment on the community’s behalf, not having discussed it with them. He reminded the Committee of the considerable level of opposition. He remarked that dialogue would be useful as long as it is clear they could be back in November looking at the same project with the same issues, and that the community group has not agreed to anything at this point. Furthermore, he stressed that he would not want the City to be speaking on behalf of the community in this matter. Councillor Leadman agreed, suggesting that is the intent of the motion. Councillor Monette questioned Mr. Cutler’s reluctance to the proposed process, commenting they were simply asking for one more month to see if there is anything that could make the plan more appealing to the developer, the community and the Ward Councillor. Mr. Cutler replied that he is always open to discussion but his key concerns are that there was nothing that stopped the developer from having this discussion with the community since March. He also did not want the City to say it is speaking on behalf of the residents because he felt they often do not. Bruce Enstone indicated that he was in agreement with the comments made by the previous delegation, Mr. Cutler. Heather Thomson, resident of Hilson Avenue, expressed concern with the motion coming forward at the last minute without notice. She was concerned about the idea of compromise, noting she had intended to speak to Committee about the issue of building heights, which she still considered to be an issue whether there is an agreement or not. She explained she was speaking mainly as an active pedestrian user of the area out of concern about the building heights in that location. She indicated her concern that the motion suggests there would be community amenities in exchange for the building heights. She thought there should be potential to discuss having both, meaning a development that would fit with the existing Secondary Plan and Traditional Mainstreet Zoning and have the benefit of the convent development in a way that would enhance the community. She questioned whether there would have to be a compromise between the two. Chair Hume explained the motion means there would be negotiation on those elements and the agreement would then come back to committee, at which time delegations could speak further to specific components. Councillor Leadman inquired whether the Committee would be dealing with the report as presented if Councillor Holmes’ motion was not approved. The Chair confirmed that should that motion not pass, the Committee would debate the zoning report, and the discussion would likely carry over to the 4 October meeting. Councillor Leadman explained to the delegation that the motion would have the effect of allowing the community to engage in the type of discussion that should have already occurred before the final decisions are made. Marnie Beaubien, noted that she had been a resident of Westboro since 1985. She referenced the upcoming municipal election as a key consideration. She suggested that the City rarely refuses rezoning proposals, adding that deferring the issue for these discussions might at least allow the City an opportunity to get more out of Ashcroft for the community as a compromise on this development. She reiterated previous comments that the community assumed the convent was already part of the package to be considered and that their concerns are related to such things as traffic, building height, and congestion on Richmond Road. She suggested this proposal disregards all those concerns. She questioned whether deferral would really afford the community an opportunity to contest their concerns about the plan. She also wondered if the Committee could not simply ask Ashcroft to negotiate with the community without having to make this formal amendment. Chair Hume explained that a Section 37 agreement legalizes the obligations of both parties. He pointed out the goal was to have an agreement on the use of the convent site in exchange for height and density, which is what the Planning Act allows. Councillor Leadman added that with the motion there were opportunities to discuss those elements the community is concerned about, namely traffic, mitigation, access points, et cetera. She asked Mr. Marc to clarify which elements could actually be considered. He replied there is a very broad authority in the OP to negotiate for anything that would be of community benefit. He said there has to be some sort of nexus to the building and the site, but beyond that there is a wide authority to negotiate. In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Ms. Beaubien indicated that if intensification could be part of the discussion as a negotiable she would support the motion. Mr. Marc explained the first act of clause of the motion is not precise in terms of what the height and density would be so that could be a topic of discussion. Ms. Beaubien further questioned whether the Committee makeup would be the same when this matter came back on the agenda, given that it would be after the 25 October municipal election. Chair Hume explained that the dates are structured so that this Committee and Council, as currently composed, would dispose of the matter. He explained for the benefit of all present that all Planning matters dealt with between this date and the election would be voted on by the Council as it currently stands. Councillor Holmes asked Mr. Marc to verify that the Committee could deal with an issue this substantive in November. Mr. Marc stated that only limitations on Council with respect to the possibility of lame duck provisions applying is dismissing officers directly appointed by Council (i.e. the City Manager and City Clerk) or spending more than $50,000. Therefore, this matter could be considered. Dennis van Staalduinen said he was in favour of the motion if it gave the community more time and consultation and allowed the community to feel less railroaded. He noted that, whether or not the motion passes, it was still relevant to PEC to consider the role of the Community Design Plan (CDP) committees and teams in the entire process. Chair Hume advised the delegation that the meeting on November 16th would be the time to present his concerns about process and the only thing to be commented on at this meeting is whether or not to proceed with the Section 37 amendment. Mr. Van Staalduinen replied that he was in favour of deferring and not being railroaded. In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. van Staalduinen expressed his understanding that the Hintonburg -Wellington West CDP had become part of the OP. Given that, Councillor Holmes wondered why an OP amendment was not required for this development. Mr. Marc confirmed that the CDP for the area was adopted into the OP, per Council direction. He acknowledged that staff was recommending rezoning without the need for an OP amendment and he deferred to Planning staff to provide their rationale. Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager of Development Review, Urban Services, responded that when the Westboro CDP was approved it was not a Secondary Plan. Staff later came back with one that was written specifically as a Secondary Plan, which Council then adopted into the OP; however, it does not exactly duplicate of all of the wording in the original CDP. Councillor Leadman asked Mr. van Staalduinen if he saw this deferral as an opportunity for the community to come back to the table to have their say. He agreed, adding that having the Committee meeting as the community’s opportunity for input was an abuse of their time as well as Committee’s, and that it invalidated the time, effort and professionalism of the people who compiled the CDPs across Ottawa. Charles Ficner said he had not studied Section 37 in depth, but that commenting on it required a deep consideration of other applicable issues. He suggested to Committee that it was vitally important that the existing Secondary Plan for the area be recognized for what it is under the amendment provisions of the Planning Act. He referred to a section of the Secondary Plan that referred to the maximum heights on the subject property. . Chair Hume interjected to ask Mr. Ficner to explain how his comments relate to a Section 37 amendment and seeking deferral. Mr. Ficner explained his understanding that the motion requires the parties involved to negotiate a deal under section 37, which says in exchange for turning over the convent to residents, or some other deal, the developer benefits from more density and height. Further, he understood the motion forces a discussion, which he suggested was positive given no meaningful discussion had yet taken place. He added that he would be very concerned if the section 37 agreement meant throwing away what is already formally recognized in the OP Amendment (i.e. limitations on height, density and a heritage status.) He agreed with more consultation and discussion so the community is aware of what the developer is prepared to do and what protections exist, but he was worried about negotiations being handled by staff that might be too lenient. He went on to point out the OP used to have very precise land use designations for this particular area, but 37 classes of designations had been reduced to one - General Urban Area, the result being a loss of protections for the area. His main concern was that the public have the opportunity for meaningful input in the consultation going forward. Councillor Leadman pointed out the motion does not talk about the staff report recommendations, only about negotiations with the developer under Section 37, and there is no base point established for the negotiation. She indicated it was an opportunity to revisit the issue, noting it doesn’t necessarily mean an agreement by all. Mr. Ficner said that if entering into negotiations under section 37 does not preclude meaningful discussions on the current Secondary Plan and on the height, density and heritage status he would support it. Kathleen Kot agreed with Mr. Ficner’s statements, supporting the deferral to allow for meaningful discussion. Lara Taylor said the only way she would support this kind of motion was if there was a real community discussion and genuine possibility that she would not have to come back before Committee in November with the same comments about traffic and density. Sylvano Carrasco spoke to the issue of deferral, indicating he was doing so on behalf of Sue and Rob Bédard, Arlene Becker, Nùria Vila Perexés, June Ward, Jim Moore, Margo Milligan, and Jennie Riddick. He indicated that he did not fully understand the implications of the motion and felt that the entire process was being rushed. He added that getting the staff report only five days prior to this meeting added to the difficulty. He referred to sections of the staff report that spoke to the potential uses of the convent, suggesting it meant some consideration had been given to community use of the property and the buildings but it has not been solidified. He said if the Section 37 amendment helps solidify that and brings the community back to the table with the developer in a meaningful way he could support it. Duff Mitchell remarked that he did not fully understand the motion and was uncomfortable with it because it has two passages that say “in return for increases in height and density.” He felt these clauses could lead to a process where such increases are automatically granted. He noted it was clear when the property was purchased that there was a convent on it and what responsibility that entailed for the purchaser. He was uncomfortable that it seemed as if, rather than the purchaser fulfilling the original obligations of purchase, the City would take them on in exchange for the granting the height and density. He said if he could be assured there is no pre-arranged agreement in this regard he would be less uncomfortable. Robert Argent stated that he was in favour of the motion on the basis that it would allow for more dialogue between all parties. He expressed concern about how the terms would allow the developer to simply buy height and density as they do with parking. He emphasized that purchasing height and density should not be part of the negotiation. Councillor Leadman expressed that she wanted to reassure the community that they are part of the process, as stated in the motion. She stated her commitment to ensuring that the residents were part of the public consultation to make sure that this time they are listened to. Gary Ludington, President of the Westboro Community Association pointed out that the Westboro community was short of public community space, and therefore it would be good to have an agreement in place that puts a possible use of the convent into context in how it can be used by the community as opposed to city-wide. To that end he supported the motion as long they retained the right to discuss height and density. Peter Ward, expressed that he did not want any part of a swap between the use of the convent, which has been designated heritage, for extra height and density on this site. Councillor Leadman remarked that the Secondary Plan contains language with regards to 4-6 stories on Richmond Road and development at the back southern portion, which she felt was the appropriate level of intensification moving forward. She felt that this was the starting point in the negotiations and she thought there was an opportunity to talk about the possibilities that could happen. On that understanding, Mr. Ward felt he could support the motion. Heather Pearl, Co-Chair, Champlain Park Community Association (CPCA), indicated that if her association could be certain that there would be an honest negotiation and that the Secondary Plan would be honoured, respected and given the true importance that it has, they would be prepared to enter into real discussions. Deborah Chapman stated that she was in agreement with the motion. Sarah Heath indicated that she was in agreement with the motion, and asked that the consultations be meaningful. She hoped that some of what the community brought forward would be reflected in the final outcome. Marie Murphy indicated that she could support the motion after hearing all comments previously made. Roland Dorsay, Island Park Community Association, declared that before agreeing to deferral he wanted some questions answered. He explained that it was his understanding that under the Planning Act that there is a clock that applies with respect to this process and eventual appeals to the OMB. He inquired as to how the proposed Section 37 agreement factors into this timeline, and if there was the opportunity to “stop the clock.” Chair Hume expressed that this clock could not be stopped; furthermore, he expressed his understanding that that timeline had already expired and the applicants were free to apply for an OMB hearing at any time. The councillor added that one of the reasons to enter into the process could be to avoid a lengthy and costly appeal on both sides. Mr. Dorsay, next inquired how the Ottawa Heritage appeal would be affected by the proposed process, if at all. Mr. Marc explained that, while he would have to give this some consideration, if discussions were proceeding on the Section 37 agreement it would make sense to seek to adjourn the Conservation Review Board pre-hearing currently scheduled for October 27-28, 2010. He noted that this was not a full hearing before the board. Mr. Dorsay indicated that the Island Park Community Association shares many of the concerns expressed by previous delegations. Notwithstanding those concerns, he indicated he was predisposed to support the motion. Jennifer Dobson, stated that she supported the motion, subject to the points raised and clarifications sought by previous speakers. Basil Crozier indicated that he was in support the idea of having more discussion on the matter; however, he was concerned whether a month and a half would be sufficient. He questioned whether or not the negotiation could be based upon just the use of the heritage property as opposed to tying it to height and density. Chair Hume explained Section 37 agreements are specific to increase height and density for community benefit. He indicated that you could not divorce the two of them if you were going to enter into this sort of agreement. Mr. Crozier replied that it seemed, therefore, like the outcome would be a negotiation between the City and the developer for the use of the heritage property in compensation for the increases recommended in the current report. Chair Hume further explained that the motion did not speak to what was recommended in the report. Further, he added that discussions should also include programming, restoration, services and facilities and other matters in return for increased height and density. Mr. Crozier reiterated his concern with trying to address the issues of height and density through a public consultation in one and a half months and ultimately the decision is left up to the City to negotiate those. Councillor Leadman observed that the negotiations would not be limited to just the use of the convent or a specific use, and that the discussions would cover a broad range of elements, which could include access points and traffic mitigation. Mr. Crozier reiterated that he supports further discussion but stated that he did not think that a month and a half was enough time to provide adequate opportunity for meaningful discussions. Pamela Power, expressed her discomfort with entering into any “horse trading” with the developer, suggesting this to be an intimidating proposition; however, she expressed that she was trying to find a way to support the motion. She suggested that there be more specific wording in the motion; specifically, she recommended that the first clause of the motion be amended to add that additional height and density be negotiated “from those prescribed in the OP and Secondary Plan.” She suggested that sharpening the wording would clarify the baseline for negations. She felt that if they could come to an agreement along these lines, she could support this motion. Kerrianne Carrasco, indicated that she shared the concerns been raised by other speakers, and indicated that that she was in support of the deferral with the assurances that have been received from Councillor Leadman and the Chair. Amos Hayes, informed Committee that he was in agreement with specifying on the motion what the starting point is for the negotiations. In terms of programming and what would be happening in the facility, he wanted to know which City staff, from which departments, would be involved in the discussions. Councillor Leadman explained that she thought it important to note that it would involve all of the elements that are relevant to the proposal. She remarked that the discussions could include staff from traffic and parks and recreation, and felt they all needed to be at the table in a real capacity. Mary Ellen Kot, indicated that she is in favour of supporting the motion with the reassurances that have been given that the community is not giving up on height, density et cetera. J. Moore expressed that if the motion meant maintenance of the heritage property in exchange for increased height and density, as much as he appreciates maintaining heritage property, he did not feel it should be at the cost of excessive height and density. Councillor Doucet felt that the delegations concerns deserve a response from staff. He inquired if the motion implied that that to save the heritage property the City would have agree to excessive height and density. Chair Hume noted that the property had already been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, so the preservation of the heritage property was not inquisition. Alain Miguelez, Program Manager of Development Review Process, Urban – Inner Core Unit, indicated that staff was not in a position to comment on the context of negotiations that have yet to start. He concurred that the convent was designated heritage property. Chair Hume further explained that the motion does not speak to tearing down or keeping the convent property; rather, it speaks to such things as restoration accessibility, improvements, programming, and use for community groups and not for profit recreational organizations. Mr. Miguelez indicated that his understanding of Section 37 is that, while heritage preservation can be considered, there can be other services, facilities and other matters that are provided through Section 37 agreement outside of the preservation of a heritage building. While there is an ability under this section of the Planning Act to talk about things that are outside of the preservation of a heritage building, it still exchanges changes in height and density for the achievement of other goals and objectives that one might set out in the context of negotiations. Chair Hume provided an example to illustrate the point raised by staff, suggesting that preserving the heritage building and filling it full of restaurants would likely not meet the definition of “community benefit” and therefore would not be able to enter into a Section 37 agreement in exchange for height and density. Councillor Doucet asked if staff could justify use the preservation of the heritage building as justification for higher density and higher height than the community wants. Mr. Miguelez responded that, under the wording of the Planning Act, they could; however, staff has come forward with a recommendation that starts with the preservation of the building as a given. Councillor Doucet felt that the preservation of the building, while it is welcomed by the community and Council, was not the issue; the real issue was the height and density on the rest of the site, and did not want unacceptable height and density on the rest of the site being justified because the actual building was being preserved. Mr. Moore reiterated his position that the wording of the motion linked the heritage designation to giving the developer excessive heights and density on the property. He felt that he was not receiving a clear answer as to whether or not the motion is correct in making that linkage. Chair Hume reiterated that that the approved heritage designation stands on its own. Jim Owens indicated that he was in support of the suggestion to clarify the motion, to suggest that the height and density are of those in the OP. He felt that focusing on what happens at the convent itself was a good thing and for that reason he generally supported the motion. He trusted that it would allow for further discussion of the same issues that exist in the staff report, without necessarily committing either party to the changes reached under Section 37. Under these assumptions, he expressed his support for the motion. Mark Stokes, declared that he echoes the concerns expressed by previous speakers in terms of the need for clarity around the first paragraph of the motion as to whether or not it is a departure from the Secondary Plan. He requested more clarity on what the collective understanding is of “the convent” in the motion, and whether this included just the buildings or also the grounds. Councillor Leadman observed that she felt that when talking about the convent, some of the conversations speak specifically to the building but there are others that speak to the entire site, because the entire site has been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Stokes further inquired what the minimum standard was for the consultations that would take place between before the matter returned to Committee in November. Chair Hume explained that given the City very rarely enter into Section 37 agreements, he thought this to be the first, he was unsure if there are any standards that outline what an appropriate consultation for the development of a Section 37 agreement would be. Councillor Leadman added that, because this is the first time, there would be a substantial amount of public consultations. She acknowledged there would be a lot of work to be done moving forward, and felt that they would see the appropriate level of discussion and consultation that is required for this particular project. Heather Mace indicated that she was in attendance out of concern for how the increase in density would impact the community from the standpoint of preserving community spaces and ensuring the safety of roads for pedestrians and cyclists. In principle, she supported the motion if it provides for meaningful interactions that address these concerns and those expressed by the other speakers. Ted Thiessen indicated that, while he did not really understand the Section 37 motion, he understood that it was breaking new ground. The Chair confirmed that using this provision was new for Ottawa, but had been used widely elsewhere in Ontario, particularly by the City of Toronto. Mr. Thiessen expressed his agreement with increasing the opportunity for the community to have a greater say and a meaningful discussion with the developer. He suggested that if the motion builds in a bias towards a significant increase in height and density beyond the OP, he would not support it; however, if the motion leads to greater community involvement in what the community would look like, then he would support it. David Jeanes indicated that his main concern was with respect to the heritage building and the adaptive reuse thereof. He indicated his support for exploring such things as restoration, accessibility improvements and programming for the convent, as outlined in the motion. He felt that information was very important to have as part of the discussion when the matter came back to Committee and Council. He did not fully understand whether the motion would generate any funding towards the improvements identified. He suggested that he would be supportive of such funding, if that was the case. Jason Thomson, President of the Wellington Village Community Association, indicated that the community association would be supportive of the motion, adding that any review committee that is formed should include community representation. Elizabeth MacWilliam Argent indicated that she was in favour of the motion. She suggested dialogue would be good so long as it did not become a bargaining session between City Council and the developer. She suggested height, density and traffic were paramount concerns for the community, and trusted the process would allow for a meaningful dialogue to take place. She emphasized that the site was too valuable to rush the process, and discussions must proceed thoughtfully. Robert Wild suggested that discussion and dialogue would be good; however, as his primary concerns with the development were height and density, he was not keen to enter into any discussions that trade off height and density for something else. David Tipple, indicated that he was in favour of the motion with respect to a Section 37 agreement. He felt the whole proposal was very large and complex, and noted his concerns with respect to the number of unresolved issues, suppositions and assumptions in the proposal. Therefore, he hoped the forthcoming discussions would clarify those unresolved matters. Further, he expressed his surprise and concern that the proposal had even come before Committee in such an unfinished state. Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He began by speaking to the issue of the process to date. He noted that the process for dealing with this application had involved lengthy discussions with City staff, the Ward Councillor, and community groups. He noted that those discussions had commenced long before the applicants had filed their application. He noted that the 120 period allowing an appeal under the Planning Act had indeed expired. He noted that the applicants had come forward expecting to discuss the substance of their application, and suggested it was regrettable that the motion had not been brought forward earlier. Mr. Cohen also stated that the proposal did not violate the OP. Mr. Cohen further noted the developer had made commitments to preserve, conserve and enhance the heritage building and would go out to the Community with the view to finding groups to use the space, and suggested that if discussions in that regard had taken place. Further, he suggested the City passed on the opportunity to purchase the building and the land. He gathered from the comments made earlier in the meeting that the staff report would no longer be a point of consideration, and instead the developer was being asked to dialogue and negotiate with the community for an increase in height and density, with everything back on the table. He wondered, therefore, what the point of the process to date and the work that had gone into the staff report. Mr. Cohen stated that his client would not negotiate with members of the community with respect to height and density and setback and accesses. He indicated he would continue to deal with staff and would deal with Committee and Council. He suggested the developer would be willing to sit down with the community or staff to discuss uses, the manner in which the building would be preserved, conserved and enhanced. He indicated they were not willing to commit to conveying the building to the City, and would not entertain that discussion. Mr. Cohen noted that in the event that these negotiations produced the same height, density and issues, the matter would be back before Committee with the same concerns from the public and the same position from the developer. Therefore, he suggested Committee no waste their time, reject the motion, and proceed to discuss the staff report and recommendations on their merits. The following individuals had also registered to speak on the substance of the matter, and were either not present or did not speak to the referral motion: Martha Shepherd, Sam Carson, Allegra Newman, Rawni Sharp, Florence Fraser, Anne Finn, Larry Shields, and Jennifer McKenzie, Candace Brookbank, Some also submitted written comments on the proposal, which are noted above. After confirming that there were no other delegations wishing to speak to the motion, the Chair turned the matter over to Committee for discussion and debate. He noted that Councillor Holmes’ motion had been amended slightly. The first “whereas” clause would now read as follows: WHEREAS the Planning Act, section 37 permits the Council to require agreements for the provision of services, facilities and other matters in return for increases in height and density which must be within the Official Plan, including the secondary plan. He further noted that the resolution had been amended to read as follows: Be It Resolved That the rezoning in respect of 90 Richmond Road, 114 Richmond Road And 380 Leighton Terrace be referred back to staff in consultation with the ward councillor and relevant community representatives, to be determined by the ward councillor, with the direction that a by-law and agreement be brought forward pursuant to the Planning Act, section 37 providing for services, facilities and other matters in return for the increases in height and density to be submitted to Planning and Environment Committee on November 16, 2010. Mr. Marc indicated that these amendments were satisfactory from his perspective. The Chair also noted that Councillor Doucet was introducing the following amendment: That preservation or maintenance of the heritage building not be included in the possible list of community benefits to be considered in section 37 of the Planning Act, because it is already designated. Councillor Holmes indicated that she supported the motion because she thought it was worth pending more time with the community and the developer to talk about what public benefits could be derived, whether there is any excess height and density that the community will agree to, and if there are some public benefits that result from this. She suggested the purpose of this section of the Planning Act was to enable the kind of discussion that has been going on, and create sort of legal methodology and rationale for those comments. She suggested if the City deems that this is an appropriate place for some intensification, that then there should be benefits to the public as a result of that intensification. She suggested it would be a really good discussion to have, and hoped it would be fruitful. Councillor Leadman suggested the proposal to consider an agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act was a step forward in how the City has more conversations. She suggested it was unfortunate to hear the comments made by Mr. Cohen. She disagreed with the notion that the developer is not ready to engage on the issue, suggesting they already had engaged, citing the preliminary discussions that had taken place early in the process and had been discontinued. She suggested the motion presented an opportunity to go back to the table, and suggested it was a positive step for both the community and the developer. She noted that at the outset the developers had indicated they wanted this site to be a showcase and something to be proud of, and suggested the community wanted the same thing. She also disagreed that the City could have bought the property, noting the City is not a developer and t is not their job to be bidding on properties against outside developers. Councillor Leadman further remarked that at the time the property was up for sale, steps were taken by the City to provide potential bidders with a document containing all the legal policies related to the site, including heritage, the OP, the Secondary Plan, and the CDP. A copy of this staff document, entitled “Basic Site Plan and Design Principles for Redevelopment of 114 Richmond Road,” was circulated to Committee members and is held on file. She further noted that the CDP was only two years old, and therefore captured the current intensification model. Councillor Leadman further noted how much the area in question was intensifying, and suggested that while only 490 units have been built in the area, the number rises to around 830 when one includes those that have been approved and/or are under construction. With respect to the level of infill, she noted that there were 300 permits in her ward, suggesting this was four times that of any other ward in terms of the amount of intensification. She suggested this leaves the community faced with many issues that. In conclusion, she felt this was a good opportunity for Committee to take a tool that is available and apply it to a site. She reiterated her support for the motion, and her hopes that the outcome would be positive. Councillor Doucet stated that he had seen repeated examples of Committee and Council’s unwillingness to respect Zoning. He suggested developers purchase properties with the knowledge that they will be able to convince Committee and Council to up-zone the properties for increased height and density. As examples he cited developments on the site of the CNIB building on O’Connor Street, and the Old Ottawa Carleton School Board Offices on Gilmour Street. He suggested he had never seen a developer not get an up- zoning, and had never seen a community not suffer from it. Hs suggested that until Committee and Council was prepared to respect its own Zoning and its own processes, the same problem would keep occurring. He noted that he supported Councillor Leadman, as he had supported other Councillors who had had similar issues in their wards. Councillor Hunter expressed his surprise with the proposal from Councillors Leadman and Holmes, and surprise that members of the community were supporting going away and negotiating additional height and density for community benefit, given the various concerns that the community had raised. He had thought the community would want to discuss their points on the proposal, rather than defer. He suggested that, given the way planning works in the province, the heights recommended in the staff report would be the floor in terms of height. He noted the OMB would be seized with the matter at some point, and they would hear professional testimony and receive written documentation of the City staff that the present proposal meets the policies of the City’s OP, the Secondary Plan and the CDP. Councillor Hunter suggested the motion might come to some good. He indicated that, because the Ward Councillor and so many people in the community had asked for it, he would support it. He noted how hard the Ward Councillor had worked on this issue, and while he had a difference of opinion with respect to many of the issues, he would support her in approving this motion. He hoped the motion was going forward with good intentions and reasonable willingness to negotiate, and not with the intention of merely delaying, suggesting the OMB has absolutely no sympathy for the latter intention. Councillor Monette wished to congratulate the Ward Councillor and others around the table for finding an alternative. He expressed that, while a Section 37 agreement might not be a perfect solution, it was a positive move forward. He stated he was pleased the public was willing to work with staff in the negotiation, and that the Ward Councillor would take part in negotiation. He expressed disappointment with the developer’s agent’s statement, which indicated an unwillingness to sit down with the community. He encouraged the developer to come to the table and be serious with the community, staff and Council and try and make this a better deal for everyone. He also wished to note that Committee and Council look at every application individually, based on the facts, and hoped all his colleagues would continue to do so. The Chair noted that Councillor Doucet had a minor amendment to the motion, related to the preservation of the heritage building. Moved by Councillor C. Doucet: That preservation or maintenance of the heritage building not be included in the possible list of community benefits to be considered in section 37 of the Planning Act, because it is already designated. CARRIED Committee then voted on Councillor Holmes’ motion, as amended. WHEREAS the Planning Act, section 37 permits the Council to require agreements for the provision of services, facilities and other matters in return for increases in height and density which must be within the Official Plan, including the secondary plan. AND WHEREAS the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa permits Council to utilize section 37 agreements; AND WHEREAS it is deemed appropriate for the City of Ottawa to require such services and facilities in return for height and density in the instance of 90 Richmond Road, 114 Richmond Road And 380 Leighton Terrace; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the rezoning in respect of 90 Richmond Road, 114 Richmond Road And 380 Leighton Terrace be referred back to staff in consultation with the ward councillor and relevant community representatives, to be determined by the ward councillor, with the direction that a by-law and agreement be brought forward pursuant to the Planning Act, section 37 providing for services, facilities and other matters in return for the increases in height and density to be submitted to Planning and Environment Committee on November 16, 2010. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to the Official Plan, public consultation on what would be appropriate services, facilities and other matters to be provided be conducted prior to the submission of a report back to Planning and Environment Committee and Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT such consultation consider and the report back to Committee and Council address as possible services, facilities and other matters: (a) The conveyance of the convent to the City; (b) Restoration, accessibility, improvements and programming for the convent; and (c) Use of the convent by community groups, not-for-profit groups and/or recreational organizations; And that preservation or maintenance of the heritage building not be included in the possible list of community benefits to be considered in section 37 of the Planning Act, because it is already designated. REFERRAL CARRIED YEAS (7): M. Bellemare; C. Doucet, D. Holmes; P. Hume, G. Hunter; B. Monette, S. Qadri NAYS (0): 3. ZONING – 125 HICKORY STREET ZONAGE – 125, RUE HICKORY ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0174 KITCHISSIPPI (15) (This matter is Subject to Bill 51) Committee received the following written submissions with respect to this item, which are held on file with the City Clerk: * Comments dated 27 September 2010 from Mary Girard * Letter dated 26 September 2010 from Shirley Reyes Alain Miguelez, Program Manager, Development Review for the inner urban area and Douglas Bridgewater, Planner III, provided a detailed overview of the item. A copy of their PowerPoint presentation is held on file. In response to question from the Chair, Mr. Mr. Bridgewater confirmed that under the existing zoning, in terms of the intensity, the applicant could build about the same total area as what has been proposed by staff. He confirmed that the proposed zoning changes were a refinement of the building envelope in order to get a better design and not an increase in density. Councillor Leadman was concerned that the height of the proposed buildings at this site was contrary to existing policy that states that buildings should descend in height. She felt that allowing this would create a ripple effect that changes the whole policy of how building heights will move forward. Mr. Bridgewater explained that generally speaking, high rise buildings would descend heading north from Carling Avenue into the neighbourhood, and this will be achieved on this site. The Councillor went on to state that this property abuts a low rise residential community and this development, as proposed, will create an anomaly which will serve as a precedent for the rest of the corridor. She added that the Carling/Bayview Community Design Plan (CDP) was underway and she felt that what is proposed jeopardizes the whole process altogether and creates something contrary to the CDP. In response to these concerns, Mr. Miguelez emphasized that the staff recommendation had to do with the ultimate quality of the design of the project and staff feels they are getting a better quality architecture that provides for integration at the street level. Further, it allows staff the opportunity to achieve other goals and objectives through the rezoning process than they would through a 12-storey building, which is currently permitted. In response to questions posed by Councillor Holmes with respect to the recommended zoning level of parking for these buildings, Mr. Bridgewater provided the following: * Staff is recommending that the residential parking, including visitors, be at a rate of 1.1 maximum space per residential unit; * The existing minimum remains at 0.5 spaces and can be retained under this new zoning; * Staff is proposing a lower maximum because of the development’s proximity to transit; the existing maximum is 1.75 * There is nothing in the zoning for the necessity of Vrtucar (car share) parking; * Standard bicycle parking provisions would still apply. With respect to the pathway on the west side of the site, Councillor Holmes noted that at a public meeting, the developer stated they would help cost-share the bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the O-Train corridor. Mr. Bridgewater confirmed that the developer had indicated that they would contribute to a potential bicycle and pedestrian overpass over the O-Train trench at Hickory Street. He suggested this could be achieved through the Site Plan process. In response to further queries from the Councillor, Mr. Bridgewater explained that the City does not currently have the ability to make the building of the pathway part of the Zoning. He was confident the pathway would be built as part of the project. Councillor Holmes asked whether staff had spoken with other developers in the area about contributing to the funding of the bridge. Mr. Miguelez confirmed that talks were ongoing and staff has to finalize the costing of these off-site improvements. He indicated there was general agreement about the mutual benefit for all concerned to have these improvements achieved. Councillor Holmes indicated her willingness to put forward a Motion that the rezoning is conditional upon a contribution towards that pedestrian/cycling bridge. Councillor Doucet expressed concerns about developers coming forward with proposals to build unattractive buildings within the existing zoning, and use that to negotiate for a particular height. Mr. Bridgewater explained that the building proposal is subject to design review because it is in a mixed-use centre. He further explained that the developer is taking an approach to architecture that has more variety and visual integration with the lower rise fabric of the neighbourhood, through a podium and the opening of ground level access to the various uses. Mr. Miguelez added that staff support the Zoning by-law and entertain changes based on the appropriateness of each site-specific circumstance. He confirmed that the developer was not told by staff that they had to stay within the By-law and bring forward their best design within 12 storeys; rather, the developer came in with a different approach to the development of the site and staff believe there is merit through the rezoning process in achieving more goals and objectives with the different format and therefore that was what was pursued. With respect to compatibility, Councillor Leadman noted the height of the other buildings in the area, compared to what was being proposed, and suggested that when staff looked at the built form, they never looked at what this development could be at 12 storeys. She felt there were many buildings that surround this area whose heights were quite attractive and quite doable and she therefore could not understand staff’s rationale for this proposal, suggesting it was contrary to planning policies with respect to compatibility. In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Bridgewater explained that under the existing zoning the total permitted floor area is about 32,610.7 square meters, whereas under the proposed zoning at 16- and 20-storeys, it is 31,198.3 square meters. In response to other questions from Councillor Monette Mr. Bridgewater indicated no concerns with the capacity to extend water and sewer infrastructure to the site, and this would be refined through Site Plan. Following on this, Councillor Holmes inquired what the volumetric answer was, stating that the heights of the floors will impact how much higher a building is, noting the new demand for higher ceilings and therefore buildings are higher. Mr. Miguelez explained that if the ceilings are taller there will be fewer floors within the same envelope and therefore fewer storeys. He went on to explain that there is a 34-metre height allowed in the existing zoning and the developer can choose to the height of the ceilings which can yield 10-, 11- or 12-storeys within the same height. He added that they do not determine the number of storeys, but only the number of metres that are allowed. For this proposal therefore, staff are dealing with the same density so there is not a difference in the number of apartments that will result from either approach. Committee then heard from the following public delegations: Catherine Steinhoff, Vice President, Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association expressed her concerns with respect to several aspects of the proposed development, and put forward several recommendations. A detailed written submission, including visual representations of the area, is held on file with the City Clerk. She indicated she supported the City’s plans to promote intensification and sustainable development that meets the needs of the current residents without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. She highlighted two of the recommendations of the neighbourhood association as follows: * Proposed Height of Building: The CHNA recommends that the City maintain the current maximum building height of 34 meters. The height being proposed is not reasonable, is over-intensification, is not in keeping with the neighbourhood and will put too much pressure on residential roads, parks and green space. * Traffic Circulation: This development, combined with others in the area, will add more than 1180 vehicles to the local streets. Most of these will arrive and leave during peak traffic hours. To divert traffic to the Carling arterial during rush hours, CHNA recommends installing “No Entry from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.” signs at Hickory and Champagne (one going north and the other going west) and similar signs from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at Champagne and Beech and Hickory and Loretta. The CHNA believes such traffic control measures would strike the right balance between sustaining the neighbourhood, supporting intensification and dealing with the spiked traffic that will come with it. In response to questions posed by Councillor Leadman, Ms. Steinhoff did not feel this type of development was compatible with the community and she saw no reason to build beyond the maximum building height. She explained that they are not opposed to intensification, but felt the community should not have to absorb the traffic that would be generated, including requirements for parking. The Chair made note of the fact that the existing zoning allows the developer to build the 324 units he is proposing in 11 storeys. Ms. Steinhoff preferred the allowable developable units within an 11-storey building. Eric Darwin, President, Dalhousie Community Association was in favour of the construction of a pedestrian foot bridge that extends Hickory Street across the O-Train cut into the Preston Street neighbourhood. He suggested the provision of this structure be a condition of the application and that it be built before the condominiums are occupied. In response to these comments, Councillor Holmes wondered about the appropriateness of putting forward a motion recommending that there be an agreement in writing that this developer contributes to the cost of that bridge and that the bridge be built before the occupancy of the building. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel advised that the Committee could recommend that that an agreement be signed before the by-law goes to Council. Mr. Miguelez added that the bridge and its timing could be dependent on what happens with Light Rail Transit (LRT) and the O-Train, for example the width of the cut and the height required. Councillor Holmes maintained that such agreement would include a widened cut if that was necessary and she believed it was possible to get an agreement that this developer would contribute to that, as staff approach the other developers about their contributions as well. Mr. Miguelez confirmed that there is agreement to have this bridge constructed and in conjunction with LRT staff, they are in the process of costing out the structure to come up with specifications Councillor Harder wondered whether such an agreement considered a specific amount and if staff intend to provide different costs associated with a simple structure vs. a high-end one. Staff confirmed that they were looking at something that could be done quickly and could be implemented as simply as possible as part of this development. The councillor suggested that before the item rises to Council, there is a need to know the extent of that cost commitment because of the impact on the budget. Councillor Leadman asked how successful discussions had been with other developers to contribute towards this bridge and staff advised that they were moving forward with an arrangement with the application at 100 Champagne and were moving forward with 125 Hickory. He could not confirm any costing for the bridge at this time because the specifications had yet to be determined. He confirmed that within the context of development applications, staff was looking at any and all development proposals in the area that have an ability to contribute. In response to a question raised by Councillor Holmes, staff confirmed that the property in question is a brownfield and is contaminated. Any environmental report required would be addressed through the Site Plan and other measures may be required for any approval on this site, regardless of what it is, for the building permit to be advanced. Janet Bradley, Borden, Ladner, Gervais; Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, and Rod Lahey, Architect, were present on behalf of the applicants, Soho Champagne Condominiums. She asked the Committee to take into account the following: * Context of the application: The lands in question are designated mixed use in the Official Plan (OP) and are designated high profile residential. They are immediately adjacent to a major transit corridor. Looking at all policies of the OP and at every site in the City, she suggested this is the very site on which the OP encourages the highest densities. * Other approvals in the area: She noted that this application follows what has been approved on the Arnon site (855 Carling) and on the Domicile site (100 Champagne.) However, both of those applications resulted in a significant increase in the development capability of those sites and this one does not increase the amount of development ability at all. The latter is 12 storeys and was designated low profile, and the former proposal sought significant increase in the amount of space and height that could be provided on that site. * Traffic Impact: Since this proposal offers about the same amount of development capability as is currently permitted, there is actually no traffic impact. * Fairness: The applicant has indicated to City staff that if the other developers in the community were contributing towards a pedestrian/cycling bridge, he would contribute his fair share. However, neither of the other two Council-approved developments (Domicile and Arnon), which are seeking greater increases in development capability, required that contribution as a condition of zoning. Speaking to the issue of design, Mr. Fobert provided the following information: * City Policies and Guidelines: The site is a mixed-use centre, and designated in the Preston-Champagne Secondary Plan as a high profile residential area, and all of the policy direction supports this development. The City’s Transit-oriented Development Guidelines and High Rise Development guidelines promote the kind of development that is being proposed. The Secondary Plan says to orient the highest density to the transit station and orient the highest profile to Carling Avenue so the profile descends to the lower profile areas to the west and to the east; this development is in keeping with that policy. * Transit: The future north/south rail line will become an electrified LRT doubling the track and one of the corridors identified is Carling Avenue if the western LRT EA determines that is the appropriate route. If that is the case, the station would be at the foot of this building at 125 Hickory Street. As detailed in the policy, the highest density and the highest intensity of development should be oriented directly to the transit station; * Parking: under the current by-law, the parking requirement for this site is 173 (minimum) and 594 (maximum). The current plan proposes 263 spaces, in anticipation that this will be a highly transit-oriented development; Mr. Lahey spoke to the design of the proposed development, by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He began by comparing the existing proposal with the one that would have been permitted under the existing Zoning. He stated that when they first looked at the site, they studied the existing Zoning and tried to come up with a structure that would fit with the existing building typology. That proposed building was unattractive only because it was based on a study, and would have evolved into one that is more attractive; however, it would still be a 12-storey building, 10 feet away from the property line. He went on to compare the layout of a 12 or 11 story development in comparison to the proposed development, by means of the presentation. He noted that the present design reshaped the allowable volume to get a better and a more interesting building and a more interesting street. Lori Mellor, Preston Street BIA, was also registered to speak in opposition to the proposed development, but was not in attendance. Referring to the comments made by one of the delegations about traffic management, Councillor Holmes inquired if a traffic study would be undertaken. Mr. Miguelez explained that it is part of the proposal. When asked if the study would be undertaken soon, staff indicated that that traffic management would be part of the site plan application and would be approved through that process. When asked if it includes these recommendations, he advised that those would be looked at in the context of that review. The Chair noted that the Site Plan is still under delegated authority so the Ward Councillor has the ability to review the Site Plan and the traffic measures and propose mitigation as appropriate. Mr. Bridgewater confirmed that they have seen the proposal from the neighbourhood association and have determined that the place to evaluate that and review it in more detail is through the Site Plan process. Based on previous experience, Councillor Holmes expressed her scepticism about anything being done and wondered what would happen if there was no funding or resources. She had little confidence that any review during the Site Plan would garner any recommendations for these suggestions. Mr. Miguelez confirmed that staff would review the community’s suggestions as part of the Site Plan and that staff in Public Works can make those decisions about installing signs if necessary. In response to a question posed by Councillor Leadman, Mr. Miguelez confirmed that staff has met with the Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association to talk about traffic issues related to the developments around this corridor and have discussed with them how they plan to address traffic through these developments applications. Councillor Leadman encouraged the Committee to reject the staff recommendation for the following reasons: * The recommendation sets a bad precedent and is contrary to existing policies; * The OP states that “where zoning provisions are sufficient to meet the intensification-density targets in the time frame defined by the OP, those targets shall not be used as the planning rationale for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning”; therefore, while this proposal does not increase the density, it will increase the height and that is in contravention of the OP; * The traffic study shows intersections at failure and this development will only create more problems and there is no new road network to accommodate this excess; the OP states that the City cannot burden the community unless it has the proper infrastructure, which it does not * There are other locations along the Carling/Bayview corridor identified for intensification and allowing this building to proceed at the proposed height creates an anomaly that will have repercussions on traffic throughout the corridor * Approving this proposal will provide the building with 100 per cent parking, despite the fact the site is adjacent to a transit station; this was not the intent of the CDP and the community does not support it. She concluded by stating that while tax dollars may be gained from this, they would go towards the traffic studies and measures that that would be required as a result of this development. She remarked that intensification and growth are fine, as long as it represents smart growth. However, growth for the sake of growth, with no protections put in place does not benefit the City. Councillor Holmes remarked how developers bring forward unattractive building proposals in the hopes of instead being approved for a higher and ultimately more attractive building. If this proposal is approved, she felt others would be encouraged to compete for the same view, perhaps even seeking greater heights for their buildings. She too was disappointed about the amount of parking that is allowed for this building, stating that the whole rationale for the height and the number of units is that the building is situated beside a transit station. And, since this building is going to be adjacent to a station, it is important to provide a pedestrian/bridge to link the two, making it convenient for people to use. Councillor Holmes then introduced the following motion: That the zoning by-law only be forwarded to Council for the enactment after the developer has executed an agreement in the form acceptable to the general manager, planning and growth management and City Clerk and Solicitor providing for a contribution to the cost of the design construction of a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the o-train corridor at Hickory street and that such bridge be completed and opened by the time of first occupancy for 125 Hickory. Councillor Doucet indicated he could not support the staff recommendation to amend the Zoning By-law. He felt the City was letting the community down when such rezoning proposals come forward because they do not protect the residents. And, while the residents understand the importance of and are in favour of intensification because of the benefits it brings to their community, such growth is not without cost to the neighbourhood because more often than not these development proposals escalate to proportions greater than originally expected. He suggested that, rather than improving their quality of life, such development actually diminishes it because the building ends up being larger than the present Zoning proposes, which is contrary to the City’s community development plan. He echoed the concerns about the amount of parking to be provided for this development, stating it is not intelligent intensification. Councillor Hunter noted that the targets for intensification were laid out in previous OPs and there was support for those targets that called for (between 2001-2021) 60,000 additional housing units inside the Greenbelt. Such targets were to accommodate a population increase of 69,000. Therefore, he suggested what was being recommended to the Committee today was exactly the type of housing unit that was envisioned in the OP. He acknowledged that today the City is falling short of those targets and he believed developers were simply trying to address the needs of the population who are looking to downsize their living accommodations. He maintained these were the types of projects that were envisaged when the former City of Ottawa and the Region were developing their targets, and argued Committee and Council should retain those targets. With regards to the number of parking spaces for this development, Councillor Hunter agreed that it seemed like a lot especially given its’ proximity to transit; however, he also recognized that people have cars for many reasons, not just to get to work and there were few amenities in the area. He also felt the height of the building was more acceptable than a larger mass of building, citing Vancouver as an example of a city with similar architecture. With respect to the pedestrian bridge, the Councillor supported the Motion proposed by Councillor Holmes, but suggested it be divided for voting purposes as he preferred that any funding for the bridge be held in reserves until such time as the final plan for the O-Train line is determined. He agreed it would be wise to get the contribution, but only to construct the pedestrian bridge when the City knows what is going to happen with that line. Councillor Monette spoke in support of the staff proposal to rezone the land because overall, he believed the project has a very unique building design and is something he believed would add flavour and excitement to the community. It will also add open space between the buildings and he felt it would be very pedestrian friendly and even has the potential to have a shopping plaza included on the main floor. He maintained that if a building is done properly, the height should not be of major concern. Councillor Bellemare supported the request for the zoning change because he liked what was being proposed by the developer and felt it would be compatible with the neighbourhood. He posited that this is not a question of over-intensification because the proposal is not increasing the allowable density. He noted that the alternative to achieve that allowable density is a shorter but more massive building. Councillor Leadman found it interesting that some Councillors felt the proposal was compatible with the neighbourhood, stating this development is on the edge of the neighbourhood and is abutting an old, low-rise residential area that is 100 years old. She agreed there are areas in the city where such heights were appropriate, but not against a residential community. While she conceded that this development would be adjacent to the transit corridor, she maintained that a smaller building height would be more acceptable and more compatible with the community. The Councillor maintained that if the Committee approves this rezoning, it would create a change in the pattern of descending height levels towards the residential area, which does not comply with the City’s OP policies. She reiterated her earlier points and concerns about this as well as the concerns voiced by the Community. She felt that consideration has to be given to the low-rise residential community in this area and that the entire corridor has to be looked at because there will be other development proposals coming forward that would forever alter the look of this neighbourhood. She encouraged Committee members to uphold the policies in the OP that say that height is not an essential part of intensification. She believed an attractive 12-storey building could be built on this property. The Chair read out the first portion of the Motion to be considered: That the zoning by-law only be forwarded to Council for the enactment after the developer has executed an agreement in the form acceptable to the general manager, planning and growth management and City Clerk and Solicitor providing for a contribution to the cost of the design construction of a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the o-train corridor at Hickory street. On procedure, Councillor Bellemare wondered if this is really a Site Plan issue, noting that the Committee usually recommends that the Zoning By-law only be forwarded to Council once the site plan has been approved. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel advised that Council would be in a stronger position if it has the contribution agreement signed first before enacting the zoning. With respect to the cost of the bridge and the subsequent contribution by the developer, Mr. Miguelez advised that if the Committee adopted the Motion as presented or if it asks staff to defer the bringing forward of the Zoning to Council until a site plan is executed, staff would still have to determine the cost of the specifications of the bridge. He confirmed that they had discussed the cost with the proponent not only for this application but any other application that may be involved in this process. Moved by Councillor D. Holmes: That the Zoning by-law only be forwarded to Council for enactment after the developer has executed an agreement in a form acceptable to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management and City Clerk and Solicitor providing for a contribution to the cost of the design and construction of a pedestrian and cyclist bridge over the O-Train Corridor at Hickory Street. CARRIED Moved by Councillor D. Holmes And that such bridge be completed and opened by the time of first occupancy for 125 Hickory. LOST YEAS (2): C. Doucet, D. Holmes NAYS (5): M. Bellemare, P. Hume , G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri Committee then approved the report recommendations, as amended: That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 125 Hickory Street from R5B H(34) Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, to a new R5B[XXXX]SXXX Residential Fifth Density Subzone B Exception zone with a Schedule, as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Document 3, and That the Zoning by-law only be forwarded to Council for enactment after the developer has executed an agreement in a form acceptable to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management and City Clerk and Solicitor providing for a contribution to the cost of the design and construction of a pedestrian and cyclist bridge over the O-Train Corridor at Hickory Street. CARRIED, as amended with Councillors C. Doucet and D. Holmes dissenting 4. ZONING – 467 TERRY FOX DRIVE, 1425 AND 1525 RICHARDSON SIDE ROAD ZONAGE – 467, PROMENADE TERRY FOX, 1425 ET 1525, CHEMIN RICHARDSON SIDE ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0166 KANATA NORTH (4) (This matter is Subject to Bill 51) The following correspondence was received with respect to this item, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk: * Comments dated 28 September 2010 from Kathleen Riddell, South March Highlands Carp River Conservation Inc. * Comments dated 27 September 2010 from Faith Blacquiere Mark Young, Planner II, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. He did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He was accompanied by Don Herweyer, Program Manager, Development Review (West), Chris Ogilvie, Program Manager Infrastructure Approvals. Following the presentation, Councillor Qadri asked staff to further explain the holding zone recommendations for areas A, C and F. Mr. Young explained that Area F is the medium density block located adjacent to Terry Fox and street number one; Area A has detached dwelling lots that are located adjacent to Terry Fox Drive and street number one; for Area C, he explained that there are four street town home blocks that are affected. He further explained that staff was provided with numbers to rationalize the inclusion of these areas in the holding zone. He expressed his understanding that the rationale for including these areas and not others was based on sanitary flows; the resulting flows from these units are beyond the 9.58 litres per second that has been allocated to these subject lands. Upon further questioning from Councillor Qadri regarding timelines and how far the holding zone will be, Mr. Herweyer indicated that it would be dependent on the status of the Kanata West Environmental Assessments (EA). The Signature Ridge pumping station upgrade is one of the projects that have been bumped up; therefore it is dependent on the resolution of that particular EA. He added that there is still significant capacity left in Signature Ridge; the issue is that the owner has a finite amount allocated to him therefore that is all that they can proceed with at this time. Mr. Herweyer confirmed that this proposal is in no way associated with the Hazeldean Pumping Station, as it is a totally different drainage area. Committee then heard from the following delegations: Faith Blacquiere, resident of Glen Cairn, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation which is held on file with the City Clerk’s Office, along with two supporting written submissions. Ms. Blacquiere’s presentation addressed the following concerns: * Impacts on the ability to lower Glen Cairn Pond and the Carp River to prevent further flooding in Glen Cairn * Increased flooding at the Village of Carp west end wastewater system * Unaddressed unique requirements such as hilly lands, complex ecosystems and Precambrian shield in the planning documents * No storm water quantity control at the Carp River Watershed/Sub watershed * Questions regarding various considerations by the developers and the City including: changes to the Terry Fox Drive extension, impact on the Village of Carp, impact on the Conservation Lands, First Line Road drainage and various others concerns. Following Ms. Blacquiere’s presentation, Acting Chair Hunter thanked her for her presentation but indicated that her presentation did not speak to the matter of zoning of this particular property, which is the issue before Committee. Councillor Wilkinson asked staff to comment on the questions that Ms. Blacquiere raised in her presentation, as she felt they may have created a degree of confusion. Acting Chair Hunter emphasized that Committee could not enter into extraneous discussions unrelated to the matter before Committee, which was to deal with the Zoning portion of this property. He highlighted that as part of the Zoning they are putting a holding zone on a medium density area to ensure that there is enough storm water retention capacity. He further noted that there is presently nothing to impede storm water from running off of this site and into the Carp River; however, once a development occurs the storm water will be controlled and will be released only when there is capacity in the river to handle it. He suggested this was an improvement over the existing situation. In addition, the Councillor pointed out that a few of the areas would be prohibited from being developed there is 100 per cent or more capacity to handle the storm water from further development. While he recognized the delegations concerns as valid, he noted the recommendation before Committee was to ensure there is enough of an area set aside for storm water management to ensure this development is engineered the way it is supposed to be. Councillor Wilkinson stated that Acting Chair Hunter’s comments had answered her questions. Kathleen Riddell, South March Highlands, Carp River Conservation Inc.; was also registered to speak in opposition, with respect to setbacks and buffers in the natural environment area. A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City Clerk. Janet Bradley, Borden, Ladner, Gervais, was present on behalf of the property owner, Richardson Road Inc. and Uniform Developments. She emphasized the need to keep focused on the issue of Zoning. She noted the subject lands are currently zoned development reserve, which anticipates that there will be development, and the Zoning By-law before Committee is implementing the uses which are shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision, which has already received draft approval. Ms. Bradley remarked that the submissions that the Committee had received fell into two categories. The first category relates to straight preservation of an environmental resource, and she felt the issue had been resolved in 2006 after an extensive study by the City as to where the boundary between the environmental protected area and the urban area. She suggested the issue of whether the lands would be developed and whether they were worthy of protection was considered and decided by the Council at that time, and is no longer on the table today. She emphasized the lands are general urban area and they have been designated for development. She also noted that the Official Plan issues had been resolved. Ms. Bradley suggested that the second category of concerns related to the drainage plan, storm water ponds, tree preservation plan, archaeological study and wildlife strategy. S he indicated that all of these concerns had been addressed as conditions of subdivision approval. She explained that extensive studies were done by various experts, they were considered by the City’s experts, conditions have been imposed and the conditions of draft approval relating to all of these issues are done. She thought it important to note those conditions required further study and many of those further studies will require certificates of approval from the Ministry of Environment. She acknowledged that these are all important issues that are being looked at, well considered and more study would be done. Speaking to the staff recommendations, Councillor Wilkinson indicated that she had said that anything in this area must be able to be handled without causing any drainage problems. She noted the Zoning does allow development, and pointed out that one of the things they have been able to do is to retain some of the forest areas throughout the development. She also noted the flood plain was all going to be deeded to the City. She felt that the holding zones were crucial and emphasized that the City would have to ensure that the holding provisions are not cleared unless everything is resolved. She declared that she was prepared to accept the Zoning before committee, adding it was an implementation of something that had already been approved, and has various checks and balances in it, which is what matters in this type of development. Acting Chair Hunter stated there is a lot of advantages to coming forward with a very detailed plan of subdivision, with a zoning by-law that implements it, rather than vice versa. Committee then approved 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 467 Terry Fox Drive, 1425 and 1525 Richardson Side Road, from (DR) Development Reserve Zone and (RU) Rural Countryside Zone to multiple urban Residential and Open Space Zones as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 3. CARRIED Committee recessed at 12:20 after consideration of this item, and resumed at 1:30 p.m. to consider Item Two. 5. ZONING – 847 PINEWOOD CRESCENT ZONAGE – 847, CROISSANT PINEWOOD ACS2010-ICS-PGM-PGM-0176 BAY (7) (This matter is Subject to Bill 51) Julie Carrara and Brian Casagrande, FoTenn Consultants, along with Richard and Madeleine Jennings were registered to speak in support of the application. Written comments from Richard and Madeleine Jennings were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk. That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250, to change the zoning of 847 Pinewood Crescent from Residential First Density Subzone O Exception Zone (R1O[1564]), to Residential Second Density Subzone F Exception Zone (R2F[1564]) as shown on Document 1. CARRIED 6. ZONING - 800 MONTRÉAL ROAD ZONAGE - 800, CHEMIN MONTRÉAL ACS2010-ICS -PGM-0168 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13) The Chair indicated that staff had requested that this item be deferred until the meeting of 4 October 2010. He recognized several delegations who had signed up to speak: Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn Consultants (for the applicant), Jeff O’Neill, Rockcliffe Mews Community Association, Michele Ade and Gerald E. Way. He asked if any of these individuals wished to speak to deferral. Mr. Tremblay and Mr. O’Neill were present and indicated they had no objection to deferral. Councillor Legendre thought that in discussion with Legal Counsel before the meeting he had asked Councillor Holmes to move not simple deferral, but referral to the October 4th with a new report. The Chair clarified the motion accordingly and both delegations were in support of the wording. Moved by Councillor G. Hunter WHEREAS staff, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, have agreed to withdraw Report ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0168 re: the Zoning of 800 Montréal Road and make further revisions. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this item be deferred and a revised report submitted as an additional item to the Planning and Environment Committee of 4 October 2010. DEFERRAL CARRIED 7. STATUS OF URBAN INFILL DEVELOPMENT: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING BY-LAW ETAT DE L’AMENAGEMENT URBAIN INTERCALAIRE : LIGNES DIRECTRICES DE DESIGN ET REGLEMENT DE ZONAGE RIDEAU-VANIER (12), SOMERSET (14) ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0185 KITCHISSIPPI (15), CAPITAL/CAPITALE (17) Moved by Councillor D. Holmes: That this item be deferred to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 4 October 2010. DEFERRAL CARRIED COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS 8. UPDATE ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION AIR QUALITY MAPPING PROJECT MISE À JOUR SUR LE PROJET DE CARTOGRAPHIE DE LA QUALITÉ DE L’AIR DE LA RÉGION DE LA CAPITALE NATIONALE ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0017 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council: 1. Receive the results of the 2009 satellite and ground monitoring air quality results for the National Capital Region; and 2. Direct staff to report back on the results of the air quality monitoring program in one year, including options for establishment of a permanent program. CARRIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAUX 9. HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM FUNDING AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE WITH STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO ENTENTE DE PRINCIPE AVEC L'INTENDANCE ENVIRONNEMENTALE DE L'ONTARIO CONCERNANT LE FINANCEMENT DU PROGRAMME SUR LES DÉCHETS DANGEREUX ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0044 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Committee received the report and approved the following motion: Moved by Councillor S. Qadri: WHEREAS the Ontario Government’s intention is for Stewardship Ontario to pay the cost of collection, recycling and disposal of Municipal Hazardous Waste; AND WHEREAS the Ontario Minister of the Environment has communicated this to Stewardship Ontario; AND WHEREAS Stewardship Ontario has failed to guarantee this obligation will be met; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chair of the Planning and Environment committee inform Stewardship Ontario in writing that the City of Ottawa expects confirmation immediately that all reasonable costs associated with the Municipal Hazardous Waste Program be covered by Stewardship Ontario; AND THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this correspondence be sent to the Ontario Minister of the Environment. CARRIED CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL CITY CLERK AND SOLICITOR GREFFIER ET CHEF DU CONTENTIEUX 10. STATUS UPDATE - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS - FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 14 SEPTEMBER 2010 RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 14 SEPTEMBRE 2010 ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0091 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information. RECEIVED ADJOURNMENT LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE The Committee adjourned at 3:47 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Committee Coordinator Chair You can read this document on line and listen to the proceedings live, via audiocast, at ottawa.ca. Simultaneous interpretation in both official languages is available for any specific agenda item by calling the committee information number at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Ce document peut être consulté en ligne et écoutez la réunion en direct à l’aide de la diffusion audio au ottawa.ca. L’interprétation simultanée est offerte dans les deux langues officielles pour toute question à l’ordre du jour si la demande est faite au moins 24 heures à l’avance en téléphonant au service d’information du comité visé. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 81 28 SEPTEMBER 2010 xxxvi COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT MINUTES 81 LE 28 SEPTEMBRE 2010