►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - July 8, 2021 (1 of 2)
Description
Planning Committee - Agenda 46 - Thursday, July 8, 2021 – video stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
C
D
A
I
I
D
D
D
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
1,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8
and
9
on
today's
agenda.
For
the
items
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.
D
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
zoning
and
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
prior
to
their
consideration
by
city
council
on
july
21st,
please
email
or
call
the
committee
or
council
coordinator
and
a
note
to
committee
members.
D
D
E
D
M
D
D
D
D
The
second
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
site
plan
control
for
six
five,
eight
eight
carrier
street.
This
is
the
dome
and
we
have
24
delegations
and
then
two
delegations
from
the
applicant
so
we'll
be
holding
this
one
item
number
three
is
site
plan
control
for
257,
macarthur
avenue,
and
there
are
delegations
and
the
applicants.
So
we
will
hold
this
one
as
well.
N
D
Yeah,
so
what
I'm
actually
going
to
propose,
if
I
can
get
the
concurrence
from
the
committee,
is
that
we
hold
the
carrier
street
to
the
end,
given
the
number
of
delegations,
if
we're
able
to
put
that
to
the
end,
it
means
we
can
deal
with.
We
can
consider
all
the
other
items
and
let
the
delegations
and
and
and
staff
have
their
chance
to
participate,
and
then
we
can
keep
the
carrier
item
to
the
very
end.
If
committee
would
agree
with
that.
D
Well,
we'll
continue
through
the
the
items
so
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bile
amendment
for
one
three,
three
five
and
one
three:
three
nine
bank
street
there
are
delegations
so
we'll
hold
that
item
number
five
is
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
by
law,
amendment
for
403,
richmond,
road
and
389,
roosevelt
avenue.
So
again,
that's
a
hold
with
delegations
for
that
item
number
six
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
19
center
point
drive.
There
are
delegations
for
this
item,
so
we
will
hold.
D
D
Okay
carried
with
dissent
from
councillor
dudas.
Thank
you
item
number.
Eight
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
three
3455
hawthorne
road.
There
are
no
public
delegations.
The
applicant
is
available
to
speak
or
or
answer
questions
on
this
one.
If,
if
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
this
one,
we
have
miguel
trombley
and
nick
sutherland
do
either
of
you
need
to
speak
on
this
item
and
are
there
any
counselor
questions
for
this?
One.
D
L
A
Screen,
thank
you,
whereas
the
applicant
has
requested
that
to
staff
the
report,
the
report
be
deferred
to
the
august
2021
regular
meeting
of
planning
committee
to
allow
additional
time
to
confirm
firm
engineering
considerations
where
staff
have
no
objection
to
the
requested.
Deferral,
therefore,
be
it
resolve
the
planning
committee
to
further
report
until
the
august
26
2021,
regular,
immediate
planning
committee
and
be
it
for
the
result
that
there
no
be
no
further
notice.
D
D
D
D
Okay,
so,
as
I
said,
we
are
going
to
move
back
to
the
items
we've
held
and
we're
going
to
deal
with
the
site.
Plane.
Control
item
number
two
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
so
we've
got
quite
a
few
delegations
in
the
other
items,
so
I
imagine
we'll
be
yeah,
probably
at
least
90
minutes,
perhaps
more
before
we
get
to
the
6588
carrier
street.
So
we're
going
back
to
item
number
one.
This
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
30-48
chamberlain
avenue.
We
have
a
number
of
public
delegations.
D
The
first
four
who
have
signed
up
are
rena
serato
and
david
schwartz
todd
sanders,
andrea,
redway
and
christy
ross,
who
have
indicated
they'd
like
to
make
a
presentation
together.
So
as
usual
for
our
our
committee
meetings,
we
have
a
five-minute
limit
on
delegations
and
given
the
number
of
delegations
and
items
today,
we
will
be
sticking
strictly
to
that.
So
melody
has
her
stopwatch
ready
to
time.
I'm
not
sure
who
from
this
group
is
intending
to
speak
first,
is
it
reena
and
david
or
one
of
the
other
members
here.
M
Chairman
just
on
carrier
knowing
that
we're
asking
them
to
wait
because
they
would
have
gone
second
normally
do
you
want
to
just
suggest
that?
Maybe
we
don't
start
that
item
before
noon
so
that
those
folks
who
are
delegations
on
that
item
know
they
don't
have
to
sit
here
and
watch
for
two
hours.
While
we
don't
talk
about
their
item
because
it
looks
like
if
you
look
at
the
agenda,
it
looks
like
we
likely
will
get
to
noon
anyway.
D
D
I
Sorry,
chair
just
on
the
first
item
here
with
the
there's
multiple
delegations
that
have
signed
up,
I
think
there's
five
of
them
in
total.
They
may
go
over
their
five
minutes,
not
each,
but
in
total-
and
I
know
our
practice
in
the
past
has
been
okay.
If
there's
five
of
them
and
they
all
want
to
speak
together.
I
You
know
they
can
each
have
that
time,
but
I
think
they
may
have
a
little
bit
of
a
longer
presentation
in
five
minutes,
because
there's
our
there's
five
of
them,
they
could
have
each
signed
up
separately,
but
they
chose
to
do
it
together
to
be
more
efficient.
So
just
with
your
indulgence,
hoping
that
we
can
get
it,
you
know
if
there's
a
couple
extra
minutes,
they
need
to
get
through
the
presentation
that
would
make
sense.
Yeah.
D
G
G
G
G
G
These
sections
require
development
to
coexist
with
it
without
adverse
impact
and
require
detailed
attention
to
urban
design
and
minimizing
impact
on
the
existing
communities
into
which
they
are
located
next
slide.
Please,
the
proposed
development
is
for
a
16
story:
high
rise
on
a
30.5
meter,
deep
lot.
According
to
page
12
of
the
report.
However,
it
is
actually
only
27.6
meters
when
you
take
into
consideration
additional
setbacks
required
for
future
road
modifications
and
the
chamberlain
multi-use
path.
A
27.6
meter
lot,
a
abutting
low
rise
residential
homes
in
an
r3p
zone.
G
G
I
also
asked
that
you
consider
whether
the
urban
design
guidelines
for
high-rise
buildings
are
being
applied
in
this
assessment
sections
such
as
1.13,
which
requires
an
angular
plane,
typically
of
45
degrees,
to
allow
transition
from
high
rise
to
low-scale
areas,
as
you
can
see
in
that
top
diagram,
section
2.29,
which
requires
the
tower
to
step
back
3
meters,
or
at
least
1.5
meters
from
the
base,
not
50
centimeters
next
slide.
Please.
G
These
guidelines
are
to
be
used
in
the
preparation
and
review
of
development
proposals
to
achieve
official
plan.
The
staff
report
mentions
these
guidelines
but
applied
some
and
ignored
others.
For
example,
the
planning
department
recommended
that
the
applicant
increase
the
setback
from
the
internal
side
yard
to
10
meters
to
make
room
for
a
hypothetical
future
tower.
However,
the
rear
yard
setback
was
only
increased
by
50,
centimeters
or
0.5
meters,
resulting
in
a
tower
being
located
only
eight
meters
from
actual
existing
low-rise
residential
buildings.
G
B
Good
morning
I'm
todd
saunders.
I
live
at
45,
rosebury
avenue.
The
planning
department
would
like
to
convey
that
the
proposed
development
will
coexist
with
this
with
the
surroundings
and
minimize
impact,
but
that
is
not
the
case.
This
development
would
impact
everyone
in
the
surrounding
area,
but
no
one
more
so
than
those
of
us
directly
behind
the
tower.
B
Five
of
the
seven
properties
are
owner-occupied
homes,
including
the
three
properties
where
the
tower
will
be
placed.
These
are
multi-generational
homes.
These
are
properties
that
have
invested
significant
time,
money
and
effort
into
their
homes.
This
tower
will
have
a
profound
impact
on
all
of
us
and
we
will
be
adversely
affected
by
shadow
and
privacy
and
overlook.
B
B
B
B
The
planning
department
acknowledges
in
their
staff
report
that
the
properties
located
at
39
to
47
rosebury
avenue,
which
means
four
of
the
seven
properties,
impacted
and
mainly
numbers
43
and
45,
and
I
quote,
will
not
benefit
from
the
mass
14
relief
or
from
the
overlooking
window
relief
as
they
will
be
aligned
with
the
tower
they
continue.
By
saying,
it
does
coincidentally
happen
that
these
properties
have
a
generous
large,
mature,
mature
tree
canopy
along
the
rear
property
line,
therefore
helping
to
mitigate
the
tower
proximity.
B
B
It
should
also
be
noted
that
while
the
application
does
not
meet
the
requirements-
and
it
does
have
a
profound
impact
on
the
residents
it
did
not,
it
does
not
propose
the
addition
of
any
landscaping
or
evergreen
landscape
to
mitigate
the
adverse
impacts
of
overlook
or
screen
the
new
development.
In
any
way,
any
mitigation
of
the
impacts
of
this
project
falls
solely
on
the
impact
of
residents.
B
The
planning
department
acknowledges
that
this
tower
does
not
follow
the
guidelines
and
will
result
in
reduced
privacy
for
us,
which
goes
against
section
4.11
of
policy.
14
of
the
official
plan
that
says
high-rise
buildings
should
be
designed
to
reduce
impact
associated
with
privacy
for
adjacent
lots.
This
proposal
instead
increases
the
impact
on
the
existing
neighbors.
O
Good
morning
my
name
is
andrea
redway
and
I
live
at
34
rosebury
avenue.
I
fully
support
these
points
made
by
my
neighbors
this
morning.
I'd
like
to
spend
a
few
minutes
highlighting
the
contradictions
between
the
application
before
you
and
all
of
the
work
that
the
city
has
undertaken
over
the
past
three
years
to
develop
a
new
vision
and
master
framework
in
the
form
of
the
draft
official
plan
to
guide
the
city's
growth
and
development
for
the
next
25
years.
O
Next
slide,
please
it's.
For
this
reason,
to
ensure
more
predictable
planning
process
to
manage
intensification
and
growth
that
the
bank
street
in
the
glebe
heightened
character,
study
was
under
taken,
starting
in
late
2018
by
the
city's
policy
department,
in
consultation
with
the
local
residents
and
community
association.
O
O
The
new
draft
official
plan
states
that
15-minute
neighborhoods
should
create
a
sense
of
place
and
character
by
integrating
high-quality
human
scale.
Urban
design,
a
16-story
high-rise
building
towering
over
neighboring
residents
in
central
park
west
will
clearly
take
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
in
exactly
the
opposite
direction.
O
We
will
begin
to
lose
the
character
of
what
is
now
a
vibrant
walkable
community
friendly
residential
neighborhood.
More
high
rises
will
follow.
This
is
neither
human
scale
or
been
designed
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
nor
the
kind
of
strategic
urban
design
described
in
the
draft
official
plan.
O
O
Starting
now,
with
this
decision
and
moving
forward
with
the
new
official
plan,
we
want
a
diverse,
vibrant
eco-friendly
city
planning.
Decisions
should
set
a
standard
to
preserve
and
enhance
existing
neighborhoods
that
make
the
city
what
it
is
today
and
the
city
that
it
wants
to
be
in
the
future
high-rise
buildings,
squeezed
onto
small
lots
with
non-compliant
setbacks.
Only
a
few
meters
from
residential
properties
and
well-used
neighborhood
parks
do
not
meet
this
standard.
O
H
So.
First
I'd
like
to
start
with
how
the
official
plan
works,
section,
5.4
policy,
one
of
the
official
plan-
requires
that
the
plan
be
read
as
a
whole.
However,
in
some
cases
the
applicable
official
and
policies
have
been
ignored,
while
others
have
not
been
given
the
proper
weight
next
slide.
Please
policies,
2.2,
sub,
11
and
3.6.14
provide
that
new
taller
buildings.
May
I
emphasize
that
be
considered
for
sites
that
front
on
an
interior,
road
or
a
transit
priority
corridor
such
as
chamberlain
avenue?
H
Second
policy
2.2
sub
11
mandates
that
greater
heights
can
only
be
sought
if
it
is
demonstrated
that
they
are
compatible
with
the
surrounding
existing
context.
As
well
as
section
4.11
of
the
official
plan,
chamberlain
is
designated
as
a
transit
priority
corridor.
However,
it
is
designated
as
one
with
isolated
measures,
which
means
a
lower
transit
priority,
thus
supporting
a
lower
degree
of
intensification,
ottawa's
transportation
master
plan
states
that
the
official
plan
promotes
modest
intensification
in
the
form
of
mid-rise
buildings
in
most
transit
priority
corridors.
H
Thus,
the
policies
on
transit
priority
should
not
be
given
more
weight
than
the
compatibility
policies,
and
additional
height
cannot
be
supported
unless
compatibility
and
adequate
transition
is
demonstrated
next
slide.
Please,
sections
2.5.1
and
2.5.6
of
the
official
plan
state
that
compatible
development
means
that
it's
that
it
must
enhance
an
established
community
and
coexist
with
existing
development
without
causing
undue
adverse
effect
and
impact
on
surrounding
properties.
H
H
H
However,
it
is
these
homes
that
face
a
tower
with
minimal
setbacks
and
step
backs
in
violation
of
a
number
of
policies
and
4.11
of
the
official
plan,
while
the
building's
front
yard
and
side
yard
setbacks
are
in
compliance
with
zoning
and
other
policies
next
side
slide.
Please
key
aspects
of
the
high-rise
guideline
have
been
ignored.
The
official
plan
provides
when
there
is
no
approved
secondary
plan,
so
that
would
be
the
case
in
this
instance.
H
So
in
this
case
the
high-rise
guidelines
are
applicable
and
the
use
of
the
term
will
assess
signify
the
duty
on
behalf
of
the
city
to
apply
them.
The
guidelines
provide,
and
I've
laid
them
out
in
this
chart,
a
setback
between
the
tower
and
adjacent
low-rise
area,
either
of
20
meters
or
the
application
of
a
45
degree
angular
plane.
The
application
provides
neither
of
these
elements
instead
proposing
a
eight
meter
setback
between
the
tower
and
the
backyards
of
the
rosebury
homes.
H
Further,
the
guidelines
recommend
a
three
meter
tower
step
back
from
the
base
and
at
a
minimum
notes,
a
1.5
meter
setback.
Once
again,
the
applicants
does
not
provide
this
instead,
providing
50
centimeters
next
slide,
please,
while
the
being
street
head
and
character
study
is
not
an
approved
secondary
plan.
The
conclusions
in
the
study
are
relevant.
H
The
city
planners
applied
current
official
plan
policies
and
the
hierarchies
guidelines
to
determine
that
six
stores
was
the
appropriate
height
for
this
site.
The
city's
planning
staff
explained
the
reasoning
for
this
conclusion
at
a
public
open
house
on
this
application.
There
were
three
reasons
for
this.
The
first
was
the
shallowness
of
the
lands.
The
second
was
the
need
to
apply
the
compatibility
and
transition
policies
in
the
official
plan
and
in
the
words
of
planning
staff.
Roseberry
has
a
sensitive
condition
that
needs
to
be
protected.
H
Finally,
a
45
degree
angular
plane
was
recommended
for
the
site
in
order
to
ensure
appropriate
transition
to
roseberry.
All
of
these
factors
point
to
the
conclusion
in
the
study
that
the
site
is
appropriate
for
mid-rise
development,
but
that
high-rise
development
is
not
appropriate
for
the
site.
We
request
that
this
committee
refuse
the
application
on
those
grounds
and
we
thank
you
for
your
time
subject
to
any
questions
you
may
have.
G
Yes,
I
did
attend
the
meeting
the
what
was
conveyed
at
that
media,
at
least
our
understanding
is
that
the
the
city
felt
that
the
proposal
was
not
appropriate
for
that
site.
It
was
our
understanding
that
there
was
the
numerous
considerations
from
like
the
policy
department
you
know
were
wer
provide
the
the
reasoning
as
to
why
having
a
16-story
building
there
would
not
have
been
appropriate
because
of
the
residences,
it's
really
close
to
our
residences.
G
So
that
was
our
understanding
in
the
process.
It
was
also
our
and
understanding
during
this
meeting
that
that
the
city
had
undertaken
significant
analysis
and
assessment
of
the
different
policies
and
the
guidelines
that
would
allow
for
a
different
story.
Sorry,
a
different
type
of
building,
a
different
mid-rise
level.
I
H
I
noticed
that
there
was
an
amendment
sought
simply
to
the
parent
zoning,
but
the
parent
zoning
itself
does
not
permit
sort
of
the
the
term
of
art
in
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
is
apartment
dwelling
high-rise.
There
had
been
no
sort
of
request
for
that
land
use,
planning
use,
so
they've
been
requested
for
the
height,
but
not
for
the
use.
So
I
thought
that
was
technically
incorrect
and
a
little
bit
strange
from
a
planning
law
perspective.
H
It's
important
to
have
both
performance
standards,
which
would
be
you
know
the
height
and
massing
and
the
setbacks
and
all
of
those
things,
but
one
always
has
to
atlantea's
planning
while
have
the
use
specified
as
well.
So
I
would
have
thought
that
there
would
have
been
an
application
in
addition
to
what
they
were
seeking
to
add
that
land
use
of
a
permanent
ruling
high-rise
as
well,
and
I
would
think
that
that
may
require
some
additional
notice
in
that.
H
Having
sort
of
a
high-rise
dwelling
is
perhaps
different
and
sort
of
more
significant
than
than
simply
amending
the
performance
standards.
So
this
is
a
comment
I
made
to
planning
staff,
but
I
haven't
received
sort
of
a
response
as
to
whether
or
not
some
sort
of
amendment
to
the
application
is
required.
J
I
am
concerned
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
properly
is
your
argument
that
there
always
needs
to
be
20
meters
and
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
assertion
from
the
presentation
we
are
approving
buildings
on
arterial
main
streets
that
are
high
rises,
oftentimes
with
sort
of
a
minimum,
non-negotiable
seven
and
a
half
meter.
Setback
to
the
properties
in
behind
is
is
insisting
on
a
bigger
setback.
Here,
comment
on
that
approach
that
the
city
has
been
taking
and
council's
been
taking
to
this
point.
H
K
H
Certainly
is
an
artillery
main
street.
This
is
simply
a
arterial
road,
so
I
think
that
there
are
some
sort
of
different
policy
considerations
for
those
two
different
sort
of
designations.
The
official
plan
is
pretty
clear
for
arterial
main
streets
of
noting
that
that
would
be
a
site
that
additional
height
I
mean,
as
I
believe,
on
interior
main
street.
Nine
stories
is
permitted
as
a
right
and
then
there's
sort
of
some
criteria
that
needs
to
be
applied
to
sort
of
bump
one
up
to
a
high-rise
use.
H
So
I
would
argue
that
high-rise
uses
are
haunt
and
there's
clear
official
plan
standards
for
that
use.
This
is
a
slightly
different
site,
so
I
think
that
would
be
point
number
one
and
point
number
two
is
the
way
I
read
the
guidelines
is
either
a
20
meter
requirement
sort
of
in
like
the
downtown
core
or
alternatively,
and
that's
sort
of
how
I
presented
a
45
degree
angular
plane.
H
So
that
would
not
necessarily
get
us
at
a
20
meter
setback
and
that
certainly
isn't
possible
on
a
site
that
only
has
27.6
meters
of
developmental
capacity.
However,
it
would
translate
to
sort
of
four
four
stories
up
and
then
a
slightly
more
significant
step
back.
I
would
argue
that
five
meters
and
then
it
would
go.
You
know
up
again
and
you
know
it
would.
That
would
lead
you
and
land
you
somewhere
in
the
mid-rise
category,
not
in
the
high
rise
category.
So
I
think
that's
the
argument.
J
That's
helpful.
Thank
you.
I
think
sorry
in
terms
of
my
second
question,
clearly
you're
working
on
behalf
of
the
residents,
I'm
assuming
the
residents
are
prepared
to
challenge
council's
decision
if
it
if
it
is
in
favor
of
approving
the
development
at
the
tribunal.
Can
you
just
take
me
through
how
you
see
that
challenge
going,
I'm
going
to
guess
that
you
have
since
you're
here
a
fairly
high
degree
of
confidence
that
residents
can
win
that
challenge.
H
Well,
I
think
my
assessment
on
that
is
that
there
are
some
clear
official
plan
policies
that
I
don't
believe
have
been
applied
here.
So
I
think
I
mean
obviously
all
of
the
compatibility
policies
I
think
are.
Are
you
know,
first
and
foremost
in
my
mind,
so
section
4.1
and
2.5.11,
sorry,
2.5.1
and
4.11?
If
I
can
restate
that,
but
then
I
think
another
key
aspect
in
this
case
is
how
the
high
rise
guidelines
should
be
applied.
In
this
case.
H
My
interpretation
of
section
411,
sub
10-
is
that
because
there
is
no
approved
secondary
plan
in
this,
in
this
instance,
yet
there's
certainly
a
draft
one,
but
it
hasn't
been
approved.
There's
a
requirement
that
the
city
will
apply
the
the
high
rise
guidelines
and
I
think
they've
applied
some
of
them,
as
I
think
rina
mentioned,
there's,
with
compliance
with
sort
of
a
side,
yard
setback
to
a
future
potential
tower.
H
J
D
I
Chair,
I
I
know
I
said
I
was
done
there
just
one
very
quick
question
and
it
is
with
regard
to
negotiation,
and
so
just
a
question
to
christy
is:
are
you
and
the
residents
willing
to
negotiate?
Have
you
been
willing
to
negotiate
to
come
to
a
better
compromise
on
on
this
issue
throughout
this
process?.
H
That
extends
all
the
way
to
sort
of
being
extreme
strathcona,
with
a
lower
built
form
and
just
one
sort
of
aspect
or
possibility
that
we
put
on
the
table
was,
you
know,
reallocating
the
density
in
a
more
modest
sense.
Clearly,
the
guidelines
permit
and
the
staff
report
noted
that
sort
of
a
bar
building
in
sort
of
a
mid-rise
form
form.
I
believe
the
staff
report
said
that
that
would
be
compliant
with
all
policies
and
guidelines.
We
agree
with
that,
and
that
would
be
our
sort
of
our
first
preference.
H
However,
we
also
sort
of
put
on
the
table
the
idea
of
allocating
that
density
in
a
different
build
form.
So
you
have
the
same
density
but
yet
position
it
otherwise
we'd
be
willing
to.
You
know,
obviously,
look
at
positioning
on
the
site
once
again
to
mitigate
the
the
adverse
impact
and
the
closeness
and
proximity
to
the
neighbors,
so
we'd
be
100
percent
willing
to
engage
in
those
discussions
and
would
open
them
with
with
an
open
with
open
arms.
I
D
A
A
The
zoning
changes
that
were
implemented
with
the
new
city
plan
is
one
avenue
that
has
been
kind
of
consistent
with
the
future
growth
of
the
city.
Now
we
have
a
heightened
character
study
that
references
bank
street,
but
chamberlain
is
not
on
bank
street,
it
buds
to
it
and
crosses
over
and
through
isabel,
but
yet
we're
seeing
developments
on
the
corners
of
bank
street
at
the
end
on
the
north
near
the
highway
that
referenced
23
stories
or
14
stories.
A
A
In
particular,
I've
taken
a
couple
of
notes
from
the
comments
that
I've
heard
thus
far,
and
you
know
I
guess
my
my
ultimate
point
is
you
know
we're
trying
to
become
a
vibrant
city.
Have
a
15-minute
neighborhood?
Yes,
the
glebe
is,
but
you
know
the
affordability
of
this
city
without
alternatives,
as
rentals
will
become
limited,
and
you
know
this
is
almost
the
second
richest
neighborhood
in
the
city,
so
I
I
have
concerns
with
it
being
vibrant
and
affordable
for
the
future.
A
If
we
don't
have
plausible
solutions
through
intensification
and
density
with
buildings
as
such
as
this,
this
is
not
a
small
parcel.
This
is
240
feet
inside
the
city's
core
as
frontage,
so
I
believe
finding
something
suitable.
Now
is
the
time
to
do
it
and
from
what
I
read
in
the
new
official
plan,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
the
city
to
come
up
with
points
and
references
and
these
ideas
of
of
where
the
city
needs
to
go.
But
yet
here
we
have
this
heightened
character.
A
Study
that
I
wasn't
presented
as
a
resident
as
a
primary
private
resident
and
engaged
on
what
they
suggest
that
heights
should
be.
But
yet
I'm
told
that
I
can
only
go
or
the
development
should
only
be
able
to
go
up
to
six
stories.
If
I
wasn't
consulted
prior
to
2018,
I'm
uncertain
as
to
how
that
that
can
be
implemented
in
comparison
to
other
parts
of
the
city
that
are
going
up
in
heights.
A
A
I
would
be
able
to
put
up
a
suitable
property
that
I
purchased
it
with
its
original
intention
going
forward.
Of
course,
yes,
but
at
the
same
time
the
driver
has
never
been
what
my
interest
is
over
the
communities
and
you
know
as
a
property
owner,
you
want
the
best
for
the
community,
but
you
want
something
suitable
to
be
appropriate
for
what
I
want
to
live
in
as
a
resident.
So
you
know
if
your
point
is
to
drive
on
what
he
gets.
A
A
At
large
I
mean
that's
my
opinion
and
and
whether
it's
suitable
for
me
to
say
it
as
a
primary
owner
that
I
won't
benefit.
Certainly
yeah.
I
mean
that
that
that
is
your
point.
I
guess,
but
you
know
it
doesn't
necessarily
change
why
I
ultimately
ended
up
in
the
glee,
because
I
love
that
part
of
the
city
I'm
a
resident
from
birth,
and
I
chose
to
end
up
there
because
I
knew
that's
where
I
wanted
to
live,
and
you
know
my
decisions
aren't
being
based
on
financial
gain.
E
Good
morning,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
present
I'm
a
resident
of
capital
wars.
I
do
not
live
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
chamberlain
avenue,
but
I
ride
a
bicycle
daily
for
transportation
as
well
as
leisure.
I
also
drive
a
car
by
the
way
I
live
in
old
ottawa
east
east
of
the
canal,
a
neighborhood
which
has
changed
greatly
in
the
time
I've
lived
there.
I
lived
near
the
greystone
development
in
lansdowne
park,
both
of
which
showed
room
for
improvement
in
terms
of
their
consultation
with
the
community.
E
I
would
also
add
that
during
the
pandemic
I
have
almost
daily
walked
or
biked
around
the
city.
It's
been
evident
that
many
people
and
businesses
have
fallen
on
hard
times
so
now
it
seemed
to
be
an
important
moment
for
planning
in
this
city
to
be
oriented
towards
all
the
people,
including
the
unhoused,
and
to
be
sustainable
and
as
safe
as
possible
for
all
modes
of
transportation.
E
E
The
proposed
development
appears
to
include
room
for
a
lot
of
car
parking.
What
steps
would
be
taken
to
ensure
that
cyclists
and
pedestrians
are
not
cut
off
by
residents
entering
and
exiting
the
building
providing
money
for
traffic
plumbing
does
not
necessarily
guarantee
that
such
measures
will
be
able
to
keep
up
with
increased
traffic.
E
Since
the
spring
of
this
year,
I've
had
multiple
negative
experiences
as
a
law,
abiding
cyclist
in
capital,
ward
and
other
central
areas
in
the
city
where
I
felt
more
unsafe
than
ever
before
because
of
driver
behavior,
it's
not
just
a
question
of
providing
bike
lanes.
It
is
also
about
what
kind
of
culture
are
we
creating
in
ottawa?
Is
there
a
culture
of
sustainable
coexistence
between
people
with
diverse
ways
of
life
as
a
voter
and
taxpayer?
E
D
C
Good
morning,
thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
for
being
here.
I'm
not
gonna.
I've
listened
carefully,
I'm
not
gonna
belabor
in
many
of
the
points
that
were
well
articulated
already
so,
but
I
did
want
to
to
comment
in
the
bank
street
heightened
character
study
which
I
fully
realize
does
not
have
standing
the
standing
of
the
official
plan
here.
It's
still
waiting
to
come
to
this
committee,
for
reasons
which
I
don't
actually
quite
understand,
but
in
any
case
it
is
important
context,
though.
C
The
key
idea
here
for
the
study
was
to
have
a
policy
discussion
with
all
stakeholders
out
in
the
open.
The
idea
was
to
set
the
rules,
so
we
could
avoid
debates
that
are
time
consuming
and
devices
divisive
for
all
of
us,
community
members,
industry,
etc,
and
to
allow
development
to
move
forward.
But
this
has
not
happened.
Unfortunately,
after
two
years,
draft
study
recommendations,
including
the
six
stories
that
has
already
been
referred
to
on
the
site,
were
presented
to
the
public
last
october
at
a
public
info
session
this
past
winter.
C
C
The
gca
supports
the
study
recommendations
that
include
mid-rise
and
high-rise
along
the
north
sections
of
the
study
area,
as
well
as
six
stories
backing
on
to
the
heritage
conservation
district.
We
are
not
against
intensification.
We
support
appropriate
intensification
that
follows
official
plan
policies,
including
policies
that
relate
to
context
and
compatibility,
but
this
application
early
on
the
key
author
of
the
city's
high
ride
guidelines
stated.
In
short,
this
proposal
does
not
currently
meet
a
number
of
the
items
outlined
in
the
high-rise
guidelines
regarding
tower
separation
and
transition.
C
C
C
I
think
this
is
a
really
critical
point,
because
it
seems
to
form
the
rationale
being
used
to
explain
the
reversal
of
the
earlier
assessment
of
significant
concerns
about
high-rise
guidelines
and
about
how
this
project
did
not
meet
them.
So
this
is
correct.
This
assessment
that
it
would
pose
negative
planning
consequences
and
if
the
planning
consequences
of
six
stories
backing
on
to
stable
residential
are
so
significant.
How
does
this
committee
explain
its
support
for
mid-rise
built
form,
backing
onto
residential
on
main
streets
in
the
city,
for
instance
on
roosevelt
avenue
in
pitchiti
ward?
C
C
C
D
C
D
I
C
Right
well,
the
genesis
of
the
heightened
character
study
was
actually
the
approval
of
planning
committee
of
the
the
mental
building
at
fifth
avenue
court,
which
I
believe
was
the
summer
of
june
2018,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
so,
and
that
was
sort
of
the
idea
was
that
that
well
sorry
that
that
came
on
the
heels
of
what
I
call
the
the
beer
store
site
a
little
farther
south
on
bank
street.
Those
were
both
very
very
large
files.
C
They
were
very
divisive,
really
annoying
for
the
developer,
I'm
sure
really
very
divisive
amongst
the
community
time
consuming.
For
all
the
reasons
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
said:
okay,
let's
not
do
this.
You
know
how
many
times
up
and
down
bank
street.
Let's
have
the
open
discussion
outside
an
application
review
process.
Let's
have
an
open
discussion.
The
chips
will
fall
where
they
may
and
then
we
can.
C
Let
developers
get
on
with
it
and
hopefully
we
would
get
to
I
mean
the
assumption
was
that
we
would
get
to
a
good
place
and
I
feel
like
we
have
gotten
to
a
very
good
place
with
the
bank
street
heightened
character
study
and
the
gca
has
written
formally
to
support
the
bank
street
study.
It
has
taken
some
discussion
amongst
the
community
to
get
us
there.
C
I
would
say,
and
to
to
get
to
a
point
where
there
is
support
for
the
greater
height
that
is
being
proposed
in
the
study,
but
I
think
we
I
thought
we
were
there
and
yet
we're
we
are
still
waiting
for
that
for
that
to
come
through.
So
that's
the
genesis
of
it
and
it
was
obviously
something
that
was
supported
by
planning
committee
too
again
have
the
open
discussion.
Let's
not,
let's
not
do
this
every
time.
I
I
asked
that
question
carolyn
because
I
I
did
invite
the
the
current
applicant
and
the
developer
to
partake
in
that
study
a
long
time
ago
to
say,
come
in.
Let's
do
this
together,
let's
work
on
this
together
and-
and
they
didn't
take
part
in
it-
and
it's
it's
been
now
years
and
now
we're
actually
just
a
month
and
a
half.
It
seems
before
the
heightened
character
study.
The
secondary
plan
is
going
to
be
approved
as
part
of
the
new
official
plan
and.
A
I
C
C
I
appreciate
it
very
much
both
on
the
policy
side
and
and
application
review
side
of
the
house,
the
effort
that
and
the
commitment
certainly
to
to
to
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
by
by
all
stakeholders
for
that
matter,
but
I
really
feel
like
in
this
place
that
they
have
been
just
put
in
an
impossible
situation.
I
feel
for
them.
I
really
do
so.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
my
comments
are
not
going
to
be
misinterpreted.
On
the
on
that
front,
I
I
hesitated
I
have.
C
D
Okay,
thank
you
carolyn
for
your
presentation.
Also,
you
know,
I
know
you've
had
a
chance
to
meet
with
a
number
of
the
committee
members
prior
today's
meeting
as
well.
So
thank
you
for
reaching
out
to
you
and
your
colleagues
at
the
gca.
I
know
those
conversations
are
helpful
for
us
as
we
prepare
for
these
meetings.
So
thank.
C
D
P
L
You
great
so
thank
you
very
much
acting
chair
and
members
of
committee,
my
name
is
kerstinicha,
I'm
a
registered
professional
planner
with
the
canadian
institute
of
planners
and
I'm
a
senior
planner
with
photon
planning
and
design.
I
do
have
other
members
to
photon
with
me
here
today,
brian
casagrande
and
timothy
bead,
who
will
be
able
to
participate
and
answer
questions
after
the
presentation.
L
I
won't
spend
too
much
time
on
the
context,
we're
all
very
familiar,
but
just
an
overview.
This
site
is
at
the
north
end
of
the
glebe
abutting
highway
417
to
the
north.
It
is
largely
predominant,
sorry
largely
develop
a
surface
parking
lot
as
well
as
two
buildings,
a
three
and
a
half,
sorry
two
and
a
half
story:
medical
office
building
and
a
two-story
office
building
moving
to
the
next
slide.
L
We
can
just
see
the
context
here,
as
we've
heard,
from
the
rosebury
avenue
residents.
Today
we
have
residential
development
to
the
south
and
then
to
the
north.
We
have
the
highway
chamberlain
avenue
itself.
It
really
is
an
edge
condition
and
entrance
into
the
glebe
I'm
coming
from
the
west
and
has
the
potential
for
intensification
and
redevelopment
to
support
the
official
plan
and
moving
forward
with
a
growth
in
the
urban
area.
So
next
slide,
please
so
as
a
project
summary,
the
proposed
development
is
a
62
16
story.
Building
of
that
16
stories.
L
Three
stories
is
a
podium.
It
will
have
ground
floor
commercial
of
approximately
350
square
meters.
It
will
have
150
dwelling
units,
of
which
almost
ten
percent
will
be
three-bedroom
units,
including
two
walk-out
units
on
the
ground.
Eight
of
those
units
will
also
be
two
bedrooms,
plus
dens
there'll,
be
amenity
space
they'll,
be
bicycle
parking
at
a
one-to-one
ratio,
so
that
means
each
unit
will
have
a
dedicated
bicycle
parking
space
and
there
will
be
a
total
of
70
resident
70
parking
spaces.
L
This
70
spaces
actually
represents
a
reduction
in
the
required
residential
requirement
just
to
acknowledge
the
walkability
of
the
neighborhood
in
proximity
to
amenities
and
services
along
the
traditional
main
street.
This
site
is
very
large
over
2000
square
meters,
which
is
not
very
typical
in
the
urban
area.
It's
not
often
that
we
get
lots
of
this
size
with
the
ability
to
redevelop,
so
I'm
moving
to
the
next
slide.
L
So
just
so,
I
guess
a
brief
overline
we've
heard
a
lot
about
engagement
today,
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
we've
actually
been
engaged
in
this
process.
For
three
years
now,
foten
has
been
working
with
the
property
owner
since
2018
the
the
property
owner
has
owned
this
property.
For
some
time.
You
know
they
own
their
business
on
the
property
and
been
running
it
for
a
number
of
years.
L
Well,
we
have
participated
in
the
glee
heightened
character
study.
We
met
with
staff,
so
the
heightened
character,
study
first
public
open
house
was
in
february
2019
and
we
met
with
staff
right
after
that.
In
march,
we've
had
ongoing
meetings
with
the
award
counselor
in
2019
through
2021
at
least
two
we've
also
met
with
the
gca
with
carolyn
and
and
her
team.
L
We've
met
with
city
staff
numerous
times,
including
peter
giles,
the
main
contact
for
the
height
study
we've
attended
an
informal
urban
design
review
panel,
even
though
this
site
is
not
in
a
design
priority
area.
So,
just
as
a
summary,
we
have
been
very
involved
and
continue
to
be
involved
in
conversations
about
development
on
the
site
so
moving
to
the
next
slide.
L
So
just
a
very
brief
overview.
The
site
is
in
the
general
urban
area,
so
the
general
urban
area
does
permit
a
range
of
housing
choices
and
uses,
and
if
we
move
to
the
next
slide,
we
can
see
that
we're
on
an
arterial
road
and
the
general
urban
area
does
permit
the
consideration
of
greater
heights
on
arterial
roads,
which
are
also
transit,
priority
corridors
moving
to
the
next
slide.
It
just
shows
that
this
site
is
also
on
a
transit
priority
corridor.
L
Sorry,
I'm
going
to
actually
skip
one
more
slide.
So
briefly,
from
a
zoning
perspective,
this
is
zone
general
mixed
use.
We
are
seeking
to
keep
that
existing
zoning.
It's
important
to
note
that
we
did
not
ask
for
apartment
high
rise,
because
this
is
a
mixed
use.
Building
dwelling
units
are
already
permitted
in
the
current
zoning,
and
the
gm
zone
also
permits
high
rise
in
section
18,
187,
subsection,
6,
subsection
c
moving
to
the
next
slide.
L
So,
looking
at
the
high-rise
planning
provisions
which
were
put
in
place,
they
are
under
appeal,
but
they
support
the
urban
design
guidelines.
The
only
provision
we're
not
meeting
is
the
rear
yard
tower
setback,
we're
asking
for
a
reduction
of
10
meters
down
to
8
meters,
and
so
just
an
important
consideration
is
the
urban
design
guidelines
are
not
policy,
so
we're
not
asking
for
a
reduction
from
20
meters,
we're
asking
a
reduction
from
10.
so
moving
to
the
next
slide.
L
D
P
P
Please
advance
we're
we're
looking
at
this
from
a
different
vision
perspective.
There
are
impacts,
no
matter
if
it's
a
six
to
nine
story
building
or
if
it's
a
16
story.
Building
the
reality
is
that
chamberlain's,
a
context
shapes
everything
chamberlain's,
a
very
busy
street.
This
is
a
transit
corridor.
If
you
flip
to
the
next
one.
P
It
also
is
a
little
bit
about
the
history
of
chamberlain
chamberlain
at
one
point
in
time,
1958
before
the
queensland
was
double-sided
street
and
over
time,
1965
to
1991
gets
basically
decimated
by
cars
and
buildings
are
removed
and
we're
at
a
current
situation,
where
we
have
a
mix
of
parking,
lots
and
open
space,
but
we
are
on
a
transit
corridor.
Please
ahead.
P
Looking
at
the
site
itself,
I
mean
we
talked
a
lot
today
about
the
impacts
with
respect
to
rosebury,
I
think,
that's
fair
to
say
there
are
impacts,
as
I
said,
whether
it's
a
six
to
nine
story
building
or
it's
a
16
story.
Building
roseberry
is
a
mix
of
mid-rise
our
low-rise
buildings,
a
mix
of
singles
and
multiple
dwellings
move
ahead.
P
Just
a
quick
look
at
what
what's
immediately
behind
our
property.
It's
not
that
those
are
pristine
backyards.
In
fact,
many
of
them
are
used
for
parking
lots
for
cars,
move
ahead,
so
keys
ideas,
site
access,
strong
and
community
edge,
the
building
built
form,
neighborhood
considerations
and
our
adjustments
to
planning
flip
ahead.
P
As
I
said,
you
know,
even
if
I
looked
at
this
as
a
mid-rise
building
everybody's
been
talking
about
fitting
into
a
mid-rise
format.
It's
my
position
from
a
design
perspective
that
mid-rise
does
not
serve
us.
Well,
in
a
six
to
nine
story.
Building
we
could
have
a
density
somewhere
between
97
and
135
000
square
feet
of
density,
but
basically
there
would
be
a
substantial
sky
plane
impact.
There
would
be
a
greater
shadow
impact.
P
Please
add
so
what
we
looked
at
was
reallocating
the
mass
of
a
mids
to
to
a
mid-rise
building
and
basically
keeping
a
low
podium
for
protection,
and
so
in
the
relocation
mass
the
middle
slide.
You
will
see
that
our
footprint
of
the
building
is
actually
quite
small.
It's
about
660
meters
squared
compared
to
the
high-rise
guidelines
of
750,
but
in
the
process
of
keeping
that
low-rise
podium.
P
We
actually
protect
the
neighbors
to
the
south
and
there's
a
10
decibel
difference
between
night
and
day
and
through
throughout
the
day,
whether
it's
day
or
night,
and
the
last
thing
is
the
articulation
of
the
building
where
we
minimize
the
face
that's
to
the
south
in
terms
of
impact.
So
when
it
comes
to
impact,
I'm
making
the
case
that
building
form
can
affect
impact.
I
wish
we
would
stop
talking
about
hype
as
being
the
only
issue
it's
not
serving,
as
well
as
a
planning
committee.
It's
not
serving
us
well
in
the
official
plan.
P
This
is
the
3d
which
shows
that
which
we
open
up
the
ground
plane.
So
it's
clearly
as
you
move
along
chamberlain
that
you
have
easy
access
and
can
see
where
you
come
and
go
the
other
thing
about
chamberlain.
We
are
240
feet
long
as
as
a
site.
The
low
podium,
which
is
human
scale
and
has
scaled
to
the
neighbors
to
the
south,
is
intended,
in
fact,
to
repopulate
chamberlain
in
a
way
that's
friendly
to
the
public
realm.
G
P
The
cross
section
shows
how
that
cross
section
relative
to
the
queensland
protects
the
neighbors
to
the
south
flip
ahead
and
the
notion
of
built
form
of
an
articulated
base.
The
bottom
right
building
is
a
fine
example
project.
We
just
finished
at
laurier
and
friel
where
the
ground
the
ground
floor,
is
quite
animated
and
creates
a
human
scale.
Flip
head.
P
P
Flip
it
keep
flipping
head
because
we're
moving
very
quickly
here.
The
other
thing
is
the
sky
plane
with
respect
to
impacts.
Basically,
we've
shown
the
sky
plane
diagrams
that
show
both
in
the
spring.
When
there's
no
leaves
on
tree
and
and
in
in
full
summer,
there
will
be
an
impact
but
you're
the
minimum
of
its
impact,
because
the
small
small
footprint
flip.
D
J
P
P
H
P
P
Ahead
ahead
ahead,
keep
going
yeah,
okay,
step
back
above.
Let's
use
this,
for
example,
so
this
isn't
a
zoom
call,
so
I
couldn't
mark
it
up,
but
a
six
to
a
nine
story
building
would
basically
create
a
constant
wall
which
would
be
220
feet
long,
so
just
to
put
it
in
context.
It's
a
bar
building
that
would
expand
between
say,
first
and
second
avenue
the
whole.
The
whole
thing
would
be
at
a
constant
height.
So
for
the
people
who
are
on
this
on
the
south
side,
their
sky
plane
has
totally
been
eradicated.
P
P
So
if
this
comes
back
to
my
position
that
it's
you
know,
I
heard
I
think
todd
spoke
about
privacy,
shadow
and
overlook
has
three
ideas,
and
it's
been
mentioned
by
a
couple
of
other
individuals
as
well.
First
of
all,
in
a
six
to
nine
story
building
I
don't
know
where
the
magic
point
is
whether
it's
four
to
six
stories
somewhere
in
there.
Basically,
people
are
looking
down
when
you
get
above
a
certain
height.
People
are
looking
at
from
a
prospect
perfect
at
a
distance.
P
So
the
other
thing
that
I
mentioned
was
about
low-rise
form
being
continuous.
Basically,
it
has
a
10
decibel
reduction
in
in
noise.
Now,
if
you
put
a
9
story,
would
you
say
you
have
a
even
a
greater
reduction
in
noise?
Yes,
of
course
you
would,
but
you,
I
believe
that
there
are
other
detrimental
aspects
to
it
and
if
you
flip,
if
we
flip
ahead
a
little
bit
further,
keep
going
to
the
sky
plane.
P
P
Renfrew
is
directly
south
of
this
site
on
the
other
side
of
the
park.
Central
park
is
in
between
us
and
the
third
shot
is
taken
from
bank
street.
In
each
case,
you
can
see
the
form
of
the
building.
Now
it's
not
my
contention
that
that
high
star
the
high-rise
building
doesn't
have
impact.
It
has
impact
just
like
a
mid-rise
building
six
to
nine
stories.
But
it's
my
point
that
in
this
picture,
the
sky
plane
is
protected,
there's
a
greater
amount
of
the
sky.
P
P
My
contention,
a
six
to
nine
story
building
would
also
cast
that
same
long
shadow,
but
would
obliterate
most
of
those
backyards
in
terms
of
sunshadowing
during
that
strategic
time.
Obviously,
when
you
get
to
march,
sun
is
rising
in
the
in
the
east
and
do
it
setting
due
west.
It's
not
it's.
It's
it's
basically
equal
equal
and
this
the
sun
shadowing,
has
no
impact
whatsoever.
P
P
Okay,
so
I
just
I
look
at
overlook,
I
look
at
sun
shadowing.
I
look
at
skyplane
and
saying
those
are
all
relevant
things,
and
so
I
I
you
know
when
a
neighbor
says
I'm
worried
about
impact.
I
understand
that
completely.
I
I
and
it's,
but
it's
my
position
as
a
designer-
a
three-dimensional
designer
that
there
are
less
impacts
with
an
alternate
form,
and
that
would
be
my
case.
P
Well,
east
to
us
is
the
credit
union
building
correct
it's
a
substantial
building,
it's
in
it
quasi-institutional,
because
it's
not
quite
retail,
it's
kind
of
a
service
building.
I
don't
mean
there's
enough
space.
We
set
back
our
building
10
meters,
but
if
you
set
back
on
their
property
another
10
meters,
there
wouldn't
be
a
potential
for
a
building.
However,
if
they
decided
to
tear
all
that
down
and
start
over
again,
there
would
be
potential
for
another
building
up.
I
P
Well,
certainly,
is
family
oriented
in
terms
of
with
the
number
of
three
bedrooms
and
two
bedrooms
plus
then,
and
plus
the
ground
oriented
units
which
are
at
the
back.
No,
we
skipped
over
that
very
quickly,
but
those
backyards
would
all
be
residential
at
grade
facing
residential
upgrade
on
roseburg
in
terms
of
the
actual
financing
that
relates
to
affordability
and
whether
we're
going
to
use
the
cmhc
housing
fund
to
be
able
to
do
that.
I
Okay:
okay,
thank
you
for
that.
You
mentioned
in
your
presentation.
A
reallocation
of
of
mass
and
staff,
also
in
a
resubmission,
have
talked
about
some
reallocation
of
mass
and
that
that's
you
know
more
important
than
than
than
height,
and
how
that
kind
of
mass
has
an
impact.
So
is
this
a
one
for
one
reallocation
of
mass.
P
Well,
I,
when
I
looked
at
it
from
a
mid-rise
perspective
of
the
the
mass
potential
somewhere
between
100
and
135
000
square
feet.
Our
proposal
is
like
131
by
not
mistaken
recording.
So
basically,
yes,
if
you
went
to
a
full
nine
stories
and
they
reallocated,
we
would
be
item
for
item.
If
you
said
no,
it's
only
going
to
be
six
stories.
We
would
be
a
hundred
thousand
versus
a
hundred
thirty
thousand,
so
it
would
be
slightly
more
intense.
I
My
understanding
is
the
the
gfi
and
the
the
increase
would
be
about
33
or
more,
and
I
think
community
is
willing
to
negotiate
on
on
how
that
might
work,
but
they
haven't
been
given
that
opportunity.
So
I
appreciate
this
there's
one
actually
one
one
last
question
around
the
udrp:
you
folks,
you
went
there
informally
just
have
your
initial
informal
consultation
as
a
regular
process
and
you're
going
to
go
back
there.
I
understand
for
for
site
plan
after
this
application.
L
J
L
J
Right
so
they
they
compared
the
proposal
to
the
what
we
assume
will
be
the
outcome
of
the
heightened
character
study,
and
I
mean
isn't
that
appropriate
to
take
a
look
at
where
the
community
is
is
going
with
this,
where
the
planning
department
is
going
with
us
and
to
to
weigh
it
against
that.
I
realize
it's
not
in
effect
today,
but
these
secondary
plans
have
been
cited
by
our
official
planning
staff
as
continuing
to
guide
development.
L
Barry,
obviously
has
lots
to
say
I
mean
professionally.
My
professional
opinion
is
that
no,
they
should
not
be
reviewing
a
proposed
development
against
a
policy
that
does
not
exist
much
like
planning
staff
and
ourselves,
as
professional
planners,
have
to
review
a
proposed
development
against
current
policy.
It
is
not
appropriate
for
a
review
body
that.
A
L
L
P
So
so
counseling
he
basically
got
the
official
party
line
from
a
legalistic
perspective.
But
let
me
just
say
that
we
have
participated
and
I
I
have
because
I
have
owned
property
within
the
leave
hiking
character
study
on
bank
street
from
the
very
early
days
of
this,
and
I
have
never
understood
a
six-story
height
envelope
on
chamberlain,
west
of
bank
street
and
the
16
story.
P
P
P
If
I
took
the
same
angular
plane
strategy
that
is
used
in
the
hype
and
character
studies
over
to
isabella
and
pretoria,
they
start
at
14
and
a
half
meters
and,
as
a
result,
the
angular
plane
is
even
higher
than
this.
So
I
I
all
I'm
just
going
to
say
is
that
I
participated
in
this
lead
viking
character
study
very
early
on.
I
have
never
understood.
Nor
do
I
believe
that
there
has
been
proper
consideration
of
heights
along
chamberlain
versus
height
along
isabella
and
that's
my
simple
comment.
P
Just
making
an
observation-
I
I
just
it
is
frustrating
and
I'll
tell
you
it's
it's
interesting
that
out
of
the
box
when
that,
when
the
hiking
character
studies
started
from
the
very
first
meeting,
it's
been
six
stories
and
we
have
constantly
said
there's
an
alternate
form
thing.
We
have
seen
no
adjustment
to
that
and
no
rationale
why?
Six
on
one
side
and
16
on
the
other
side,
I'm
just.
J
Or
or
or
staff
and
and
the
community
did
not
agree,
you
know
we
we
get
to
these
impasses,
where
choices
have
to
be
made
great.
Okay,
the
and
it's
a
it's
a
frustrating
position
to
be
in
as
a
politician
who
is
largely
in
favor
of
the
direction
of
the
new
official
plan
and
and
the
trust
in
our
processes
is,
is
not
present
to
the
degree
that
we
need
it
to
be
in
order
to
have
have
a
smooth
approval
of
the
of
the
ops.
P
I
we,
I
don't,
think
we
disagree.
I
think
we
actually
agree
on
on
process
and
I
agree
on
the
notion
of
the
way
things
get
polarized.
I
do
I'm
just
in
simple
architects,
so
I
look
at
things
from
a
three-dimensional
perspective.
Okay
and
let's,
let's
there
is,
there
is
room
for
form.
There
is
room
form
on
this
discussion.
D
I
Thanks
very
much
chair
I
do,
I
just
want
to
say
I
need
to
defend
our
staff
here
on
what
they've
done
with
the
heightened
character
study
you
know
mr
hoping
mentioned.
They
have
not
has
not
heard
a
defense
of
it.
Well,
I
have
to
disagree
that
defense
has
been
there
in
writing.
The
different
conditions
that
exist
between
the
two
areas
has
been
very
clear.
I
With
that
angular
plane,
it
has
been
there
in
public
consultations
on
the
gleep,
heightened
character
study,
and
it
has
been
there
on
public
consultations
on
30
to
48
chamberlain.
So
there
has
been
extensive
discussion
about
the
difference
and,
of
course,
that
community,
the
bia,
which
extends
to
these
areas
as
well
and
the
developers
in
this
study
have
all
agreed
that
there
is
a
need
for
some
height
north
of
isabella
pretoria.
I
That
has
a
largely
different
condition
which
I'll
go
through
in
my
presentation
later
on,
but
I
need
to
defend
our
staff
on
what
they
have
said
and
what
they've
done
there
already
with
regard
to
the
urban
design
review
panel,
just
one
quick
question
chairs
the
the
the
applicant
has
mentioned
that
they're
not
subject
to
a
design,
an
urban
design
review
process
because
they're
not
in
a
design
priority
area,
but
the
staff
report.
The
staff
report
says
they
are
in
a
design
priority
area.
I
D
D
Okay,
so
I'm
seeing
no
more
questions
from
counselors
for
the
applicant,
so
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
questions
for
staff.
I
think
there's
enough
difference
of
opinion
that
we've
heard
from
delegations
and
from
from
the
applicant.
I
would
like
to
ask
steve
gottier
he's
the
author
of
the
report
that
we're
considering
today
in
the
recommendations,
so
I
would
like
to
give
steve
just
a
moment
to
address
some
of
the
questions
that
are
still
out
there
over
the
the
course
of
the
last
hour
so
so
steve.
Q
Q
Q
Go
to
the
next
image,
so
those
same
iris
guidelines,
okay,
they
prescribe
distance
between
towers
okay
to
try
to
mitigate
the
overlook
issues.
All
right,
what's
important
to
mention
here
is
that
if
the
irise
design
guidelines
are
not
being
met
or
respected
as
what
was
explained
by
the
delegation,
that
means
that
the
next
option
is
the
mid-rise.
So
please
go
to
the
next
image.
Q
Q
Q
Okay,
so
then
staff
went
on
site
and
considered
the
impact
of
a
mid-rise
okay,
but
also
had
to
take
into
consideration
that
there's
no
mid-rise
guidelines,
so
no
distance,
okay,
no
tools
prescribed.
So
that's
when
staff
compared
the
two
masses,
so
the
horizontal
versus
the
vertical,
and
I
heard
that
staff
had
presented
the
position
at
the
information
session.
Yes,
but
the
information
information
session
was
at
the
in
the
middle
of
the
process.
Q
Q
So
the
the
proposed
development
as
the
the
facade
of
the
tower
is
32
meters.
The
width
of
the
podium
is
70
meters,
so
this
design
releases
for
about
half
or
even
more
the
mass
above
the
third
stories
so
for
floor.
4
5
and
6
for
for
most
of
the
width
of
the
development
so
and
and
a
slim
tower,
this
tower
is
a
670
square
meters.
If
I'm
correct.
Q
Q
D
I
I
Furthermore,
although
less
properties
appear
to
be
affected
immediately,
south
those
affected
will
be
completely
deprived
of
sunlight,
starting
at
4,
30.
and
then
staff
say
the
six-story
height,
although
affecting
more
properties,
would
not
cast
a
shadow
all
the
way
to
rosebury
houses
with
proper
setbacks
and
step
backs
applied
to
the
upper
stories.
A
deeper
part
of
the
backyards
along
the
houses
could
be
cleared
from
shadow.
Is
that
still
accurate.
Q
There
would
be
a
shadow
impact
and
the
staff
would
work
closely
with
the
developer
same
as
this
one.
The
urban
design
guidelines,
the
iris
guidelines
recommend
not
to
exceed
750
square
meters
as
a
floor
plate.
Well,
this
tower
is
way
under
that
it's
670
square
meters
and-
and
if
you
look
at
the
design,
the
the
rear
facade
gets
tighter.
I
Those
guidelines
when
you
don't
have
a
secondary
plan,
they
play
a
very
large
role
and
they
state
that
you
need
to
establish
a
minimum
20
meter
tower
setback
from
the
abutting
low-rise
residential
properties
and
just
a
yes
or
no
is
fine
and
we're
short
on
time.
Does
this
application
meet
that
guideline.
Q
Well,
20
meters
is
in
the
central
area.
The
angular
plane
is
elsewhere,
so
here
we're
talking
about
a
45
degree,
angular
plane.
So
we've
explained
our
rationale.
We
people
keep
pointing
at
the
the
tower
exceeding
the
45
degree
and
angular
plane,
but
it
needs
to
be
mentioned
that
under
that
45
degree,
angular
plane
there's
a
lot
of
mass
release
for
mo
for
more
than
half
of
the
width
of
this
development.
So
it's
the
floor.
Q
Q
Q
Q
So
so
there's
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
on
where
that
45
degree
angular
plane
should
start
with
the
image
shown
by
mr
oben
we're
completely
underneath
if
we
move
it
towards
the
property,
that's
the
give
and
take
that
I've
explained
there's
more
mass
above
but
away
from
the
houses
and
that
mass
is
north,
so
we're
releasing
from
from
fl
four
to
six
for
more
than
half
of
development.
This
is
all
released
underneath
the
45
degree
angular
plane.
I
Q
Yeah,
those
those
are
the
comments
based
on
the
interpretation
of
the
guidelines
and
staff,
as
always
acknowledge
those
guidelines.
In
the
the
comments
that
follow
the
circulation
that
you
just
read
at
the
information
session,
okay,
then
the
the
staff
went
on
site
to
conduct
the
staff
analysis
and
if
I
could,
if
I
could
ask
for
the
presentation
to
be
put
back
in,
I
have
an
image
that
I
would
like
to
show
just
one
slide
and
it
shows
a
hundred
isabella
it's
just
before
this
one.
Q
Okay.
So
there
was
a
desk
analysis.
The
proposal
was
compared
against
the
guidelines
and
that
what
that's?
What
reflected
in
the
circulation
comment
and
that's
what
was
mentioned
at
the
information
session.
But
at
the
information
session
and
I've
watched
the
video
again,
I
did
say
that
the
process
is
not
finished
and
I
did
say
that
further
analysis
needed
to
be
done,
and
I
did
say
because
when
I
send
those
comments
to
the
applicant,
the
applicant
reply
back
with
arguments,
so
I've
pushed
further
analysis.
Q
I
went
on
site
and
I've
looked
at
comparable.
So
if
you
look
at
100
isabella
street,
so
I'm
standing
in
the
backyard
looking
at
a
seven-story
building
and
this
image
shows
the
redistribution
above.
The
third
story,
because
the
the
podium
proposed
for
3048
chamberlain
is
a
three-story
podium.
So
it
takes
all
those
windows
and
all
that
mass
and
it
relocates
it
in
a
vertical
way
and
as
as
as
mentioned
earlier,
the
tower
was
from
the
initial
proposal.
The
tower
was
pushed
10
meter
inside
toward
the
west.
Q
So
there's
a
10
meter
setback
to
the
east,
and
this
is
in
case
a
similar
development
would
be
proposed
to
the
east.
We
wouldn't
want
to
end
up
with
a
wall,
so
we
would
want
to
have
breeding
space
between
two
slim
towers,
but
the
tower
was
put
behind
those
properties
where
you
have
a
large,
generous
canopy.
I
went
on
site
to
do
those
side
visit.
I've
noticed
that
and
I've
also
met
with
the
resident
on
june
7th
on
site,
and
it
was
standing
underneath
that
canopy
very
large
canopy,
so
the
mass
is
being
redistributed.
I
Yes
and
we're
acknowledging
now
that
there's
a
potential
for
a
second
tower
right
beside
this
one,
which
would
also
be
impactful-
and
I
guess
you
keep
mentioning
the
redistribution,
but
can
you
please
clarify
this-
is
not
a
straight
redistribution,
like
the
30-story
tower
into
the
65-story
tower
that
cancer
moffett
references
off
into
the
box
into
the
in
the
up
upwards
height?
This
is
not
that
this
is
quite
a
bit
of
of
increase
in
and
gfi.
On
top
of
that.
I
Q
G
there's
more
gfa
with
the
proposed
development,
but
the
same
as
this,
this
proposal
has
more
gfa.
The
applicant
could
have
requested
for
more
gfa,
that's
a
rezoning.
They
could
have
asked
for
a
nine
story,
building
to
reach
that
gfa
and
that
nine
story
building
wouldn't
have
been
put
against
any
guidelines
because
there's
no
guidelines
for
mid-rise.
I
Mr
gochee,
I
suppose
that
the
issue
with
the
sixth
story
is
that
that's
what
the
heightened
character
study
for
two
and
a
half
years
has
been
recommending,
and
that
is
what
you
did
indeed
compare
it
to
in
your
in
the
staff
report.
That
is
in
front
of
us
today,
which
is
why
the
six
story
comparison
is
being
made
which
leads
to
the
the
question
of
if
the
heightened
character
study
were
already
approved
earlier.
I
So
so,
just
to
clarify
what
that
means.
After
a
three
year
process
to
put
in
place
a
secondary
plan
just
newly
minted,
an
application
could
come
in
the
next
day
and
staff
would
throw
out
the
recommendations
in
that
heightened
character
study
because
the
application
came
in.
Despite
all
that
work,
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
no.
Q
This
is
not
what
I
said
if
the
application
would
come
in
and
suggest
it,
and
it
would
be
a
consolidation
equivalent
to
seven
lot.
Staff
would
have
to
again
compare
the
two
different
mass.
The
two
different
build
form
in
terms
of
impact,
so
the
analysis
would
be
the
same
study
adopted
or
not
adopted.
The
analysis
would
be
the
same.
I
Yes,
you,
I
I
see
you're
saying
the
analysis
would
be
the
same,
but
this
the
consolidation
of
lots
is
considered
already
in
the
height
and
character
study.
It
is
considered
as
part
of
that
it
would
not
have
been
changed,
and
so
this
is
what's
so
concerning
to
communities
and
others
who
engage
in
these
processes.
I
Is
that
there's
a
study
that
is
done,
there's
a
three-year
amount
of
work
and
then
an
application
comes
in
and
it
can
be
thrown
out
very
easily,
and
so
that
that
to
me
I
I
didn't
understand
that
if
the
heightened
character
study
was
already
approved,
you
would
still
be
recommending
these.
These
same
recommendation
in
front
of
us,
which
has
switched
substantially
just
to
make
sure,
was
the.
Q
Question
was
the
question
if
this
specific
proposal
would
be
presented
after,
I
think
that's
the
question
I
heard,
because
if
it's
the
same
proposal,
it's
the
it's,
it's
a
conservat
consolidation
of
seven
lots.
So
it's
the
same
approach
by
staff
I
need
to
this
decides
there
was
a
study
process,
but
this
is
a
site-specific
process
as
much
as
the
the
study
process
needs
to
be
respected.
This
process
also
needs
to
be
respected.
The
decision
should
not
be
made
ahead
of
this
process.
This
process
needs
to
unfold
completely,
so.
D
Councilor
menard
you're
at
the
end
of
five
minutes,
so
thank
you.
Thank
you,
steve.
I
think
we're
veering
a
little
bit
into
the
hypothetical
and
outsider
process
here.
I'd
just
like
to
give
a
opportunity
for
mr
mark.
We
do
not
yet
have
a
bank
street
height
and
character
study
approved.
Is
that
correct?
Mr
mark.
R
Yes,
thank
you
acting
chair,
just
with
respect
to
a
number
of
things
that
have
come
up
we'll
see
if
I
can
answer
them
for
the
udrp
just
to
confirm
this
is
not
in
a
design
priority
area.
The
design
priority
area
runs
down
bank
street,
not
not
down
this
portion
of
chamberlain,
so
it
is
not.
They
went
voluntarily
to
the
udrp
and
to
go
back
with
the
in
the
future
would
be
they
would
do
so
again
voluntarily
and
just
want
to
reiterate
it.
R
Maybe
it
needs
to
be
said,
though
I
suppose,
but
the
study
may
have
been
going
on
for
years,
but
when
someone
submits
an
application,
it's
a
complete
application
through
the
planning
act.
We
have
to
deal
with
it
under
the
policies
that
exist
today
and
if
you
read
the
staff
report,
our
recommendation
is
for
approval
of
this
based
on
the
policies
that
exist
today.
It's
not
a
comparison
of
what
six
stories
or
nine
stories
or
or
compared
to
the
sixteen
it's
actually
only.
R
I
would
submit
this
before
a
committee
before
council
is
that
how
this
development
fits
in
with
the
policies,
the
16
story.
That's
all
that
the
committee
and
council
have
to
consider
not
not
not
a
comparison
between
the
two
and
it's
our
opinion,
of
course,
that
I
think
again,
it
was
as
mentioned
by
kirsten
and
mr
hoban
that
this
is
a
better
development
in
terms
of
meeting
those
policies.
R
R
The
guidelines
do
not
become
policy,
we
look
to
them
for
the
guidance
there's
a
lot
area.
This
is
over
the
lot
area
the
floor
plate
of
the
building.
This
is,
actually
you
know
for
pay.
The
building,
as
mentioned,
was
about
100
square
meters
under
that
45
degree
angular
plane.
As
you
can
see,
it's
it's
kind
of
a
moving
target.
It's
just
something
that
we
can
consider,
because
I
say
it's
a
moving
target
because
it
depends
on
where
you
take
it
at
the
back
of
the
rear
yards.
R
If
you
take
it
out
at
the
street,
it's
just
something
for
us
to
consider
as
far
as
that,
in
terms
of
the
the
guideline
for
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
on
this
about
the
20
meters
between
the
tower
and
the
buildings.
Actually,
we
have
eight
meters
on
this
property
and
the
properties
on
rosebury
have
a
very
significant
reyard
setback,
some
cases
I'll
just
looking
on
geo
ottawa,
doing
the
measuring
tool,
12
meters.
L
H
A
Q
A
A
B
K
Okay,
yes,
good
question,
so
the
that
portion
of
chamberlain
was
included
as
part
of
the
study
area,
in
fact
not
just
chamberlain,
but
also
on
isabella.
So
both
both
sides
of
bank
street
were
included
because
you
know
in
fact,
there's
there's
a
limited,
there's,
really
a
limited
potential
for
intensification.
K
K
We
also
recognized
that
you
know
these
properties
would
would
benefit
from
intensification,
because
they're
well
supported
by
amenities.
You
know
they're
they're
within
walking
distance,
of
course,
from
from
bank
street
and
the
ability
to
support
local
businesses-
and
importantly,
it's
also
very
close
to
to
transit,
both
transit
on
chamberlain
and
on
bank
street
itself.
L
K
Yeah,
that's
right!
So
through
you,
mr
chair
counselor,
that
that's
right,
there
is
a
recommendation
for
six
stories
for
chamberlain
from
14
chamberlain,
all
the
way
up
to
52
chamberlain.
That's
mr
charlebos
property.
He
spoke
earlier,
but
the
following
following
this
meeting.
The
idea
is
that
30
to
30
to
48
chamberlines
before
us,
as
well
as
52
chamberlain,
would
be
removed
from
the
the
bank
street
hiking
character
study
because
it
will
have
already
been
dealt
with
at
least
30
to
48.
52
chamberlain
would
then
become
sort
of
an
outlier.
K
It
would
be
discontinuous
with
the
rest
of
the
study
area
and
it's
only
a
7.5
meter
wide
property
anyway,
and
mr
charlevoix
has
asked
us
to
remove
it
from
the
study
area.
So
for
king
chamberlain,
the
credit
union,
the
jijarding
property
would
still
be
in
the
study
area
and
still
get
the
six
story
recommendation.
F
A
H
B
J
What
I
am
curious,
because
I
I
that'll
play
into
into
my
decision
here-
what
is
the
difference
between
the
accommodation
of
greater
heights
that
was
contemplated
in?
I
guess,
initial
versions
of
the
heightened
character,
study
for
the
isabella
portion
of
chamberlain
versus
or
sorry
isabella
versus
chamberlain.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair
counselor.
Yes,
that's
a
good
question
and
it's
come
up
before
and
it
seems
as
though
mr
hogan
and
I
have
a
professional
disagreement
about
this.
I
have
tremendous
respect
for
mr
hoban,
but
I
do
need
to
clarify
that
you
know
as
part
of
the
analysis,
for
the
heightened
character
study.
We
looked
at
the
blocks
on
each
side
of
bank
street
and
in
the
end,
what
we
found
is
that
there
is
a
difference
between
the
chamberlain
and
rosebury
block
versus
the
isabella
pretoria
block.
K
It
starts
with
the
zoning
you
know.
First,
of
course,
the
north
side
is
very
similar
great.
We
acknowledge
that,
but
the
difference
is
the
south
side.
Okay,
on
the
south
side
of
the
isabella
block,
we
have
our
on
the
north
side
of
pretoria
that
already
contemplate
intensification
right.
It's
an
r4
zoning
up
to
14
and
a
half
meters.
So
that's
a
generous
force
rebuilding
we
we
have
about.
K
You
know
just
over
half
the
block
kind
of
in
place,
because
460
o'connor
at
the
east
block
end
is
you
know
a
big
through
block
with,
with
the
surface
parking
lot
facing
pretoria
on
the
on
the
west
side
on
rosebury.
It
is
a
different
condition.
It's
a
different
zoning.
It's
r3
max
had
11
meters
where
so
those
homes
are
already
basically
built
out
in
terms
of
the
maximum
height
there's
other
considerations.
I
don't
need
to
get
into
all
of
them,
but
essentially
you
know,
the
street
characteristics
are
different.
K
On
rosebury,
it's
a
it's
a
quiet,
dead-end
street
on
pretoria.
It's
you
know
it's
a
more
important
street.
It's
a
busier
street
because
it
connects
bank
street
all
the
way
to
queen
elizabeth
drive.
Okay
now,
so
what
I've
said
is
that
the
rosebury
side
is
a
more
sensitive
condition
than
the
pretoria
side.
K
So
the
the
challenge
then
became.
Where
do
we
place
the
start
of
that
45
degree
angular
plane
on
pretoria?
It
was
obvious
that
you
know
following
the
guidelines
that
we
would
place
it
at
the
front
of
those
properties
on
the
north
side
of
pretoria.
So
you
you
go
up
to
max
height
and
zoning
14.5
meters
and
then
45
degrees
going
north
from
there
that
results
in
the
you
know,
16
story
max
building
height
on
isabella.
K
K
D
We
are
veering
far
away
from
the
development
application
in
front
of
us
we're
considering
a
development
application
on
chamberlain,
and
I
think
we've
spent
a
significant
part
of
the
staff
time
discussing
a
policy,
a
policy
study
that
is
ongoing
and
not
completed.
Yet
I'm
happy
to
entertain
questions
for
staff
about
the
development
application,
but
I
think
we've
spent
enough
time
considering
the
interview.
K
Through
you,
mr
chair,
the
best
correct
counselor
as
part
of
the
character
study,
we
reached
a
conclusion
of
maximum
six
stories
and,
like
I
was
getting
at
that
based
on
you,
know
the
question
about
where
to
place
the
start
of
that
45
degree
angular,
plane
and
given
the
more
sensitive
condition
you
know
for
the
purposes
of
study,
I
placed
it
somewhere
behind
the
the
buildings
on
rosebury,
which
would
result
in
a
mid-rise
building
height.
But
then
you
know,
as
steve
is
brought
up.
K
The
problem
is
that
we
don't
have
a
mid-rise
guidelines,
so
we
couldn't
just
leave
it
at
that,
because
then
we
could
end
up
with
a
nine-story
bar
building
all
the
way
across
those
70
meters,
which
would
be
you
know,
frankly
much
worse
than
either
the
six
story
or
the
or
the
16.
In
my
opinion,
so
that's
how
we
ended
up
with
with
the
six.
It
is
a
cautious
approach
and
it
is
an
approach
for
specifically
for
a
secondary
plan,
which
you
know
doesn't
mean
it's
the
only
potential
solution
here.
K
D
I
I'll
just
take
I'll
take
like
two
or
three
minutes
on
a
powerpoint
and
I'll
be
done
I'll,
be
out
of
your
hair
for
this
one.
So
thanks
very
much
melody
for
putting
that
up
there.
I'll
just
put
my
screen
on
full
screen
here
and
then
ask
you
for
the
next
slide,
and
so
so
the
the
what
would
happen
here
is
if
this
application
is
rejected,
we
would
be
working
with
the
applicant
in
the
community.
I
I
The
concern
about
the
secondary
plan
is
that,
obviously,
that
you
know
you
know
the
heightened
character.
Study,
which
is
going
to
be
a
secondary
plan,
has
been
going
on
for
a
long
time.
But
the
concern
is
that
there
are
aspects
of
the
secondary
plan
that
would
be
undermined
not
just
here,
but
the
the
underpinning
of
reasons
that
peter
has
used
for
this
area
also
underpin
other
areas.
I
In
the
study,
and
so
after
the
two-year
waiting
period
after
the
new
op
is
approved
after
there
was
no
appeal
that
can
come
back
and
will
very
much
be
used
at
lpat
for
other
arguments
in
other
areas
of
this
study,
which
doesn't
just
affect
this
area,
it
affects
other
areas
in
the
study
as
well.
You
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
and
so
the
staff
positions
on
good
planning
have
been
clear
about
this
previously
around
the
development
review
stuff.
I
Reaching
the
same
conclusion
as
the
study
recommendation
that
the
appropriate
built
form
for
the
subject
site
would
consist
of
a
modest
mid-rise
building.
We've
also
heard
from
staff
previously
that
this
should
be
consistent
with
the
current
city-initiated
bank
street
in
the
glebe,
heightened
character,
study
and
we've
also
heard
from
staff
that
a
six-story
built
form
with
recess
upper
floors
would
be
less
impactful
in
terms
of
shadowing
and
privacy
in
in
previous
iterations.
If
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
obviously,
there's
been
extensive
lobbying
we
don't
have
to
go
through.
I
This
there's
been
a
lot
of
lobbying
on
this
file.
I
I've
received
an
email
as
part
of
this
list.
Lots
of
lobbying
going
on
and
that
happens
and
communities
also
go
in,
and
they
say
their
piece,
but
I
guess
I
would
just
suggest
that
you
know
a
different
approach
in
terms
of
working
together
with
the
local
community,
we're
willing
to
negotiate
on
on
what
comes
here
that
that
time,
better
spent.
I
would
say
in
that
way
and
we
didn't
we
didn't
that
that
hasn't
really
occurred.
I
The
existing
policy
context
under
our
current
official
plan
seems
very
clear
that
it
supports
a
mid-rise
building
here
and-
and
it
is
our
initial
analysis,
through
staff
that
this
site
was
consistent
with
the
heightened
character
study
analysis,
which
would
also
support
a
mid-rise,
and
so
I
don't
need
to
go
into
this
extensively
either.
But
within
our
official
plan
that
4.11,
as
christie
has
pointed
out,
there
is
extensive
information
that
this
would
support
a
mid-rise
building
next
slide,
and
here
is
the
the
difference.
I
Peter
has
always
already
laid
out
many
of
these,
but
there
there's
a
difference
between
rose,
berry
and
the
pretoria
on
the
isabella
side
versus
the
chamberlain
side.
Here
are
the
key
differences
on
street
network
on
building
stock
land
use
and
anticipated
regeneration
or
intensification
next
slide.
Please,
and
so
I
guess
what
we're
saying
is
look
at
on
this
application.
I
I
know
it's
rare,
but
this
is
a
rare
thing
that
has
happened
this
a
large
reversal
of
position,
and
that
doesn't
happen
very
often
in
public
consultations
to
now
little
think
changes
are
made
and
and
conditions
get
updated
and
smaller
changes
to
buildings,
but
a
a
very
much
a
complete
reversal.
It
is
an
odd
thing,
and
so
I'm
saying
this
is
an
odd
odd
time.
I
Let's
say
to
this
application:
this
is
not
the
right
time,
go
back
and
work
with
the
community
and
and
the
local
community
association
you
know
doesn't
support
it.
Residents
aren't
in
favor
I'm
not
in
favor
at
this
time
the
city
driven,
heightened
character,
study
and
the
existing
policy
under
the
op
do
not
seem
to
support
it
as
well.
So
let's
see
that
this
city
and
and
this
committee
insist
that
the
developer
does
engage
in
good
faith
negotiations
under
a
process,
we
have
started
already
and
approve
that
process
underway.
I
D
R
Sure,
thank
you.
Acting
chair
and
counselor
menard
mentioned
it
there
regarding.
If,
if
we
allow
a
taller
building
here,
how
will
this
impact
the
future
secondary
plan
for
the
glee
titan
character
area?
Assuming
now
that
council
will
pass
that
that
will
create
a
new
policy
direction
right
now?
We
don't
have
it.
That's
why
I
had
mentioned
earlier
that
what
is
happening
in
that
study
is
not
relevant.
We
have
to
evaluate
the
proposal
based
on
the
policies
that
exist
today.
Once
that's
passed
by
council.
R
It
becomes
policy,
it
has
the
same
effect
or
the
same
status,
of
the
same
teeth
that
the
current
policy
does.
In
fact,
the
way
that
will
will
drive
direction
for
future
developments
in
this
area
like
next
door
that
was
brought
up
as
well,
whether
or
not
you
could
put
a
tall
building
there.
Well,
it's
going
to
depend
on
what
the
the
secondary
plan
actually
says,
because
that
will
give
us
policy
direction
to
look
at
whether
or
not
a
tall
building
should
be
allowed
at
where
the
savings
alone
is
next
door.
It.
R
That's
the
way
the
planning
act
works,
and
but
we
will
evaluate
what
they're
proposing
on
the
policies
that
will
exist
once
that
secondary
plan
is
in
place,
so
allowing
something
here
today
will
not
jeopardize
the
future
of
that
secondary
plan,
and
if
you
go
to
the
lpat,
you'll
have
to
look
at
those
policies
and
whether
or
not
it
is
an
application
proposal.
They
just
can't
point
to
this
property
and
say
we
got
a
16-story
building
here
I
get
one
over
here.
No,
what
is
it?
R
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you
counselor.
This
is
a
challenging
file.
I
just
want
to
share
a
few
observations.
Counselor
tierney,
you
had
a
question
earlier
about
buses.
I
believe
there's
a
bus
line
that
runs
from
roughly
dowse
lake
to
lees
along
the
site,
so
there
is
that
transit
service
there,
but
this
is
a
really
challenging
piece
of
property.
It's
along
chamberlain
and
in
front
of
the
the
queensway,
and
I
think
anyone
who
has
had
the
opportunity
to
walk
bike
or
drive
along
the
site
knows
that
it's
it's.
D
It's
can
probably
see
the
challenge
that
other
developers
or
previous
owners
might
have
had
in
considering
what
could
be
built
here.
I
think
the
comment
that
mr
hoban
made
around,
I
think
he
said,
stop
talking
about
height
and
consider
more
of
how
form
and
mass
have
an
impact,
and
I
think
that's
an
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
as
we're
making
our
decisions
here.
D
I
do
think
we
need
to
put
aside
the
bank
street
height
and
character
study,
since
it
is
still
in
progress
and
will
be
coming
to
this
committee
at
a
later
date
for
consideration,
but
we
do
have
to
consider
the
application
in
front
of
us
under
the
existing
policies
and
bylaws
that
we
have
and
also
it
didn't
come
up.
But
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
there
is
a
significant
section.
D
37
contribution,
that's
being
made
here,
nearly
a
million
dollars,
that's
going
towards
affordable
housing
and
traffic
calming
in
the
local
ward,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
significant
benefit
to
the
community
as
well.
We've
looked
at
this
from
a
lot
of
angles
today.
So
I'd
like
to
call
for
a
vote
from
committee
to
make
a
decision.
O
J
F
M
D
D
D
D
I'd
like
to
continue
with
the
third
item
on
the
agenda.
This
is
a
flight
plan
control
for
257
macarthur
avenue
in
rito
vanier.
We
have
a
public
delegation
and
we
have
the
applicant
here.
So,
let's
begin
by
going
to
the
the
delegation,
we
have
chris
green
shields
from
the
vanier
community
association.
Chris,
are
you
still
with
us.
E
D
D
A
A
S
A
The
design
study
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
new
developments
follow
suitable
design
principles
for
macarthur
in
its
vicinity
and
to
respond
to
the
need
to
improve
the
public
realm.
As
hundreds
literally
hundreds
of
new
housing
units
are
built
along
the
corridor
from
vanier's
western
sector
east
to
san
lorenzo.
A
N
Good
morning
acting
chair
and
members
of
committee,
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
city
staff
for
their
help
and
engagement
on
this
file
and
for
community
associations
comments.
We
are
we're
appreciative
now.
This
is
a
pretty
modest
project
and
I
think
the
staff
recommendation
is
for
is
for
acceptance.
You
know
my
my
comments
this
morning.
Are
you
know,
in
agreement
with
the
staff
report,
with
the
exception
of
one
item,
to
do
with
the
raised
cycle
lane.
N
The
existing
cycle
facility
is
separated
by
the
use
of
pylons
and
we
are
proposing
to
upgrade
that
with
the
addition
of
pinned
curves,
the
counselor
is
advocating
for
a
raised
cycle
track,
and
you
know
this
is
really
problematic
for
a
number
of
reasons.
There
was
a
previous
owner
this.
This
file
goes
back
to
2019
and
in
terms
of
the
actual
project
record.
N
N
We
also
understand
from
city
staff
that
there
are
technical
concerns
about
the
addition
of
a
raised
truck
to
do
with
giant
drainage
in
the
existing
area.
So
it's
something
we
understand.
City
staff
are
not
supportive
of
either
there's
also
an
assertion
that
we
have
to
just
follow
city
specifications
for
a
cycle
track.
N
These
do
not
exist.
We
understand
from
city
staff
that
they
are
in
process
and
will
not
be
ready
for
some
time,
and
so
this
puts
us
in
a
situation
where
you
know.
We
can't
reasonably
ask
our
client
to
commit
to
the
construction
of
a
cycle
track
when
there
are
no
specifications
and
and
data
available
that
we
can
even
begin
to
design
to
and
cost
to.
So
it's
it's
a
it's,
not
a
reasonable
addition
to
this
project.
At
this
stage
of
the
development
you
know
mostly,
we
have.
N
N
Much
as
the
city
has
undertaken
with
a
number
of
of
other
streets,
including
churchill,
avenue
main
street
or
or
even
elgin
street,
so
the
sort
of
late
introduction
of
this
raised
cycle
track
is
not
is
not
particularly
helpful,
and
I
should
say
our
client
is
extremely
supportive
of
improvements
to
public
realm
and
is
also
supportive
of
cycling
improvements.
And
in
this
matter
we
are
looking
to
improve
cycling
facilities,
and
this
should
be
considered
an
interim
step
until
the
overall
design
study
is
undertaken.
N
Mr
chair
two
things:
first,
one
I'd
like
to
rectify
this
idea
that
this
has
come
last
minute
we
did
meet
with
the
consultant
for
this
property
owner,
mr
paul
robinson,
on
this
application
early.
We
did
signify
that
there
was
a
former
city
planner,
that's
now
on
maternity
leave,
for
which
we
signify
that
we
have
a
number
of
planning
applications
on
macarthur,
all
of
which
we're
asking
for
cycling
track,
and
the
majority
are
well
supported.
N
In
this
case,
mr
martin,
I
have
an
email
from
the
property
owner
the
current
applicant
agreeing
to
the
cycling
track
to
a
maximum
of
50k,
which
we
agree
with.
So
I'm
not
sure
I'm
not
sure
what
we're
the
purpose
of
your
intervention
today,
because
city
staff
support
it.
I
support
it.
The
current
owners
send
us
an
email.
We
have
it
on
record,
saying
we're:
okay
with
that
specification
up
to
50k,
which
I'm
supportive
of
so
I'm
not
sure
why
we're
here.
N
N
You
know
I
mean
that's,
that's
just
not
the
way
things
work
to
our
understanding
and
our
our
owner
has.
You
know
talked
about
that.
It
was
largely
an
attempt
to
get
movement
on
this
file,
but
you
know
when
the
reality
has
come
through
that
there.
Indeed
there
are
no
cycling
specifications.
There
are
no
city
specifications
for
a
cycle
track
council
flurry
and
the
minutes
from
on
from
2019
onwards.
There's
not
one
single
item
in
the
minute
that
talks
about
raised
cycle
track.
N
N
Well,
we'll
agree
to
disagree.
We
have
written
records
of
that
and
we
did
meet
with
the
owner
consultant.
Mr
paul
robinson
and
inform
inform
them
that,
maybe
mr
chair,
maybe
we
can
ask
city
planning
staff,
because
I
I
did
work
with
with
mr
james
and
the
50k
provision
in
the
site
plan
did
not
appear
to
raise
concerns.
We've
seen
that
done
elsewhere
to
set
a
cap
limit
on
on
a
particular
application,
which
I
believe,
city
staff
are
comfortable
with.
R
A
catch
basin
at
one
end
so
it'll
be
designed
to
to
not
cause
any
any
problems
with
drainage,
but
not
knowing
what
it
would
cost.
We
put
a
limit
in
that
condition
of
50
000
that
the
applicant
would
have
to
pay
towards
the
design
and
construction
and
outside
of
that
the
money
would
have
to
come
from
the
city.
They
have
to
come
from
the
city
with
respect
to,
I
don't
know
the
funding
source,
but
beyond
that
it
becomes
our
responsibility.
So
there
is
an
upper
limit
placed
in
that
condition.
D
M
We've
done
something
this
before
I
had
an,
I
had
a
developer
back
in
2011
paid,
fifty
thousand
or
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
towards
a
pedestrian
crosswalk
on
bridge
street
and
man.
I
think
it
turned
into
a
civilized
intersection,
but
ultimately
they
they
contributed
towards
an
upset
limit
toward
pedestrian
safety,
and
it
was
approved
by
community
council
and
the
city
picked
up
the
rest
of
the
bill.
So
it's
not
like
this
doesn't
happen
before.
M
D
We'll
move
to
questions
for
staff
I
wanted
to
just
to
clarify
for
the
committee
doug
two
things:
why
is
this
site
plan
in
front
of
us?
Was
it
a
you
know
who
pulled
delegation
authority?
How
did
it
get
here
and
what
exactly?
If
we
approve
the
recommendations
that
are
here,
can
you
just
be
clear
about
what
we're
actually
approving?
Are
we
approving
the
the
cycle
track
or
I'm
not
entirely
clear
on
procedurally
what
we
are
being
asked
to
approve
as
part
of
the
report?
So
if
you
could
clarify
that
as
well,
doug.
R
Yeah
sure
acting
chair
it's
here,
because
the
applicant
wishes
the
committee
to
replace
the
condition
that
requires
a
raised
cycling
track
with
one
that
is
just
an
improvements
to
the
flat
or
level
cycling
track.
That's
there
now,
there's
some
flexi
lexi
sticks
in
front
of
the
cycle,
track
we're
in
front
of
this
property,
but
more
flexi
sticks
say
or
some
pin
curves.
R
So
their
request
is
for
the
planning
committee
to
be
the
arbitrator
whether
or
not
the
race
cycle
track
gets
constructed
because
they
would
not
agree
to
that.
It's
it's
their
preference
to
have
just
an
approved
flat
one,
and
that's
why
we
are
here
today.
They
would
not
concur
with
the
raised
cycle
track.
The
second
thing
is
exactly
what
is
as
part
of
their
development.
We
won't.
We
wouldn't
just
take
fifty
thousand
dollars
and
keep
it
in
in
the
bank.
We
would.
R
We
would
ask
them
to
contribute
up
to
50
000
and
actually
do
the
construction
as
part
of
the
proposal.
As
I
said,
probably
one
of
the
last
things
they
do,
but
with
their
through
their
development
proposal,
they
would
be
actually
doing
the
construction
and
paying
up
to
fifty
thousand
dollars.
For
that.
D
R
Yeah
making
chair
our
position
is
the
one
that's
in
the
staff
report,
which
is
for
the
race
cycle
track,
as
it
was
mentioned
that
there
are
four
or
five
other
applications
on
macarthur
coming
along
and
there
will
be
probably
for
most
of
them,
depending
on
the
situation.
Obviously,
but
similar
requests
of
the
applicants
to
do
from
property
line
to
property
line
not
not
beyond,
but
with
the
limits
of
their
property
line.
N
J
D
J
J
M
K
D
D
Okay,
thank
you.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
which
is
item
four
official
plan,
amendment
and
zoning
by-law,
amendment
1335
and
1329
bank
street.
We
have
four
public
delegations
and
two
representatives
from
the
applicant
a
couple
of
of
housekeeping
things.
After
this
item
we
will
take
a
brief
pause
just
to
give
people
a
bit
of
a
break
from
zoom
and
I'm
going
to
ask
counselor
moffat
just
to
take
over
as
chair
for
a
few
moments
here.
The
first
delegation
is
james
russell.
F
D
A
E
Certainly
west
acting
chair
and
west
chair,
the
purpose
of
the
technical
change
was
just
to
make
sure
the
schedule,
and
the
report
is
consistent.
It
actually
does
not
change
the
height
in
meters
in
the
schedule
original
version.
I
was
referring
to
areas
a
and
b
as
7
and
eight
stories,
it's
actually
six
and
the
seven
stories.
E
D
M
S
I
must
say
it
has
been
an
education
watching
today's
meeting.
I
did
want
to
speak
about
the
proposal
for
1335
bank
street,
not
in
any
detail,
particularly
about
that
particular
application,
because
I
think
there's
a
record
on
it.
There'll
be
people
speaking
here
on
it
and
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
have
spoken
against
it.
I
don't
think
it
should
go
ahead,
but
you
have
a
record
on
that.
S
Even
the
city's
worst
mistake
this
year,
and
it's
not
going
to
be
in
my
ward
and
it's
not
in
my
backyard
and
it's
not
really
really
final,
so
what
the
heck,
but
that
would
be
kind
of
normal
times
thinking
and
these
aren't
normal
times
and
what
we
really
are
is
in
pandemic
times.
They're
chaotic,
they're,
divisive,
they're
risky
people
are
uncertain.
S
I
don't
think
this
particular
short-term
interest
should
go
ahead
and
I
really
don't
think
it
should
go
ahead
now,
because
it's
a
bad
time
to
encourage
people
to
not
have
faith
in
government
to
think
well.
They'll
just
skip
over
the
big
things
and
make
the
little
deal
for
a
particular
person
without
listening
to
whether
there's
going
to
be
a
long-term
plan
without
adjusting
for
that
long-term
plan.
S
F
F
As
you
see
today,
there
are
eight
nine
ten
matters
before
the
planning
committee
and
we
have
20
or
so
planning
committees
every
every
week.
I
I
apologize
every
year.
Can
you
tell
me
what
is
the
particular
item
with
respect
to
this
application
at
1335
bank
street?
That
is,
that
is
of
concern.
You
spoke
of
short
term
versus
long
term
and
you
are
absolutely
right.
I
concur.
We
are
making
decisions,
not
with
a
short-term
perspective.
This
has
an
impact
on
for
30
40
50
years.
S
S
But
in
the
meantime
it
is
going
to
impact
all
of
the
neighbors
goods
around
it,
not
just
a
couple
of
streets
nearby,
but
all
the
traffic
through
and
by
and
around
there,
and
it
will
upset
that
balance
and
have
running
impacts
all
down
and
set
a
precedent
for
very
tall
buildings,
which
will
would
be
problematic
for
quite
a
number
of
reasons.
As
time
goes
by
and
we
see
it
in
a
pandemic,
do
people
really
want
to
be
on
the
25th
floor
of
a
building
when
there
is
a
fire?
S
Do
they
want
to
have
people
up
there
where
they
can
only
have
air
conditioning
and
you're
in
a
pandemic,
and
you
can
only
go
up
and
down
elevators?
There
are
a
lot
of
specific
reasons
why
building
a
lot
of
extra
high
towers
to
house
them
right
now
to,
in
effect
putting
block
down
the
middle
of
the
city.
S
F
S
S
Staff
and
proponents
proposals
have
made
a
decision
that
the
volume
of
space
that
would
be
occupied
under
current
guidelines
under
the
current
plan
is
what
should
be
determinative
of
the
amount
of
vertical
height.
I
mean
if
you
could
build
it
one
way,
then
you
can
build
it
the
other
way
and
just
sort
of
take
that
block
and
turn
it
around,
and
that
would
be
okay
if
you've
got
roughly
the
same
density,
and
I
find
that
difficult
to
reconcile
the
question
of
density
as
being
a
predominant
aspect
of
these
things.
S
F
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
and
and
chair
just
30
seconds.
You
know
you
are
right
density
versus
height
and
you
talked
about
empty
space.
We
are
always
dealing
in
the
environmental
impact
of
sprawl
versus
densifying
you're,
absolutely
correct.
Those
are
always
the
considerations
that
members
of
this
committee
that
individual
counselors
as
we're
dealing
with
these
these
matters,
we
we
are
always
dealing
with
mr
russell.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
today.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you
and
yeah:
it's
not
a
juxtaposition
that
we
are
looking
at
more
land
and
increased
height.
It's
we
actually
have
to
do
a
little
bit
of
both,
because
we
can't
do
all
of
one
right
now.
Hopefully,
in
the
future,
we
can
do
all
of
intensification
and
no
urban
expansion.
That's
the
ideal!
That's
where
we
try
to
lead
to
our
next
speaker
is
michelle
haddad,
sorry,
if
it's
michael
but.
A
Hello
greetings,
mr
acting
chair
and
members
of
the
planning
committee.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
address
you
I'll,
be
brief.
We
made
a
a
brief
submission
and
I
just
want
to
highlight
our
principle
recommendation.
We're
recommending
that
the
planning
committee
defer
taking
a
decision
on
this
submission
until
more
of
the
major
remaining
issues
concerning
this
submission
are
properly
assessed
and
addressed
in
our
submission.
A
We
reference
the
recent
urban
design
review
panel
assessment
of
the
proposal
and
they
recommended
major
changes
to
the
proposal,
and
but
none
of
these
recommendations
seem
to
have
been
addressed
and
we
feel
they're
major
enough
that
try
to
deal
with
them
via
the
site
plan
control
process,
as
recommended,
is
really
not
workable.
In
our
view,
we'd
also
like
to
note
that
we
sent
a
submission
to
the
planner
in
may
listing
a
number
of
our
concerns
and
those
really
haven't
been
fully
addressed
or
or
even
discussed
with
us.
A
Since
it's
part
of
the
this
higher
level
official
record,
just
to
give
you
one
or
two
examples,
we
recognize
that
there
must
be
intensification
and
greater
heights
permitted,
especially
near
nodes
such
as
billing
bridge
and
we
participated
in
the
byte
street
community
design
plan,
and
these
needs
were
thoroughly
examined
in
that
community
design
plan
and
there
was
a
subsequent
buying
street
secondary
plan
and
as
a
result
of
those
considerations,
a
maximum
50
meter
or
16
height
restriction
was
deemed
appropriate
for
node
1.
That
includes
the
proposal
and
abca
accepted
this.
A
A
There's
a
concern
between
the
blind
street
redesign
process
when
we
participate
in
that
and
see
their
complete
street
design,
and
then
suddenly
we
see
the
applicant's
proposal
which
changes
significantly
the
complete
street
and
our
judgment,
and
we
haven't
been
able
to
have
reasonable
dialogues
about
how
wide
the
roadway
has
to
be
on
how
how
tall
the
podium
should
be.
How
close
to
the
road
it
should
be.
A
So
in
closing,
I'd
just
like
to
reiterate
that
we
believe
that
the
decision
on
this
should
be
deferred
until
these
major
issues
have
been
further
discussed
and
and
resolved,
and
we
feel
that
they
can't
be
resolved
properly
through
site
plan
control
processes
and
therefore
they
need
to
be
resolved
before
this
application
is
formally
dealt
with
by
your
committee.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
acting
chair
gary.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
know
where
you
are
right
now.
I
appreciate
that
you
took
the
time
to
to
to
speak
to
us
today.
I
just
want
to
say
I
appreciate
your
work
on
this
on
the
official
plan
on
the
bank
street
redesign
and
yes,
there
is
still
an
awful
lot
of
work
to
be
done
with
respect
to
site
plan
process,
so
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much
gary.
Thank
you,
chair.
M
Thank
you
and
don't
sell
the
site
plan
process
short
there
is.
It
is
a
amp
opportunity
to
discuss
major
issues
and
yeah.
I
would
encourage
you
to
to
obviously
continue
to
work
on
the
file
with
with
your
counselor
through
that
process.
So
thank
you,
mr
lindberg.
I'm
seeing
your
questions
for
you,
so
I
appreciate
your
time
today.
M
K
K
K
K
The
concept
that
we
put
together
is
is
to
create
a
a
gateway
building
that
can
be
a
catalyst
for
change
within
the
community.
Originally,
we
purchased
the
application.
It
was
a
16
story,
building
a
single
tower
site
on
a
12,
000
square
foot
parcel
of
land.
The
plan
had
some
significant
deficiencies
in
terms
of
above
grade
parking,
two
levels
of
below
grade
parking,
two
levels
of
above
grade
parking
in
a
parkade,
as
well
as
an
entrance
off
bank
street
and
exit
and
entrance
off
of
riverside,
which
was
very
complicated.
K
So
in
terms
of
our
next
steps,
we
looked
at
acquiring
the
property
and
putting
together
a
holistic
solution
which,
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
we
can
see
these
are.
These
are
the
two
options.
The
option
on
the
left
is
essentially
the
two
tower
design
that
we
would
have
been
ultimately
left
with.
Had
we
built
a
single
tower
and
then
the
the
design
on
the
right
is
what
is
being
proposed.
K
We
are
about
five
percent
below
the
density
that
is
approved
in
the
secondary
plan,
and
so
that's
that's
been
a
topic
of
discussion.
We
have
presented
it
many
times
to
the
community,
to
counselors
and
and
staff,
and
we
have
yet
to
be.
The
only
response
we
get
is
that
we're
building
more
density
than
the
site
is
permitted
and
we
haven't
seen
anything
to
the
contrary
of
our
analysis.
K
If
we
move
to
the
next
slide,
we
can
talk
about
a
little
bit
about
the
vision.
Our
focus
on
the
property
is
to
create
something
that
leverages
the
quality
architecture
to
create
a
strong
right-of-way
and
a
pedestrian
presence.
That
is
something
where
people
will
feel
welcome.
Spending
time
we
want
to
meet
and
improve
the
functional
design
that
is
in
the
bank
street
renewal
project.
K
We
have
a
long-term
vision
for
this
property
and
we've
invested
it
in
into
this
area,
because
we
believe
the
long-term
vision
for
this
area
is
exceptional
for
residents
for
businesses,
as
well
as
guests
that
come
into
the
into
this
area.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
the
project
has
326
residential
units
as
it
stands,
and
65
short-term
stay
units
that
will
be
operating
as
a
boutique
hotel.
K
K
Access
to
and
from
the
site
primarily
is,
is
done
through
a
rear
corridor.
A
major
reason
for
acquiring
the
adjacent
property
was
to
allow
a
one-way
access
through
the
property
which
will
handle
garbage
and
some
of
the
more
technical
challenges
that
exist.
If
we
only
had
access
from
bank
street
or
one
side
of
riverside.
K
T
T
The
road
windings
being
proposed
on
bank
street
and
riverside
drive
account
for
11
of
the
total
land
area
being
provided
to
the
city
for
streetscape
and
infrastructure
improvements,
and
this
is
visually
represented
in
that
hatched
overlay
on
the
proposed
zoning
schedule
to
your
right
next
slide.
Please.
T
This
is
our
proposed
site
plan.
Currently,
that's
in
the
staff,
as
noted,
along
with
the
improved
streetscape
being
proposed,
the
ground
floor
facing
bank
street
will
have
100
active
frontage
through
this
redevelopment.
We're
able
to
improve
the
public
realm
by
removing
all
of
the
bank
street
accesses
that
are
currently
there
incorporating
a
small
lay-by
to
address
way-finding
challenges,
thereby
reducing
conflict
in
this
area.
Widening
the
sidewalks
over.
What's
current
incorporating
the
cycle
track
proposed,
providing
a
bus,
shelter,
a
total
of
nine
street
trees,
bike
lock.
T
Ups
along
the
stretch
of
bank
planters,
a
small
parkette
at
the
south
end
in
conjunction
with
the
ncc
and
a
patio
at
the
north,
and
that
would
be
provided
with
that.
Cafe,
use
as
well
next
slide,
please
the
main
objectives
here
with
this
design
work
we're
chiefly
to
remove
those
vehicular
accesses
from
bank
street
and
that's
accomplished
both
through
the
acquisition
of
the
1339
bank
street
site,
as
well
as
with
the
lay
by
being
proposed.
The
design
aims
to
improve
functional
requirements
of
a
multimodal
lifestyle
and
to
provide
quality
urban
design
next
slide.
Please.
T
Here
are
some
renders
of
the
proposed
development.
Where
you
can
see,
the
podium
is
broken
into
three
distinct
design
palettes,
with
the
proposed
high-rise
component,
positioned
towards
the
north,
as
is
the
intent
of
the
secondary
plan.
Next
slide,
please,
and
that's
another
render
from
the
south
end
of
the
site
next
slide.
Please
the
benefits
of
this
project.
T
I
really
want
to
to
leave
everyone
with
some
some
key
takeaways
about
this
project,
and
that's
that,
as
stated
what's
being
proposed,
is
less
density
than
what's
currently
permitted
in
zoning.
I
can
explain
this
in
more
detail
in
terms
of
the
analysis,
but
for
the
sake
of
time,
I'll
skip
over
the
details.
At
this
time,
but
feel
free
to
ask
me,
after
by
proposing
one
taller
high-raised
building
instead
of
two,
because
they
would
both
be
considered
high-rise
buildings,
there's
less
shadowing
overall,
an
improved,
microclimate
pedestrian
experience
at
grade
along
with
more
efficient
building
design.
T
T
The
proposal
does
require
the
lay-by
for
for
wayfinding
purposes,
facilitating
less
reliance
on
owning
a
vehicle
and
is
a
really
key
component
to
the
proposed
design
with
the
removal
of
bank
street
access
in
this
particular
location,
and
this
lay-by
is
something
that
we
have
been
working
on
with
staff
in
great
detail,
the
transportation
department
and
our
traffic
engineers.
I
just
want
to
restate.
T
I
understand
it's
often
the
case
that
an
amendment
to
permit
a
greater
number
of
stories,
the
density
increases,
but
that's
not
the
case
at
this
particular
project.
I
can
go
into
further
detail
on
that
as
I
stated,
but
I
will
continue
with
final
remarks.
Thank
you.
I
can
also
speak
to
the
measures
for
this
project
which
facilitate
less
reliance
on
car
ownership,
which
is
leading
our
reduction
in
parking
rate
from
0.5
to
0.3
meters
for
the
residential
units.
But,
as
I
mentioned,
I
will
finalize
at
this
time.
T
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
proposal
brought
before
you
is
mainly
asking
for
additional
height,
but
no
additional
density
and
a
reduced
parking
rate
to
recognize
the
features
being
offered
and
to
acknowledge
the
location
and
proximity
to
major
rapid
transit
in
arterial
main
street,
and
that
this
will
transform
the
existing
east
side
of
bank
street
to
an
animated
public
realm
and
provide
needed
housing
in
an
appropriate
location.
Thank
you
for
your
time
again
available
to
answer
questions
and
receive
comments.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair
christine
kevin.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
I
do
not
take
issue
with
the
height
at
this
location.
The
udrp
did
have
a
number
of
comments
that
spoke
to
the
design
of
the
building,
though,
and
it's
its
mass,
I
think
one
aspect
of
it
might
have
been.
The
podium
was
referred
to
as
being
overwhelming
for
the
for
the
site.
J
T
Mr
chair,
in
terms
of
the
changes
that
have
taken
place,
I
will
defer
to
barry
if
you
would
like
comments
with
regards
to
rationale
for
design
on
what's
being
proposed.
We
can
also
speak
to
that,
but
I
can
turn
it
over
to
hogan's
office
with
regards
to
changes
from
the
udrp
on
terms
of
the
design
itself.
P
P
I
would
say
the
there's
comments
by
the
udrp
that
fall
into
kind
of
two
groups:
one
is
structural
that
is
massing,
etc
and
the
others
are
things
about
treescape
or
coloration.
For
instance,
for
instance,
they
made
a
comment
that
they
we've
chosen
a
dark
expression.
They
think
it
should
be
a
light
expression.
I
I
don't
think
that's
before
us
now
and
we
we
are
able
to
reconsider
that.
But
a
couple
of
really
strong
comments
that
really
come
out
that
we
have
addressed
one
is
the
podium.
P
The
tower
itself
is
strategically
located
in
this
position,
because
it's
a
yin
and
yang
relationship
with
what
happens
across
the
street.
So
the
notion
of
shifting
the
tower
to
the
south
actually
does
create
a
canyon,
because
we
have
two
buildings
right
side
by
side.
What
we've
actually
done
on
the
west
side
is
create
a
parquet
at
the
corner.
So
this
tower
benefits
from
that
relief,
so
it
basically,
they
sort
of
put
together
hand
and
glove.
P
The
other
thing
is
that
the
tower
itself
has
been
reduced
in
terms
of
its
frontage
and
its
footprint,
frontage,
being
basically,
what
how
it
appears
along
bank
street
has
been
shortened,
and
the
footprint
basically
has
been
has
been
increasingly
offset
from
the
north
elevation
of
the
podium,
so
those
things
were
done.
There
was
some
work
that
was
done
with
respect
to
the
internal
circulation,
how
the
garbage
worked
in.
So
basically
everything
happened
internally,
as
opposed
to
externally.
P
There
was
also
a
notion
about
animation
and
public
realm
with
respect
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
building,
and
what
we
did
is
we
redesigned
the
lobby,
so
it
occurred
at
that
corner
and
it
makes
a
public
space.
It
didn't
turn
its
back
on
that
corner.
Originally
we
had
dead
storage,
etc
in
there,
so
we
actually
responded
from
from
that
perspective
as
well.
P
I
mentioned
some
comment
about
the
articulation
of
the
podium.
That
is
basically
it's
about
six
levels,
but
in
fact
they
describe
it
as
being
eight
or
actually
lower
than
that
because
of
the
way
they
describe
the
story.
But
the
actual
articulation
of
the
masonry
is
intended
to
mimic
to
basically
go
up
to
five
levels
and
then
create
an
offset,
and
you
would
know
very
well
that
articulation
because
it
actually
matches
very
closely
to
one
of
the
projects
in
your
award,
which
is
11
40.
Well,
so.
P
Some
of
the
things
that
we
did
there
was
some
work
with
garbage
and
internal
things.
Some
of
them
were
largely
driven
by
site
plan,
and
I
would
say
that
there
were
some
pejorative
comments
about
color
and
texture,
which
are
we
can
continue
to
manipulate,
but
they
wouldn't
be
really
germane
to
a
re-zoning
application.
I
Thanks
very
much
cheer
very
good
to
see
you
again.
This
application
is
not
in
my
ward,
it's
in
construction's
work,
but
it's
right
on
the
edge
and
affects
I'd,
argue
a
larger
portion
of
it,
but
we're
both
affected
and
certainly
the
development
across
the
street.
There's
a
31
story
tower
proposed
in
a
34
story
tower
proposed
at
this
time.
I
Mr
hope
is
also
the
architect
on
that
one,
but
that
is
in
my
ward
and
and
so
there's
there's
a
big
relationship
here
between
between
what
happened
in
this
area.
So
just
wanted
to
go
through
a
few
comments.
I
had
heard
that
we
were
gonna
be
seeing
a
motion
for
a
holding
condition.
Is
that
not
coming
forward
today?
I
I
T
Through
acting
chair,
I
will
respond
to
that
comment
with
regards
to
the
podium
expression.
Currently,
there
is
no
zoning
limitations
that
apply
to
the
podium.
Specifically,
we
have
to
look
to
the
design
guidelines
to
determine
what
podium
heights
are
appropriate
and
applicable,
and
to
that
point
the
guideline,
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me.
I
believe
it's
2.15,
but
it
essentially
states
that
the
max
height
of
a
podium
for
a
high-rise
building
should
be
equal
to
the
right-of-way
width.
Our
proposed
podium
at
this
time
is
21.4.
T
The
schedule
shows
22.6.
That's
simply,
flexibility
with
regards
to
the
ultimate
site
plan,
that's
approved
in
construction
et
cetera,
but
the
the
dimension
itself
is
21.4
and
the
right-of-way
width
for
this
bank
street
is
30-plus
meters
depending
on
where
you
are
along
this
stretch,
so
we
are
actually
10
meters
under
what
the
guideline
document
recommends
for
a
maximum
podium
height.
P
I'll
just
make
a
quick
comment:
counselor
in
the
udrp
comments,
which
I
have
in
front
of
me-
they
refer
to
a
podium,
that's
eight
stories
and
there's
some
confusion
about
what
that
actual
idea
is.
So
that's
what
the
technical
amendment
basically
would.
Basically,
a
three-dimensional
diagram
for
the
zoning
actually
reflects
a
lower
podium
in
terms
of
exterior
expression.
P
P
There
is
a
focus
on
making
that
podium
highly
articulated
the
ground
floor
is
quite
high.
It's
to
animate
the
street
as
kevin
has
responded
to
one
of
the
levels
in
our
podium
is
actually
a
set.
It's
a
mezzanine
level
set
aside
for
bicycle
parking.
It's
not
really
a
story,
but-
and
I
think
it's
important
actually,
since
you
are
the
council
on
the
other
side
of
the
world,
to
understand
how
these
two
things
fit
together,
because
I
think
one
of
the
gentlemen
mentioned
about
two
projects
coming
together.
P
Creating
a
canyon
effect
the
reality
is
it's
not
like
that
at
all
this,
this
podium
actually
holds
the
east
side
of
the
street.
On
the
west
side,
it
opens
up
into
a
parquet
and
the
single
tower,
which
is
on
the
south
end.
The
tower
at
the
south
end
basically
matches
the
south
end
of
our
of
our
podium.
So
there
is
some
yang
yang
connection
between
these
two
projects.
P
Serendipitously
I
mean
we.
We
will
discuss
the
other
one
at
length,
but
in
terms
of
what
the
ultimate
design
is,
but
basically
they
speak
to
each
other
and
they're
not
meant
to
create
a
canyon
where
one
is
on
top
of
the
other.
I
know
doug
van
gaan's
on
the
call
he
should.
There
were
some
comments
as
well
about
the
whole
street
complete
street.
You
know
a
strategy
with
respect
to
cycling,
sidewalk
all
of
those
things
which,
basically,
we
have
actually.
B
In
response
to
those
udrp
comments,
in
coordination
with
the
existing
below
grade
and
proposed
below
grade
services
through
that
process,
we've
also
come
to
a
better
solution
for
the
the
bus
stop
and
the
cycle
track
sliding
the
cycle
track
behind
the
bus,
stop
away
from
being
between
the
bus,
stop
and
the
curb
line,
as
was
in
the
original
udrp
package,
and
so
you
know,
while
that's
still
an
ongoing
process.
Working
with
with
the
bank
street
redesign
we've
come
to
a.
I
think.
I
I
I
So
I'm
just
wondering
has
that
been
done
in
terms
of
securing
a
limiting
distance,
air
rights
or
other
type
of
agreement
with
the
landowner
in
terms
of
the
appropriateness
of
the
the
the
tower
form
to
ensure
the
quality
of
life
of
the
residents
that
are
going
to
be
living
in
the
development?
Is
that
something
that's
been
has
occurred?.
T
Okay,
so
with
with
regards
to
a
limiting
distance
agreement,
that
is
chiefly
an
ontario
building
code
requirement
in
certain
situations
and
can
be
addressed
at
that
point
as
or
if
needed,
and
with
regards
to
the
proximity
to
the
peb
building.
Specifically,
the
site
is
large
enough
to
offer
the
density
that
is
planned
for
it
and
remove
those
accesses
from
bank
street
as
well,
but
it
does
have
a
narrow
depth
in
the
placement
of
built
form.
You
know,
has
has
limitations
in
where
that
can
can
occur.
T
We
will
note
that
this
proposal
does
offer
a
greater
setback
from
that
rear
line
from
the
previous
proposal
that
went
through
site
plan
control
with
the
city
back
in
2018
and
further
the
zoning
schedule.
That's
before
you
ensures
that
the
budding
property
will
have
that
flexibility
in
any
future
tower
setback
for
over
half
of
the
site
at
the
shared
lot
line.
This
this
site
also
benefits
from
a
parcel
shape.
T
That's
conducive
to
a
variety
of
development
options
and
given
the
way
the
ncc
land
wraps
around
that
space,
the
logical
placement
of
buildings
wouldn't
be
towards
that
existing
green
space.
So,
as
barry
was
referring
to
a
sort
of
yin
and
yang
with
this
proposal
and
the
one
on
the
west
side
of
bank
street,
that
would
also
be
the
case
for
this
proposal,
as
well
as
the
one
that
is
to
the
east
of
us.
Just
in
terms
of
how
the
parcels
are
shaped
and
and
where
our
zoning
schedule
is,
is
set
up.
It's
it's.
T
I
I
We
need
to
do
this,
this
right,
of
course,
but
the
the
comments
of
the
udrp
are
very
relevant
here,
where
they're
talking
about
too
much
pressure
on
the
surrounding
public
lands,
given
the
the
density
and
and
that
they
say
the
density
should
be
reduced
and
more
should
be
given
back
in
terms
of
public
realm
treatment,
and
you
know
in
our
in
all
of
our
public
discussions
on
this.
Those
are
comments
that
came
out
over
and
over
again
as
well
in
public
feedback.
A
Thank
you
acting
chair.
We
had
some
further
discussions
this
week
and
we
didn't
feel
that
the
additional
holding
was
necessary,
we'll
be
providing
some
conditions
to
the
site
plan
process
in
order
to
condition
the
applicant
with
respect
to
obtaining
a
letter
from
the
budding
landowner
to
be
able
to
get
permission
to
to
move
forward,
and
we've
also
discussed
that
there
was
a
conversation
around
the
podium
height
and
we
resolved
that
within
the
emotion
that
you
had
before
you
today
with
respect
to
changes
to
the
six
stories
within
that
zoning
schedule.
A
So
we
didn't
feel
that
there
was
anything
further
necessary
that
we
couldn't
condition
through
the
site
plan
process
with
respect
to
the
holding
no
one's
going
to
be
obtaining
a
building
permit.
Until
such
time
as
the
site
plan,
control
process
has
been
completed
and
we
didn't
see
in
the
net
the
need
and
the
necessity.
I
Okay,
thanks
chair,
it's
disappointing
because
I
just
was
told
I
think
yesterday
or
the
day
before
that
that
was
coming,
and
that
was
what
gave
me
comfort
at
this
point
and
because
there's
a
lot
at
work
here,
it's
not
just
it's
the
riverside
potential
change,
it
is
the
bank
street
south
renewal
and
the
design
that's
been
completed
there.
It
is
the
towers
across
the
street
and,
of
course,
our
our
new
official
planet.
I
So
there's
a
lot
there's
a
lot
of
pieces
moving
here
and
then
the
udrp
comments,
which
are
very
the
udrp
comments,
are
very
negative.
They
do
not
think
that
this
should
go
forward
at
this
time.
They
think
that
they
should
be
holding
off
on
this,
which
is
why
the
holding
provision
for
me
gave
me
more
comfort
in
saying.
I
Yes,
we
want
some
of
this
type
of
development,
but
but
let's
make
sure
we're
getting
it
right
and
and
come
back
to
these
pieces
that
they
are
commenting
on
and
we
haven't
seen
a
change,
major
change
from
the
applicant
on
a
number
of
areas
the
udrp
has
commented
on.
So
I
know
I'm
commenting
on
this
rather
than
asking
questions
and
we're
not
at
that
point,
so
I
guess
I'll
leave
it
there
for
now
chair.
M
M
J
I
I
do
just
want
to
best
understand
how
this
building
is
going
to
relate
to
a
future
complete
street
treatment
on
this
portion
of
bank
street.
If
it's,
if
it's
passed
in
its
current
form
and
if
the
site
plan
goes
through,
that
looks
something
like
the
site
plan
that
was
included
with
the
application
files.
E
Thank
you
counselor
and
the
acting
chair,
so
the
the
banks,
renewal
project
by
the
city
is
ongoing
and
the
second
review
will
be
reviewed
at
the
same
time
as
the
with
the
consideration
of
the
banks
for
the
renewal
project
and
we're
fully
aware
of
that.
Two
teams
has
been
working
closely
on
that
part.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
answers
your
question.
Counselor.
J
Yeah,
I'm
the
zoning
would
approve
certain
setbacks
from
the
from
the
right-of-way
and
I
don't
want
to
vote
in
favor
of
a
proposal
that
leaves
inadequate
setbacks
to
the
to
the
right-of-way
or
to
the
property
line.
If
that
is
going
to
constrain
the
flexibility
that
staff
have
in
future
to
design
an
optimal
cycle
track.
J
M
E
I
I
Okay
and
what
about
inclusionary
zoning
is
that
I
know
we
have
that
coming
in
the
official
plan.
This
is
400
meters
to
a
transit
station.
Hundreds
of
units,
so
is,
is
it
possible
to
say
they'll
be
subject
to
inclusionary
zoning?
I
know
they're
going
to
go
through
cmhc
and
do
the
whole
low
interest
loan
thing,
but
which
doesn't
result
in
deeply
affordable
housing.
But
is
it
possible
to
say
that
this
would
be
subject
to
inclusionary
zoning
in
the
future.
A
A
I
It's
a
shame
because
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
units
here,
we're
400
meters
within
billings,
bridge
major
transit
hub
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
and
you
know
we're
we're
striving
for
more
affordable
housing,
certainly
needed
in
that
area
as
well.
I
wonder
how
staff,
because
I
asked
how
the
applicant
is
responding
to
the
different
provisions
here
within
the
udrp
and
what
their
comments
were.
The
the
panel
was
very
clear
that
this
should
not
be
approved
right
now.
A
Mr
acting
chair-
maybe
if
I
can
the
urban
design
review
panel,
are
comments
that
we
certainly
take
into
consideration.
I
would
you
know
the
applicant,
I
think
is
described
in
some
ways
in
which
that
they
have
responded
to
the
feedback
from
the
urban
design
review
panel.
We
will
certainly
continue
to
work
and
negotiate
with
the
applicant
as
we
move
forward
through
to
the
site
plan
process,
where
we
will
continue
those
discussions,
you're
right,
counselor.
E
Thank
you
liam.
So
the
we
understand
the
udrp
provider
comments,
extensive
comments
on
the
design
of
the
building,
not
necessarily
saying
we
shouldn't
approve
the
proposal,
but
with
many
comments,
some
of
the
comments
could
be
addressed
just
to
the
seplan
process.
I
just
want
to
add
one
thing
about
the
podium
height,
and
that
was
mentioned
earlier
in
the
warsaw
noted
in
the
udp
comments.
So
uw
comments
on
the
holding
height
was
one
of
the
considerations
when
we
are
reviewing
this
application
because
it
is
implemented
in
the
zoning
amazonian
schedule.
E
There
are
other
guidelines,
as
the
applicant
has
argued,
with
regards
to
what
is
appropriate
height
for
the
podium
and
lots
of
the
considerations
were
including
the
context
of
the
site
surrounding
buildings
and
adjacent
and
new
and
existing
buildings,
and
as
well
as
the
right
way,
all
the
major
artillery
road
that
is
adjacent
to
it.
So,
with
all
those
in
consideration,
our
staff
has
the
confidence
that
you
know
we
we
could
achieve.
You
know
improve
the
quality
of
the
public
realm
and
speedscape
with
a
a
six
story.
Podium,
that's
why
we're
supporting
it.
I
Yeah,
I
guess
the
the
I
think
udrp
is
likely
referring
to
the
total
massing
of
that
and
the
the
height
in
meters,
not
necessarily
strictly
on
on
the
stories,
but
the
actual
you
know,
meter
metered
height,
so
we're
not
reducing
that
we're
just
correcting
the
the
stories
right.
The
meters
aren't
changing.
So
am
I
correct
on
that?
I
The
same
height
exists,
okay,
yeah,
so
I
just
I
guess
the
last
question
chair
is
just
I
just
want
to
be
sure
in
the
future.
If
I
come
back
and
say,
okay,
we've
got
something
on
riverside.
That's
going
to
work
for
a
combination
of
those
two
roads
south
of
this
we're
not
going
to
be
in
a
negative
position
by
not
having
a
holding
provision,
we're
not
going
to
be
in
a
negative
position
by
not
having
a
holding
provision
for
the
building's
bridge,
changes
that
are
needed.
I
know
this
is
separate.
I
City
project
has
to
do
that,
but
right
now
there's
nothing
planned
for
there.
We've
had
deaths
in
that
area.
It's
very
unsafe
in
that
on
that
intersection,
we
have
a
200
accidents
in
the
last
five
years.
In
this
stretch
of
bank
street.
Between
the
two
riverside
areas,
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
without
a
holding
provision,
all
those
pieces
are
still
going
to
be
addressed
and
we're
not
going
to
get
something
that
comes
back
and
says.
Well,
we
can't
address
it
because
we've
already
approved
this
application,
as
it
is.
M
I
I
guess
to
lily
or
leanne
I
mean
I
just
I
want
to
make
sure
all
those
things
are.
I
don't
want
to
have
to
come
back
and
say:
okay,
we
can't
do
those
things
now
because
we've
approved
this
and
but
if
we
had
a
holding
condition
we
we
could
have,
and
so
that's
my
that's
that's
the
piece
I'm
really
seized
with
right
now.
A
I'm
sure,
a
lot
of
conditions
through
that
process
to
ensure
that
what
we're
building
here
or
what
the
applicant
is
building
here
will
be
will
be
a
a
a
great
addition
to
the
community.
So
certainly
councillor,
we've
definitely
understood
the
the
feedback
and-
and
we
will
undertake
through
the
site,
prime
review
process.
M
M
M
M
M
I
I
know
I
know
I
keep
coming
up,
but
there
is.
There
is
a
secondary
plan
in
this
area,
and
I
just
I
need
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
say
that
we
have
often
have
secondary
plans,
and
this
one
is
not
that
old
either
we
just
had
one
we
haven't,
we
don't
have
a
secondary
plan
approved
yet
and
we
we
made
a
decision
on
chamberlain
and
this
one
has
a
secondary
plan
and
it
calls
for
significant
density
and
then
height
in
this
area
same
with
across
the
street.
I
This
is
going
beyond
that,
of
course,
and
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
say
that
the
the
community
takes
the
time
to
plan
these
pieces
out.
Talks
about
density
they've
talked
about
this
type
of
height
further
south
on
bank
street.
Not
to
not
have
it
but
again
it's
the
placement
of
it
and
udrp's
comments
go
directly
to
that
point.
They
are
backing
the
community
up
in
essentially
the
exact
same
way,
and
so
this
is
again
another.
I
I
Know
this
is
going
to
be,
you
know,
probably
approved
today,
but
this
is
the
type
of
thing
that
I've
been
raising
for.
I
don't
know
six
months
now
over
and
over
again
at
public
comments
and
in
written
emails
to
say
that
we
need
to
sort
these
pieces
out
and
it's
we're
not.
We
haven't
sorted
them
out,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
else
we
can
do,
except
for
raise
the
issues
and
have
the
public
raise
them
over
and
over
again.
But
here
we
are
again.
F
F
I
think
it
makes
it
safer.
We
are
about
to
enter
detailed
design
to
renew
bank
street.
The
renewal
will
be
in
the
long
term
over
the
next
five
seven
years,
perhaps
longer,
and
we
want
to
improve
the
pedestrian
and
the
cycling
safety
in
the
public
realm
and
the
and
the
the
experience
on
bank
street
for
businesses
for
pedestrians
for
residents
and
absolutely
the
safety
at
the
corner.
Bank
and
riverside
is
a
primary
concern.
F
Also
on
the
billings
bridge,
and
I've
worked
with
councillor
menard
with
staff
to
improve
what
can
be
done
with
respect
to
the
billings
bridge
itself.
That
bridge
that
connects
north
and
south
bank
street
as
it
crosses
the
rideau
river
this
site
and
and
the
future
development
in
council
menard's
ward
at
1346
bank
will
take
advantage
again
of
of
the
close
proximity
of
transit
and
the
transportation
network.
F
The
density
here
will
reduce
cut
through
traffic
that
comes
from
the
south,
and
I
would
encourage
staff
to
consider
any
and
all
opportunities
to
create
a
safer
connection,
a
safer
situation
on
riverside
on
billings
bridge
for
all
road
users,
given
the
increase
in
population
and
the
uses,
the
usage
of
it,
and
I
do
want
to
commend
staff
and
express
my
appreciation
of
staff
for
their
work
across
a
whole.
Bunch
of
departments,
planning,
transportation,
public
works
and
cdp's
and
and
secondary
plans
working
with
my
office
in
in
the
last
three
years
of
work.
F
With
respect
to
this
application,
and
I
recognize
that
there
are
unresolved
issues
on
this
file
and
that
will
be
made
more
complex
with
respect
to
the
application
at
1346
banks,
feeding,
capital,
ward,
there's
a
lot
happening
in
the
area,
and
so
and
and
of
course,
the
bank
street
redesign.
Still
a
lot
of
conversations
to
have.
It's
a
busy
corner
and
a
lot
of
challenges.
F
M
E
J
J
G
D
Thank
you,
councillor,
moffat,
okay,
so
we
have
three
items.
Well,
three
major
items
left
four
or
three
richmond
road,
19
center
point
drive
and
then
the
dome
on
carrier.
So
we
will
take
a
15
minute
pause
and
come
back
for
about
1
30
pm.
Please
take
the
opportunity
to
stretch
your
legs,
get
something
to
eat
and
come
back
refreshed
and
ready
to
go
for
a
few
more
hours.