►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - May 12, 2022
Description
Planning Committee - Agenda 62 - Thursday, May 12, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
C
D
A
Here,
thank
you.
Yes,
chair
moffatt
will
be
joining
in
just
a
moment,
so
this
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
one
to
seven
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.
A
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
If
council
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
prior
to
their
consideration
by
city
council
on
may
25th,
2022,
please
email
or
call
the
committee
or
council
coordinator.
A
E
A
Carried
thank
you.
Okay,
we're
going
to
go
through
our
agenda
and
see
if
there's
any
items
that
we
can
carry
on
consent.
If
there
are
any
items
where
we
have
delegations
registered
or
questions
or
comments
from
our
committee
members,
we
will
hold
them
on
item
number
one.
This
is
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
54,
56
and
60
bayswater
avenue.
We
have
several
speakers
registered
and
also
a
motion
coming
from
counselor
leaper.
So
we'll
hold
this
item
and
come
back
to
it.
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
C
A
A
Item
number
eight
is
an
application
to
alter
126
york
street
a
property
designated
under
part
5
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
and
located
in
the
byward
market
heritage
conservation
district
in
rito
vanier.
There
are
no
no
delegations
registered
for
this.
We
do
have
the
applicant
here
and
I
see
counselor
flurries
the
award
counselor
counselor
fleury.
Did
you
want
to
hold
this
or
have
a
quick
comment.
I
Go
ahead,
comment
co-chair
if
you
would
like
just
committee
for
your
attention.
We
are
moving
ahead
with
the
the
heritage
component,
but
the
overall
effort.
The
overall
package
of
report
will
be,
I
believe,
chair
or
co-chair
coming
next
committee.
So
I
just
want
to
prevent
confusion
here
for
community
members
and
the
public.
A
B
A
A
And
item
number
nine
was
a
motion
introduced
well
notions
of
which
notice
has
been
previously
given
from
co-chair
moffett.
This
was
a
technical
amendment
to
a
front-ending
report.
Preliminary
design
at
the
lithuan
road
bank
street
intersection
improvements
in
the
bank
street,
widening
south
of
liebtron
road
to
dunn,
skipper,
drive
in
gloucester,
south
nepean.
Any
reason
to
hold
this
one.
A
A
H
A
H
Yeah
thanks,
subject
to
any
changes
from
legal.
There
is
a
the
request
on
this
building
is
to
rezone
it
from
an
r4
zone
to
an
r5n
with
some
site-specific
exceptions.
So
ordinarily,
the
r5n
would
have
a
2.5
meter
setback
on
the
side
yard.
The
applicant
has
sorry.
The
r5n
has
a
2.5
meter
setback
wherever
the
building
wall
is
over.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
we're
going
to
proceed
as
follows:
we'll
begin
with
a
presentation
from
jeff
nadeau,
the
planner
on
this
file
and
then
we'll
go
to
a
presentation
from
the
applicant
and
then
we'll
go
to
our
public
delegations,
followed
by
questions
for
the
applicant
and
questions
for
staff.
So
we'll
begin
with
jeff
nadeau.
K
K
K
L
K
K
K
Here
we
have
a
render
just
depicting
the
scale
of
the
proposed
building
relative
to
existing
context,
so
at
left
we
have
the
lower
eyes
residential
uses,
their
characteristic
of
the
the
areas
south
of
here
and,
of
course,
on
the
on
the
right.
We
have
the
the
massing
of
the
high-rise
17-story
building.
K
So
the
proposal
is,
of
course,
taller
than
the
typical
form
in
the
general
urban
area,
but
the
building
is
one
means
of
tapering
mid-rise
height
into
the
neighborhood
at
a
location
and
in
a
way
that
would
be
supported
by
the
official
plan.
Could
we
move
on
to
the
next
slide?
Please
some
of
the
ways
in
which
we
find
that
this
proposal
is
supportable
have
to
do
with
design
efforts.
K
K
A
little
more
in
terms
of
the
site
layout
here
and
and
how
compatibility
has
been
attempted
to
be
achieved
in
the
video
staff.
So
if
we
look
on
the
left
here,
that's
our
site
plan.
You
can
see
that
the
vehicle
access
and
parking
has
been
confined
to
the
rear
of
the
site
off
the
laneway
there.
This
is
to
minimize
impact
on
streamscape
on
the
right.
Our
landscape
plan
gives
some
idea
of
the
tree.
Planting
that's
proposed,
so
those
are
a
row
of
honey
locusts
in
the
rear
yard.
A
M
A
Okay,
well,
why
don't
we
do
this
kelly?
If
you
can
check
and
perhaps
if
taylor
or
murray
you
could
email
those
to
kelly
again
and
just
to
keep
things
going?
Let's
move
to
our
delegations.
We
have
three
delegations
registered
today,
so
we'll
go
to
our
delegations
and
then
come
back
to
nova
tech.
After
the
delegations
we
have
cheryl
parrott,
we
have
linda
hode
and
we
have
alan
cliff.
A
E
Hintonburg
was
one
of
four
that
he
named.
This
has
created
very
significant
pressure
on
those
neighborhoods,
which
is
just
not
sustainable.
The
r4
neighborhoods
have
done
their
share
and
mr
wise
said
he
could
be
quoted
on
this.
They
won't
be
rolling
back
permissions,
but
won't
be
asking
for
the
r4
neighborhoods
to
take
a
dramatic
increase
in
density
from
where
they
are
now.
E
Pressure
on
these
neighborhoods
needs
to
be
relieved.
He
said
mr
millerman
stated
that
the
r4
zoning
provides
all
the
density
permissions
needed
and
they
would
not
be
looking
at
further
up
zoning
in
these
areas,
which
is
what's
happening
here.
So
one
part
of
the
planning
department
says
hittenberg's
done
its
part.
The
level
of
intensification
here
is
not
sustainable
and
the
new
r4
zoning
provides
all
the
permission
needed
to
achieve
the
target
density.
E
E
Hintonburg
has
already
achieved
the
density
that
you
targeted
for
by
2046.
we're
already
at
81
units
per
hectare,
so
we're
25
years
ahead
of
your
target
at
the
2021
census.
Tiny
hintenberg
had
4971
units
next
slide,
you've
already
approved,
or
about
to
approve
another
3
800
units,
just
within
tiny
hintenberg,
which
is
1.2
square
kilometers
next
slide,
so
that
takes
us
to
143
units
per
hectare.
E
E
This
rezoning
is
not
needed.
This
is
not
a
unique
site.
The
very
adequate
r4
zoning
already
provides
for
the
density
you're
targeting
and
we've
already
exceeded
it.
Trust
has
been
broken
with
neighborhoods.
We
worked
with
the
cdp,
infills
r4
and
now
the
op,
and
then
each
development
comes
to
planning
as
a
one-off,
continuing
the
tradition
of
spot
zoning
over
top
of
brand
new
zoning
shows
a
waste
of
community
time
as
well
as
staff,
time
and
resources.
E
E
H
Yeah,
thank
you,
cheryl,
and
I
also
I'm
taken
aback
by
the
description
of
this
as
a
as
a
big
r4,
that's
exactly
the
kind
of
scope
that
we
were
trying
to
avoid
or
scope
creep
that
we
were
trying
to
avoid
in
creating
new
r4
rules
for
for
the
r4
neighborhoods.
But
can
you
just
remind
us
because
I
think
it's
important?
What
did
the
r4
review
mean
for
hintonburg
in
terms
of
allowed
density.
E
So
it
allows
on
this
lot.
It
would
allow
24
units
so
on
a
lot
each
of
those
small
lots.
They
could
build
up
to
eight
units,
which
is
plenty
of
density.
That
really
covers
most
a
lot
and
provides
the
density
well
over
the
density,
actually
that
the
city
is
looking
for.
So
we've
already
met
those
guidelines.
E
So
that
it
increased
the
density
incredibly,
so
now
on
a
lot,
we
can
get
eight
units
any
of
the
lots
in
hindenburg,
which
are
very
small
30
feet
by
90
or
100
feet.
We
can
get
eight
units
in
there,
which
is
much
more
than
we
had
before
and
so
we're
seeing
little
small
places
which
might
be
a
triplex
demolished,
and
we
have
our
first
eight
unit,
one
coming
forward
now,
yeah.
H
So,
essentially,
doubling
I
mean
the
the
low-rise
neighborhoods
in
hintonburg
mechanicsville.
You
know
with
the
the
the
new
rules
that
we
put
in
place
during
the
r4
review
and
that
you
know
the
the
community
was.
The
community
was
understanding
of
not
happy
about,
but
understanding
of
we're
doubling
the
density
of
the
low-rise
neighborhoods
right
across
the
geography
of
hindenburg.
H
There's
an
official
plan
policy
that
mr
nadeau
spoke
to
in
which
we
can
contemplate
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
zone
in
the
low-rise
ground-oriented
neighborhood
zone,
we
can
contemplate
taller
buildings
if
they
front
on
an
arterial
street
and
they're
in
an
area
that
is
already
characterized
by
tall
buildings.
How
do
you?
How
do
you
consider
that
argument
with
respect
to
what
the
care,
what
what
characterizes
this
area?
Do
you
feel
that
this
area
is
characterized
by
tall
buildings.
E
Absolutely
not-
and
this
is
a
total
creep
into
the
residential
area,
which
was
just
in
the
r4
which
is
just
a
year
and
a
half
old
was-
was
to
be
kept
at
three
three
stories
in
this
area.
So
now
we're
getting
six
stories.
So
that's
a
doubling
of
the
height
in
the
residential
area
and
and
bay's
water
is
residential.
Any
place
behind
the
main
street
is
residential.
H
I
I
just
want
to
be
careful
that
the
the
use
of
the
term
residential
here,
obviously
this
building,
is
a
residential
building.
I
I
think
what
we're
really
talking
about
is
you
know
the
mid-rise
residential
forum
versus
the
low-rise
residential
forum,
and
you
know
this
is
an
area
you
know
within
that
block.
It
is
characterized
by
low-rise
ground-oriented
development,
not
mid-rises,
and
then,
if
you
consider
the
area,
you
know
the
the
the
the
rough
geography
in
which
this
stands,
the
neighborhood
it
is.
H
It
is
a
low-rise
ground-oriented,
neighborhood
that
in
the
past
couple
of
years
we
have
allowed.
We
have
put
in
place
new
rules
to
double
the
allowed
density
in
order
to
achieve
official
plan
targets
that
this
neighborhood
has
already
met
in
in
in
there.
So
I
appreciate
the
perspective
cheryl.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
E
E
Why
why
repeat
the
mistakes
I
mean
we've
gone
through
a
lot
of
planning.
As
I
said,
I've
spent
the
last
four
years
going
to
all
these
meetings
and
we
developed
well
even
longer
than
that
because
the
cdp
was
10
years
ago.
So
why
do
we
do
this?
When
we
just
throw
it
all
out?
We
had
a
plan
for
for
wellington
street.
E
A
N
N
N
In
the
planner's
report.
He
quotes
the
current
official
plan
policy
and
claims
that
it
conforms
to
this.
This
development
conforms
to
the
op
policy
2.5.1
with
respect
to
compatible
development,
which
is
defined
in
the
official
plan,
as
quote
development
that,
although
it
is
not
necessarily
the
same
as
or
similar
to,
existing
buildings
in
the
vicinity,
enhances
an
established
community
through
good
design
and
innovation
and
coexists
with
existing
development
without
causing
undue
adverse
impact
on
surrounding
properties.
N
And
that's
where
it
fails.
There
is
an
undue
impact
on
the
property
to
the
south,
the
low
rise
which
remains
in
the
low-rise
residential
r4
uv
zone
because
of
the
failure
to
provide
the
required
2.5,
meter,
side
yard,
and
I
think
that
there
this
is
the
fundamental
issue
with
this
particular
application.
We
are
opposed
to
the
height
increase,
but
the
the
fundamental
problem
is
the
impact
on
the
adjoining
property.
N
N
No,
no,
we
had
from
the
very
beginning,
through
the
consultations
we
had
with
the
with
the
applicant.
We
said
that
the
side
yard
has
to
meet
the
it
has
to
meet
bylaw,
or
at
least
it
has
to
be
more
than
what's
provided.
The
impact
on
the
adjoining
property
is
too
great.
One
of
the
answers
was
oh
well,
it
has
the
right
to
you
know
to
be
higher
than
it
already
is.
In
fact,
that
house
is
very
close
to
the
lot
line.
That's
where
it
is.
N
There
is
no
indication
that
anyone
is
planning
to
redevelop
it
and
if
they
redeveloped
it,
you
know
they
could
provide
a
bigger
side
yard.
But
I'm
sorry,
you
can't
just
plunk
something
down
beside
an
existing
building
and
say:
oh
well,
they
can
redevelop
it
sure
they
can,
but
they
may
not
want
to
those
houses
are
some
of
them.
I
I
don't
know,
but
that
particular
one,
but
some
of
the
houses
in
this
neighborhood
are
over
100
years
old.
They
are
generally
well
kept
up
and
they
could
last
another
hundred
years.
H
N
A
N
Oh,
that
meter
can
make
a
great
deal
of
difference.
That's
in
fact
the
subject
of
an
olt
hearing
on
the
committee
of
adjustment
decision
I
referred
to,
they
agreed
with
us,
and
the
applicant
is
appealed.
A
meter
can
make
a
big
difference,
especially
when
you're
dealing
with
you
know
a
high
wall
and
and
as
I
say,
that
property
is
happens
to
be
right
on
the
property
line,
and
that
happens
a
lot
in
our
neighborhood.
N
Those
houses
were
built
long
before
we
had
any
zoning
by
laws
and
every
time
anybody
wants
to
make
a
modification
to
most
of
the
houses
in
hintonburg.
They
have
to
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
because
they
don't
meet
the
current
bylaws.
That's
the
way
they
were
built.
So
no
a
meter
can
make
an
enormous
difference
in
terms
of
light
air.
N
J
B
N
Well,
it
exists
across
the
road
because
the
zoning
bylaws
were
different
or
there
weren't.
Any
azad
64
was
very
first
bylaw
that
the
city
of
ottawa
ever
passed
and
it
lasted
for
a
very
long
time
got
modified
along
the
way
quite
a
bit.
So
as
as
cheryl
barrett
said,
why
would
we
want
to
repeat
the
mistakes
of
the
past?
I
mean
we
have
refined
our
zoning
by
law
in
order
to
create
more
livable
communities
and
that
side
yard
setback
is
part
of
a
livable
community.
N
B
N
N
The
lower
part
at
the
front
was
a
restaurant
originally
then
it
was
a
very
bad
bar
and
now
it's
an
office.
Thank
goodness.
So
it's
a
very
different
type
of
development.
It's
a
main
street
development
in
the
good
old
days
or
bad
old
days.
Depending
on
your
point
of
view,
the
high-rise
apartment
building
was
built
when
bylaws
permitted
such
buildings
to
be
built
all
right.
N
Yes
and
that
again
that
the
bylaws
were
totally
different,
I
don't
know
the
date
of
construction
of
that.
Our
community
association
only
came
on
the
scene
in
1991
and
it
has
had
been
there
for
quite
some
time.
I
guess
I
mean
I
moved
to
ottawa
in
the
70s
early
70s
and
that
building
was
there
then.
So
it's
been
there
a
long
time
and
and
the
bylaws
were
totally
different
and
the
way
people
approached
zoning
and
this
the
area
of
hintonburg
a
lot
of
it,
was
considered
a
loss.
N
I
heard
that
from
people
when
we
did
the
original
neighborhood
plan
in
the
1970s.
Oh
you
know
the
there
should
be.
There
was
14
story-
zoning
in
hintonburg
along
wellington
street
at
that
time.
So
it's
life
has
changed
and
we
can't
just
say:
oh
well,
it's
there
I
mean
it
is
there
can't
do
anything
about
it,
I'm
not
proposing
to
get
rid
of
it,
but
we
should
have
learned
from
what
didn't
work
and
and
move
forward
with
creating
a
livable
communities
preserving
neighborhoods
that
work.
H
Councillor
leeper
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
linda
as
well
about
this.
This
notion
that
the
building
is
permissible
because
it's
on
the
edge
of
the
low-rise
ground-oriented
residential
neighborhood,
the
at
what
point
is
at
what
point
does
the
edge
just
creep
up
to
laurel
creep
down
to
to
gladstone?
H
You
know
we
have
an
edge
defined
in
our
secondary
plan
by
where
the
traditional
main
street
zone
ends,
and
it
doesn't
include
these
properties.
You
know
what
is
what
is
the
potential
that
everything
that
is
you
know
a
couple
hundred
meters
south
of
wellington
street
are
going
to
be
defined
as
the
edge.
If
this
one
moves
through.
N
Well,
yes,
it
makes
you
wonder.
As
I
say
there
is
a
seven
story
building
across
the
street,
so
you
know,
we've
got
six
stories,
seven
stories,
so
another
six
story
or
seven
story
building
won't
do
any
harm.
It's.
It
is
worrisome,
and
I
must
say
that
this
particular
location
is,
I
think,
to
use
the
term
that
cheryl
doesn't
like
is
is
unique
in
the
sense
that
it
is
on
a
street
where
there
are
two
high-rise
or
one
mid-rise,
one
high-rise
building,
but
it's
not
the
only
street.
N
I
don't
think
that
I'd
have
to
you
know,
review.
We
have
quite
a
few
tall
tall
buildings,
high-rise
buildings
that
were
built
in
the
same
era
as
as
the
the
one
at
the
corner.
There
are
similar
conditions.
I
think
where
you
could
start
to
argue.
Oh
well,
yeah.
This
is
this,
so
we
could
just
sort
of
squeeze
in
another
one.
N
It
wouldn't
matter
if
we
went
six
stories
or
seven
stories
because
of
what's
already
there
the
reason
we
do
work
on
these
plans
and
and
as
cheryl
said,
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
community
design
plans
working
with
staff
on
zoning.
Bylaw
reviews
is
because
we
care
about
what
happens
in
the
community
and
we
do
want
to
see
the
community
be
developed.
We
have
not,
as
I
think
many
of
you
know,
hintonburg
does
not
generally
oppose
intensification.
N
We
work
with
developers.
We
do
try
to
come
up
with
plans
that
that
work
for
the
community
stretch
the
bylaw
a
little
bit
or
meet
the
bylaw,
if
at
all
possible,
but
why
would
we
keep
on
working
on
these
things?
I
personally
have
refused
to
work
on
the
official
plan.
I
have
no
idea
what
the
new
official
plan
says,
because
I
I
just
couldn't
face
another
official
plan,
given
what
what
I've
lived
through
in
the
past
few
years,
so
yeah
I
I
do.
N
H
It's
it
puts,
there
is
no
precedence
in
planning
law,
and
yet
here
today
we
see
that's
exactly.
What
we
have
in
planning
law
is
is
is
establishing
establishing
new
character
for
the
neighborhood
and
then
defining
what
comes
next.
According
to
the
changes
that
we've
allowed,
it's
it's
bad
planning
linda.
Thank
you.
A
B
B
My
family
and
I
live
quite
close
to
the
proposal
and
I
support
it.
I
think
we
need
to
approach
this
in
the
context
of
the
two
crises
that
we're
facing
one:
a
crisis
of
housing
and
a
lack
of
housing
and
the
fact
that
rents
are
simply
too
high
in
ottawa
and
and
second,
the
climate
crisis
and
our
need
to
reduce
carbon
emissions
dramatically,
and
both
of
those
are
big
problems
that
this
committee
cannot
solve
on
its
own.
B
But
one
thing
that
the
committee
can
do
to
address
both
problems
is
to
approve
new
housing,
add
additional
marginal
units,
especially
in
areas
that
are
served
by
transit
and
that's
this
project.
So
it's
true
that
adding
six
stories
instead
of
a
shorter
building,
will
have
some
negative
impact
on
our
neighborhood.
B
It'll
have
longer
shadows,
it'll
have
a
little
bit
more
traffic
on
the
alley,
but
if
that's
the
price
that
we
have
to
pay
for
more
housing
units
that
are
transit
aligned
that
don't
have
very
many
parking
spaces
that
are
close
to
a
lot
of
existing
amenities
and
a
lot
of
the
best
green
space
in
the
city.
If
that's
the
price
we
have
to
to
pay,
we
should
take
that
deal
every
day
of
the
week.
B
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
a
couple
of
other
points
that
came
up
in
the
discussion.
First,
the
idea
that
adding
more
neighbors
is
inherently
bad
seems
problematic
to
me.
It's
true
that
if
we
have
more
neighbors
we'll
have
fewer
it'll
be
harder
to
find
a
parking
spot,
but
it
means
that
there'll
be
more
people
on
the
street
at
night.
It
means
that
there'll
be
more
customers
for
local
businesses.
B
There
are
a
lot
of
benefits
to
having
more
people
in
an
area
like
hintonburg,
especially
one
that's
served
by
two
lrt
stations
that
are
currently
or
are
likely
to
be
underused
for
some
time
to
come,
and
then
I
guess
the
the
last
point
I
would.
I
would
make
so
it's
true
that
the
the
plan
talks
about
avoiding
undue
adverse
acts
and
building
a
six-story
building
next
to
an
existing
low-rise
development.
B
It's
it's
not
a
great
impact,
but
the
key
word
there
I
think,
is
undo
and
if
you
look
at
the
existing
structure
next
to
it,
how
close
they
are?
Can
we
really
say
that
this
impact
is
not
warranted?
Can
we
really
say
that
that
it's
worth
it
to
give
up
these
additional
units,
these
additional
rental
homes,
for
people
who
could
otherwise
live
somewhere,
much
more
remote
with
fewer
amenities
with
longer
commutes?
B
H
Thank
you
very
much
and
alan.
Thank
you
very
much
for
making
a
number
of
very
legitimate
arguments.
They're
the
they're,
exactly
the
questions
that
this
committee
and
I
are
having
to
deal
with
in
in
the
you
know
the
the
significant
intensification
that
is
taking
place
and
that
is
causing
consternation
among
residents
who
already
live
in
neighborhoods
that
are
being
transformed
by
intensification.
H
One
of
the
things
that
you
raised,
though
I
just
want
to
delve
into
a
little
bit
more.
I
am
very
sensitive
to
arguments
against
more
residents.
I
have
different
conversations
across
different
parts
of
our
ward
and
in
in
some
developments.
I
do
hear
very
explicitly
from
residents
that
they're
concerned
about
adding
new
residents
into
the
neighborhood
too
many
people.
H
H
B
H
No,
it's
it's
well
worth
exploring
because
as
we
go
into,
for
example,
the
comprehensive
zoning
by
law
review
and
the
next
term
of
council,
this
is
going
to
be
something
with
which
every
every
counselor
who's
on
this
committee
or
who
joins
this
committee,
is
gonna
have
to
grapple
with
in
a
real
way.
You
know,
I
I
call
on
my
colleagues
to
reject
arguments
that
are
based
on
too
many
people.
H
I
do
share
cheryl's
concern,
though,
that
the
the
added
intensification
over
and
above
targets
is
likely
to
add
further
stress
on
to
particularly
our
parks
and
green
space.
I
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
confidence
that
the
city
is
going
to
be
able
to
come
up
with
a
parkland
acquisition
strategy
that
will
add
more
green
space
for
us
or
add
new
parks.
They
are
going
to
get
busier
and
I
I'm
concerned
myself.
B
Well,
I
mean
I
was-
I
was
just
out
cycling
this
morning
on
the
parkway
and
there
was
lots
of
space.
You
know
I
mean
I'm
sure
it
gets
busy
on
a
saturday
morning,
but
our
access
to
green
space
in
this
neighborhood
is
better
than
almost
anywhere
else
in
the
city
and
having
a
few
having
even
twice
as
many
more
residents
in
hindenburg
there's
lots
of
space
out
there.
If
you
go
out
on
the
winter
trail
early
in
the
morning,
there's
nobody
there
we're
six
minutes
away
from
the
rideau
center
by
transit.
B
We
have
great
amenities
and
putting
additional
pressure
on
them.
I
mean
the
argument
that
that's
not
sustainable,
I
mean.
Is
it
sustainable
to
say
no,
you
can
live
in
bar
haven
and
drive
in
I'm
sure
the
barhaven
amenities
are
under
pressure
as
well.
So
if
there's
more
people
who
want
to
live
in
ottawa,
I
think
there's
no
better
place
to
put
them
than
hint.
H
It's
no
it's
fair.
I
mean
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
the
the
pressure
on
plant
bath,
which
is
you
know,
jam-packed
the
the
arenas
you
know
we're
forced
to
drive
out
of
our
community
in
order
to
be
able
to
to
to
get
to
an
arena
the
the
splash
pads
you
know
it
is.
It
is
starting
to
look
like
a
lot
of
pressure.
H
I
don't
want
to
use
that
as
an
argument
to
deny
intensification,
but
it's
something
about
which
I
am
concerned
is:
is
that
we're
not
going
to
come
up
with
the
the
recreational
amenities
that
are
being
enjoyed
in
newer,
neighborhoods
alan?
I
I
know
that
you're
speaking
for
at
least
some-
and
I
appreciate
you
bringing
perspective
to
the
table
today.
Thank
you.
A
I
Thank
you
so
good
morning,
members
of
planning
community,
my
name
is
taylor.
West,
I'm
a
planner
with
noah
talk,
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
mary
chow.
Next
slide.
Please,
before
we
dive
into
the
proposal
like
to
bring
your
attention
to
the
council,
proof
growth
management
strategy
that
has
been
implemented
into
the
new
official
plan.
I
It's
expected
that
the
city
of
auto
will
grow
by
402
000
people
by
2046
and
approximately
92
100
new
residential
units
will
be
required
within
the
built-up
area
by
2046
to
achieve
this
population
growth.
So
to
help
the
city
of
ottawa
achieve
this
balanced
growth
strategy,
intensification
of
existing
established
neighborhoods
is
required
next
slide.
Please.
I
To
provide
a
little
more
context,
the
subject
property
is
shown
in
the
image
in
front
of
you.
It's
located
directly
south
the
17-story
high-rise
apartment
dwelling
across
the
street.
From
the
subject,
property
is
the
seven-story
mid-rise
building
there
are
planned
13,
28
and
30
story
buildings
in
proximity
to
subject
property
off
of
off
of
somerset
street
west.
It's
our
opinion
that
proposed
development
is
located
in
an
area
characterized
by
existing
and
planned
tall
buildings.
I
Next
slide,
please,
the
slide
in
front
of
you
shows
the
proximity
of
the
subject:
property
to
light
rail
transit.
It's
approximately
390
meters,
away
from
the
bayview
light
rail
transit
station.
It's
approximately
six
to
seven
minute
walk.
Similarly,
the
subject
property
is
located.
Approximately
470
meters
from
the
planned
corso
italia,
light
rail
transit
station,
approximately
an
eight
to
nine
minute
walk.
I
It's
our
opinion.
The
subject
property
is
located
in
an
area
with
convenient
access
to
public
transit.
Next
slide,
please
the
image
in
front
of
you
highlights
the
various
amenities
in
close
proximity
to
subject
property,
which
is
about
a
one
minute
walk
from
somerset
street
west.
There
are
various
restaurants,
commercial
stores,
personal
service,
uses,
bus
stops
and
a
whole
bunch
of
other
amenities
in
close
proximity
to
subject
property
along
somerset
street
west
next
slide.
Please,
the
image
in
front
of
you
shows
the
site
plan.
I
Bayes
water
is
located
at
the
top
of
your
screen,
and
a
public
lane
is
located
on
your
screen.
Proposed
development
is
a
six-story
mid-rise
apartment
dwelling
which,
as
we
know,
steps
down
four
stories
on
the
south
side.
Pedestrian
access
to
the
site
is
the
front
of
the
building.
Vehicular
access
to
the
site
is
a
public
lane.
It's
from
the
public
land
at
the
rear
of
the
building.
There
are
seven
parking
spaces
upgrade
and
one
level
underground
parking,
providing
11
parking
spaces.
I
A
total
of
40
residential
units
propose
our
understanding.
Is
these
red?
These
units
will
be
rental
units
and
will
contribute
supply
of
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
Next
slide,
please
slide
in
front
of.
You
shows
the
site
specific
zoning
provisions
sought
for
this
proposal.
The
provisions
at
the
top
of
your
screen
are
those
that
we
put
forward
and
the
provisions
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
are
those
that
municipal
staff
have
requested
to
be
imposed
on
site-specific
zoning.
I
The
proposed
development
has
been
designed
to
be
consistent
with
some
of
the
design
provisions
of
the
r4up
zone.
As
mr
nadeau
previously
stated,
the
intent
of
the
municipally
initiated
zoning
provision
is
to
treat
the
proposed
development
as
extension
to
the
r4
zone.
The
intent
of
these
provisions
is
to
ensure
the
design
of
the
building
respects
the
arcore
zoning
provisions
with
respect
to
landscaping,
windows
articulation
and
the
provision
provision
of
larger
units.
I
I
Next
slide,
please,
the
rendering
in
front
of
you
highlights
the
context
that
proposed
development,
it
showcases
the
subject:
property
of
relation
to
the
17-story
highers
apartment
dwelling
to
the
north
and
the
low-rise
detached
dwelling
to
the
south.
This
slide
showcases
the
transition
between
the
existing
high-rise
building
to
the
proposed
mid-rise
building
to
the
existing
low-rise
built
form
proposed
development
gently
stops
the
height
down
base
water
to
a
low
rise
built
form
that
matches
the
lower
eyes
that
form
further
to
the
south
along
base
water.
I
I
Sorry
next
slide,
please
thank
you.
The
slide
in
front
of
you
shows
a
rendering
of
the
subject
property
from
bayeswater
the
front
yard.
The
proposed
development
is
comprised
of
64
soft
landscaping,
which
is
far
greater
than
the
40
requirement
of
the
r4
zone.
The
proposed
development
helps
the
city
of
ottawa,
achieve
its
goals
for
locating
growth.
Proposed
development
is
located
an
area
that
is
well
serviced
by
public
transit
and
amenities.
Proposed
development
prides
provides
an
appropriate
transition
in
building
height
proposed
development
has
been
designed
to
respect
the
intent
of
the
r4
zoning
pilot
provisions.
I
It's
our
opinion
that
the
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
the
provincial
policy
statement,
as
it
supports
an
appropriate
mix
of
residential
uses
to
meet
the
long-term
needs
of
residents
in
the
neighborhood.
It's
our
opinion.
The
proposed
development
conforms
to
the
old
official
plan
by
contributing
to
the
range
of
housing
types
in
the
neighborhood
within
the
general
urban
area
and
providing
an
appropriate
built
form
in
an
area
that
is
characterized
by
tall
buildings.
I
It's
our
opinion
that
the
proposed
development
conforms
to
the
intent
of
the
r4ub
zone
while
rezoning
to
permit
mid-rise
apartment
dwelling,
and
it's
our
opinion
that
proposed
development
is
appropriate,
considered
desirable,
represents
good
land-use
planning.
I
thank
you
for
everyone's
time.
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
further
questions.
Thank
you.
H
Thanks
so
I'll
I'll
just
leave
it
at
the
one
question
which
is
with
respect
to
that
side:
yard
setback.
The
community
has
made
it
known
for
quite
some
time
that
they
would
like
to
see
the
side
yard
setback
conform
to
the
the
underlying
zoning
for
which
you're
asking
the
r5n,
which
is
a
2.5
meter
setback.
Why
wasn't
that
change
made
early
on?
My
understanding?
H
M
M
M
So
what
we're
asking
for
in
terms
of
what's
permitted
as
of
right
is
the
exact
same
interior
side,
yard
setback.
That's
permitted
today
we're
just
asking
for
a
little
bit
of
additional
height.
So
we
can
finish
off
that
fourth
story,
so
you
then
have
that
tradition
transition
going
from
north
to
south
of
seventeen
six
four
and
three
and
a
half
with
this
building,
designed
at
four
stories
on
the
south
side:
you're
not
going
to
see
an
application
down
the
road
saying:
oh
my
god,
they
got
six
so
give
us
another.
Give
us
six
as
well.
M
M
M
Now
the
applications
and
the
recommendations
that
were
are
before
you,
as
I
say,
were
simply
to
carry
forward
the
existing
1.5
meter
interior
side
yard
setback,
the
site
plan
that
we've
been
working
through
with
the
city
and
have
had
some
discussions.
Obviously,
with
the
hintonburg
community
association,
actually
provides
more
than
a
1.5
meter
interior
side
yard
setback
on
the
south.
H
I
appreciate
thank
you,
murray.
I
appreciate
the
the
folsom
the
fulsome
answer.
I'm
gonna
persist
in
asking
counselors
to
insist
on
that.
2.5
meter
setback.
It's
there
for
a
reason
when
the
the
building
is
over
a
certain
height
or
the
wall
is
over
a
certain
height.
You
know
the
the
point
two
I
I
just
don't
see
how
that's
gonna
be
meaningful,
whereas
you
know
the
the
full
meter
I
see
is
more
important.
P
P
Okay:
okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
then
just
on
the
we've
heard
a
couple
times
this
morning
around
affordable
housing-
and
you
know
the
affordability
of
rental
building
more
rental
is
a
good
thing.
The
economics
have
changed
significantly
where
there
was
very
little
purpose-built
rental
being
built
previously.
Now
a
ton
of
it
is
being
built
and
that's
changed
in
the
last
10
years.
P
But
on
this,
the
affordability
is
always
a
question
for
me,
because
we
often
put
up
rental
and
say
I'm
going
to
get
more
affordability
from
this,
but
usually
those
rental
units
are
quite
expensive.
So
what
are
we
looking
at
in
terms
of
rent
here
for
the
units
that
we're
we're,
saying
we're
going
to
be
putting
up.
M
Through
the
chair
counselor,
I
am
not
in
a
position
to
confirm
rental
rates,
but
our
client
is
intending
to
take
advantage
of
the
program
available
through
cmhc
in
terms
of
funding
for
this
project,
which
requires
a
certain
number
of
the
units
to
be
market
rent
units
and
so
that
a
percentage
of
the
units
will
be
small.
A
affordable
in
terms
of
the
cmhc
programming.
P
Okay,
the
is
that
the
rental
construction
financing-
yes
piece:
okay,
okay,
I
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
mean
that
tool
is
always
difficult,
doesn't
really
end
up
getting
us
the
affordable
housing.
We
truly
need
in
the
city,
but
it
is,
it
is
available.
It
is
a
federal
initiative.
I
had
worked
on
it
previously
in
my
old
life
and
it's
needed
to
be
a
lot
better.
That
time
we
did
mention
that
to
them
when
they
were
putting
this
together.
P
But
I
I
guess
the
concern
is,
you
know
we
talk
about
it
being
close
to
transit
and
we
talk
about
it
being
in
a
perfect
area
and
a
step
down.
But
then
the
units
aren't
actually
affordable
and
that's
that's
really
what
we're
getting
at.
You
have
no
obligation
to
that,
but
it's
more
of
a
message
for
city
staff.
P
We
need
to
start
doing
this
and
making
sure
that
we've
got
policies
in
place
that
see
affordable
units
truly
affordable
units
come
in
because
just
building
more
rental
or
putting
up
and
displacing
other
units
that
we've
got
in
the
city
doesn't
usually
add
more
affordability
to
the
city
and
so
just
thought.
I
would
comment
on
that
but
appreciate
the
the
dialogue
here
and
thank
you.
C
Thank
you
very
much.
This
is,
I
find
I'm
really
conflicted
on
this
particular
application.
I
I
think
I
always
find
the
photos
helpful
and
this
one
sort
of
said
to
me.
This
street
is
just
slowly
being
taken
over
really
and-
and
I
understand
why
I
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
as
a
city,
and
I
understand
all
the
points
that
have
been
made.
I
just
think
this
is
almost
whatever
the
saying
is
death
by
a
thousand
lashes.
C
M
Counselor,
if
I
may,
you
cut
off
right
at
the
end,
but
the
long-term
vision
is
for
this.
Neighborhood
is
established
by
the
official
plan
and
is
established
by
the
r4ub
zone.
That's
in
place
right
now,
so
the
property
immediately
to
the
south
is
planned
and
zoned
to
allow
for
redevelopment
as
a
low
rise,
eight
unit
three
and
a
half
story
apartment
building.
That's
the
vision
of
this
street.
C
Yeah,
so
I
mean
so
what
counselor
leaper
has
to
contend
with
always
is
that
the
zoning
changes
like
the
original
vision
for
that
street
was
a
neighborhood.
Now
we
have
transit
close
by
so
now
we're
building
bigger
buildings.
I
realize
this
isn't
big
you're,
not
asking
for
much
three
and
a
half
to
four.
I
understand
that.
I
just
think
I
feel,
like
you
know
this.
This
neighborhood
now
is
so
mixed.
You
know
a
house
beside
a
building
beside
a
taller
building.
C
You
know
it
almost
would
be
better
if
there
were
no
houses
there,
they
were
all
17
story,
buildings
close
to
transit.
Think
about
what
we
design
when
we're
designing.
You
know
canada,
town
center
area
there
that
they're
all
the
same
because
they're
close
to
transit,
but
this
is
just
sort
of
seems
like
a
hodgepodge.
C
C
However,
I
don't
know
that
the
change
from
1.5
to
2.5
is
is
a
solution.
It's
almost
like
you
know
one
small
thing
that
makes
it
less
bad,
but
then
it
makes
for
smaller
units
and
fewer
units.
I
don't
know
I'm
really
conflicted
on
this,
because
I
don't
think
this
is
overall
great
planning
for
this
street,
but
I
understand
the
arguments
that
we
want
to
have
more
housing.
We
want
to
have
affordable
units,
one
have
it
close
to
transit.
I
get
all
that.
I
just
think
this
generally.
I
I
A
Okay,
thank
you,
murray.
I
want
to
ask
what
the
implications
are,
so
the
the
setback
on
both
the
north
and
south
side
right
now
under
the
zoning
is
1.5
meters,
councilor,
leeper
and
the
community
are
looking
for
2.5
meters.
That's
a
difference
of
one
meter.
You've
already
said
you,
you
can
go
to
1.7
so
now
we're
down
to
80
centimeters.
A
Is
there
a
possibility
on
the
north
side
of
reducing
the
setback,
essentially
shifting
the
building
over
by
80
centimeters?
I
understand
the
concern
about
about
a
major
redesign
of
the
building
would
eliminate
eight
apartments.
According
to
you,
could
it
be
as
simple
as
a
bit
of
a
shift
over
because
it
seems
to
me
there's
not
a
big
of
a
of
an
issue
of
space
on
the
north
side,
as
there
is
on
the
south
side.
So
could
we
just
move
the
whole
building
80
centimeters
to
the
north.
M
An
excellent
question,
chair
gower
and
it's
something
I
actually
asked
myself
yesterday
or
the
day
before,
as
I
was
contemplating
the
counselor
leaper's
request
the
answer
that,
unfortunately,
is
that
we
need
room
on
both
sides
of
the
building
to
carry
surface
drainage
from
the
back
of
the
site
to
the
front
of
the
site,
and
so,
if
we,
if
we
shift
the
building,
we
can
no
longer
carry
drainage
along
the
north
side
of
the
building.
So
I
wish
the
answer
was
yes,
but
I'm
sorry,
it's
it's!
No!.
A
Explain
to
me,
though,
because
one
meter
is
not
that
much
one
meter
is
a
the
width
of
a
refrigerator,
the
width
of
a
door
frame,
the
size
of
a
guitar
that
you
know
the
body
and
the
neck.
It
doesn't
sound
like
a
lot.
Could
you
not
just?
No?
It's
not
even
a
meter.
Now
it's
80
centimeters.
What
are
the
architectural
or
structural
constraints
that
would
prevent
you
from
distributing
that
80
centimeters
across
all
the
units.
I
want
to
really
question
you
on.
Does
it
really
mean
we
just
lose
eight
units
in
this
building.
M
Sorry,
I
didn't
say
you
lose
eight
units.
I
said
you'd
lose
eight
of
the
larger
units
they
would
end
up.
My
expectation
is
we'd
end
up
with
smaller
units,
which,
isn't,
I
don't
think,
is
desirable.
I
think
council
has
clearly
made
a
statement
both
in
the
r4u
zoning,
but
also
in
the
new
official
plan
that
they
want
to
encourage
larger
units,
so
you're
going
to
lose
larger
units,
and-
and
that's
because
you
know
your
the
the
the
units
are
designed
with
fairly
minimal
size
bedrooms.
You
know
the
dead
bedrooms
are
10
feet
square.
M
A
M
P
M
A
Okay,
are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant
all
right?
Thank
you,
murray,
and
thank
you
taylor.
What
we're
going
to
do
before
we
go
to
questions
for
staff?
Is
we
do
have
the
motion
from
council
leaper
ready
to
put
on
the
screen
as
a
formal
motion,
so
we'll
put
that
up
and
counselor
leaper
get
you
to
read
it
into
the
record.
H
Thanks,
you
know
what
I
will
read
the
full
motion
here,
whereas
the
recommended
zoning
includes
a
site-specific
exception
to
the
r5n
zoning
to
allow
a
1.5
meter,
side,
yard
setback
and
whereas
the
zoning
bylaw
for
the
r5
end
zone
requires
that
for
any
portion
of
a
building
located
within
21
meters
of
a
front
lot
line,
the
minimum
required
side.
Yard
setback
is
2.5
meters,
where
the
building
wall
is
greater
than
11
meters
in
height
and
whereas
the
building
wall
height
is
12.5
meters
and
whereas
the
staff
recommendation
rationalizes
the
reduced
setback
as
appropriate.
H
Since
the
south
side
of
the
building
of
the
proposed
development
is
quote,
unquote
effectively,
four
stories
in
height
and
whereas
the
zoning
bylaw
is
clear
that
it
is
not
the
number
of
stories
but
the
height
in
meters.
That
creates
the
requirement
for
a
greater
step
back
and
whereas
the
building,
if
approved,
would
abut
an
r4
zone
and
the
effect
of
the
proving
the
recommended
step
back
setback
would
be
to
move
a
mid-rise
multi-residential
building
closer
to
neighborhood
neighboring
ground-oriented
low-rise
residential
buildings
than
what
is
currently
permitted
in
the
zoning.
Bylaw.
H
Therefore,
be
it
resolved
that,
with
respect
to
the
report,
planning
committee
amends
section
2b2
of
document
2
by
deleting
the
distance
of
1.5
meters
and
replacing
with
1.5
meters
on
the
north
side
and
2.5
meters
on
the
south
side
and
therefore
be
it
for
the
result
that
there
be
no
further
notice.
Pursuant
to
section
3417
of
the
planning
act.
A
A
G
I'll
start,
mr
chair,
on
the
north
side,
where
the
tall
building
is,
I
think,
and
councilor
moffitt.
I
brought
up
the
idea
of
putting
a
pipe
down
there.
If
I
believe
there's
when
you
do
that
too
you'll
need
about
1.5
meters
if
they
were
to
put
a
pipe
for
maintenance
of
that
pipe
to
get
in
there
and
dig
it
up
and
fix
it
strictly
from
a
planning
perspective.
If
there's
there's
a
right-of-way
there
and
it's
not
a
shared
right-of-way,
certainly
you
could
you
could
move
it.
G
I
mean
that's
a
good
planning
rationale
for
for
moving
the
building
closer
to
the
north,
but
it
could
also
impact
as
well
any
of
the
glazing
they
might
have
along
there
if
you're
less
than
1.2
meters
or
so
1.5.
It's
the
amount
of
glazing
you
can
have
on
there
like
for
windows,
so
other
than
trying
to
create
some
more
space.
On
the
other
side,
the
south
side,
there
could
be
some
impacts.
G
I'll-
just
maybe
I
don't
know
if
jeff
really
want
to
add,
but
one
thing-
and
I
listened
to
murray
about
the
1.5
meters.
I
think
it's
let
me
start
with
with
councillor
curry.
What
is
the
long-term
intent
for
this
street?
Well,
we
have
cumulative
zoning
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
so
the
long-term
intent
is
everything
allowed
within
that
cumulative
zoning,
but
at
the
upper
end,
are
low-rise
apartment
buildings,
so
council's
long-term
intent,
intent
for
this
street
could
be
all
low-rise
apartment
buildings
now
with
respect
to
the
1.5
meters.
G
If
you
look
at
zoning
from
across
the
city,
canada,
to
orleans
to
bar
haven,
a
lot
of
the
zones
have
setbacks
of
1.5
1.2
meters
four
feet
five
feet
and
you
can
have
a
building.
That's
11
meters
high.
So
in
my
opinion,
from
a
planning
perspective,
what
we're
looking
at
is
because
you
can
get
1.5
meters
with
three
story:
11
meter,
high
building.
This
is
12
and
a
half
the
impact
is:
what
is
that
extra
one
and
a
half
meters
do?
That's,
that's
really
what
you
would
have,
because
you
could
have
this
wall.
G
That
was
only
11
meters
right
there.
So
the
impact
is
what
is
that
1.5
meters
and
they
have
stepped
back
the
five
and
six
stories
to
5.3
meters
from
the
property
line,
to
sort
of
hide
that
and
sort
of
reflect
which
you
would
typically
get
for
a
development
on
many
zones,
as
I
mentioned
across
the
city.
So
from
a
planning
perspective,
the
impact
of
that
1.5
meters
and
staff
do
support.
The
1.5
meters
is
is
minimal.
So
in
terms
of
going
to
2.5,
I
would
look
at
it
from
the
perspective.
A
A
G
I
think
that's
that's
the
planning
argument.
Yes,
I
hope
I
have
it
yeah.
I
take
a
look
at
the
rear
yard
too.
It's
quite
a
larger
yard.
It's
got
green
space
and
parking,
so
the
impact
too,
of
this
building
on
properties
further
to
the
south.
It's
a
larger
amenity
area
in
the
back
and
parking
area
in
the
back,
so
the
building
face
along
that
side
is
shortened,
so
the
impact
is
mitigated
that
way
as
well.
A
Why
would
there
be
that
difference
that
11
meter
difference
as
it
is,
and
I
asked
this
because
I
was
recently
out
in
my
neighborhood
with
a
bylaw
officer
and
they
were
measuring
the
driveway
extension
that
was
80
centimeters
too
wide
and
told
to
residents
they
needed
to
take
out
a
row
of
interlock
brick
because
80
centimeters
was
too
much.
So
you
know
we
are
very
strict
on.
We
are
very
strict
on
bylaws
when
it
comes
to
distance
even
down
to
10
centimeters
here
50
centimeters
here.
G
I
I
think
the
way
it's
set
up
in
the
zoning
is
typically
in
zoning
is
a
quote.
The
other
planner
is
a
blend
instrument
and
it's
to
capture.
You
know
more
units,
bigger
buildings,
so
bigger
buildings.
You
know
step
them
back,
but
my
planning
opinion
what
the
applicant
has
done.
Is
he
step
back
the
five
and
the
six
to
help
to
mitigate
that
by
trying
to
capture
on
that
wall,
which
you
would
get
from
other
forms
of
development
in
this
area?
G
It's
just
slightly
taller,
but
why
do
we
have
that
bigger
setback,
because
it's
more
units
and
you're
thinking
a
much
bigger
building?
As
I
pointed
out,
it
doesn't
there's
quite
a
substantial
rear
yard
here,
as
well.
That's
not
covered
by
building
so,
which
makes
it
you
can
argue
from
planning
perspective
is
compatible
too
to
have
1.5
meters
on
that
side,
yard.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair
on
the
affordable
housing
front
to
staff.
If
there
was
an
inclusionary
zoning
policy
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
which
we've
talked
about
for
a
long
time
now,
would
this
site
be
subject
to
it?
Is
it
close
enough
in
proximity
to
to
transit
station
and
the
provincial
rules
that
hold
up
inclusionary
zoning.
G
P
Right,
okay,
so
it
likely
would
qualify
given
the
number
of
units
we're
talking
about.
We
still
don't
have
an
inclusionary
zoning
policy
in
ottawa
and
the
reason
why
I'm
really
looking
for
something
is
that's
not
going
to
solve
all
of
our
problems.
In
fact
it
won't
solve.
It
will
solve
some
problems,
but
not
not
many,
and
there
needs
to
be
negotiation
about
affordable
housing.
Anytime,
a
development
comes
forward.
There
should
be
discussion
about
it
with
that
developer.
P
So
in
this
case,
was
there
a
discussion
with
staff
on
the
developer
side
on
what
they
might
be
doing
for
affordable
housing,
how
we
can
get
more,
affordable
housing
into
a
development
like
this,
we're
talking
about
making
sure
we
have
unit
counts,
but
if
those
unit
counts
aren't
actually
affordable,
then
then
I
don't
care
about
the
1.5
or
the
or
the
or
the
2.5,
because
we're
not
putting
up
affordable
housing.
So
if
the
units
were
affordable
and
we're
then
going
to
lose
them,
then
there's
more
of
a
concern
there.
P
P
K
Q
Q
P
Thank
you
very
much
murray.
I
appreciate
that.
I
guess
just
there
should
be
an
expectation
of
this
committee
that
from
now
on,
even
though
it's
it's
a
you
know,
potentially
goodwill,
because
we
don't
have
policies
in
place
which
we
should
have
in
place
by
now
that
there's
affordable
housing
that
comes
with
almost
every
application
that
comes
to
this
committee,
particularly
if
it
would
would
normally
be
required
under
the
inclusionary
zoning
policies
and
proximity
to
transit
in
our
city.
P
So
just
a
a
note
to
our
to
our
developer
friends,
our
our
friends
and
planning,
we
really
need
to
push
that,
even
though
there's
no
obligation,
because
we
should
be
there
as
a
city
right
now,
we
haven't
gone
that
there
unfortunately,
and
we've
been
taking
our
time
with
it,
but
we
need
to
get
there
and
I
think
there
needs
to
be
more
of
an
expectation
that
anything
that
comes
here
is
more
than
just.
You
know.
P
The
cmhc
financing
as
well,
which
we
know,
is
not
actually
truly
affordable
units
for
those
low
interest
loans
that
that
would
be
provided
by
the
federal
government.
It
needs
to
be
something
that
there's
an
expectation
here.
We
ask
about
it
on
almost
every
single
one,
so
I
hope
planning
staff
and
our
counselors
and
developers
that
come
with
us
start
to
do
that
on
a
regular
basis.
So
thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
councilman
art,
and
we
do
have
a
report
on
inclusionary
zoning
that
will
be
coming
in
june.
So
that's
something
to
look
forward
to.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
staff
marie?
I
see
your
hand
up,
but
we
are
in
questions
for
staff
and
we
have.
We
have
gone
through
our
section
with
the
applicant,
but
thank
you.
I
have
a
question
for
the
mover.
A
H
H
Mitigate
some
of
the
impacts
of
putting
in
a
setback
that
is
ordinarily
required
in
this
subzone
right.
If
this
were
an
actual
r5n
building,
it
would
require
this
setback
and
the
the
the
builder
would
have
to
deal
with
that.
I
don't
want
to
lose
numbers
of
units,
but
the
actual
size
of
the
units.
You
know
this
is
an
extraordinarily
attractive
location.
H
If
this
building
moves
ahead,
there
are
some
sacrifices
that
people
are
making
in
terms
of
the
size
of
units
in
order
to
live
in
walkable
transit,
proximate
of
the
dense
neighborhoods
like
this
one.
So
to
answer
your
question
chair,
I
would
I
would
ask
members
of
the
committee
to
vote
their
conscience
on
this.
Is
it
do
you
necessarily
believe
that
the
number
of
units
would
be
so
reduced
as
a
result
of
a
one
meter
change
in
the
setback?
A
A
I
O
O
J
B
E
L
A
H
I'm
just
wondering
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
pass
that
motion
on
the
fly
here
today
without
you
know,
working
through
the
wording
of
it,
but
my
commitment
to
the
committee
would
be
to
make
sure
that
I'm
prepared
with
emotion
along
those
lines
in
time
for
council,
because
I
don't
want
to
lose
that
opportunity
fair
enough.
That's
good!
Thank
you.
A
O
C
J
B
K
P
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
kelly,
all
right,
we'll
move
on
to
the
second
item
on
the
agenda.
It's
a
zoning
bile
amendment
for
18
louisa
street.
We
had
held
this
at
the
request
of
councillor
mckinney.
Now
we
do
have
a
staff
presentation
ready
to
go
and
we
do
have
the
applicants
here
as
well.
Councilman
kennedy
did
you
have
questions
for
staff
for
a
general
comment
just
before
we
before
we
move
forward?
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
sense
of
of
what
you
wanted
to
share
with
committee.
C
C
C
I
know
you've
read
the
report,
but
you
know
the
the
current
zoning
on
this
on
this
site
permits
a
maximum
height
of
15
meters
and
most
of
the
surrounding
properties
are
also
zoned
are
for
ud,
which
is
about
14
and
a
half
meter
height
and
and
this
application
is
looking
at
a
building.
That's
almost
34
meters,
so
you
know,
while
I
I'm
not
going
to
oppose
the
the
increase
in
height
or
I
don't
necessarily
want
to
oppose
the
increase
in
height.
C
C
You
know,
with
a
softening
of
the
of
the
of
the
built
form,
I
think
the
you
know
the
and
and
to
to
do
that,
and
I've
asked
for
this-
is
you
know,
having
proper
step
backs
after
the
third
story
on
the
north
and
south
side?
That's
where
that's
the
the
the
size
of
the
building
that
you
know
are
facing
a
low
residential,
low-rise
residences
on
louisa
street.
So
right
now
the
step
backs.
I
believe
the
latest
ones
are
0.5
and
maybe
one
but
they're
not
sufficient.
C
It
will
not
soften
the
north
and
south
side.
So
so
you're,
you
know
you're
not
we're
not
giving
the
the
proper
attention
to
to
that
pedestrian
realm
and
to
the
to
the
podium.
So
I
would
like
to
provide
direction
that
to
to
staff
that
they
work
with
the
applicant
before
this
application
rises
to
council.
On
may
25th
to
introduce
a
two
meter
step
back
on
the
north
and
south
facade
at
the
at
the
third
story.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
council
mckinney,
so
council
mckinney
introducing
a
direction.
Let's
do
this.
The
applicants
are
here
so,
let's
give
them
their
five
minutes
to
present
to
committee,
and
then
we
can
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
and
then
ask
questions
to
staff
and
at
that
time
get
staff
to
to
comment
to
see
if
they'll
accept
that
direction.
So
from
the
applicants
we
have
a
number
of
representatives
from
foten
and
from
holmen
architecture
and
from
jennings
development,
not
sure
who,
from
the
applicant
team
is
going
to
lead
us
off
in
the
presentation.
P
J
Hi
brian
good
morning,
co-chair
members
of
planning
committee.
Sorry,
I
didn't
get
the
prompt
very
quickly
there,
so
I'm
glad
it
finally
came
through
sorry
for
my
voice
as
well.
I
have
a
bit
of
a
cold,
but
I'm
going
to
be
brief,
because
I'd
like
to
have
hoban
have
as
much
time,
patrick
from
hoban
architecture
to
have
as
much
time
to
really
help.
You
appreciate
the
the
nuances
of
the
design.
J
So
if
I
can
move
through
these
slides
quickly,
please
to
the
next
one,
so
this
gives
you
an
appreciation
for
the
location
of
the
site.
I
think
most
people
already
understand
it
next
slide.
Please-
and
this
is
some
contextual
photos-
it's
a
very
eclectic
area
of
the
city.
This
particular
site
has
an
existing.
J
What
is
basically
a
former
school
site
on
it,
and
the
plan
is
to
renovate
a
portion
of
it
and
retain
another
portion
which
currently
and
for
some
time
now
have
a
number
of
commercial
community
oriented
uses
in
them.
A
lot
of
medical
and
physio
oriented
type
uses
surrounding
it.
Yes,
for
the
most
part,
it's
a
three
to
four
story
built
context.
J
Please
we're
dealing
with
the
old
if
you
will,
but
still
current
official
plan,
really
in
in
terms
of
the
planning
policies
and
considerations
for
the
site
on
the
left,
you'll
see
schedule
d
and
the
proximity
of
the
site
to
the
corso
italia,
transit
station.
It's
roughly
800
meters
away,
but
it's
a
lot
closer
to
the
two
transit
priority
corridors
that
are
also
shown
on
this
image,
which
basically
run
along
gladstone
and
bronson,
and
I
think
they're,
roughly
100
meters
away
from
from
the
subject
property
and
then
on
the
right.
J
So
we
we
heard
in
the
last
presentation
at
some
point
that
the
general
urban
policies
do
allow
for
greater
heights
than
the
typical
four
stories
to
be
considered.
It
wasn't
quite
represented
properly
and
it
caused
me
to
double
check
to
make
sure
I
wasn't
remembering
it
wrong,
but
it
doesn't
require
you
to
be
in
ontario
main
street.
It
simply
requires
you
to
be
proximate
to
taller
buildings
and
then
there's
an
opportunity
to
exceed
the
four
story.
There
is
another
piece
of
that
same
policy
when
you're
on
an
arterial,
road
and
proximate
to
transit.
J
So
in
my
view,
it's
predominantly
a
nine-story
building
and
it
it
transitions
from
that
13
to
12,
to
9
stepping
down
to
basically
what's
planned,
to
be
retained
on
the
western
side
of
the
site,
which
is
a
three
the
three-story
existing
building
and
the
uses
that
are
within
it.
So,
in
my
view,
it's
really
managing
that
height
transition
on
a
site
where
it's
appropriate
to
do
so.
Some
of
the
building
stats
are
here
laid
out
here.
You
have
139
units
proposed.
J
21
percent
of
those
are
two
bedroom
units
and
those
are
predominantly
on
the
ground
floor.
There's
80
parking,
87
parking
spaces,
80
of
which
are
below
grade
and
that's
just
barely
meeting
the
minimum
requirement
under
the
zoning
bylaw.
Next
slide,
please,
and
so
these
are
the
details
of
the
zoning
amendment.
I
won't
go
into
them
in
any
great
detail,
but
you
can
see
that
we're,
basically
taking
it
from
an
i1
institutional
zone
to
an
r5
zone.
J
G
Currently,
and
you
know
from
from
a
permitted
envelope
standpoint
the
the
sort
of
peachy
box
that
you
see
on
the
screen,
there
would
be
essentially
our
permitted
massing
that
we
would
be
allowed
to
build
as
of
right.
Obviously,
you
wouldn't
necessarily
build
this
particular
form.
So
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
if
we
look
at
a
building,
that's
actually
a
little
bit
more
conducive
to
a
building
design.
We
could
roughly
get
a
yield
of
116
000
square
feet
now.
G
So,
based
on
that,
we
wanted
to
develop
a
strategy
that
took
the
massing
that
was
allowed,
but
relocated
so
that
we
can
retain
these
important
community
services
on
site
without
any
disruption.
So
we
can
build
our
our
proposed
development
and
still
retain
those
those
uses
and
and
allow
them
to
remain
operational.
A
G
Sounds
good
I'll
just
keep
it
quick!
So
really
in
terms
of
mastering
strategy,
we
redeployed
the
mass
to
a
essentially
a
nine
story:
building
with
a
with
a
tenth
story:
amenities
space
next
slide,
please
and
then,
through
some
building
articulation.
We
allow
some
breathing
room
for
the
courtyard
space
next
slide.
G
Please
and
then
just
the
next
few
slides
are
just
demonstrations
of
how
that
building
sort
of
responds
to
the
existing
context
through
the
three-story
masonry
podium
that
we
have
running
along
the
base
next
slide
and
just
a
few
more
illustrations
of
how
that
relates
to
the
existing
building.
Next
slide,
please
again
the
corresponding
masonry
podium
next
slide.
G
A
G
I'll
I'll
speak
to
the
to
the
notion
of
the
setback.
I
mean
architecturally,
it's
something
that
we
can
certainly
look
at,
but
from
my
client's
perspective,
obviously
that
means
less
less
area
and
one
of
the
challenges
is:
how
do
we
sort
of
recuperate
that
area
so
from
from
an
architectural
perspective?
I
think
it's
something
we
can
address,
but
it's
just
making
sure
that
we
can
address
it
in
a
way
that
that
sort
of
works
with
our
clients
objectives.
J
Sorry,
I
just
wanted
to
add
a
little
bit
more
to
that.
I
think
there
has
been
some
discussions
with
counselor
mckinney
and
my
client
over
the
last
week,
or
so,
as
we
learned
that
this
was
you
know
her
kind
of
fundamental
concern,
so
we've
been
trying
to
a
inform
her
of
and
I'll
hope
to
inform
the
committee
of
what
the
the
sort
of
reality
is
on
the
on
those
two
street
interfaces
and
then
bc,
whether
you
know
she
had
remaining
concerns
so
on
the
a
piece.
J
I
know
most
clients
don't
generally
do
that,
but
it's
hard
for
us
to
know
the
implications
of
simply
agreeing
to
that
so
kind
of
last
minute
here
and
so
his
preference
would
be
to
not
have
that
motion
applied.
But
if
there's
a
motion
that
would
say
that
they
would
agree
to
explore
it
he'd
be
more
comfortable
with
that.
A
J
P
Select
program
we're
in
the
same
stage
as
we're
intending
to
go
forward
with
that
program,
but
you
know
just
given
the
stage
of
the
development
we're
we're
in
the
same.
You
know
position
in
that
process
as
a
previous
applicant
that
that
you
know
can't
get
finalized
until
after
zoning,
okay.
Well,
hopefully,
our
june
meeting
advances
some
of
the
policy
around
the
inclusionary
zoning
piece
and
we
get
to
a
better
place
for
that.
Obviously,
there's
a
need
here
as
well
and
I'll
just
say
as
well.
C
C
So
I
think
that
you
know
I
just
to
staff
through
the
process.
Did
you
have
conversations
with
the
applicant
about
that
two
meters
step
back
to
you
know
to
ensure
that
again
you
know
we,
you
know,
I
we
all
want
good
housing.
We
all
want
rental
housing.
We
all
want
density,
but
but
to
accommodate
it
in
a
low-rise
neighborhood.
I
I
It
was
was
mentioned
that
this
is
essentially
what
reads
as
a
mid-rise
building
from
the
street
level.
They
made
efforts
to
include
a
nice
podium
that
interfaces
well
with
the
street
with
ground
floor
units
that
are
accessible
at
the
street.
So
I
think
it
does
interface
really
well
with
with
the
existing
low-rise.
I
A
So
we
we
do
have
a
direction
from
councillor
mckinney.
Essentially
it's
for
staff
to
meet
with
the
applicant
between
now
and
council
on
may
25th.
I
believe
to
take
one
last
stab
at
increasing
that
step
back,
I
believe
I
said
setback
earlier.
I
should
have
said
step
back.
Are
staff
willing
to
accept
that
as
a
direction.
A
Part
of
me
I'm
having
trouble
unmuting
there
as
the
screen
changes.
Okay,
thank
you
to
staff
on
that.
So
on
the
report.
Recommendations
for
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
18
luiza
street
are
the
report
recommendations
carried
dissent,
okay,
descent
from
counselor
leaper
and
then
we'll
see
what's
in
front
of
us
when
this
comes
to
council
in
a
couple
of
weeks.
A
A
S
S
S
S
So
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
is
to
resolve
the
entire
property
to
traditional
main
street
subzone
11,
with
a
specific
exception
and
a
schedule
to
address
the
site.
Specific
conditions
of
development
next
slide,
please,
so
you
can
see
here
the
height
schedule.
So
from
it
you
see,
area
a
that
would
be
16
stories.
S
S
So
the
the
the
proposed
site
plan
essentially
reflects
the
height
schedule.
Next
slide,
please,
okay,
so
the
what
you're
looking
at
here
is
the
you're
looking
towards
the
south
west.
So
you
can
see
the
one
story
podium
that
I
just
pointed
on
the
height
schedule.
You
can
see
the
six
story
component
and
you
can
see
the
16
story
tower.
What's
important
to
notice
is
on
the
on
the
corner
of
parkdale
in
wellington.
S
S
S
S
It
was
also
measured
from
its
rear
property
line,
but
staff
has
asked,
for
the
45
degree
angular
plane
to
circle
around
to
make
sure
if
it
captured
the
the
proposed
tower.
So,
as
you
can
see
about
two
stories,
just
a
small
corner
of
the
the
tower
encroaches,
but
the
windows
for
the
portion
that
encroaches
above
are
not
aligned
with
the
the
adjacent
lowrise
residential
uses.
A
D
D
It
was
proposed
as
an
18-story
building,
as
you
see
on
the
left-hand
side
here
with
a
six-story
podium,
a
tall
ground
floor
that
recreated
the
theater
marquee
through
the
last
year
of
negotiations
and
and
discussions
with
community
and
staff
we've
made,
I
think
some
critical
changes
to
the
design.
As
you
see,
on
the
right
hand,
side.
D
These
included
removing
two
stories
from
the
tower
portion,
so
creating
a
16
story
tower
reinforcing
the
pedestrian
scale
of
the
lower
floors
through
the
recreation
of
the
theater
entrance
shown
here,
but
also
wrapping
that
datum
line
around
both
the
hamilton
and
wellington
street
fringes.
Next
slide,
please,
we
also
stepped
down
and
articulated
the
podium
along
hamilton
to
better
transition
to
the
future
context
along
wellington,
street
west
and
along
hamilton
avenue
north
to
the
lower
eyes
to
the
south.
D
We
also
did
some
articulation
to
the
tower,
based
on
comments
from
udrp
and
staff
to
further
break
up
and
articulate
the
tower
next
slide.
Please
there
are
three:
I
guess
important
things
that
I
want
to
just
talk
about
for
this
property.
The
first
is
context,
so
the
site
has
a
bit
of
a
unique
context
along
the
wellington
street
west
corridor.
It
is
a
full
block
between
parkdale
and
hamilton
along
wellington,
street
west.
D
D
It's
also
located
750
meters,
walking
distance
to
the
tonys
pasture
lrt
station
and
wellington
street
west
is
a
transit
priority
corridor
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site,
so
that
context
provides
important
considerations
when
we're
talking
about
transition
and
how
the
building
would
fit
into
the
community
next
slide.
Please.
D
So
in
terms
of
policy
context,
the
site
is
a
traditional
main
street
along
wellington.
Street
west
official
plan
generally
permits
heights
up
to
nine
stories.
There
is
a
policy
regarding
a
request
to
increase
the
height
and
four
criteria
that
are
to
be
met
through
that
or,
as
part
of
that
request,
we
have
detailed
that
in
our
planning
rationale
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
on
how
we
meet
those
criteria
for
the
secondary
plan
perspective.
The
corridor
is
generally
envisioned
as
a
six-story
corridor,
but.
D
Permission
make
provisions
for
nine
stories
at
the
corners
at
two
key
corners,
the
corner
of
parkdale
and
wellington
and
holland
in
wellington,
to
permit
up
to
nine
stories
where
community
benefits
are
provided
next
slide.
Please,
our
proposed
development
seeks
to
redistribute
the
nine
story
mass
that
would
be
permitted
on
the
site
into
the
proposed
high-rise
and
low-rise
podium
next
slide,
please.
D
Next
slide,
please,
in
terms
of
community
benefits
that
have
been
provided,
the
nerf
concept
on
the
rear
lane
and
widening
that
rear
line
to
be
an
active
transportation.
Mid-Block
connection,
while
also
serving
the
building
away
from
the
street,
is
one
of
those
next
slide.
Please
we've
also
done
a
plaza
at
the
corner
of
parkdale
wellington
and
widened
sidewalk
along
wellington
street,
both
of
which
are
noted
in
the
cdp,
as
community
benefits.
That
would
be
desirable.
D
The
project
also
triggers
section
37
and
makes
contributions
to
the
affordable
housing
fund.
For
the
ward
next
slide,
please,
this
is
just
a
view
of
the
the
woo
nerf
which
I
believe
steve
showed
as
well,
but
this
is
the
rear
of
the
building,
so
I'll
just
jump
to
the
next
line,
and
I
think
the
the
last
point
I
want
to
really
highlight
is
transition.
D
D
A
E
There
thank
you.
The
hca
opposes
the
amendments
to
the
current
official
plan,
the
wellington
street
west
secondary
plan,
the
new
official
plan
and
the
zoning
bylaw
that
this
development
is
requesting.
The
wellington
street
west
secondary
plan,
which
has
been
brought
forward
into
the
new
op
limits,
the
height
on
wellington,
to
mid-rise
height.
This
is
a
high
rise.
E
E
The
urban
design
review
panel
states.
They
remain
concerned
with
the
tower
component.
They
felt
that
there
were
the
two
nine
story:
buildings
on
the
other
two
corners
of
parkdale
and
by
adding
a
16
story.
Building
on
the
corner
would
be
overwhelming
from
a
pedestrian
and
street
view
perspective,
and
we
agree
with
that.
E
A
few
other
concerns
the
bike
parking,
we're
glad
to
see
it's
a
one-to-one
ratio
but
recommend
that
it
should
be
higher
than
this
parking
for
139
vehicles.
This
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
traffic
to
add
to
hamilton
and
tyndall.
Both
small
residential
streets
parkdale,
which
we
usually
call
a
parking
lot
for
a
good
part
of
the
day,
will
be
the
last
choice
for
entrance
and
exit,
so
hamilton
will
see
a
substantial
increase
in
traffic
and
there
has
been
nothing
proposed
to
mitigate
that.
E
E
This
will
come
close
to
doubling
the
number
of
units
in
our
small
community
and,
as
stated
previously,
mr
wise
stated,
the
level
of
intensification
in
communities
such
as
hintonburg
is
not
sustainable
and
we
agree
at
960
units
per
hectare.
That's
well
above
the
new
op
minimum
requirement
of
120
units
per
hectare
for
a
main
street
and
more
than
triple
any
hub
or
protected
major
transit
station
area
requirement.
E
H
Thank
you
very
much
cheryl
and
I
I'm
I'm
gobsmacked
we're
in
this
place
this
morning
talking
about
a
16-story
building
at
the
corner
of
parkdale
in
wellington,
when
we
have
well-established
plans
for
the
neighborhood,
this
isn't
holland,
scott.
You
know
this
isn't
on
a
couple
of
big
arterial
roads,
but
I
guess
cheryl.
The
question
I
would
ask
is
this
is
two
lots
right:
there's
the
rexol
in
the
parking
lot
and
then
there's
the
former
cinema
the
church.
Do
you
agree
with
the
developers?
H
E
No,
this
is
not
a
density
transfer
situation
whatsoever.
That
part
of
wellington
is
six
stories.
There
was
consideration
for
nine
stories
at
the
parkdale
wellington
corner,
but
not
on
the
rest
of
wellington,
not
at
the
hamilton
wellington
corner
at
all.
So
this
is
not
a
density
transfer
situation
as
they
they
they
mentioned
in
the
report.
That
is
untrue.
H
Yeah
it's.
This
is
two
different
lots
and
you
you
they.
You
can't
assume
that
the
cinema
lot,
the
theater
lot-
would
be
nine
stories.
You
know
that
should
be
constrained
to
six
stories.
There's
no
density
here
to
be
transferred
over
to
the
corner.
Nine
story
gateway
is
what's
contemplated
here.
When
did
we
do
our
secondary
plan
for
this
neighborhood
cheryl.
E
So
the
secondary
plan
was
2011,
I
believe,
but
it
has
been
brought
forward
and
updated
and
is
currently
in
the
new
op,
as
is
with
just
a
few
changes
in
in
words
to
make
it
comply.
But
the
components
of
it
have
been
brought
forward
into
the
new
op
and,
as
I
stated,
my
understanding
is
had
the
op
already
passed,
when
the
provincial
government
should
have
that.
This
plan
could
not
be
amended
for
two
years.
H
There's
just
one
more
question
for
you
cheryl
I
I
was
struck
during
the.
I
believe
it
was
mr
gautier's
presentation
that
you
know
they're
seeking
a
tm,
a
traditional
main
street
zoning.
With
a
site-specific
exception.
Can
you
reconcile
a
16-story
building
on
a
a
walkable,
traditional
main
street
as
being
a
traditional
main
street
building.
E
H
Yeah,
that's.
That
was
my
impression
as
well.
As
you
know,
we
passed
an
official
plan
that
said
on
our
traditional
main
streets,
our
real
traditional
main
streets,
not
those
arterials,
but
the
real
traditional
main
streets.
We
have
in
the
city
we're
going
to
maintain
those
at
a
human
scale
of
of
nine
stories.
Anyways.
I
I've
got
a
number
of
points
to
make
around
this
one.
Thank
you.
Cheryl.
A
H
Yeah
thanks,
I
will
just
ask
about
something,
and
you
know
I
I
don't
want
to
hide
the
fact
I
live.
You
know
halfway
down
the
block,
I'm
on
hamilton
and
I'm
I'm
hearing
from
my
neighbors
about
the
the
site
plan
and
traffic
clearly
and
I'm
coming
into
this
morning's
debate.
A
little
bit
upset
after
trying
to
get
through
the
parkdale
wellington
intersection
and
having
it
blocked
again
by
a
vehicle
and
people
can
see
my
tweets
with
the
with
the
video
there's.
H
There's
no
real
way
to
get
out
of
this
development
for
much
of
the
day
except
to
go
down
hamilton
then
got
caught
at
tyndall
then
get
caught
trying
to
get
back
onto
parkdale
in
order
to
get
out
of
the
neighborhood
in
the
site
plan
process.
I
have
been
speaking
to
you
on
behalf
of
my
neighbors
for
months
about
trying
to
mitigate
the
amount
of
traffic
that
is
allowed
down
hamilton
avenue
in
the
site
plan
process.
H
D
Kevin-
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
speak.
To
that
I
mean
yes,
traffic
is
expected
to
to
come
out
onto
hamilton.
There's
no
doubt
about
that,
and
traffic
in
the
area
is
a
challenge.
We're
we're
well
aware
of
that.
We
have
provided
an
outbound
access
to
parkdale,
which
is
obviously
still
not
ideal.
I
understand
that,
but
it
does
remove
the
the
some
of
the
traffic
trying
to
get
out
and
go
south
on
parkdale
from
hamilton
and
tyndall
that
move
but
I'll.
D
G
G
You
know
and
61
trips
in
the
pmp
tower,
so
we're
talking
about
a
car
every
minute
and
a
half
which
I
think
you'll
agree,
is
probably
a
worst
case
scenario.
Anyone
who
stands
outside
of
1040
wellington
and
looks
at
the
traffic
coming
in
out
of
that
garage
would
be
pretty
impressed
by
how
low
that
number
actually
is.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
this:
this
site
has
a
transit
score
of
86
out
of
100,
it
has
a
walk
score
of
91
out
of
100
and
it
has
a
bike
score
of
99
out
of
100.
G
G
I
don't
think
we're
even
going
to
see
those
numbers
granted.
I
completely
understand
the
traffic
in
that
area
is
a
nightmare
and
obviously
through
site
plan.
We'll
do
our
best
to
see
what
we
can
do
to
kind
of
tweak
how
vehicles
enter
and
exit
the
site,
but
like
really
it's
not
this
applicant
applicant's
job
to
solve
the
problem
that
already
exists
in
this
area.
G
H
Okay,
that's
what
I
was
looking
forward
to
hearing
the
the
big
question.
For
me,
I
mean
these
are
two
lots
it.
It
strikes
me
as
inappropriate
to
consider
that
there's
an
as
of
right,
nine
stories
that
you
can
transfer
over
as
a
density
transfer
to
the
corner
lot
from
the
the
the
hamilton
adjacent
lot.
H
G
So
through
you
coach
gower,
in
our
opinion,
we
have
a
corner
lot.
This
is
three
lots.
The
lots
have
been
consolidated.
It
is
now
officially
one
lot
our
understanding
and
our
our
take
on
this
has
always
been
that
we
could
otherwise
be
approved
for
nine
stories
on
this
site.
Just
the
way
the
reichmann
retirement
residence
was
on
the
opposite
corner
granted.
G
That
being
said,
staff
didn't
agree
with
that
approach
and
asked
us
to
to
run
the
distribution
on
the
massing
and
floor
area
on
a
six
to
the
to
the
west,
which
we
were
proposing
anyway,
two
and
nine
in
the
east,
and
even
when
we
did
that
you
know
staff
agreed
that
the
uplift
in
florida
is
negligible.
It's
it's
not
different,
so
whether
we're
doing
nine
across
or
we're
doing,
six
to
nine
the
density.
G
Is
is
pretty
much
the
same,
and
the
fact
is
that
putting
that
density
on
the
corner,
considering
the
the
unique
characteristics
of
this
site
having
no
low-rise
residential
behind,
unlike
pretty
much
every
other
tm
site
in
the
city
there
is,
there
is
no
impact.
The
plan
already
calls
for
a
taller
corner.
All
we've
done
is
carve
out
the
western
side
of
the
site
extensively
to
lower
the
building
and
lower
any
potential
impact.
It
means
transition
on
hamilton
and
shove
it
on
the
corner,
which
is
a
very
busy
corner.
H
The
the
corner
has
been
anticipated
to
be
nine
stories
in
keeping
with
our
traditional
main
streets
and
in
keeping
with
our
new
official
plan
language
around
height
on
traditional
main
streets.
So
obviously
we're
not
going
to
agree
on
that
one,
but
I'll
I'll.
Look
forward
to
hearing
more
from
my
colleagues.
P
You
very
much
chair
the
the
udrp
did
look
at
this
one.
They
it's
a
design
priority
area
and
they
had
specific
comments
similar
to
what
council
leaper
has
been
talking
about.
I
recognize
some
of
those
have
been
adjusted
in
your
application
and
appreciate
that,
but
they
remain
concerned
here
about
the
the
proximity
to
a
walkable
neighborhood
to
public
realm
and
the
the
feel
look
and
feel
of
this
building
and
the
massing
in
height
here,
and
so
I
do.
I
do
want
to
just
touch
on
that.
G
G
G
We've
got
a
full
360
design,
the
complete
replication
of
the
theater
marquee
circa,
the
1950s
kind
of
glory
days,
and
then
the
extensive
articulation
of
that
six
story,
podium
along
along
wellington
street
and
then
one
story
along
hamilton
in
the
rear
lane.
So
I
would
suggest
counselor
that
that
we've
very
much
responded
to
udrp's
comments
and
input
on
this,
both
during
the
informal
and
during
the
formal
review
simon.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
that
you'd
like
to
add
on
that.
A
Yep
yeah,
I
do
thank
you
councilman.
I
just
want
to
echo
what
kevin
said.
We
did
actually
make
a
lot
of
adjustments
according
to
the
comments-
and
I
I
do
want
to
emphasize-
that
the
tower
is
actually
fully
set
back
five
and
a
half
meters
from
the
from
the
property
line
way
back
then
the
then
the
podium
is
sitting
and
the
podium.
The
sixth
story
podium
is
actually
addressing
the.
A
And
the
reason
that
the
building
got
taller
was
because
of
the
ground
floor
we
have.
We
do
have
a
fairly
high
ground
floor
to
address
to
that.
That
is
a
meter
frontage
on
on
the
on
wellington,
so
I
think
all
that
actually
adds
to
the
to
the
feel
of
the
of
the
design
and
also
the
way
it
it
sits
on
this
neighborhood
and
the
way
it
adapts
to
the
different
height,
for
example,.
T
P
You
I
appreciate
you
adding
that
I
mean
I
I
do
see
it's
their
page
55,
what
their
comments
were
and
response
was,
and
it's
it's
very
clear
that
they
still
have
remaining
concerns,
page
55
of
of
the
report.
I
do
appreciate
the
other
context
on
the
45
degree
angular
plane.
I
see
the
second
last
picture
last
picture.
P
Has
the
45
degree
angular
plane
there
is
that
being
met
on
what
we
maybe
I'll
ask
this
to
staff
later
on,
but
in
terms
of
just
the
traditional
45
degree,
angular
plane,
it
doesn't
look
like
we're,
actually
measuring
it
against
all
of
the
the
the
other
buildings
in
the
area.
It's
just
on
one
particular
side
there.
So
I
wasn't
sure
if
that
was
being
met
in
terms
of
high-rise
design,
guidelines
in
this
area.
D
Yeah
I
can,
I
can
speak
to
that
three
chair
guard,
the
it
does
it
does.
It
is
implementing
the
high-rise
guideline.
So
it's
just
in
this
case
again.
The
context
is
unique
in
that
it
doesn't
actually
abut
any
residential
zone
that
the
property
of
the
south
a
is
a
church,
it's
a
low-rise
institutional
use
and
then
along
parkdale.
You
have
that
existing
high-rise
building
at
420
park
dale,
so
there's
no
angular
plane
from
an
adjacent
high-rise.
So
it's
it's
from
that
49
hamilton
lot.
D
P
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
This
does
seem
very
close
there
in
proximity
to
those
other
properties.
With
that
45
degree
picture
that
I
was
looking
at.
I
appreciate
the
response,
though
the
the
traditional
main
streets
used
to
be
a
six-story
limited.
That
was
changed
just
at
the
end
of
last
term
of
council
in
2018.
P
As
a
result
of
a
change
to
there
was
an
opm
engine
and
it
changed
it
to
the
nine.
A
lot
of
people
didn't
realize
that
the
the
official
plan
then
formalized
that
nine
on
our
traditional
main
streets
here,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
remain
concerned
about
the
the
public
planning
that
we're
doing
to
have
some
consistency,
that's
being
overridden
by
what's
what
seems
like
applications
that
come
in
to
change.
P
Our
planning
and
secondary
plans
are
planning
around
official
plans
and,
of
course,
we
just
have
the
new
the
new
official
plan.
That's
just
been
implemented,
so
I
remain
concerned
about
that.
We
need
to
have
a
publicly
planned
city
and
there's
a
reason
why
plans
exist,
and
this
is
just
newly
minted.
My
last
comment
I'll
just
make
a
question.
I
guess
chair
because
I'm
kind
of
going
into
comments
here
is
around
the
affordable
housing,
so
you
did
mention
we're
spending
billions
on
on
light
rail
and
that
it's
important
to
realize
those
benefits.
P
G
Building
there
there
will
be
an
affordable
component
in
that
there
will
be
units
that
are
easily
accessible
by
someone
who,
who
is
earning
or
a
household
that
is
earning
the
annual
median
income.
So
so,
just
to
be
clear,
we
always
do
an
analysis
on
affordability
on
our
projects
on
this
particular
one.
G
We
looked
at
the
annual
median
income
or
ami
for
the
award
we're
in
plus
the
five
words
that
but
kitchissippi
award
and
the
ami
is,
is
around
81
000,
which
would
be,
I
think,
at
30,
24
or
25
000
a
year
that
would
be
allocated
to
rent,
and
our
analysis
at
this
point
shows
that
about
40
of
the
units
in
the
building
would
be
accessible
to
someone
earning
ami
in
this
larger
area.
Granted
as
with
any
market
rate
project,
those
are
going
to.
K
G
As
you
know,
mental
group
has
significant
projects
in
toronto,
both
condominium
and
rental,
and
we're
pursuing
fully
affordable
projects
with
the
city
of
toronto.
The
city
of
toronto
actually
has
dc
credits
on
purpose-built
rental
projects
and
provide
about
five
thousand
dollars
a
door
in
funding
for
affordable
units
and
multi-purpose.
Rentals
ottawa's.
P
P
If
we're
building
in
these
types
of
areas,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
negotiations
include
robust
lower
than
market
actual,
truly
affordable
housing,
and
so
you
know
I'm
concerned
about
that,
and
and
of
course,
the
usurping
of
what
we
just
put
out
in
our
official
plan
for
traditional
main
streets
on
this
one,
but
anyway
a
little
bit
more
comments.
So,
thank
you
sure.
B
A
H
That
vote,
though,
so
I
I'm
going
to
support
chair
hubley's
motion
to
defer
this
and
what
I
hope
the
developer
is
hearing
is
that
you
know
this
planning
committee
intends
to
defend
the
integrity
of
its
traditional
main
street
zone.
I
I
would
look
forward
to
having
some
conversations
on
a
not
just
tweet
basis,
but
a
very,
very
different
basis
of
what
to
do
with
this
property.
H
A
Thanks
counselor
leaper
now
counselor
hubli,
we
wouldn't
need
a
date
for
deferral.
I'm
not
sure
that
two
weeks
to
next
planning
committee
would
be
enough.
So
could
I
ask
the
clerk's
office
on
their
advice
for
a
deferral?
Do
we
need
a
specific
date
on
it?
Can
we
leave
it
open-ended
or
how
should
we?
How
do
we
approach
the
question
of
when
we
reconsider
this.
B
B
Somewhat
unclear
that
leaving
it
open-ended,
it's
probably
appropriate
the
the
one.
If
it
is
a
downside,
the
one
downside
to
that
is
notice
of
it.
Having
coming
back
to
me
would
have
to
be
given
to
the
public,
but
that
is
the.
That
is
the
one
additional
step
that
would
have
to
be
taken
if
it's
not
set
to
a
fixed
statement.
C
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
wasn't
going
to
support
this
as
it
was
anyways.
I
don't
know
what
the
vote
would
end
up
either,
but
this
is
beyond.
I
think
two
councillor
leapers
points
beyond
what
could
be
expected.
I
think
that
would
be
reasonable
and
to
counselor
menard's
comments.
We
we
do
have
rules
for
a
reason
we
do
have
a
plan
for
a
reason.
C
I
would
hope
that
there
would
be
a
message
sent
here
to
come
back
with
something
more
reasonable,
so
I
also
certainly
support
this
deferral,
but
I
don't
know
that
I
would
have
supported
it.
Otherwise,
like
the
motion
I
wouldn't
have
so
if
this
is
the
best
way
to
go
about
this,
then
that's
what
I'll
do?
I
guess.
B
O
B
You
know,
I
think
counselor
curry
is
on
the
same
page
as
me
with
this,
but
to
address
counselor
leaper's
comments,
it's
a
roll
of
the
dice
on
whether
it's
going
to
pass
or
fail.
I
think
that
what
I've
taken
away
from
this
is
you're,
not
that
far
apart
here
that
there
is
hope
that
you
know
you
can
counselor
leeper
can
achieve
what
he's
trying
to
do
here.
While
the
applicant
will
still
have
a
proposal
that
can
get
approved.
B
You
know
sometime
in
the
next
little
while
so
that
they
can
go
ahead
with
it
if
we
reject
it
outright,
they're
back
to
square
one
with
this,
and
I
hate
doing
that
our
staff
are
already
overworked.
I
know
they
put
a
lot
of
good
effort
into
trying
to
make
this
work.
So
in
recognition
of
how
close
it
is,
I
prefer
the
deferral
instead
of
the
vote
and
taking
the
risk
with
that.
So
that
that's
why
I
moved
deferral.
Culture.
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
Council
hubley,
there's
also
the
issue
of
section
37,
which
could
be
a
factor
when
that's
replaced
by
the
the
community
benefits
charge
as
well.
So
I
think,
there's
still
some
urgency
to
determine
this,
but
mr
mark,
could
you
clarify,
I
mean
there's,
there's
significant
contribution
through
section
37
here.
Is
there
any
risk
in
deferring
with
that
part
of
the
agreement.
B
B
H
L
I
H
B
A
I
believe
we
have
two
more
items
that
we
held.
So
the
next
item
is
a
zoning
by-law
amendment
for
700
coronation
avenue.
That's
number
five
on
the
agenda
in
alta
vista
we
have
two
delegations
we'll
we'll
start
with
a
short
presentation
from
planning
staff
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicants
and
then
to
our
delegations.
So
we
have
katie
moorfit
from
our
planning
department.
Welcome,
katie,.
R
R
The
application
before
you
today
is
a
zoning
bio
amendment
to
implement
infill
development
of
a
low-rise
residential
building
at
700
coronation
avenue
a
site
plan
control
application
for
this
development
has
been
circulated
and
reviewed.
Concurrently
with
this
application
by
staff
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
rezoning
request
next
slide.
Please.
R
Approximately
3
400
square
meter,
the
approximately
3
4
100
square
meter
parcel,
is
currently
developed
with
one
three-story
30-unit
residential
apartment
building
on
the
east
half
of
the
lot
the
west
half
of
the
lot
is
currently
occupied
by
a
parking
lot
and
landscaped
area
next
slide.
Please,
the
property
is
surrounded
by
commercial
and
industrial
land
uses
to
the
north
and
northeast
the
ottawa
train
yards
further
northwest
and
low-rise
residential
development
to
the
south
west
and
southeast.
R
R
The
subject
site
is
designated
general
urban
area
in
the
city's
official
plan.
This
designation
provides
opportunities
for
intensification
through
infill
development.
Next
slide,
please,
this
site
is
also
identified
as
neighborhood
within
the
alta
vista
faircrest
heights
riverview
park
secondary
plan
subject
area.
This
plan
sets
out
that
new
developments
be
visually
and
functionally
compatible
with
existing
development
and
speaks
to
retention
or
replacement
of
existing
mature
vegetation.
R
R
This
site
is
to
be
developed
as
a
planned
unit
development
with
the
proposed
internal
driveway,
40,
underground
parking
spaces,
five
at
grade
parking
spaces,
34,
bicycle
parking
spaces
and
outdoor
amenity
areas
serving
residents
of
both
the
new
and
the
existing
building.
The
applicant
has
also
indicated
they
intend
to
seek
cmhc
funding
for
affordable
units
next
slide,
please.
R
These
performance
standards
are
to
consider
the
entire
lot
one
lot
for
zoning
purposes
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
amenity
area
from
456
square
meters
to
406
square
meters,
to
reduce
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback
for
the
existing
building,
from
7.5
meters
to
4
meters,
to
reduce
the
interior
side
yard
setback
from
7.5
meters
to
5
meters
and
to
reduce
the
minimum
required
setback
between
a
residential
use
and
a
private
way
from
1.5
1.8
meters
to
one
meter
next
slide.
Please,
there
are
several
supportive
policies
that
led
to
this
recommendation.
R
First
off
managing
growth
within
the
urban
area.
Although
the
official
plan
has
identified
target
areas
for
intensification,
this
section
speaks
to
supporting
compatible
intensification
within
the
urban
boundary,
including
areas
designated
general
urban
area.
Additionally,
it
notes
that
low
rise
intensification
will
be
the
predominant
form
of
intensification,
intensification
within
the
urban
area.
R
Regarding
urban
design
and
compatibility,
the
proposed
high
quality
building
will
help
frame
the
public
realm
and
help
achieve
compatibility.
The
proposed
articulation
and
change
in
building
materials
will
create
a
well-designed
low-rise
building
that
will
help,
complement
and
enhance
the
character
of
the
area.
R
R
A
T
Up
good
afternoon,
co-chair
in
committee
I'll
be
I'll,
be
directing
the
presentation
so
kelly.
If
you
could
please
thank
you
perfect,
that's
great!
So
yeah,
I'm
a
senior
planner
at
foten
and
I'm
here,
as
you
noted,
with
matthew
mcgilligot
and
the
the
client,
is
doing
his
best
to
be
available
he's
in
the
midst
of
a
conflict.
So
whether
we
hear
from
him
or
not,
is
unclear
but
either
way
we're
prepared
to
speak
to
the
item.
So
I'll
go
I'll
begin.
T
My
presentation,
miss
morphit,
did
a
great
job
laying
out
a
lot
of
the
nature
of
the
application.
So
I
may
skip
over
or
be
brief
in
some
of
these
slides.
So
if
I
could
just
get
the
first
slide,
please
thank
you.
So,
of
course
similar
to
the
description
provided.
Here's
the
lot
identified
just
a
little
more
on
the
surrounding
context.
If
you
look
to
the
north
you'll
see
some
light
industrial
low-rise
buildings
and
then
further
north
not
shown
on
the
map
is
the
train
yards
retail
complex
to
the
south
and
east.
T
You
have
an
established
planned
unit
development,
it's
a
condominium
and
then,
if
you
look
to
the
west
and
further
southwest
you'll,
see
an
established
low-rise
community
consisting
largely
of
single
detached
homes.
Next
slide,
please
so.
Here's
the
proposed
development,
as
noted
earlier
we're
retaining
the
existing
building
on
site.
It's
good
housing
stock,
and
this
is
truly
a
a
clear
example
of
infill,
where
we're
taking
an
existing
parking
lot
and
then
we're
moving
the
parking
underground
and
then
putting
new
housing
and
new
new
building
stock
on
top
we're,
also
adding
some
new
amenity
area.
T
T
T
The
residential
parking
will
be
for
both
buildings,
so
there
will
be
access
from
the
existing
building
into
the
new
building's
parking
garage,
we're
also
introducing
as
part
of
this
proposal,
some
new
enclosed
bicycle
parking.
There
will
be
a
building,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
top
of
the
plan.
It
would
be
the
east
corner,
an
accessory
building
which
will
house
garbage
enclosure
as
well
as
bicycle
parking
on
a
demise
wall.
T
These
are
just
the
elevations,
as
you
can
see
the
the
garage
and
the
bottom
right
corner.
The
south
elevation
is
below
grade
and
subordinate
to
the
building.
If
you
look
at
the
north
elevation
in
the
right
corner,
you'll
see
how
the
building
interfaces
with
the
street.
It's
got
a
door
that
faces
the
street
balconies
a
mix
of
materiality,
and
then
the
east
elevation
would
be
internal
to
the
site
and
then
the
west
elevation
would
be
facing
the
rear
yards
on
boxford
next
slide.
Please.
T
These
are
some
sample
renderings.
Just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
materiality
and
just
to
kind
of
more
clearly
visualize
the
elevations
next
slide.
Please
so
again.
Miss
morpha
did
a
great
job
on
this
summary
of
the
zoning.
So
I
don't
need
to
go
into
too
much
detail
here.
I
just
want
to
kind
of
note,
and
in
fact
I
may
be
best
if
you
just
go
to
the
last
slide.
Please.
T
T
So
what
we're
showing
here
is
five
meters
and
what
the
bylaw
requires
is
for
the
first
two
in
it
for
the
first
18
meters
from
the
street.
It
would
be
two
and
a
half
meters
and
then
the
remainder
would
go
to
seven
and
a
half
meters.
For
a
couple
reasons.
We
we
determined
five
meters
was
appropriate
because
it
gives
a
consistent
building
wall
edge,
it's
more
constructible
and
it
provides
adequate
separation
consistently.
T
T
It
was
the
notion
of
the
owner
who
suggested
this
and
it's
a
three
meter
fence
that
will
go
the
entirety
of
the
interface
between
this
yard.
You'll
also
see
on
the
landscape
plan.
We
are
retaining
as
many
mature
trees
as
we
can
and
where
pot
or,
where
that's
not
possible,
we're
proposing
new
red
maple
trees,
so
you'll
see
with
those
circles
along
the
bottom
edge.
That'll
provide
a
consistent
tree
line
to
the
edge
scott.
A
F
F
And
yes,
we
can
get
some
tree
coverage
in
there
which,
depending
on
how
fast
the
trees
grow
and
what's
already
there
may
eventually
help
the
privacy
implications
of
this
project,
but
that
doesn't
really
do
much
for
us
in
the
winter.
So
really
the
way
I
see
it
is
especially
the
homes
on
this
side
of
boxford
here,
but
also
potentially,
the
homes
in
behind
of
the
lot,
which
you
would
see
up
top
on.
The
image
are
unduly
impacted
by
this
change,
specifically
because
of
the
bylaw
zoning
amendment,
the
zoning
by-law
amendments
that
are
being
sought.
F
F
This
is
the
space
in
which
they're
proposing
to
put
another
building
now
mind
you.
There
needs
to
be
room
for
a
laneway
in
between
here.
This
really
means
that
the
building
will
come
extremely
close
to
the
edge
of
the
property
in
the
property
line
and
will
be
taller
than
this
building,
as
well
as
include
a
utility
cabinet
up
top
for
air
conditioning
and
other
mechanical
appliances.
F
I've
heard
explanations
from
the
developer
about
how
the
height
is
required
to
make
the
underground
parking
economically
viable,
how
the
setbacks
are
required
to
make
the
units
large
enough
to
be
feasible.
But
to
me
it
seems
like
if
we
can't
cut
the
size.
If
we
can't
respect
the
zoning
bylaws
in
terms
of
setbacks,
then
maybe
this
is
a
case
of
simply
just
having
not
quite
enough
room
to
do
something
additional
with
the
property.
F
This
will
be
entirely
eliminated
with
the
angles
that
I'm
currently
measuring,
although
I
don't
have
a
shading
study,
light,
will
no
longer
penetrate
more
than
a
foot
or
two
into
my
home
from
the
eastward
facing
side.
Also,
the
entire
amount
of
blue
sky
portion
that
used
to
be
visible
from
my
home
is
now
going
to
be
a
building.
Facade.
I'm
going
to
be
caged
in
essentially
is
my
feeling.
If
we
can,
please
move
to
the
next
slide.
F
So
this
is
another
view
just
beyond
that
door
that
you
saw
here
and
yet
again
pretty
much.
Every
bit
of
blue
sky
in
this
photo
is
going
to
be
filled
in
with
building
with
balconies
with
windows
and
with
people
who
are
closer
than
bylaw
states
should
be
from
our
backyard
and
our
property
line,
which
is
not
immensely
deep
as
it
as
it
is
so.
Essentially,
the
privacy
issue
is
a
big
one.
The
shading
and
crowding
issue
is
a
big
one
for
me.
I
don't
think
it's
in
keeping
with
the
characteristics
of
the
neighborhood.
F
If
we
look
at
even
the
other
larger
multi-unit
dwellings,
if
we
could
please
advance
one
slide,
we
can
see
here
some
examples
of
what
we
find
further
on
coronation,
nothing
above
three
stories.
In
fact,
this
is
two
and
a
half
stories.
The
current
building
on
700
coronation
is
three
and
a
half
and
is
the
largest
on
the
street
and
we're
proposing
putting
something
that
is
an
additional
story
above
that
and
is
encroaching
on
the
minimum
setbacks
dictated.
A
A
B
Thank
you
good
afternoon.
Let
me
just
start
with
the
fact
that
we're
not
wholeheartedly
opposed
that
this
location
or
issue
is
with
the
request
for
an
amendment
to
the
zoning
bylaw,
and
let
me
outline
some
of
the
reasons
why
we're
confused
with
some
of
the
conclusions
from
the
report
prepared
by
city
staff
regarding
this
application.
Next
slide,
please.
B
This
will
at
least
mitigate
or
alleviate
some
of
the
impacts
on
all
of
these
points,
but
today
I'd
just
like
to
focus
on
the
trees.
Next
slide,
please,
the
side,
yard
setback
involves
the
existing
thirteen
mature
trees
located
along
the
west
side,
property
line
shown
with
numbered
circles
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
An
updated
tree
conservation
report
outlines
the
trees
slated
for
removal
and
those
slated
for
preservation.
Removal
are
those
circles
with
the
diagonal
lines
next
slide.
Please.
B
This
updated
report
provides
the
minimum
requirements
to
preserve
existing
trees,
which
are
the
minimum
requirements
set
out
in
the
city
of
ottawa
tree
protection
bylaw,
but
essentially
they
require
that
the
tree's
critical
root
zone
remains
undisturbed.
For
instance,
point
one
erect
defense
at
the
critical
root
zone
of
the
trees
or
point
two
don't
place
any
material
or
equipment
within
the
crz
of
the
tree
or
0.6
they'll
damage
the
root
system,
the
trunks
or
the
branches
of
any
tree.
So
let's
consider
the
critical
reasons
of
the
treatment
question
next
slide.
Please.
B
And
I
should
add
that
the
developer's
also
intent
on
constructing
a
retaining
wall
between
the
proposed
building
and
the
west
side,
property
line,
to
which
I
have
added
a
solid
blue
line.
Now
take
the
worst
case
tree
number
three,
as
you
can
see,
this
tree's
critical
root
zone
extends
beyond
the
proposed.
Retaining
wall
is
actually
within
the
proposed
building
itself.
B
You
can
see
that
the
retention
wall
cuts
major
section
of
the
trees
root
systems,
so
since
it
falls
within
all
of
their
critical
root
zones,
now
recall
that
point
one
of
the
tree
protection
measures
involved
erecting
a
fence
at
the
critical
root
cellar.
So,
let's
add
protective
fences
to
our
trees,
critical
root
zones
next
slide.
Please.
B
Now,
if
you
can't
even
lay
a
tool
in
the
tree's
critical
root
zone,
how
can
you
erect
a
retaining
wall,
install
cement,
slabs
and
construct
a
four-story
building
with
underground
parking
next
slide?
Please
let
me
turn
to
the
report
prepared
by
city
staff,
which
concluded
that
the
design
ensures
the
retention
of
existing
mature
trees.
Now
I
haven't
even
talked
about
the
four
trees
along
these
property
lines
that
are
slated
to
be
cut
due
to
conflict
with
construction.
B
It
doesn't
matter
if
the
report
concludes
that
most
trees
are
slated
to
be
preserved.
The
conclusion
is
rendered
moot
once
you
consider
that
the
minimum
requirements
cannot
be
met
to
finish.
I'd
just
like
to
touch
on
a
few
points
in
relation
to
the
official
plan.
Next
slide,
please
the
developers,
application
and
the
report
prepared
by
city
staff
comment
on
the
ways
in
which
the
build
is
in
line
with
the
city's
official
plan.
That's
true,
but
they
are
in
and
also
in
conflict
with
others.
B
Almost
done
that
should
be
enough
thanks.
So
with
all
due
respect,
it
just
feels
like
cherry
picking
and
here's
how
rejecting
the
side
yard
setback
amendment
is
also
in
line
with
the
official
plan.
Take,
for
instance,
article
4.8.2
give
priority
to
the
retention
protection
of
large
healthy
trees
or
from
our
neighborhood
secondary
plan
existing
mr
vegetation,
phillip.
A
I'm
gonna
have
to
stop
you
because
we're
back
well
over
our
five-minute
time
limit.
I
just
want
to
look
to
the
community.
Thank
you.
If
there's
any
any
questions
or
concerns
from
the
committee,
you've
raised
a
number
of
things,
philip
that
do
relate
to
site
plan
rather
than
zoning.
Strictly
speaking,
so
you
know
I'm
sure
those
are
things
that
counselor
clutches,
as
the
ward
council
are
looking
at
with
staff,
to
make
sure
that
that
those
protections
and
site
planning
issues
are
being
addressed.
But
counselor
clutier
has
a
question
for
you.
B
B
So
I
I
have
made
note
of
that
and
and
we'll
you
know
there
will
be
trees
planted
to
replace
and
also
acknowledging
from
both
mr
kamu
and
mr
christie,
the
issue
of
privacy
and,
and
I
will
be
asking
the
applicant
or
the
applicant's
agents,
with
respect
to
the
changes
that
they've
made
since
we
had
our
meeting
with
the
community,
which
was
in
february
2021
already
over
a
year
ago,
but
where,
where
these
issues
had
been
discussed.
So
thank
you,
mr
kamo,
and
thank
you,
mr
christie.
P
Think
councilor
kluche
answered
my
question.
It
was
just
the
engagement
with
residents
and
how
mr
cuomo
might
feel
if
he's
had
worthwhile
engagement
at
this
time
and
obviously
having
had
a
previous
meeting
on
this,
but
maybe
I'll
still
ask
it
anyway.
Have
you
had
receptive
feedback
from
the
developer
when
you've
sent
them
these
comments?
Mr
kamal.
B
Well,
there
was
an
online
meeting
approximately
a
year
ago,
or
I
think
it's
february
of
2021.
A
lot
of
issues
were
raised.
A
lot
of
the
residents
were,
I
think
the
developers
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
in
some
respects,
to
modify
certain
parts
of
the
plan
we
expected
to
hear
new
developments.
I
saw
by
my
own
initiative
on
the
devapp
website.
B
Nobody
alerted
me
that
new
plans
had
been
submitted
until
I
noticed
that
myself
there
was
no
information
other
than
an
automatic
generated
email,
so
I
do
feel
quite
disappointed
that
there
was
this
engagement.
We
raised
a
number
of
issues
and
then
now
we're
at
the
planning
committee,
and
so
there's
this
sort
of
lack
and
the
table
in
the
report
from
the
city
staff
highlights
some,
but
not
all
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
the
neighboring
committee
members-
and
I
know
a
number
of
letters
have
been
written.
P
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
that.
I'm
particularly
receptive
on
the
retention
of
trees,
peace.
I
know
your
counselor
will
work
hard
to
try
to
make
sure
that
that
happens,
and
so,
just
as
a
just
as
a
comment
to
say,
we've
got
a
new
tree
by
law.
Now,
that's
the
purpose
of
it
to
save
trees
when
we
can,
even
despite
there
might
be
development
in
that
area,
so
sometimes
the
our
forestry
team
has
to
go
back
again
and
look
at
it.
P
A
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
again
thank
you
to
the
delegations.
Thank
you
to
the
applicants
with
respect
to
their
their
participation
in
the
february
2021
meeting
and,
and
today
I
just
want
to
know
the
application
has
changed
between
that
original
application
and
and
what
we're
seeing
today,
can
you
just
take
us
through
take
the
community
through
a
little
bit
what
adjustments
you've
made
since
our
public
consultation
in
february
2021?
B
T
The
key
change
is-
and
I
think
this
is
a
very
good
one-
is
we
actually
move
the
entire
building
towards
the
lot
line?
So
what
you
see
now
we
have
the
proposed
building
flush
with
the
setback
of
the
established
building,
which
you
know,
establishes
a
good,
strong,
streetscape
and
frames
the
street
in
a
consistent
manner.
T
T
Another
thing
that
we
changed
is
you'll
see,
and
I
realize
it's
a
little
difficult
with
the
the
scale
of
the
drawing
here,
but
the
balconies
that
face
the
west
lot
line
are
now
recessed,
so
the
permitted
projection
bylaw
gives
you
some
latitude
to
project
your
balconies
in
terms
of
accommodating
the
residents
on
boxford.
We
we
actually
recess
them,
so
they
take
area
out
of
the
unit
and
remain
flush
with
the
wall.
To
kind
of
reduce
some
of
that
overlook
just
something
that
I
I
think
is
worthwhile
to
touch
on
as
well.
T
While
we're
discussing
this
is
originally
as
noted,
we
required
a
amendment
to
the
height
for
this
building.
The
actual
r4
zone
changed
over
the
course
of
this
application
process
to
go
from
permitting
11
meters
to
14
and
a
half
meters.
The
whole
time
we've
remained
proposing
12.3,
which
in
this
manner
we're
leaving
some
density
on
the
table,
but
we
think
this
is
appropriate,
for
you
know,
what's
what's
accommodating
and
compatible
here
and
lastly,
another
key
change
is
we
increase
the
amenity
area
we're
providing
at
grade
by
about
60
meters?
T
Of
course,
we've
been
working
with
the
the
planning
team
at
the
city
through
the
site
plan
process,
concurrently
in
their
forestry
department
and
with
our
own
landscape,
architects
and
arborists,
and
we
have
comfort
with
so
the
plan
that
we've
brought
forward.
But
I
have
no
doubts
that
we'll
revisit
this
in
light
of
the
comments
here.
So
that's
kind
of
my
summary
of
the
changes.
I'll
leave
it
in
case
the
owner
or
matthew
with
our
office
has
anything
else
to
add.
B
Thank
you
where
they
no
they're,
not
present.
Okay,
that's
okay!
Thank
you
for
elaborating
on
on
that
and
yes,
I
I
did
want
to
get
to
the
the
proximity
to
the
neighbors
to
the
west
along
boxford
and
the
the
the
fence
that
that
you
will
be
putting
up
and
and
the
trees,
and-
and
I
appreciate
that
you
mentioned
in
your
comments-
the
change
to
the
parking
configuration.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you
councillor.
I
think
that's
it
for
questions
for
the
applicant.
So
thank
you
to
the
applicant
team
for
joining
us
today.
We'll
go
to
questions
for
staff.
If
there
are
any
from
counselors,
I
had
a
quick
one.
How
typical
are
three
meter
fences
between
properties
for
for
privacy
or
for
otherwise
seem
to
be
higher
than
usual
for
me,
but
I
wanted
to
check.
R
Here,
oh,
go
ahead:
katie
sorry
go
ahead.
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt
you
lily.
The
the
fence
they're
proposed
will
meet
the
the
defense
bylaw
as
required.
We
are
seeing
a
number
of
developers
establishing
fences
that
are
the
maximum
required
under
the
fence,
bylaw
to
establish
that
privacy
between
new
developments
and
existing.
B
A
A
A
Now
we
have
a
planner
john
bernier
here
who
does
have
a
presentation
available
the
applicants
here
as
well?
They
don't
have
a
presentation
or
they
don't
have
slides,
at
least
but
they're
here
to
answer
questions
with
committee's
concurrence.
Could
we
could
we
skip
the
staff
presentation
on
this
and
move
right
to
our
delegations?
Yes,
okay.
Thank
you.
We
have
two
delegations
registered
chris
greenshields
and
elizabeth
mcallister,
so
we'll
bring
chris
into
the
into
the
meeting
room.
A
A
Q
A
Q
Are
you
good?
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
counselors
today,
I'm
representing
the
beechwood
village
alliance
and
hopefully
I'll
get
a
word
into
from
my
community
association
as
well.
The
beechwood
village
alliance
consists
of
five
community
associations
lyndon
lee
manor
park,
new
edinboro,
rockliffe
and
vanier.
Q
The
beechwood
spillage
alliance
has
objected
to
declaration
revisions
and
our
objections
are
well
known.
Among
those
objections,
the
significant
changes
which
depart
from
the
2016
approved
project,
the
near
elimination
of
street-oriented
commercial
space
remains
a
particular
concern.
It
contributes
contravenes
the
city's
urban
design
guidelines
for
traditional
main
streets.
Q
It
ignores
the
terms
of
reference
and
requirements
for
the
development
along
beechwood
avenue,
as
articulated
in
the
beechwood
community
development
plan.
It
contradicts
the
conditions
which
staff
recommended
to
council
in
2016,
upon
which
council
approved
the
rezoning
changes
ground
floor.
Street-Oriented
commercial
businesses
along
traditional
main
streets
are
a
crucial
component
to
the
city's
vision
of
15-minute
neighborhoods,
in
which
residents
are
able
to
shop
and
socialize
locally.
Q
Q
Such
a
disappointing
outcome
would
underline
the
city's
failure
to
impl
to
ensure
the
implementation
of
rezoning
as
represented
at
the
time.
Claridge's
application
was
approved
for
rezoning
in
2016
with
commercial
spaces
at
grade.
I
believe
it
was
12
000
square
feet,
but
the
insuring
bylaw
did
not
specify
that
requirement.
Q
As
long
as
the
city
cannot
ensure
the
implementation
of
a
project
as
presented
in
rezoning,
the
city's
control
over
development
will
continue
to
to
disappoint
our
communities.
City
staff
will
also
have
to
enforce
the
new
official
plan,
in
particular,
section
2.55.
The
urban
design
guidelines,
which
stipulate
that
developments
must
be
built
to
adapt
to
future
uses.
For
example,
they
must
include
increased
ground
floor
height
in
the
event
that
they
are
needed
for
commercial
uses,
and
the
developers
refuse
to
do
that.
Q
Bva
supports
counselor
king's
initiative
to
discuss
the
larger
question,
namely,
how
do
we
re?
How
do
we
ensure
that
zoning
and
subsequent
rezoning
comply
with
the
relevant
community
design
plan
and
the
official
plan
to
meet
the
needs
of
15-minute
neighborhoods
and,
most
importantly,
for
us,
traditional
main
streets?
Q
how
to
limit
developers
unilateral
ability
to
alter
the
intent
of
rezoning
after
an
application
for
mixed
use,
including
ground
for
commercial,
in
compliance
with
the
beechwood
community
design
plan
has
been
approved
in
claridge's
case.
This
happened
four
years
later,
with
little
notice
and
trend
or
transparency,
a
very
short
time
for
public
input
in
contribution,
in
contravention
again
against
the
cdp,
stated
requirement
and
a
related
city
commitment
to
implement
the
required
comprehensive
zoning
changes.
Q
We
do
appreciate
that
beechwood
that
the
under
the
spc
there
will
be
a
widening
of
the
beechwood
right
away
and
provide
for
construction
of
a
cycle
track.
We
welcome
this
in
the
event
of
smart
living's
proposed
development
at
229
to
247
beechwood
requires
spc
approval.
We
would
hope
that
the
same
requirements
would
reply.
Q
L
Well,
elizabeth:
once
again
I
appreciate
your
appearance
before
the
planning
committee
and
your
contributions
for
the
to
the
for
the
community,
despite
the
fact
that
you're
the
past
president
every
time
you
know,
we
think
we're
we're
pushing
you
out
to
real
retirement.
You
come
back
in
and
we
actually
do
appreciate
that.
We
do
appreciate
your
inputs,
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
elaborate.
I
know
that
you
were
talking
about
manor
parks
concerns
about
the
street.
L
Q
Thank
you,
councillor,
king.
I
would
say
just
to
start
that
I'm
here
today,
because
there,
despite
there
being
enormous
interest
in
the
community
lyndon
lee,
has
a
very
young
president
who
is
at
work
and
can't
work
late
because
she
has
young
children
and
the
normal
development
chair
is
at
his
daughter's
wedding
and
we
have
a
similar
situation
across
all
of
the
communities.
Q
So
we
will
have
five-minute
neighborhoods,
I'm
sorry,
15-minute
neighborhoods,
when
you're
my
age,
it's
30-minute,
wait
neighborhood,
walkable
neighborhood,
because
I
have
to
come
home,
but
we're
we're
very
concerned
about
this
lack
of
consistency,
but
also
it
does
seem
self-evident.
Rawson.
We
discussed
this
a
lot
at
fca
that
having
larger
buildings
on
main
streets
means
less
commercial
than
the
traditional
low-rise
retail
friendly
buildings.
Q
So
in
fact,
with
main
street
development
and
the
heights,
we
see
as
we
did
this
morning,
we
actually
lose
retail
space
and
while
the
developers
say
there
is
no
demand
for
retail,
in
this
case
on
clearage,
the
demand
is
high
and
right.
Beside
our
beside
the
building
is
a
very
successful
retail
business
jacobson's
and
we
were
hoping
to
build
a
little
buzz
there
with
more
commercials.
I'm
sorry,
I
went
on
to
your
next
question.
I
think
no.
L
No,
not
at
all.
I
think
that
you've
identified
something
very
important
that
there's
the
potential
for
commercial
and
retail
space
to
be
displaced
throughout
the
community,
and
we
have
a
very
strange
scenario
where
we
see
our
traditional
main
streets
underutilized
because
there's
different
types
of
space.
L
And
I
know
that
natalie
carey
at
the
bia
was
talking
about
the
the
fact
that
often
developers
want
to
cater
to
the
larger
box
type
retailers
versus
really
ensuring
that
small
businesses
with
a
smaller
footprint
have
an
opportunity.
So
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
comment
on
that
in
terms
of
your
your
observations.
Q
Q
Well,
we've
seen
with
the
minto
1,
for
example,
which
is
between
the
corners
of
makai
and
well,
the
bridge
across
the
cross
dorito
river,
the
fire
there
eliminated
about.
I
think
it
was
12
or
14
different
retail
spaces.
It
was
a
buzz
place.
You'd
go
and
see
your
neighbors
sort
of
help,
build
community
community
spirit.
Everybody
was
there
to
see
to
the
hardware
store,
but
we've
gone.
Q
We
still
have
one,
and
so
what's
there
is
the
lcbo
now
and
the
american
starbucks
and
the
beechwood
has
moved
across
the
street
and
in
the
plans
where
there
is
supposed
to
be
outside
cafes,
we
have
the
emergency
exit
on
the
corner
of
the,
so
that's
become
a
completely
dead
area
on
minto
2.
I
think
chris
is
better
to
talk
about
that.
Q
These
are
not
yet
under
construction
and
will
house
about
130
new
residents.
So
we
wonder
why
the
city
isn't
managing
this
forward.
Look
there's
no
annual
report
on
it.
There's
an
annual
report
looking
back,
but
we
see
all
these
high-rises
going
up
with
small
one-bedroom
two-bedroom
apartments.
I
echo
the
concerns
of
earlier
communities
this
morning.
We
do
not
see
family
so
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
keep
our
schools
and,
in
most
of
our
neighborhoods,
we
have
very
few
amenities.
L
Well,
I
appreciate
those
insights
elizabeth.
I
think
it
is
important
that,
if
we're
interested
in
maintaining
the
integrity
of
our
main
streets,
you
know-
I
think
we
heard
discussions
earlier
this
morning
at
committee-
around
heights
and
appropriateness
of
that,
but
it's
it's
often
and
it
shouldn't
be
overlooked-
that
it's
important
for
our
traditional
main
streets
to
also
have
retail
storefronts
if
we're
and
viable
ones.
L
If
we're
serious
about
achieving
15-minute
neighborhoods,
which
is
a
goal
that
has
been
outlined
in
our
new
official
plan-
and
you
know,
I
don't
see
how
we
can
have
viable
traditional
main
streets
if
we
don't
have
tools
to
compel
developers
to
ensure
that
they
maintain
retail,
articulation
storefront
articulation,
and
this
isn't
just
an
issue.
Obviously
that's
affecting
my
ward,
it's
affecting
it
will
affect
the
whole
city
and
all
of
all
all
of
our
traditional
main
streets.
So
I
really
do
appreciate
the
submission
of
both
the
beechwood
village
alliance.
L
O
O
O
But
what
is
key
and
again
that
has
been
mentioned.
The
proposed
reduction
in
ground
floor
height
will
limit
further
the
potential
for
commercial
use,
unlike
developments
that
we've
already
been
able
to
to
see
in
vanier
on
macarthur,
which
offer
similar
live,
work,
units
or
potential
for
eventual
ground
floor
commercial
by
keeping
the
usual
greater
ground
floor
height
that
retail
needs
in
the
vca
view
ground
floor.
Adaptability
for
new
developments
to
promote
commercial
use
is
critical
for
a
traditional
main
street.
Like
beechwood.
O
The
official
plan
section
2.5.5
concerning
design
objectives,
addresses
cases
of
this
kind
and
and
effectively
the
beechwood
context.
It
is
to
consider
adaptability
and
diversity
by
creating
places
that
can
adapt
and
evolve
easily
over
time.
The
planning
committee
should
seriously
consider
calling
for
such
a
design
change
to
restore
the
planned
height
of
the
ground
floor
as
per
the
rezoning
application,
as
the
vca
sees
it.
O
The
rezoning
approved
by
council
in
2016
took
into
consideration
the
applicant's
application's
provision
of
commercial
space
at
ground,
the
requirement
for
it
is
in
the
cdp,
and
that
is
backed
by
the
city's
undertaking
to
ensure
rezoning
to
this
end.
These
two
elements
together
are
capped
by
the
current
ops
design
guidelines
in
support
of
adaptability.
O
We
also
support
the
counselor's
suggestion
in
the
report.
Consider
scip
for
beechwood
the
montreal
road
cip
is
a
good
model
for
beechwood,
including
its
provision
to
support,
affordable
housing
and
development
projects.
Finally,
as
already
mentioned,
the
vca
welcomes
the
road
modification
agreement
of
the
site
plan
to
provide
cycle
track
along
the
frontage,
and
we
look
to
ensure
that
this
practice
of
ensuring,
as
part
part
of
site
plan
control
site
cycle
tracks,
are
included
in
upcoming
developments.
L
Thank
you
co-chair
and
thank
you
chris
for
your
excellent
delegation.
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
more
about
the
impact
of
ceiling
height
on
a
retail
space.
As
we
know,
and
as
you
pointed
out
in
terms
of
ceiling
height,
the
applicant
has
indicated
that
they
were
not
willing
to
change
from
a
height
of
3.1
meters
to
4.55
meters,
and
I
was
just
curious.
What
limitations
do
you
see
this
actually
incurring
in
terms
of
this?
In
terms
of
this
file.
O
It's
my
understanding
that
the
lower
heights
limit,
the
kind
of
retail
that
is
possible.
There
are
a
number
of
limitations
in
terms
of
the
building
code
and
the
requirements
for
retail.
We
have
had
a
discussion,
you
may
know
the
name
rosalind
hill
walkable
ottawa.
She
has
been
looking
closely
at
this
and
again.
This
press
is
on
building
adaptable
buildings
right
in
this
kind
of
situation,
to
have
this
sufficient
floor
floor
height
to
accommodate
any
changes
in
use,
including
and
especially
on
a
traditional
main
street
commercial.
O
So
that's
how
we're
looking
at
it,
and
certainly
it's
reasonable
to
expect,
as
was
originally
proposed,
and
even
if
the
market
has
changed
for
retail
and
you've.
All,
I
hope
read
the
bias
comments
on
that,
and
in
fact
they
they've
demonstrated.
That's
not
true,
but
even
so
it
means
that,
at
least
in
future,
as
the
intensification
continues
along
beechwood,
that
there
is
adaptable
capacity
in
form
of
building
form
again.
As
per
the
official
plan
to
accommodate
those
new
50-minute
neighborhood
needs.
L
I
appreciate
that
answer
and
my
final
question
would
really
surround
the
impacts
of
both
the
guidelines
and
the
community
design
plan.
I
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
can
really
elaborate
as
to
the
areas
once
again
that
that
are
being
ignored
in
these
plants,
because
I
think
this
is
what
adds
to
a
lot
of
the
cynicism
of
both
residents
and
community
organizations
that
we
have
guidelines
that
we
have
plans,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
as
we
know,
the
zoning
isn't
there.
L
So
we
can't
enforce
this
type
of
development,
which
is
very
frustrating
for
residents
in
the
context
of
a
traditional
main
street,
because
I
you
know,
I
do
understand
people's
concerns
coming
to
coming
to
my
office,
telling
us
that,
obviously,
on
a
traditional
main
street,
you
expect
stores
and
for
for
this
to
disappear.
When
we
have
these
elements
in
place,
these
policy
elements
in
place
creates
frustration
and
sometimes
confusion.
So
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
just
elaborate
a
little
bit
more
on
that.
O
It
calls
on
the
city
to
implement
it.
They
it
it
expresses
the
city's
intent
to
implement
this
through
rezoning
because,
as
we
know,
cdps
are
not
statutory,
but
it
doesn't
seem
to
have
taken
place
in
this
case,
unlike
in
vanier
where,
as
we
mentioned,
there
are
a
number
of
new
redevelopments
developments
with
ground
floor
commercial.
O
So
there
seems
to
be
an
oversight
and
it's
still
never
less
inconsistent
with
the
current
ops
design,
guidelines
and-
and
certainly
we've
had
that
discussion
and
the
applicant
agrees
that
that
there
should
be
some
effort
for
commercials.
So
it
seems
to
me
changing
the
height
or
restoring
the
original
height
that
was
approved
by
a
council
in
2016
would
be
in
order
thanks.
A
Okay,
thanks
counselor
king
I'm
seeing
no
more
questions
from
our
committee
members,
so
thank
you
chris
for
joining
us
today.
Councillor
fleury
actually
has
a
motion
on
this
and
it's
to
add
some
counselor
comments,
given
that
he
is
representing
award
adjacent
to
this
location,
so
counselor
fleury.
Let's
go
to
you
because
I
know
you
have
another
commitment
this
afternoon.
I
Thank
you
chair
and
counselor
king
and
I
were
close
to
and
have
no
issues
with
their
boundaries.
We
we
both
worked
together
recently
with
the
mentos
site.
We
had
the
opportunity
to
vote
comments,
so
I'm
sure
I
missed
the
window.
It's
my
fault.
I'm
supporting
counselor
king's
comments
there
and
adding
a
few
components,
so,
whereas
the
word
counselor,
so
I
someone
is
moving
on
my
behalf
as
I'm
not
a
member,
I
believe.
Is
it
counselor
leaper?
A
I
A
R
M
A
Counselor
kits
looks
like
counselor
kits
may
be
frozen,
maybe
I'll
I'll
try.
To
paraphrase
her
question.
It
was
around
any
discussion
that
you've
had
with
about
the
height
of
the
first
floor
and
the
work
share
commercial
units,
any
additional
contacts
that
you
can
sorry
the
work
live
units
on
the
bottom
floor,
any
additional
contacts
we
can
provide
about
discussions
with
with
businesses
or
with
staff
on
the
height
of
that
first
floor.
A
A
A
M
Thank
you.
So
we
we
didn't
think
that
materials
were
necessarily
required
and
we
were
hopeful
that
there
would
be
materials
provided
by
staff
for
you
to
observe,
but
I'll
just
go
quickly
and
then
emma
blanchard
will
have
a
quick
follow-up
to
my
comments.
So,
firstly,
I've
spoken
to
the
issue
of
height.
That's
been
raised
by
a
number
of
the
delegations
and
by
councillors
with
respect
to
the
cdp
and
design
guidelines
for
traditional
main
streets.
You
know.
B
M
M
The
market
won't
sustain
that
vision
and
that,
to
some
degree,
is
reflected,
at
least
in
my
experience
in
kitchissippi
ward,
where
there's
retail
space
along
wellington
street
richmond
street
that
continues
to
sit
vacant.
I
I
actually
have
come
forward
with
development
proposals
in
various
wards
with
ground
floor
commercial
space.
When
we've
actually
had
community
groups,
community
associations
and
residents
say
we
don't
need
any
more
ground
floor
retail
space.
M
We
have
a
whole
surplus
of
vacant,
unleased
retail
space
on
our
traditional
streets
already,
and
it's
for
that
reason
that
the
official
plan
doesn't
require
ground
floor
retail
space.
The
zoning
bylaw
doesn't
require
ground
floor
retail
space,
the
secondary
plant
or
the
community
design
plan
doesn't
require
ground
floor
retail
space.
It's
desirable,
but
it's
not
required,
and
so
here
we
are
at
a
site
plan
application
talking
about
whether
or
not
there
should
be
ground
floor
retail
space
or
are
we
providing
an
adequate
amount
of
ground
floor
retail
space?
M
C
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
town.
I'll,
be
very
brief,
and
I'm
going
to
echo
mr
mr
chan's
comments
and
we
certainly
acknowledge
the
comments
from
the
community
and
the
word
counselor
about
the
desire
for
retail
uses
at
grade.
But
this
is
just
not
a
site
plan
issue.
The
proposal
that
is
before
you
fully
complies
with
zoning.
C
I
You
know
it's
an
amazing
corridor,
but
where
I
see
empty
is
often
you
have
a
bank
and
then
you
have
an
md
and
you
have
a
you
know
a
particular
corporate
environment,
and
then
you
have
mp,
I
think,
what's
all
of
our
communities,
what's
strong
on
our
main
street,
is
that
locally
owned
shop
whatever
it
is?
That'd
be
a
gallery
a
coffee
shop
whatever
and-
and
I
believe
most
landlords
know
that
they
know
that
the
the
sell
pitch
for
the
building
is
also
providing
amazing
ground
for
opportunities.
I
M
If
you
mean
subsidy
in
terms
of
rent,
I
obviously
can't
answer
that
question
for
you,
but
I
think
the
the
issue
is
that
the
market
doesn't
appear
to
be
there
for
every
foot
of
frontage
on
the
traditional
main
streets
to
be
retail
commercial
space.
Having
said
that,
our
client
is,
you
know,
committed
to
creating
these
live
work,
spaces
and
working
with
the
community
association
and
the
bia
to
try
to
fill
that
space
and
that
space
is
accessible
from
the
street
is
visible
from
the
street
and
will
provide
that
connectivity.
I
Let
me
make
a
pitch
on
beechwood,
where
the
old
zazzaza
used
to
be,
if
you're
a
local.
You
know
what
I'm
talking
about.
There
is
the
best
one
of
the
best
best
location.
It's
called
bb's
and
bb's
is
going
to
to
be
rebuilt
in
a
few
years.
It'd
be
a
great
fit
into
the
new
building.
I
have
a
bipark
owner
of
probably
the
best,
the
best
chicken
spot
on
wz
pilipili
who's,
looking
for
an
additional
spot,
so
I
know
a
lot
of
business
owners.
I
Small
small
stores
that
in
the
right
environment
per
square
footage
would
move
into
that
space.
So
I
do
want
to
you
know
when
we
think
the
market
the
pandemic,
so
on
there
there
is
a
niche
need
for
the
for
a
number
of
businesses
that
really
want
to
be
on
our
main
streets,
and
I've
said
enough.
My
comments
are
echoing
counselor
king's
comments.
I
I
you
know.
I
I
respect
clarage.
C
I
just
want
to
make
a
comment.
I
mean
I
understand,
site
plan
is
not
the
time
to
be
having
this
conversation,
but
you
know
similar
to
other
files.
We
looked
at
today
and
I
know
one
that
will
come
up.
I
think
counselor
gower
for
your
stittsville
main
street
and
one
for
canada
avenue
canada
north.
If
there
isn't
real
planning
and
some
rules
around
this,
you
get
a
hodgepodge
where
you
don't
end
up
with
a
main
street.
C
You
end
up
with
this
weird
thing
that
isn't
really
anything,
because
everyone's
just
allowed
to
do
whatever
they
want
and
things
are,
are
approved
at
such
different
stages
and
ages
and
different
counselors
and
different
people
involved,
and
I
just
think
you
know
now.
Maybe
this
is
too
late
to
really
do
anything
but
to
counselor
fleury's
point
there
needs
to
be.
C
Are
so
inviting
and
increase
tourism
and
make
people
want
to
hang
around
and
like
the
area,
there
has
to
be
more
rules
around
this
say?
Oh
well,
you
know
there
may
be
empty
stores
yeah.
Well,
then,
what
are
we
going
to
do
about
that?
Just
allow
this
kind
of
stuff
to
go
ahead,
and
then
we
get
a
hodgepodge.
C
You
know
like
there's
nothing
worse
than
these
kind
of
half
whatever
you
can't
use
a
bad
word
main
streets.
You
know
like
really
it's
it's
not
good.
I
don't
think
for
ottawa
to
keep
doing
this.
So
I
understand
we're
a
little
too
late
here,
but
I
think
there
needs
to
be
more
rules
around
this.
That's
my
comment.
L
Thank
you
chair
and
I
do
have
a
number
of
questions,
but
I
might
just
preface
it
and
take
the
opportunity
to
say
that
I
understand
our
role
being
around
the
council
table
to
regulate
land
use,
so
I
think
that
it
should
be
within
our
purview
to
to
determine
when
we
have
appropriate
conversations
around
policy
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
brought
this.
I
acknowledge
the
fact
that,
obviously,
I'm
not
expecting
the
community's
not
expecting
a
wide
massive
change
here
in
terms
of
this
specific
file
because
of
the
rules.
Q
I
L
Thank
you.
I
do
appreciate
that.
I
think
I
pulled
that
out
when
I
was
looking
at
the
official
plan
as
well
around
main
street
corridors.
I
think
you've
mirrored
that
proper
language,
and
I
expect
obviously
during
the
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
exercise
in
the
next
council
term
that
we
we
might
require
active
or
service
uses
on
the
ground
floor
in
order
to
maintain,
extend
or
create
a
continuous
stretch
of
active
frontages
along
a
main
street.
L
I
mean
that
was
clearly
stated
in
in
the
draft
and
potentially
new
official
plan,
and
I
think
that
that's
something
we
should
have
a
serious
conversation
about.
My
next
question
was:
do
we
need
inclusionary
zoning
to
address
the
provision
of
commercial
space
or
other
community
needs
beside
affordable
housing?
A
Counselor,
I
think
the
challenge
here
is
we?
Don't
we
don't
have
anyone
from
policy,
given
that
this
is
a
site
plan?
Conversation
we're
limited
on
policy.
I
think
noted
it's
a
good
question.
We,
we
do
have
a
meeting
on
inclusionary
zoning
coming
up
in
june,
so
it
could
be
something
to
raise.
Then,
as
part
of
that
discussion.
A
L
So
I
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
worthy
discussion.
I
I
appreciate
your
indulgence
because
I
know
this
is
site
plan
and
but
I
I
do
appreciate
your
indulgence,
because
I
do
think
it's
a
very
important
policy
discussion
that
we
need
to
continue
to
have
on
behalf
of
our
residents
in
our
communities.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
I
just
wanted
to
say,
although
I
disagree
that
this
is
an
appropriate
venue
to
have
a
policy
discussion
about
this.
I
understand
the
counselors
concerns.
I
took
a
walk
through
beechwood
in
the
area
last
summer.
Reminds
me
a
lot
of
what
we're
seeing
on
stittsville
main
street.
It's
a
neighborhood
in
transition
and
similar
to
the
situation
on
beechwood.
The
zoning
says
buildings
are
mixed
use.
Our
community
design
plan
says
to
encourage
ground
floor,
retail
or
commercial,
and
but
without
without
the
zoning
to
require
it.
A
It's
always
a
challenge
and
it's
a
lot
of
negotiation
and
pushing
of
the
applicants
to
encourage
them
to
include
that
ground
floor
space
and
with
the
huge
demand
for
housing
and,
more
so
than
retail.
We
see
it
not
just
on
traditional
main
streets,
but
in
other
areas
that
are
mixed
use
zones,
and
I
am
concerned
that,
in
the
rush
to
build
as
many
homes
as
quickly
as
possible,
we
might
be
losing
some
of
the
good
spaces
for
retail
in
any
place
in
our
community.
A
One
of
her
observations
is:
you
need
a
variety
of
different
places
that
entrepreneurs
can
rent
and
I
actually
think
these
live
work.
Spaces
could
give
a
lower
cost
rental
opportunity
for
small
entrepreneurial
businesses
and
contribute
to
that
overall
ecosystem
of
of
healthy
retail
within
the
community.
So
I'm
hopeful
that
there
will
be
some
enterprising
people
who
see
these
spaces
as
a
great
opportunity
to
launch
a
small
business
and
then
maybe
move
into
something
bigger
and
more
substantial
in
beechwood
or
the
area
in
the
future.
A
All
right,
then,
so
the
report
recommendations
just
to
be
clear.
It's
to
endorse
the
proposed
site
plan
for
89
91
and
97
beechwood,
including
the
ground
floor
use
and
the
scale
of
the
proposed
use
detailed
in
documents
three
through
seven
and
return
delegated
authority
to
staff
for
further
changes
to
the
approved
plans,
conditions
and
reports
and
for
the
site
plan
control
agreement.
A
Terry
okay,
thank
you
and
thank
you
councillor,
king
and
councillor
fleury
for
joining
us.
We
have
one
additional
item
and
it's
a
motion
where
we
will
require
suspending
the
rules.
It's
a
motion
from
councilman
menard
on
30
and
48
chamberlain,
resulting
from
a
tribunal
decision.
I
believe
so
we'll
get
that
up
on
the
screen
and
I
know
tim
mark
is
available
if
we
need
any
explanation
behind
this
as
well.
P
It's
that
planning
a
committee
authorized
staff
to
initiate
a
rezoning
process
to
revise
the
height
schedule
applicable
to
the
property
located
at
3048
chamberlain
avenue
to
properly
reflect
the
three-story
podium
along
the
front
facade
of
the
proposed
development
also
just
thank
to
mark
on
this
for
drafting
it,
and
you
know
to
properly
reflect
what
the
residents
have
also
been
informed
of
with
this,
with
the
recent
settlement
at
the
olt
on
this
file
so
appreciate.
Support
on
this
today,.
I
B
Briefly,
mr
chair,
the
the
appellants,
an
individual
and
the
community
group
and
the
applicant
reached
a
settlement
which
was
finalized
yesterday.
The
settlement
involved
the
withdrawal
of
the
appeal
from
the
olt,
which,
of
course,
removed
the
tribunal's
jurisdiction
over
the
matter.
This
was
to
achieve
just
a
a
a
quick
resolution
to
the
tribunal
proceedings
there.
B
It
had
been
determined
in
the
course
of
the
supplement
discussions
that
there
was
a
technical
error
in
the
zoning
by-law,
in
that
it
did
not
properly
reflect
the
podium
that
was
proposed,
and
so
in
order
to
proceed
continue
to
proceed
with.
The
resolution
is
desired
that
the
city
moved
forward
with.
B
A
H
Yeah,
forgive
me
I
I've
just
sent
this
to
you
chair.
I
didn't
get
this
out
in
time.
It's
with
respect
to
some
properties
on
raven
hill,
where
there
are
some
existing
structures
that,
as
a
result
of
some
changes,
are
need
to
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
for
variances
they're
not
allowed
to
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
at
this
point,
because
it's
too
early
after
the
passing
of
the
zoning
bylaw.
A
L
I
do,
and
I
submitted
it
to
you
and
I
believe
the
committee
coordinator,
and
it
apologies
just
off
the
cuff
very
quickly.
We
know
that
the
new
official
plan
will
recognize
main
street
corridors
as
having
a
different
context
and
will
set
out
policies
through
a
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
exercise
in
the
next
term
council
term
that
may
require
active
commercial
or
service
uses
on
the
ground
floor
in
order
to
maintain,
extend
or
create
a
continuous
stretch
of
active
frontages
along
a
main
street.
In
that
context,
can
city
staff
answer
the
following
questions?