Audio test one, two, three. Audio test one, two, three. Second audio test. 1 2 3 Well, because we have a long >> Good morning everyone. We'll uh we'll get underway. Uh welcome to the 70th planning and housing committee meeting. Yeah, >> we acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unseated territory of the Alangquin Amishnabi nation whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. Dashel. Uh, may I ask for roll call, please? >> Councelor Brochington >> here. >> Council Curry >> here. >> Councelor Dudas. >> Councelor Johnson. Councelor Kavanaaugh present. Councelor Kelly. Councelor Kits. Councelor Low. Councelor Tierney >> present. >> Councelor Trustster. Vice Chair Gower >> here. >> Cherry of Coror. >> Thank you. Councelor Dudes has just come in. My understanding is that councelor Kits was likely to miss roll call this morning but will be joining us. This is a public meeting to cons present. >> This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as item 51, 52, and 61 on today's agenda. For the items just mentioned, only those specifically identified in the planning act who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment. To submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on September 9th, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? Nope. Are the minutes of our meeting August 19th, 2026 confirmed? >> Thank you. Uh there are a number of responses to inquiries on the agenda. And then with respect to the substantive agenda, of course, we'll be coming back to item 51, which is the official plan and zoning bylaw amendment for 3 Hamilton Avenue North and 223, 229, and 233 Armstrong Street. We have 12 public delegations signed up for those. And I just want to make a quick note that councilors Low and Johnson have joined us as well. The zoning bylaw amendment, the zoning bylaw 2026-50 appeal resolutions. Uh there is a technical motion on this one. Um is counselor Curry, I believe you'll be making that one. >> Yes, I will be. All right. Whereas report ACS 20226 PDB PS0064 recommends several amendments to zoning bylaw 2026-50 to address matters currently under appeal including sight specific matters and revisions to section 110 continuation of approved applications exceptions and schedules to clarify to add clarity and whereas report ACS 2026 PDB PS0064 does not contain all language necessary to add the clarity sought to section 110 and the map contained in document 1D contains a technical error. Therefore, it be it resolved that document 2 be amended by replacing item two with the following. Amend subsection 1104 of zoning bylaw 202650 by replacing it with the following. Section four in areas inside area B shown on schedule A13 where exceptions schedules and other zone code suffix suffixes apply and the primary zone is H2 hub zone 2 H3 hub zone 3 MS1 Main Street Zone 1 main MS2 main street zone 2 CM1 minor corridor zone 1 and CM2 minor corridor zone 2. Then a for exception schedules and other zone code suffixes in zoning bylaw 2008250 approved before November 4th, 2022, the date of the new official plan. Subject to B and C, the most permissive provisions apply between the primary zone subzone exception schedule and other zone code suffixes. B. However, any holding H provisions continues to apply and C subsection 2 applies. Therefore, be it resolved that map 1D be replaced with the map attached as attachment 1 hereto. Therefore, be it further resolved that pursuant to subsection 3417 of the planning act, no further notice be given. >> Thank you very much, councelor Curry. Um we hadn't anticipated a presentation on this and uh there are no delegations although Lisa Delar Rosa um is here with Foten. My understanding is you're aware of the technical amendment that was made and you don't have any um uh need to speak this morning. Thank you. Uh if that is the case today members wish to have this one held? No. Is um the technical amendment carried? >> Thank you. And is the item as amended carried? >> Carried. >> Thank you. Uh there is the item the zoning bylaw amendment 2775 2785 Palladium Drive 350 Kaf Road. Um we hadn't anticipated a presentation. There are no delegations signed up to speak. Uh there has been some correspondence on the item. The applicants are here to speak to the item um if they need to. The so to the applicants I will just ask uh if the uh committee is prepared to carry this item. Did you still wish to speak? Good morning, Tim. >> Good morning. Uh just here to answer any questions if necessary. >> Thank you very much. Um and then uh Vice Chair Gower does have one quick question. I thought we would do that now uh rather than hold the item just to let the staff go in light of the fact that we have a longer item coming up. Uh vice chair. >> Yeah, just one question for staff. Um, good morning Krishan. I'll preface it by saying um, 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 uh, well located near the highway. Um, but it is right next to an existing residential community and we've had significant feedback about impact from traffic. Originally the site was proposed as a RV sales lot. So this is quite a different use. There's also been significant concern on the environmental side about water capacity about environmental features. Uh resident asked about uh whether or not the proponent is uh is going to use solar power uh permeable payment and so on. Uh all of that as I understand it will be reviewed through the site plan. The site plan was submitted concurrently to the zoning. Where are you at with the site plan process and are you aware of those concerns and are these things that you're reviewing right now? >> Yes, thank you uh through the chair. We are aware of those comments. Um we've reviewed the first submission from the applicant and provided comments. U we've made the applicant aware of the comments from the community um and they will be addressed through future um submissions. >> Okay. So that site plan is still underway and those elements are still being reviewed. That's good to hear. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, chair. That's all. >> Thank you very much, vice chair. Uh, so is that it and carried? >> Carried. >> Carried. Thank you very much. Um, and I will just note >> that there are two um IPDs information previously distributed on the agenda. I hadn't received any indication that members had wished to have those held. Last chance if you did want those held. Nope. No sweat. So, we'll consider those received and we will go back to the start of the agenda. which is the OPA and zoning bylaw for Hamilton Armstrong. We'll uh first receive a presentation from staff. From there, we'll go into uh public delegations and then we will go into questions by members of staff. So, whenever uh staff are ready, if you could introduce yourselves and um take us through the presentation. Thanks, Chair Leaper. Good morning. My name is Jack Smith and I'm a planner with development review central. I'll walk us through the proposed official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment at 340 Parkdale Avenue. Next slide, please. The subject lands represent four four parcels known as three Hamilton Avenue North and 223 229 and 233 Armstrong Street representing an entire city block in the Hintenberg community bound by Armstrong, Parkdale, Spencer, and Hamilton within a 500 meter walking distance to Tony's Pastor Station. Next slide, please. The subject lands are designated hub and located within the inner urban transct and involving overlay within the official plan which contemplates heights up to 40 stories. Next slide, please. The lens are designated hub within the Parkdale Park policy area in the Wellington Street West Secondary Plan. A sight specific policy applying to 233 Armstrong Street and three Hamilton Avenue North permits a development of the site with a floor space index that is generally equivalent to eight stories without being subject to a maximum height requirement. The remainder of the site is subject to a maximum height of eight stories. Next slide, please. Under zoning bylaw 2008250, the Lanzer zone mixeduse center and light industrial. These zones have are subject to sight specific exceptions, floor space index requirements, as well as a zoning schedule and a holding symbol applying to a majority of the site. Oh, under zoning bylaw 202650, the lanes are zoned hub 2 and mixed industrial and the sight specific provisions, schedule and holding provisions were carried forward from the previous zoning bylaw. Next slide, please. And for the English presentation, if we could go one more slide. One more. Thank you. So looking at the site plan, the proposal seeks to permit a 32-story mixeduse building with 386 units. A new low-rise building will be provided on the southeast corner of the site, which reinstates the Carlton Tavern in the same general location and likeness to the existing building. An 850 meter pops is provided on the southern extent of the site to contribute to the public realm and further animate Park Tail Park. Next slide, please. With respect to tree plantings and greening of the site, street trees and various plantings are proposed on all edges including within the proposed pops area. The remainder of lands at grade will include heartscape papers. Next slide, please. Further, further to comments provided by staff, technical agencies, and members of the public, a number of positive changes have been implemented in the development proposal to align with the feedback received, namely the reduction to the overall building height from 38 stories to 32 stories and the reduction in the overall podium height from 9 stories to 5 stories. Now, I'll move on to the next slide where I'll speak to the remainder of the changes. On the screen you can see the previously proposed 6 to 8tory podium on the left and the revised 5 to 8 story podium heights on the right. Additional changes uh which have occurred include reconfiguration of the pops to be south facing, reconstruction of the Carlton Tavern and architectural design that is reflective of the historic and surrounding context. Next slide please. Knowing that the lands to the west and north are also located within the hub designation and can be de developed at a greater density sensitive transition to the east and south was the priority. The tower locates itself furthest from the Parkdale Avenue corridor and plan sensitive low-rise context to the east indicated in the orange neighborhood zone on the right side of the screen. The proposed 32 stories represents a transition down from the plan context of 40 stories at the center of the hub and the tower is below a 45°ree angular plane measured from those neighborhood zones located east of the Parkdale Avenue corridor to the south. The pops and the reinstatement of the Carlton Tavern incorporate a low-rise built form which provides separation and transition of the development to Parkdale Park to the south. Next slide, please. The proposed OPA will permit up to 32 stories on the subject property subject to the tower being located in the closest proximity to rapid transit. Policies are included within the OPA to ensure that any high-rise development of the lands provide a POPS. And where the Carlton Tavern is proposed to be demolished, policies have been included which require a replacement two-story building containing groundf flooror commercial and representing architectural character, appearance, and location of the tavern. Next slide, please. The proposed resoning seeks to reszone the full extent of the lands as mixeduse center within the old zoning bylaw and hub 2 within the new zoning bylaw. Both subject to sight specific exceptions and a zoning schedule. The proposed resoning application permits the 32-story mixeduse building on the subject property and the recommendation report contains wholesome details on the extent of relief required to permit the proposed development which generally relate to height setbacks projection of the rooftop amenity area requirements for non-residential uses at grade and removal of the holding symbol in add in addition to other technical provisions. Next slide please. Staff recommend approval of the OP and ZBA as indicated in the report as the proposed development will provide an increased housing stock, improve the pedestrian realm, improve active transportation, and include ground flooror commercial uses which will contribute to the local economy. The proposal is consistent with the city's official plan, the Wellington Street West Secondary Plan, and applicable urban design guidelines. Next slide, please. That wraps up my presentation to the committee. Thank you, and please let us know if there are any questions. Thank you very much um for the staff presentation. We'll come back to staff uh after the public delegations. Um I would ask uh the representatives are here from Tagert. Did you want to make your presentation first or do you want to um uh go last and have an opportunity to answer any concerns that you may have heard raised by residents? >> Okay. Good morning, gentlemen. Uh, whenever you're ready, you'll have 5 minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Hello. Perfect. Good morning, chair, members of committee. My name is Barrett Wagger, senior planner with Stantech Consulting. And with me as part of the applicant team is Braden Walker of Tagert Realy and Hugo Latrell of Hope and Architecture. I'll share a few project points and then I'll turn it over to Hugo for a brief presentation on the architecture. If we can turn to slide two. So firstly, we'd like to thank staff, the UDRP, and the community for their collaboration to date that's helped transform this proposal from its initial design. The redesign you're seeing today was centered around preserving space for a reimagined Carlton Tavern and included the following key changes. For the podium, it dropped from 9 to 5 to six stories. Its scale reduced, its form improved, and its appearance realigned with the area's industrial past. For the tower, it dropped from 38 to 32 stories and its location appropriately shifted closer to Tunny's pasture station. For the balance of the site, space was freed up to accommodate two significant features. The first being a POPS along Armstrong Street, which is linked up to threeb block connections, and the second being a standalone building for tavern of similar location and architecture as the existing Carlton. Beyond these highlighted changes, the redevelopment will require groundf flooror commercial space, provide over three times the zoning requirement for family-siz dwelling units, and it will address site contamination. Taken together, these elements support desirable intensification in a targeted area near rapid transit, employment, and commercial uses. Supporting this project will help to advance provincial and municipal planning objectives for housing, transit oriented development, efficient land use, and urban design. In short, this proposal represents good land use planning. Slide three, please. It's important to note that when Tagert assembled this block, it offered them opportunity to reimagine it in whole, an opportunity not afforded with previous development schemes. This allowed the design for the block to make better use of its permissions under the secondary plan which prescribe a maximum density without any limit on building height where the tower is proposed. With that, the design distributes permitted density into a podium and point tower form that frees up large portions of the site for public realm space and a reimagined tavern. The context of the block also allows the proposed building heights to achieve appropriate tower and podium transition from the adjacent properties. Lastly, I'd like to emphasize our appreciation for the history of the block and its importance to the community. We believe the proposal reflects that value and we recognize there will be further opportunities for input through a future site plan control process if the applications before you are carried and approved by council. >> All right, thanks Barrett. So, can we go to the next slide, please? So, the proposal is a 32-story development providing 386 new homes. Importantly, 17% are larger familysiz units, more than three times the requ the zoning requirement. The project's also targeting 30% affordable units and includes 3,700 square meters of amenity space, 850 m of publicly accessible pop space. Can we go to the next slide, please? So at the ground plane, the design is organized around a simple idea, creating a connected, active place that works as a part of the surrounding neighborhood. The main building defines Parkdale, Spencer, and Hamilton Street edges, uh, with a tower positioned towards the western side of the site, and the reimagined Carlton Tavern remains at the corner of Parkdale and Armstrong in a location similar to where it stands today. Next slide, please. Uh together these elements frame a large central public space with approximately 37% of the site dedicated to the public realm and almost 50% if we count the tavern into that. Uh this space connects Armstrong Street through Spencer Street and Parkdale Avenue creating a new pedestrian route through the block. Next slide please. So these images will show how we envision the space functioning. So, the tavern remains a recognizable neighborhood landmark, but now opens onto patios, landscaping, and a flexible public plaza. Next slide, please. Uh, the space can support outdoor dining and informal gathering, as well as market stalls, community events, and seasonal activities. Next slide, please. The surrounding commercial spaces face into the plaza, helping animate it throughout the day and making it a true public destination. Next slide. The five-story podium draws from Hiddenberg's industrial warehouse character. So, red industrial brick, strong structural bays, and a large uh punched openings give it a grounded, durable expression. >> I'll need to ask you to wrap up, please. >> Here, I'll finish up with the last slide. We can just go to There you go. So, finally, a glassier sixth floor creates a clear transition between the masonry podium and the tower. Above the tower has a lighter contemporary expression with a minimalist frame intersected by a glassier east facade. Its crown creates a subtle landmark from a distance while remaining restrained when viewed closer to the site. So overall the the design concentrates the height where it has the least impact while creating a lower scale street edge, a renewed home for the Carlton Tavern, and a substantial new public space at the heart of the block. >> Thank you for that. Um, okay. The there's the uh presentation from the applicant. Do any members have questions of the applicant? I know I have a couple >> questions of the applicant. They're they're a public delegation. >> Yep. They get their five minutes. >> Sorry, chair. Do we get to ask >> You get to ask the applicants questions >> only now. >> Yeah. >> And they ask if they want to go first or last. >> Okay. Well, uh I guess in that case, um there was a move uh by the chair saying that there was an opportunity to move this and we were given the perception that it was okay. Last night we were updated that there is a major concern with timelines and construction. Um were you consulted by the chair on this because and what's your position? >> Thank you for the question. I can answer that. uh through you chair. We uh have contractual obligations with the uh previous land owner. If >> I may just to speak a little quick, >> sorry, we have contractual obligations with the previous uh land owner where we purchase a site from that uh we need to move this planning process along by a certain time. We did um originally uh we're okay with potentially deferring the site, but uh or the the hearing today, but uh knowing that we're going into election and that that there's only one maybe two more committee meetings coming up, we were very concerned that we could get delayed further and we just can't have that happen. Uh it would put us offside with our contracts. >> Okay. And what kind of time frame? And I'll go to city staff later when we get to the staff component because apparently we can't get back to you. uh during this process. So what is what is going to what is the threshold? I I I work in 30 days. That's how most people work. Uh this is the only mandated committee that's required to meet during the election period. Uh and it usually typically happens at two weeks. So I'm trying to understand how there's so much confusion here. If you know it meets every two weeks and originally you were okay with it on a delay. What is the concern that is the chair committing to every two weeks of planning committee meetings? Like I'm just trying to balance this out here because I'm I'm having a disconnect. >> Sure. I mean through your chair that the next meeting is canceled. 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 it would actually work over a 30-day cycle. >> It would be over 30 days. >> Okay. Fair enough. Okay. So, I'm glad the confusion was resolved because uh 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 on the table. So, thanks for coming out today. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Timmy. Councelor Troster. >> Thank you so much, Chair. I understand there's significant contamination on the site and that part of this development is committing to decontamination. I'm just wondering if you could speak to that. Yes, we're undergoing a risk assessment process with the MECP to address the contamination on site. It's ongoing and uh it's a several year process. We've been through it for over a year now already. So, uh it's it is ongoing. We will continue to provide more updates to staff during the site plan process, but uh we plan to address the contamination on site through this project. >> Just out of curiosity, what was the source? uh 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 our uh um environmental approval process. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thanks. I can uh I can just say the the previous industrial use uh some of the post-war manufacturing um their uh environmental practices were were not good. Honeywell uh was the last owner of the site uh before um uh the most recent owner. They still have an obligation, I believe, to to clean up the site, but you'll be taking that on when uh or sorry, I guess you had that have taken that on. There is a big trailer that says believe. It's black. It's got the the writing on it. Uh and that has been slowly sucking some of the stuff out, but this is uh it would take decades to finish. This is the uh this is our opportunity to get that finally cleaned up. Um Councelor Curry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I'm sympathetic to the community that, uh, would probably like more time on this. Uh, with our accelerated timelines, it has been very quick. You know, something comes forward and the community has very little time to react. I'm just wondering what other opportunities uh, have the has the community had to to uh, look at this or weigh in or, you know, I'm just wondering about how this has gone prior to us getting I think that's a question for you. Um, uh, what has been your consultation on this one? Uh, I I can speak to that, chair. We've had multiple, uh, public consultations and, uh, uh, with with the community association. We've had uh back and forth feedback with through staff on comments from the community. So, we've done all of the uh, mandatory um, reviews. I don't know, Barrett, if you want to expand on that. >> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to add to that. um through you chair. We've been at this for two and a half years. Uh that entire two and a half years hasn't been, you know, public facing. Um but the project has been ongoing for that amount of time. Um in terms of the work that's gone into through um consultation with the public, we have done two trips to the UDRP. Uh we had um uh a public meeting um back in February of this year. Uh again, not required under the planning act, but of course we wanted to provide the community opportunity to understand the project better as we're moving forward. Um and as part of all that effort, obviously we've made uh some rather significant changes to the project, understanding and and hearing the um comments from from a variety of different uh sources, be it UDRP, city staff, city heritage staff, the community. >> Okay, thanks for that. just given that there were changes though cuz I'm looking at a file in Canada it's almost the same thing where then there were ch not almost the same thing you kidding me I'd love to have this one in my ward but because it's beautiful but this one that's in Canada the changes were made and then the final one will the community will have very little time to react to the very final changes has there been consultation based on like pretty much what we're looking at today >> uh through you chair um what was what has been in front of the community for um you know maybe three threequarters of a year now was a 38tory tower with a nstory podium. The actual layout of the site uh still remains the same. So the only change uh that was made you know approximately a month and a half ago was a reduction in tower height, a reduction in podium height. Um, so both very positive changes in terms of responding to comments received to date. Uh, and in terms of timelines, um, you know, for notification. Um, I I would defer to staff for that, but uh, I'm confident those have certainly been met. >> I don't know if staff have a comment, but I I I think I've gotten the answer I want, but I don't know. Uh, Chair Leaper, if you would like any more clarity on that from anyone there. Go. Please go. I uh I know I have uh some questions for um uh for staff regarding the the timelines uh at that point in the uh in the debate. Um the community has had uh it's statutory 6 days to look at the report recommending approval of this. Uh it's really 5 and a half days because that came out last Thursday at uh call it 2 o'clock. Uh and I'm uh I'm disappointed that we couldn't get a consensus around deferring this for another month. But um there it is. So I'll have some more questions about that when we get to the point where we speaking with staff. >> Okay, fair. I'll wait. >> Thank you. Um I don't see any other questions from other members, so I'll ask pose my own. Uh the first of which I I have heard and agree with a lot of the community concern around the 7 parking ratio. Um I think two weeks ago we were talking about a zero parking building. Uh this one is a 7 which is actually I think many people feel too high. um hundreds of parking spaces on a very congested street. We can't impose a cap on you. Um our official plan doesn't um uh require any parking and nor does it um uh put in place or you are not busting out our our maximums. But uh why so much parking and is there the possibility as you go through the site plan process uh which will presumably uh be with a new counselor um for turning some of that parking into public parking. >> Take this um through you chair. Uh in terms of the the parking ratio 7 um you know there's there's obviously market uh conditions which lead to to that number coming up. Um lots of studies go and support behind that. Um the reality is a fair amount of excavation needs to take place on the site to deal with the contamination. Uh and this is a requirement through the province. Um and then the replacement of that below grade four stories we'll call it. Um there are restrictions for what that actually gets used for. Uh sensitive land uses would be one that is is not viable. Um so that really leaves a a rather limited uh use which in this case is going to be parking for both bicycles and vehicles. Um in terms of you know the the modal share that our TIA uh looked at we're anticipating probably about 67 70% of mode share to be by transit bicycle and walking. Um so a rather low share will actually be allocated towards um vehicles and how that relates back to parking. Um but in terms of the opportunity for allocating spaces to public parking, uh we absolutely left the door open uh for that as part of the zoning. Um we have that as a permitted use public parking and um there has been interest expressed by the city for that um given that location. Um and of course this is something that will be worked out in further detail as part of uh future site plan as you know we're not anywhere near the maximum uh permitted parking. We're well below that. So um it's really of little relevance at this stage but will be certainly looked at again at site plan. >> Okay. Uh that'll be a discussion for the uh for the next term of council. Uh the second one is I share the community's concern around entry egress um onto Spencer. Um that's not a decision that we're making today. That'll finally be decided when this goes through the site plan process. Um 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 uh and garbage management. >> Yes, through through you chair. Um you're right. uh we are not doing anything through the zoning which would um restrict the location of that that access to the underground parking. Um just for a bit of background in terms of the actual location um this was something that you know the two logical locations would have been Hamilton or Spencer um given the relationship to Armstrong and Parkdale. Uh during the early discussions with city staff, um there was a strong um preference for Spencer given the heritage building at 7 Hinton. Um so that location both serves the separation from the heritage building, but it also provides for a slightly larger separation between the two nearest intersections uh along Spencer. >> Okay. Um but that's a decision that will need to be made uh finally through the site plan process. And finally um I'm uh I'm quite intrigued by the the Wounderf concept for Armstrong. Uh I know that it is controversial and that there would be opposition to uh wounding that for example. Um but uh that'll be a discussion that needs to be had through the um uh through the site plan discussion. Uh but it is not up to Tagert obviously to determine whether or not um Armstrong gets werened or or uh the configuration of it change. I just want to make sure because this will be an interesting discussion that again the next counselor will have through um uh future discussions. Um, is there if the city determines not to wooner for reconfigure Armstrong to tie in with the market and with your um privately owned public space? Uh, is it still your intention to proceed with the configuration of the privately owned public space that you proposed? >> Yes, in short it is. And the configuration um is also going to be regulated through the zoning amendment. So that will uh provide the um the certainty that that space is going to be um what you're seeing today uh as part of the future site plan process. Um and and you are correct. I mean it's it's really whether that becomes wounded or not is is uh a matter outside of Tagert's control. Um there has been some confusion throughout the application process on that uh as we've shown some images of what could be possible if that were to to take place. Um but again ultimately that's city land. It's a city decision. Um Taggard is simply uh wanting to make clear that they are open um to that discussion if the city is interested in doing that. Okay. The um so again that's a next term of council discussion probably but uh uh I'm intrigued by it. But the uh public uh privately owned public space you know will be there. Um whether it ties into a reconfigured Armstrong or not. I don't see parkland dedication on this one. Is it going to be um cash in the of parkland? >> Yes, through you chair. Cash in lie of parkland will be provided. Um and uh you know it's additional to the the the pops being uh added on site. >> Okay, those are my questions. Did anyone want to ask any further questions of the applicant? Nope. Okay, thank you very much for your time. So, we'll move to um other public delegations. The first of whom is John Fraser. We'll pull up John's slides. And John, I understand you're in the room. Good morning, Mr. Fraser. If you just want to hit the uh 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 the committee. Okay. Okay, thank you. Uh, I'm afraid my hearing aids have got a wicked echo in this room, so uh, I'll do my best. Okay, thank you very much. Uh, I see there's no doomsday clock running here for 5 minutes, so I'll time it as best I can. U, I'll be brief. Um, skipping many of the slides I submitted in my hard copy submission. Uh and my uh basic proposal is that uh I'm afraid this propo this new building is in the the wrong size, the wrong location and the wrong timing. Uh we live in Parkdale Market Lofts across a uh narrow section of Spencer Street and uh a funny thing I don't believe there's been any mention of Parkdale Market Loss and the notice of meeting whereas the Carlton Tavern uh gets mentioned 33 times. Slide three please. So, how do I explain to my grandkids that we won't be able to go on to the patio of our building and watch any more eclipses or any conjunctions of the planets? However, I do think that the 18 stories is doable. Slide four. This is a forever decision. Uh, past committees uh have made some decisions that are bit lacking. uh tearing up the tracks downtown. Uh King Edward Avenue used to be a gorgeous residential street, building an arena at Landown Park that's smaller than the original one. Uh you need three trains to get downtown from the airport on the LRT. Slide six. Sorry. Is it okay? Uh, this approval will set a precedent to turn the area into a uh shall I say concrete canyon that we have downtown. Um, is is that slide five or six? Yes. With due uh respect to Starbucks, uh we do not want Hittenberg to end up looking like that because this could be easily be seen as a president to uh build on many of the uh existing uh houses and the wire cloth building. Slide nine. The timing is wrong as shown by a number of recent newspaper headlines that I've submitted. Uh this one says the market Ottawa market is already saturated. Um the mayor has said and headlines that there's tough financial times for the city and the current international situation is not helping. Uh another uh newspaper clipping recently, a developer has hundreds of vacancies and three free months rent is being offered. And last but not least, do not follow the example of Toronto where the market has hit bottom. Slide 14. This is the uh Parkdale market. The tower and the existing and the proposed building will overwhelm the market uh and will likely uh go a long way to uh killing the ambiencece of the area. The Parkdale market is messy, but it works. And uh now I'd like to go to the next slide. Okay. Spencer Street John to one minute. >> Sorry. >> You've got one minute. >> Thank you. Spencer, 7 ft narrow in the front in front of the proposed tower in Parkdale Market Loss. This this width does not allow safe con access by construction vehicles as well as the vehicles needed to access Parkdale Market Lofts. It's over a meter too narrow. Details are in the uh submitted PowerPoint material does not meet the city requirements. Slide 17. And the official notice is in error. Uh, location maps such as the one on page 30 do not show Spencer being 7 feet narrow in front of the proposed building. Slide 18. >> John, I'm sorry. You are out of time. I'll need to ask you to wrap up. >> Sorry. >> Uh, you are out of time. I'll need to ask you to wrap up with just a concluding thought. >> Okay. Uh we will put the city on notice that it will hold responsibility for any damages uh any delays in emergency responder access to in case of accidents fire and Hintenberg deserves better planning than shown by this proposal. Thank you >> Mr. Fraser. Thank you very much. I don't see any questions for you from the members of the committee. Thanks for your time. We'll move on to uh Brian Inis who is in the room who will be followed by Vivian K as um after Brian. >> Good morning, Mr. Inis. Uh whenever you're ready, I have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Thank you very much, Mr. chair and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Brian Inennis. I live 400 meters from the site. I've been a past president of our community association and now I am candidate for counselor. I'm here today to share with you how this proposal impacts people who live in and around Parkdale Park. But I think it's important to first recognize why we're here today. why you are entrusted to make decisions on staff recommendations. We're here because what gets built impacts people's lives for decades to come. They're important decisions made by elected officials. And why are you entrusted with this power? I see that you hear people every day. I see that you're accountable to those who elect you and the decisions you make reflect what people vote for or you are not here. That is very powerful. You're entrusted with the power to make important decisions on planning and zoning. And today it's a decision that means that 32 stories is better for people than 18 stories. So why am I here? I'm here because I live near the site. I've played in the sand with my kids meters from where this tower will be. I've walked, I've cycled, I've driven on the streets around. And as a candidate, I've spoken to hundreds of people who use the area, who live in the area, and will be affected. So, I'm here to bring their voices to you today. So, what am I hearing about this development and how it will impact the neighborhood? First, people want this block developed. They support building more homes, and they also support more intensity. What they don't support is the size of the tower and how the precedence and design will impact the neighborhood and their lives. 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. is actually consistent with your staff report where 93% of respondents are opposed to it. I want to highlight three things that keep coming up in my conversations. 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. The staff report says 32 stories meets the official plan requirement for height to gradually transition. Well, we'll see that transition eight stories over 400 m in the hub and then it's going to transition 26 stories over 100 m. And I don't know about you, but 26 stories over a 100 meters seems more like a black diamond ski hill than a gradual transition. Secondly, the entrances and services on Spencer are misplaced and will create challenges. Earlier this week, I spoke with Claudia who shared what it's like to drive on this street in the winter. 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. Third, a development of this size needs to have a mix of units to meet the needs of people in various stages of life. And I want to share with you a conversation I had just last weekend. I was speaking with a mother who was actually visiting her mother and they both live in the area. And she said, you know, my mom is not going to be able to stay in her house much longer. She's going to need a place that doesn't have upkeep. Where will she move to? will these new buildings provide space for my mom to move into? And she confessed that her mom will need more than a one-bedroom unit. And we've heard today that only 5% of units will be three bedrooms. 5%. That doesn't meet the needs of the community to have a v a variety of unit sizes for people in various stages of life, whether they're 20 or whether they're looking to move out of their house and find a place with space. So, in closing, I urge you to vote against this proposal and hear the voices of people that I've heard. It will set a precedence for the neighborhood and ultimately what it becomes. You're entrusted with power. Use it. Use it to push back on the scale and height at Parkdale Park and challenge staff on what gradual transition really means. Use it to ensure residents concerns on the entrance and unit mix are heard. Of course, they're going to be decided in the site plan, but today's an important opportunity. And lastly, use your power to make development work for people who live here. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ernes. I don't see any questions for you from members. Thanks for making the presentation. We will move on to uh Vivian K um who I understand is in the room. Good morning. And then that will be followed by a representative of the Social Services Users Union uh who is online. So we'll uh make sure those slides are ready to go. And good morning, Miss K. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. Good morning. I apologize for speed reading given that I only have five minutes. So, good morning chair and members of the committee. My name is Vivian Kay. I'm a resident and member of the board of directors at Parkdale Market Lofts at 320 Parkell Avenue and 45 Spencer Street, 55 homes immediately north of the site. I'm speaking on behalf of those residents. We are not opposed to growth. Growth is expected, but good planning is required. We do not believe what is being presented to you today is good planning for the Hintenberg community. Let me show you why. Could I have my slide, please? Up top. The big picture. The slide on your screen shows recent approved and proposed development within the Tony's pastures hub. 11,671 dwelling units or roughly 17,600 new residents. The Tunny's pasture master plan alone will add 9,000 units with 5,000 in its first phase by 2038, concentrated closest to the transit station and in buildings ranging in height from 21 to 40 stories. Hintenberg today is about 8,700 people. This represents a three-fold population increase. Clearly, this area is absorbing an extraordinary amount of growth. Notice also how the heights step 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 s southern edge of the hub and in between in the middle of the low to mid-rise neighborhood proposed 32 stories. That is our concern. We recognize that intensification in proximity to rapid transit is appropriate. However, it should not mean that every site must be pushed to the maximum height and density possible. The official plan is meant to guide growth and not simply accommodate it. This is precisely why the official plan contains policies governing governing sorry appropriate height transition urban design and the relationship between major developments and the neighborhood around them. Now that we've seen the staff report, we recognize that the justification for the 32 stories has nothing to do with the city's planning policies, but rather as a density transfer to accommodate the retention of the re-imagined Carlton Tavern. So the to the community is saying disregard or perhaps the better term is interpret the official plan as secondary plan to justify the 32 stories. But where does this leave the community that has participated over many years in developing these plans and putting their trust in city council to adhere to them. What is before you today further erodess this trust. The critical planning question before you was asked of city staff by the Westboroough 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 Tenny's pasture hut. Unfortunately, the staff response did not address this key issue. In the context of this bigger picture, we are asking the committee to address five matters. One, heightened massing. The official plan directs that the highest density be closest to the rapid transit stations and states that with respect to high-rise buildings that their height shall be lowest at the outer edge of the hub and tallest at the center of the hub which is the LRT station. A 32story tower in the middle of a low to mid-rise neighborhood does not comply with this direction. We asked that it be reduced to 25 stories. And we would suggest that the same policies and directions from the official plan and zoning bylaw used to support the proposed 32 stories would instead be used to support this reduced height. This application requires amendments to the official plan, the secondary plan, and the zoning bylaw. These are significant amendments and they require compelling planning justification which in our opinion has not been provided. Two, parking at 71 per unit parking spaces. This proposal has the highest parking ratio of any recent approved or proposed development in the hub. Large amounts of parking encourages automobile automobile use and adds to traffic to already uh significantly congested local streets. If the city grants additional density because the site is transit oriented, the building itself should actually be transit oriented. Section 414 of the official plan provides that the city with the authority needed to reduce the amount of parking proposed. Uh transition and design has been spoken to. We are asking for a change to setback stepbacks and the tower floor plate uh to reduce the impact of the neighborhood services. Spencer is a narrow short local residential street. We feel that moving the main access to Hamilton Avenue would be much better because uh the traffic studies are out of date and there are there's already a large congestion on Spencer Street. There is a lot large amount of pedestrian traffic cycling um a narrow street and then we just feel that adding all of the activities will severely impede that narrow short congested block. Um, we ask that the transportation impact assessment, which is based on outofdate traffic counts and questionable transit mode share assumptions, be uh updated. If the inputs inputs are unreliable, then the conclusion cannot be relied upon either. Uh we all know that Parkdale is a failed street. In closing, we ask that you reduce the heightened massing, reduce the parking, improve the transition through setbacks and stepbacks, relocate the building's service activity to Hamilton Avenue, fix the TIA. These are reasonable changes that would still allow substantial development on this site while producing a project which respects its neighborhood context and complies with the city's own key planning policies. Thank you. >> Thank you for a very thoughtful presentation. Um I don't see any questions from members. I am uh I am just interested though the uh the one thing that I I consider is well within the scope of this committee to do because there are a number of uh elements that are are probably not given the uh the planning process but is the reduction in the height. It is you know within the um uh the purview I think of this committee uh to approve it at a lower height. What is the advantage of going from 32 to 25 stories? >> Um I think also in that we were talking about changing the setback um too. It's it's the shading on other buildings. It's the impact of of daylight and um just I'm I apologize for not being the expert. I'm I'm the the delegate, but I believe it's just the impact on the local community. It's also that we feel that this proposed 32 stories now is like a sore thumb or a middle finger if you will sticking out in the middle of the Hintenberg community. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I don't see any other further questions for you. Thank you very much for the presentation and we're going to move on to a representative of the Social Services Users Union who is online and has a slide deck. >> Thank you. Uh first slide. Uh this is stolen land and all decisions of this committee amount to active participation in settler colonialism by its members. Next slide. However, we propose that in exchange for the city allowing a variance to build 30 stories or at a proposed 11 units per floor of the tower above the eightstory limit, 330 units over the maximum build height. and that those 330 units have rents permanently zoned as lowincome affordable on an Ontario Works rental allowance for the intended occupancy of the unit. Units constructed with wheelchair accessible doorways as a minimum as well as some units having accessible countertops and accommodating living spaces. Proposed park bike parking only accounts for one bike per unit whereas many family units are are likely to own more than a singular bike. This is anti-f family, anti-feminist, as well as limiting the use of active green transportation. Credit and employment checks create additional barriers to housing. All lowincome rental units should not require credit or employment checks and their rent should not be subject to increase during or between tenencies. Next slide. According to an auto emission report from 2025, homelessness has grown to almost 3,000 people, up 13% since 2021. However, that number may actually be much higher. Point in time point in time count data from 2025 says 4569. According to data from matri designed to fail, the number of recipients of Ontario works experiencing homelessness has more than doubled in Ottawa. 1,526 in August 2019 and 3,258 in August 2025. A similar upward trend can be seen among recipients of ODSB experiencing homelessness from 231 in 2019 to 410 in 2025. Employing these conditions to this and subsequent variance applications would rapidly meet Ottawa's current and expanding housing needs as well as reduce or eliminate the heavy reliance on subsidies as market rents continue to skyrocket. from the Alliance to End Ottawa homelessness website. Ottawa is projected to require oh my god 128,938 new housing units by 2035. The report projects a need for 3,150 units of affordable house community housing, 350 supportive housing units, 200 transitional housing spaces, and 7,000 housing allowance subsidies. Exchanging bylaw variances that would normally only increase landlord 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 actioned than the creation of 7,000 subsidies but would also serve to decrease market rents overall making housing more affordable for the average renter or potential home buyer. Next slide. And while development and real estate interest 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 Works shelter allowance rate of $343 for a single adult, that is still more than $100,000 in rental in income that would be absent without the city allowing a variance. a negligible different for a group of companies with average annual revenue of half a billion dollars even if they are half-heartedly concealed behind a numbered shell or holding corporations or a consulting firm. Te not only appear in application m materials such as the site location plan, but they own the majority of the land properties for the proposed development and are likely to serve as developers through the construction branch of their empire. Next slide. Normally, one would expect this would create objections from the developer, but because Tiger has consistently demonstrated their commitment to supporting nonprofits in solving the housing homelessness crisis through the work of its charitable organization, they should be more than willing to extend that commitment by being contractually bound to these conditions in exchange for height limit variance on the province. Next slide. Partnerships with housing and homelessness services include the Ottawa Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope, Cornerstone Housing for Women, Youth Services Bureau, Ottawa Community Housing Foundation, Somerset West, Kingston Youth Shelter, as many many other charitable organizations including food banks relied upon by the population increasingly forced to choose between food and rent each month. Next slide. And while much consideration and discussion has taken place regarding the preservation of the Carlton Tavern as a pillar of the community, this development will display a food security service vital to community and a new space for Parkdale Food Center should be provided at their current lease amount as well as an alternate location during the demolition construction phase. This should be a non-issue due to the current and past overlap between the members of the Tagert Parks Family Cartel and the board of directors for Parkdale Food Center. With Steve Parks, co-president of Tamarack Homes and Tartan Homes remaining on their board today. a Parkdale Food Center advertised as a partner of >> to jump in, but I need to ask you to wrap up with a concluding thought. Please, you're out of time. >> Uh, okay. Uh, meager charitable contributions made to reduce corporate tax burden and launder corporate image will never compare to what they've taken what they've been given by this committee. And until the planning housing committee gets the memo that act that acting upstream to prevents homelessness means challenging developers, no amount of plans, gallas, races, challenges, fundraisers, dinners, photo ops, pledges, or empathy simulations will ever amount to more than a drop in the bucket. Thank you. >> Thanks. I've given some latitude to other speakers. Uh I don't think so. We'll uh move on to the Oh, sorry. Are there any questions for uh for the delegation? I don't see any. Um, so we'll move on to I'm sorry I should have given a preview. Uh, Cheryl Parrot with the Hintenber Community Association who will be followed by Graham Bar with the Henber Community Association. Good morning, counselors. Um, I'm here to talk to you about the height. Um, you've heard about the height from the previous speaker, but it really needs to be reduced. 32 stories is too high. And we appreciate that it's come down from 38, but it's still too high. Um, it's across from three-story buildings across the street. It's even in the hub, within the hub, you have very lowrise buildings, and those buildings were built relatively recently. They're not going to be redeveloped in our lifetime or in the lifetime of this building. The official plan uh all the other plans state about uh the transition in height from highest around Tunny's pasture LRT at 40 stories and going down to Wellington which is six stories and I did some of the measurements. Um, I won't go through all of my notes because other people have mentioned it, but the official plan talks about um that transition uh outlining a minimum of three stories and up to a high-rise of 40 stories are permitted on sites within 300 meter radius or 400 meter walking distance, whichever is greatest, of a planned LRT. And this site with Google Maps shows the LRT station iss 500 m away from the Hamilton Spencer corner which is the closest corner and 600 m away from Parkdale Armstrong which is the furthest corner. Yet it's only 100 m away from little old Wellington Street which is just sixtory height limit. So it's hardly an adequate transition when it's so much closer to Wellington Street. I also want to talk about the large dwelling units and we're really disappointed that the applicant uh from their initial application decreased the number of three-bedroom units from a total of five units to just four. So out of the total of 386 units, this is just 1% of the units as threebedroom 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. We've got three primary schools, one middle school, lots of parks. This building together with many other new and proposed buildings are mostly small units, largely studios, one-bedroom units with a few two-bedroom units. We already have a lot of small apartments available in the area, and we understand the developers are having some difficulty renting them, and we've seen frequent turnover. We've seen, as someone mentioned, uh the 3 months free rent, and we also have had problems with illegal short-term rentals in these newer buildings. We do blame the city for providing the escape clause that's being used here that either three-bedroom units or a minimum area of 80 square meters, which is just 862 square ft to fulfill the requirement. And that's how you get the difference in our calculations between Tagert's calculation of 17% and our calculation of 1%. We don't need more smaller units. We need those three bedroomedroom units that the OP intended. So amenities, the city is very much succeeding in exceeding the intensification targets which we know are just the bottom floor and in this community, but it's failing to keep up with the provision of the important amenities to keep the community healthy such as parks and green space. We only have a quarter of what we should have for a healthy community and that's quickly decreasing. Recreation facilities are at capacity and over capacity. The tree canopy, we're at 19% and that's also rapidly decreasing. And I do want to mention that we're really disappointed that this planning report was not made available earlier on DevOps. It was 1:45 on Thursday, August 27th. We kept refreshing our screens looking for it. It wasn't there. So that's less than six full days before the meeting. And other reports have been up much earlier than this. I I when they come out in the newspaper, usually it's available. And I did look at the rural affairs committee which is tomorrow and that report was up certainly by the same time this one came up. We do appreciate a couple of things. Uh we do appreciate um them exceeding the requirement for private and community amenity area, reducing the height of the podiums, and that all the balconies are recessed. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Miss Barrett. I don't see any questions for you from members. Thanks for the delegation today. Um and so we'll move on to I think it was Graham Bar who will be followed by Linda Hod. Hello, my name is Graham Bar and I've been a proud resident of Hintenberg since 1998 and a member of the Hintenberg Community Association's board of directors for the past two years. The HCA recently conducted a neighborhood survey. We wanted to better understand our neighbors views on a wide range of issues. 85% of survey respondents said they very much enjoy living in Hintenberg. However, the survey identified important concerns. Residents told us they want to retain the unique character of our neighborhood. They are also very concerned about traffic. In fact, traffic congestion was the top concern among Hintenberg property owners. It's with these concerns in mind that I want to address the transportation impacts of the proposed redevelopment of 340 Parkdale. The HCA is concerned that the transportation evidence currently before the city does not provide a reliable basis for considering the proposed OPA. The transportation impact assessment or TIA relies on outdated and unrepresentative data and on overly ambitious assumptions. We have three specific points. Point number one, the TIA data is out of date. Some traffic counts used in the TIA are 10 years old. Others were collected during periods that did not reflect normal traffic conditions. For example, some counts were conducted during CO 19, during Queensway ramp closures, and during off- peak periods for the Parkdale market. Point number two, the study area is too limited. The TIA does not adequately account for the cumulative traffic impacts of existing, approved, and proposed developments along the Parkdale corridor from Emerson Avenue to the Queensway. It also does not adequately consider the forthcoming redevelopment of Tunny's pasture. The proponent says they were or the applicant says they were unable to find a TIA for the Tunny's pasture redevelopment, but in fact the TIA for Tunny's is available on Dev Apps and has been discussed within the community and reviewed by the city over the past 2 years. Point number three, the TIA should use a transportation mode share methodology that is realistic and is consistent with the methodology used for neighboring developments. The proponents TIA says that only 15% of trips generated by 340 Park will be taken by automobile drivers. This proportion is unrealistically low and does not reflect the city's own data for the current mode share for residential highrises in Ottawa West. Even the Chinese Pasture TIA, which the applicant couldn't find, recognized that an automobile driver mode share as low as 15% could not be achieved until 2046. The TIA for the high-rise that is being built at 1186 Wellington used a mode share assumption that 28% of trips generated would be by automobile drivers. It seems unrealistic for today's applicant to assume the proportion of drivers at 340 Parkdale will be approximately half that of 1186 Wellington. The sites are only 300 m apart. Because of these three significant deficiencies, outof-date data, narrow scope, and unrealistic assumptions, we ask the city to require the applicant to revise the TIA to provide a much more accurate representation of the traffic impacts. This project should not be assessed in isolation. Before this project proceeds to site plan control stage, we urge the city to undertake an area traffic study. That study should assess the cumulative transportation impacts of existing, approved, and proposed developments in the vicinity of Parkdale and Wellington Street. I'd also like to briefly address the proposed Wounderf on Armstrong Street. I know this decision is not part of the OPA before you today and I've just heard that our current counselor is intrigued by the concept, but we want to give the committee notice that the HCA opposes the creation of a wound on Armstrong Street as suggested by the applicant. We do of course support the occasional a closure of Armstrong for special events, but the proponent the applicant is suggesting that traffic currently using Armstrong could be moved to Spencer Street. As my colleague will explain, Spencer Street cannot handle additional traffic. Thank you. Uh my colleague Linda will now outline our concerns about parking spaces and the location of garbage pickup. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions for this delegation? Ju just just curious since it seems like a combined effort here. Should we ask this individual the questions or wait for Linda or both stay at the table because that's what I'm inferring here. >> Uh if uh Graeme if you want to stay at the table that would be great. >> Great. I'll wait. >> We'll go to uh Linda Hog's presentation next. Good morning. Nice to see you. Has been a long time since I've been here. Lucky you. Maybe lucky me. Um I uh am going to address some site plan issues uh which I know you are not deciding today. We're disappointed that these issues were not addressed uh as part of the staff and um applicants deliberations. And I do want to put you on notice that we will expect a response to these concerns when the site plan process is uh is considered. Origin. My first point is the proposed layby uh which is um to allow for garbage pickup, move in, move out deliveries and passenger pickup, drop off at the um near the entrance near the parking um ramp to the parking garage as proposed in the uh current proposal. The official plan, however, says that quote to place parking, loading, and vehicle access to minimize impact on the public realm and quote minimize conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and improve the attractiveness of the public realm by internalizing servicing loading areas into the design of the building and by accommodating space on site for trees where possible. The proposal before you if you had looked at the site plan carefully intends that all these activities will occupy the public realm that garbage and movement of furniture etc will utilize the sidewalk and the adjacent road. The site plan indicates that the sidewalk near the garage entrance will have raised planters containing trees almost certainly impossible if the sidewalk must accommodate these other activities. This applicant owns the entire city block and should be required to internalize these activities as required by the official plan. This is a large site. Surely the proponent can create a space for these functions within the footprint of the development rather than expropriate the public realm. Spencer Street already provides access for garbage pickup deliveries and the residential parking garage for 45 Spencer and 320 Parkell Avenue. In addition, the signalized intersection at Parkdale attracts vehicular traffic to the street. The location of these functions as well as the entrance to the parking garage for 340 Park will reside in result in too much activity on a street of this size. And to the east and west of the site, Spencer is a low-rise to medium-rise residential area. I'd like to address parking supply which has already been brought up by councelor Leaper. The parking rate is indeed too high for a transit oriented development within the protected major transit station area. 71 spaces per unit does not promote the use of transit and active transportation modes as envisaged in the official plan. staff have assured us that this proposed parking supply is below the maximum parking permitted near a transit station as per city zoning bylaw 2008250. For comparison, the recently approved site plan for phase 1 at 951 Gladstone 145 Loretta near the Corso Italia LRT station has a parking ratio of.3 spaces per unit. Your recent decision to send the Orlon proposal to provide zero residential parking spaces was noted by us. Um, and you've sent it back to the drawing board. It confirms our suspicion that city parking policy near high level transit stations is a failure. The maximum is too high. The current policies do not provide enough guidance to applicants leading to anomalies like zero parking in suburban Orleon and a 7 ratio almost downtown at the longestablished Tunnis Pasture Station. We urge you to request staff to undertake a review of parking policies in the vicinity of transit stations as a high priority. We understand that the applicant must excavate a deep hole in order to deal with serious contamination, but they do not have to fill the hole with cars. We have been lobbying about this since 2018 when a previous application was brought forward. We have been recommending alternatives, not public parking, because that's more cars in the hole. We have proposed vertical farming, hydroponic systems using artificial light and controlled climate taking advantage of what will be a controlled climate. In fact, geothermal powered district heating plant um district heating for the building itself or as a plant which could provide heat uh sustainable and um what do we call that non-carbon producing um heat to other buildings which are going to be built already built or are going to be built rental storage to replace the Parkdale mini storage facility now on site. >> Linda, I I need to ask you around >> this is my my conclusion. There are a lot of tiny apartments already in existence and to be built and the storage provided for most apartments is not enough for the the residents. So it's it's a thriving business. You can make money with your hole in the ground. Thank you. If the parking ratio was lowered, would you support the current proposed height and density of this project? Speaking personally, I don't have a big problem with the height. Um, but uh I understand it is a lot for the community to to take on and to accept. And I do agree it does not transition appropriately. Um, but I I think I guess you you could say I'm I'm resigned to the fact that the height will come, but we don't need to take the cars. Thank you. And thanks Linda. You always give a really good thoughtful presentation. I appreciate that. Um uh but uh to since we're doing two in one here, Graham, um you mentioned Spencer Street. Can you expand on what you were referring to about Spencer Street? Was it about parking on the street or traffic on the street? I heard Spencer Street in there. I just want a little more clarity. >> Yeah, thanks. In the context of my presentation, it was at the end where I was saying that the HCA opposes the creation of a wooner for basically closing off Armstrong. Um, my understanding is that the applicant's sort of vision for where traffic would go if Armstrong is closed off would be onto Spencer Street. Um, and I I I agree with them because there's limited streets that they could go onto. I was just foreshadowing that my colleague here, Linda, um will and she did talk about how Spencer Street cannot handle additional traffic from Armstrong plus be the entry and exit point for a 32story tower and the garbage and and all of that. So sort of um shifting traffic onto Spencer to accommodate an Armstrong wounderf is not realistic or practical in our view or safe. >> Okay, great. Yeah, I appreciate I think it's always coming down to traffic and and transportation is always an issue and I heard Spencer and it reminded me of 2017 uh the council wanted to put a bike lane there. I guess the community was very exercised about that and if they would have put it, it would have been literally one lane of traffic uh remaining. So, uh it's still going to be congestion on Spencer Street with two. So, uh nonetheless, thank you for your delegation today and thank you, Linda. >> Thank you very much, council attorney. Of course, uh this was not a part of Spencer in which the bike lane was proposed to go and uh we determined not to move ahead with that after good community consultation. We are clearly in the silly season. Um, I have Oh, Linda, I have a question for you. I'm sorry. >> Yes. The heritage. So, what I have heard from the applicant is with respect to putting the entry egress on Hamilton, uh, that the concern has been the heritage nature of the capital wirecloth building across the street. I struggle to understand that as a constraint on doing that. Um I think you and your colleagues have argued for Hamilton entry egress. Do you consider that that would have any effect on the heritage? We know you well obviously from your your Heritage Ottawa uh delegations. >> I did struggle with this and we're not actually um it it really is um related to the internalization. We don't want the garbage pickup and all the rest of this happening on the on the sidewalk um on Hamilton or on Spencer if the um all of that activity can be internalized. In other words, the vehicles drive in everything all the shifting around and the flipping of garbage uh trucks or garbage containers. Um then it I don't think it would have that much impact if it's happening on the sidewalk as is currently proposed. it makes it's it will in fact impact the the heritage building. I think the real solution to the problem is to internalize it. Um and it it could be in either location. I think um it's just when you think about you know all those garbage trucks are going to have to drive up to the the place where they're going to be taking their garbage. They're already on Spencer. So they're not likely to go back up and and go out on on Hamilton. they're going to go out to Parkdale. Not necessarily a good solution. If they're on Hamilton, um theoretically they could go, you know, to Holland or Scott. They have more choice, I think, and perhaps better choices. However, I'm not a transportation engineer. Um but I do think the internalization of the um those functions 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 um Spencer or the yeah 45 Spencer 320 Parkdale. >> Thank you. Uh just for the clarity of uh of members and gallery and those watching uh the concern is that if it is not fully internalized as you describe it uh garbage trucks will be pulling up they will winch bins out of the garage and then take care of the loading and unloading on the street or something. >> Not the way it's laid out at the moment unless they can winch around corners. >> Um as I say I think there's a lot of work needs to be done on that whole issue. Um, as you know, I live in a an intensified site. Um, 54 units. We have two big blue bins, one big yellow bin. They come twice a week to collect them. They are hauled out by the garbage collectors, picked up by the truck which is sitting on the street blocking the traffic and they, you know, hoist them in. I've forgotten how many units there are here. I've you know if you look at that site plan when they show you the garbage room it's scary. Um a lot of thought needs to go into this. >> Okay. >> Thanks Linda. All right we will move on. I see no further questions. Uh, Jorgen Hovind is next, who will be followed by Joyce Skyles. >> Thank you, chair, committee members. Good morning. I'll jump right in. Next slide please. Sorry I should say my name is Jurgen Huven and I live at 175 kur others. Um I have three main areas of concern that I wish to address. One is corrections to calculations that were used proposal scale and the planning flame framework expectation. My other areas of concern have been per the uh detailed comments that I've submitted previously. Next slide. The first is the use of floor space index. Um, it's clearly defined as a gross floor area over the lot size. It is not the number of stories because it accounts for the required setbacks from front, rear, and sideyards. Thus, an eight-story building is typically accorded an FSI of 6.0. Next slide. This is the uh massing diagram that was submitted by the applicant. However, it shows eight full floor plates over the entire consolidated site stating eight story plus FSI of 8. Yet the applicant correctly in their report references that the site is split zoned with the L-shaped portion being at six FSI of six and the corner block at FSI of two. Their published FSI massing diagram is thus wrong and misleading. Next slide. This is actually what it should look like. The L-shaped portion should drop from the eight floor plates to six and the corner block should not be at eight. It should be at two. So that calculates an equivalent floor space index of 5.0 for the entire site, not the stated FSI of 8. Next slide. The next correction is a calculation of permitted GFA. The applicant states on that same diagram that they have existing permitted GFA of over 28,000 square meters, suggesting that their proposal fits within their right uh quote unquote permitted and proposed design align density align. However, there's the calculations. The total as of right allowable GFA is 17,694 square meters, not over 28,000 square meters. The applicant has overstated their allowable GFA by 60%. The current proposal of just over 24,000 square meters still exceeds the actual existing rights by 37%. Next slide. correcting the exist existing allowable building height. When a former proponent TGA Holmes sought to develop a 36story tower on the L-shaped portion of this site, the city rejected that proposal and the OM directed the city to remove the height restriction and instead constrain the development with an FSI of 6.0. The zoning that implemented that ruling very specifically designated 2, 5, 7, 9, and 18 stories limitations with the 18 story height restriction on the northwest corner. That 18story section represents about 17% of the current site. It is not correct to suggest that the entire site is already zoned for 18 stories anyways. So what's 32? By that logic, it would be equally correct to state the entire site is zoned for two stories anyway. So there's the difference. The implication of these misstatements, which were not refuted by the staff report, suggests that the application is reasonably within the existing rights, which is simply wrong. Leaving these assertions uncorrected might mislead the public to think that there's no basis to object to this proposal. Next slide. Next is the scale of the proposal itself. The city secondary plans designate the area bounded by Scott, Holland, Wellington, and Parkdale as part of a hub with Wellington Street itself as a main street. The secondary plans clearly speak to concentrating the density near and north of Scott and transitioning density and building height from Scott down to Wellington Street to respect the pedestrian scale scale of the main street. Building heights are explicitly listed out in the secondary plan. The hub continues north of Scott Street to include Tiny's pasture, which is actually the heart of the density focus. Next slide. Here you can see the plan layout uh 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, 8, 12, 15, and 25 stories. 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. It is intended to go gradually from Wellington up to Scott. And there in the red, you can see what a 32story tower looks like. It is not even close to the planning intent of this hub. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Next slide. Staff suggested that a 32story tower on the site is an adequate transition. Yet immediately adjacent is two-story residential, zerotory grain space, twotory commercial, and three, four, and eighttory residential. Next slide. And as my final slide, planning framework expectations. The city's planning framework, frankly, it's very good. It should be the default to direct future development, and it should be enforced by the city. Any exception should only be granted if the positive benefits received outweigh the negatives of ignoring the planning constraints. It is not a developer's right to expect to be granted an exception to the planning framework. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um Jorgen, I don't see any questions for my colleagues, but I do have um do have one. One of the factors that I've been considering uh with this closer to the mic. Uh one of the factors that I've been considering with this is four years ago um my colleague supported me in refusing an application for the 16story building uh on Wellington at Parkdale um which was uh then subsequently approved by the uh land tribunal. So we have 16 stories at Hamilton and Wellington. What factors should this committee think about in determining whether or not uh the secondary plan is still relevant? I think there's a very clear precedent that is already set on this site. This site went to the OM at the time, the OOLT now, and the OOLT did not assign any additional GFA. They simply allowed the developer the right to not respect the eightstory height limit, but instead use that equivalent mass that they had and reortion it however they wished. And that means that the site currently that allowed for the 18th story again 70 17% of the current site that allowed that as an exception to the plan. So there is already an exception. So now what is being asked is to add an exception on top of an exception and that exception that was granted that was forced onto the city by the OOLT already basically pointed out that this density is appropriate for this area because they did not add density. They just allowed for it to be reshaped. >> Thank you very much. And uh we'll move on to our next delegation who is Joyce Guiles who will be followed by Patrick Corivo. Loren Reed, then David Pepper. >> Good morning, chair and members of committee. My name is Joyce Giles. I have lived on Hamilton Avenue North for 25 years. I guess the normal disclaimer. I am not opposed to development and intensification. In fact, I have lived through it and witnessed this over the last 25 years in my community. My concern is whether this particular proposal represents good planning for this particular location. In March, I submitted a detailed response identifying nine specific concerns with the proposed development. But after reviewing the city's current report, I have reached a troubling conclusion. The city has responded to many of our concerns, but it has not necessarily addressed them. This is a recurring pattern throughout the report. Residents raise specific concerns and the city's response cites general policy conformity and then the detailed issue is deferred to site plan control. This is not sufficient when those issues may materially affect whether this development is appropriate in the first place. So I'll give you four examples. First, height. We've already talked about this. The city is asking you to approve 32 stories, but that does not answer the fundamental planning question. Why is 32 stories appropriate for this particular block? Second, parking. The current proposal contains 318 vehicle spaces, 276 residential. But that answers the city's response is that the parking supply is below the maximum permitted near rapid transit. But that answers the wrong question. If this is truly transit planning first, transit first planning, why are 276 residential parking spaces necessary? And so they're talk and they also talk about uh four levels of underground parking. That means a deeper and longer excavation immediately beside the Parkdale market, the park and residential streets. And if the parking supply were dramatically reduced, could the excavation be reduced as well? And that question matters because it leads directly to my third concern. It's traffic on Hamilton Avenue North. And this is the issue I believe deserves the greatest attention from the committee. Hamilton Avenue is designated a local residential street. Yet residents are already seeing it used as a shortcut around congestion on Parkdale and Wellington, particularly toward Highway 417. My March submission identified the combined effect of the Mento development, which we just mentioned is currently being constructed at Wellington and Parkdale. and this proposed development. Together, these two developments introduce just shy of 500 parkings or vehicles into a very small space. And for both of these developments, traffic will eventually find its way onto Hamilton Avenue. I asked the city to consider the cumulative traffic rather than examining each development in isolation. I also asked for something very reasonable. measure what actually happens after these developments are occupied. Six month and 18th month traffic counts, define thresholds, and mitigation if Hamilton becomes carrying tra begins carrying traffic volumes inconsistent with the residential local street. The city's report does not commit to those measures. So I asked committee, has the city modeled what happens if Hamilton Avenue becomes a de facto collector because Parkdale is congested? If not, why not? And if the city cannot predict with confidence what will happen, why would it not agree to monitor the situation and establish mitigation triggers before the problem becomes permanent? So, I guess what I'm really asking you guys to consider um a clear be evidence-based justification for 32 stories, a substantial reduction in residential parking consistent with a genuinely transit first development, cumulative track traffic analysis or binding post occupancy monitoring and mitigation triggers for Hamilton Avenue North. a construction management plan that protects the Parkdale Night Market and Armstrong Street events, an enforcable public realm and market benefits rather than relying solely on a privatelyowned public space. And I didn't have enough time to go into those last two issues, but I know they've been raised. Thank you, >> uh, thank you very much for the comments. I don't see any questions for you from uh residents and uh just speaking as uh someone who lives like three block three doors down from you. Um the the future of Hamilton Avenue North is something that's very much on my mind as well. Thank you. Uh so we'll move on to Patrick Cordivo. >> Hey there. >> Hi Mr. Cordivo. Uh whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Great. Thank you very much. Uh so I'm I'm uh I'm here today as a uh property owner of 224 Armstrong. uh and and also uh just wanted to uh to highlight the the fact that I'm uh you know conversant in the economics of development uh through my role as a as a director at RBC but also that there's no conflict of interest between uh ourselves and and Tiger Group. we don't do we don't do business with them uh for for real estate or or property management. So it's it's I just wanted to highlight that more as uh as as you know there's a lot of experts here that have brought up a lot of really good points as far as land planning is concerned and as as as it relates to to transportation usage and and all sorts of other other points. uh you know I I I think I bring a perspective of of economic reality of private sector projects. Uh one one thing that we're we're excited about for this project is the ability to reinvigorate the neighborhood. You know this project has as as everyone well known well knows uh a lot of contamination issues uh that spread throughout the neighborhood. it's not located just on the site. Uh which is the reason that the that the developers have to have to dig so deep to to deal with the contamination. It's it's been an ongoing issue for for quite a number of decades since dating back to when when Honeywell had their factory back then. And and the reality is that these these uh cleanups are quite costly uh and and they're quite risky as well. It's it's it's unknown uh until you actually get get uh get digging and and start to uh start to move the soil and and get down to the bedrock what the actual costs will be and what the timelines will be to to deal with it. Uh and and I would imagine, you know, that that is part of why they're looking at this this type of a scale of project is is because the the cost to to bring something like this to market just hasn't hasn't really been palatable under the old planning structures. Uh so that's that's why we've seen a site uh for a number of generations in in a prime area uh close to highway access has a great farmers market to to enliven the neighborhood and we've seen a number of towers go further down the Parkdale block. Uh but this this uh this this corridor has been a a bit of a development dead zone. uh and despite having large land that would be easier to to redevelop. So I'd imagine that that part of the uh part of the impetus to to go so high is is for that. You know, it also going high also brings additional costs and I think everybody would be uh would be quite surprised at at the thin uh to to negligible profitability of a of a project like this. it costs quite a lot uh you know especially in the in the face of of cost pressures from from COVID. I think another big thing to to consider is is the fact that you know everybody at the city of Ottawa I think rightfully is is sensitive to uh to avoiding urban sprawl when and where possible. Uh this this site is transitoriented uh close to highway access. it's in a neighborhood that that people want to live in. Uh and and so if people are uh you know given access to to new housing, I think that's nothing but positive for the city and and avoids uh avoids the sprawl issue to a certain extent. As it relates to parking, you know, I'm we're there uh you know, we understand the the challenge that parking is already already a challenge in in the neighborhood as as far as street parking's concerned. I'm I'm an urban guy myself, you know. I understand that uh that uh just because you have a car and you have access to parking, it doesn't mean you're using a car every single day. I think that's what that's also something that we need to consider. It's just just because you have access to parking in a car. Maybe you're using it on the weekend to go grocery shopping, but you know, myself, my daily commutes I'm I'm doing by by bike, foot, or transit uh to go into the office to to do to do kind of my uh my everyday activities. Uh, and and you know, I think I think it'll be just great to have the neighborhood change from some low-rise industrial uh complexes to to a visually appealing uh high-rise with with uh with some commercial that'll continue to reinvigorate the street. So, that's kind of what I wanted to say. Thank you for the time. >> Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Cordivo. I Sorry. I don't see any questions for you from members. So, thank you very much for uh the presentation. We'll move on to uh Loren Reed, who I believe was online. Hi, Lorine. There you are. Uh and then David Pepper will be our um final uh speaker. Uh David, we think we have you identified as u an unnamed iPad user. Uh if that's you, could you just let the clerk know because otherwise we're having difficulties finding you. Loren, sorry about that. Um, please whenever you're ready, you have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> And you're on mute. >> Thank you. Now you can hear me. Uh, my name is Loren Reid. I live in the Holland Station home town homes diagonally across from the proposed building site. I'm on speaking on behalf of myself and several homeowners in the Holland Station community. You would have received a letter signed by the majority of our homeowners as well as individually submitted responses in the spring, which was my first encounter with this proposed amendment. Despite the changes that have been made, our concerns remain. They are continuous disregard for approved official plan and urban secondary plans and precedents for future proposed amendments, height of the building proposed and impact on our residential neighborhood within the Scott Street secondary plan. Impact of increased congestion on Park Parkdale Avenue. Impact of increased traffic on the side streets Armstrong, Hamilton, and Spencer. And location of the parking garage entrances, egresses, and service and utility vehicle access to the proposed building that would turn Hamilton Avenue North into effectively a service road. Commitments made and laid out in the current official plan and both the Scott Street and Wellington Street West secondary plans must be respected. Continued requests by developers to amend these plans belittle and ignore the intent and objectives of the effort by the city plans and the vision they lay out for our neighborhoods. Significant investment and effort by the city, community associations, and individ individuals went into creating, agreeing, and approving these plans. Requests that are well beyond the approved zoning are obvious attempts to manipulate a compromise built building height that is still well above the approved limit. The modification of the proposed amendment to 32 stories is still four times the approved height of eight stories and not an acceptable compromise. The resultant light and noise pollution will be disruptive and there's also concern that the city infrastructure will not support this level of densification, especially given the number of severe weather events that we are now experiencing. The revised proposal has moved the major tower to be at the corner of Hamilton Avenue North and Spencer Street. In re in the response to the Hintenberg and Wellington community associations, the city states that it was moved as not to impact the nearby residential neighborhood and that quote the proposed proposal appropriately locates greatest building height in density in closest radial proximity to the rapid transit station where it is sensitively accommodated furthest away from the stable low-rise neighborhood to the east within the Hintenberg neighborhood. So why is our at least 30-year-old neighborhood to the north and west of the proposed tower being ignored and excluded? We deserve equal consideration and status as an established stable residential neighborhood that will be impacted. I disagree with the city staff assessment that given the center of the hub can generally be anticipated to develop to heights of 40 stories, the proposed height of 32 stories is an adequate transition plane. 32 stories is is in the midst of town homes, single family homes, low and mid-rise residential dwellings, and it's not an adequate transition. Given the condo immediately to the north is only six stories, it is a significant break in the existing plane and sighteline. Approval of this request will set a precedent and greatly increase the risk that future developments in the Scott Street mixed use zone will be of greater or similar height. This would negatively impact our privacy, light, and sky views by creating a visually jagged and physical barrier whereby our homes will be dwarfed and cut off from the broader Hintenberg community. The proposed changes still increase the number of vehicles accessing the building by about 300 based on the number of residential and visitor parking spaces. Parkdale is already in gridlock for most of the day. Vehicles regularly use Spencer, Armstrong, and Hamilton, often cutting through the beer store parking lot to bypass the traffic on Parkdale, Hollington, and Wellington. In addition, the additional VI vehicles will further congest the area, especially where building entrances, egresses, and service areas are located. That combined with the number of vehicles using side streets, increases safety risks to pedestrians and cyclists and impairs the ability of emergency services vehicles to navigate the area. It is very difficult to be a walkable neighborhood when your head is on a pivot watching for cars and inattent of dangerous drivers which is the case now. The traffic studies on which the application is based were done depending on the intersection between 2017 and 2024. Spencer and Parkdale was done in April 2024 after the pandemic and prior to the federal workforce force being required to return to office for a minimum of 3 days a week now 4 days a week. A new traffic study should be conducted for the area and as a pro proposed by the Westboroough and Hintter Community Association include a more detailed analysis of how the act additional traffic from the proposed development will affect queuing spillback from adjacent intersections and the cumulative effects of multiple developments in the vicinity. I and the homeowners I speak for believe that our voices are not being heard and that our neighborhood to the north and west of the development is being ignored when it comes to assessing impact. We argue the amendments should firmly be rejected by the city of Ottawa, but that consult consultation should continue to further modify the proposed development in a strategic and sensitive manner for all neighborhoods. Thank you, >> Lorine. Thank you very much for that. Um, and certainly uh I'm very cognizant uh that the shift in the building has moved it closer to uh to your homes. Um you're uh you're in an interesting location there in the heart of the hub and uh I know that's going to be challenging. Um I don't see any questions for you. Um I do have one question. The uh residents I think it was at the Parkdale Market Lofts have suggested that the building should be brought down to 25 stories. Do you consider that that makes any difference for um your development? >> Um on the base I I still think it's too high. I thought from three or four years ago the proposed 16 or 18 stories was too high. But again with further design elements or discussions that we could be involved in um maybe maybe my views would change but right now I' I'd say it's too high. >> Okay. Uh Mary, thank you very much for the uh uh presentation and I think we are on to our last speaker, David Pepper. I don't know if we found them. Yes. Yes. >> Oh, hey, David. >> Hi. >> And like Linda Hod, you probably are not may not be happy you found me, but um hopefully you will be. Uh my name is David Pepper. Uh I've actually lived across the street at 222 Armstrong, which makes me a a direct neighbor of 223 Armstrong, the Carlton Tavern, uh for the past 35 years. So, I uh would say that I know from my front porch I know this uh uh particular city block very very well. Uh I'm just going to make some comments uh for the record and then I have three asks at the end uh of my presentation. Uh the um I'd like to thank uh city staff Jack and Kelly for making this process easy for me. Uh don't necessarily agree with Jack's assessments, but uh thanks for helping. Um and uh thanks to my hardworking HCA uh Hintenberg Community Association friends and uh who've done so much work in keeping us informed. Um my comments uh it's nice to do mopup so that I can just say uh the lack of support uh in all of the public submissions should be telling to the committee. uh the parking and the argument uh I would agree with so many of the uh folks is is really disingenuous uh in terms of just uh saying it agrees with the policy but without bringing any challenge function to it. Um the height uh is uh obviously an issue uh which uh I generally concur with people's uh overall concerns. The one thing I didn't see I saw it in one slide from Tagert was uh shadow impacts. Uh they had the north of Armstrong but not my side of Armstrong. Uh when they did the Mento um building on Wellington uh we saw some very good shadow studies in terms of its impact uh and not shadow at one point of the year but all times of the year. I haven't seen those. I may not have found them. So uh I'll I'll give them a a break on that. Uh I also support uh overall concerns about access to affordable housing uh which is much more uh needed in our neighborhood. Um my three asks, uh the first is uh uh the deep hole, what uh Linda has branded the hole. I think that's not a bad term. Um is the uh the blasting that will be coming from that. Uh when the Mento development at uh Wellington Hamilton uh came about, they actually came to my house two two streets down and they did videotaping because of uh concerns about the impact of blasting on my 125year-old house. Uh I found that mildly concerning because we were so relatively far away, but obviously it's heightened my concern about uh the four um the depth of four uh layers on this blasting. Um so the um question there will be uh if and when this blasting goes forward I will want some sort of um mechanism where I have a blasting 311 or blasting 911 uh ability to call one person or one place without getting the runaround. Already I've noticed we have had one slight uh impact from the Wellington development. So uh that has heightened my concern. So, I would ask for some sort of uh uh ability for us to have easy access to a um a help line and a concern line if if blasting comes about. I don't know if if my other two uh issues are come for site plan uh issues, but I'm going to throw them out here because I'm I'm talking to you. Uh the second one is about the uh impact of the removal of the uh environmental degradation. Uh any questions I I assume will be answered around uh any dust that comes from blasting, the stuff that happens in the neighborhood, uh those of us across the street and so on. Uh the removal of it and so on. Uh will there be uh and how will we be informed of any uh potential impacts of that? And my final ask uh and uh I I know that um um folks in the audience from the HCA I'm I'm sure will support this is that uh if this development does go ahead uh and the aspects of its its relationship to the market uh that the city seriously and and for once and for all uh make a true capital investment in the Parkdale market. Uh the Parkdale market has so much potential. uh we've seen that over the many years that uh the Hindberg Community Association has been working with the market and the potential to develop uh some capital infrastructure there to make it a year-round market. We have many vendors who are willing and some one vendor in particular uh Cornell our our egg farmer uh who comes every Saturday uh 52 weeks a year in the winter. Uh there are many examples of of winter markets uh which with a little bit of uh infrastructure uh could transform Parkdale Market into a an even better market than it than it has become. And with uh any development at this site obviously uh that would allow those people to not have to go grocery shopping with their car. Uh they could just go down to the market. So those are my com my three asks. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh David, I don't see any uh questions for you. Uh my office would be happy or um I know Jack would also be happy to answer offline uh some of the questions around blast etc. They're not in play as questions today with the zoning and official plan amendment, but uh we'd be happy to uh to walk you through that. Um and you know the Yeah. So without any other questions to the public delegations, we'll move on to questions of city staff. Councelor Brockson, how tall would this building have to be for you to say no? >> Chair, our role is to respond to the application before us. So we assess the final product which in this case was 32 stories. I can't speculate as to what height would change that threshold. This is a question I've asked before in other files and planning staff um give me that answer. So it's difficult for me and it's difficult for the public to know what is the threshold. Um, I'm dealing with 40story towers abing the Central Park neighborhood. That's an active file right now. And we're having very similar conversations about um the appropriateness of height and density. And I'm a huge supporter of density and height near transit stations near Tenny's pasture station. We should have height and density. Uh the question that we're hearing is what's the appropriate height and density inside a residential community. Again, a topic that's uh being discussed in my word as well. Um the traffic study references that we heard from many delegates cited sort of aged data. Could please could staff just please talk about the traffic studies that were done and uh the years that were used for the data that are in those studies. So a 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 or of that document. Through the review of the application, the transportation uh project manager was satisfied with the report uh for the purpose of the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. >> Okay. But um do we have a requirement or a threshold that data can't be too old uh and obsolete before we require the proponent to refresh the data or restart the data as opposed to using data that already exists? Are you suggesting that the city's traffic specialist was satisfied with the age of the data that was submitted as part of this study? Yes. So in in this instance, they would have reviewed the the data that was in the report and they would have provided comments back to the the planner as well as the applicant for response. Um just from my knowledge of the transportation review, the age of a traffic count can be considered as adequate. Uh depending on the location and context as well as um you know in consideration for example the co years traffic might have been lighter and it's actually better to use older data in that instance as it's more reflective of postcoid traffic. So, how do these studies include more recent developments in the neighborhood and even proposed developments that council maybe has not yet approved? Are those factored into these assessments? Chair, as best as possible, yes. It's not always the case depending on timing. Certainly a transportation impact assessment will contemplate approved developments as as part of assumptions and targets that are happening in that neighborhood. Um I said the kind of half yes if you will because if a time of submission comes and another project comes online that may not be contemplated but in scenarios like this where today we've got uh official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment and that TIA is based on information available at the time of this application submission. The expectation is that when this comes back for site plan, whether that be within the next few months or a few years from now, that TIA is going to have to be updated to be more relevant to what other additional information has come online, i.e. other projects, um, approvals, projects and get the more relevant data as it becomes available. So the TIA that we have now is not necessarily the final version. It will be looked at again through site plan when in when that comes in. >> Okay. And so the city has the right to ask the proponent to refresh the data if if that is believed to be warranted. >> Chair, it's an expectation that it be updated to be current at the time of site plan submission. >> Okay. All right. Very good. And just parking. What is the minimum parking ratio for this development that that the city is asking for? I would need to refer to the zoning for the maximum parking requirements, but the site remains compliant with the required um minimum and maximum parking. >> Okay. But is 7 the minimum request or is the proponent adding more parking than the minimum? >> The proponent would be adding more parking than the minimum. >> And what is the delta? Are is the city of Ottawa saying 0.5 and they're offering 7 or >> can you refer to this >> chair? The current zoning bylaw does not require parking in the in the urban. >> Well, that applies to this application. Yes. >> Okay. So, I'm trying to understand um it's like a chicken and egg. This is close to Tenny's pasture LRT station. We want people, particularly new developments within 600 meters of stations to be tall and dense. And we want those residents, as in everyone else, to take uh transit. So, you offer parking, it incentivize people to to move in and drive and rely on their car, and there'll be less pressure to become a ongoing transit user. So, how do we how do we explain this to the public that despite your close vicinity to an LRT station, we're going to permit sort of a higher parking ratio than what's necessary? >> Chair, that's a that's a great question and it's obviously one that's uh really important depending on site context, location, the specific site and the surroundings. And what I mean by that is if you if you look at a transportation impact assessment and talk to our transport transportation colleagues who are obviously have more expertise in this than I do, uh there's always a conversation of of those modal shares and and assumptions that are made. And in that conversation, when you look at a location like this that is categorically a very walkable neighborhood, you know, we've heard that 15-minute neighborhood. Um this site definitely fits that context. It has great access to a number of local um goods and amenities that are walkable. It has really good access to a number of cycling infrastructure, local bus routes. It's 450 m walking distance to a rapid transit station. Where that factors into a TIA in translation is if a parking space is provided, it doesn't necessarily mean that every trip generated is going to be by personal car. those are those other active transit um options are available and there's a certain assumption that um a high percentage of trips whether it be commuting to work or walking to the Parkdale market in this case to to grab some eggs as we heard a delegation those factor into that parking space not necessarily generating 100% of vehicle trips because it is well served by that active transit community. >> Okay, I appreciate that. Um I may have some other questions chair but I'll certainly yield to my colleagues. >> Thank you so much. Um I just want I know that we've been talking about the parking here. I just want to be abundantly clear. So it do we have do you have any recourse? People are saying the ratio is too high but it's still below the threshold. Correct. So there there would you would have sort of no tool at your disposal to say put in less parking if they're already below the maximum. >> Through our commenting of the site plan control application, we could certainly engage in further conversations on the adequate amount of parking for this specific site. But that is right that it does remain zoning compliant. >> Okay, so it is zoning compliant. Like this is so frustrating because obviously the nearby community are very unhappy. this about this development. I'm very worried about traffic in Parkdale, which I totally get. Parkdale is a disaster, but we consistently have this problem at planning, this chicken and egg issue, and councelor Kits has sort of been the number one person highlighting this where it's like, do you do what comes first, the transportation infrastructure or the housing? Now, this is a contaminated site that currently has no housing. So, generally speaking, I'm supportive of putting housing there. But what can be done through the site plan process to mitigate those very real traffic concerns? because that's still adding a lot of cars to a very tight area that's already really hard to navigate. >> Chair, I don't know that we can directly answer that question today. It really depends on the timing of when that site plan application comes in. Part of the transportation impact assessment, there's a component of it called transit demand strategies. There's a number of different things that a developer can propose to offset the need to use a vehicle. everything from, you know, pre-loaded uh 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 supportive and friendly to offset the desire to choose a car. So, I I hear the point. I'm I'm there with you in terms of a conversation. I don't know that we can fully realize what that looks like until this project progresses through that site plan process. >> Okay. Yeah. And just to comment, this just speaks to the frustration of the kind of siloization of the two issues because the transportation planning stuff comes at public works and infrastructure committee as part of our transportation master plan, but then these projects are approved one by one at planning where we don't have jurisdiction to improve transportation relief. So, I just want to say I really share that frustration and it might be worth a a rethink with our governance review coming up to figure out how we can more closely tie these issues together. So, those these decisions are being made so that when you approve something that you know is probably going to take a decade to build, how do you ensure that at the same time you're you're ensuring the transportation infrastructure is is built into the transportation master plan? And I know that's not your jurisdiction, but it's just two committees, two silos, but the impact of one building on the community. And that's I just want to agree with you all that it's very frustrating. We had a very similar conversation around 267 Oconor where my residents were really unhappy about that too. And the answer is we don't have an answer here because our job is just to decide if we approve a zoning amendment or not. But it's actually worth so much more to the community. So, thank you very much. Thanks, Sheriff. Um, I just had a clarifying question because I was a little bit confused in the staff report. On page nine, it references a height limit of eight stories and on page 25 it references a height limit of 18 stories. What What is the actual height limit currently? That's that needs to be amended. >> So, it's two-pronged. Um within the secondary within the official plan generally 40 stories are contemplated within the hub designation within the inner urban transct. Within the secondary plan um two of the sites being let me just pull this up here being 233 Armstrong and 3 Hamilton Avenue North are subject to a sight specific policy which permit the development of a floor space index that is generally equivalent to eight stories without being subject to a maximum height. that's within the secondary plan. So, a majority of the site is not subject to a maximum height, just that FSI, with the remainder of the two properties being subject to a general policy of an eight-story max. Within the zoning bylaw, uh given historic OM decisions, a maximum of 18 stories is permitted on 233 Armstrong and 3 Hamilton Avenue North given that file history. So the a zoning schedule would have been established at the time of going to the OM for that previous contemplated 18tory build form. >> Okay. And on the FSI there was one of the delegations who brought forward some calculations and said that staff's calculations or the applicant's applications were incorrect. Um can you respond to that delegation? >> Yes. So the zoning bylaw amendment for those two specific properties subject to the sight specific policies uh are subject to a six uh 6.0 FSI within the zoning bylaw which is reflective of that 18story design which was previously approved by the OM. However, when you read the parent policies being the secondary plan, it's actually based on uh there's direction within that document that permits that eight eight story FSI on the site. So, when you take into account eight stories within the parent document instead of six stories within the zoning, you do come out to an approximate 28,000 m GFA across the site when you take in all the permissions. And the proposed development includes approximately 24,000 square meters of GFA. So coming in below that GFA calculation. >> So you're asserting that how staff calculated the FSI for the evaluation of this proposed zoning amendment is accurate and aligned to policy. >> That's right. We would have done our calculation based on the policies of the secondary plan whereas the the delegate earlier would have been referring to the zoning which established a six um FSI of six. Okay. I can't say I completely follow this and I can't blame residents for their confusion uh and concern about the amount of time they had to review the the report. the the mix and the intersection of policies and and historical issues with this site um is really confusing. So, uh I do want to acknowledge that concern from from residents. Thank you. >> Great test. Thank you, chair. Um so, uh I'll just go straight simple questions. Um, did it meet the targeted uh communications under the provincial legislation where we have to get it out? That's correct. We would have uh notified the public both of the circulation of the application, posted public signs, um, garnered their feedback and then provided correct notice under the planning act with respect to today's meeting here today. >> 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. I guess to Tim Mark, uh if this went anywhere, if we just decide to block it or tried to stop it, it's the same question as usual. What what happens at the next level? >> Mr. chair. This one actually as as has been indicated by planning staff, uh this matter went to the OM as it then was uh back in 2014 under circumstances where staff had recommended a particular uh approach to zoning which was ultimately approved by the OM uh and council had taken a different position. Uh and so in that case uh the OM uh relied on uh the staff view. Um I'm not going to say that that is going to happen today, but this this property does have a history to it, Mr. Chair. >> I know. >> Uh and that could repeat itself. >> Yeah. And I I believe the chair is actually well documented by the way on your blog or substack, I don't know what it is. Uh the history of this files quite extensive and long. Um and it's unfortunate. I thought that there would have been that opportunity, but it sounds like the applicants quite pressed on time now. And after so many years, I think we're in a position where we we know what's going to happen here at the end of the day. It's about making sure the residents actually hear some of their concerns addressed whether it's transportation or the garbage pickup. These are these are the things that we could actually focus on. Um the zoning we all know that that's a fed to complete that's probably not going to change. So um a lot of these notes I think have been taken here today and should be brought back to staff and my colleague to the left of me is quite correct. We deal with this even in the east end where there's not even the road infrastructure now that exists now where you could actually put a road. There is no place to put a road when you're building downtown because we made a commitment to build up to intensify. These are the challenges we're experiencing. So for this I mean there's there's no real option. We have to support proceeding with this. I don't see unless we just want to make this a political thing. But anyway, thank you very much Mr. Chair. Okay, these might be um repetitive questions, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the parking. So, when you were asked the question about the parking minimums, I understand they're in zoning compliance, but then you listed off all the amazing amenities in the area, the walkability. I mean, I have a doctor's office that I go to regularly on Grant Street. So, I walk right through this area, get off at Tunny's, take the walk through. I was at the Parkdale Night Market the other day. You know, once again, there's not a lot of parking. There's not a lot of room for cars. So, if we wanted to push back, I'm not saying decline this application, but if we wanted to push back and have the community's voice heard, but limit the amount of parking that is being included in this application. I'm sorry, you said that that is a possible conversation that could be had. And I'm also going to note that we very recently had a an application that nearly came before us for Centrum that had zero parking. So, I mean, I'm really confused by this. We got zero parking at a place that deserves parking and we've got ample and excess of parking at a place that doesn't need it. >> Chair, I do not believe there would be um an appropriate tool that could require us to cap a maximum parking rate that is less than what is in our current zoning bylaw. I think the comment that was made was when this application comes in for site plan and we're having a conversation about what is the amount of parking proposed and why there's an opportunity to have a discussion to say do you need this much parking or what else are you doing to have transit demand strategies to help support those other active modes like pre-loaded presto cards um put displays within the building lobby about key walking and cycling routes or sometimes they could have displays about when the next local bus is coming on the nearby street. It's conversations of that nature that can help get into the how much parking is provided and what's going to be um you know the impact if there is an impact in that application. But to go back to the question of would we have a tool that would say limit the parking to X. Um, council in its will, I would say, would have the authority to potentially reduce the amount of maximum parking. In my personal opinion, I don't think we'd be on good grounds to do so. >> Okay, I appreciate that. I know the applicants in the room, I think there's an opportunity to have a conversation about whether you need that much parking or not. I'm just putting that out there because you're stuck saying listening to me. I just being in that area on a many many occasions with myself, my family, there is not much more room than is already there. And that and I'm somebody who's coming from another community to visit the space. I can't even imagine moving that many cars through that community going forward. Now, having more people living in the area, you know, beautifying it and densifying it in a way that is impactful but beneficial to neighbors, there's opportunity there. But adding more cars to the street, it's completely counterintuitive to everything we've been doing in terms of transit investment and trying to get people onto bikes and and on to uh to buses. So again, I'm I'm very very confused by why we've got this much parking on the table in this particular development. And I really do hope that the applicant is listening as we we say that that this is an opportunity to to change the narrative on this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, councelor Dudes, councelor Kitz. >> Thank you, Chair. I was not, uh, going to comment, but I can't help myself. Um, I found the conversation today very interesting. Um, because a lot of the issues being raised by delegates and by colleagues, uh, are ones that I often bring forward as councelor Truster mentioned. Um and I said at transportation committee uh the last one or sorry pewick the last one um that for a period of time I think we sort of lost the plot on how we talk about planning in this city and we've become so intensely focused on units unit count um that we stopped asking enough questions about what actually makes those units part of a functioning community. um you know we look at one application, one intersection, one transportation study at a time and then residents experience the cumulative impact of uh what we approve which has been a theme um in the delegations today. So you know I want to acknowledge that this application is very different from many of the files that I take ided with in my ward because this is a downtown development with high order transit very close by. Um, so I think the parking conversation is very relevant, but that underlying conversation is very familiar and um, when the transportation impact assessment guidelines were being refreshed recently and before it came to Pewick, um, I, you know, with staff question whether our thresholds make sense everywhere in the city, whether we should be evaluating developments individually when we know there are 10, 15, 20 other applications coming in the same area. whether we should be modeling transportation behavior based on transit infrastructure that is there um or that is simply theoretical um pushed for more conservative forecasting alongside aspirational mode share targets and then um if the predicted travel behavior doesn't materialize should we do better monitoring around that um so I was successful in getting some of these changes but I was not successful in getting all of them so um When I hear colleagues and delegates today saying that perhaps we need to rethink some of the assumptions built into our transportation planning process, I just wanted to say I agree and I hope that we can remember this conversation. Um, but context has to ma matter. We we can't plan downtown Ottawa as though it was a Greenfield suburb and we shouldn't plan a Greenfield suburb as though it was downtown Ottawa. So for those of us that are fortunate enough to be back around this table next term, I hope we can take this conversation and do something with it because we know that the answer can't be to approve fewer homes. So it has to be getting much better at planning the communities uh that those homes are going into. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Kit. I think we have councelor Curry. >> Yeah, thank you very much. Uh so a lot of different perspectives for sure when I just simply look at this development for this location. I honestly I repeat what I'd said uh in my opening comments there that I would love it if this development were in Canada and what it's going to do to that Parkdale market. It is going to be a beautiful thing when it's all finished. I mean, the how lively it will be in that area when this is all done as it's done. And there are attempts to keep that Carlton uh tavern, you know, I know it isn't exactly the same thing, but it is a nice thought. You know, it I think the community will love it. I think there will be enough people to certainly go in there along with all the shops along Parkdale and uh at the market. I think that you know the changes that were made over time when I look at how this evolved I think were thoughtful and you know people's feedback residents feedback was taken into consideration. As for the parking, I guess, you know, I always am shocked that I have to say this again and again, but you know, the people who live there will probably use transit predominantly. Like they will like they have amazing opportunities there, but they still might own a car and they need to store that car somewhere. 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. So, I just think, you know, the parking spots, if they were never used, they could be repurposed at some point. But if they are used, then that is an amenity that some people would appreciate because yes, people use transit to get around town. Of course, you can't really get out to Canada that well, but you know, you could get around town other places and then you could drive to see your friend in Metcaf. You know, you could drive to see your friend in Elmont if you ever wanted to do that. But you do have many options and I think that's what a great place to live offers. Um I honestly would love to live there. I mean councelor Leaper, you have such a lovely ward and you know I think this will be a great addition. I understand that people are frustrated with some of the components of this but um 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. So I will be supporting this file and uh I don't think if it weren't supported it would have any chance at the OOLT anyway. So that those are my thoughts. >> Thank you very much councelor Curry. Uh did any other members wish to speak to it before I um uh I think pose a couple of questions myself? Um, and then I am uh likely to bring a motion now directing staff to reconsider parking maximums in the next term of council. Uh, so I should have some wording on that in the next couple of minutes. But in the meantime, I'm going to ask uh, city staff, can you just confirm what I can um asked Tagert, which is that the entry and egress from the building and its location won't be decided today, but that will be a site plan consideration. >> Yes, that's right. So, right now, the vehicular access is conceptualized along Spencer Street. However, um through the subsequent site plan control process, there will be opportunities to further review the appropriate location of the parking ramp. >> Thank you. Sorry, uh just distracted. And secondly, uh the decision to reconfigure or close Armstrong to become an interface between the market and the private developers um uh space. That is not a decision that we are making today either. >> Yes, that's that's correct. We don't presently have plans for the pedestrianization of Armstrong Street, but there will be ongoing discussions internally and with the applicant uh as part of the cyclone control process. >> Okay. Um there was an assertion made by one of the delegates and I'm sorry I forget which that the the divergence from the secondary plan concept of a midrise Wellington or south end going to a a very high-rise Scott Street. Um, one of the grounds upon which or I think it was kind of suggested that the main grounds upon which um, that was being accepted by staff as uh, as supportable by the official plan was because of a density transfer. I'd love to hear from you about uh, how you justify uh, going from that midrise Wellington to a high-rise Scott with um, a 32story tower essentially mid block. Can I just hear from you about how you are supporting that uh in your your recommendation to us today to approve this uh OPA? >> Yes. So as noted the official plan contemplates up to 40 stories and hubs within the in urban transct. Further the secondary plan policies permit an FSI generally equivalent to eight stories across the majority of the site without being limited to a maximum height limit uh which generally support the direction of the hub policies. When considering citywide policies, the city may permit the transfer of density potential from one site to another to facilitate the retention of built heritage resources in those areas which have an established FSI requirement under the zoning bylaw. So in this instance, given the prioritization of the pops and the tavern space on the south and southeastern edge of the site, which provide retention of a community asset and contributions to the public realm, staff considered the density transfer policy to make up for that GFA um lost on that portion of the site for public benefit to be provided to the tower. Uh nevertheless, we do believe that 32 stories is an adequate transition from the center of the hub being Tony's pasture station. I have very significant sympathy for the uh the community's point of view that it is not uh that we're going from 40 stories or I I have to assume that Richcraft is going to come in for 40 stories uh when they finally do get around to developing their site. They're limited I think right now to 28, but that was done 6 7 8 years ago now. Um so you're going from 40. The site next to it will probably ask for 40. Then you're going to have uh 32 and then bam, you're down to the uh norise Parkdale market uh and then a mid-rise um at Wellington Street. And I'm just not sure that I have heard the justification clearly as to why we are or why you are supporting such a divergence from that uh that transition. >> Chair, I'll I'll maybe add some context to that. Um, I'm going to take a bit of a step backwards to to answer that. But I do think we have to remember that the secondary plan was completed in 2011. And while a lot of the intent in terms of hub versus corridor or neighborhood is still relevant, it is important to flag that at that time high-rise was a maximum of 30 stories, not 40 stories. So contextually, the expectation for height has evolved. Um, that's evident in the new OP. So when we talk about heights within a hub, you have to remember that the secondary plan previously was with a 30story sort of expected height limit. We've now gone up to 40. The policy framework has has changed in that regard. So when we think about that gradual transition um if we want to bring up that map or not between uh Wellington and Scott this is a bit of a unique hub in that the main hub is along Scott at Tunny's pasture and everything north of that and then this block framework kind of pulls in and it's flanked by some of those low r neighborhood. So if the expect expectation is that 40 stories is permitted by policy at Tunny's pasture which is two blocks away from this site 450 m walking distance. This being one of the last sites before Parkdale Market within that sort of hub designation itself we see that as being an appropriate gradual transition down from 40 stories. Transition is also done in other ways. When we look at the neighborhood designation east of Parkdale, um the tower itself was oriented towards the northwest corner of the site to kind of place the tower one furthest away from the closest neighborhood designation. And I mean by way of policy, not existing. I'm I'm sympathetic to the delegation that said there's also a low-rise neighborhood directly north, but that is within the hub designation. that tower is getting somewhere close to 80 mters away from that neighborhood designation east of Parkdale. If you put that in context of our policy framework of where highrises are permitted on corridors next to a low-rise neighborhood, the way the policy has been set up is that you generally apply an angular plane, but once you're more than 25 m away from that, that angular plane stops and you can go up to in theory 40 stories on certain corridors. So having that tower 80 mters away from the nearest neighborhood designation is an appropriate transition from that regard. And then I would say a key part of this application looking at the sight specific context and what's surrounding it was the move to reduce the podium heights down to five stories um from the initial sort of large eight and n story block. that was also part of an appropriate transition from a policy framework to make sure that the atrade experience uh was more in line with sort of call it the existing context versus the planned function. And I know I'm getting into complicated planning isms but it's a balance of understanding what's existing around you, what policy supports, and where does this site fit within it. This site is uniquely situated and that you've got to kind of consider all those factors. But I hope that helps kind of frame how it landed at 32 stories. >> Thank you very much for that. Um I mean it it raises the question is the secondary plan compliant with the official plan and and right across the city we see secondary plans that are not compliant with our most recent edition of the official plan. And I think that this is something uh that we're going to have to address in the next term of council is um the unrealistic expectations that are raised, genuine and honest expectations but unfortunately unpractical 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 uh secondary plans and you know I think if uh if you are listening to this debate and you are wondering what's going to happen to your neighborhood. Uh my suggestion would be look at what the official plan says because ultimately that is going to be the document that guides growth moving forward. Um I do have uh sorry I'm going to ask um uh vice chair Gower. I'm not allowed to move motions but uh vice chair Gower has a uh a motion. >> Yeah. Uh whereas the zoning bylaw 2026-50 provides a maximum parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit at 3 Hamilton Avenue North and 223 229 and 233 Armstrong. And whereas this site is within walking distance of the Tunny's Passure Rapid Transit Station. Therefore, be it resolved that planning and housing committee recommend council direct staff to reconsider the parking maximums in proximity to rapid transit stations in the next term of council. >> Please go ahead. So, just on that note, uh is there anything in the queue next term of council to review parking with respect to developments? Um the Orleans case comes to mind that I think we need to reflect this. I was just tell speaking with councelor Chaucer that I think my preference would be something like any development that is uh under a certain threshold could uh have a parking waved 12, 16, 20 units or within a certain transct. But as you get larger and larger, I think the demand for parking presents itself. But I just want to make sure that councelor Leaper is not jumping the queue. And if we're going to talk about parking, we should talk about all the issues related to parking, 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 >> uh through the chair? So, I just say that um this is a motion because it we 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 um legislation, we're 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. uh in many cases we're arguing about no parking at all. So I I think it depends. I think it was councelor Kit's point about the uh geography and and the context is really really important. So uh we'll we would look at this um holistically citywide and the what the uh parking maximums are and how they work against the parking minimum that is now not in the zoning by law at all. Yeah. And just on the leaper motion, what I appreciate it's in the context of its proximity to transit hubs, which I think is very important. So, I'm not pushing back, but I just wanted to make sure we're taking a holistic view with respect to parking. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Dus. >> I I think I'm pretty much um in line with councelor Brochington. I just want to make sure, you know, we're we're not that far away from a new term of council with the new council. Um, I'm sure that this will be a conversation that is is had at many many uh committee meetings going forward. And I'm just wondering with this particular motion and staff indicating that this is likely something that they'll be looking at, is this I I I understand it's not it's not specific to this development. I'm just wondering, do we really need this or if it does go forward, which you know on paper I'm happy to support it, but are we tying our hands? Do we need a more, you know, a couple more wherees to give you more direction or can we play on it a little bit? I just think there's a lot to unpack about this topic and making sure that it reflects the entirety of the city and the areas that we're going to be uh seeing development in the next four years. So, I'm just wondering does it does it need to be parked right now or if we pass it, are you open to interpretation after the next term starts? >> Chair, uh, certainly taking the point that there's not a lot of whereases. I think it was drafted fairly quickly and and not as comprehensive a discussion as sometimes works into these. Um, you know, I think when when I read the motion, I I look at that as being on those attached to those rapid transit stations, which is where we have the maximums. don't have maximums in some of our furtherflung areas of the suburbs. And so that may would not necessarily play a role into this unless there's, you know, a need to to dive into that in a in a greater detail. I also point out that I think I think it's a worthwhile discussion. You know, this is obviously right in the downtown. We also have maximums, you know, next to the Pinerest uh station or in some of our more um suburban and there may be a need to have a different maximum there than there is right in uh such a walkable community as this is. >> I likewise think this is a worthwhile conversation. I just want to make sure we're not, you know, pre uh predisposing next term of council to anything. So, but no, I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Chair. >> Thanks for your support on that, Councelor Dudas. Uh when I take a look like even in Kitesipper where we Kitipi where we are starting to run out now of of prime development parcels um uh there are still more to come and we have seen I I'm trying to remember uh the uniform development at um uh Kissippibi Station. Uh I'm trying to remember but I think they've got like a8 parking ratio. Uh and there will be more parcels to come parcels that have not yet been zoned. Um, and the the feeling that this uh committee has and the feeling that the community has that allowing a 7 just a couple hundred meters away from a transit station uh I do think is worthwhile to talk about uh without prescribing what the uh the outcome will be. Um okay so with that I uh would and no further questions so we will uh yay and naz please. Oh, sorry. Is the uh the leaper motion or sorry, the Gower motion passed? >> Carried. >> Thank you. Is the um Oh, and then yay and on the uh the substantive motion, please. >> Councelor Brochington, >> yes. >> Councelor Curry, >> yes. >> Councelor Dudas, >> yes. >> Councelor Johnson, >> yes. >> Councelor Kavanagh, >> yes. Councelor Kelly. Councelor Kits. >> Yeah. >> Councelor Low. >> Yes. >> Councelor Tierney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Trustster. >> Yes. Vice Chair Gower. >> Yeah. >> Chair Leaper. >> Yes. >> 11. EAS. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, I want to thank my neighbors for coming out today. I do understand the discomfort we'll say that you feel with this and I'm happy to chat about it more moving forward. Uh we will move on and conclude today's agenda. Notice of motion. Has anyone got a notice of motion for how many do we have? One meeting left. Two meetings. We have two uh two meetings left. Uh, no notices of motion. Um, are there any inquiries? No. Uh, we have no other business. We are adjourned until October 7th. >> Thanks. Oh,