►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - September 22, 2022
Description
Planning Committee - September 22, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
A
You
kelly
and
good
morning
as
well
to
councillor
cavanaugh
and
councillor
fleury,
who
have
items
on
the
agenda
in
their
awards.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
4.2,
5.1
and
5.3
on
today's
agenda.
For
the
items
just
mentioned,
only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
Item
number
5.1
is
zoning.
Bylaw
amendment
for
197
and
201
will
broad
street
and
item
5.2
is
application
for
new
construction
at
197
and
201?
Will
broad
street
properties
designated
under
part
5
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
as
part
of
the
sandy
hill
west
heritage
conservation
district?
We
have
no
delegations
registered
for
either
of
these
items
and
no
correspondence
on
file.
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
G
That's
weird:
I
swear
to
god.
This
is
the
same
thing
twice
is
before
the
terror
land
tribunal
and
whereas
the
possibility
of
a
settlement
on
this
matter
might
be
made
on
the
basis
of
the
designation
of
933,
glaston
avenue
and
part
of
1033
somerset
street
has
a
class
4
site
within
the
meeting
of
the
environmental
noise
guideline,
stationary
and
transportation,
sources,
approval
and
planning,
and
the
city
of
auto
environmental
noise
control
guidelines
therefore
be
resolved.
G
The
planning
committee
ad
report
acs
2022
pie,
edp
0031
as
an
item
of
other
business
to
the
september
22nd
2022
meeting
of
planning
committee.
This
is
that
gladstone
village
area-
and
there
was
just
an
appeal
between
the
canadian
banknote
company
and
regarding
some
proximity
issues,
so
staff
have
been
for
quite
a
while
cancer.
Mckinney
is
well
aware.
I
E
A
Carried
and
I'll
ask
if
the
clerk's
team
can
circulate
the
report
and
the
recommendations
to
members
so
we'll
hold
that
and
come
back
to
that
and
that
takes
us
through
the
agenda.
So
we're
going
to
go
back
to
the
first
item
that
we
held,
which
was
the
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
1071
ambleside
drive.
A
As
I
mentioned,
we
do
have
seven
public
delegations
registered
to
speak.
So
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
start
with
a
brief
staff
presentation
to
give
us
an
overview
of
the
application.
Then
we'll
go
to
a
presentation
from
the
applicants
and
then
we'll
hear
from
the
delegations
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
the
applicants
for
questions
and
then
city
staff
for
questions
allison
hamlin
is
is
here
and
we'll
walk
us
through
the
presentation
good
morning,
allison.
J
Okay,
this
is
an
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
at
1071,
ambleside
drive,
planning
staff
are
recommending
that
council
approve
the
official
plan
amendment
and
voting
bill
amendments
to
permit
a
high-rise
building
of
32
stories
and
with
approx
approximately
312
dwelling
units
next
slide.
Please.
J
J
J
J
J
This
image
shows
a
concept
plan.
The
existing
zoning
permits
a
maximum
floor
space
index
of
three
across
the
entire
site.
The
amendments
would
enable
for
a
redistribution
of
this
density,
a
taller
tower
with
a
narrower
floor.
Plate
is
a
more
desirable
built
form,
it
minimizes
the
obstruction
of
views
and
it
allows
for
more
landscape
space
at
grade.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
A
G
Yeah,
whereas
the
application
associated
with
report
acs,
2022
pie,
ps0095,
seeks
to
permit
a
32
storey
apartment,
building
with
312
dwelling
units
and
315
underground
parking
spaces,
and
whereas
certain
technical
modifications
to
the
zoning
schedule
have
been
identified
as
being
required
by
staff,
therefore
be
resolved.
That,
with
respect
to
the
report,
planning
committee
substitute
document
5
with
the
revised
version
enclosed.
G
A
I
I
I
Regarding
context.
The
site
is
within
300
meters
of
the
new
orchard,
lrt
station,
that
is
under
construction
in
a
well-connected
area
of
the
city,
the
options
for
active
modes
of
transportation
are
being
enhanced
along
richmond
road
and
the
15-minute
neighborhood
is
evolving
encouraged
by
the
policies
of
the
new
official
plan.
I
There
is
existing
high
rise
in
the
area,
including
the
parkway
tower
building
on
site.
This
building
is
13
stories
and
is
owned,
managed
and
operated
as
well
by
osgood
properties.
There's
also
high
rise
buildings
in
the
neighboring
on
neighboring
properties,
including
a
27-story
tower
at
1081.
Ambleside
drive
next
slide.
Please.
I
The
estimated
312
new
units
will
be
housed
in
a
32-story
tower
and
and
in
ground-oriented
townhouses
on
the
podium
base,
as
outlined
by
alice
in
the
direction
of
the
project
aligned
with
the
planning
framework
of
the
city.
It
is
important
to
note,
as
she
mentioned,
that
the
current
floor
space
index
is
being
respected.
I
This
was
key
in
determining
the
appropriate
density
for
the
project.
This
proposal
is
not
asking
to
permit
more
people
are
building
on
the
site,
but
requesting
to
rearrange
the
density
in
a
less
impactful
way.
As
I'm
going
to
explain
on
the
following
slides
next
slide,
please,
the
current
zoning
permits
buildings
of
39
meters
tall,
which
equates
to
about
13
stories
prior
to
advancing
on
the
narrow
tower
option.
A
lot
of
time
was
spent
looking
at
what
could
be
done
as
a
right
the
same,
if
not
more
density
could
be
achieved.
I
I
Next
slide,
this
property
with
its
surface
parking
lot
along
the
ncc
pathway,
is
ripe
for
redevelopment.
The
planning
policies,
support
intensification
here,
and
this
proposal
will
result
in
needed
rental
accommodation
with
varying
unit
sizes,
including
family
sized
townhouses,
in
an
area
close
to
transit.
The
supporting
studies
confirm
that
existing
infrastructure
can
accommodate
this
project.
So
in
conclusion,
the
redistribution
of
the
permitted
density
proposed
by
this
official
plan
and
zoning
amendment
requests
as
echoed
by
city
staff,
is
supported
by
planning
policies.
The
proposal
considers
the
existing
context,
while
minimizing
the
built
form
impact
last
slide,
please.
I
A
F
Next
slide,
please,
as
osbot's
photograph
shows
a
new
orchard,
ambleside
mcewen
neighborhood
is
mature
and
densely
populated.
The
tall
gray
building
in
the
foreground
represents
the
proposed
32-story
tower.
It
does
not
show
the
15
town
houses
to
be
built
in
the
green
space
east
of
the
tower
next
slide.
Please
this
table
shows
the
current
demographics
of
our
neighborhood.
Please
note
the
already
very
high
density
of
over
10
000
people
per
square
kilometer
versus
365
for
ottawa
as
a
whole.
F
Next
slide,
please
this
graphic
from
the
cleary
new
orchard
area.
Specific
policy
shows
the
proposed
tower
the
red
square
inside
the
area
designated
not
appropriate
for
on-site
density
redistribution,
the
city's
area,
specific
policies
exist
for
good
reason,
and
any
new
development
should
comply
with
them,
especially
in
an
area
already
densely
populated.
F
Next
slide,
please,
the
policy
states,
the
new
orchard
lrt
station
is
a
neighborhood
station
in
an
established
neighborhood,
not
a
major
station
or
hub
redevelopment
of
properties
along
richmond.
Road
closest
to
the
station
is
set
at
buildings
between
20
for
14
and
20
stories.
If
buildings
closest
to
new
orchard
station
are
designated
at
14
to
20
stories,
only,
how
can
a
32-story
tower
set
back
in
a
mature
neighborhood
be
considered
next
slide?
Please.
F
Osgood's
drawings
show
a
32-story
tower
rising
from
grade
on
the
ncc
property
line,
no
other
high-rises
between
westboro
and
mcewen
avenue,
but
this
closely
to
the
ncc
property
line
next
slide,
please,
the
red
rectangle
show
oscars
proposed
312
units
in
a
32
story
tower
and
15
town
houses.
The
blue
rectangles
show
fen
gates
proposed
300
units
in
three
towers
at
the
corner
of
new
orchard
and
richmond
road.
The
purple
rectangle
shows
new
orchard
investments
proposed
84
units
and
a
high
rise
at
the
north
end
of
new
orchard
along
the
ncc
property
line.
F
F
F
Your
report
also
argues
that
new
taller
buildings
may
be
considered
for
sites
that
front
on
arterial
roads.
Neither
new
orchard
nor
ambleside
are
arterial
roads.
They
are
designated
local
roads.
New
orchard
is
a
one
block
dead-end
street
next
slide.
Please
city
planners,
in
their
wisdom,
undertook
to
protect
our
mature
neighborhood
by
creating
the
cleary
and
new
orchard
area
specific
policy
in
2018
to
ensure
that
a
development
such
is
now
proposed
was
never
allowed
to
happen.
F
Despite
the
200
comments
registered
against
the
original
proposal,
the
vast
majority
in
opposition
osgood
properties
amended
their
proposal
and
increased
the
towers
hike
by
two
stories
and
added
15
town
houses
to
the
property.
How
does
any
of
this
fit
with
the
cleary
new
orchard
area?
Specific
policy?
F
A
L
Thank
you
very
much
jerry
for
taking
the
time
and
and
for
such
a
thorough
presentation.
I
really
appreciate
it.
My
question
to
you
is:
are:
is
there
anything
that
would
be
acceptable
to
to
ample
side
one
in
terms
of
the
development
there?
You
you
talk
about
the
the
fact
that
you
have
concerns
about
this,
but
given
that
they're
they're
allowed
to
to
develop
on
this
property,
what
would
be
considered
to
be
acceptable.
F
D
D
F
I
understand
the
question,
but
it's
not
quite
what
we're
saying
so
what
they're
saying
is,
as
of
right,
isn't
accurate,
so
they're
as
of
right
as
on
the
ncc
property
line.
That's
that's
not
as
per
policy,
as
for
the
secondary
policy
they're
supposed
to
have
two
to
four
stories
as
a
step
up
to
that
tower,
so
that
tower
to
be
as
of
right
or
any
buildings
as
of
right
should
be
set
back
from
ncc
property,
similar
to
the
other
buildings
like
ours
and
the
ones
along
ambleside.
F
D
F
To
ask
the
planners
that
the
people
that
created
the
the
cleary
new
orchard
policy
asked
for
that
setback
back
50
years
ago,
when
the
ambleside
was
developed,
that
was
the
setback
from
ncc
property.
Nobody
has
a
tower
built
on
the
ncc
property
line.
Everything
is
set
back
so
if
they
want
to
set
back
similar
to
what
the
other
buildings
of
ambleside
are
set
back
and
do
that
built
within
the
current
policies.
F
D
D
D
They
they
have
a
significantly
more
harmful
impact
on
the
adjoining
neighbors
in
terms
of
the
shadow
impacts,
as
well
as
the
the
public
realm
experience
of
them
or
the
pedestrian
experience
of
them.
So
that's
that's
something
I'll
want
to
explore
with
them
with
the
planners,
and
then
I
guess
the
the
other
very
legitimate
point
you've
raised
is
the
the
question
of
the
setback
with
a
two-story
podium,
joining
the
the
ncc
property
and
I'll
just
wonder
with
planners
I'll.
Ask
them
whether
or
not
that's
been
adhered
to
here.
Okay,
council.
F
Reaper,
can
I
speak
to
your
comment
on
density
yeah,
please.
I
believe
you
may
have
said
that
the
density
wasn't
an
issue,
but
if
you
recall
in
my
presentation
the
density
was
one
of
our
biggest
issues
in
that
oscar's
own
impact
transportation
impact
assessment
had
the
vehicles
almost
doubling
what
the
approved
road
density
is
for
our
area.
So
density
is
a
huge
concern
for
us.
D
No,
I
I
don't
mean
to
under
underplay
the
the
concern
you
have
about
density.
One
I'm
wondering
is:
is
the
density
significantly
less
in
and
as
of
right
form
than
in
what
is
being
proposed
here,
because
the
the
quality
of
life
impacts
of
density
may
be
the
same,
whether
they
rearrange
it
into
a
taller
tower
or
whether
they
keep
it
in
something
more
like
a
slab
or
a
bar
building.
D
D
F
D
D
H
F
H
The
new
construction
is
tucked
in
the
back
corner.
Thank
you.
The
other
question
I
noted
from
your
presentation
and
counselor
lieber
touched
upon
this,
and
maybe
I
raise
it
with
the
planner,
but
the
in
your
presentation,
you,
you
showed
a
map
of
the
area
coded
in
purple
and
you
identified
it
the
city
document
non-densification
designation
again,
I
I
could
follow
up
with
the
planner,
but
it's
your
understanding
that
that
shaded
area
that
you
illustrated
is
exempt
from
this
type
of
development.
Is
that
your
understanding?
That's
my
interpretation
of
the
clearing
clearing.
H
A
M
Very
much
mr
chair
and
counselors,
I
just
had
a
few
points
I
wanted
to
make
the
I
understand,
there's
a
housing
shortage
and
that
with
the
new
lrt
council
will
want
to
have
more
dense
housing,
closer
to
lrt
lines,
that's
understandable
and
with
the
housing
shortage.
It's
understandable
that
the
council
wants
to
see
would
want
to
do
what
they
could
to
help
with
the
housing
shortage.
Help
alleviate
it.
M
M
States
that
taller
that
new
taller
buildings
may
be
considered
for
sites
that
front
an
arterial
road
new
orchard
street
is
a
one
block.
Long
dead,
end
street,
that
cannot
by
anybody's
standards,
be
considered
an
arterial
road,
and
that's
where
the
parking
lot
empties
into
newark
ambleside
drive
is
a
is
a
one
block
of
long.
It's
a
long
one
block.
It
begins
at.
M
M
That
is
not
an
arterial
road.
Neither
of
these
streets
are
arterial
roads
and,
in
my
view,
this
this
matter,
that's
before
you
today
doesn't
meet
the
legal
requirements
that
are
set
out.
According
to
the
documents
that
the
city
has
provided
publicly
and
sent
to
me,
it
doesn't
meet
the
requirements
in
the
general
urban
area,
designation
policy,
3.6.1.4.
M
M
In
the
document
itself,
it
says
that
this
proposal,
the
proposals
of
this
nature,
must
respect
the
character
of
the
community.
You
can
see
from
the
documents
from
the
photographs
that
were
that
were
put
up
on
the
screen
here
this
morning,
presented
by
the
city
itself,
how
out
of
character
a
32-story
glass
tower
squatting
on
the
ncc
parking
lot
park
way,
how
much
out
of
character
it
is
with
every
other
building
which
are
which
are
shorter
and
wider,
concrete
and
brick
buildings.
This
is
out
of
character.
M
M
A
L
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
mckecran,
for
for
coming
out
today.
I
appreciate
it
taking
this
time.
I
know
this
is
a
big
concern
for
you,
you're
talking
about
traffic.
You
seem
to
be
focused
on
that
and
I
guess
one
of
the
concerns
was
the
the
parking
ratio
is
fairly
high.
Is
all
right.
Is
this
a
concern
to
you?
Is
that
what
you're
getting
at?
L
M
Well,
the
parking
slots
spots
indicate
the
number
of
cars
that
are
expected
and
that
is
the
traffic
I
had
another.
I
had
another
even
bigger
concern
about
this
and
it
had
to
do
with
the
housing
affordability,
but
I
didn't
get
to
that.
I
just
want
I
I
wanted
to
address
what
can
happen.
I
wanted
to
address
it.
I
think
it's
the
biggest
danger
of
this
proposal,
and
it
is
simply
this
they're
proposing
to
build
a
32-story
rental
tower
with
312
units,
but
there's
already
a
rental
building.
It's
from
the
1950s.
M
M
So,
instead
of
getting
more
affordable
housing
under
this
proposal,
you're
going
to
get
less
affordable
housing.
When
mr
greenberg
himself
was
asked
at
councillor
kavanaugh's
information
meeting
about
the
rents
that
were
going
to
be
charged
on
this
tower,
he
refused
to
tell
us
and
he
the
reason
he
refused
to
tell
us.
I
think
it's
obvious
to
everyone.
It's
not
going
to
be
affordable.
It's
not
going
to
be
inexpensive.
M
You
have
a
brand
new
building
overlooking
the
park
and
overlooking
the
river.
These
are
going
to
be
premium
rents,
that's
not
going
to
be
affordable
for
most
people,
unlike
the
top,
the
the
building,
the
13-story
rental
building.
That's
there
today
that
is
affordable
and
there's
a
risk
of
that.
The
danger
of
that
being
taken
down
torn
down
and
replaced
they'll
shoehorn,
two
more
towers
on
that
property.
Councillor.
L
I'll
I'll
just
say
that
I'll,
I
will
pass
on
your
questions
on
the
affordable,
housing
absolutely
and
you're,
and
I
and
I
I
take
it
you're
concerned
that
this
is
gateway,
that
this
is
going
to
lead
to
the
property
being
redeveloped,
but
we
we
have.
We
can't
of
course
deal
with
that
at
this
time,
but
is
I
take
it?
That's
your
top
concern.
A
N
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
the
planning
committee
and
thank
you
to
kelly
crozier
as
well.
She's
been
very
helpful.
Our
condominium
on
ammo
side
drive
was
bought
years
ago
because
it
was
in
a
well-established
neighborhood.
We
bought
because
of
the
spectacular
views
that
overlook
the
ottawa
river
and
the
gatineau
hills
we
bought,
because
the
air
was
well
defined
and
had
a
stellar
reputation.
N
We
felt
confident
that
our
investment
was
sound.
We
were
very
surprised
when
the
proposal
from
osgoode
properties
was
submitted
to
the
city,
even
more
surprised
to
see
that
osgood
properties
wanted
to
build
a
multi-story
high-rise
apartment
building
in
a
parking
lot
of
parkway
towers.
Osgood
properties
later
changed
their
proposal,
adding
two
more
floors:
increasing
the
apartment,
the
30
32
stores,
along
with
townhouses
in
the
parking
lot,
an
article
in
the
ottawa
citizen
dated
december
14,
21
titled
proposal
to
intensify
apartment
property.
N
Warriors
residents
who
enjoy
ottawa
river
vista
outline
the
concerns
of
the
residents
of
parkway
towers.
The
tenants
at
parkway
towers
would
have
no
recourse
but
to
accept
it
or
move
out
owners
and
residents
at
1081
ambleside
were
very
upset
and
very
angry
kelly.
Next
slide,
please
my
husband
and
I
fully
support
the
need
to
increase
housing
along
the
new
light
rail
corridor.
The
proposed
development
along
richmond
road
will
add
a
lot
of
housing
in
the
area
as
well.
There
are
a
lot
of
other
areas
in
the
city
that
are
going
to
benefit
from
future
development.
N
All
you
have
to
do
is
tour
the
city,
and
you
can
see
new
construction
everywhere.
My
question
to
the
planning
park
department:
why
is
it
so
important
to
allow
a
32-story
apartment
building
in
a
parking
lot
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
been
established
for
years?
Is
one
apartment
going
to
make
a
difference
to
the
overall
housing
situation
in
the
city?
When
so
many
other
projects
are
planned,
can
we
not
continue
to
live
in
an
established
area
kelly
next
side,
please
without
a
building
being
built
on
top
of
us?
N
There
is
no
logic
why
that
building
needs
to
be
built
in
that
parking
lot
in
an
area
that's
been
established
for
years.
It
doesn't
belong
there,
it's
at
a
place
and
will
destroy
the
quality
of
life
that
so
many
of
us
have
come
to
enjoy
simply
said
that
building
does
not
fit
into
an
established
area
under
any
circumstances.
N
One
building
is
not
going
to
make
a
difference
to
the
city
at
all,
but
it
will
make
a
huge
difference
to
the
residents
who
bought
and
live
in
this
established
area.
Kelly
next
slide.
Please.
The
agenda
for
the
meeting
today
recommends
that
the
planning
committee
have
city
council
change
the
policy,
so
the
building
can
be
approved.
According
to
the
agenda,
the
planning
committee
appears
to
have
already
decided
that
they
will
give
approval
for
the
parking
lot
development,
even
if
even
before
a
vote
has
been
taken
or
you've
listened
to
those
opposing
the
development.
N
Could
you
not
have
at
least
listened
to
the
concerns
of
the
owners
and
the
residents
in
the
area
before
coming
to
that
conclusion,
why
are
you
asking
public
consultation
when
it
appears
predetermined?
As
noted
in
the
highlight
sentence
below,
I
was
under
the
impression
that
I
could
voice
my
concerns
and
actually
be
listened
to
prior
to
the
planning
department,
making
any
decision
or
recommendations.
N
N
The
planning
committee
recommend
council
a
approve,
an
amendment
to
the
clearing
new
orchard
site,
specific
policies
in
the
official
plan
volume
b
by
adding
new
policy
permitting
building
heights
up
to
32
stores
specific
to
the
site,
1071
ammo
site.
As
in
detail
document
2a
b,
a
proven
amendment
to
zoning
bylaw
2008
250
for
part
of
1071
ambleside
drive
to
permit
a
residential
development
heights
up
to
30
32
stories
as
detailed
in
document
3
and
4..
N
I
ask
you
to
think
about
this
presentation
and
the
presentations
of
all
the
others
who
do
not
want
this
building
in
the
parking
lot.
I
ask
you
to
consider
the
true
need
for
an
apartment,
building
that
no
one
wants
in
an
established
area
in
a
parking
lot.
That
apartment
building
in
the
parking
lot
is
not
needed
and
more
to
the
point
not
wanted
by
anybody
in
this
established
area.
No
previous
proposals
for
lower
rise
housing
are
acceptable
acceptable
in
the
parking
lot.
N
We
don't
want
any
buildings
back
there,
please
think
long
and
hard
about
your
decision
and
how
it
will
impact
the
tax,
paying
owners
and
residents
of
this
well-established
community,
make
the
right
decision
and
turn
the
proposal
down
because
someday
it
may
happen
to
you.
That's
it
I'm
finished.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
jane
and
just
to
be
clear
that
what
you're
seeing
in
the
in
the
report
and
in
the
agenda
their
recommendations
to
the
committee
from
our
staff,
our
job,
is
it's
our
job
as
committee
to
read.
The
report
understand
staff's
position,
but
also
we're
listening
to
residents
like
yourself
who
are
here
presenting
and
we're
reviewing
the
correspondence.
That's
been
sent
to
us
from
people
who
weren't
able
to
join
us.
So
there
is
no
decision
yet
and
that's
what
we're
we're
here
to
decide
today.
Councillor
kavanaugh
has
a
question.
L
N
Well,
mike,
what
would
you
my
concern?
Is
yes,
of
course,
it's
a
loss
of
view,
but
but
the
real
concern
is
it's:
the
community
is
we've.
This
has
been
an
established
community
for
years
and
years
and
years.
We
we
all
we
live
in
it.
We
we
go
back
to
the
ncc
property.
My
other
concern
is
the
new
orchard.
I
didn't
bring
that
in,
but
you've
asked
I'm
going
to
mention
it
that
new
orchard
road
is
not
built
for
this
kind
of
density.
N
They're,
going
to
that
32-story
building
will
come
out
onto
new
orchard
and
it's
a
very
short
road
and
it
will
they
will
either
come
back
on
the
ammo
side
or
they'll
go
down
the
ridge
and
once
the
light
rail
is
done,
it's
it's
not
was
never
built
for
this
density.
It
just
wasn't.
My
other
concern
is
and
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
there's
there's
kids
that
have
come
down
this.
This
road
animal
side,
there's
school
buses
that
come
down
this
road.
N
If
we've
got
a
lot
of
traffic
and
a
lot
of
people
coming
off
of
richmond
new
orchard,
ambleside
mcewen,
this
is
dangerous.
I'm
sorry
call
it
a
spade
a
spade.
It's
dangerous,
it's
not
built
for
this
and
then
all
of
a
sudden.
Here
it
is
it's
I
city
planners
down
the
road.
I
hope
you
don't
have
to
eat
my
words.
That's
all
I've
got
to
say.
N
Yeah,
the
the
buses,
the
kids,
getting
off
the
school
there's
buses
that
go
down
new
orchard,
there's
buses
that
go
down
mckeown,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
traffic
and
that
road
is
not
built
for
this
kind
of
volume.
It's
not
now
the
light
rail
has
changed.
You
can
see.
The
volume
has
come
on
to
animal
side,
because
we've
got
a
detour
now
because
of
the
light
rail,
which
is
fair
enough.
They
got
to
build
light
rail,
but
now
it's
coming
down
a
short
little
distance
onto
new
orchard.
N
Coming
turning
onto
to
ambleside,
going
looping
back
up
to
mchugh
and
back
out
the
cars
in
there
are
unbelievable,
especially
we'll,
say,
8
o'clock,
8
30
in
the
morning.
It's
unbelievable
and
then
you're
going
to
stick
a
32
story.
Building
up
there,
yeah
I'm
I'm
upset,
because
because
the
whole
thing
is
not
well
planned,
it's
not
about,
and
I
was
very
upset
when
I
saw
the
recommendation
from
the
city-
I
mean
it.
It
smacks
it's
it's
anyway.
That's
just.
I
thought
that's
what
I've
said.
That's.
L
L
K
Mr
chair
and
committee,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
at
this
meeting,
I'm
a
retired
condo
owner
living
at
1081
ambleside.
I
strongly
support
every
point
made
in
ambleside
one's
board
presentation
this
morning
by
jerry
lapierre
and
would
like
to
share
some
additional
comments
as
follows.
Intensification.
K
K
This
proposal
will
block
this
open
space
to
the
north,
to
the
detriment
of
this
saving
grace
ambleside
park.
It
also
is
like
to
speak
to
the
proposed
building
design.
New
development
should
be
compatible
with
and
respect
the
established
physical
characteristics
of
the
neighborhood.
The
proposed
development
does
not,
additionally,
by
deviating
from
the
established
character
and
proposing
a
glass
and
metal
tower.
I
am
very
concerned
about
the
window
glare
on
the
building's
western
face
during
sunsets.
K
Currently
during
sunsets,
we
face
east
on
our
balconies
due
to
the
blinding
intensity
of
the
sun
to
the
west.
A
thirty
star,
two-story
glass
wall
will
serve
to
reflect
the
glare
of
the
sun
and
may
render
our
balconies
uninhabitable
during
this
time
of
day.
The
reflected
glare
will
only
be
exacerbated
by
the
mirror
effect
of
the
ubiquitous
window,
shape
lines
when
seas
lowered
in
most
last
residential
buildings.
K
I
raised
this
concern
in
the
november
2021
meeting
with
the
developer.
Have
the
visual
impacts
of
reflected
light
been
investigated
since
this
meeting
to
ensure
that
adjacent
building
residents
will
not
be
adversely
affected
noise?
The
site
plan
for
the
proposed
building
has
a
loading
dock
on
the
west
side
and
facing
ambleside,
1
and
parkway
towers.
Building
loading
docks
are
busy,
noisy
and
unattractive,
and
the
sounds
of
garbage
and
recycling
trucks,
lifting
and
dumping
large
mental
metal
bins
multiple
times
weekly
will
reverberate
and
disturb
all
the
residents
in
the
vicinity.
K
Additionally,
being
a
rental
building,
the
resident
turnover
will
be
higher.
So,
in
addition
to
the
garbage
and
recycling
trucks,
delivery
vans
will
be
more
moving
vans
as
well.
The
loading
dock
of
the
ambleside
one
building
is
mitigated
by
a
cement
wall
and
faces
a
windowless
west
wall
of
the
parkway
towers.
I
strongly
object
to
the
proposed
location
of
the
loading
dock,
which
I
suspect
is
there,
partly
because
they
wanted
to
add
the
townhouses
to
the
east
and
anyway,
that's
that's
my
surmise.
K
The
proposals
target
the
target
demographic.
This
project
is
targeting
the
luxury
rental
market.
The
most
recent
figures
I
saw
in
vacancy
rate
for
luxury
rentals
was
6.5
percent.
This
is
not
where
the
housing
crisis
exists.
Furthermore,
I
sincerely
doubt
that
the
demographic
that
can
afford
these
luxury
units
will
be
taking
the
lrt.
Instead,
they
will
be
driving
their
teslas,
respecting
long
established
amenities
of
privacy
and
river
views.
K
K
To
summarize,
we
need
the
city's
leadership
to
prevent
this
area
from
being
turned
into
a
traffic
congested,
over-intensified
vertical
sprawl.
We
need
this
city's
leadership
to
plan
holistically.
Consider
future
developments
consider
the
danger
of
setting
precedence
and
ensure
that
the
current
livability
in
neighborhoods
is
not
being
sacrificed
in
the
process.
K
L
K
L
Okay,
well
we'll
ask
the
developers
about
that,
because
I
I
can
see
that
that
would
be
a
concern
and
in
terms
of
the
affordable
housing.
That's
come
up
a
few
times,
and
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
that
is
being
asked
that
that
this
is
a
community
that
is
asking
those
questions
and
is
concerned
about
affordable
housing,
so
we'll
raise
that
as
well
as,
if
that's
okay.
K
A
O
O
I
fully
support
the
presentation
from
the
board
of
directors
of
ambleside
one
where
I
live
as
a
condo
owner
with
my
partner.
This
is
my
home.
I
am
angry
about
the
proposed
project.
I
am
angry
because
in
a
for-profit
corporation
osgood
properties
is
being
allowed,
or
I
realize
it's
not.
You
know
they're.
They
are
proposing
to
take
damage
something
of
value,
something
currently
enjoyed
by
the
many
residents
of
my
building,
while
providing
nothing,
nothing
but
drastically
higher
traffic
levels,
more
construction,
noise,
a
loss
of
faith
in
city
government.
O
O
A
A
L
Thank
you.
Sorry
must
have
touched,
a
button
that
that
took
off
the
audio
apologies.
Did
you
hear
my
question?
I
guess
not
apologies
yeah.
No.
I
I
wanted
to
to
get
at
the
the
top
concerns,
and
I
and
you
you
mentioned
that
ambleside
one
is
is,
has
already
presented
views
similar,
but
is
it
is
the
top
concern
about
the
view?
Is
it
about
the
traffic?
What
is
the
top
concern
that
you
have.
O
O
Certainly,
you
know
the
view,
but
it's
more
it's
more.
This
inten
I
mean
the
overall
thing.
Is
this
intangible
of
having
a
home
and
having
so
many
different
things
that
feel
like
assaults
on
you
know
our
our
security
and
I'm
saying
that
this
is
something
that's
that's
very,
very
important,
and
I
fully
support
what
everyone
else
has
said
about
all
the
all
the
very
specific
things,
but
I'm
trying
to
talk
about
the
impact
that
it
has
on
that.
I
feel
on
myself.
L
What
I'm
hearing
is
that
it
feels
like
there's,
there's
something
being
added,
but
there's
no
benefits
to
the
community
overall
and
and
we're
not
talking.
We
can't
talk
about
that
today,
because
this
is
a
zoning
application.
It's
not
about
site
plan,
but
is,
is
that
something
that
we
should
look
at
is?
Is
there
something
that
can
they
could
make
it
more
like,
for
example,
just
more
accessible
to
the
community?
This
property.
L
L
Right
now,
just
about
everybody
will
get
a
parking
spot,
which
means
they'll,
be
you
know,
cars
per
unit
and
you
you
know,
developers
have
that
option
to
not
provide
parking
so
that
people
must
use
the
transit.
So
I
this
this
development
is
not
doing
that
as
much
as
others.
Some
of
them
have
fifty
percent
ratio,
where
it's
only
fifty
percent
get
parking
spots
is
that
is
that
what
you're
saying
would
be
better.
O
I
ca.
I
can't
really
comment
on
what
I
think
would
be
better,
I'm
not
a
planner.
I
don't
really
know
the
details.
I
can
just
see
already
with
the
diverted
traffic
that
we're
getting
because
of
the
the
closure
on
on
richmond.
You
know
increased
traffic.
It
takes
longer
to
cross
the
street.
I
know
that
many
of
you
know
I'm
a
senior
citizen.
Many
of
the
people
in
this
building
are
much
older
than
I
am
and
they
have
difficulty
crossing
the
street,
and
so
already
it's.
You
know
it's
obvious.
A
R
R
The
plan
clearly
identifies
the
entirety
of
the
residential
ambleside
neighborhood
as
not
suitable
for
on-site
density
redistribution,
and
so
we
believe
this
proposal
goes
completely
against
this
secondary
plan.
A
32-storey
tower
does
not
appear
to
be
permitted
in
even
the
denser
portions
of
the
city's
plan
for
the
immediate
area
of
the
new
orchard,
lrt
station,
even
on
richmond
road.
R
In
addition,
the
increased
traffic
that
would
be
created
by
such
a
tall
tower
is
questionable,
as
you've
already
heard,
for
designated
green
streets
like
new
orchard
and
ambleside,
the
clarion
new
orchard
secondary
plan
states,
all
development
and
redevelopment
will
be
designed
with
a
human
scale,
which
this
tower
clearly
is
not,
and
the
staff
report
says:
underplanning
rationale
with
respect
to
the
general
urban
designation
policy.
3614
states
that
new
taller
buildings
may
be
considered
for
sites
that
front
an
arterial
road.
Q
The
clearing
new
archer
plan
also
states
the
scale
and
character
of
existing
neighborhoods
will
be
preserved
through
appropriate
height
transitions
of
new
development.
Again,
this
proposal
does
not
do
that.
It's
difficult
to
see
how
this
very
tall
straight
modern
structure
will
blend
into
the
character
of
this
neighborhood,
the
external
design
of
the
proposal
for
100
new
orchard,
while
obviously
a
more
contemporary
design
fits
much
more
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Q
The
visual
impact
of
this
32-story
tower
blocking
direct
views
from
two
adjacent
buildings
does
not
blend
with
the
character
of
our
neighborhood.
In
our
case,
it
interferes
with
our
privacy,
as
the
building
would
overlook
both
of
our
balconies
on
the
east
and
north
side
and
we're
concerned
that
the
value
of
our
home
will
be
significantly
reduced.
Because
of
this,
the
concept
perspectives
by
osgood
properties
do
not
provide
a
realistic
representation
of
the
impact
of
the
tower
on
existing
buildings.
R
Approving
this
would
also
be
a
precedent
for
this
neighborhood.
A
32-story
tower
would
start,
I
think
others
begin
to
apply
for
similar
height
variances.
In
addition,
its
proximity
to
the
ncc
parkland
is
a
concern.
It's
totally
incongruent
to
have
this
tall
building
right
against
the
fence
of
the
ncc
parkland.
R
R
S
Thank
you
very
much
chair
thanks
for
the
presentation
I
just
I
wanted
to
key
in
on
a
couple
of
aspects
you
mentioned,
because
the
first
thing
you
mentioned
was
the
view,
and
so,
if,
if
the
proposal
stuck
to
what
the
current
zoning
calls
for,
which
I
believe
is
39
a
39
meter,
building
more
of
a
bar
building,
would
that
not
obstruct
your
view?
In
that
case,
or
you
said
you're
on
the
sixth
floor?
I
think
yes,
and
so
I
my
understanding
is
a
lot
more
views
would
be
obstructed
by
that
39
meter
bar
building.
C
S
S
I
understand
that
the
proposal
would
keep
the
fsi
where
it
is,
but
that
the
secondary
plan
shows
this
area
is
not
allowing
for
a
redistribution
of
of
density,
which,
which
would
be
as
your
your
concern
in
that
in
that
regard
with
height,
and
so
I
understand
on
that
concern
where
the
secondary
plan
is.
But
the
the
other
piece
I
just
wanted
to
mention
is
around
the
parking
you
mentioned
traffic,
and
so
are
you
in
favor
of
lowering
the
parking
requirements.
Q
R
Absolutely
I
would
think
if,
if
this
proposal
goes
ahead,
then
yes,
a
lowering
of
the
parking
requirements
would
be
more
favorable.
I
I'm
not
sure.
How
can
you
can
you
explain
to
me
how,
when
the
clearing
new
object,
secondary
plans
clearly
identifies
it
as
not
suitable
for
on-site
density
redistribution
and
and
then
you
talk
about
the
fsi?
Is
that
they're
not
inconsistent?
I
guess
is
that
what
you're
saying.
S
But
I
think
there's
some
potential
positive
benefit
is
what
the
report
is
saying
with
doing
that
in
terms
of
views
and
overall
interaction
with
the
site.
So
I
take
it.
You
take
issue
with
that
and
appreciate
that
perspective,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
key
in
on
a
few
of
the
issues
that
you
would
raise,
that
to
me
sounds
like
there's
always
room
for
negotiation
to
tweak
these
projects
to
be
a
bit
better
and
the
parking
is
certainly
one
that
I
can
see
it.
S
A
Q
L
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you
very
much
sharon
to
for
for
coming
out.
Today
you
talked
about
the
separation
from
other
buildings
and
we'll
talk
to
staff
about
that,
because
of
course
that
is
taken
into
consideration,
but
you
were
concerned
about
your
privacy
and
we'll
ask
about
that
as
well
of
what
can
be
what
can
mitigate
it?
Are
you
suggesting
that
you
know
you
just
can't
have
a
building
is
that's
the
only
way
you
can
protect
your
privacy.
L
Okay
and
and
you
among
others,
raised
the
issue
of
affordability.
I
appreciate
that
that
is
a
concern
for
you,
so
we'll
we'll
definitely
raise
that
in
terms
of
density.
What
is
why
is
it
that
you're
concerned
about?
Is
it
related
to
traffic,
or
is
it
related
to
the
fact
that
you
know
that
I
was
wondering
if
the
issue
of
the
fact
that
there's
it's
almost
like
a
food
desert
there
that
there's,
no
retail
that
is
close
by
that
is
walkable?
Q
Q
People
are
going
to
be
needing
cars
to
get
to
grocery
stores,
and
it's
really
it's
really
a
concern
to
have
that
many
more
cars
we're
already
experiencing
so
many
cars
coming
through
because
of
the
diversion
of
richmond
road
and
it's
it's.
You
can't
almost
get
out
of
our
parking
lot
sometimes
just
have
to
wait
and
wait
and
wait.
L
Okay,
but
I
appreciate
the
questions
from
counselor
menard
about
parking,
so
you
think
that
parking
should
be
lowered.
The
ratio
should
be
lowered
because
you're
worried
about
traffic
and,
of
course
we
are,
this
is
transit,
oriented
development.
So
so
that's
something
to
discuss
so
so
I
appreciate
your
comments
on
that.
R
R
B
R
B
P
All
right
good
morning,
mr
chair
planning
committee-
and
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
address
this
topic
this
morning.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
that
I
strongly
support
all
the
points
that
have
been
raised
this
morning
via
your
guest
speakers
and
appreciate
the
pictures,
the
video,
the
images
that
jerry
lapierre
had
shown
on
the
screen.
P
My
first
point
is
that
the
committee,
the
city,
made
a
commitment
to
pay
attention
to
the
impact
that
the
design
has
on
the
community
in
which
they're
located
and
what
you've
heard
this
morning
is
a
lot
of
people
talk
about
the
impact,
various
different
impacts,
and
what
I'm
hearing
in
terms
of
the
questions
is
what
would
satisfy
you?
What
could
we
negotiate?
Could
we
reduce
the
parking
spaces,
then
you'll
be
happy.
I
think
you
need
to
take
this
in
its
entirety
in
its
full
context.
P
There's
not
one
thing
if
you
reduce
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
may
respond
to
the
concern
about
some
traffic,
but
there
are
many
concerns
that
are
equally
have
equal
weight
that
are
being
presented.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is.
Please
don't
ask
me:
what's
my
major
concern?
What's
the
one
thing
you
could
do,
that
would
have
me
say:
oh,
thank
you
very
much
we're
okay
with
this.
P
There
really
isn't
one,
so
I
would
say
other
than
the
provision
for
high-rise
buildings
in
terms
of
how
it
may
significantly
impact
public
view
corridors
by
looking
at
landmarks
by
looking
at
areas
that
should
be
protected,
and
when
I
was
doing
my
research
on
this,
of
course,
I
came
across
the
ontario
heritage
act.
Part
five,
I've
heard
that
mentioned
this
morning
and
that
the
city
may
require
so
let's
admit
that
the
ncc
corridor,
the
ncc
property
the
park,
the
the
parkway-
is
heritage
property.
P
It
is
protected.
The
city
may
require
that
an
impact
statement
be
conducted.
Why
have
you
not
done
that?
Does
this
construct
will
abut
on
that
property?
And
I'm
not
just
talking
about
once
it's
built
how
about?
While
it's
being
built
and
there's
whatever
happens
to
to
dig
down
and
really
do
that
work
for
the
underground
parking,
so
what
happens?
Can
you
insist
on?
Can
we
implore
you
to
insist
on
that
type
of
assessment?
P
What's
that
going
to
do
to
the
wildlife
I
walk
in
that
park
along
that
parkway
every
day
the
birds,
the
animals,
the
beauty
of
it?
What's
that
going
to
do
this
abuts
that
parkland
and
also
I
noticed
that,
on
page
33
of
the
report,
there's
a
note
there,
there's
no
suitable
parkland
on
the
subject
site,
there's
no
suitable
parkland,
so
the
builder
will
have
to
pay
cash
in
lieu
of
parkland.
What
is
that?
What
does
that
look
like
what
is
this
builder,
paying
that
they're
taking
away
from
us
and
perhaps
that
heritage
site?
P
P
They
have
a
vested
financial
interest
in
this.
How
can
you
accept
that,
when
you
hear
when
you
hear
200
remarks
of
something's,
not
right
here?
Does
that
not
spur
you
on
to
do
your
due
diligence?
A
call
for
due
diligence,
independent
assessments
for
traffic?
You've
heard
a
lot
of
that.
I
want
to
bring
up
the
wind
assessment,
the
wind
impact
assessment.
I've
been
doing
a
lot
of
research
on
this
canyon
effect.
P
I
note
that
there's
going
to
be
four
additional
constructs
in
this
area,
236
story
kitty
corner
to
ambleside,
one
across
the
street
from
animal
side,
one
and
another
one
on
new
orchard.
This
must
be
taken
in
the
context.
It's
not
oh!
Well,
we
didn't
know
those
other
things
were
going
to
have
an
impact.
This
has
to
be
analyzed
in
that
context.
P
The
wind
impact
assessment
and
the
canyon
effect.
There
is
already
a
canyon
effect
in
front
of
ambleside
one
where
I
live.
We
all
know
in
this
building
do
not
drop
your
ld
grandmother
or
try
to
pick
her
up
in
front
of
this
building
she's
going
to
get
blown
over
the
edge
of
the
parking
lot.
The
wind
factor
is
high.
Many
people
have
stopped,
there
opened
their
car
door
and
it
gets
smashed
into
cement
posts.
There
is
already
a
wind
tunnel
effect
there
what's
going
to
happen
with
these
other
buildings,
particularly
a
very
large
one.
P
P
A
L
P
L
A
A
We'll
go
back
now
to
the
applicants,
and
this
is
an
opportunity
for
committee
members
to
ask
questions
to
the
applicants.
We
have
lisa
dela
rosa
from
foten
and
we
have
jeff
karan
and
rod
leahy,
who
are
also
here
as
part
of
the
team.
So
any
any
committee,
members
or
counselors
wish
to
go
ahead.
Counselor
cavanaugh,
you
are
have
the
first
hand
up
so
the
floor
is
yours.
L
And
thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
again
to
to
all
the
residents
who
came
out
today
and
and
expressed
their
concerns.
Yes,
anyway,
you
got
to
hear
the
concerns
again
and,
of
course
we
did.
We
did
have
a
full
meeting
back
last
the
end
of
last
year
to
make
sure
that
residents
could
get
their
questions
answered
then,
and
I
know
that
there
was
changes
to
the
plan.
I
Yeah
through
you
chair,
I'm
happy
to
answer
that,
so
yes,
the
parking
ratio
we're
actually
looking
at-
and
this
includes
the
existing
building,
so
in
combinating
the
parking
spaces
that
would
have
that
people
currently
have
in
the
existing
building
we're
looking
at
0.8,
so
the
ratio
for
the
new
building
is
actually
less
than
that.
It
just
averages
out
to
0.8
over
overall.
I
The
other
thing
that's
being
done
is
we
are
looking
at
tdm
measures
to
to
encourage
people
to
to
not
use
their
car.
The
bike
parking
is
one
to
one
and
bike.
Parking
is
also
being
accommodated
for
the
existing
residents,
who,
at
current,
don't
have
a
very
good
facility.
There
parking
will.
The
bike
parking
will
be
enclosed
underground
secured,
so
it
does
make
it
a
lot
better
than
just
attaching
your
bike
to
an
outside
structure.
I
With
regards
to
the
traffic
on
on
new
orchard,
it's
an
existing
condition
like,
regardless
of
doing
nothing,
that
the
the
car
stacking
and
all
of
that
is
happening
so
and
unfortunately,
we
we're
sympathetic,
but
it's
this
is
not.
Yes,
it
might
aggravate
the
the
issue,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
might
discourage
people
from
actually
using
their
car.
I
The
current
pathways
that
are
there
now
will
be
re-looked
at
redone
as
part
of
the
site
plan
process,
to
make
sure
that
is
a
convenient
way
to
to
get
to
parking,
there's
also
information
or
packages
and
on
oc,
transpo
and
options
that
the
tenants
have
that
are
different
from
cars
that
are
provided
at
move-in
to
encourage
alternative
modes
of
transportation,
and
then
we
are
currently
looking
at
car
share
options.
There
is
some
surface
parking
spaces
that
will
remain
so
car
sharing
to
allow
for
people
who
have
that.
I
I
L
I
So
I'll
let
jeff
finish
this,
but
I
can
start
it
by
essentially
saying
we're
talking
about
a
building.
That's
probably
going
to
be
occupied,
let's
say
four
years
from
now.
If,
if
everything
sort
of
goes
smoothly
with
construction
and
stuff
so
to
have
a
conversation
about
what
rents
will
be
and
what
is
affordable
are
attainable
and
the
unit
mix
and
such
is
sort
of
a
little
premature,
there
is
an
undertone
on
the
whole
development
industry
for
affordable
units
and
the
city
is
working
on
policies.
I
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day
when,
when
we're
at
the
point
of
finalizing
this
building
there,
there
could
be
new
policies,
there
could
be
things
that
require
us
to
to
do
certain
things
and
our
different
measures
or
different
scales
of
how
the
city
is
defining
what
is
affordable.
Who
can
provide
that
affordable
housing?
So
it's
it's
not
something
we're
not
doing
it's
just
something
that
we're
not
at
a
point
where
we
can
actually
have
that
conversation.
T
Yeah
absolutely
thanks
for
that
question.
Counselor
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
two
elements
of
that.
One
is
absolutely
we're
considering
affordable
in
the
new
building.
It's
something
that
we're
looking
at
very
closely
and,
as
the
you
know,
more
and
more
market
studies
as
we
progress
through
the
design
process,
we'll
we'll
have
a
bit
more
visibility
on
on
what
we
can
and
can't
do.
I
think
it's
also
worth
noting
that
the
vast
majority
of
osgoode's
portfolio
is
affordable
by
definition
of
cmhc
standards
and
so
by
adding
a
new
building.
L
If
I
have
time
I'd
like
to
ask
a
couple
more
questions,
one
is
was
raised
about
window
glare
and
glazing
and,
while
I'm
at
it
I'll
ask
about
bird
friendly
windows,
so
those
those
two
topics
window
related
there
was
concerned
about
the
glare
from
a
shiny
building.
I
guess
and
and
are
you
looking
at
bird-friendly
windows.
C
C
L
I
So
through
you
chair,
we
did
well,
the
city
does
circulate
the
ncc
and
comments
were
received
through
the
comment
process
and
some
changes
were
actually
made
because
of
those
the
one
of
the
community
members
did
raise
the
fact
that
there's
a
four-story
profile
or
a
smaller,
more
pedestrian
scale
and
the
introduction
of
those
townhouses
at
the
ground
level.
There
is
slow,
a
slight
podium
base
to
provide
that
sort
of
lower
profile
base
to
the
building,
there's
more
doors.
L
I'll
lost
one
more
question
I'll.
Let
my
colleagues
and
I'll
go
back
on
the
list
after
but
mentioned
about
loading
dock.
I'm
just
gonna
throw
that
one
out,
because
there
was
concerned
about
the
noise
et
cetera
and
the
location,
and
obviously
that
would
be.
You
know
something,
that's
perpetual
if
it's!
If
it's
not
done
right.
C
Yes,
a
fair
bit
of
study
has
been
looked
into
this
and
it's
something
as
again
as
we.
I
don't
want
to
sound
evasive
as
you
move
forward,
we'll
begin
looking
at
different
options.
I
know
from
a
management
point
of
view
and
how
the
building
functions
a
lot
of
study
went
into
it
and
this
seemed
to
work
the
best.
We
have
a
lot
of
traffic
in
terms
of
deliveries.
C
You
imagine,
the
world
has
changed
so
much
with
the
advent
of
the
three
of
the
the
electronic
shopping
right
now,
so
we
have
to
make
sure
the
building
functions
that
you're,
quick
in
and
out
and
so
in
the
whole
design
process.
We
did
some
interesting
work
in
that
we
actually
the
current
building
right
now
actually
shares
a
right
away
over
280,
sorry
1081..
C
That's
now
been
discontinued
and
we
can
actually
disconnect
to
a
tiny
one
actually
add
more
green
space
along
that
and
the
whole
sort
of
servicing
of
the
building
has
been
simplified,
but
again
through
the
site
plan
process.
These
these
items
will
come
up
for
a
discussion
with
planning
staff
and
and
again
with
the
through
the
site
plan
process.
So
we're
happy
to
keep
looking
at
those
items.
C
Well
again,
one
of
the
things
we
did
was
stop
driving
on
their
property,
which
is
giving
them
some
control
over
their
own
property
and
will
remove
all
the
cars
that
went
into
the
basement
that
were
driving
across
their
property.
That's
now
been
will
be
totally
removed
during
this
phase
or
when
the
building
is
completed.
So
so
we
have.
We
have
looked
at
sort
of
benefits
of
the
adjacent
property
through
this
design.
C
I
E
T
L
I
So
I
will
I'll
start
with
that
and
just
to
to,
there
is
a
height
schedule
that
is
being
con
included
with
this
zoning
going
forward
so
where
the
height
is
going
to
be
increased
is
specific
to
the
floor
plate
we
have
shown
so
the
idea
of
a
taller
building
or
something
being
built
in
the
future
if
they
were
ever
to
demolish
this
building-
and
I
and
I
and
jeff
will
talk
to
that-
that
was
never
considered.
It's
not
a
phased
project.
This
building
is
it's
good.
T
E
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
This
has
been
a
really
good
meeting
so
far.
I
think
I
like
the
presentation
I
received,
and
I
want
to
go
to
one
of
the
comments
from
the
community
members
who
who
made
the
comment,
if
you
remember
that
this
original
as
of
right,
is
really
as
of
wrong,
and
really
I
just
want
to
get
at
the
part
of
that
that
is.
Is
it
actually
accurate,
the
as
of
right,
drawing
that
we
were
shown
which
is
sort
of
like
a
long
block
building?
C
Yes,
that's
true
to
zoning,
so
the
zoning
obviously
is
what
trumps
everything
it's
it's
the
law,
and
so
it's
basically
based
on
existing
heights,
existing
setbacks
and
that's
what
you're
allowed
to
build
when
we
say
that's
as
a
right
it,
it
doesn't
take
into
effect
sort
of
necessarily
other
policies
that
maybe
the
city
wants
to
change
that
direction,
but
they
don't,
they
haven't
changed
the
planning
that
is
in
place
the
zoning's
in
place.
I
think
lisa
can
speak
to
this.
E
I
I
We
did
a
couple
of
options
looking
at
different
as
of
right
sort
of
development,
and
so
the
two
I
threw
up
were
the
ones
that
I
think
showed
you
can
do
different
variations,
but
the
the
setback
that
was
used
against
the
ncc
property
was,
as
per
current
zoning
and
and
to
that
just
to
further
what
rod
was
saying
that
as
a
right
for
zoning,
we
would
still
have
to
go
through
a
site
plan
process.
So
some
of
the
shapes
may
change.
I
There
might
be
a
little
bit
more
thought
put
to
access
and
where
driveways
would
be
and
such
like
that,
but
that
was
just
a
massing
exercise
to
sort
of
get
to
where
we
got
to
understanding
the
redistribution
of
density
and
the
key
thing
there
is
the
density,
we're
actually
with
this
proposal
we're
actually
leaving
some
of
the
density
on
the
table
where
we
we
can
go
to
a
three,
an
fsi
of
three
and
I
believe,
we're
we're
slightly
under
that.
So
there
there
could
be
additional
density
put
on
here.
E
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
question.
Counselor
kavanaugh
asked
about
the
affordability,
and
so
I
understand
markets
change.
I
understand
there
may
be
completely
different
demand
four
years
from
now,
but
if
it
were
built
right
now,
what
would
that
affordability
number
per
for
renting
a
unit?
What
would
that
be
right
now.
E
E
I
I
I
E
D
Thank
you
very
much,
so
the
the
key
question
here
is
is
around
density
and
if
the
assertion
that
we've
heard
from
osgood
and
from
planning
staff
is
correct,
this
committee
is
basically
going
to
try
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
take
the
same
density
that
would
be
allowed
by
right
and
put
it
into
a
taller
skinnier
form.
But
I
I
do
want
to
challenge
or
or
ask
you
to
convince
me.
I
guess
this
development
has
312
residential
units.
D
D
C
The
same
unit
mix
at
the
same
universe,
I
mean
jeff.
We
actually
had
this
discussion
on
champagne
street.
Almost
a
similar
discussion
where
zoning
allowed
us
to
do
something
but
secondary
plan
was
saying,
would
be
nice
to
do
a
tall
slender
building
as
opposed
to
a
large
slab
building,
and
I
think
in
the
end,
I
think
you
realize
you
actually
can
do
a
slab
building
and
most
developers
would
be
loving
to
do
big
slab
buildings
because
they're
cheaper
and
more
more
profitable.
C
So
I
I
think
this
is
the
right
approach
to
move
away
from
that
and
we
have
moved
away
from
it.
You
know,
generally,
we
we're
not
doing
the
buildings
that
they
did
in
the
70s
anymore.
We
we
would
never
do
what
1071
or
1081
is
today.
We
would
not
be
allowed
to
do
that
building
under
the
current
high-rise
guidelines.
C
D
So
all
this
committee
is
being
asked
to
do
is
decide
whether
or
not
we
want
to
allow
that
density
to
be
distributed
from
a
slab
building
into
a
significantly
taller
point
tower
is,
I
think,
that's
a
fair
way
to
put
this
one.
Do
you
have
an
idea?
Sorry,
there
was
a
question
tweaked
earlier
from
one
of
the
residents.
Do
you
know
how
much
cil
this
is
going
to
create?
Do
you
have
that
rough
idea?
At
this
point.
I
So
that's
what
currently
is,
but
we
have
a
process
to
go
through,
so
it
it
could
change,
but
that
we
we
did
actually
have
it's
a
good
segway.
Thank
you.
We
did
actually
propose
a
small
parkland
contribution
on
this
site,
but
through
back
and
forth
with
staff,
it
was
determined
that
ambleside
park
is
there
already
and
that
the
preference
would
actually
be
for
cash
and
lieu
versus
parkland.
D
Okay,
that'll
be
an
interesting
question
for
our
planners,
then
because
of
course,
we
have
the
parkland
first
policy
in
place
now,
but
I'll
be
interested
to
see
why
they
decided
that
the
the
cio
contribution
would
be
a
better
one.
But
I'm
still
wondering
like
what
is
that
ballpark
figure?
Is
this
a
million
dollars
in
cil
or
800
000
in
cil.
I
D
T
D
C
There's
no
setback
after
the
second
floor
on
the
north
side
that
we
only
have
let's
say
essentially
it's
a
two-story
building
along
the
entire
property,
except
for
that
small
portion
of
the
tower.
So
we
didn't
think
the
we
didn't
think
the
the
two-story
setback
that
you'd
normally
have
in
an
urban
situation
made
any
sense.
You
also
have
a
heavily
forested
area
right
in
front
of
us
as
well.
So
again,
all
those
things
sort
of
made
that
very
important
setback
sort
of
meaningless
in
this
situation.
D
No,
I
think
that's
that's
legitimately
put,
I
guess
the
ncc
didn't
insist
on
it
and
in
their
discussions
when
they
were
looking
at
it,
so
because
I
think
that
that
was
there
for
that
two-story
podium
feel
is
is
in
the
secondary
plan
is
largely
to
satisfy
the
ncc's
concerns
around
the
the
corridor
as
it
was
put.
Okay,
I
would
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at
the
cmhc
program.
I
I
don't
think
that
we
should
be.
D
I
know
we
don't
have
leverage
over
it,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
be
allowing
residential
pro
projects
to
move
ahead
without
taking
advantage
of
that's
the
mhc
program
in
order
to
get
that
20
percent
affordable
housing
according
to
their
definition,
and
then
I
I
will
be
interested
in
hearing
further
discussion,
I
think
counselor
menard
is-
is
certainly
on
to
something
with
respect
to
the
parking
ratio.
How
many
stories
down?
Are
you
going
with
the
parking.
D
C
D
Okay,
but
it's
it's
somewhere
around
two
stories
down
then
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
I'm
taking
a
look
at
your
bike,
parking
ratio-
and
I
mean
I
know
a
lot
of
this
stuff-
is
psych
plan,
but
that's
wholly
inadequate.
This
is
going
to
be
on
some
of
the
best
cycling
infrastructure
in
the
city
and
certainly
if
we
want
to
reduce
the
number
of
cars
having
that
impact
on
ambleside.
D
One
of
the
things
that
could
be
done
is
to
turn
more
of
that
parking
garage
over
to
bike
parking,
particularly
secure
bike
parking,
which
is
really
emerging
as
an
issue
as
we
have
break
in
after
break-in
at
various
different
private
developments.
So
I
would
certainly
look
at
that
all
right.
Thanks
sure.
A
L
But
that's
okay!
Looking
for
the
button,
one
of
the
concerns
that
was
raised
and
pardon
me,
I'm
forgetting
what
I've
asked
now
was
privacy
and
and
how
to
deal
with
privacy
in
terms
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised,
I
we've
already
had
the
questions
answered
about
the
set
the
distance
between
buildings.
C
That's
that's
a
good
good
question.
One
of
the
things
we've
done
is
by
by
again
with
the
taller
footprint
sort
of
the
the
taller
building
smaller
footprint
we've
orientated.
I
think
90
of
the
units
are
really
geared
toward
water
views
which
obviously
to
take
advantage.
I
think
we
only
have
one
unit
on
the
floor
plan
that
looks
back
toward
the
the
buildings.
C
So
I
think,
as
we
move
the
design
development
forward,
we
can
look
at
screening
of
those
possible
screening
of
the
balconies
so
that
that
type
of
element
could
be
looked
at.
I
don't
you
know,
because
we
haven't
really
gone
into
design
development
yet,
but
basically
at
the
orientation
and
sort
of
the
viewplane
of
of
this
building
is
really
more
east,
west
and
north,
as
opposed
to
south
back
to
the
existing
building.
C
I
L
I
L
C
I
definitely
think
it
could
be
considered.
I
I
would
be
I
personally
as
the
architect
I'd
love,
to
add
something
like
this,
I'm
speaking
for
the
developer
here,
but
I
it'd
be,
I
I
I
think
it
would
add
to
the
livability
of
both
the
existing
building,
the
new
building
and
the
neighborhood.
So
I
think
if
it
can
be
programmed
in
you
know
a
lot
of
times,
you'll
see
where
these
projects
don't
make
a
lot
of
sense.
C
From
a
rental
point
of
view,
the
landlord
actually
owns
a
little
coffee
shop
and
and
manages
it
just
has
incentive
to
make
the
area
a
little
bit
more
interesting
because
they
are
tough
from
an
economic
point
of
view
to
make
sense,
but
anyways
it's
something.
I'm
sure
jeff
has
already
been
looking
at
in
terms
of
the
future
of
the
project.
L
I
I
have
raised
it
before
and
I
think
that
sort
of
takes
away
the
silo
feeling
of
of
the
neighborhood
so
that
you
can
go
to
it
and
it's
some
place
that
can
where
people
can
interact.
So
I
appreciate
that,
and
hopefully
a
community
benefit
would
also
be
something
for
the
community
all
right.
Thank
you.
A
E
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question
about
the
secondary
plan
that
it's
only
four
years
old
and
believe
me.
I
understand
what
counselor
lieber's
saying
I
understood
this
in
the
briefing
the
as
of
right
is
a
building
that
would
be
more
problematic
and
they're
just
saying
we'll
make
it
all
better
by
making
it
a
tall
tower.
However,
at
the
same
time,
the
secondary
plan
is
that
my
understanding
is
only
four
years
old
and
that
this
would
be
a
change
to.
It
makes
me
wonder
about
how
good
our
secondary
plans
are,
how
valuable
they
are.
J
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
the
secondary
plan
was
adopted
in
2018.
I
mean,
I
think
about
two
or
three
years
work
went
into
it.
There
was
a
lot
of
consultation
done
and
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
raised
by
the
residents
in
the
area
as
they
saw,
transit
was
coming
towards
them
about
the
kind
of
change
that
might
bring.
J
Since
then,
we've
gone
through
our
growth
management
work
through
for
the
new
official
plan.
We've
had
lengthy
discussions
about
how
to
manage
growth,
how
to
manage
sprawl
versus
intensification
and
what
would
be
the
appropriate
balance
of
that
and
we
have.
The
council
has
approved
the
new
official
plan.
The
new
official
plan
is
calling
for
higher
targets
for
intensification
now
than
there
were
in
place
at
20
in
2018.
J
Any
developer
in
has
the
right
to
make
a
site-specific
application,
and
that's
what's
happened
here,
and
you
know
I
heard
the
residents
also
bringing
up
all
the
elements
of
the
secondary
plan
or
site-specific
area
policies
and
which
is
going
to
be
a
secondary
plan
in
the
new
op.
All
of
those
aspects
that
it
did
not
meet.
That
is
why
they
are
asking
for
a
secondary
plan
amendment.
That
is
why
they're
back
here
before
committee
and
council
asking
for
that.
A
T
T
T
H
Thank
you,
chair
can
staff
talk
about
the
independent
nature
of
the
various
reports
and
assessments
that
are
conducted
for
development
applications?
Talk
about
the
professional
designation
of
the
people
doing
these
reports
talk
about
the
role
staff
have
when
these
reports
come
in
and
they're
assessed
and
they're
analyzed
and
they're
reviewed
talk
about
the
back
and
forth
that
goes
on
that
city
staff
have
the
right
to
ask
for
more
information
if
it
doesn't
meet
expectations
or
requirements.
In
that
regard,
I
think
it's
important
to
set
the
table
here
today.
H
J
So
through
the
process,
applicants
will
pre-consult
on
a
proposal
and
at
that
time,
there's
a
list
of
plans
and
studies
that
are
identified
as
required
to
make
a
complete
application
online
on
the
city's
website.
There
are
terms
of
reference
about
what
that
entails
and
those
and
who
can
do
those
studies
and
what
their
professional
accreditation
has
to
be
so,
for
example,
for
a
planning
rationale.
It
has
to
come
from
a
a
professional,
planner
professional
planners,
a
designation
with
a
board
that
reviews
ethics
matters.
J
So
that's
the
review
process
that
it
goes
through.
That's
when
there
is
some
back
and
forth
on
whether
it's
appropriate
and
acceptable.
You
know
two
professionals
can
disagree
on
something,
but
other
you
know
there's
that
negotiation
or
that
working
through
issues
and
it's
so
these
these
recommendations
and
these
reports
are
reviewed
by
subject
matter:
experts
inside
the
city
planners
engineers,
urban
designers
and
other
people,
with
the
same
professional
accreditations
as
the
consultants
and
and
then
staff
make
a
recommendation
to
council
committee
and
council.
H
J
So
I
mean
we
do
have
a
radius.
We
look
at
a
radius,
a
400
meter
radius,
but
in
practical
terms-
and
even
our
new
official
plan
speaks
to
the
fact
that
there
can
be-
you
know,
things
that
obstruct
and
can
make
a
longer
path
of
travel,
for
example,
a
bridge
crossing
a
highway.
Something
like
that
in
this
case.
This
is
you
know.
If
you
leave
the
door
of
this
proposed
building,
you
could
be
at
the
new
station.
That's
under
construction
within
a
five-minute
walk.
H
Okay
and
it's
council
policy
that
we
would
like
to
see
density
close
to
lrt
and
transit
way
stations.
Is
that
correct,
correct?
Okay?
Can
you
explain
the
non-densification
designation
that
purple
area
that
the
condo
president
mentioned
at
the
beginning?
How
does
that
fit
into
everything?
I
know
the
open.
The
new
op,
although
not
yet
approved,
may
trump
that,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
the
significance
behind
that
particular
area.
J
Okay,
well
just
to
clarify
the
new
op
would
not
trump
that
exactly
because
the
site-specific
policies
that
were
done
in
2018
will
be
carried
forward
into
a
secondary
plan,
and
the
secondary
plan
gives
more
detail
than
the
broad
policy
of
the
policies
of
the
official
plan.
However,
that
being
said,
I
was
not
the
planner
working
on
this
on
this
on
this
secondary
plan
or
this
policy
work
in
2018.
J
But
my
understanding
is
that
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
from
residents
about
what
it
would
mean
to
be
along
a
rapid
transit
route
and
a
lot
of
concern
about
the
kind
of
change
that
would
bring,
and
so
there
was
some
this
schedule
c
of
the
cleary
new
orchard
site.
Specific
policies
was
put
in
place
and
it
basically
shows
areas
that
are
not
not
to
be
not
for
density
redistribution.
That's
what
it
says.
J
J
H
H
But
if
not
density
here,
then,
where
then
the
urban
core,
so
I'll
have
more
to
say
when,
when
I
listen
to
more
of
my
colleagues
but-
and
I
do
think,
the
community
has
raised
some
very
legitimate
concerns
which
I'm
sure
we'll
address
in
the
next
few
minutes,
but
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
of
those
points
out
on
the
table
now
and
I'll
yield
the
floor
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
chair.
S
Thank
you
very
much
chair
three
three
quick
comments.
One
is
on
the
secondary
plan.
The
second
is
on
affordable
housing
and
the
third
is
on
parking.
Sorry,
if
I'm
breaking
up
here
on
the
secondary
plan,
it's
more
of
a
comment
for
next
term,
but
it's
difficult
when
we're
in
these
situations.
Counselor
brockton,
I
think,
put
it
well
where
we've
we
have
something-
that's
been
newly
approved
just
five
years
ago,
and
then
an
amendment
comes
forward
and
we're
not
supporting
what
is
in
the
official
plan.
S
S
S
So
I
have
a
concern
on
the
secondary
planning
aspect
of
of
these
pieces
and-
and
I
think
for
next
term,
we
really
got
to
work
on
the
process
for
planning
committee
on
affordable
housing.
Can
staff
just
go
through
what
provisions
this
might
apply
to
we're
in
a
tod
zone?
Here
we've
passed
direction
to
staff
to
work
on
inclusionary
zoning.
S
We've
got
the
new
community
benefits
by
a
lot.
I'm
hearing
the
builder
talk
about
sort
of
market
affordability.
It
seems
like
here,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
there's
any
actual,
affordable
housing
in
the
building.
So
can
you
just
go
through
what
provisions
exist
for
affordable
housing
here
and
why
we're
not
seeing
anything
in
this
development
at
this
stage
for
affordable
housing.
J
S
J
B
B
My
understanding
is
that
the
major
transit
stations
on
stages-
one
and
two
of
the
lrt-
were
deemed
to
be
the
protected
major
transit
station
areas
and
a
clearing
order
to
transportation
is
not
the
same
sort
of
level
of
the
those
transfer
stations.
So
it
did
not
get
that
protection
in
the
new
official
plan.
S
Okay,
yeah,
maybe
we
need
to
revisit
some
of
that
in
the
future,
because
this
is
the
type
of
building
you'd
want
some
affordable
housing
in
there's
312
new
units
going
in
in
an
area
where
there's
a
lot
of
other
towers,
close
to
lrt
great
walkability
and
biking
in
this
area,
so
it
makes
sense
to
put
some
affordable
housing
in
these
buildings.
So
we
again
as
a
city,
you
know-
maybe
it
the
inclusionary
zoning
will.
S
S
I
guess
the
third
point
I'll
I'll
make
is
around
the
parking.
So
I
just
want
to
get
clarity
from
staff
that
they're
saying
that
they're
combining
the
underground
parking
for
the
new
building
with
the
old
building
or
the
other,
with
the
current
building
right
next
door,
and
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
how
much
parking
is
in
that
that
existing
building
right
now
and
and
how
can
we
say
that
that
ratio
would
go
down
as
a
result
of
combining
the
existing
building
with
the
with
the
new
building?
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
that
a
bit
better.
J
J
S
S
It
looks
like
a
one-to-one
ratio
to
me,
so
I
just
would
love
yeah
clarity
when
you
can
and
allison
will
come
back
once
I'm
happy
to
come
back
once
you
find
that
information
or
even
the
applicant,
that
can
just
explain
more
of
how
much
parking's
in
the
original
building
and
how
this
combination
is
normally
supposed
to
work.
If
you
know
for
these
applications,
I'll
come
back
when,
when
you're
ready.
J
J
Here
there
are
77
parking
spaces
in
the
existing
underground
parking.
There
were
additional
parking
spaces
in
the
surface
parking
lot
of
for
the
existing
building,
that's
now
being
redeveloped.
The
proposal
is
to
redevelop
it,
so
those
surface
parking
areas
would
be
replaced
with
the
new
building
and
there
are
so
there
were
254
spaces
altogether.
J
J
S
S
It
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
develop
a
city
this
way
any
longer
again,
I'm
the
affordable
housing
piece
on
this
piece,
I'm
not
these
these
applications.
Our
policy
needs
to
change
so
that
these
applications
come
in
a
different
fashion
because
we're
not
we're
not
building
the
city
properly
when
we're
doing
this
sort
of
thing.
So
I
appreciate
the
answers
very
much
from
staff
and
the
applicant's
proposal
and
thank
you,
chair.
L
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
my
colleagues
for
their
questions.
How
much
is
taken
into
consideration
about
future
developments
that
are
on
the
books
right
now?
The
cumulative
effect
of
on
the
community
we've
talked
about
density
and
we're
not
just
talking
about
the
current
density
and
we're
not
even
just
talking
about
the
density
that
would
be
added
with
this
building.
We're
talking
also
about
the
density
of
projects
that
are
applications
rather,
that
are
are
also
being
proposed
and
probably
pretty
likely.
L
I
I
think
that
is
a
major
concern
and
and
how
much
is
taken
into
consideration
of
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
there's
nothing
there
right
now
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
fact
that
we
we
have
no
pressure
to
put
on
for
commercial
development
to
to
give
back
to
the
community
things
to
be
walkable
to
it's
a
bunch
of
it's
a
bunch
of
high-rises
and
there's
no
there's
nothing
to
walk
to.
And
how
can
we
get
that
in
because
we
have
a
secondary
plan
that
got
put
forward
and
we're
ignoring
it?
L
And
I
that's
a
real
slap
in
the
face
to
community
members
who
worked
very
very
hard
on
it
and
thought
they
had
something
and
I'm
here
I
am
working
on
other
secondary
plans
and
I
don't
feel
confident
in
telling
residents.
This
is
the
way
it's
going
to
be
when
we've
ignored
one
that
only
got
put
in
four
years
ago.
So
I
I
know
this
a
lot,
but
I'm
I
really
need
to
know.
How
are
we
taking
the
whole
picture
into
consideration
if
we
ignore
the
secondary
plan.
J
Okay,
so
I
think
you
have
three
points
or
questions
there
so
impacts
the
the
the
lack
of
commercial
and
how
that
contributes
to
the
the
livability
and
the
goals
of
the
15-minute
neighborhood
and
then
finally,
the
the
issue
of
the
policy
change.
Okay,
so
in
terms
of
impacts
at
this
stage,
I
believe
it
was
the
applicant
who
mentioned
this.
J
What
where
what
what
staff
are
looking
at
is
the
massing
of
the
building
the
the
density
is
permitted
through
that
floor
space
index,
so
the
adequacy
of
the
services
are
there
we're
looking
at
the
impacts
in
terms
of
that
added
population
to
the
you
know,
to
the
to
the
street
and
and
to
the
overall
transportation
network,
but
but
that
is
adequate
as
well.
It
will
change
the
way
things
are
today,
but
it
is
still
acceptable.
The
that
impact
is
still
acceptable.
J
J
You
know
what
the
what
the
building
design
will
be:
elevations
materials
landscaping,
trying
to
think
of
some
of
the
other
things
that
were
brought
up.
The
impacts,
however,
on
the
to
the
existing
residents
and
their
obstruction
of
views
is
not,
is
not
something
that
that
staff
really
take
into
consideration
in
terms
of
functionality.
J
J
J
J
J
J
I
think
what
council
brockington
was
mentioning
about
the
the
issue
with
the
the
policy
change
so
soon
after
it's
gone
through
a
a
policy
review,
so
the
work
that
was
done
in
2018
was
done
in
a
general
sort
of
way,
looking
at
the
opportunities
and
con
constraints
in
this
situation,
the
proposal
here
is
for
a
very
specific
property.
What
are
the
specific
opportunities
and
constraints?
What
are
the
specific
impacts?
Many
of
the
questions
today
were
very
specific
beyond.
J
That's
I
mean,
I
think
that
I
think
I
said
it
before.
I
think
that
the
community
was
concerned
about
a
transit
station
being
located
in
this
area
and
what
that
would
mean
for
intensification
and
the
community
put
in
worked
with
the
city
to
put
in
place
some
kind
of
some
policies
that
would
require
these
things
to
go
through
a
more
inspection
before
they
could
could
be
be
approved,
and
that's
what's
happening
now.
L
L
I
I
I
think
that
there's
genuine
distrust
when
we
do
that,
and
I
want
to
know
how
to
rebuild
it,
because
it's
very
difficult
to
defend
something
that
changed
so
in
so
quickly
and,
like
I
said
I
have
more
secondary
plans
in
the
works,
so
I
gotta
know
that
it's
we're
gonna
stick
to
it.
What
can
we
do
better?
Because,
right
now
you
know
one
of
the.
L
The
comments
was
about
how
many
people
commented,
and
there
was
you
know:
people
even
use
petitions
petition
process
which,
unfortunately,
we
don't.
We
don't
even
explain
how
how
we're
gonna
go
through
this
process
and
how
you
know
their
concerns
are
are
met
so,
but
we
need
things
that
are
written
down
that
show
people
the
process.
You
know
it.
You
know
why
we're
you
know
why
these
were
put
in
place.
So
obviously,
when
we
put
the
secondary
plan
in
place,
we
meant
it.
L
J
J
If
there
is
any
construction
or
impacts
to
ncc
lands,
questions
about
trees
and
landscaping
and
any
impacts
to
their
lands
and,
finally,
about
lighting
and
again
any
impacts
to
the
federal
lands,
so
they
did
not
object
in.
In
summary,
they
asked
that
if
anything
is
happening
on
federal
lands
or
has
any
impacts
for
to
federal
lands,
that
they
would
that
they
would
be
involved.
L
L
J
This
in
terms
of
the
community
benefits
charge
and
the
community
benefits
charge.
Bylaw
that
was
recently
passed.
This
site
would
qualify
for
the
transitions,
the
in-stream,
it's
an
in-stream
application
that
would
qualify
for
transitions
in
terms
of
any
community
benefits
that
have
been
offered
up
by
the
owner.
J
L
Thank
you.
One
of
the
questions
I
asked
to
them
was
about
having
something
commercial
and
they
haven't
said.
No,
so
it
could.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
wouldn't
be
considered
under
the
community
benefit
charge.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
this
is
actually
no.
That
would
not.
I
want
to
make
that
absolutely
clear.
The
other
question
is
about
arterial
versus
residential
roads.
The
fact
that
this
question
came
up
a
lot,
the
fact
that
you
can
intensify
and
add
more
density
to
what
is
not
an
arterial
road.
J
So
we
are,
the
applicant
has
asked
us
to
consider
the
specifics
of
this
site
and
whether
density
is
appropriate
in
this
location.
Even
though
it's
not
directly
on
an
arterial
road
and
and
in
my
planning
opinion,
it's
still
functional
the
traffic
that
will
exit
the
site
and
use
the
signalized
intersections
at
ambeside
or
new
orchard
can
be
accommodated
on
those
local
roads
and
it's
within
a
walk.
A
five-minute,
walking
distance
of
a
transit
station.
L
Thank
you
and
I
appreciated
the
comments
from
council
brockington
about
the
fact
that
we,
we
delegate
the
traffic
studies
to
the
developer
as
a.
I
would
like
to
know
if
we
could
consider
not
doing
that
in
the
future
like
asking
the
developer,
to
perhaps
give
us
the
equivalent
charge
and
having
us
do
it.
J
So,
just
to
clarify
it's
not
the
developer,
who
does
the
study,
but
rather
the
developer
pays
a
qualified
professional
who
is
a
member
of
an
you
know,
accredited
association
to
conduct
a
study
in
accordance
with
the
terms
of
reference
that
the
city
sets
out
for
its
transportation
impact
assessment.
So
it's
the
developer.
Who
pays?
Because
it's
you
know
it's
it's
it's
for
their
private
development
that
the
study
is
being
is
being
done.
J
J
L
D
Thank
you
very
much
and
allison.
Forgive
me,
I'm
probably
going
to
be
a
little
pedantic
on
this
one,
but
when
you
were
answering
an
earlier
question
with
respect
to
what
has
changed,
what
is
the
change
in
the
environment
that
would
lead
you
to
want
to
recommend
approval
for
this
development.
You
started
to
go
down
a
path
of
talking
about
the
you
know
the
higher
intensification
targets
we
have.
D
You
talked
about
a
lot
of
the
the
intensification
arguments
I
just
want
to
make
it
sure
that
it
is
crystal
clear
that
if
this
gets
approved,
this
is
not
an
intensification
question
that
the
intensification
is
allowed.
As
of
right
that
there
is,
you
know
the
potential
to
build
312
units
on
this
property
today,
with
the
zoning
that
exists
and
that
the
real
question
is,
should
we
or
should
we
not
allow
those
312
units
to
be
built
into
a
form
that
is
different
from
what
is
contemplated
in
the
secondary
plan?
J
So
it's
a
little
hypothetical
because
we
haven't
looked
at
it
through
that
site
plan
process
like
what
would
the
access
be
functional?
Would
the
garbage
and
loading
be
functional?
Is
the
design?
Does
it
meet
the
the
design
guidelines
that
we
have
so
it
is
it
is
the
zoning
would
allow
it,
but
there's
a
bigger
process
to
go
through
for
a
building
of
this
scale.
D
Completely
understood
I
mean
I,
I
took
a
look
at
the
three
building
proposals
surrounding
the
the
one,
and
you
know
that's
three
elevators
that
they
would
have
to
build.
Instead
of
one
three
different
loading
facilities,
they're
they're,
probably
never
going
to
build
multiple,
smaller
buildings
on
the
site.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
economic,
but
the
slab
building.
D
Where
the
the
crux
of
this
question
is:
if
we
approve
this,
it's
because
we
think
the
built
form
is
better
than
once
is
contemplated
in
the
secondary
plan.
The
secondary
plan
doesn't
contemplate
redistribution
of
density
on
the
site
and
and
specifically
speaks
against
it,
I'm
guessing.
That
is
because
people
wanted
to
make.
You
know
the
in
when
we
did
the
secondary
plan
by
maintaining
buildings
at
13
stories
that
would
preserve
views
for
people
who
are
concerned
about
the
potential
for
really
tall
towers
to
go
in.
D
So
many
of
the
impacts,
the
trap
if
they
were
to
build
that
bar
building
the
traffic
impacts,
would
be
the
same
for
anyone
who
is
living
below
that
13-story
limit
the
view
impacts
are
the
same.
Presumably
the
noise
and
the
garbage
impacts
are
all
the
same.
What
changes
if
we
make
it
a
taller
building,
is,
is
more
of
a
visual
impact
than
anything
else
right.
It's
it's
not
a
question
of
putting
more
people
onto
this
property
than
than
are
allowed
under
the
current
zoning.
D
D
D
J
D
E
You
know-
and
I
just
have
basically
just
a
comment
on
all
of
this,
so
just
in
terms
of
the
you
know
what
may
be
perceived
as
a
lack
of
respect
for
the
community's
efforts
in
creating
a
secondary
plan
and
really,
I
think
all
of
us
need
to
realize
that
we
have
secondary
plans
as
well.
Community
comes
out,
spends
tons
of
time,
creating
them
and
then
they're
potentially
disregarded
in
some
ways.
E
If
it
was
to
be
human
scale,
then
what's
the
offset
you
get
a
better
view.
You
know
I
understand
what
this
is
fundamentally
about,
but
at
the
same
time
it
does
cause
us
problems
when
we
disregard
what
the
community
has
come
out
and
told
us
and
agreed
to
with
a
secondary
plan.
I
understand
that
this
is
not
about
density.
E
You
know,
councillor
lieber's
comments
that
this
is
fundamentally
about
just
changing
the
built
form,
but
if
that
were
the
case
that
there
was
an
increase
in
density,
then
what's
the
offset
that
for
sure
the
inclusionary
zoning
regulations
would
come
in,
I
know
they're
not
official
yet,
but
that
there
would
be
that
requirement.
I
think
that
that
may
be
a
way
to
build
trust
when
we,
when
we
disregard
elements
of
a
secondary
plan,
so
just
make
that
comment,
but
I
would
look
forward
to
whatever
people
are
going
to
do
between
now
and
council.
Thanks.
L
Well,
thank
you,
I
think
that'd
be
the
last
one
to
speak
as
it
turns
out.
I
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
for
all
their
questions.
They
were
excellent
and
and
again
thank
the
residents
for
coming
out
and
putting
forward
their
statements
that
were
well
thought
out.
I
appreciate
their
their
input
very
much
up
until
july.
First,
we
had
the
possibility
of
removing
delegated
authority
on
site
plan
applications
which
we
no
longer
have,
and
so
this
is
a
change.
L
That's
just
making
this
clear
to
residents
that
it
used
to
be.
We
could
look
at
site
plans
back
at
planning
committee,
but
that
was
taken
away
not
by
us
by
the
way,
this
was
a
the
province
that
removed
that
so,
but
I'm
asking
allison
and
team
about
how
we
can
still
look
at
input
foresight
plan
some
of
the
issues
that
we've
raised
parking
apparently
can
be
done
under
the
zoning
etc.
But
you
know
but
affordable
housing
is
still
a
concern
there.
L
There
could
be
other
aspects
and
that
we
need
communicated
to
the
developer
the
the
commercial
aspect.
I
I
guess
it's
a
tough
one,
because
we
just
don't
have
anything
on
the
books.
That
say
you
must
and
as
tim
marks
pointed
out,
so
what
can
we
do?
Can
we
give
a
a
list
of
concerns
to
bring
to
site
plan?
J
Site
plan
is
really
about
like
how
the
the
details
of
how
the
site
will
accommodate
the
development
today
we're
talking
about
the
massing
and
and
and
the
built
form
there
you
you
can
put
something
in
the
zoning
and
I
think
that's
what
we're
hearing
counselor
leaper
is
indicating
he's
putting
out
there.
There
will
be
a
motion
potentially
to
counsel,
so
that
is
that
is
an
option
putting
something
in
the
zoning
I
I
not.
Everything
has
to
be
done
as
a
requirement.
L
Okay
well,
thank
you
again,
and
I
appreciate
the
comments
from
staff
and
and
the
developer,
but
mostly
I
you
know,
I
have
to
echo
the
concerns
of
the
residents
that
this
is
a
biggie
to
an
area
that
was
already
very
much
a
high
density
area
and
remains
a
concern.
We
do
want
transit,
oriented
development,
but
we're
not
getting
the
things
that
we
wanted
from
transit-oriented
development
such
as
affordable
housing
such
as
reduced
car
traffic
from
this.
A
A
They
give
us
a
good
framework
to
start
from,
but
I
don't
think
they
can
anticipate
every
single
circumstance
and
individual
qualities
of
a
of
a
particular
site,
and
I
think
in
this
case,
if
we
stick
exactly
to
the
secondary
plan,
we're
in
a
straight
jacket
that
would
prevent
a
better
development
than
what's
allowed
and
within
the
planning
act.
Developers
and
applicants
are
allowed
to
come
to
a
council
and
say:
can
you
make
an
exception
here
and
it's
that
extra
bit
of
process?
A
This
discussion
that
we
have
a
planning
committee,
the
community
meetings,
the
stakeholder
engagement?
It's
necessary
to
make
sure
that
if
we
are
granting
an
exception
that
we've
had
that
discussion
and
really
given
it,
the
level
of
scrutiny
that
it
deserves-
and
in
this
case
I
think
what's
being
proposed,
is
arguably
better
than
what
would
be
allowed
as
to
write.
A
A
H
E
C
D
B
B
Q
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Everyone,
we'll
move
on
now
to
the
other
item
that
we
held.
It
was
the
additional
item
that
we
added
to
this
meeting
the
appeal
to
933
gladstone,
10,
30,
somerset,
rezoning
proposed
resolution
class,
4
designation.
This
is
in
somerset
ward,
mr
mark,
can
you
give
us
a
very
brief
overview
as
to
why
this
is
in
front
of
committee
and
perhaps
it's
a
good
way
to
start
us
off?
A
T
Can
when
the
secondary
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
was
adopted
for
this
area?
Mr
chair,
a
canadian
banknote
who
had
been
involved
throughout
the
process
leading
up
to
the
committee
consideration
of
it
expressed
a
concern
that
allowing
for
increased
residential
at
this
location
could
require
them
in
order
to
keep
their
in
in
compliance
with
their
environmental
compliance.
T
T
T
If
this
report
is
ultimately
carried
by
council
and
this
report
was
brought
forward,
it
is
being
walked
on
to
committee,
mr
chair,
because
there
is
a
desire
to
get
this
wrapped
up
so
that
och
can
move
forward
on
this
file
this
year
and
in
order
to
do
that,
it
had
to
be
before
committee
today
and
council
on
october,
the
fifth.
That
is
the
background
of
this
matter,
mr
chair.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
mark.
We
do
have
representatives
from
canadian
banknote
and
from
ottawa.
Community
housing
in
case
counselors
have
questions
but
I'll
also
ask
so
we
have
alexandra
sadvari
and
jennifer
king
from
canadian
banknote
and
emma
blanchard
from
och
to
the
representatives
from
canadian
bank
note.
Did
you
wish
to
address
committee
today
with
any
comments.
K
B
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair.
We
certainly
support
all
of
the
recommendations
that
are
contained
in
the
staff
report
and
certainly
och
is
in
favor
of
this
approach,
which
will
allow
it
to
move
forward
with
its
development
of
phase
one
on
this
gladstone
site.
So
so
this
is.
This
is
a
great
development
from
och's
perspective
and
a
good
outcome,
and
we
would
thank
mr
mark
and
staff
for
their
presentation
today.
A
H
Yeah,
I
think
it
needs
to
be
stated.
What
is
the
agreement
that
we
have
come
to
the
point
now?
There's
been
disagreement
and
friction
up
to
this
point
and
I
think
it
needs
to
be
explained
for
this
to
the
committee.
Where
are
we
and
has
the
canadian
banknote
agreed?
Are
they
satisfied
with
where
we
are
at
this
point?
I
think
that
needs
to
be
clearly
stated.
T
The
first,
in
summary,
is
that
the
ottawa
community
housing
property
at
933,
gladstone
and
part
of
1030
somerset,
as
shown
on
document
one,
will
be
designated
as
class
four
for
the
purposes
of
noise
control,
npc
300
and
the
environmental
control
nice
noise
guidelines.
That
is
what
is
committee,
and
hopefully,
council,
is
doing
okay,
good.
B
H
A
Okay,
so
the
report
recommendations
are
that
planning
committee
recommended
council
that
933
gladstone
and
1030
somerset
be
designated
as
a
class
four
area
within
the
meeting
of
provincial
guideline,
npc
300
and
the
city's
environmental
noise
control
guidelines
and
that
the
property
be
listed
as
a
class
four
area
within
appendix
aid
of
the
city's
environmental
noise
control
guidelines
and
the
noise
bylaw
as
2017-155
be
further
amended
by
the
addition
of
the
site.
Specific
provisions
set
forth
in
document
2..
So
are
the
report
recommendations
carried
carried
varied.