[0:57] Good morning, everyone. We'll get underway. Welcome to the 70th planning and housing committee meeting.

[1:06] We acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Shnavination, whose culture and presence have nurtured and continued to nurture this land.

[1:16] It is important to me that I have to ask the truth of the title 12,

[1:20] no city of the National Algonquin and Snabbeck,

[1:23] during the culture that presents on the sheet,

[1:26] a continued down the shield, say, towel.

[1:28] May I have a roll call, please?

[1:31] Councillor Brokington.

[1:33] Here.

[1:34] Councillor Currie here.

[1:37] Councillor Dudes.

[1:43] Councillor Johnson.

[1:46] Councillor Cavana.

[1:48] Councillor Kelly.

[1:49] Councillor Kitts.

[1:52] Councillor Lowe,

[1:57] Councillor Tuney?

[1:58] President?

[1:59] Councillor Traster?

[2:01] Yes, your gower?

[2:03] Chair, you've come.

[2:06] Thank you, Councillor.

[2:07] Do that.

[2:08] Just come in.

[2:08] My understanding is that Councillor Kits.

[2:10] It was likely to miss roll call this morning.

[2:11] But we'll be joining us.

[2:14] This is a public meeting.

[2:20] Present.

[2:23] This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments.

[2:29] listed as item 515261 on today's agenda for the items just mentioned only those specifically

[2:35] identified in the Planning Act who make oral submissions today or written submissions

[2:40] before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[2:44] In addition to the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal,

[2:48] if Council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for

[2:53] zoning by law amendment and 120 days for an official

[2:57] plan amendment to submit written comments on these amendments prior to their

[3:01] consideration by city council on September 9th, 2026. Please email or call the

[3:06] committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest?

[3:12] Nope. Are the minutes of our meeting August 19th, 2026 confirmed?

[3:20] Thank you. There are a number of responses to inquiries on the agenda,

[3:28] and then with respect to the

[3:29] substantive agenda, of course, we'll be coming back to item 5-1, which is the official planning

[3:33] zoning by-law amendment for three Hamilton Avenue North in 223, 229 and 233 Armstrong Street.

[3:39] We have 12 public delegations signed up for those, and I just want to make a quick note that

[3:46] Councilors, Low and Johnson have joined us as well.

[3:54] The zoning bylaw amendment, the zoning bylaw

[3:57] 2026-50 appeal resolutions. There is a technical motion on this one. Is Councilor Kerry,

[4:05] I believe you'll be making that one. Yes, I will be. All right, we're as report ACS-2026P,

[4:13] PBPS-0064 recommends several amendments to zoning by-law 2026-50 to address matters currently

[4:20] under appeal, including site-specific matters and revisions to section 110, continuation

[4:25] of approved applications, exceptions, and schedules to clarify to add clarity.

[4:31] And whereas report ACS-2026, PDBPS-0064 does not contain all languages necessary to add

[4:38] clarity sought to section 1-10 and the map contained in document 1D contains a technical error.

[4:44] Therefore, it was resolved that document 2 be amended by replacing item 2 with the following.

[4:50] A men's subsection 1-10-4 of zoning by a law of 2650 by replacing it with the following.

[4:56] Section 4, in areas inside area B, shown on schedule A13, where exceptions, schedules, and others

[5:03] code suffixes apply. And the primary zone is H2, H2, H3, H3, H3, H3, H3, MS1, Main Street,

[5:12] Zone 1, Main, MS2, Main Street, Zone 2, CM1, minor corridors, Zone 1, and CM2, minor

[5:19] corridors, Zone 2, then A. For exception schedules and other zone code suffixes in zoning

[5:26] by law 2008 to 50 approved before November 4th, 2022,

[5:32] the data, the new official plan, subject to B and C,

[5:35] the most permissive provisions apply

[5:37] between the primary zone, sub zone, exception, schedule,

[5:41] and other zone code suffixes.

[5:43] B, however, any holding,

[5:46] dash H provisions continues to apply,

[5:49] and C, subsection two applies.

[5:51] Therefore, be it resolved that map 1DB replaced

[5:54] with the map attached as a attachment one here to. Therefore, be it further resolved that

[6:00] pursuant to subsection 34, 17 of the Planning Act no further notice be given.

[6:07] Thank you very much Councillor Currie. We hadn't anticipated a presentation on this and there

[6:12] are no delegations although Lisa Delarosa is here with FOTEN, my understanding is you're aware of

[6:18] the technical amendment that was made and you don't have any need to speak this morning. Thank you.

[6:23] If that is the case today members wish to have this one held, no, is the technical amendment

[6:30] carry?

[6:31] Thank you.

[6:32] And is the item as amended carried?

[6:33] Yes.

[6:34] Thank you.

[6:38] There is the item the zoning by-law amendment 27752785 Poladium Drive 350 called

[6:44] F Road.

[6:45] We hadn't anticipated the presentation or our no delegation signed up to speak.

[6:50] There has been some correspondence on the item.

[6:51] the applicants are here to speak to the item if they need to.

[6:58] The, so to the applicant, so I'll just ask if the committee is prepared to carry this item to just still wish to speak.

[7:12] Good morning.

[7:14] I'm just here to answer any questions.

[7:16] Thank you.

[7:18] Thank you very much.

[7:20] And then Vice Chair Gower does have one quick question.

[7:23] I thought we would do that now.

[7:25] rather than hold the item, just let the staff go and later the fact that we have a longer

[7:29] item coming up.

[7:33] I'll preface it by saying most of the feedback from residents on this file has been really positive. People are excited about a potential water park in the community, and it's well located near the highway.

[7:46] but it is right next to an existing residential community and we've had significant feedback

[7:54] about impact from traffic originally this site was proposed as a RV sales lot so this is

[8:02] quite a different use there's also been significant concern on the environmental side

[8:06] about water capacity about environmental features resident asked about whether or not the

[8:17] permissible payment and so on. All of that as I understand it will be reviewed through the

[8:22] site plan. The site plan was submitted concurrently to the zoning. Where are you at with the site plan

[8:28] process and are you aware of those concerns and are these things that you're reviewing right now?

[8:34] Yes, thank you through the chair. We are aware of those comments. We've reviewed the first

[8:39] submission from the applicant provided comments. We've made the applicant aware of the comments

[8:43] community and they will be addressed through our future submissions.

[8:48] Okay, so that site plan is still underway and those elements are still building reviewed.

[8:53] That's good to hear.

[8:54] Yes, that's correct.

[8:54] Okay.

[8:55] Thank you, Chair.

[8:56] That's all.

[8:57] Thank you very much, Vice Chair.

[8:58] So, is that it?

[8:59] I'm carried.

[9:00] Very.

[9:01] Thank you very much.

[9:03] And I will just note that there are two IPDs information previously distributed on the agenda.

[9:10] I hadn't received any indication that members had wished to have those held.

[9:14] Last chance, if you did want those held, nope, no sweat.

[9:19] So we'll consider those received and we will go back to the start of the agenda,

[9:26] which is the OPA and Zoning By-law for Hamilton Armstrong.

[9:31] We'll first receive a presentation from staff from there.

[9:36] We'll go into public delegations and then we will go into questions by members of staff.

[9:41] So, whenever staff are ready, if you could introduce yourselves and take the seat of the presentation.

[10:10] Thanks, Chair Leapert.

[10:12] Good morning.

[10:12] My name is Jack Smith and I'm a planner with the Development Review Central.

[10:15] I'll walk us through the Proposed Official Pline Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment at 340 Parkdale Avenue.

[10:20] Next slide, please.

[10:22] The subject lands represent four parcels known as three Hamilton Avenue North and two two three two two nine and two three three Armstrong Street representing an entire city block in the Hintonburg community bound by Armstrong Parkdale Spencer and Hamilton within a 500 meter walking distance the Tunis pastor station next slide.

[10:42] The subject lands are designated hub and located within the inner urban

[10:45] transect and evolving overlay within the official plan, which contemplates heights up to 40

[10:50] stories.

[10:51] Next slide, please.

[10:55] The lands are designated hub within the Parkdale Park Policy area in the Wellington

[10:58] Street West Secondary Plan.

[11:00] A site specific policy applying to 233 Armstrong Street and 3 Hamilton Avenue North permits

[11:05] a development of the site with a floor space index that is generally equivalent to eight

[11:10] stories without being subject to a maximum height requirement. The remainder of the site is subject

[11:14] to a maximum height of eight stories. Next slide, please.

[11:20] Under zoning by law 2008 to

[11:21] 50, the Landsers Own Mixed Youth Center and Light Industrial, these zones are subject to

[11:27] site-specific exceptions, floor space index requirements, as well as the zoning schedule and

[11:31] holding symbol of flying to a majority of the site.

[11:37] Under zoning by law 202650, the Landsers

[11:40] and Hub2 and mixed industrial and the site-specific provisions, schedule and holding provisions

[11:44] were carried forward from the previous zoning dialogue.

[11:49] Next slide, please.

[11:53] And for the English

[11:54] presentation, if we could go one more slide. One more. Thank you. So looking at the site plan,

[12:04] the proposal seeks to permit a 32-story mixed use building with 386 units. A new low-rise building

[12:09] will be provided on the southeast corner of the site, which reinstates the Carlton Tavern in the same

[12:13] general location and likeness to the existing building, and 850 square meter pops is provided

[12:19] on the southern extent of the site to contribute to the public realm and further animate

[12:22] park tail park. Next slide please.

[12:27] With respect to tree plantings and greening of the site,

[12:29] street trees and various plantings are proposed on all edges, including within the proposed

[12:33] pop area, the remainder of lands at grade will include hard skatepapers. Next slide please.

[12:41] Further comments provided by staff, technical agencies and members of the public, a number of

[12:46] of changes have been implemented in the development proposal to align with the feedback received.

[12:50] Namely, the reduction to the overall building height from 38 stories to 32 stories,

[12:56] and the reduction in the overall podium height from nine stories to five stories.

[12:59] Now, move on to the next slide where I'll speak to the remainder of the changes.

[13:05] On the screen, you can see the previously proposed six to eight story podium on the left,

[13:09] and the revised five to eight story podium heights on the right.

[13:12] additional changes which have occurred include reconfiguration of the pops to be

[13:17] south facing, reconstruction of the Carlton Tavern and architectural design that

[13:22] is reflective of the historic and surrounding context. Next slide please.

[13:28] Knowing

[13:28] that the lands to the western north are also located within the hub designation and

[13:32] can be developed at a greater density, sensitive transition to the east and south

[13:36] was the priority. The tower locates itself furthest from the Parkdale Avenue corridor

[13:41] and plant sensitive lorized contacts to the east, indicated in the orange neighborhood zone

[13:46] on the right side of the screen. The proposed 32 stories represents a transition down from the

[13:51] plan context of 40 stories at the center of the hub, and the tower is below a 45 degree angular

[13:56] plane measured from those neighborhood zones located east of the Parkdale Avenue corridor. To the south,

[14:03] the pops in the reinstatement of the Carlton Tavern Incorporate a lorized built form

[14:06] which provides separation and transition of the development to Parkdale Park to the south.

[14:11] Next slide, please.

[14:14] The proposed OPA will permit up to 32 stories on the subject property, subject to the tower

[14:19] being located in the closest proximity to rapid transit.

[14:22] Policies are included within the OPA to ensure that any high-rise development of the land

[14:26] provide a pops, and where the Carlton Tavern is proposed to be demolished, policies

[14:31] have been included, which require replacement to story building, containing ground floor

[14:36] commercial, and representing architectural character appearance and location of the tavern.

[14:40] Next slide, please.

[14:43] The proposed rezoning seeks to reason the full extent of the lands as mixed use center within the old zoning by law and hub to within the new zoning by law both subject to site specific exceptions and zoning schedule.

[14:55] The proposed rezoning application permits the

[15:00] And the recommendation report contains full some details on the extent of relief required to permit

[15:04] the proposed development, which generally relate to height, setbacks, projection of the rooftop

[15:09] amenity area, requirements for non-residential uses at grade, and removal of the holding

[15:14] symbol in addition to other technical provisions. Next slide, please.

[15:22] Staff recommend approval of the OPNs that be as indicated in the report as the proposed

[15:26] development will provide an increased housing stock, improve the pedestrian realm, improve active

[15:31] transportation and include ground floor commercial uses, which will contribute to the local economy.

[15:37] The proposal is consistent with the city's official plan, the Wellington Street West Secondary

[15:41] Plan, and applicable urban design guidelines. Next slide, please. That wraps up my presentation

[15:46] to the committee. Thank you and please let us know if there any questions.

[15:52] Thank you very much

[15:53] for the staff presentation. We'll come back to staff after the public delegations.

[15:59] I would ask the representatives are here from Taggart as you want to make your presentation

[16:03] first or do you want to go last and have an opportunity to answer any concerns that you may have heard raised by residents.

[16:12] Okay.

[16:38] Good morning, gentlemen. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee.

[16:51] Hello. Perfect.

[16:55] Good morning, Chair. Members of committee. My name is Bear Wager.

[16:57] Senior Planner with Stantec Consulting, and with me as part of the applicant team is

[17:01] Braden Walker of Taggart Realty and Hugo Latrell of Hope and Architecture.

[17:08] I'll share a few project points and then I'll turn it over to Hugo for a brief presentation on

[17:12] the architecture. We can turn this slide too.

[17:19] So firstly we'd like to thank staff, the UDRP,

[17:22] and the community for their collaboration to date that's helped transform this proposal from

[17:26] initial design. The redesign you're seeing today was centered around preserving space for a

[17:31] reimagined Carlton Tavern and included the following key changes. For the podium, it dropped

[17:36] from nine to five to six stories. It's scale reduced, it's form improved, and it's appearance

[17:43] re-aligned with the areas industrial past. For the tower, it dropped from 38 to 32 stories,

[17:49] and its location appropriately shifted closer to Tony's pasture station. For the balance of

[17:53] site, space was freed up to accommodate two significant features.

[17:58] The first being a pops, along Armstrong Street, which is linked up to through block connections,

[18:04] and the second being a stand-alone building for a tavern of similar location in architecture

[18:09] as the existing Carlton.

[18:11] Beyond these highlighted changes, the redevelopment will require ground floor commercial

[18:15] space, provide over three times the zoning requirement for family-sized dwelling units,

[18:20] and it will address site contamination.

[18:22] Taking together these elements support desirable intensification in a targeted area near rapid transit, employment, and commercial uses.

[18:32] Supporting this project will help to advance provincial and municipal planning objectives for housing, transit oriented development, efficient land use and urban design.

[18:40] In short, this proposal represents good land use planning.

[18:45] Slide 3, please.

[18:49] It's important to note that when Taggart assembled this block,

[18:51] it offered the opportunity to reimagine it in whole.

[18:54] An opportunity not afforded with previous development schemes.

[18:57] This allowed the design for the block to make better use of its permissions

[19:00] under the secondary plan, which prescribe a maximum density

[19:03] without any limit on building height where the tower is proposed.

[19:07] With that, the design distributes a permitted density

[19:10] into a podium and point tower form that frees up large portions of the site for public

[19:15] round space and a reimagined tower. The context of the block also allows the proposed building

[19:21] heights to achieve appropriate tower and podium transition for the adjacent properties. Lastly,

[19:26] I'd like to emphasize our appreciation for the history of the block and its importance to the community.

[19:31] We believe the proposal reflects that value and we recognize there will be further opportunities

[19:36] for input through a future site plan control process if the applications before you are carried

[19:40] and approved by Council.

[19:46] All right.

[19:46] Thanks, Barrett.

[19:48] So can we go to the next slide, please?

[19:50] So the proposal is a 32-story development providing 386 new homes.

[19:56] Importantly, 17% are larger family size units, more than three times the rezoning requirement.

[20:03] The project's also targeting 30% affordable units and includes 3,700 square meters of a

[20:10] amenity space, 850 square meters of publicly accessible pop space.

[20:14] Can we go to the next slide please?

[20:17] So, at the ground plane, the design is organized around a simple idea, creating a connected

[20:22] active place that works as a part of this rounding neighborhood.

[20:25] The main building defines Parkdale, Spencer, and Hamilton Street Edges, with a tower positioned

[20:31] towards the western side of the site, and the reimagined Carlton tavern remains at the corner

[20:36] of Parkdale and Armstrong in a location similar to where it stands today. Next slide, please.

[20:44] Together, these elements frame a large central public space with approximately 37% of the site

[20:49] dedicated to the public realm, and almost 50% if we count the tavern into that. This space connects

[20:56] Armstrong Street through Spencer Street and Parkdale Avenue, creating new pedestrian routes

[21:01] through the block. Next slide, please. So these images will show how we envision the space functioning.

[21:09] So the tavern remains a recognizable neighborhood landmark, but now opens onto padios,

[21:15] landscaping, and a flexible public plaza. Next slide, please. The space can support outdoor dining

[21:21] and informal gathering, as well as market stalls, community events, and seasonal activities.

[21:27] Next slide, please.

[21:29] The surrounding commercial spaces face into the plaza, helping animate it throughout

[21:33] the day, and making it a true public destination.

[21:36] Next slide.

[21:38] The five-story podium draws from Hiddenberg's Industrial Warehouse character, so Red Industrial

[21:44] Brick Strong Structural Bays and a large punched openings give it a grounded durable expression.

[21:50] Oh, you just did a wrap up, please.

[21:53] I'll finish up with the last slide.

[21:54] We can just go to the, there you go.

[21:56] So finally, glass your six floor creates a clear transition between the

[22:00] Mason Repotium and the tower.

[22:02] Above, the tower has a lighter contemporary expression with a minimalist frame

[22:06] intersected by a glass your east facade.

[22:08] It's crowned creates a subtle landmark from a distance while remaining

[22:12] restrained when viewed closer to the site.

[22:14] So overall, the design concentrates the height where it has the least impact

[22:18] while creating a lower-scale street edge, a renewed home for the Carlton tavern, and a substantial

[22:23] new public space at the heart of the block. Thank you for that.

[22:30] The presentation from the applicant, do any members have questions of the applicant? I know I have a couple

[22:38] questions of the applicant.

[22:41] There are there are public delegations. Yep. They get their five minutes.

[22:46] Sorry, Chair, do we get to ask you get to ask the applicant's questions? Only now.

[22:51] Yep. And thank you. That's why I want to go first or last. Okay. Well, I guess in that case.

[22:58] There was a move by the chair saying that there was an opportunity to move this and we were given a perception that it was okay.

[23:08] Last night we were updated that there is a major concern with timelines and construction.

[23:15] Were you consulted by the chair on this?

[23:19] Because in what's your position?

[23:24] I can answer that through your chair.

[23:26] We have contractual obligations with the previous landowner.

[23:30] If I can just speak a little closer, we have contractual obligations with the previous

[23:35] landowner where we purchase a site from, that we need to move this planning process along

[23:39] by a certain time. We did originally we're okay with the potential will you deferring the site

[23:46] but or the hearing today, but knowing that we're going into election and that there's only one,

[23:52] maybe two more committee meetings coming up. We were very concerned that we could get

[23:56] delete further and we just can't have that happen.

[23:59] I would put us off side with our contracts.

[24:02] Okay, and what kind of time frame

[24:03] and I'll go to city staff later on

[24:05] gets the staff component because apparently we can get back to you.

[24:09] So during this process.

[24:12] So what is, what is going to,

[24:16] what is the threshold, I work in 30 days.

[24:20] That's how most people work.

[24:22] This is the only mandated committee

[24:25] that's required to meet during the election period and usually typically happens two weeks.

[24:32] So I'm trying to understand how there's so much confusion here.

[24:35] If you know what meets every two weeks and originally you're okay with it on a delay,

[24:40] what is the concern that is the chair of committing to every two weeks of planning committee meetings?

[24:45] Like I'm just trying to balance this out here because I'm having a disconnect.

[24:49] Sure. I mean, through your chair, the next meeting is canceled.

[24:53] So the next one would be October 7th, and that's, you know, a week or so before the election. And so we, we were just concerned that it might, so it would actually work over a 30 day cycle over 30 days. Okay, fair enough. Okay, so I'm glad the confusion was resolved because I, this was going to be a super quick meeting today with the deferral. And I just want to make sure we have all the facts in the table. So thanks for coming out today. Thank you very much, Councillor Turner. Councilor Troster. Thank you so much chair.

[25:22] I understand their significant contamination on the site and that part of this development is committing to

[25:28] decontamination. I just wonder if you could speak to that.

[25:33] Yes, we are undergoing a risk assessment process with the MSEP to address the contamination on site.

[25:38] It's ongoing and it's a several year process. We've been through it for over a year now already.

[25:45] So it is ongoing and we will continue to provide more updates to staff during the site plan process.

[25:50] But we plan to address the contamination on site through this project.

[25:54] Distended curiosity, what was the source?

[25:58] Through your chair, I'm not able to speak to the exact source or cause of the contamination, but we will be addressing it through our environmental approval process.

[26:09] Okay, thank you very much.

[26:10] I can just say the previous industrial use, some of the post-war manufacturing.

[26:17] their environmental practices were we're not good. Honeywell was the last owner of the site

[26:23] before the most recent owner they still have an obligation I believe to to clean up the site

[26:29] but you'll be taking that on when or sorry I guess you have that have taken that on.

[26:33] There is a big trailer that says believe it's black it's got the writing on it and that has been

[26:39] slowly sucking some of the stuff out but this is it would take decades to finish this is the

[26:45] this is our opportunity to get that finally cleaned up.

[26:49] Councillor Currie.

[26:51] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[26:53] So I'm sympathetic to the community

[26:55] that would probably like more time on this.

[26:59] With our accelerated timelines,

[27:00] it has been very quick.

[27:02] Something comes forward,

[27:03] and the community has very little time to react.

[27:06] I'm just wondering what other opportunities

[27:08] have the community had to look at this

[27:13] or weigh in or, you know, I'm just wondering about how this has gone prior to us getting here.

[27:24] I guess question for you.

[27:26] What has been your consultation on this one?

[27:29] I can speak to that chair.

[27:31] We've had multiple public consultations.

[27:35] And with the community association,

[27:37] we've had back and forth feedback with through staff on comments from the community.

[27:42] So we've done all of the mandatory reviews.

[27:45] I don't know where if you want to.

[27:47] Yeah, I'm happy to add to that through you chair.

[27:51] We've been at this for two and a half years.

[27:53] That entire two and a half years hasn't been, you know, public facing.

[27:58] But the project has been ongoing for that amount of time.

[28:02] In terms of the work that's gone into through consultation with the public,

[28:06] we have done two trips to the UDRP.

[28:09] We had a public meeting back in February of this year.

[28:15] Again, not required under the Planning Act, but of course we wanted to provide the community opportunity to

[28:21] understand the project better as we're moving forward.

[28:25] And as part of all that effort, obviously, we've made some rather significant changes to the project,

[28:30] understanding and hearing the comments from a variety of different sources,

[28:36] B at UDRP, city staff, city heritage staff, the community.

[28:41] Okay, thanks for just given that there were changes though, because I'm looking at a filing cannot.

[28:45] us almost the same thing. We're then they were chained not almost the same thing. You kidding me,

[28:48] I'd love to have this one in my ward. But because it's beautiful, but this one that's in

[28:52] Canada, the changes were made. And then the final one, well, the community will have very little

[28:57] time to react to the very final changes. Has there been consultation based on like pretty much

[29:03] what we're looking at today? Through you, Chair. What was what has been in front of the community

[29:10] for maybe three, three quarters of a year now was a 38-story tower with a nine-story podium.

[29:19] The actual layout of this site still remains the same.

[29:23] So the only change that was made, you know, approximately a month and a half ago was a

[29:29] reduction in tower height, a reduction in podium height.

[29:33] So both very positive changes in terms of responding to comments received to date.

[29:38] in terms of timelines, you know, for notification, I would defer to staff for that, but I'm

[29:46] confident those have certainly been that. I don't know staff have a comment, but I think I've

[29:52] gotten the answer. I want, but I don't know, generally, if you would like any more clarity on that from

[29:56] anyone there.

[30:00] I know I have some questions for staff regarding the timelines at that point in the debate.

[30:09] The community has had its statutory six days to look at the report recommending approval of this.

[30:16] It's really five and a half days, because that came out last Thursday at 2 o'clock.

[30:21] And I'm disappointed that we couldn't get a consensus around deferring this for another month, but there it is.

[30:28] So I'll have some more questions about that when we get to the point where we speak in the staff.

[30:32] Okay, they're away.

[30:34] Thank you. I don't see any of the questions from other members. So I'll ask, uh, post my own,

[30:39] the first of which I have heard and agree with a lot of the community concern around the 0.7

[30:44] parking ratio. I think two weeks ago we were talking about a zero parking building. This one is a

[30:50] 0.7, which is actually I think many people feel too high. Hundreds of parking spaces on a very congested

[30:57] street. We can't impose a cap on you. Our official plan doesn't require any parking in nor does it put in place or you are not bust you know, our maximums.

[31:09] But why so much parking and is there the possibility as you go through the site plan process, which will presumably be within New Councilor, for turning some of that parking into public parking?

[31:25] To you, Chair, in terms of the parking ratio 0.7, there's obviously market conditions which lead to that number coming up. Lots of studies go and support behind that.

[31:40] The reality is a fair amount of excavation needs to take place on the site to deal with the contamination.

[31:46] This is a requirement through the province, and then the replacement of that below grade four stories will call it.

[31:55] There are restrictions for what that actually gets used for.

[31:58] Sensitive land uses would be one that is not viable, so that really leads a rather limited use,

[32:06] which in this case is going to be parking for both bicycles and vehicles, in terms of, you

[32:13] know, the, the modal share that our TIA looked at, we're anticipating probably about 67-70%

[32:21] of mode shared to be by transit, bicycle, and walking. So a rather low share will actually

[32:27] be allocated towards vehicles and how that relates back to parking, but in terms of the opportunity

[32:35] for allocating spaces to public parking. We absolutely left the door open for that as part of

[32:41] the zoning. We have that as a permitted use public parking and there has been interest expressed

[32:48] by the city for that given that location and of course this is something that will be worked out

[32:54] in further detail as part of future site plan as you know we're not anywhere near the maximum

[33:00] permitted parking. We're well below that so it's really a little relevance at this stage but we'll be certainly looked at again at site plan.

[33:10] Okay, that'll be a discussion for the for the next term of council.

[33:15] The second one is I share the communities concerned around entry egress on to Spencer.

[33:22] That's not a decision that we're making today that will finally be decided when this goes through the site plan process.

[33:27] I just want to make sure, though, that we are not doing anything in the zoning that would preclude a Hamilton entry egress for vehicles and garbage management.

[33:39] Yes, through you chair, you're right.

[33:41] We are not doing anything through the zoning, which would restrict the location of that access to the underground parking.

[33:50] just for a bit of background in terms of the actual location.

[33:55] This was something that, you know,

[33:57] the two logical locations would have been Hamilton or Spencer,

[34:00] given the relationship to Armstrong and Parkdale.

[34:04] During the early discussions with city staff,

[34:07] there was a strong preference for Spencer,

[34:11] given the Heritage Building at seven hinting.

[34:14] So that location both serves the separation

[34:18] from the heritage building, but it also provides for a slightly larger separation between the

[34:23] two nearest intersections along Spencer. Okay, but that's the decision that will need to be

[34:29] made finally through the site plan process. And finally, I'm I'm quite intrigued by the the

[34:37] Wunner concept for Armstrong. I know that it is controversial and that there would be

[34:43] position to wound up for example.

[34:47] But that'll be a discussion that needs to be had through the site plan discussion.

[34:53] But it is not up to target obviously to determine whether or not Armstrong gets wounder

[34:59] or the configuration of it change.

[35:03] I just want to make sure, because this will be an interesting discussion, and again, the

[35:06] next councilor will have through future discussions, is there, if the city determines the

[35:13] not to win or for reconfigure Armstrong to tie in with the market and with your privately owned public space.

[35:23] Is it still your intention to proceed with the configuration of the privately owned public space that you proposed?

[35:30] Yes, and short it is, and the configuration is also going to be regulated through the zoning amendment.

[35:38] So that will provide the certainty that that space is going to be what you're seeing today,

[35:47] as part of the future site plan process.

[35:50] And you are correct.

[35:51] I mean, it's really, whether that becomes one or if or not is a matter outside of Tiger's control.

[35:58] There has been some confusion throughout the application process on that,

[36:02] as we've shown some images of what could be possible if that were to take place.

[36:08] But again, ultimately, that's city land, it's a city decision.

[36:12] Tiggered is simply wanting to make clear that they are open to that discussion if the city is interested in doing that.

[36:22] So again, that's the next term of council discussion probably, but I'm intrigued by it.

[36:29] But the private loan public space, you know, will be there, whether it ties into a reconfigured armstrong or not.

[36:36] I don't see Parkland dedication on this one.

[36:39] Is it going to be a cash in the year of Parkland?

[36:42] Yes, through YouTube, cash in the middle of Parkland will be provided, and, you know, it's

[36:47] additional to the, the, the pops being added on site.

[36:52] Those are my questions.

[36:53] Today I want to ask any further questions to the applicant.

[36:57] No.

[36:58] Okay.

[36:58] Thank you very much for your time.

[37:08] So we'll move to other public delegations.

[37:11] the first of whom is John Fraser. We'll pull up John's slides and John

[37:16] I understand you're in the room.

[37:42] Good morning, Mr. Fraser. If you just want to hit the button on your mic to turn that on, we have your slides ready to go whenever you're ready. You'll have five minutes to make a presentation to committee.

[37:57] Okay. Thank you. I'm afraid my hearing aids have got a wicked echo in this room. So I'll do my best.

[38:06] Okay. Thank you very much. I see there's no doomsday clock running here for five minutes, so I'll time it as best I can.

[38:15] I'll be brief, skipping many of the sides I submitted in my hard coffee submission.

[38:24] And my basic proposal is that I'm afraid this new building is in the wrong size, the wrong location, and the wrong timing.

[38:36] We live in Parkdale Market Laws across a narrow section of Spencer Street and a funny

[38:45] thing.

[38:46] I don't believe there's been any mention of Parkdale Market Laws in the notice of meeting

[38:51] where as the Curlton Tavern gets mentioned 33 times.

[38:58] Slide 3, please.

[39:05] So, how do I explain to my grandkids that we won't be able to go on in the patio

[39:10] our building and watch any more eclipses or any conjunction to the planets. However, I do think that

[39:18] the 18 stories is doable.

[39:23] Slide 4. This is a forever decision. Past committees have made

[39:31] some decisions that are bit lacking, turning up the trackstone town. King Edward Avenue used to be

[39:42] building an arena that lands down park that's smaller than the original one. You need three trains to get down town from the airport on the LRT. Slide 6.

[40:07] Sorry.

[40:11] Okay. This approval will set a precedent to turn the area into a shall I say

[40:17] concrete canyon that we have downtown?

[40:23] Is that slide five or six?

[40:28] Yes. We do respect to Starbucks.

[40:33] We do not want Hintonburg to end up looking like that because this could be easily be seen

[40:38] as a president to build on many of the existing houses and the wire cloth building.

[40:51] Slide 9,

[40:57] the timing is wrong, as shown by a number of recent newspaper headlines that

[41:01] I've submitted.

[41:04] This one says the Ottawa market is already saturated.

[41:10] The mayor has said, and headlines, that there's tough financial times for the city, and the current international situation is not helping.

[41:22] Another newspaper clipping recently, a developer has hundreds of vacancies and three-free months rent as being offered.

[41:33] And last but not least, do not follow the example of Toronto where the market has hit bottom.

[41:42] Slide 14,

[41:48] this is the Parkdale Market.

[41:52] The tower and the existing and the proposed building will overwhelm the market.

[41:59] And will likely go a long way to killing the ambience of the area.

[42:07] The Parkdale Market is a messy, but it works,

[42:15] and now I'd like to go to the next slide.

[42:21] Okay, Spencer Street.

[42:23] John, get to one minute, sorry.

[42:26] You've got one minute.

[42:27] Thank you.

[42:29] Spencer's seven feet narrow in the front and front of the proposed tower in Parkdale Market laws.

[42:41] This, this with does not allow a safe access by construction vehicles,

[42:45] as well as the vehicles needed to access part-tale market laws, and so we're a meter to

[42:50] narrow. Details are in the submitted PowerPoint material. Does not meet the city requirements.

[43:01] Slide 17.

[43:04] Any official notices in error? Location maps such as the one on page 30 do not show

[43:10] Spencer being seven feet narrow in front of the proposed building. Slide 18.

[43:17] John, I'm sorry, you are a time. I'll need to ask you to wrap up. You are at a time. I'll need to ask you to wrap up with just a concluding thought.

[43:25] Okay. We will put the city on notice that it will hold responsibility for any damages.

[43:33] Any delays in emergency responder access to in case of accidents fire.

[43:40] A hidden bird visitor is better planning, I'll ensure them by this proposal.

[43:44] Thank you.

[43:48] Mr. Fraser, thank you very much. I don't see any questions for you from the members of the committee.

[43:53] Thanks for your time.

[43:55] We'll move on to Brian Innis, who is in the room who will be followed by Vivienne K after Brian.

[44:14] Good morning, Mr. Innis.

[44:16] Whenever you're ready, a five minutes to make a presentation of the committee.

[44:20] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present

[44:24] to you today. My name is Brian Innis. I live 400 meters from the site. I've been a past president

[44:30] of our Community Association and now I am candidate for Councillor. I'm here today to

[44:35] share with you how this proposal impacts people who live in and around Parkdale Park. But I think

[44:42] it's important to first recognize why we're here today. While you are interested to make decisions

[44:48] on staff recommendations. We're here because what gets built impacts people's lives.

[45:00] Officials. And why are you entrusted with this power? I see that you hear people every day. I see that you're

[45:10] accountable to those who elect you, and the decisions you make reflect what people vote for or you

[45:17] are not here. That is very powerful. You're entrusted with the power to make important decisions on planning and zoning.

[45:25] And today, it's a decision that means that 32 stories is better for people than 18 stories.

[45:35] So why am I here?

[45:37] I'm here because I live near the site.

[45:40] I've played in the sand with my kids, meters from where this tower will be.

[45:44] I've walked, I've cycle, I've driven on the streets around.

[45:47] And as a candidate, I've spoken to hundreds of people who use the area who live in the area and will be affected.

[45:55] So I'm here to bring their voices to you today.

[46:00] So what am I hearing about this development and how it will impact the neighborhood?

[46:05] First people want this block developed.

[46:07] They support building more homes and they also support more intensity.

[46:12] What they don't support is the size of the tower and how the precedence and design will impact the neighborhood and their lives.

[46:20] Of the hundreds of people I've spoken to in recent weeks, I've only spoken to one, one person who's in support of this proposal.

[46:31] It's actually consistent with your staff report, where 93% of respondents are opposed to it.

[46:39] I want to highlight three things that keep coming up in my conversations.

[46:42] The first is that the height and scale of this tower is too much for the area, and it does not transition gradually as required by the official plan.

[46:56] The staff report says 32 stories meets the official plan requirement for height to gradually transition.

[47:06] Well, we'll see that transition eight stories over 400 meters in the hub, and then it's going to transition 26 stories over 100 meters.

[47:16] And I don't know about you, but 26 stories over 100 meters seems more like a black diamond ski hill than a gradual transition.

[47:26] Secondly, the entrances and services on Spencer are misplaced and will create challenges.

[47:32] Earlier this week I spoke with Claudia who shared what it's like to drive on this street in the winter.

[47:37] It's already very congested and putting 300 more cars onto that street from the egress plus deliveries will mean a significant amount of congestion and create safety hazards.

[47:51] Third, a development of this size needs to have a mix of units to meet the needs of people

[47:58] in various stages of life.

[47:59] I want to share with you a conversation I had just last weekend.

[48:03] I was speaking with a mother who was actually visiting her mother and they both live in

[48:07] the area and she said, you know, my mom is not going to be able to stay in her house much

[48:11] longer.

[48:12] She's going to need a place that doesn't have upkeep where will she move to?

[48:16] Well, these new buildings provide space for my mom to move into, and she confessed that her mom

[48:22] will need more than a one-bedroom unit. And we've heard today that only 5% of units will be

[48:28] three bedrooms. 5%. That doesn't meet the needs of the community to have a variety of unit sizes

[48:37] for people in various stages of life, whether they're 20 or whether they're looking to move out of

[48:47] I urge you to vote against this proposal and hear the voices of people that I've heard.

[48:55] It will set a precedent for the neighborhood and ultimately what it becomes.

[48:59] You're entrusted with power. Use it.

[49:02] Use it to push back on the scale and height it parked ill park.

[49:07] And challenge staff on what gradual transition really means.

[49:13] Use it to ensure residents' concerns on the entrance and unit mixer or her, and of course

[49:18] they're going to be decided in the site plan, but today's an important opportunity.

[49:22] And lastly, use your power to make development work for people who live here.

[49:29] Thank you.

[49:31] Thank you very much, Mr. Ernest.

[49:33] I don't see any questions for you from members.

[49:35] Thanks for making the presentation.

[49:38] We will move on to Vivian K, who I understand is in the room.

[49:44] Good morning and then that will be followed by a representative of the social services

[49:49] users union who is online.

[49:52] So we'll make sure those slides are ready to go

[49:59] and good morning is K when every

[50:01] you're ready to have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee.

[50:10] Good morning.

[50:11] I apologize for speed reading given that I only have five minutes.

[50:14] So good morning chair and members of the committee.

[50:16] My name is Vivian K. I'm a resident and member of the Board of Directors at Parkdale Market

[50:20] lofts at 320 Parkdale Avenue and 45 Spencer Street.

[50:25] 55 homes immediately north of the site.

[50:27] I'm speaking on behalf of those residents.

[50:30] We are not opposed to growth.

[50:32] Growth is expected, but good planning is required.

[50:35] We do not believe what is being presented to you today

[50:37] is good planning for the Hittenberg community.

[50:41] Let me show you why.

[50:42] Can I have my slide, please?

[50:45] The big picture, the slide on your screen,

[50:48] shows recent approved and proposed development

[50:50] within the Tony's pastures hub. 11,671 dwelling units or roughly 17,600 new residents.

[50:58] The Tony's pastures master plan alone will add 9,000 units with 5,000 units first phase

[51:04] by 2038. Consent-traded closest to the transportation and in buildings ranging in height

[51:09] from 21 to 40 stories. Hitler today is about 8,700 people. This represents a threefold population

[51:15] increase. Clearly this area is absorbing an extraordinary amount of growth.

[51:20] Notice also how the height stepped down across the hub, 40 stories at the station, 28 to 40 on Scott Street and the East Side of Parkdale, North of Scott, 25 stories at Holland Cross and 16 at Wellington and Parkdale, the southern edge of the hub, and in between in the middle of the low to mid-rise neighborhood, close 32 stories.

[51:40] That is our concern.

[51:42] We recognize that intensification and proximity to rapid transit is appropriate, however, it should

[51:47] not mean that every site must be pushed to the maximum height and density possible.

[51:52] The official plan is meant to guide growth and not simply accommodate it.

[51:56] This is precisely why the official plan contains policies covering governing or appropriate

[52:00] height transition urban design and the relationship between major developments and the

[52:05] neighborhood around them.

[52:06] Now that we've seen the staff report, we recognize that the justification for the third

[52:10] two stories has nothing to do with the city's planning policies but rather as a density transfer

[52:15] to accommodate the retention of the reimagined Carlton tower.

[52:18] So to the community is saying disregard perhaps the better term is interpret the official

[52:23] plan and secondary plan to justify the 32 stories.

[52:30] Many years in developing these plans, and putting their trust in city council to adhere to them. What is before you today for other erodes this trust? The critical planning question before you was asked of Steve Stath by the Westboro Community Organization. How much density is appropriate and how tall is too tall within this context? This being the significant future growth projected for the tundish pasture.

[52:52] up. Unfortunately, the staff response did not address this key issue. In the context of this

[52:58] bigger picture, we are asking the committee to address five matters, one heightened massing.

[53:02] The official plan directs that the highest density be closest to the rapid transestations

[53:07] and stays that with respect to high-rise buildings that their height shall be lowest at the

[53:11] outer edge of the hub and tallest at the center of the hub, which is the LRT station. A 32-story

[53:17] tower in the middle of a low-to-mid-rise neighborhood does not comply with this direction.

[53:21] We asked that it be reduced to 25 stories and we would suggest that the same policies and directions from the official plan a zoning by law used to support the proposed 30 suit stories would instead be used to support this reduced height.

[53:35] This application requires amendments to the official plan the secondary plan and the zoning by law.

[53:40] These are significant amendments.

[53:42] And they require compelling planning justification, which in our opinion has not been provided to parking.

[53:48] At 0.71 per unit parking spaces, this proposal has the highest parking ratio of any recent

[53:54] approved or proposed development in the hub.

[53:57] Large amounts of parking encourages automobile use and adds to traffic to already significantly

[54:04] congested local streets.

[54:06] If the city grants additional density because the site is transit oriented, the building itself

[54:11] should actually be transit oriented.

[54:13] Section 414 of the Official Plan provides the city with the authority needed to reduce the amount of parking proposed.

[54:21] Transition and design has been spoken to. We are asking for a change to setback stepbacks in the tower floor plate.

[54:28] To reduce the impact of the neighborhood services, Spencer is a narrow short local residential street.

[54:34] We feel that moving the main access to Hamilton Avenue would be much better because

[54:40] the traffic studies are out of date and there are, there's already large congestion on

[54:46] Spencer Street. There is a large amount of pedestrian traffic cycling, a narrow street,

[54:53] and then we just feel that adding all of the activities will severely impede that narrow

[54:59] short congested lock. We asked that the transportation impact assessment, which is based on

[55:04] of data traffic counts and questionable transit mode share assumptions be updated if the inputs

[55:12] inputs are unreliable then the conclusion cannot be relied upon either. We all know that

[55:18] partail is a failed street. In closing we ask that you reduce the height and massing, reduce the

[55:23] parking, improve the transition through setbacks and stepbacks. We locate the building's

[55:27] service activity, the Hamilton Avenue, fix the TIA. These are reasonable changes that was still

[55:33] allow substantial development on this site while producing a project which respects its

[55:37] neighborhood context and compiles with the city's own key planning policies.

[55:42] Thank you.

[55:45] Thank you for a very thoughtful presentation for you again.

[55:49] I don't see any questions from members.

[55:53] I am just interested to the one thing that I consider as well within the scope of this committee

[56:00] to do because there are a number of elements that are probably not given the planning process,

[56:05] but is the reduction in the height. It is, you know, within the the purview, I think

[56:11] of this committee to approve it at a lower height. What is the advantage of going from 32 to 25

[56:20] stories. I think also when now we were talking about changing the setback to, it's the

[56:30] shading on other buildings. It's the impact of daylight and just, I apologize for not being

[56:38] the expert. I'm the the delegate, but I believe it's just the impact on the local community.

[56:45] It's also that we feel that this proposed 32 stories now is like a sore thumb or a middle finger,

[56:52] if you will, sticking out in the middle of the Hampton-Burke community.

[56:57] Okay. I don't see any further questions for you. Thank you very much for the presentation.

[57:02] And we're going to move on to a representative of the social services users union,

[57:07] who is online and has a slide deck.

[57:12] Thank you. First slide.

[57:17] This is full in land and all decisions are this committee amount to active participation in settler colonialism by its members.

[57:24] Next slide.

[57:26] However, we proposed that in exchange for the city allowing a variance to build 30 stories or out of proposed 11 units per floor of the tower above the 8 story limit.

[57:37] 330 units over the maximum build height. And that those 330 units have rents permanently zone as low income affordable on an Ontario works rental allowance for the intended occupancy of the unit units constructed with wheel chair accessible doorways as a minimum as well as some units having accessible counter pops and accommodating looking space for postpart bike parking only accounts for one bike per unit whereas many family units are likely to

[58:07] own more than a singular bike. This is anti-family, anti-feminist, as well as limiting the use of

[58:13] active green transportation. Credit and employment checks create additional barriers to housing

[58:18] all low-income rental units should not require credit or employment checks and their rent should

[58:23] not be subject to increase during or between tenancies. Next slide. According to an auto-emission report

[58:31] from 2025, homelessness has grown almost 3,000 people up 13% since 2021. However, that number

[58:38] may actually be much higher. Point and time count data from 2025 says 4,569. According to

[58:47] data from Maytrees designed to fail, the number of recipients of Ontario were experiencing homelessness

[58:54] has more than doubled in Ottawa, 1,526 in August 2019 and 3,258 in August 2025.

[59:06] A similar upward trend can be seen among recipients of ODSB experiencing homelessness from

[59:12] 231 in 2019 to 410 in 2025.

[59:17] Employing these conditions to this and subsequent variants, applications were grappling

[59:21] need, auto is current and expanding housing needs, as well as reduced or eliminate the heavy

[59:25] reliance on subsidies as market rents continue to skyrocket from the alliance and auto

[59:31] a homelessness website, auto is projected to require, oh my god, 128, that was a 938 new housing

[59:40] units by 2035.

[59:42] If the report projects need for 3,150 units of affordable community housing, 350 supportive

[59:52] housing units, 200 transitional housing spaces and 7,000 housing allowance subsidies.

[1:00:00] And Lord and developer profits for an increase in affordable low income housing stocks as standard practice for planning and housing committee approval is a much more easily action than the creation of 7,000 subsidies, but would also serve to decrease market rents overall making housing more affordable for the average rent or potential home buyer next slide.

[1:00:21] And while development and real estate interests will likely see having to provide low income rentals as a potential financial loss of approximately a half million dollars per year even with the rent set at the otherwise insufficient Ontario work shelter allowance rate of 343 dollars for a single adult that is still more than a hundred thousand dollars in rental income that would be absent without the city allowing a variance.

[1:00:47] A negligible different for a group of companies with average annual revenue of half a billion dollars.

[1:00:54] Even if they are half-heartedly concealed behind a numbered shell or holding corporations or a consulting firm.

[1:01:01] Taggart not only appear in application materials such as the site location plan,

[1:01:06] but they own the majority of the land properties for the proposed development are likely to serve as developers through the construction branch

[1:01:17] their empire next slide.

[1:01:21] Normally one would expect this would create objections from the developer,

[1:01:24] but because Tiger has consistently demonstrated their commitment to supporting nonprofits

[1:01:28] and solving the housing homelessness crisis through the work of its charitable organization.

[1:01:31] There should be more than willing to extend back commitment by being contractually bound

[1:01:35] to these conditions and exchange for high-limate variants on the province. Next slide.

[1:01:39] Partnerships with housing and housing services include the auto-emission,

[1:01:43] Shepers with Good Hope, Cornerstone Housing for Women, Youth Services Bureau,

[1:01:46] What community housing foundation in summer set was

[1:01:49] Kingston you shall ever as many many other charitable organizations including food banks will add upon by the population

[1:01:55] Increasing the force to choose between food and running funds next slide and while much consideration in discussion is taking place regarding

[1:02:02] Preservation of the Carlton's have run as the pillar of the community a this development will display

[1:02:07] So food security service vital to community in a new space for part-ale food centers should be provided at their currently

[1:02:12] amount as well as an alternate location during the demolition construction phase.

[1:02:16] There should be a non issue due to the current and past overlap between the members of the

[1:02:19] Taggart Park's Family Cartel and the Board of Directors for Parkdale Food Center.

[1:02:24] With Steve Parks, co-president of Tamara Combs and Tartan Homes,

[1:02:26] remaining on their board today, Parkdale Food Center,

[1:02:29] advertised as a partner.

[1:02:30] Good jump in, but I need to ask you to wrap up with a concluding thought, please.

[1:02:34] Yeah, okay.

[1:02:37] Migra charitable contributions made to reduce corporate tax burden and one-door corporate image

[1:02:41] will never compare to what they've taken,

[1:02:43] what they've been given by this committee.

[1:02:45] And until the planning, housing committee gets the memo

[1:02:47] that actually, that acting upstream

[1:02:48] to prevent homelessness means challenging developers.

[1:02:51] No amount of plans, gala's races, challenges, fundraisers,

[1:02:54] dinners, photo ops, pledges, or 50 simulations

[1:02:57] will ever amount to have more than a drop in the bucket.

[1:02:59] Thank you.

[1:03:02] Thanks, I've given some added to each other speakers.

[1:03:05] So we'll move on to the, oh, sorry.

[1:03:08] Are there any questions for the delegation?

[1:03:10] I don't see any, so we'll move on to, I'm sorry, I should have given a preview, as Cheryl

[1:03:17] Perett with the Hintberg Community Association, who will be followed by Gray and Bar with

[1:03:21] the Hintberg Community Association.

[1:03:35] Good morning, councillors, I'm here to talk to you about the height, you've heard about

[1:03:39] the height from the previous speaker, but it really needs to be reduced, 32 stories is too high.

[1:03:45] And we appreciate that it's come down from 38, but it's still too high.

[1:03:50] It's across from three story buildings across the street.

[1:03:55] It's even in the hub within the hub.

[1:03:57] You have very low-rise buildings.

[1:03:59] And those buildings were built relatively recently.

[1:04:02] They're not going to be redeveloped in our lifetime

[1:04:05] or in the lifetime of this building.

[1:04:08] The official plan, all the other plans,

[1:04:12] stayed about the transition in height.

[1:04:15] From highest around Tunney's pastor LRT at 40 stories

[1:04:18] and going down to Wellington, which is six stories.

[1:04:22] And I did some of the measurements.

[1:04:25] I won't go through all of my notes because other people have mentioned it.

[1:04:30] But the official plan talks about that transition

[1:04:34] outlining a minimum of three stories and up to a high rise of 40 stories are permitted

[1:04:39] on sites within 300 meter radius or 400 meter walking distance, whichever is greatest

[1:04:46] of a planned LRT. And this site with Google Maps shows the LRT station's 500 meters away from the Hamilton Spencer corner, which is the closest corner, and 600 meters away from Park Del Armstrong, which is the furthest corner, yet it's only a 100 meters away from the low Wellington Street, which is just 6-story height limit.

[1:05:11] So it's hardly an adequate transition when it's so much closer to well-intensied.

[1:05:17] I also want to talk about the large dwelling units, and we're really disappointed that the applicant

[1:05:24] from their initial application decreased the number of three-bedroom units from a total of five units to just four.

[1:05:31] So, out of the total of 386 units, this is just 1% of the units as three bedroom, and that doesn't conform with the intent of the official plan, which has a target of 10% in this area and requires 5% and identified a real need for these larger dwelling units.

[1:05:54] We've got three primary schools, one middle school, lots of parks.

[1:06:00] This building, together with many other new and proposed buildings, are mostly

[1:06:05] small units, largely studios, one bedroom units, with a few two bedroom units.

[1:06:12] We already have a lot of small apartments available in the area, and we understand the developers

[1:06:16] are having some difficulty renting them, and we've seen frequent turnover.

[1:06:22] we've seen as someone mentioned the three months free rent and we also have had problems with a legal

[1:06:28] short-term rentals in these newer buildings. We do blame the city for providing the escape

[1:06:36] clause that's being used here that either three bedroom units or a minimum area of 80 square meters

[1:06:43] which is just 862 square feet to fulfill the requirement and that's how you get the difference in

[1:06:50] calculations between targets calculation of 17% and our calculation of 1%.

[1:06:58] We don't need more smaller units.

[1:07:01] We need those three bedroom units that the OP intended.

[1:07:05] So amenities, the city is very much succeeding in exceeding the intensification targets, which

[1:07:13] we know are just the bottom floor, and in this community, but it's failing to keep up with

[1:07:18] provision of the important amenities to keep the community healthy, such as parks and green

[1:07:24] space. We only have a quarter of what we should have.

[1:07:31] Recreation facilities, erect capacity, and over-capacity. The tree canopy were at 19% and that's also rapidly decreasing.

[1:07:41] And I do want to mention that we're really disappointed that this planning report was not made available earlier on DevOps. It was 145 on Thursday, August 27.

[1:07:52] we kept refreshing our screens looking for it. It wasn't there. So that's less than six

[1:07:58] full days before the meeting. And other reports have been much earlier than this. I when they

[1:08:06] come out in the newspaper usually it's available and I did look at the rural affairs committee

[1:08:10] which is tomorrow and that report was up certainly by the same time this one came up.

[1:08:17] We do appreciate a couple of things.

[1:08:20] We do appreciate them exceeding the requirement for private and community a many

[1:08:26] to area, reducing the height of the podiums, and that all the balconies are recessed.

[1:08:32] Thank you.

[1:08:35] Thank you very much, Mr. Herz.

[1:08:37] I don't see any questions for you for members.

[1:08:39] Thanks for the delegation today.

[1:08:42] And so we'll move on to, I think it was Graham Barr.

[1:08:45] We'll be followed by the endowed.

[1:08:56] My name is Graham Bar and I've been a proud resident of Hinton Burke since 1998 and a member of the Hinton Burke Community Association's Board of Directors for the past two years.

[1:09:08] The HCA recently conducted a neighborhood survey.

[1:09:12] We wanted to better understand our neighbor's views on a wide range of issues.

[1:09:16] 85% of survey respondents said they very much enjoy living in Hintonburg. However, the survey identified important concerns.

[1:09:27] Residents told us they want to retain the unique character of our neighborhood.

[1:09:33] They are also very concerned about traffic. In fact, traffic congestion was the top concern among Hintonburg property owners.

[1:09:41] It's with these concerns in mind that I want to address the transportation impacts of the proposed redevelopment of 340 Parkdale.

[1:09:50] The HCA is concerned that the transportation evidence currently before the city does not provide a reliable basis for considering the proposed OPA.

[1:10:01] The transportation impact assessment or TIA relies on outdated and unrepresentative data and

[1:10:11] on overly ambitious assumptions. We have three specific points. Point number one, the TIA data

[1:10:19] is out of date. Some traffic counts used in the TIA are 10 years old. Others were collected during

[1:10:27] periods that did not reflect normal traffic conditions. For example, some counts were conducted

[1:10:33] during COVID-19, during Queensland ramp closures, and during off-peak periods for the

[1:10:40] Parkdale market. Point number two, the study area is too limited. The TIA does not adequately

[1:10:49] account for the cumulative traffic impacts of existing approved and proposed developments

[1:10:55] along the Parkdale corridor from Emerson Avenue to the Queen's Way.

[1:11:01] It also does not adequately consider the forthcoming redevelopment of Toneys pasture.

[1:11:08] The proponents says they were, or the applicant,

[1:11:10] or says they were unable to find a TIA for the Toneys pasture redevelopment.

[1:11:16] But in fact, the TIA for Toneys is available on dev apps

[1:11:20] And has been discussed within the community and reviewed by the city over the past two years.

[1:11:26] Point number three, the TIA should use a transportation mode share methodology that is realistic,

[1:11:34] and is consistent with the methodology used for neighboring developments.

[1:11:39] The proponents TIA says that only 15% of trips generated by 340 Parkdale will be taken by automobile drivers.

[1:11:48] This proportion is unrealistically low, and does not reflect the city's own data for the current

[1:11:54] mode share for residential high rises in Ottawa West.

[1:11:59] Even the Chinese pasture TIA, which the applicant couldn't find, recognized that an automobile

[1:12:05] driver mode share as low as 15%, could not be achieved until 2046.

[1:12:13] The TIA for the high rise that is being built at 1186 Wellington used a mode-sharisumption

[1:12:19] the 28% of trips generated would be by automobile drivers.

[1:12:25] It seems unrealistic for today's applicant to assume the proportion of drivers at 340

[1:12:30] Parkdale will be approximately half that of 1186 Wellington, the sites are only 300 meters apart.

[1:12:38] Because of these three significant deficiencies out of date data, narrow scope, and unrealistic

[1:12:45] assumptions, we ask the city to require the applicant to revise the TIA to provide

[1:12:51] a much more accurate representation of the traffic impacts.

[1:12:56] This projection not be assessed in isolation.

[1:12:59] Before this project proceeds to site plan control stage, we urge the city to undertake an

[1:13:05] a Y traffic study, a study should assess the cumulative transportation impacts of existing

[1:13:11] approved and proposed developments in the vicinity of Parkdale and Wellington Street.

[1:13:18] I'd also like to briefly address the proposed Wunerv on Armstrong Street. I know this decision

[1:13:23] is not part of the OPA before you today, and I've just heard that our current councillor is intrigued

[1:13:29] by the concept, but we want to give the committee notice that the HCA poses the creation of a

[1:13:35] on Armstrong Street as suggested by the applicant. We do, of course, support the occasional

[1:13:41] enclosure of Armstrong for special events. But the proponent, the applicant, is suggesting that

[1:13:47] traffic currently using Armstrong could be moved to Spencer Street. As my colleague will explain,

[1:13:53] Spencer Street cannot handle additional traffic. Thank you. My colleague Linda will now outline

[1:14:00] concerns about parking spaces and the location of garbage pick-up. Thank you.

[1:14:07] Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions for this delegation?

[1:14:12] Just curious, since it seems like a combined effort here, should we ask this individual

[1:14:19] questions or wait for Linda or both stay at the table? Because that's what I'm inferring here.

[1:14:24] If Graham, if you want to stay at the table, that would be great. Great.

[1:14:27] I'll wait. We'll go to Linda Hode's presentation next.

[1:14:42] Good morning. Nice to see you. Has been a long time since I've been here.

[1:14:46] Lucky you. Maybe lucky me.

[1:14:50] I am going to address some site plan issues, which I know you are not deciding today.

[1:14:56] We're disappointed that the...

[1:15:00] The staff and applicants deliberations.

[1:15:06] And I do want to put you on notice that we will expect a response

[1:15:10] to these concerns when the site plan process is considered. My first point is the proposed

[1:15:19] labi, which is to allow for garbage, to pick up, move in, move out deliveries and passenger

[1:15:25] pick up, drop off at the near the entrance of near the parking ramp to the parking garage,

[1:15:35] as proposed in the current proposal. The official plan, however, says that, quote, to place

[1:15:42] parking, loading, and vehicle access to minimize

[1:15:45] impact on the public realm, and, quote,

[1:15:49] minimize conflict between vehicles and pedestrians

[1:15:51] and approve the attractiveness of the public realm

[1:15:53] by internalizing servicing, loading areas

[1:15:58] into the design of the building, and by accommodating

[1:16:01] space, onsite for trees, where possible.

[1:16:04] The proposal before you, if you had looked at the site

[1:16:07] plan carefully, intends that all these activities

[1:16:10] will occupy the public realm that garbage and movement of furniture etc. will utilize the sidewalk

[1:16:16] and the adjacent road. The site plan indicates that the sidewalk near the garage entrance will

[1:16:22] have raised planters containing trees. Almost certainly impossible if the sidewalk must accommodate

[1:16:28] these other activities. This applicant owns the entire city block and should be required to

[1:16:35] to internalize these activities as required by the official plan.

[1:16:39] This is a large site.

[1:16:41] Surely the proponent can create a space

[1:16:43] for these functions within the footprint of the development

[1:16:46] rather than expropriate the public realm.

[1:16:50] Spencer Street already provides access

[1:16:52] for garbage pickup deliveries and the residential parking garage

[1:16:55] for 45 Spencer and 320 Parkdale Avenue.

[1:16:59] In addition, the signalized intersection

[1:17:01] at Parkdale attracts vehicular traffic to the street. The location of these functions as well as the

[1:17:08] entrance to the Parking Garage for 340 Parkdale will reside in result in too much activity on a

[1:17:14] street of this size and to the east and west of the site, Spencer is a low rise to medium rise

[1:17:22] residential area. I'd like to address parking supply, which is already been brought up by a counselor

[1:17:29] The parking rate is indeed too high for a transit oriented development within the protected major transit station area.

[1:17:38] 0.71 spaces per unit does not promote the use of transit and active transportation modes as envisaged in the official plan.

[1:17:48] Staff have assured us that this proposed parking supplies below the maximum parking permitted near a

[1:17:54] Transistation as per city zoning by law 2008 to 50 for comparison the recently approved site plan for phase one at

[1:18:03] 951 Gladstone 145 Loretta near the course of a Talia LRT station has a parking ratio of 0.3 spaces per unit

[1:18:13] your recent decision to send the early all proposal

[1:18:16] to provide zero residential parking spaces was noted by us and you've sent it back to the drawing board.

[1:18:25] It confirms our suspicion that city parking policy in your high level transit stations is a failure.

[1:18:33] The maximum is too high. The current policies do not provide enough guidance to applicants, leading to anomalies like zero parking in suburban Orlando

[1:18:42] and a 0.7 ratio almost downtown at the longest average of Tunis pasture station.

[1:18:48] We urge you to request stuff to undertake a review of parking policies in the vicinity of

[1:18:53] transit stations as a high priority.

[1:18:56] We understand that the applicant must excavate a deep hole in order to deal with serious contamination,

[1:19:03] but they do not have to fill the hole with cars.

[1:19:06] We have been lobbying about this since 2018 when a previous application was brought forward.

[1:19:12] We have been recommending alternatives, not of the parking because that's more cars in the whole.

[1:19:20] We have proposed vertical farming, hydroponic systems using artificial light and controlled climate,

[1:19:27] taking advantage of what will be a controlled climate.

[1:19:29] In fact, geothermal power, distrakeating plant, distrakeating for the building itself, or as a plant which could provide heat as sustainable and what do we call that non-carbon producing heat to other buildings which are going to be built already built or are going to be built.

[1:19:54] Linda, I need to ask it around.

[1:19:55] This is my conclusion.

[1:19:58] There are a lot of tiny apartments already in existence

[1:20:00] and to be built.

[1:20:02] And the storage provided for most apartments

[1:20:04] is not enough for the residents.

[1:20:06] So it's a thriving business.

[1:20:09] You can make money with your hole in the ground.

[1:20:12] Thank you.

[1:20:18] If the parking ratio was lowered,

[1:20:21] would you support the current proposed height

[1:20:24] and density of this project?

[1:20:28] Speaking personally, I don't have a big problem with the height, but I understand it is a lot for the community to take on and to accept.

[1:20:40] And I do agree. It does not transition appropriately.

[1:20:44] But I think, I guess you could say, I'm resigned to the fact that the height will come, but we don't need to take the cars.

[1:20:57] Thank you, and thanks, Linde, you always give a really good, thoughtful presentation.

[1:21:01] I appreciate that.

[1:21:03] But to, since we're doing two and one here at Graham, you mentioned Spencer Street.

[1:21:09] Can you expand on what you were referring to, but Spencer Street was about parking on a street

[1:21:14] or traffic on a street?

[1:21:16] I heard Spencer Street in there.

[1:21:17] I just want a little more clarity.

[1:21:19] Yeah, thanks.

[1:21:21] In the context of my presentation, it was at the end where I was saying that the HCA

[1:21:25] the pose is the creation of a winner for basically closing off Armstrong.

[1:21:30] My understanding is that the applicant's sort of vision for where traffic would go with

[1:21:36] Armstrong as closed off would be onto Spencer Street.

[1:21:41] And I agree with them because there's limited streets that they could go onto.

[1:21:45] I was just foreshadowing that my colleague here, Linda, and she did talk about how Spencer Street

[1:21:53] cannot handle additional traffic from Armstrong plus be the entry and exit point for a 32-story

[1:22:02] tower in the garbage and all of that. So sort of shifting traffic on to Spencer to accommodate

[1:22:10] an Armstrong Wunerv is not realistic or practical in our view or safe.

[1:22:16] Okay. Great. Yeah, I appreciate. I think it's always coming down to traffic and transportation

[1:22:20] is always an issue. I heard Spencer and it reminded me of 2017, uh, the county.

[1:22:30] About that. And if they would have put it, it would have been literally one lane of traffic remaining. So it's still going to be congestion on Spencer Street with two. So.

[1:22:41] Nonetheless, thank you for your delegations today. Thank you, Linda.

[1:22:45] Thank you very much, Councillor Fairney. Of course, this was not a part of Spencer, which the bike lane was proposed to go and we determined not to move ahead with that afternoon community consultation. We are clearly in the silly season.

[1:22:57] I have a Linda. I have a question for you. I'm sorry.

[1:23:10] Yes, the heritage. So what I have heard from the applicant is with respect to putting the entry egress on Hamilton that the concern has been the heritage nature of the capital wire cloth building across the street.

[1:23:24] I struggle to understand that as a constraint.

[1:23:28] Undo we not.

[1:23:31] I think you and your colleagues have argued for Hamilton entry egress.

[1:23:35] Do you consider that that would have any effect on the heritage?

[1:23:39] We know you well obviously from your heritage Ottawa obligations.

[1:23:44] I did struggle with this and we're not actually, it really is related to the internalization.

[1:23:50] We don't want the garbage pick up and all the rest is happening on the sidewalk on Hamilton or on Spencer.

[1:23:59] If all of that activity can be internalized, in other words, the vehicles drive in, everything, all the shifting around,

[1:24:08] and the flipping of garbage containers, then I don't think it would have that much impact.

[1:24:15] If it's happening on the sidewalk, as is currently proposed, it will, in fact, impact the heritage building.

[1:24:23] I think the real solution to the problem is to internalize it.

[1:24:29] And it could be in either location, I think.

[1:24:34] When you think about, you know, all those garbage trucks are going to have to drive up to the place where they're going to be taking their garbage.

[1:24:42] If they're already on Spencer, so they're not likely to go back up and go out on Hamilton.

[1:24:48] They're going to go out to Parkdale, not necessarily a good solution.

[1:24:53] If they're on Hamilton, theoretically they could go to Holland or Scott, they have more

[1:25:00] choice, I think, and perhaps better choices.

[1:25:03] However, I'm not a transportation engineer, but I do think the internalization of those functions

[1:25:10] would go a long way towards making the whole thing work better and have less impact on the neighbors, either the heritage neighbor, or the Spencer, or the, yeah, just 45 Spencer through 20 Parkdale.

[1:25:25] Thank you. Just for the clarity of members and gallery knows watching.

[1:25:29] And the concern is that if it is not fully internalized as you describe it, garbage trucks

[1:25:36] will be pulling up.

[1:25:37] They will winch bins out of the garage and then take care of the loading unloading on

[1:25:43] the street.

[1:25:44] So, not the way it's laid out at the moment, unless they can winch round corners.

[1:25:49] As I say, I think there's a lot of work needs to be done on that whole issue.

[1:25:54] As you know, I live in an intensified site, 54 units.

[1:25:59] we have two big blue bins, one big yellow bin, they come twice a week to collect them.

[1:26:05] They are hauled out by the garbage collectors picked up by the truck, which is sitting on the street,

[1:26:13] blocking the traffic and they you know, hoist them in. I forgot I'm having a unit so

[1:26:19] are here. If you look at that site plan when they show you the garbage room, it's scary.

[1:26:25] A lot of thought needs to go into this. Thanks, Linda.

[1:26:29] All right, we will move on.

[1:26:31] I see no further questions.

[1:26:33] You're in Hogan.

[1:26:34] Is next?

[1:26:35] Who will be followed by Joyce Giles?

[1:26:57] Thank you, Chair.

[1:26:58] Committee members.

[1:26:59] Good morning.

[1:27:00] I'll jump right in.

[1:27:01] Next slide, please.

[1:27:04] Sorry.

[1:27:04] I should say, my name is Jürgen Hogan.

[1:27:06] And I live at 175 Carothers.

[1:27:09] I have three main areas of concern that I wish to address.

[1:27:12] One is corrections to calculations that were used.

[1:27:15] Proposal scale and the planning framework expectation.

[1:27:18] expectation. My other areas of concern have been per the detail comments that have submitted

[1:27:24] previously. Next slide. The first is to use the floor space index. It's clearly defined

[1:27:31] as a growth floor area over the lot size. It is not the number of stories, because it accounts

[1:27:37] for the required setbacks from front rear and side yards. Thus the night story building is typically

[1:27:42] recorded an FSI of 6.0. Next slide. This is the massing diagram that was submitted by the applicant.

[1:27:51] However, it shows eight full floor plates over the entire consolidated site, stating eight story plus FSI of eight.

[1:27:58] Get the applicant correctly in the report references that the site is split zoned with the L-shaped portion being at six FSI of six in the corner block at FSI of two.

[1:28:09] Their published FSI massing diagram is thus a wrong and misleading. Next slide.

[1:28:15] This is actually what it should look like. The L-shaped portion should drop from the eight

[1:28:20] floor plates to six, and the corner block should not be at eight. It should be at two. So that

[1:28:25] calculation equivalent floor space index of 5.0 for the entire site, not the stated FSI of eight.

[1:28:32] Next slide. The next correction is the calculation permitted GFA. The applicant states on

[1:28:38] That same diagram that they have existing permanent GFA of over 28,000 square meters, suggesting

[1:28:45] that their proposal fits within their right, quote unquote permitted and proposed design

[1:28:51] align density align.

[1:28:54] However, there's the calculations that total as a right allowable GFA is 17,694 square meters,

[1:29:01] not over 28,000 square meters.

[1:29:03] The applicant has overstated their allowable GFA by 60%.

[1:29:09] The current proposal of just over 24,000 square meters still exceeds the actual existing

[1:29:14] rights by 37% next slide.

[1:29:20] Correcting the existing allowable building height, when a former proponent Tiga Holmes

[1:29:26] sought to develop a 36-story tower on the L-shaped portion of this site,

[1:29:30] The city rejected that proposal and the OMB directed the city to remove the height restriction and instead

[1:29:38] constrain the development with an FSI of 6.0.

[1:29:42] The zoning that implemented that ruling very specifically designated 2, 5, 7, 9, and 18 stories,

[1:29:51] limitations with the 18 story height restriction on the northwest corner.

[1:29:55] that 18th story.

[1:30:00] Current site. It is not correct to suggest that the entire site is already zone for 18 stories anyways. So what's 32? By that logic, it would be equally correct to state the entire site is zone for two stories anyway. So there's the difference. The implication of these misstatements, which were not refuted by the staff report, suggest that the application is reasonably within the existing rights, which is simply wrong.

[1:30:30] leaving these assertions, uncorrected, might mislead the public to think that there's no basis to objective this proposal.

[1:30:38] Next slide. Next is the scale of the proposal itself. The city secondary plans disignate the area

[1:30:45] bounded by Scott, Holland, Wellington and Parkdale as part of a hub with Wellington Street itself as a main street.

[1:30:52] The second aircraft plans clearly speak to concentrating the density near and north of Scott

[1:30:58] and transitioning density and building height from Scott down the Wellington street

[1:31:01] to respect the pedestrian scale scale of the Main Street.

[1:31:05] Building heights are explicitly listed out in the secondary plan.

[1:31:09] The hub continues north of Scott Street to include Tony's pasture,

[1:31:12] which is actually the heart of the density focus. Next slide. Here you can see the plan layout

[1:31:18] that shows from six stories with two to three story podiums on Wellington Street, going up to six stories at Armstrong, going up to eight stories at Spencer, and then from Spencer to Scott, eight, 12, 15, and 25 stories.

[1:31:33] Next slide. This is what that looks like in Section View, and this is scaled correctly. You can see the stepping that is intended for this portion of the hub.

[1:31:44] It is intended to go gradually from Wellington up to Scott, and there in the red you can see what a 32-story tower looks like.

[1:31:52] It is not even close to the planning intent of this hub. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Next slide.

[1:31:59] Staff suggested a 32-story tower on the site is an adequate transition, yet immediately adjacent is two-story residential, zero-story grain space, two-story commercial and three-four and eight-story residential.

[1:32:12] Next slide, and as my final slide, planning framework expectations, the city's planning framework

[1:32:19] frankly, it's very good.

[1:32:22] It should be the default to direct future development and it should be enforced by the city.

[1:32:27] Any exception should only be granted if the positive benefits are received outweigh the negatives

[1:32:33] of ignoring the planning constraints, it is not a developer's right to expect to be granted

[1:32:39] an exception to the planning framework.

[1:32:41] Thank you. Thank you very much, you're again. I don't say any questions from my colleagues, but I do have do have one. One of the factors that I've been considering with this close sort of the mic.

[1:32:56] One of the factors that I've been considering with this is four years ago.

[1:33:00] My colleague supported me in refusing an application for the 16th story building on Wellington at Parkdale, which was then subsequently approved by the land.

[1:33:14] So we have 16 stories at Hamilton and Wellington.

[1:33:19] What factors should this committee think about in determining whether or not the secondary plan is still relevant?

[1:33:26] I think there's a very clear precedent that is already set on this site.

[1:33:31] This site went to the OMB at the time, the OLT now, and the OLT did not assign any additional

[1:33:38] GFA.

[1:33:40] They simply allowed the developer to write to not respect the H-story height limit, but instead

[1:33:46] use that equivalent mass that they had and re-apportion it however they wished.

[1:33:52] And that means that the site currently, that allowed for the 18th story, again, 17% of the current site,

[1:34:00] that allowed that as an exception to the plan.

[1:34:03] So there is a ready and exception.

[1:34:05] So now what is being asked is to add an exception on top of an exception,

[1:34:10] and that exception that was granted that was forced onto the city by the OLT,

[1:34:15] already basically pointed out that this density is appropriate for this area,

[1:34:19] because they did not have density. They just allowed for it to be reshaped.

[1:34:27] Thank you very much and we'll move on to our next delegation. Who is Joyce Giles?

[1:34:32] We'll be followed by Patrick Corrival. Lauren Reed, David Pepper.

[1:34:53] Good morning, chair and members of

[1:34:54] committee. My name is Joyce Giles. I have lived on Hamilton Avenue, north for 25 years.

[1:35:01] I guess the normal disclaimer, I am not opposed to development and intensification in fact

[1:35:09] I have lived through it and witnessed this over the last 25 years in my community.

[1:35:15] My concern is whether this particular proposal represents good planning for this particular

[1:35:20] location.

[1:35:22] In March I submitted a detailed response identifying nine specific concerns with the proposed

[1:35:27] development.

[1:35:28] But after reviewing the city's current report, I have reached a troubling conclusion.

[1:35:34] The city has responded to many of our concerns, but it has not necessarily addressed them.

[1:35:41] This is a recurring pattern throughout the report.

[1:35:44] Residents raise specific concerns, and the city's response sites a general policy conformity,

[1:35:50] and then the detailed issue is deferred to site plan control.

[1:35:54] This is not sufficient when those issues may materially affect whether this development is appropriate in the first place.

[1:36:03] So I'll give you four examples. First height we've already talked about this.

[1:36:07] The city is asking you to approve 32 stories, but that does not answer the fundamental planning question.

[1:36:15] Why is 32 stories appropriate for this particular block?

[1:36:18] Second parking, the current proposal contains 318 vehicle spaces, 276 residential.

[1:36:29] But that answers.

[1:36:30] The city's response is that the parking supply is below the maximum permitted near

[1:36:35] rapid transit, but that answers the wrong question.

[1:36:39] If this is truly transit planning, first, transit, first planning, why her 276 residential

[1:36:46] parking spaces necessary.

[1:36:50] And so they also talk about four levels of underground parking.

[1:36:54] That means a deeper and longer excavation immediately beside the Parkdale Market, the Park,

[1:37:00] and Residential Streets. And if the parking supply were dramatically reduced, could the excavation

[1:37:06] be reduced as well. And that question matters because it leads directly to my third concern.

[1:37:13] It's traffic on Hamilton Avenue North, and this is the issue I believe deserves the greatest attention from the committee.

[1:37:21] Hamilton Avenue is designated a local residential street, yet residents are all rich.

[1:37:30] On Parkdale and Wellington, particularly toward Highway 417. My marks submission identified the combined effect of the mental development, which we just mentioned, is currently being constructed at Wellington and Parkdale and this proposed development.

[1:37:47] And together these two developments introduced just shy of 500 parking or vehicles into a very small space.

[1:37:56] And for both of these developments traffic will eventually find its way onto Hamilton Avenue.

[1:38:02] I asked the city to consider the cumulative traffic rather than examining each development in isolation.

[1:38:09] I also asked for something very reasonable.

[1:38:12] Measure what actually happens after these developments.

[1:38:16] Our occupied.

[1:38:18] Six months and 18 months traffic counts, defined thresholds,

[1:38:23] and mitigation of Hamilton becomes carrying traffic volumes

[1:38:28] inconsistent with the residential local street.

[1:38:32] The city's report does not commit to those measures.

[1:38:35] So I ask committee, has the city modeled what happens

[1:38:39] if Hamilton Avenue becomes a de facto collector,

[1:38:42] because Parkdale is congested, if not, why not?

[1:38:47] And if the city cannot predict with confidence,

[1:38:49] what will happen, why would it not agree to monitor the situation

[1:38:53] and establish mitigation triggers

[1:38:55] before the problem becomes permanent?

[1:38:59] So I guess what I'm really asking you guys to consider,

[1:39:04] a clear evidence-based justification for 32 stories,

[1:39:07] a substantial reduction in residential parking, consistent with a genuinely transit first development.

[1:39:15] Cumulative traffic analysis or binding post occupancy monitoring and mitigation triggers for Hamilton Avenue North.

[1:39:24] A construction management plan that protects the Parkdale Night Market, an Armstrong Street events,

[1:39:30] And enforceable public realm and market benefits rather than relying solely on a privately owned public space.

[1:39:38] And I didn't have enough time to go into those last two issues.

[1:39:41] But I know they've been raised.

[1:39:44] Thank you.

[1:39:49] So guys, thank you very much for the comments.

[1:39:51] I don't see any questions for you from residents.

[1:39:55] And just speaking as someone who lives like three doors down from you,

[1:40:00] The future of Hamilton Avenue North is something very much on my mind as well. Thank you

[1:40:07] So we'll move on to Patrick Cordibot.

[1:40:14] Hi, Mr. Cordibot. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee

[1:40:18] Great. Thank you very much

[1:40:21] so I'm I'm I'm here today as the property owner of 224 arm shroud

[1:40:30] and also

[1:40:31] I just wanted to

[1:40:34] the highlight, the fact that I'm

[1:40:41] conversant in the economics of development through my role as a director at RBC, but also that there's no conflict of interest between our souls and Tiger Group, we don't do business with them for real-state or property management.

[1:41:01] And so I just wanted to highlight that more as there's a lot of experts here that have brought up a lot of really good points as far as land planning is concerned.

[1:41:12] And as it relates to transportation usage and all sorts of other points, I think I'd bring a perspective of economic reality of private sector projects.

[1:41:26] One thing that we're excited about for this project is the ability to reinvigorate the neighborhood.

[1:41:32] You know, this project has, as everyone will know, one of those, a lot of contamination issues,

[1:41:39] but spread throughout the neighborhood. It's not located just on the site,

[1:41:44] which is the reason that the developers have to have to dig so deep to deal with the contamination.

[1:41:50] It's been an ongoing issue for quite a number of decades since dating back to when Honeywell

[1:41:56] had their factory back then. And the reality is that these cleanups are quite costly and

[1:42:04] their quite risky as well. It's unknown until you actually get, get, get digging and start to,

[1:42:13] start to move the soil and get down to the bedrock. What the actual cost will be and what the

[1:42:20] with it. And I would imagine that that is part of why they're looking at this type of a scale

[1:42:28] of project is because the cost to bring something like this to market just hasn't really been

[1:42:35] palatable under the old planning structures. So that's what we've seen a site for a number of

[1:42:43] in a primary, close to highway access has a great farmer's market to live in the neighborhood.

[1:42:52] And we've seen a number of towers go further down the Parkdale block.

[1:42:57] But this corridor has been a bit of a development dead zone.

[1:43:05] And this fight having large land that would be easier to redevelop.

[1:43:09] So, I imagine that part of the impetus to go so high is for that.

[1:43:16] You know, it also going high also brings additional costs.

[1:43:19] And I think everybody would be quite surprised

[1:43:22] at the thin negligible profitability of a project like this.

[1:43:28] It costs quite a lot, you know, especially in the face of cost pressures from COVID.

[1:43:35] I think another big thing to consider is the fact that everybody at the city of Ottawa, I think

[1:43:44] right fully, is sensitive to avoiding urban sprawl, one in where possible.

[1:43:51] This site is transit oriented, close to highway access, it's in a neighborhood that people

[1:43:58] want to live in, and so if people are given access to new housing, I think that's nothing

[1:44:06] but positive for the city and avoid the sprawl issue to certain extent. As it relates to

[1:44:13] parking, we understand the challenge. The parking is already a challenge in the neighborhood as

[1:44:24] as repark into concern. I'm an urban guy myself, you know, I understand that just because you

[1:44:32] have a car and you have access to parking, it doesn't mean you're using a car every single day,

[1:44:36] I think that's also something that we need to consider. It's just because you have access to

[1:44:42] a parking and a car, maybe you're using it on the weekend to go grocery shopping, but, you know,

[1:44:46] myself, my daily commute, I'm doing by bike, foot or transit to go into the office,

[1:44:53] So to do kind of my, my every the activity.

[1:45:00] I think it'll be just great to have the neighborhood change from some low rise industrial complexes to a visually appealing

[1:45:10] high rise with some commercial that will continue to reinvigorate the street. So that's kind of what I want to say. Thank you for the time.

[1:45:21] Thank you very much, Mr. Court of O. I don't see any questions for you for members, so thank you very much for the presentation.

[1:45:34] We'll move on to Lorraine Reed, who I believe was online, Highloring, Nary R.

[1:45:39] And then David Pepper will be our final speaker.

[1:45:43] David, we think we have you identified as an unnamed iPad user.

[1:45:49] If that's you could you just let the clerk know because otherwise we're having difficulties finding you

[1:45:54] Lorraine, sorry about that

[1:45:56] Please have whenever you're ready. Have five minutes make a presentation of the committee

[1:46:04] and you're on mute.

[1:46:09] Thank you

[1:46:10] Now you can hear me

[1:46:12] My name's Lorraine Reed. I live in the Holland station home town homes diagonally across from the proposed building site

[1:46:19] I'm on speaking on behalf of myself and several homeowners in the Holland station community

[1:46:23] You would have received a letter signed by the majority of our homeowners, as well as individually submitted responses in the spring, which is my first encounter with this proposed amendment.

[1:46:33] Despite the changes that have been made, our concerns remain.

[1:46:37] They are continuous disregard for approved official plan and urban secondary plans and

[1:46:42] precedence for future proposed amendments, height of the building proposed an impact on

[1:46:47] our residential neighborhood within the Scott Street secondary plan.

[1:46:51] Impact of increased congestion on Parkdale Avenue, impact of increased traffic on the

[1:46:56] side streets, Armstrong, Hamilton and Spencer, and location of the parking garage entrances,

[1:47:02] egresses and service and utility vehicle access to the proposed

[1:47:06] ability that would turn Hamilton Avenue North into effectively a service

[1:47:10] road. Commitments made and laid out in the current official plan and both the

[1:47:15] Scott Street and Wellington Street West secondary plans must be

[1:47:19] respected. Continued requests by developers to amend these plans be

[1:47:22] little and ignore the intent and objectives of the effort by the city,

[1:47:26] plans and the vision they lay out for our neighborhoods.

[1:47:30] Significant investment in effort by the city, community associations and individuals when

[1:47:35] it to creating, agreeing, and approving these plans.

[1:47:38] Because they are well beyond the approved zoning, our obvious attempts to manipulate

[1:47:41] a compromise-built building height that is still well above the approved limit.

[1:47:46] The modification of the proposed amendment to 32 stories is still four times the approved

[1:47:50] height of eight stories and not an acceptable compromise.

[1:47:54] The resultant light and noise pollution will be disruptive, and there is also concerned that

[1:47:58] city infrastructure will not support this level of densification, especially given the number of severe

[1:48:03] weather events that we are now experiencing.

[1:48:07] The revised proposal has moved the major tower to be at the corner of Hamilton Avenue,

[1:48:11] North and Spencer Street.

[1:48:13] In the response to the Hintonburg and Wellington Community Association, the city states that

[1:48:18] it was moved as not to impact the nearby residential neighborhood and that quote, the proposal

[1:48:23] appropriately located greatest building height in density in closest radial proximity to the rapid

[1:48:29] transit station where it is sensitively accommodated furthest away from the stable low-rise

[1:48:34] neighborhood to the east within the Hintonburg neighborhood. So why is our at least 30-year-old

[1:48:40] neighborhood to the north and west of the proposed tower being ignored and excluded? We deserve

[1:48:46] equal consideration and status as an established stable residential neighborhood that will be impacted.

[1:48:52] I disagree with the city staff assessment that given the center of the hub can generally

[1:48:57] be anticipated to develop to heights of 40 stories, the proposed height of 32 stories

[1:49:03] is an adequate transition plane. 32 stories is in the midst of town homes, single family homes,

[1:49:10] low and mid-rise residential dwellings, and it's not an adequate transition. Given the condo

[1:49:15] immediately to the north is only six stories, it is a significant break in the existing plane

[1:49:20] site line. A approval of this request will set a precedent and greatly increase the risk that future

[1:49:25] developments in the Scott Street mixed use zone will be a greater or similar height. This

[1:49:30] would negatively impact our privacy, light and sky views by creating a visually jagged and

[1:49:35] physical barrier, whereby our homes will be dwarfed and cut off from the broader Hintonburg community.

[1:49:42] The proposed changes still increase the number of vehicles accessing the building by about 300,

[1:49:47] based on the number of residential and visitor parking spaces.

[1:49:51] Parkdale is already in gridlock for most of the day.

[1:49:54] Vehicles regularly use Spencer, Armstrong, and Hamilton

[1:49:57] often cutting through the beer store parking lot

[1:49:59] to bypass the traffic on Parkdale, Holland, and Wellington.

[1:50:03] In addition, the additional vehicles were further congested

[1:50:06] the area, especially where building entrances,

[1:50:08] egresses, and service areas are located.

[1:50:10] That combined with the number of vehicles using

[1:50:13] side streets increases safety risks to pedestrians and cyclists

[1:50:16] and compares the ability of emergency service

[1:50:18] to vehicles to navigate the area.

[1:50:21] It is very difficult to be a walkable neighborhood

[1:50:23] when your head is on a pivot watching for cars

[1:50:26] and in a tent of dangerous drivers,

[1:50:28] which is the case now.

[1:50:30] The traffic studies on which the application space

[1:50:32] were done depending on the intersection between 2017 and 2024.

[1:50:37] Spencer and Parkdale was done in April 2024

[1:50:39] after the pandemic and prior to the federal workforce

[1:50:42] for us being required to return to office

[1:50:45] for a minimum of three days a week, now four days a week.

[1:50:48] A new traffic study should be conducted for the area,

[1:50:51] and as proposed by the Westboro and Hinderburg Community Association,

[1:50:55] include a more detailed analysis of how the additional traffic

[1:50:59] from the proposed development will affect queuing,

[1:51:02] spill-back from adjacent intersections,

[1:51:03] and the cumulative effects of multiple developments in the vicinity.

[1:51:07] I, and the homeowners I speak for,

[1:51:10] believe that our voices are not being heard,

[1:51:11] and that our neighborhood to the north and west of the development

[1:51:14] is being ignored when it comes to assessing impact.

[1:51:17] We argue the amendments should firmly be rejected by the city of Ottawa, but that consultation

[1:51:22] should continue to further modify the proposed development in a strategic and sensitive

[1:51:28] manner for all neighborhoods.

[1:51:30] Thank you.

[1:51:33] Lorraine, thank you very much for that.

[1:51:35] And certainly I'm very cognizant that the shift in the building has moved a closer to your

[1:51:41] homes. You're in an interesting location there in the heart of the hub and I know that's going

[1:51:48] to be challenging. I don't see any questions for you. I do have one question. The residents,

[1:51:55] I think it was the part-to-market loss of suggested that the building should be brought down

[1:51:59] to 25 stories. Do you consider that that makes any difference for your development?

[1:52:06] on the base, I still think it's too high. I thought from three or four years ago the proposed

[1:52:12] 16 or 18 stories was too high. But again, with further design elements or discussions that

[1:52:19] we could be involved in, maybe my views would change, but right now I'd say it's too high.

[1:52:32] And I think we are on to our last speaker, David Pepper. I don't know if we found them.

[1:52:39] Yes.

[1:52:39] Oh, hey, David. Hi.

[1:52:41] When are you here?

[1:52:42] And like Linda Hode, you probably are not may not be happy you found me, but hopefully you will be.

[1:52:49] My name is David Pepper. I've actually lived across the street at 222 Larms Strong, which makes me a direct neighbor of 223 Larms Strong, the Carlton Tabard.

[1:52:58] for the past 35 years so I would say that I know from my front porch I know this particular

[1:53:06] city block very very well. I'm just going to make some comments for the record and then I have

[1:53:11] three asks at the end of my presentation. I'd like to thank city staff, Jack and Kelly for making

[1:53:19] this process easy for me. I don't necessarily agree with Jack's assessments but thanks for helping.

[1:53:26] And thanks to my hardworking HCA,

[1:53:29] Hindenburg Community Association of Friends and who've done so much work and keeping us informed.

[1:53:35] My comments, it's nice to do mop-ups so that I can just say the lack of support in all of the public submissions should be telling to the committee.

[1:53:45] The parking and the argument, I would agree with so many of the folks is really disingenuous in terms of just saying that it agrees with the policy.

[1:53:54] but without bringing any challenge, function to it.

[1:53:58] The height is obviously an issue, which I generally

[1:54:03] concur with people's overall concerns.

[1:54:05] The one thing I didn't see, I saw it in one slide from

[1:54:08] Taggart was shadow impacts.

[1:54:11] They had been north of Armstrong, but not my side of Armstrong.

[1:54:15] When they did the Minto building on Wellington,

[1:54:18] we saw some very good shadow studies in terms of its impact,

[1:54:22] and not shadow at one point of the year, but all kinds of the year.

[1:54:25] I haven't seen those, I mean, I ought to found them, so I'll give them a break on that.

[1:54:31] I also support overall concerns about access to affordable housing, which is much more needed

[1:54:37] in our neighborhood. My three asks, the first is the deep hole, but Linda has branded the hole,

[1:54:45] I think that's not a bad term, is the blasting that will be coming from that.

[1:54:50] When the Minto development at Wellington Hamilton came about they actually came to my house

[1:54:57] two streets down and they did videotaking because of concerns about the impact of blasting on my 125-year-old house.

[1:55:08] I found that mildly concerning because we were so relatively far away but obviously it's heightened my concern about the depth of four layers on this blasting.

[1:55:19] So, the question there will be if and when this blasting goes forward, I will want some sort of mechanism where I have a blasting 311 or blasting 911 ability to call one person or one place without getting the run around.

[1:55:39] Already I've noticed we have had one slight impact from the Wellington development, so that has heightened my concern.

[1:55:47] So, I would ask for some sort of ability for us to have easy access to a

[1:55:54] Helpline and a concern line. It but it blasting comes about. I don't know if my other two issues have come for site plan

[1:56:02] Issues, but I'm gonna throw them out here because I'm talking to you. The second one is about the

[1:56:08] impact of the removal of the environmental degradation

[1:56:13] Any questions? I assume will be answered around any dust that come

[1:56:17] from blasting the stuff that happens in the neighborhood, those of us across the street and

[1:56:22] so on.

[1:56:23] The removal of it and so on will there be, and how will we be informed of any potential impacts

[1:56:30] of that?

[1:56:31] And my final ask, and I know that the folks in the audience from the HCA, I'm sure we'll

[1:56:40] support this, is that if this development does go ahead and the aspects of its relationship

[1:56:46] the market. The city seriously and for once and for all make a true capital investment in the

[1:56:54] Parkdale Market. The Parkdale Market has so much potential. We've seen that over the many years

[1:56:59] at the Humberc Community Association's been working with the market and the potential to develop

[1:57:05] some capital infrastructure there to make it a year-round market. We have many vendors who are

[1:57:10] and some one-bender in particular, Cornel, our egg farmer who comes every Saturday, 52 weeks

[1:57:19] a year in the winter. There are many examples of winter markets, which with a little bit of

[1:57:26] infrastructure could transform, part-dell market into an even better market than it has become.

[1:57:33] And with any development at this site, obviously, that would allow those people to not have to

[1:57:39] grocery shopping with their car, they could just go down to the market. So those are my

[1:57:43] comments, my three asks. Thank you.

[1:57:49] Thank you very much, David. I don't see any questions for you.

[1:57:56] My office would be happy or I know Jack would also be a happy dancer offline. Some of the questions

[1:58:01] around blasts, etc. They're not in play as questions today with the zoning and official plan

[1:58:07] amendment, but we'd be happy to walk you through that and, you know, so without other questions

[1:58:17] to the public delegations, we'll move on to questions of city staff.

[1:58:27] Councillor Brock

[1:58:27] and said,

[1:58:30] how tall would this building have to be for you to say no?

[1:58:38] Chair, our role is to

[1:58:40] respond to the application before us, so we assess the final product which in this case was

[1:58:46] 32 stories. I can't speculate as to what height would change that threshold.

[1:58:54] This is a question I've asked before in other files and planning staff

[1:58:59] give me that answer. So it's difficult for me and it's difficult for the public to know

[1:59:05] what is the threshold? I'm dealing with 40 story towers, butting the central park neighbor

[1:59:12] that's an active file right now and we're having very similar conversations about

[1:59:19] the appropriateness of height and density and I'm a huge supporter of density and height

[1:59:23] near transit stations, near Tony's pastor station, we should have height. And density,

[1:59:29] the question that we're hearing is what's the appropriate height and density inside a residential

[1:59:35] community, again, a topic that's being discussed in my word as well. The traffic study references

[1:59:45] that we heard from many delegates cited sort of aged data could please could staff just

[1:59:52] please talk about the traffic studies that were done. And the years.

[2:00:00] So,

[2:00:15] TIA would have been submitted in support of the application and circulated to transportation engineering services for the transportation project manager to coordinate the review of that application.

[2:00:26] Of that document, through the review of the application, the transportation project manager was satisfied with the report for the purpose of the official plan amendment and zoning bottom amendment.

[2:00:39] Okay, but do we have a requirement or a threshold that data can't be too old and obsolete

[2:00:51] before we require the proponent to refresh the data or restart the data as opposed to using data that already exists?

[2:01:01] Are you suggesting that the city's traffic specialist was satisfied with the age of the data?

[2:01:07] that was submitted as part of the study?

[2:01:12] Yes, so in this instance,

[2:01:14] they would have reviewed the data that was in the report

[2:01:17] and they would have provided comments back

[2:01:19] to the planner as well as the applicant for response.

[2:01:24] Just from my knowledge of the transportation review,

[2:01:28] the age of a traffic count can be considered

[2:01:30] as adequate, depending on the location and context,

[2:01:35] as well as in consideration, for example,

[2:01:38] the COVID year is traffic might have been lighter and it's actually better to use older data

[2:01:43] and that instance as it's more reflective of post COVID traffic.

[2:01:47] So how do these studies include more recent developments in the neighborhood and even proposed

[2:01:53] developments that council maybe has not yet approved are those factored into these assessments?

[2:02:03] Chair's best is possible. Yes, it's not always the case depending on timing. Certainly

[2:02:08] transportation and practice assessment will contemplate approved developments as part of assumptions

[2:02:15] and targets that are happening in that neighborhood. I said the kind of half yes, if you will,

[2:02:20] because if a time of submission comes in another project comes online, that may not be contemplated,

[2:02:26] but in scenarios like this, where today we've got official plan amendment and zoning

[2:02:31] by law amendment and that TIA is based on information available at the time of this application

[2:02:35] submission. The expectation is that when this comes back for site plan, whether that be within the next few

[2:02:41] months or a few years from now, that TAA is going to have to be updated to be more relevant to

[2:02:46] what other additional information has come online, I, other projects, approvals, projects,

[2:02:53] and get the more relevant data as it becomes available. So, the TAA that we have now is not necessarily

[2:02:59] the final version. It will be looked at again through site plan one in when that comes in.

[2:03:04] Okay, and so the city has the right to ask the proponent to refresh the data if that is believed to be warranted.

[2:03:13] Chair, it's an expectation that it'd be updated to be current at the time of site plan submission.

[2:03:18] Okay, very good.

[2:03:20] And just parking, what is the minimum parking ratio for this development that the city is asking for?

[2:03:31] I would need to refer to the zoning for the maximum parking requirements,

[2:03:34] But the site remains compliant with the required minimum and maximum parking. Okay, but is 0.7 the minimum request or is the proponent adding more parking and the minimum?

[2:03:46] The proponent would be adding more parking within the minimum. And what is the delta?

[2:03:53] Is the city of Iowa saying 0.5 and they're offering 0.7 or can refer to this chair? The current zoning by-law does not require parking in the or in the

[2:04:07] application. Yes. Okay. So I'm trying to understand it's like a chicken and egg. This is close to

[2:04:18] Tony Spaster LRT station. We want people, particularly new developments within 600 meters of stations to be tall and dense.

[2:04:28] And we want those residents, as in everyone else, to take transit, so you offer parking and incentivize people to move in and drive and rely on their car.

[2:04:42] And there'll be less pressure to become a ongoing transit user.

[2:04:47] So how do we explain this to the public that despite your close vicinity to an LRT station,

[2:04:56] we're going to permit through a higher parking ratio than what's necessary.

[2:05:04] Sure, that's a great question.

[2:05:06] And it's obviously one that's really important depending on site context, location,

[2:05:11] the specific site and the surroundings.

[2:05:13] And what I mean by that is if you look at a transportation impact assessment and talk to

[2:05:18] our transportation colleagues who obviously have more expertise in this than I do,

[2:05:23] there's always a conversation of those modal shares and assumptions that are made.

[2:05:27] And in that conversation, when you look at a location like this that is categorically a very

[2:05:33] walkable neighborhood, you know, we've heard that 15 minute neighborhood, this site definitely

[2:05:38] fits that context. It has great access to a number of local goods and amenities that are walkable.

[2:05:45] It has really good access to a number of cycling infrastructure, local bus routes, it's 450

[2:05:50] meter walking distance to a rapid transit station. Where that factors into a TIA in translation is

[2:05:58] if a parking space is provided, it doesn't necessarily mean that every trip generated is going

[2:06:04] to be by personal car. Those are those other active transit options are available, and there's

[2:06:10] a certain assumption that a high percentage of trips, whether it be commuting to work or walking

[2:06:15] to the Parkdale Market in this case to grab some eggs as we heard a delegation, those

[2:06:20] factor into that parking space not necessarily generating 100% of vehicle trips because

[2:06:27] it is well served by that active transit community.

[2:06:33] Okay, I appreciate that.

[2:06:35] I may have some other questions, Chair, but I'll certainly yield to my colleagues.

[2:06:43] Thank you so much.

[2:06:46] I just want to know that we've been talking about the parking here.

[2:06:48] I just want to be a bundle in clear.

[2:06:49] So do we have any recourse, people are seeing the ratios too high, but it's still below the thresholds, correct?

[2:06:59] So you would have sort of no tool at your disposal to say put in less parking if they're already below the maximum.

[2:07:10] Through our commenting of the cyclone control application, we could certainly engage in further conversations on the adequate amount of parking for this specific site.

[2:07:18] But that is right, that it does remain zoning compliant.

[2:07:22] Okay, so it is zoning compliant.

[2:07:23] Like, this is so frustrating because obviously, the near book.

[2:07:30] But traffic in part del, which I totally get, part del is disaster. But we consistently have this problem at planning. This chicken and egg issue in counter kits has sort of been the number one person highlighting this, where it's like, what comes first, the transportation infrastructure or the housing. Now this is a contaminated site that currently has no housing. So generally speaking, it's supportive of putting housing there. But what can be done through the site plan process to mitigate those very real traffic concerns?

[2:07:57] because that's still adding a lot of cars to a very tight area that's already really hard to navigate.

[2:08:06] Chair, I don't know that we can directly answer that question today. It really depends on the timing

[2:08:11] of when that cyclone application comes in. Part of the transportation impact assessment,

[2:08:16] there's a component of it called transit demand strategies. There's a number of different things

[2:08:20] that a developer can propose to offset the need to use a vehicle, everything from preloaded

[2:08:28] Presto cards adding more bicycle parking, just to name a few examples, we're probably not going to get that level of detail of what they're specifically doing in their building and, you know, setting up their project to be more active transit support of in friendly to offset the desire to choose a car.

[2:08:46] So I hear the point, I'm there with you in terms of a conversation.

[2:08:50] I don't know that we can fully realize what that looks like until this project progresses through that site plan process.

[2:08:57] Okay, yeah, and just a comment.

[2:08:59] This just speaks to the frustration of the kind of siloization of the two issues,

[2:09:02] because the transportation planning stuff comes up.

[2:09:05] Public Works and Infrastructure Committee is part of our transportation master plan,

[2:09:08] but then these projects are approved,

[2:09:10] one by one, at planning, where we don't have jurisdiction to improve transportation relief.

[2:09:16] So I just want to say I really share that frustration,

[2:09:18] and it might be worth a rethink with our governance review coming up to figure out how we can

[2:09:23] more closely tie these issues together, so these decisions are being made so that when you

[2:09:28] approve something that you know is probably going to take a decade to build, how do you ensure

[2:09:33] that at the same time you're you're ensuring the transportation infrastructure is built into the

[2:09:39] transportation master plan, and I know that's not your jurisdiction, but it's just two committees,

[2:09:43] these two silos, but the impact of one building on the community, and that's, I just want

[2:09:48] to agree with you all that it's very frustrating.

[2:09:51] We had a very similar conversation around 267 O'Connor, where my residents were really unhappy

[2:09:55] about that too.

[2:09:56] And the answer is, we don't have an answer here because our job is just to decide if we approve

[2:10:02] a zoning amendment or not, but it's actually worth so much more to the community, so thank

[2:10:07] you very much.

[2:10:10] Thanks, Chair. I just had a clarifying question because I was a little bit confused in the staff report.

[2:10:18] On page 9 it references a height limit of 8 stories and on page 25 it references a height limit of 18 stories.

[2:10:26] What is the actual height limit currently that needs to be amended?

[2:10:33] So, it's too pronged within the second area, within the official plan, generally 40 stories

[2:10:40] are contemplated within the hub designation, within the inner urban transect, within

[2:10:45] the secondary plan, two of the sites being, let me just pull this up here, being 233 Armstrong

[2:10:53] and 3 Hamilton Avenue North are subject to a site-specific policy, which permit the development

[2:10:58] of a floor space index that is generally equivalent to eight stories without being subject to a maximum height.

[2:11:05] That's within the secondary plan.

[2:11:06] So a majority of the site is not subject to a maximum height just that FSI.

[2:11:12] With the remainder of the two properties being subject to a general policy of an eight story of max.

[2:11:18] Within the zoning by law, given historic OMB decisions, a maximum of 18 stories is permitted on

[2:11:27] on two, three, three arms strong and three Hamilton Avenue North, given that file history.

[2:11:34] So those zoning schedule would have been established at the time of going to the OMB

[2:11:39] for that previous contemplated 18-story built form.

[2:11:42] Okay. And on the FSI, there was one of the delegations who brought forward some calculations and said

[2:11:51] that stats calculations are the applications were incorrect.

[2:11:57] Have you respond to that delegation?

[2:12:00] Yes.

[2:12:01] So the zoning by law amendment for those two specific properties

[2:12:04] subject to the site specific policies

[2:12:07] are subject to a six point OFSI within the zoning by law,

[2:12:14] which is reflective of that 18 story design,

[2:12:16] which was previously approved by the OMB.

[2:12:19] However, when you read the parent policies

[2:12:21] being the secondary plan, it's actually based on,

[2:12:24] there's direction within that document

[2:12:26] that permits that eight story FSI on the site. So when you take into account eight stories within

[2:12:35] the parent document instead of six stories within the zoning you do come out to it of Proximit

[2:12:39] 28,000 square meter GFA across the site when you take in all the permissions and the proposed

[2:12:45] development includes approximately 24,000 square meters of GFA. So coming in below that GFA calculation.

[2:12:53] So you're asserting that how staff calculated the FSI for the evaluation of this proposed zoning

[2:13:02] amendment is accurate and aligned to policy.

[2:13:08] That's right.

[2:13:08] We would have done our calculation based on the policies of the secondary plan, whereas the

[2:13:14] delegate earlier would have been referring to the zoning which established a six FSI of six.

[2:13:21] I can't say I completely follow this and I can't blame residents for their confusion and concern about the amount of time they had to review the report.

[2:13:32] The mix and the intersection of policies and historical issues with this site is really confusing.

[2:13:41] So I do want to acknowledge that concern from residents.

[2:13:46] Thank

[2:13:50] you.

[2:13:51] Great to have thank you chair.

[2:13:54] So I'll just go straight simple questions.

[2:13:58] Did it meet the targeted communications

[2:14:04] under the provincial legislation where we have to get out?

[2:14:08] That's correct.

[2:14:09] We would have notified the public both of the circulation of the application.

[2:14:13] Posted public science garnered their feedback and then provided correct notice under the planning act with respect to today's meeting here today.

[2:14:21] Okay, and I know it's very tough because we see these applications all the time and I actually have a tremendous amount of high-rise intensification in my area, so I deal with this on a regular basis.

[2:14:33] I guess to Tim Mark, if this went anywhere, if we just decided to block it or try to stop, it's the same question as usual, what happens at the next level.

[2:14:45] Mr. Chair, this one actually, as has been indicated by the planning staff, this matter went to the OMB as it then was back.

[2:15:00] This is where staff had recommended a particular approach, zoning, which was ultimately approved by the OMB.

[2:15:09] And Council had taken a different position.

[2:15:12] And so, in that case, the OMB relied on the staff view.

[2:15:23] I'm not going to say that they're going to happen today, but this property does have a history to it, Mr. Chair.

[2:15:30] I know. And that could repeat itself. Yeah. And I believe the chair is actually well documented

[2:15:37] by the way on your blog or some stuff. I don't know what it is. The history of this file is quite

[2:15:44] extensive and long. And it's unfortunate I thought that there would have been that opportunity,

[2:15:50] but it sounds like the applicant's quite pressed on time now and after so many years,

[2:15:54] I think we're in a position where we know what's going to happen here at the end of the day.

[2:15:59] it's about making sure the residents actually hear some of their concerns addressed whether it's

[2:16:05] transportation or the garbage pickup. These are the things that we could actually focus on.

[2:16:10] Desowning, we all know that that's a fit of complete. That's probably not going to change.

[2:16:17] So a lot of these notes I think have been taken here today and should be brought back to staff.

[2:16:24] And my colleague to the left of me is quite correct. We deal with this even in the east and

[2:16:28] There's not even the rogue infrastructure now that exists now where you could actually put a road.

[2:16:32] There is no place to put a road when you're building downtown because we made a commitment to build up to intensify.

[2:16:39] These are the challenges for experiencing.

[2:16:41] So for this, I mean, there's no real option we have to support proceeding with this.

[2:16:47] I don't see unless we just want to make this a political thing, but anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[2:16:54] Okay,

[2:17:01] these might be repetitive questions, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the parking.

[2:17:07] So, when you're asked the question about the parking minimums, I understand they're in zoning compliance,

[2:17:13] but then you list it off all the amazing amenities in the area, the walkability.

[2:17:17] I mean, I have a doctor's office that I go to regularly on Grant Street,

[2:17:21] so I walk right through this area, get off the tines, take the walk through,

[2:17:25] was at the Parkdale in the night market the other day.

[2:17:28] Once again, there's not a lot of parking,

[2:17:30] there's not a lot of room for cars.

[2:17:33] So if we wanted to push back, I'm not saying to climb

[2:17:37] this application, but if we wanted to push back

[2:17:40] and have the community's voice heard,

[2:17:43] but limit the amount of parking that is being included

[2:17:46] in this application.

[2:17:47] I'm sorry, you said that that is a possible conversation

[2:17:49] that could be had.

[2:17:52] And I'm also going to note that we very recently

[2:17:54] had an application that nearly came before us for

[2:17:57] center of that had zero parking. So, I mean, I'm really confused by this.

[2:18:01] We got zero parking at a place that deserves parking, and we've got ample

[2:18:04] and excessive parking at a place that doesn't need it.

[2:18:10] Chair, I do not believe there would be an appropriate tool that could

[2:18:15] require us to cap a maximum parking rate that is less than what is in our

[2:18:21] current zoning bylaw. I think the comment that was made was when this

[2:18:25] application comes in for site plan and we're having a conversation about what is the amount

[2:18:31] of parking proposed and why there's an opportunity to have a discussion to say do you need

[2:18:37] this much parking or what else are you doing to have transit demands strategies to help support

[2:18:42] those other active modes like preloaded presto cards, put displays within the building lobby about

[2:18:48] key walking and cycling routes or sometimes they could have displays about when the next local

[2:18:53] buses coming on the nearby street, it's conversations of that nature that can help get into

[2:18:58] the how much parking is provided and what's going to be, you know, the impact, if there is

[2:19:04] an impact in that application, but to go back to the question of, would we have a tool that

[2:19:09] would say limit the parking to X? Council and its will, I would say, would have the authority to

[2:19:16] potentially reduce the amount of maximum parking. In my personal opinion, I don't think we'd be

[2:19:23] good grounds to do so. I appreciate that. I know the applicants in the room. I think there's

[2:19:32] an opportunity to have a conversation about whether you need that much parking or not. I'm just

[2:19:36] putting that out there because you're sexy and listening to me. I just being in that area on

[2:19:42] many, many occasions with myself, my family, there is not much more room than is already there.

[2:19:49] And that, and I'm somebody who's coming from another community to visit the space.

[2:19:53] I can't even imagine moving that many cars through that community going forward.

[2:19:58] Now having more people living in the area, you know, beautifying it and identifying it in a way

[2:20:04] that is impactful but beneficial to neighbors.

[2:20:07] There's opportunity there, but adding more cars to the street, it's completely counterintuitive

[2:20:12] to everything we've been doing in terms of transit investment and trying to get people on

[2:20:17] bikes and on to buses. So again, I'm very, very confused by why we've got this much parking

[2:20:27] on the table on this particular development and I really do hope that the applicant is listening

[2:20:32] as we say that this is an opportunity to change the narrative on this. Thank you.

[2:20:43] Thank you very much, Councillor. Do you guys consider gifts?

[2:20:47] Thank you, Chair. I was not going to comment, but I can't help myself. I found that conversations

[2:20:53] today are very interesting because a lot of the issues being raised by delegates and by colleagues

[2:20:58] are ones that I often bring forward as Councilor Troster mentioned. And I said at Transportation

[2:21:05] Committee, the last one, or sorry, P-Wick, the last one, that for a period of time, I think

[2:21:11] sort of lost the plot on. How we talk about planning in this city and we've become so intensely

[2:21:17] focused on units, unit count, that we stopped asking enough questions about what actually

[2:21:24] makes those units part of a functioning community. You know, we look at one application,

[2:21:30] one intersection, one transportation study at a time, and then residents experience the cumulative

[2:21:35] impact of what we approve, which has been a theme in the delegation today. So, you know,

[2:21:41] And I want to acknowledge that this application is very different from many of the files that

[2:21:46] I take on wrist width.

[2:21:47] In my word, because this is a downtown development, but I order transit very close by, so I think

[2:21:53] the parking conversation is very relevant, but that underlying conversation is very familiar.

[2:22:00] And when the transportation impact assessment guidelines were being refreshed recently, and before

[2:22:07] it came to P-Wick. I, you know, with staff question, whether our thresholds make sense

[2:22:15] everywhere in the city, whether we should be evaluating developments individually when we

[2:22:20] know there are 10, 15, 20 other applications coming in the same area, whether we should be modeling,

[2:22:30] Is there, or that is simply theoretical, pushed for more conservative forecasting alongside aspirational

[2:22:39] mode share targets, and then if the predicted travel behavior doesn't materialize, should

[2:22:46] we do better monitoring around that. So I was successful in getting some of these changes, but

[2:22:51] I was not successful in getting all of them. So when I hear colleagues and delegates today saying

[2:22:57] perhaps we need to rethink some of the assumptions built into our transportation planning process.

[2:23:02] I just wanted to say, I agree and I hope that we can remember this conversation,

[2:23:09] but context has to matter. We can't plan downtown Ottawa as though it was a greenfield

[2:23:14] suburb and we shouldn't plan a greenfield suburb as though it was downtown Ottawa. So for those of

[2:23:20] us that are fortunate enough to be back around this table next term, I hope we can take this conversation

[2:23:25] and do something with it, because we know that the answer can't be to approve fewer homes.

[2:23:32] So it has to be getting much better at planning the communities that those homes are going into.

[2:23:38] Thank you.

[2:23:43] Thank you very much, Councillor.

[2:23:44] I think we have Councillor Currie. Yeah, thank you very much.

[2:23:49] So a lot of different perspectives for sure when I just simply look at this development

[2:23:53] for this location, I honestly I repeat what I'd said in my opening comments there that I

[2:23:59] would love it if this development were in Canada.

[2:24:01] And what it's going to do to that Parkdale Market,

[2:24:03] it is going to be a beautiful thing.

[2:24:05] What is all finished?

[2:24:06] I mean, how lively it will be in that area

[2:24:09] when this is all done as it's done.

[2:24:12] And there are attempts to keep that Carlton tavern.

[2:24:15] I know it isn't exactly the same thing,

[2:24:17] but it is a nice thought.

[2:24:19] I think the community will love it.

[2:24:21] I think there will be enough people to certainly go in there

[2:24:24] along with all the shops along Parkdale and at the market.

[2:24:27] I think that, you know, the changes that were made over time when I look at how this evolved,

[2:24:31] I think were thoughtful.

[2:24:34] And, you know, people's feedback, residents' feedback was taken into consideration.

[2:24:38] As for the parking, I guess, you know, I always am shocked that I have to say this again

[2:24:42] and again.

[2:24:43] But, you know, the people who live there will probably use transit predominantly, like they

[2:24:48] will, like they have amazing opportunities there.

[2:24:51] But they still might own a car, and they need to store that car somewhere.

[2:24:55] And that is the reality of why you include parking and often a unit will not be rented out if there's no parking available.

[2:25:03] So I just think, you know, the parking spots, if they were never used, they could be repurposed at some point.

[2:25:10] But if they are used, then that is an amenity that some people would appreciate.

[2:25:14] Because yes, people use transit to get around town, of course you can't really get out of that well.

[2:25:19] But, you know, you could get around town, other places, and then you could drive to see your friend in Metcalf.

[2:25:26] You know, you could drive to see your friend in Elmont if you ever wanted to do that.

[2:25:30] But, you do have many options.

[2:25:32] And I think that's what a great place to live offers.

[2:25:35] I honestly would love to live there.

[2:25:37] I mean, Councillor Leaper, you have such a lovely ward.

[2:25:40] And, you know, I think this will be a great addition.

[2:25:42] I understand that people are frustrated with some of the components of this.

[2:25:47] But and maybe they could have had a little bit more time to react, but I do think there have been ample opportunities so far for people to give their feedback and it was listened to.

[2:25:56] So I will be supporting this file and I don't think if it weren't a supported it would have any chance that the OLT anyway. So those are my thoughts.

[2:26:07] Thank you very much, Councillor Curry.

[2:26:09] Did any other members wish to speak to before I think pose a couple of questions myself.

[2:26:17] And then I am likely to bring a motion now, directing staff, to reconsider parking

[2:26:25] maximums in the next turn of council, so I should have some wording on that in

[2:26:29] the next couple of minutes, but in the meantime, I'm going to ask city staff, can you

[2:26:34] just confirm what I can ask Tegert, which is that the entry and egress from the building and

[2:26:42] It's location won't be decided today, but that will be a cycline consideration.

[2:26:51] Yes, that's right.

[2:26:52] So right now the vehicular access is conceptualized along Spencer Street.

[2:26:59] However, through the subsequent cycline control process,

[2:27:02] there will be opportunities to further review the appropriate location of the parking ramp.

[2:27:08] Thank you.

[2:27:11] Sorry, just to subtract it.

[2:27:13] And secondly, the decision to reconfigure or close arms strong

[2:27:18] to become an interface between the market

[2:27:20] and the private developers space.

[2:27:23] That is not a decision that we are making today, either.

[2:27:28] Yes, that's correct.

[2:27:29] We don't presently have plans for the pedestrianization

[2:27:31] of arms strength street, but there will be ongoing discussions

[2:27:34] internally and with the applicant, as part

[2:27:37] of the cyclone control process.

[2:27:39] Okay. There was an assertion made by one of the delegates, and I'm sorry I forget which

[2:27:46] that the

[2:27:51] divergence from the secondary plan concept of a mid-rise wellington or south-end

[2:28:00] going to a very high-rise Scott Street. One of the grounds upon which, or I think it was kind

[2:28:07] suggested the main grounds upon which that was being accepted by staff as supportable by the

[2:28:13] official plan was because of a density transfer. I'd love to hear from you about how you justify going

[2:28:22] from that mid-rise wellington to a high-rise Scott with 32-story tower essentially mid-block.

[2:28:31] Can I just hear from you about how you are supporting that in your recommendation to us

[2:28:36] to improve this OPA.

[2:28:40] Yes, so as noted, the official plan contemplates up to 40 stories and hubs within the

[2:28:44] inner of the transect further the secondary plant policies permit an FSI generally equivalent

[2:28:50] to eight stories across the majority of the site without being limited to a maximum height

[2:28:54] limit, which generally support the direction of the hub policies when considering citywide

[2:29:00] policies that a city may permit the transfer of density potential from one site to another

[2:29:05] to facilitate the retention of built heritage resources in those areas, which have an established

[2:29:09] FSI requirement under the zoning vial law.

[2:29:12] So in this instance, given the prioritization of the pop, some of the tavern space, some of

[2:29:17] the south and south eastern edge of the site, which provide retention of the community asset

[2:29:21] and contributions to the public realm, staff considered the density transfer policy to make up

[2:29:26] for that GFA, lost on that portion of the site for public benefit to be provided to the

[2:29:32] hour. Never the last we do believe that 32 stories is an adequate transition from the center

[2:29:39] of the hub being Tony's pastor station.

[2:29:45] I have very significant sympathy for the the community's

[2:29:48] point of view that it is not that we're going from 40 stories or I have to assume that

[2:29:53] This craft is going to come in for 40 stories when they finally do it.

[2:30:00] 8, but that was done 6, 7, 8 years ago now. So you're going from 40, the site next to it will probably

[2:30:08] ask for 40, then you're going to have 32 and then bam, you're down to the no-rise part-del market,

[2:30:16] and then a mid-rise at Wellington Street. And I'm just not sure that I've heard the justification

[2:30:24] and clearly as to why we are, or why you are supporting such a divergence from that transition.

[2:30:32] Cheryl, maybe add some context to that. I'm going to take a bit of a step backwards to answer

[2:30:38] that, but I do think we have to remember that the secondary plan was completed in 2011 and

[2:30:45] well, a lot of the intent in terms of hub versus corridor or neighborhood is still relevant.

[2:30:51] It is important to flag that at that time,

[2:30:54] high rise was a maximum of 30 stories, not 40 stories.

[2:30:57] So, it can actually, the expectation for height has evolved.

[2:31:01] That's evident in the new OP.

[2:31:03] So, when we talk about heights within a hub,

[2:31:06] you have to remember that the secondary plan,

[2:31:08] previously, was with a 30 story sort of expected

[2:31:11] height limit we've now gone up to 40.

[2:31:13] The policy framework has changed in that regard.

[2:31:16] So when we think about that gradual transition,

[2:31:21] if we wanna bring up that map or not,

[2:31:24] between Wellington and Scott,

[2:31:27] this is a bit of a unique hub

[2:31:28] in that the main hub is a long Scott at Tony's pasture

[2:31:32] and everything north of that.

[2:31:33] And then this block framework kind of pulls in

[2:31:36] and it's flanked by some of those local right neighborhood.

[2:31:40] So if the expectation is that 40 stories is permitted

[2:31:44] by policy at Tony's pasture, which is two blocks away from the site, 450 meters walking distance.

[2:31:51] This being one of the last sites before Parkdale Market, within that sort of hub designation

[2:31:56] itself, we see that as being an appropriate gradual transition down from 40 stories.

[2:32:03] Transition is also done in other ways.

[2:32:05] When we look at the neighborhood designation east of Parkdale, the tower itself was oriented

[2:32:12] towards the northwest corner of the site to kind of place the tower one for the

[2:32:17] way from the closest neighborhood designation. And I mean by way of policy, not

[2:32:22] existing. I'm sympathetic to the delegation that said there's also a low-rise

[2:32:25] neighborhood directly north, but that is within the hub designation. That tower is

[2:32:31] getting somewhere close to 80 meters away from that neighborhood designation east of

[2:32:35] Parkdale. If you put that in context of our policy framework of where

[2:32:40] rises are permitted on corridors next to a low-rise neighborhood the way the

[2:32:46] policies been set up is that you generally apply an angular plane but once you're

[2:32:51] more than 25 meters away from that that angular plane stops and you can go up to

[2:32:56] in theory 40 stories on certain corridors so having that tower 80 meters away from

[2:33:02] the nearest neighborhood designation is an appropriate transition from that

[2:33:07] guard and then I would say a key part of this application looking at the site specific context

[2:33:13] and what's surrounding it was the move to reduce the podium heights down to five stories from

[2:33:19] the initial sort of large eight and nine story block. That was also part of an appropriate

[2:33:24] story in addition from a policy framework to make sure that the at great experience was more in

[2:33:30] line with sort of call it the existing context versus the plan function and I know I'm getting

[2:33:35] to complicated planning, but it's a balance of understanding what's existing around you, what

[2:33:42] policy supports, and where does this site fit within it? This site is uniquely situated

[2:33:47] in that you've got to kind of consider all those factors, but I hope that helps kind of frame

[2:33:51] how it landed at 32 stories. Thank you very much for that. It raises the question

[2:33:59] is the secondary plan compliant with the official plan.

[2:34:05] And right across the city, we see secondary plans that are not compliant with our most recent

[2:34:10] addition of the official plan.

[2:34:13] And I think that this is something that we're going to have to address in the next term of council

[2:34:19] is the unrealistic expectations that are raised.

[2:34:24] Genuine and honest expectations, but, unfortunately, on practical ones, that our secondary plans are going to guide growth when we don't update those when the provincial policy statement changes, the official plan changes, and then you have the secondary plans, and I think if you are listening to this debate and you are wondering what's going to happen to your neighborhood, my suggestion would be, look at what the official plan says.

[2:34:50] because ultimately that is going to be the document that guides growth moving forward.

[2:34:58] I do have, sorry, I'm asking Vice Chair Gower, I'm not allowed to move motions,

[2:35:04] but Vice Chair Gower has a motion. Where is the zoning by-lot? 2026-50 provides a maximum

[2:35:12] parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit at three Hamilton Avenue North,

[2:35:17] and 223-229 and 233 Armstrong, and whereas this site is within walking distance of the

[2:35:25] Tennis Passure Rapid Transit Station. Therefore, be it resolved that planning and housing committee

[2:35:30] recommend council direct staff to reconsider the parking maximums and proximity to rapid transit

[2:35:36] stations in the next term of council.

[2:35:44] Please go ahead. So just on that note,

[2:35:49] is there anything in

[2:35:50] Thank you.

[2:35:50] Next term of council to review parking with respect to developments.

[2:35:56] The Oralines case comes to mind that I think we need to reflect this.

[2:36:01] I was just talking with Councilor Chaucer, I think my preference would be something like

[2:36:07] any development that is under a certain threshold could have a parking waived 12, 16, 20 units.

[2:36:19] or within a certain transect, but as you get larger and larger, I think the demand for parking presents itself.

[2:36:28] But I just want to make sure that Councillor Leapers not jumping in the queue.

[2:36:34] And if we're going to talk about parking, we should talk about all the issues related to the parking,

[2:36:39] not just the one that he's identified. So is there anything that staff are already considering bringing forward to committee or council next term of council related to parking?

[2:36:50] Through the chair, so I would just say that this is a motion because we do not have a plan right now to reopen the zoning bylaw, as it relates to parking, staff would look at it comprehensively, and I would remind everyone that under planning legislation we are not allowed to have a minimum, but we are allowed to have a maximum, and what we're seeing in this case is they came in under the maximum and yet it still feels too much.

[2:37:18] In many cases we're arguing about no parking at all so I think it depends I think it was

[2:37:25] Councillor Kitt's point about them.

[2:37:30] Really, really important. So we would look at this holistically citywide and what the parking

[2:37:39] maximums are and how they work against the parking minimum that is now not in zoning by

[2:37:46] law at all.

[2:37:48] Yeah, and just on the leapermotion, what I appreciated is in the context of its proximity to

[2:37:53] transit hubs, which I think is very important. So I'm not pushing back, but I just wanted to

[2:37:58] make sure we're taking a holistic view with respect to parking.

[2:38:01] Thank you.

[2:38:04] Thank you.

[2:38:04] Councillor Vittos?

[2:38:06] I think I'm pretty much in line with Councillor Brockington.

[2:38:10] I just want to make sure, you know, we're not that far away from a new term of council with

[2:38:14] the new council.

[2:38:15] I'm sure that this will be a conversation that is had at many, many committee meetings going

[2:38:21] forward.

[2:38:22] And I'm just wondering with this particular motion and staff indicating that this is likely something

[2:38:28] that they'll be looking at is this I understand it's not it's not specific to this development.

[2:38:36] I'm just wondering do we really need this or if it does go forward which you know on paper

[2:38:42] I'm happy to support it but are we tying our hands do we need a more you know a couple more

[2:38:47] rare as is to give you more direction or can we play on it a little bit I just think there's a lot to

[2:38:52] to unpack about this topic and making sure that it reflects the entirety of the city and

[2:38:59] the areas that we're going to be seeing developments in the next four years.

[2:39:05] So I'm just wondering, does it need to be parked right now, or if we pass it, are you

[2:39:09] open to interpretation after the next term starts?

[2:39:12] Chair, certainly taking the point that there's not a lot of ware, as I think it was drafted

[2:39:17] fairly quickly and not as comprehensive a discussion as sometimes works into these.

[2:39:21] Um, you know, I think when I read the motion, I, I look at that as being on those

[2:39:25] attached those rapid transit stations, which is where we have the maximums.

[2:39:29] We don't have maximums in some of our further flowing areas of the suburbs.

[2:39:34] And so that, I mean, would not necessarily play a role into this unless there's, you know,

[2:39:38] need to dive into that in a, in a, in a greater detail.

[2:39:42] I also point out that I think, I think it's a worthwhile discussion, you know, this is obviously

[2:39:47] right in the downtown. We also have maximum, you know, next to the Pine Crest station or in some

[2:39:53] of our more suburban. And there may be a need to have a different maximum there than there is

[2:39:59] right in such a walkable community as this is. I like, I think this is a worthwhile conversation.

[2:40:04] I just want to make sure we're not, you know, pre, pre disposing in the next term of council to

[2:40:10] anything. So, but no, I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for your support on that

[2:40:14] Councilor Duda's. When I take a look like even in Kichasipper, where we

[2:40:18] Kichasip B, where we are starting to run out now of primed development

[2:40:23] parcels, there are still more to come. And we have seen, I'm trying to

[2:40:27] remember the uniform development at Kichasipi station. I'm trying to remember,

[2:40:34] but I think they've got like a point eight parking ratio. And there will be

[2:40:38] more parcels to come parcels that have not yet been zoned. And the feeling that

[2:40:43] committee has and the feeling of the community has that allowing a 0.7 just a couple hundred

[2:40:48] meters away from a transition. I do think it's worthwhile to talk about without prescribing

[2:40:55] what the outcome will be. Okay, so with that I would any no further questions, so we will

[2:41:06] please.

[2:41:10] Oh, sorry, is the, uh, the Lee promotion, or sorry, the Gower Motion Pass?

[2:41:14] Great. Great. Thank you. Is the, um, oh, and then, yes and yes on the, uh, the substantive motion, please.

[2:41:24] Councillor Brockington? Yes. Councillor Curry? Yes. Councillor Dudes? Yes. Councillor Johnson? Yes.

[2:41:38] Councillor Kelly, Councillor Kits, Councillor Lowe, Councillor Tierney,

[2:41:49] Councillor Truster, yes,

[2:41:52] Vice Chair Gower. Yeah, Chair Leaper. Yes. 11, yes.

[2:41:59] Okay, thank you very much.

[2:42:02] I want to thank my neighbors for coming out today. I do understand the discomfort.

[2:42:07] We'll say that you feel with this, and I'm happy to chat about it more moving forward.

[2:42:13] We will move on and conclude today's agenda.

[2:42:23] North's motion has anyone got to know the motion for, how many?

[2:42:27] Do we have one meeting left?

[2:42:29] Two meetings. We have two meetings left.

[2:42:32] No notices of motion.

[2:42:34] Are there any inquiries?

[2:42:37] Nope. We have no other business.

[2:42:39] We are adjourned until October 7th.

[2:42:42] Thanks all.

Planning and Housing Committee

Agenda

Transcript