Planning Committee

WHEREAS on December 3, 2015, Ontario passed Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 , which amended the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act ; and WHEREAS several of the new provisions involve new public engagement requirements, including identifying how Council decision-making incorporates formal public submissions; and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2016, Sections 17, 22, 34, 45, 51 and 53 of the Planning Act will, with respect to specific planning matters, with Subsection 17 (23.1) and (23.2) requiring City Council to provide a “brief explanation of the effect, if any, that the written and oral submissions....had on [Council’s] decision,” with oral submissions being the public delegations that appear at Committee, and written submissions being any that were provided formally to Council between the date a report is published in the Committee Agenda and the date the final Council agenda containing that item is published, before Council’s decision is made; and WHEREAS City Council as a body speaks by resolution, so the ‘brief explanation’ required by the new legislation will need to be provided by way of a recommendation or motion; and WHEREAS it is not yet fully understood what the Province intends as best practices; and WHEREAS City Council, at its meeting of 22 June 2016, adopted new interim practices in an effort to meet the new Subsections 17 (23.1) and (23.2) requirements under Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 while City staff undertak

WHEREAS Report ACS2016-PAI-RIO-0002 (Confederation Line Proximity Study Fees – Zone of Influence) was

WHEREAS Report ACS2016-PAI-PGM-0096 recommends changes to the Zoning By-law with respect to minimum parking requirements and visitor parking requirements in the inner urban area and near rapid-transit stations; AND WHEREAS it is the intent of the proposed zoning to limit reductions of parking minimums to the inner urban area and near rapid-transit stations; AND WHEREAS the proposed zoning as drafted with respect to visitor parking requirements undermines this intent; BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Committee recommend Council approve the following changes to the staff report: 1. That Document 2a be amended as follows: (a) Item 7(2), being the proposed new subsection 102(2) is amended by adding the words "within Areas X, Y and Z" after the words "Despite (1)," so that the proposed Section 102(2) reads: "(2) Despite (1), within Areas B, X, Y and Z, no visitor parking spaces are required for the first twelve dwelling units on a lot." (b) Item 7(3), being the proposed new subsection 102(3) is deleted and replaced with the following: "(3) Despite (1), within Areas X, Y and Z, no more than thirty visitor parking spaces are required per building, and within Area B no more than sixty visitor parking spaces are required per building." (c) The current item 7(5), being the proposed subsection 102(5), is renumbered 7(6), and therefore proposed Subsection 102(6), and the following line inserted as line 7(5): "(5) Clauses (a) through (e) of subsection 101(5) apply with necessary modification

WHEREAS the question of the impact of parking has recently been raised within the Centrepointe Community through the development application in respect of 19 Centrepointe Drive and through the Centrepointe Design Plan AND WHEREAS concerns remain as to the adequacy of parking; AND WHEREAS the Centrepointe Community would prefer that, given the vicinity of the community to Baseline Station, that the matters of maximum and minimum parking requirements in respect of their community be before Planning Committee and Council at the same time; Therefore Be It Resolved that: a) Within the details of the zoning, section 23 be added to exclude at this time the Centrepointe Community being the lands described as south of Baseline Road, west of Woodroffe Avenue, north of the railway tracks and east of a boundary generally formed by Castleton Street, Saddlebrook Street, Strathbury Street, Cheswick Place, Marble Arch Crescent, Bennington Street, Weymouth Court, Hyde Park Way, Norwich Way, Offenbach Lane; b) Section 23 further provide that the parking requirements to apply to the Centrepointe community be those in effect on the date prior to the enactment of this zoning amendment; c) A schedule to represent the boundary in a) above be prepared and submitted to Council for adoption by motion when this report rises to Council; d) Staff may include in the draft motion to implement c) above any technical requirements arising from the exclusion of the Centrepointe Community; and e) The matter of

That the following motion be

That the public hearing portion of this item (report ACS2016-PAI-PGM-0109 - KANATA NORTH URBAN EXPANSION STUDY AREA - INTEGRATED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ) be closed on June 28, 2016 and the debate and consideration of the item be

WHEREAS Report ACS2016-PAI-PGM-0106 recommends approval of the application for demolition and new construction at 565 and 575 Old Prospect Road; AND WHEREAS the application for demolition and new construction at 565 and 575 Old Prospect Road has been partially

WHEREAS report ACS2016-PAI-PGM-0102, which recommends that the Built Heritage Sub-Committee approve the revised Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for the Magee House, 78 Lisgar Street, current HMCS Bytown, the Naval Officers’ Mess and receive the revised Heritage Survey Form was considered by the Built Heritage Sub-Committee at its meeting on June 9, 2016; AND WHEREAS the Document 2 – Revised Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form contained revisions agreed to by the appellant in July 2015; AND WHEREAS the appellant requested further revisions to include reference to the ownership status of the building in the Heritage Survey Form at the Built Heritage Sub-committee; AND WHEREAS an incorrect version of the further revised Heritage Survey Form was provided to the Committee Coordinator for inclusion with the Planning Committee agenda on June 21, 2016; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Document 2 be replaced with the attached Revised Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form to reflect the request of the appellant.