►
From YouTube: Planning Committee – September 27, 2016
Description
Planning Committee meeting – September 27, 2016 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
B
He's
he's
visiting
major
cities
in
the
United
States
of
America,
so
welcome
everyone
thanks
for
some
of
them
kills
for
coochie
quit,
raising
the
fun
meter
so
far,
okay.
So
this
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
two
and
four
on
today's
agenda
for
the
unemployed
stood
above.
Only
those
who
make
all
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matters
the
entero
Municipal
Board.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
interior
municipal
board.
B
If
council
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
120
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
zoning
and
180
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
and
as
you
are
well
aware,
I
think
I
don't
see
anybody
new
in
the
room.
Comment
sheet
is
available
over
by
the
door
where
mr.
Chris
is
standing
right
now
for
anyone
wishing
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
or
to
sign
up
to
speak
or
any
declarations
of
interest,
no
confirmation
of
minutes
from
meeting
31,
the
13th
of
September
2016,
are
they
carried.
Thank
you.
B
Item
number
1
comes
up
from
the
built
heritage.
By
the
way
we
have.
We
are
missing
two
members
today
counselor
and
this
bomb
is
speaking
at
another
conference
in
Seattle
on
transportation.
This
time
and
councillor
Tierney
is
is
in
the
States,
as
I
said,
I
wasn't
kidding
about
that.
He
actually
we
had
a
discussion
yesterday
about
the
libraries
in
Nashville
and
and
what
he
needed
to
see
there,
because
I've
been
there
in
Dallas,
etc.
B
So
he'll
be
back
the
next
time
the
application
to
alter
the
building
at
263
so
per
place
a
properly
designated
under
part,
five
of
the
hon
Theriot
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
rock
of
park
Heritage
Conservation
District.
This
arises
to
us
from
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
We
had
no
speakers
at
built
heritage
and
we
have
only
Katherine
rujuta
is
a
good
shooter,
Katherine
refuge'
from
Fulton
and
she's
in
support.
Does
anyone
want
to
hold
this
item?
B
B
We're
going
to
hold
that
item
we
do
have
mr.
Colin
white.
He
is
here
to
in
support
of
the
item.
Number
three
is
the
front
ending
report
and
consignment
construction
of
the
canal,
West
feeder
main
mr.
Murphy's
here
in
support.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
on
the
front
any
report
for
the
design
and
construction
of
the
canal,
West
feed
our
main
miss
Murphy?
Do
you
need
to
speak
if
we
carry
this
item?
Thank
you
very
much.
Is
the
item
carry
thank
you
it's
it
that
you
know,
but
we're
making
not
much
of
it.
B
B
B
C
You,
madam
chair,
that
the
planning
committee
approved
the
addition
of
the
following
item
for
consideration
by
the
committee
at
today's
meeting
pursuant
to
section
89
bracket
3
the
procedure
bylaw
2014
for
401.
In
order
that
the
committee
may
ask
questions
of
staff-
and
the
item
is
review
of,
landmark
gateway
terms,
information,
privilege,
distributive
sec.
B
Character,
thank
you
and
then
counselor
vice
chair,
acting
hubely
has
another
motion,
and
this
has
to
do
I'll
just
intro
it
a
little
bit.
This
Thursday
the
public
and
the
industry
will
be
privy
to
a
presentation
by
mr.
cross
and
by
Associated
staff
on
the
growth
projects.
I
mean
the
growth
projection
and
it's
of
course,
of
high
interest.
Since
we
have
an
agenda
today
and
I
did
get
a
briefing
on
it,
and
it
is
extremely
interesting.
B
C
In
order
that
the
committee
may
ask
questions
to
staff
and
be
it
further,
therefore
result
that
the
Planning
Committee
waive
the
rules
of
procedure
in
respect
to
section
83
bracket
4
of
the
procedure
bylaw
to
dispense
with
the
requirement
of
staff
to
provide
a
written
report
on
this
presentation
for
the
committee
minutes,
as
the
PowerPoint
presentation
provided
today
will
be
available
to
the
public
upon
request.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
C
C
A
Chair
they
are
for
Z
zone
permits,
a
wide
variety
of
uses
in
the
standard
zone.
The
only
exception
that's
being
proposed
today
is
with
respect
to
a
reduced
buffer
along
the
along
the
parking,
so
that
the
standard
are
for
the
r4z
zone
does
permit
a
wide
variety
of
housing
options
with
the
highest
highest
density
being
apartments.
Thank
you
for
that.
Mr.
Moody.
C
A
A
Madam
chair,
the
rezoning
as
before,
you
will
permit
the
apartment
buildings
that
are
proposed
in
the
site
plan,
and
that
is
what
we
anticipate
the
developer
to
build.
If
committee
decides
that
they
don't
want
to
support
that
on
this
location,
they
should
not
be
supporting
the
zoning,
but
staffs
recommendation
is
that
it's
it's
suitable
and
within
the
plan,
I.
B
Think
what
Kelso
County's
looking
for,
though,
is
he
wants
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
an
opportunity
that
the
entire
site
becomes
the
apartments
he
wants
to
ensure
am
I
right
councillor
Kadri
that
the
mix
is
is
retained?
We
do
have
call
wait
here
to
speak
for
the
for
the
applicant,
but
that's
what
he's
looking
for?
How
can
we
make
sure
that
these
are
two
and
a
half
stories
with
12
units
in
each
apartment
block?
How
do
we
make
sure
that
the
whole
landscape
of
the
property
owned
by
the
developer
doesn't
become
just
that?
Madam.
A
A
Development
will
require
rezoning
and
require
council
consideration,
so
I
can't
guarantee
that
they
won't
ask
for
it,
but
that
you
have
to
meet
the
provisions
of
the
secondary
plan
which
speaks
to
the
densities
required
in
the
maximum
densities
in
different
parts
of
the
areas
and-
and
you
know
today
we're
talking
about
three
or
six
library
if
they
want
to
go
forward
with
with
future
zoning
to
permit
apartment
buildings.
They'll
have
to
come
back
to
committee
and
council
through
the
normal
process.
A
C
Thank
you
for
that
and
then
there's
a
concern
expressly
from
the
community
about
traffic
flow
right.
Now,
there's
only
two
entrances
into
this
community.
When
you
put
this
kind
of
density
at
the
corner
of
livery
and
I,
guess
it's
a
tap
Adaro
they're
concerned
about
the
traffic
flow.
So
any
idea
of
when
some
of
the
road
network
is
when
we
connected
further
east
to
west.
A
A
We
don't
anticipate
that
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
existing
network.
However,
as
the
community
continues
to
build,
the
developers
will
need
to
build
the
streets
that
go
along
with
it.
Certainly,
the
north-south
arterial
is
there's
language
within
the
CDP.
That
requires
the
timing
for
the
completion
of
north-south
arterial
beyond
currently
goes,
but
that's
still
some
ways
off.
B
E
E
Developer
partnership
arrangement,
the
portion
of
lands
that
I'm
dealing
with
is
Phoenix
homes,
as
has
been
mentioned,
two
blocks
24
units,
the
balance
of
the
lands
are
held
by
the
partnership.
Individual
developers,
who
are
members
of
that
partnership,
will
be
coming
forward
at
later
dates
to
submit
applications
to
you.
So
all
I
can
advise.
You
is
that
the
development
here
certainly
is
appropriate
for
this
site.
In
my
view,
it's
adjacent
to
a
future
park
and
ride
transit
station.
E
It's
immediately
west
of
the
arterial,
through
the
middle
of
the
Fernbank
community,
it's
well
situated
with
respective
pedestrian
linkages
to
the
community
core
I
would
suggest
that
if
apartments
should
be
anywhere
on
this
block-
and
it
definitely
should
be-
this
is
the
location
where
they
should
be.
As
far
as
what
might
happen
to
the
east,
there
they're
certainly
certainly
options
for
Street,
townhouse
development
and
single-family
residential.
Although
I
don't
believe
that
your
your
community
design
plan
really
promote
singles
adjacent
to
this
hydro
corridor
and.
B
And
what
I
asked
you
for
is
a
little
bit
amazed
navel-gazing
as
well,
but
what
I
would
last
does
anyone
have
any
questions
of
mr.
white?
Okay,
thanks
for
coming
out,
Cohen
I,
just
gonna
ask
for
you,
counselor
Kadri,
that
miss
Tiffany
includes
in
the
minutes
the
concerns
that
were
raised
specific
to
future
development
in
this
in
this
area.
With
that,
suffice,
that's
fun!
Thank
you,
mother.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
on
this
item.
Is
it
carried.
D
B
So
we
have
tabby
and
we
have
Dana
and
John
Smith.
Thank
you
for
coming
forward
and
thank
you
for
all
of
the
pictures
that
you
added
to
the
report,
because
you
know
the
in
this
case
the
picture
does
say,
have
a
you
know
say
a
thousand
things
actually
about
it.
It
makes
it
quite
easy
to
understand
where
you
are
and
confirm
that
you
know
what
our
policies
were.
We're
we're
good
before
so
maybe
give
us
a
little
bit
of
history
on
just
a
spec
on
why
we're
doing
this
in
the
first
place.
B
F
We
have
gone
through
process
of
taking
a
look
at
it,
the
term
landmark
and
gate.
We
are
very
much
reflective
of
urban
design
concepts
and
principles
and
I
won't
get
into
the
details,
but
we'll
turn
it
over
to
tabby.
That
will
give
a
quick
overview
of
what
the
analysis
of
the
exercise
resulted
in
when
we
looked
at
those
terminologies
in
our
various
policy
documents
them
as
counselor.
As
a
chair
indicated,
we've
got
a
number
of
illustrations.
That
sort
of
reflects
what
is
really
intended
under
those
concepts
of
landmark
and
Gateway.
G
Good
morning,
yeah
I'll
just
try
to
go
quickly
through
some
of
the
what
the
report
findings
were
in
terms
of
our
review
and
what
we
feel
is
a
good
way
to
proceed
with
those
findings.
So,
as
John
mentioned,
the
main
goals
with
with
this
were
to
review
the
t's
terms
and
in
terms
of
their
applicability
and
in
terms
of
how
they're
used
within
the
planning
in
the
planning
review
process.
G
So
the
key
findings,
I
guess
to
this
extent
the
key
findings
were
there
was
a
few
of
them,
but
and
they're
pretty
they're,
pretty
general,
but
they're
pretty
important.
So
we
found
that
the
terms
landmark
and
gate.
We
are
both
clearly
defined
in
the
Official,
Plan
and
you're
definite.
The
definitions
are
actually
found
in
the
IPD
for
you
as
well.
The
terms
are
generally
concerned
with
the
publicly
oriented
or
civic
objectives
such
as
wayfinding
or
establishing
or
reinforcing
place
or
identity
in
a
community
they're
not
for
private
or
commercial
oriented
objectives.
G
Now.
What
we
also
found
is
that,
of
course,
when
you
are
where
there's
a
broad
term,
there's
room
for
interpretation,
but
again
that's
intentional,
and
when
we
went
through
these
in
the
review,
we
found
that
these
terms
are
in
fact
used
consistently
and
they've
been
used
quite
effectively,
so
I
guess
the
desired
results.
Other
terms
has
has
been
has
been
consistent
over
the
years.
The
objectives
of
the
terms
has
been
has
resulted
in
in
in
those
objectives.
G
So,
in
terms
of
moving
forward,
the
considerations
for
planning
staff
would
be
to
specify
what
type
of
scale
the
landmark
or
gateway
would
be
to
address,
so
would
it
be
for,
at
the
capital
scale
about
a
national
type
of
scale
and
I'll
go
over
a
few
examples
of
this
and
a
couple
in
a
minute
or
so
at
a
city
scale
or
at
a
local
scale
and
upfront.
This
helps
all
parties
to
scope
the
role
of
the
landmark
or
Gateway
and
I
guess
the
nature
of
the
objectives
that
can
be
anticipated.
G
Another
consideration
would
be
to
identify
a
process
when
it's
necessary
to
establish
that
intent,
so
that
might
even
include
for
larger,
more
unique
sites,
doing
some
sort
of
competition
or
having
a
specific
sort
of
as
subcommittee
type
of
thing
off
of
the
urban
design
review
panel.
I
guess
around
clarity.
G
G
G
If
you
look
at
the
definitions
in
the
Official
Plan
intensification,
more
development
is
not
within
the
terms
themselves,
so
we
just
have
to
be
cognizant
that
that
that
is
not
something
that
is
potentially
carried
forward,
because
sometimes
these
were
landmarks
or
gateways
are
appropriate,
is
a
place
where
intensification
intensification
does
make
sense,
but
it's
not
necessarily
so
and
in
terms
of
policy
framework
moving
forward.
It
should
be
explicitly
stated.
G
Yes,
sorry,
okay,
so
for
a
few
examples,
so
at
a
national
scale,
you
know
we're
looking
at
things
that
can
can
introduce
or
or
retain
I
guess,
retain
buildings
or
spaces
places
of
some
sort
of
historic
or
cultural
environmental
geographical
significance
in
terms
of
how
they
provide
identity
and
sense
of
orientation,
so
something
that
the
parliament
buildings
out
to
Laurier.
You
know
these
are
icons
that
are
immediately
when
people
see
them.
G
They
know
exactly
you
know,
sort
of
where
they
are
and
they
and
they
get
a
sense
of
the
of
the
significance
of
where
they
are
looking
at
a
city
scale.
For
a
landmark.
You
have
things
that
tell
us
a
little
bit
more
of
the
story
of
Ottawa,
so
you've
got
something
like
the
Byward
market,
unbuilding
or
more
recently
that
convention
the
Shaw
Center.
G
So
it's
a
couple
of
older
and
newer
examples
at
a
local
scale,
again,
you're.
Looking
at
the
same
things,
things
of
historical
significance,
cultural
significance,
but
it's
at
something
that's
you
know
really
unique
to
the
people
who
live
in
and
around
on
those
areas
so
to
the
left.
There
we
have
the
old,
all
Community
Center
on
Main
Street,
and
we
have
a
real
library
in
terms
of
gateways.
Same
same
types
of
scaling
that
can
apply.
You've
got
national
gateways,
search
on.
G
City
scale,
the
cannons
at
Island,
Park,
Drive
and
actually
I
put
these
together,
citysville
and
local,
because
they're
there
can't
be
a
bit
of
blending
and
I
couldn't
they
can
be
shared
objectives
too.
So
you
know
for
people
who
live
on
Island,
Park
Drive
these.
These
are
very
local,
but
also
Island.
Park
Drive
serves
as
a
broader
scale,
type
of
gateway
for
people
who
are
entering
into
the
city
as
well
and,
of
course,
to
the
to
the
right.
There
is
an
example
of
a
local
gateway
which,
which
is
sort
of
typical
style.
G
That
you'll
see
you
in
more
suburban
areas,
and
this
is
that
Chapman
Mills
and,
of
course
we
have,
you
can
have
landmarks
and
gateways.
Something
can
be
both
so
the
Rideau
Canal
in
itself
is
both
a
destination
landmark,
but
also
really
brings
you
into
the
city
and
throughout
throughout
the
city
same
with
some
of
the
war
memorial
its.
It
brings
you
into
the
Parliament
district.
It's
a
national
district,
but
also
it's
a
it's
an
important
landmark
for
the
nation
city
scale.
G
The
new
of
any
Memorial
Bridge
connects
to
neighborhoods
and
is
quite
a
a
beautiful
piece
of
engineering
and
design
sitting
with
a
Lansdowne
Park.
The
TD
place
is,
is
a
interesting
design.
There's
good
urban
design,
it's
been
happening
there
and
the
approach
is
a
strong
gateway
and
to
cutting
into
the
core.
G
G
What
can
be
improved
is
perhaps
a
higher
degree
of
awareness
and
staff
in
terms
of
how
they
use
the
terms
and
how
they
would
be
applied
within
the
Official
Plan
Secretary
plan
objectives
themselves,
so
that
really
just
confirms
the
importance
to
have
a
clear
policy
framework
and
directive
in
future
secondary
plans
and
generally
found
its.
The
terms
are
working.
G
B
E
You
and
thank
you
to
staff
for
the
the
generosity
with
which
they
approach
this
report
for
the
the
rigor
with
which
they
approach.
That
I
think
gives
us
a
little
further
ahead
in
terms
of
understanding
what
we
mean
by
Gateway.
I
won't
belabor
it,
but
we
still
have
that
outstanding
tension.
Residents
are
looking
to
our
secondary
plans
to
control
height
and
density
in
their
neighborhoods.
I.
E
Think
developers
take
a
look
at
the
open-ended
language
that
is
in
some
of
our
secondary
plans,
as
as
a
loophole
as
as
an
opening
to
greater
height
and
density
than
residents,
think
they
might
be
getting,
and
that
that
has
been
a
tension
that
residents
have
been
pointed
out
for
something
like
10
or
15
years.
As
we
approach
the
new
CDP
processes.
E
E
If
we
remember
2:38,
Richmond
Road,
it's
the
main
and
main
building.
That's
next
to
the
LCBO,
the
developer
asserted
that
that
was
gateway
and
thus
should
get
greater
than
anticipated
height
under
the
secondary
plan
and
staff
in
their
response
to
that
in
the
report
that
came
forward
didn't
actually
address
whether
or
not
that
was
gateway
gateway
locations.
So
we
continue
to
have
this.
This
tension
between
what
residents
are
seeking
in
terms
of
certainty
and
the
language
of
staff
are
using
in
in
secondary
plans.
E
I
do
appreciate
the
greater
Widow
with
which
you
intend
to
approach
the
development
of
future
secondary
plans.
Obviously
this
is
going
to
continue
to
be
subjective.
We're
never
going
to
nail
it
down
in
terms
of
what
exactly
landmark
means,
but
the
approach
that
you
have
outlined
here
is
is
a
worthwhile
one.
I'm
disappointed
and
we've
had
a
we've
had
a
discussion
that
we
won't
go
back
into
some
of
our
secondary
plans.
Kitch
sippin
Ward
is
pretty
well
covered
now
by
CDP's
and
NSPS.
I
would
love
to
go
back.
E
Sure,
yes,
thank
you
for
that
it
that
that
would
be
our
intent.
I
think
that's,
probably
the
most
realistic
and
straightforward
way
to
to
approach
future
development
review
applications.
In
some
cases
the
policy
framework
is
very
specific.
It
has
all
four
considerations
that
we
mentioned
in
this
report
and
other
cases
they
might
not
have
everything.
But
if
we
take
this
report
and
apply
that
lens
through
the
developer
view,
negotiations,
discussions
with
proponents
I
think
it'll
be
clear
for
everyone's
staff
as
well
as
proponents
I
appreciate
that.
E
E
E
H
You
very
much
I'm,
constantly
pers
comments
and
questions
serve
as
a
good
lead-in
to
mine.
This
is
very
helpful
because
we're
quite
specifically,
we
do
get
applications
where
the
proponent
is
claiming
that
they
deserve
special
consideration
and
that
almost
always
translates
into
significant
additional
height,
based
on
the
assertion
that
it's
a
gateway
or
a
landmark.
H
So
wherever
it's
clear
to
true
to
all
sides,
what
constitutes
you
know
what
what
those
terms
are
meant
to
cover
I
found
it
particularly
interesting
and
appropriate
that
Lansdowne
was
illustrated,
was
was
mentioned
and
illustrated
in
the
photos
as
an
example.
That
is
quite
literally
where
you
enter
into
the
gleep
and
and
the
fact
that
there
are
some
very
distinctive
features
to
the
stadium
to
the
first
condo
tower,
etc.
H
With
quite
good
architecture,
it
makes
sense
that
that
is
a
gateway.
That's
quite
literally
where
someone
goes
oh
I'm
in
the
Glebe
now
and
I'm
entering
that
business
district.
What
concerns
me
is
when
you
get
applications
as
I
do
language
that
another
gateway
after
the
gateway
is
justified.
So
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
you've
got
one
once
you
have
one
Gateway
to
a
community.
Quite
a
distinct
community,
like
the
Glebe
you've
got
your
twelve
or
fourteen
blocks
there.
You
might
expect
one
at
the
Queensway
end
you
entered
from
them
from
the
north.
H
F
Man
Charlie
as
a
fair
comment
from
the
councillor
and
again,
the
terminology
is
very
broad.
It's
very
flexible
and
I.
Think
what
we're
suggesting
here
is.
There
has
been
a
lot
of
consistency
in
the
application
of
those
terms
and
I
think
those
who
have
been
involved
in
looking
at
various
applications
notwithstanding
what
a
proponent
might
put
forward
in
terms
of
their
argument
as
to
why
something
should
be
approved
again.
My
experience
about
review
world
for
many
many
years
is
that
that's
not
taken
necessarily
as
a
fader
completed.
F
That's
the
reason
why
we
should
be
doing
this.
It
may
be
consideration
of
may
not
be
consideration,
I
think
as
council
deeper
indicated
on
the
main
and
main
that
was
an
assertion,
but
that
was
not
something
that
was
carried
forward
through
the
staff
report
as
a
rationale
and
justification
for
it.
So
I
think
there's
a
fair
bit
of
consideration
given
to
the
intention
of
the
meaning
of
those
terms
and
I.
Think
what
we're
suggesting
here.
F
What
we're
suggesting
here
is
making
sure
that
the
development
Review
staff
have
some
clarity
of
the
different
scales
of
land
market
gateway
and,
to
your
point,
I
would
agree
with
you
if
you're
talking
about
a
gateway,
it's
not
necessarily
something
in
the
middle
other
urban
design.
Terminologies
that
could
come
up.
Are
things
like
notes?
You
might
have
an
old
type
of
a
condition
that
might
be
internal
to
an
area
which
might
be
looked
at
distinctly
indifferently,
but
not
necessarily
within
the
framework
of
a
landmark
or
a
gateway.
F
So
I
think
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
urban
design,
principles
and
concepts
that
actually
do
come
into
play
in
the
development
process.
It
is
really
context-specific
landmarks
and
gateways.
I
think
the
important
thing
on
that
one
is
that
the
development
review
teams,
when
they're
looking
at
applications
looking
at
proposals
and
proponent
arguments
in
support
of
those
proposals,
really
undertake
their
own
analysis
and
that's
really
helped
out
for
the
design
review
panel
as
well.
So
fair
comment
and
I
would
generally
agree
with
with
the
comment
in
the
statement
that
to
make
thank.
H
H
That's
within
you
know
the
Planning
Act
in
the
Official
Plan,
but
not
as
I,
say,
overreach
over
stretch
to
start
pulling
out
terms
and
claiming
them
to
be
things
that
they're
not,
and
we
do
see
those
from
time
to
time
a
you
know,
a
gateway,
a
third
of
the
way
into
a
very
distinct
neighborhood,
a
gateway
to
what
what
you
know.
You
already
have
your
gateway
you're
already
in
the
middle
of
something
so
I
think
that's
important
for
us
to
do.
Thank
you.
I
Just
most
of
the
examples
you've
given
here
inside
the
Greenbelt,
but
that
goes
everywhere,
including
over
all
you
just
had
the
one
exam,
but
was
thinking
of
things
like
the
cannot
assign
on
the
Queensway.
That's
always
been
a
landmark
for
Canada
it
would
that
be
the
type
of
thing
that
could
be
included
in
that
that
would
be
considered
a
landmark
I.
Take
it
I
think.
F
That
I
would
see
that
as
a
combination
landmark
a
gateway,
it's
something
that
has
been
there
for
a
long
time
is
something
that
people
relate
to,
but
it's
also
an
indicator
of
an
entry
into
into
the
cannabic
community,
so
it
serves
two
purposes.
Its
its
high-visibility
I.
Think
one
can
arguably
say
that
it
has
a
landmark
quality
associated
with
it,
but
it
clearly
has
a
Gateway
quality
associated
with
it.
Now.
I
It's
on
public
land
and
you
get
the
issue
because
kanata
had
agreed
to
maintain
that.
So
that's
now
the
city's
responsibility
and
we
clearly
have
to
remind
them
about
that.
But
one
of
the
issues.
Some
of
these
landmarks
on
especially
the
Gateway
features,
are
on
public
property,
the
ones
on
Main
Street
that
a
Beckwith
Road,
which
is
the
street
I,
grew
up
on
up
there,
always
the
landmark
there,
the
little
gateway
you
show
it
on
Island,
Park
and
I've
got
a
similar
one
in
the
Parkway
in
Connecticut.
I
How
do
we
look
after
gateways
or
landmarks
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
them
when
they're
on
public
property,
because
quite
often
anyone's
into
the
community
they've
said
community
has
to
maintain
them
and
I
have
a
community
association
fixing
up
to
into
Beaverbrook
now
at
their
expense.
Because
of
that
policy,
though
they're
on
public
land
I'm,
so
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
clarification
in
the
policy
as
you
go
forward
on
that,
because
it
is
lead
to
questions
about
community
about.
G
The
I
guess:
the
financing
opportunities,
the
short
to
long
term
maintenance
opportunities
for
these
types
of
Gateway
features
and
in
terms
of
who's
responsible
on
private
lands,
public
lands.
So
that
was
I,
think
it
was
a
document
that
was
put
together
by
Stantec
I,
think
it
was
2008
or
so,
and
it's
something
that
development
review
has
been
using
and
I
believe
quite
effectively.
But
these
predate
that
I'm.
I
Talking
about
ones
that
have
been
around
for
some
time
and
that
has
been
a
question
all
the
way
along
I'll-
just
leave
it
and
open
that,
but
I
think
we
do
have
to
be
have
a
clarification
of
how
if
they've
been
there
one
of
the
parkway
was
there
when
I
moved
there.
So
it's
been
there
50
years,
but
the
can
I
don't
sign
it.
Then
there's
20
or
30
years
eyes
open.
So
it's
something
that
they
come
back
with
it
on,
but
I
think
is
something
we
have
to
plan.
Also.
B
I
B
Intransigence
medical
policy
piece
on
that
and
I
think
it
was
about
six
years
to
five
six
years
ago,
probably
a
three
planning
committee,
so
we're
still
going
with
that
process,
and
it's
just
like
councilor
leaper
was
wondering
you
know:
isn't
it
lamenting?
Actually
the
fact
that
we
couldn't
go
back
and
redo
some
of
the
ones
that
we
have
we're
not
doing
that,
so
the
maintenance
of
it
is
entirely
different
from
the
discussion
today.
Right.
B
I
I
recognize
that
it,
but
I
also
recognize
the
same
thing.
Others
have
said
that
people
come
in
every
time.
They
come
in
on
the
edge
of
my
community
to
say,
they're
going
to
do
something,
they
call
it
landmark
and
they
then
they
use
that
to
try
to
pull
up
the
Planning
Department
into
allowing
more
to
have,
but
it
doesn't
work-
and
this
is
what
this.
C
I
just
would
agree
that
there
was
a
specific
policy
on
if
you
will
gateway
signs
in
terms
of
the
you
know,
the
ones
that
were
pre-existing
any
new
gateway
going
into
a
community.
Now,
with
you
know
the
a
new
subdivision,
that's
double
through
the
subdivision
process
and
it's
you
know,
made
sure
it's
it's
being
maintained
and
there's
a
money
set
aside
to
actually
rebuild
them
in
in
the
future,
so
that
that's
a
separate
polish
you
come
over
talking.
I
I
What's
others
are
raising
that
we
have
to
be
very
careful
because
every
high-rise
building
every
new
building
could
be
bite,
the
owner
of
the
property
considered
to
Gateway
in
their
mind
and
so
having
it
clarified
in
it
it
seemed
still
a
little
on
the
vague
side,
so
I
hoped
it'd
come
down
to
come
back.
We
can
make
sure
that
they
do
that,
but
look
little
bit
more
clarification
as
much
as
you
can,
as
is
tricky
because
it's
subjective,
I'm.
F
Not
chair,
I
think
the
key
directions
with
respect
to
scale
of
development,
intensification
of
or
intensity
of
development
is
really
driven
through
the
policies.
The
plan
that
deal
with
managing
growth.
This
is
really
within
the
umbrella
of
the
urban
design
component
and,
as
we
had
indicated,
if
you
look
at
the
definitions
and
how
they're
used
on
a
fairly
consistent
basis,
unless
a
secondary
plan
or
CDP
specifically
identifies
opportunities
for
quote,
unquote,
landmarks
and
or
gateways
that
suggests
that
these
are
locations
for
increased
height.
F
Those
locations
for
increased
height
also
need
to
be
responsive
to
the
overarching
directions,
dealing
with
management
of
growth
and
where
scale
and
intensity
of
development
is
deemed
to
be
most
appropriate.
So,
while
proponent
might
put
forward
the
argument,
as
was
the
case
on
main
and
main
on
Richmond
Road,
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
that's
the
reason
why
we
may
or
may
not
take
particular
position
as
to
whether
or
not
something
should
be
recommended
for
approval
or
refusal.
F
We
are
really
looking
predominantly
at
the
primary
policies
dealing
with
the
management
of
growth
and
where
the
official
plan
has
identified
higher
intensity,
higher
scale
development
to
be
appropriate,
and
that's
really
the
driver.
Whether
or
not
one
of
those
things
might
then
turn
out
to
be
considered
as
a
landmark.
That's
a
secondary
consideration,
but
that's
not
the
driving
consideration.
I
think
we've
been
pretty
consistent
on
the
develop
review
site
on
that
front.
Thank.
B
B
Here
there
you
are
hi
thanks
for
reaching
out
and
and
asking
if
you
could
come
by
and
thanks
for
coming
by
today,
they're
working
on
a
three-year
project,
making
voices
count
in
this
co-sponsor
byte
you're
not
going
to
be
surprised
to
know
this,
the
City
for
all
women
initiative
and
well
I
know,
but
that's
the
first
part
and
the
coalition
of
Community
Health
and
resources
centers.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
if
you
have
any
questions
or
you
want
to
come
back
welcome.
B
B
It's
something
that's
responding
to
a
no
one
being
direction
and
where
they
said
that
we
would
prefer
that
you
look
at
projections
at
2036
as
opposed
to
2030
one.
That's
part
of
the
work
that
we're
doing
with
the
employment
land
review,
which
will
be
at
Council
tomorrow
and
the
Lea
report,
all
three
of
which
will
come
forward
to
this
committee
at
the
end
of
November
I.
B
J
J
There's
four
parts:
population,
insults
and
housing,
jobs
and
supply
demand
for
urban
and
village
land,
so
population
wise
are
projections
that
we
developed
in
2007
that
they
had
been
tracking,
very
well
but
they're.
Now,
almost
ten
years
old
and
it's
you
know
it's
time
to
update
and
paying
attention
to
what
the
OMB
precision
LPA
150
said,
it's
appropriate
also
to
extend
them
to
2036.
J
So
compared
of
the
work
that
we
did
almost
ten
years
ago,
we've
introduced
a
series
of
important
approvement,
so
we've
developed
our
own
projection
model,
which
allows
a
great
deal
of
detail
to
be
introduced.
We
develop
thought
was
specific
life
tables,
that's
just
how
long
we
can
expect
to
live.
There's
much
more
detailed
migration
data
now
available
things.
J
Stats
can
compare
Dru
once
again
in
2007
we're
using
the
latest
methodology
from
stat
can
on
migration
and
instead
of
using
the
census
base
here,
which
in
this
case
would
be
2011
we're
using
the
most
recent
year
for
which
we
have
detailed
data,
which
is
2014,
so
that
gets
us
already
three
years
into
the
projection
period.
So
the
results
at
2036
we
project
the
population
of
just
over
1.2
million
compared
to
the
current
official
planned
projection
that
twenty
thirty
one
were
actually
slightly
higher.
J
So
I'm
sure
you've
heard
it
over
and
over
again
we
have
an
aging
population,
but
I
think
it's
remarkable,
just
the
degree
to
which
aging
will
occur
over
the
next
22
years
over
the
next
20
years.
I
guess
almost
50%
of
our
population
growth
will
be
among
people
65
and
over
you
can
see
on
the
graph.
The
heavy
black
line
is
average
percentage
growth,
so
we're
a
little
over
30%
growth,
the
65
and
over
line
the
hope
wire
at
the
top
will
more
than
double
every
other
age
group
will
grow
less
than
average
percentage-wise.
J
Another
feature,
I
think
is
remarkable
as
it
will
be,
adding
almost
as
many
people
over
the
age
of
80
as
we
will
everyone
under
the
age
of
30.
So
that's
all
the
school-age
children,
all
the
young
adults
will
equal
80
Plus,
which
is
I,
would
say
you
know
a
respectable
age
and
also
the
dependency
ratio
is
a
standard
measure
of
comparing
children
and
elderly
versus
the
working
age
population
15
to
64.
J
So
that's
anticipated
to
go
up
from
about
43,
and
twenty
four
teens
are
close
to
60
in
2036,
however,
will
still
be
younger
than
the
country.
The
Canada's
projected
to
be
about
65
in
2036,
and
that's
mainly
due
to
the
effect
of
immigration
to
Ottawa.
It's
keeping
us
younger
than
average
Canada
itself
by
the
way
will
be
much
younger
than
many
Western
European
countries
in
Japan.
Now
this
is
this
is
a
gif
showing
bison
year
of
age,
evolution
of
Ottawa's
population
since
1991,
and
you
can
see
that
block
that
bulge
in
the
middle.
J
That's
the
pull-up
post-war
baby
boom
and
as
we
move
through
the
period,
it
will
it'll
change,
changes,
colors
and
2015,
and
you
can
see
there's
a
second
wave
coming
in
behind.
That's
partly
the
baby
boom
echo,
but
it's
it's
mostly
the
effect
of
immigration
that
immigrants
are
very
heavily
weighted
to
young
adults.
J
J
They're,
you
know
their
projected
growth
is
not
anywhere
near
happening.
Just
to
give
you
an
example,
they
projected
between
2001
and
2011
that
they
would
grow
by
collectively
by
35,000
people.
In
fact,
they
grew
by
14,000,
so
less
than
half
of
the
projection.
So
we've
we
developed
our
own
projections
for
that
outer
area.
That's
our
more
realistic!
So
in
view
of
that,
we
expect
actually
Dada
to
increase
its
share
of
the
Greater.
Ottawa
got
no
region
over
the
next
20
years.
J
We're
currently
just
over
two-thirds
and
the
graph
shows
the
population
of
Ottawa
has
a
share
doughnuts.
As
you
can
see,
it's
been
going
up
steadily
since
welcome
steadily
is
slowed
down
late
seventies,
but
since
1971
it's
been
on
a
fairly
continuous
rise
and
we
project
that
that
will
continue
to
to
grow
so
we're
being
optimistic,
I
think
about
Canada
Ottawa's
future,
but
to
hiss
olson
housing
so
using
the
same
methodology
as
2007.
So
solid
methodology,
but
we've
again
introduced
a
series
of
improvements.
We
have
basically
just
better
data,
better
data
on
population
and
collectives.
J
We
have
much
more
careful,
more
detailed
tracking
of
the
effective
additions
and
conversions
and,
of
course,
we
have
longer
time
series
to
work
with,
since
the
housing
market
started
to
change
in
2011
of
2001.
Rather,
this
graph
just
shows
what's
been
happening
to
the
housing
market
in
the
last
decades.
It's
important
to
note
that
CMHC
starts
there.
The
that's
the
monthly
data
release
that
gets
a
lot
of
media
attention.
J
Cmhc
starts
whoever
do
not
include
units
added
through
auditions
or
conversions,
and
it's
those
numbers
are
significant,
just
on
average,
last
ten
years
of,
for
example,
has
additions
and
conversions
of
added
more
than
three
hundred
and
fifty
apartments
here.
So
it's
it's
really
significant.
Now
as
to
the
graph,
the
red
line
is
single.
Detached
it's
been
going
down,
has
recently
been
moving
back
up
a
bit.
J
The
the
others
who
never
get
aspect
of
our
history
is
apartments
they're
represented
by
the
black
line,
and
you
can
see,
there's
been
a
tremendous
surge,
followed
by
a
slowdown,
as
the
market
absorbs
all
those
units
that
were
started
in
2012
and
2013,
and
also
I.
Think
what's
significant
about
this.
As
you
can
see,
the
big
change
in
the
market
actually
occurred
or
started
to
occur
after
2011,
so
that
change
hasn't
been.
It
isn't
reflected
in
the
2011
census.
J
So
it
will
be
very
interesting
to
see
what
2016
has
to
say,
but
we're
about
a
year
away
from
knowing
what
that
will
be.
Okay,
this
very
colorful
graph
represents
about
35
years
of
housing,
market
history
and
projection.
The
first
three
bars
are
the
last
three
censuses.
The
black
black
bar
represents
the
2011
census
and
obviously
the
more
colorful
bars
represent
the
projection.
J
The
middle
line,
if
I
can
call
it
that
middle
solid
line
is
2011
census
and
the
dash
our
projected
uptake
of
singles
at
2036,
the
green
area
of
shows
the
change
the
in
this
case,
the
increase
for
townhouses
between
1986
and
2011,
and
the
Green
Line
shows
the
projected
2036.
So
we
anticipate
that
that
will
continue
to
do
increase.
In
the
end,
the
block
line
shows
apartments
and,
as
you
can
see,
for
people
under
50
or
so
there's
been
relatively
little.
J
Changes
that
actually
has
been
going
up
slightly,
but
we
can't
is
you
anticipate
it
continued
increase,
but
the
for
the
older
age
group
that
has
dropped
apartment
uptake
has
dropped
significantly
last
25
years.
A
lot
of
that
is
just
seniors,
as
their
incomes
have
increased,
which
is
you
know,
they've
seen
a
substantial
increase,
which
is
a
good
thing
since
the
1980s
they've
been
moving
into
of
older
rental
accommodation.
J
We
anticipate
that
as
the
as
the
new
condo
market
for
our
units
as
that
bulk
of
units
builds
up,
which
is
already
now
in
the
you
know,
several
thousand
units
of
his
much
more
high
quality
accommodation
choice.
So
we
anticipate
that.
Well,
there
may
be
some
continued
slippage
that
we're
not
going
to
see
the
degree
of
change
that
we've
seen
in
the
past.
J
J
You
can
see
for
the
older
age
groups,
65
69,
70,
74,
tremendous
increases
of
C
70
to
74,
there's
been
almost
a
13%
increase
for
men
and
close
to
10
percent
increase
for
women,
even
among
men,
75
and
over
there's,
been
about
an
8%
increase,
which
is
amazing,
I
think,
and
that
has
important,
of
course,
implications
for
the
Ottawa
job
situation.
As
population
gets
a
little
bit,
we
anticipate
close
to
three-quarters
of
a
million
jobs
located
in
the
city
by
2036,
that's
188
thousand
new
jobs
over
the
25
years
and
even
at
2011.
J
The
numbers
would
indicate
about
8,000
more
jobs
that
compared
to
the
current
official
plan
number-
and
that's
all
of
you,
of
course-
were
older
people
working
so
last
slide
that
supply
and
demand
for
urban
land
as
a
whole
lot
of
numbers.
Here
we
start
at
the
top
just
total
new
dwellings
required
citywide.
We
remove
real
dwellings
leases
with
the
urban
units
we
remove.
Units
from
added
from
intensification
leaves
us
with
demand
Greenfield
Lanta.
J
We
then
look
at
previous,
apply
ads
about
employment
lands
or
potential
units
on
employment,
land
and
the
bottom
line.
As
you
can
see,
supply
demand
at
2036,
where
we
have
a
surplus
sofa
bed
at
1400
singles,
hardly
any
semi-detached
about
2500,
townhouses
and
thousands
of
apartments
and
in
terms
of
village,
land
I
don't
have
a
slide,
but
we've
also
looked
at
that.
The
Official
Plan
policy
is
for
at
least
10
years
supplying
villages.
B
Just
something
I'd
like
you
to
to
figure
it
out.
If
you
can
and
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think
we,
maybe
you
know
right
now,
but
the
employment
land
review
that
we
just
had
at
that
last
our
planning
committee
and
goes
to
Council
tomorrow,
how
much
of
an
impact
has
had
that
has
that
had
with
the
freeing
up
of
land
for
numbers
to
sustain
the
urban
boundary
as
opposed
to
having
to
move
it?
B
J
Numbers
on
the
on
the
last
slide:
there
indicate
approximately
4,300
units.
It's
the
you
think
it
it's
the
the
blue
line,
so
in
other
words,
1,300
singles
160
years
over
semies,
almost
1500
townhouses
in
about
1400
apartments.
So
it's
it's
I
would
say
it's
a
helpful
addition
to
ensuring
that
we
have
an
adequate
supply.
B
B
I
B
E
E
J
It
I
mean
if
I
can
call
it
in
practical
terms.
We
could
we
can
look
at
what
we
projected
in
2007
I,
think
that
would
be
the
most
relevant
comparison
and
in
fact
we
have.
We
have
done
that
analysis,
rubato
report
to
committee
back
in
2012
that
showed,
for
example,
at
that
time
we
are
anticipating,
roughly
about
40%
of
new
units
would
be
single
detached
and
what
we've
been
building
since
2001
up
to
2012
I
believe
it
was,
was
something
in
the
order
of
about
35%
singles.
J
So
we
revised,
you
know
we
left
the
total
numbers
along,
but
we've
revised
that
projected
unit
split
to
try
to
be
more
realistic.
So
in
that
report,
four
years
ago
we
were
anticipating
going
forward,
20
31,
35
percent
of
total
units
being
singles
we've.
In
fact,
the
last
five
years
I
believe
we've
been
up
at
about
28
percent
singles,
so
we're
not
even
close
to
that
revised
lower
number.
E
The
plan
Thank
You,
sugars,
I'll,
be
Chris
I'll,
be
following
up
with
you
on
just
some
of
that,
and
to
what
extent
do
you
have
those
sort
of
things
on
a
projections
on
a
ward
basis?
A
couple
of
weeks
ago,
you
sent
me
some
stats
that
we're
fairly
eye-opening
for
for
residents
get
recipie
in
terms
of
net
additions
and
I'm
curious.
If
you
have
the
kinds
of
information
you
have
up
on
your
screen
available
in
in
a
more
granular
award
by
Ward
fashion,.
J
Yes,
we've
actually
attempted
to
do
what
I've
called
small
area
projections
they're
extremely
difficult.
I
I
don't
think
they
we've
never
been
able
to
find
a
way
to
produce
reliable
results.
So
we
don't
attempt
that
we
do
do
population
projections
by
water
it
up
to
about
most
recently
2022,
but
but
to
attempt
a
projection
by
drawing
in
a
type
by
word
and
I.
Think
is
you
know
it's
beyond
us
I
think
it
might
be
beyond
anybody.
J
E
You,
yes,
it
is
that
number
in
the
top
left
hand
corner
that
I
think
all
of
us
will
be
watching
for
a
frequent
sometime
in
terms
of
the
the
new
singles
that
are
being
required.
All
of
explore
with
you
at
some
point
the
methodology-
that's
behind
that
number,
because
I
think
we're
gonna
see
fewer
and
fewer.
You
were
all
the
time
potentially
due
to
regulation,
but
potentially
due
to
demographic
factors
as
well
as
I,
was
in
a
very
grateful
for
the
work
that
you
do,
you're
a
rock
star
at
the
city.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
Demographers
are
rock
stars,
madam
chair
I,
love
that
accountants
I
can't
leave,
accounts
counselor
couch
a
no
every
time,
I
see
demographic
information
about
the
city,
I'm
always
very
curious,
and
certainly
my
background
with
stats
to
see
the
type
of
information.
Because
for
me
it's
about
planning
and
I
know
we
have
the
older
adult
plan
and
other
plans
that
exist,
but
I'd
like
to
know.
Do
we
have
a
complementary
document
that
once
citizens
see
the
presentation
tonight
or
they
review
it
in
their
own
time
at
home?
D
Some
of
the
key
questions
that
we
get
are:
how
is
the
city
preparing
for
this
demographic
shift?
We
see
demands
for
particular
services
now,
but
obviously
there
are
very
specific
services
that
will
be
an
extreme
demand
as
the
population
ages.
Do
we
have
documents
that
exist
now
that
we
can
go
to
that?
We
can
learn
more
about
how
the
city
is
preparing,
how
the
city
is
working
with
other
levels
of
government,
so
that
win
our
community
ask
these
types
of
questions.
We
can
reference
certain
studies,
documents
that
we've
already
undertaken,
mm-hmm.
J
Yeah,
that's
a
very
good
question.
The
the
city
has
prepared
actually
what's
called
the
older
adult
plan
that
you
may
be
aware
of.
I
think
that's
the
primary
thing
that
that's
been
done
or
at
least
to
date,
and
that
looks
at
I.
Believe
you
know.
The
broad
range
of
service
and
service
demands
that
the
city
provides
and
you.
J
It
was
based
on
twenty
thirty
one
projections,
so
I
mean
these
are
brand
new
and
they're,
not
even
I,
would
say
not
even
finalized,
yet
that
finalized
in
November,
so
obviously
they've
got
some
updating
to
do,
but
certainly
the
general
direction
of
change.
You
know
we
anticipate
twenty
one.
Twenty
two
percent
of
the
population
be
over
65
at
2036.
That
said
that
similar
proportions
in
the
former
projections,
okay,.
C
You
very
very
much
ma'am
chair
mr.
Kraus,
you
mentioned
in
your
presentation
that
the
Oh
Lyon
areas
didn't
do
as
well
as
expected
versus
Ottawa.
We
as
a
council
are
trying
to
quantify
the
cost
to
these
areas
on
our
services
that
we
provide
like
in
areas
such
as
Park
and
rides,
and
so
on.
Can
you
elaborate
on
the
information
you've
collected
on
not
like?
Can
you
tell
us
just
how
well
these
outline
areas
are
doing
and
how
they're
growing
do
you
have
info
on
how
many
of
the
their
residents
also
come
into
the
city.