City Council

That the report from the City Clerk and Solicitor, entitled “ S tatus Update – Council Inquiries and Motions for the Period Ending 22 August 2014”; and Planning Committee Reports 74A and 75 be received and considered.

WHEREAS Report ACS2014-PAI-PGM-0142 recommends zoning changes for individual properties throughout Kanata North and Kanata South; and WHEREAS Planning Committee

WHEREAS the City has received submissions in respect of the owners of 420 and 430 Hazeldean with respect to the proposed zoning changes; and WHEREAS the Ward Councillor has indicated that he supports the opportunity for further discussions; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that further consideration of this item, as amended (by Motion No. 79/2), be

WHEREAS numerical job requirements on Enterprise Lands would be ineffective on 3490, 3592 and 3484 Innes Road as job targets are difficult to accurately monitor; and WHEREAS, precedence exists in the City where numerical job requirements were replaced with building requirements for office space, measured in square meters; and WHEREAS, staff has recommended that such a change would be appropriate as applied to 3490, 3592 and 3484 Innes Road; THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Item 2(h) in Part B-The Amendment section of Document 1 attached to the Staff Report ACS2014-PAI-PGM-0170 be deleted and replaced with the following: h. Amend, Section 3.6.5, Employment Area and Enterprise Area to add a new policy at the end as follows: 12. “For the lands known as 3490, 3592 and 3484 Innes Road, no residential development will be permitted until 32,000 sqm of office space has been constructed.”

WHEREAS Planning Committee at its meeting of August 21, 2014 recommended refusal of the rezoning application in respect of 19 and 23 Bachman Terrace; and Whereas the Planning Act requires that reasons be specified for the refusal of a rezoning application; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council adopt the following as the reasons for the refusal of the rezoning application in respect of 19 and 23 Bachman Terrace: The reasons for the refusal of the application by COUNCIL are: a) The proposed development is too dense in light of the development in the surrounding community; b) The proposed development does not ‘fit well’ within its physical context nor does it ‘work well’ with the existing and planned function of the surrounding community.

That the report from the City Clerk and Solicitor, entitled “ S tatus Update – Council Inquiries and Motions for the Period Ending 22 August 2014”; and Planning Committee Reports 74A and 75 be received and adopted as amended.

That the Rules of Procedure be waived, due to the administrative tasks that must be undertaken in advance of the legislated deadline, being October 1 st , to consider the following motion:

WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014 Council approved the establishment of a five-member mandatory Election Compliance Audit Committee (the “Committee”) in accordance with Section 81.1 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (the “MEA”), delegating the authority to appoint the Committee members to the City Clerk and Solicitor, the Auditor General and the Deputy City Clerk (the ‘Selection Panel’); and WHEREAS the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and the Ottawa Catholic School Board have confirmed their interest in sharing the Committee and its related costs with the City of Ottawa for the 2014-2018 Term of Council; and WHEREAS, in order to meet the 30-day timeline set out under Section 81(5) of the MEA for the Committee to consider and decide whether to grant or reject an application for a compliance audit, it may be necessary for the Committee to hold simultaneous hearings to address an application regarding a school board trustee candidate and to address an application regarding a candidate for City Council; and WHEREAS, during the Selection Panel Process, the City Clerk and Solicitor, the Auditor General and the Deputy City Clerk determined that the addition of an alternate member of the Election Compliance Audit Committee would provide the Election Compliance Audit Committee with an increased capacity to meet the statutory deadlines prescribed by the MEA such that the Committee could divide into two bodies of three members each, if necessary, to consider separate applications filed

That the Rules of Procedure be waived to consider the following motion:

WHEREAS the Heart of Orléans Business Improvement Area, and la Société franco-ontarienne du patrimoine et de l’histoire d’Orléans (SFOPHO), with the support of the local Ward Councillors, have proposed partnering with the City for the installation of 32 historical interpretive panels celebrating the unique heritage of Orléans within the road allowance along St. Joseph Blvd. in the community of Orléans; and WHEREAS the SFOPHO and the Heart of Orléans BIA have designed and constructed the historical interpretive panels with the support of the Ward Councillors; and WHEREAS the historical interpretive panels depict life as it was lived in the 1950s through stories representing the cultural, economic, social and agricultural fabric of Orléans society at that time; and WHEREAS the historical interpretive panels are defined as signs under the Signs on Roads By-law (No. 2003-520), as amended, of the City of Ottawa and Section 4 of the Signs on Roads By-law stipulates that no person shall place a sign on a highway within the City except as provided for in the by-law; and WHEREAS, although the proposed signs are not listed in the exemption provisions of the by-law, staff have indicated that they are comfortable with the signs as proposed; and WHEREAS the Heart of Orléans BIA has agreed to assume all maintenance and liability for the signs once installed on City road allowance; and WHEREAS there is $25,000 remaining in a capital account for the now completed St. Joseph Boulevard Reconst

That By-law 2014-335 to confirm the proceedings of the Council meeting of 27 August 2014 be enacted and passed.