1. VILLAGE OF CARP - COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN VILLAGE DE CARP - PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council:
1. Approve the
Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp, subject to the following
amendment:
That Schedule A be amended to change the designation of the properties located on Rivington Street from “Village Core” to “Residential – Ground Oriented Multi Unit”.
2. Adopt Ottawa Official Plan Amendment xx to repeal the Village Plan for Carp that is in Volume 2C of the Official Plan.
3. Adopt Amendment xx to the Official Plan of the former Township of West Carleton to delete Section 6(8)(g) and Schedule "B" as they relate to the Village of Carp.
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve le plan de conception
communautaire du village de Carp, sous réserve des modifications suivantes :
Que l’annexe A soit modifiée afin de remplacer la désignation
« Centre du village » des propriétés situées rue Rivington par la
désignation « Résidentiel – Immeuble bas à logements multiples ».
2. adopte la modification xx au Plan
officiel d’Ottawa afin d’abroger le plan du village de Carp qui figure dans le
volume 2C du Plan officiel;
3. adopte la modification xx au Plan
officiel de l’ancien Canton de West Carleton visant à supprimer l’alinéa
6(8)(g) et l’annexe B en ce qui concerne le village de Carp.
Documentation
1.
Planning and
Growth Management Deputy City Manager’s report dated 10 June 2004
(ACS2004-DEV-POL-0031).
2.
Extract of Draft
Minutes, 22 June 2004.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
10 June 2004 / le 10 juin 2004
Submitted
by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager / Directeur
municipal adjoint
Planning and Growth Management
/ Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Richard
Kilstrom, Manager / Gestionnaire
Community
Design and Environment / Conception et milieu communautaire
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
OBJET
: |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council:
1. Approve the Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp.
2. Adopt Ottawa Official Plan Amendment xx to repeal the Village Plan for Carp that is in Volume 2C of the Official Plan.
3. Adopt Amendment xx to the Official Plan of the former Township of West Carleton to delete Section 6(8)(g) and Schedule "B" as they relate to the Village of Carp
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil
:
1. d’approuver le plan de conception
communautaire du village de Carp;
2. d’adopter la modification xx au Plan
officiel d’Ottawa afin d’abroger le plan du village de Carp qui figure dans le
volume 2C du Plan officiel;
3. d’adopter la modification xx au Plan
officiel de l’ancien Canton de West Carleton visant à supprimer l’alinéa
6(8)(g) et l’annexe B en ce qui concerne le village de Carp.
BACKGROUND
The
Official Plan for Carp that was adopted by the former Township of West Carleton
in 1992 did not plan for the eventual full servicing and development of all of
the lands located within the current village boundary. Ottawa City Council has recognized the need
for a plan to provide direction for how Carp will develop in the future and has
made the completion of a Community Design Plan a priority. Section 2.5.7 of the Official Plan contains
the following policy:
"The
Village of Carp and the Carp Road Corridor will be the subject of individual
Community Design exercises, both of which are to be completed by the end of
2003. The results of these exercises will be used to determined the boundaries
of the Rural Employment Area and the policies associated with it and the
detailed land use designations for each of the areas that will be incorporated
by separate amendments into the Official Plan."
The
Community Design Plan (CDP) for the Village of Carp is the result of a
collaborative community effort. The
community worked with City staff to develop the vision for the future and to
develop strategies for achieving the vision.
The Community Design Plan provides detailed policies to more closely
align growth and change to the community’s expectations.
This
CDP replaces the Official Plan that was adopted by the former Township of West
Carleton in 1992. The 1992 Official
Plan was based on a servicing capacity of 700 dwelling units and as a result it
did not plan for the eventual full servicing and development of all of the
lands located within the current village boundary. As the CDP provides for the village to be fully serviced, a new
comprehensive land use plan is required to direct future development within the
village.
DISCUSSION
The
village boundary for Carp was established in the former Township of West
Carleton Official Plan in 1979. When
municipal sewer services were provided to the village, the Ministry of
Environment who funded 75% of the project, established the sewer capacity at
700 dwelling units. The existing
capacity does not provide for development of all of the lands within the
village boundary. When the services
were provided to Carp, the lands that were not allocated sewer capacity were
designated as Temporary Open Space in the Official Plan until such time as
sewer capacity was made available.
There
are currently 130 ha of land designated for residential purposes within the
Village boundary. Most of this land has
been developed. There are 52 ha of
vacant land within the village that is currently designated Temporary Open
Space until additional servicing capacity becomes available.
In
the workshops that were held during the development of this community design
plan, participants felt that the village should be permitted to grow in the
future and fully develop within the village boundary. They indicated that they envisioned Carp as being a complete
community that provides a range of housing opportunities for everyone in the
village. The need for affordable
housing for families, seniors and young people was identified as a priority in
the village. Growth is also seen as
important to encourage/support the development and enhancement of the village
core.
In
2003 the population of Carp was estimated to be 1,350. It is anticipated that with full development
of all of the land within the village boundary the population of Carp has the
potential to grow in the range of 3,000 to 4,200 people. The Community Design Plan provides detailed
policies to more closely align this growth and change to the community’s
expectations. The CDP has 9 components:
1. The Vision for Carp
Contains
the vision and the objectives for the plan that were developed in the community
workshops.
2. Managing Growth
Provides
for the upgrading of servicing capacity to provide for the full development of
the lands within the village boundary.
Contains
policies for environmental protection with specific measures for improvements
along the Carp River.
3. Land Use
Provides
a detailed land use plan and policies for how Carp will develop in the future.
Addresses
the need for a mix of housing opportunities and identifies areas to be reserved
for different residential dwelling types.
4. Protecting and Enhancing the Village
Core
Contains
policies to promote the development/redevelopment in the village core.
Provides
design guidelines for new development and recommends specific actions/programs
to improve the village core.
5. Road Network and Right-of-Way
Protection
Allows
for the reduction of the ROW protection to protect the heritage character of
the Village Core.
6. Attracting Visitors to Carp
Designates
the lands adjacent to the Carp Fairgrounds to provide the opportunity for
expansion.
Recommends
that a local champion (organization) be identified to investigate the
feasibility of creating a Heritage Park (agricultural museum).
Provides
a plan for how the CFS Carp/Diefenbunker site will be developed in the future.
7. Recreation and Open Space
Contains
a strategy to provide for more recreation facilities to meet the needs of the
community as it grows.
Identifies
a pedestrian pathway system to provide pedestrian access to different parts of
the village.
8. Implementation
Requires
that the performance of the CDP be monitored to assess if the actions proposed
have been carried out and whether they have had the desired effect.
9. Summary of Priorities and
Responsibilities
Provides
a summary of the actions, responsibilities and timing required to implement the
Plan.
Official Plan Amendments
1. New
Official Plan
Section
2.5.7, Policy 8 of the Official Plan states that community design plans will be
approved by Council as policy documents to guide future development. Policy 9 states that Secondary Plans
existing prior to the formation of the new City of Ottawa are included in
Volume 2 and that over time community design plans will replace many of these
secondary plans. The secondary plan for
the village of Carp is found in Volume 2C.
The Official Plan will be amended to delete the reference to Carp in the
village plan for "Carp, Constance Bay, Dunrobin, Fitzroy Harbour, Galetta,
Kinburn" in Volume 2C as the secondary plan will be superseded by the
community design plan. The Community
Design Plan for the Village of Carp will be approved by City Council, as a
policy document, to guide the long-term growth and development of Carp, based
on the vision of the village that the residents of Carp hold. It will provide guidelines for the
day-to-day decision-making on land use planning, such as subdivision, zoning and
site plan applications, and it sets out the community’s priorities for the
future.
2. West
Carleton Official Plan
As
the Ottawa Official Plan is under appeal, the Official Plan of the former
Township of West Carleton is still in effect.
The Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp provides new policies
to guide future growth in the village and it replaces the old policies in the
Official Plan. The West Carleton
Official Plan will be amended to delete Section 6(8)(g) and Schedule
"B" as they relate to the village of Carp.
How
the Plan was Developed
The
development of the Community Design Plan for Carp used a collaborative
community building process that emphasized shared values and mutual
obligation. The objective was to make
decisions that clearly respond to real issues and achieve community support
through a bottom-up rather than top-down approach. This philosophy had three components:
·
collaboration – everyone works together to realize a common
vision,
·
community – comprising residents, community groups,
landowners, tenants, businesses, developers and institutions,
·
building – strengthening and improving.
Two
workshops were held in the community at which participants worked in focus
groups to develop a vision for Carp and to choose strategies to achieve the
vision. At the first workshop
participants were asked to provide a vision for how they wanted the village of
Carp to develop in the future. At the second
workshop participants were asked to fill out a workbook and answer questions to
identify strategies to achieve their vision for Carp.
A
draft of the Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp was made available
on the City of Ottawa web site and at the Carp Fairgrounds. A flyer was sent to all landowners in the
village advertising the Plan and community meeting to discuss the Community
Design Plan.
Issues
Raised During the Consultation
Twenty-seven
people provided comments on the draft Plan.
Most of the comments received (20) raised concerns about the amount of
population growth and the density being proposed for the village. They do not feel that high and medium
density residential, which provides for apartments and row houses, is
appropriate in a rural village. They
indicated that they do not want Carp to become another Stittsville. They want Carp to remain as a rural
village. The main issues are summarized
below.
Comment - The amount of growth proposed is not
appropriate.
Response -
The draft Plan provided for a population of 3,500 to 5,100. The population provided for in the Plan has
been reduced to 3,000 to 4,200. This
was achieved by changing the amount of development that would be permitted on
two large undeveloped sites in the village.
The 7 ha site at the entrance to the village on Donald B. Munroe Drive
has been revised to allow only detached dwellings and duplex units and not
apartments and multiple unit development and the 11 ha site south of the CFS
Carp site now provides for more detached dwelling units. These changes substantially reduce the
amount of development provided for in the Plan. However, Plan continues
to provide the opportunity for a range of housing types to address the original
objectives.
The revised
population provided for in the Plan is 3,000 to 4,200. Since 1996 Carp has grown an average of 4.4%
per year. The Plan provides for the
full development of Carp over a 20 year time horizon and a 4.4% rate of growth
would project a population of 3,000 by 2024, consistent with what is provided
for in the Plan.
Comment - High and Medium Density is not appropriate
in the village.
Response -
The name of the Residential designations have been changed to provide a better
description of the types of development that is proposed for the designation.
The purpose of the residential designations is to provide a range of dwelling
units to meet the future housing needs in the village rather than focusing on
density. Lot sizes in the village will
be consistent with those already established in the current zoning by-law.
Residential - High Density has been changed to
Residential - Multi-Unit. This
designation provides for apartments and ground oriented multiple unit
development.
Residential - Medium Density has been changed to
Residential - Ground Oriented Multi-Unit.
This designation provides for ground oriented multiple units, detached
and duplex dwellings.
Residential Low Density has been changed to
Residential - One and Two Unit Dwellings. This designation provides for
detached and duplex dwellings.
Comment - Carp should not grow beyond 700 dwelling
units, the current servicing capacity.
Response-
When municipal sewer services were provided to the village, the Ministry of
Environment funded 75% of the project, established the sewer capacity at 700
dwelling units. The existing capacity
does not provide for development of all of the lands within the village
boundary. The lands that were not allocated sewer capacity were designated as
Temporary Open Space in the West Carleton Official Plan until such time as
sewer capacity was made available. At
the workshops 95% of participants felt that the village of Carp should develop
and grow in the future. Most residents
felt that development should take place within the village boundaries on lands
currently designed Temporary Open Space in the current Plan for Carp. The Community Design Plan provides guidance
for how all of the lands within the village boundary will be developed in the
future.
Comment - The infrastructure - recreation facilities,
schools, and infrastructure in the village cannot handle this amount of growth.
Response - The infrastructure for Carp can
accommodate or can be improved to accommodate the growth provided for in the
Plan. The Plan provides for sufficient
recreation facilities - a new neighbourhood park is proposed at the southern
end of the village. The school board
has indicated that there is sufficient space at Huntley Centennial School site
to accommodate the growth anticipated by the Plan. Water and sewer services for Carp will be upgraded to service the
additional growth.
Comment - Do not want Carp to become another
Stittsville.
Response -
The amount of development that is contemplated is not comparable to
Stittsville. The current population of
Stittsville is 15,000. The Plan for
Carp provides for a range of 3,000 to 4,200 people which is comparable to other
villages in the City. The villages of
Constance Bay (2,610), Osgoode (2770), Greely (4,150), Richmond (4,160), and
Manotick (5160) are comparable as they are currently at or above the population
provided for the CDP for Carp. In
addition the densities for the village
of Carp are not (and will not be) as great those in the urban area of
Stittsville. The current zoning by-law
(from the former Township of West Carleton) sets out the requirements for
apartments, multi-unit and detached dwelling units that are appropriate for a
rural village. No significant change is
proposed. A policy has been added to
the Community Design Plan (Section 3.3.1) to ensure that development in Carp
will be on the basis of lot sizes appropriate for a village.
Comment - No to town houses and apartments. Keep Carp as a rural village.
Response -
In the workshops that were held during the development of this community design
plan, participants indicated that they envisioned Carp as being a complete
community that provides a range of housing opportunities for everyone in the
village. At the workshop apartments and
row houses were seen as being appropriate by most participants.
The need for affordable housing for families,
seniors and young people was identified as a priority in the village. The Plan provides a range of housing types:
apartment, townhouses and detached dwelling units to provide for the future
housing needs of the community. With
the exception of the seniors home there are limited opportunities for
accommodation for seniors. There are few opportunities for young people. Apartment units exist in Carp but there
currently only 20 units built.
Providing opportunities for seniors’ accommodation to meet the needs of
the aging population was identified as a priority during the consultation
process. The three sites designated
that permit apartments are attractive locations for seniors’ accommodation:
they are near the medical centre, village core or adjacent to the existing
seniors' home. A policy has been added
to the Plan stating that the City will promote these sites (Residential-
Multiple Unit ) to the development community as opportunities for seniors'
housing. The designation provides the
opportunity for this type of development.
Comment - Maintain large lot sizes in the village.
Response -
The larger lots in the village were created on the basis of private services,
prior to 1992, before sewer and water services in the village were
available. As the village is serviced,
new detached units will be on lot sizes provided for in the former West
Carleton zoning by-law for serviced development.
Comment - The Plan designated open space but does not
identify a pedestrian network/pathway system for the village. Much of the Open Space is not suited to
pathways.
Response: A schedule has been added (Schedule C) to
delineate the pedestrian network which consists of pathways and sidewalks.
Comment - The Local Architectural Advisory Committee
recommended that Section 4.8 - policy 2 be revised to delete the phrase
"If it is found that these older buildings are not being retained or if
new forms of development are found generally to be incompatible... then a
process will be launched".
Response: Policy 2 has been revised to state "The
merits of applying more restrictive provisions using a Heritage District
designation and establishing complementary zoning controls or other mechanisms
in the Village Core may be considered in the future."
Comment - Add the Coop on Rivington Street to the
Village Core.
Response - The site was designated Residential
in the draft Plan. This site has
potential for redevelopment and has been added to the Village Core
Comment - The conceptual road link shown on Figure 2
is not appropriate for the main intersection - it is already a difficult
intersection - it will add congestion.
Response -
The conceptual road link to the Carp Road- Donald B. Munroe Drive intersection
has been deleted.
Comment - the
traffic circle shown on Figure 2 at the intersection of Carp Road- Donald B.
Munroe Drive is not appropriate- there is not enough space at the intersection
and it will endanger the safety of pedestrians.
Response - The traffic circle has been deleted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations
from the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study and the Village of Carp
Environmental Management Plan to improve the Carp River will be implemented
through the Community Design Plan. An Environmental Management Plan will be
prepared for Carp Village to present revised stormwater management options to
conform with the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study.
The
Community Design Plan provides for the eventual full servicing and development
of all of the lands located within the current village boundary. It is anticipated that with full development
of all of the land within the village boundary the population of Carp has the
potential to grow in the range of 3,000 to 4,200 people (the current population
is 1,350). The Community Design Plan
provides detailed policies to align this growth and change to the community’s
expectations.
A
collaborative community process was used to develop the Community Design
Plan. Two workshops were held with
focus groups in the community to develop the vision and the strategies to
achieve that vision.
A
flyer was sent to all landowners in the Village:
a) advising that a draft of the Community
Design Plan was available for review, and
b) extending an invitation to attend a community meeting to discuss the Plan. The community meeting was held at the Carp Fairgrounds hall on April 14, 2004 with 60 people in attendance. Everyone who attended the community meeting or provided comments on CDP has been advised of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting.
Twenty-seven
submissions providing comments on the draft Community Design Plan were
received. The issues raised are
discussed above. Everyone that provided
comments on the CDP has been advised of the Planning and Environment Committee
meeting.
Councillor El-Chantiry is aware of the Community Design Plan Process.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
New
development in Carp will be financed through development charges. Based on preliminary estimates which have
been compiled to consider the infrastructure related costs of growth
anticipated in the Community Design Plan, it appears that the growth in Carp is
affordable, similar to the current estimates for growth outside the Greenbelt.
Some projects
required to support growth may provide a benefit to existing residents. Such benefits would be charged to the
water/sewer reserve fund.
Financial recovery
by-laws will be amended to account for the additional growth in Carp. These must be in place by the end of 2005.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document
1 - Ottawa Official Plan Amendment XX
Document 2 - Official
Plan Amendment xx to the West Carleton Official Plan
Document 3 - Community
Design Plan for the Village of Carp (Distributed separately and on file with
the City Clerk)
DISPOSITION
1. The Planning and Development Department
will issue the Notice of Decision within the 20 day appeal period for Ottawa
Official Plan Amendment XX and Amendment xx to the West Carleton Official Plan.
2. The
Planning and Development Department will revise Annex 5 to the Official Plan to
indicate that the Village of Carp is subject to a Community Design Plan
(replacing the reference to a Village Plan).
OFFICIAL
PLAN OF THE
CITY
OF OTTAWA
Purpose
The purpose of Amendment XX is to delete the reference to Carp in the village plan for "Carp, Constance Bay, Dunrobin, Fitzroy Harbour, Galetta, Kinburn" in Volume 2C as the secondary plan for Carp will be superseded by the community design plan.
The Official Plan for Carp
that was adopted by the former Township of West Carleton in 1992 did not plan
for the eventual full servicing and development of all of the lands located
within the current village boundary.
Ottawa City Council has recognized the need for a plan to provide
direction for how Carp will develop in the future and has made the completion
of a Community Design Plan a priority.
The Community Design Plan
for the Village of Carp replaces the Official Plan for Carp that was adopted by
the former Township of West Carleton in 1992.
The 1992 Official Plan was based on a servicing capacity of 700 dwelling
units and as a result it did not plan for the eventual full servicing and
development of all of the lands located within the current village
boundary. The Community Design Plan
provides for full servicing and development of all of the lands within the
village boundary. It is a comprehensive
land use plan that provides direction for how Carp will develop over the next
20 years.
Section 2.5.7 policy 10
states:
"The
Village of Carp and the Carp Road Corridor will be the subject of individual
Community Design exercises, both of which are to be completed by the end of
2003. The results of these exercises
will be used to determined the boundaries of the Rural Employment Area and the
policies associated with it and the detailed land use designations for each of
the areas that will be incorporated by separate amendments into the Official
Plan."
As the Community Design
Plans for the Village of Carp and the Carp Road Corridor have been completed,
this policy is no longer necessary and can be deleted from the Plan.
Ottawa Official Plan Volume
2C “Village Plans for Carp, Constance Bay, Dunrobin, Fitzroy Harbour, Galetta,
Kinburn” is amended by:
1. Deleting the
reference to Carp in the title so that it reads Constance Bay, Dunrobin,
Fitzroy Harbour, Galetta. Kinburn.
2. Section 6(8)(a)
is amended by deleting the words Carp
Schedule “B”
3. Sections 6(8)(b),
(c), (d) (e), (f) are amended by deleting the phrase “Village Schedules on
Schedules “B” to “G” and replacing it with “Village Schedules on Schedules “C”
to “G”’
4. Schedule “B” (the
land use plan) for Carp is deleted
5. Section 6(8)(g)
“The Village of Carp – Schedule B” is deleted
Section 2.5.7
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF WEST
CARLETON
Purpose
The purpose of Amendment XX
is to delete Section 6(8) (g) and Schedule “B” of the Official Plan of the
former Township of West Carleton as the policies for the Village of Carp will
be superseded by the Community Design Plan.
The Official Plan for Carp
that was adopted by the former Township of West Carleton in 1992 did not plan
for the eventual full servicing and development of all of the lands located
within the current village boundary.
Ottawa City Council has recognized the need for a plan to provide
direction for how Carp will develop in the future and has made the completion
of a Community Design Plan a priority.
The Community Design Plan
for the Village of Carp replaces the Official Plan for Carp that was adopted by
the former Township of West Carleton in 1992.
The 1992 Official Plan was based on a servicing capacity of 700 dwelling
units and as a result it did not plan for the eventual full servicing and
development of all of the lands located within the current village
boundary. The Community Design Plan
provides for full servicing and development of all of the lands within the
village boundary. It is a comprehensive
land use plan that provides direction for how Carp will develop over the next
20 years.
The Official Plan of the
former Township of West Carleton is amended as follows:
1. Section 6(8)(a)
is amended by deleting the words Carp
Schedule “B”
2. The first
sentence of Sections 6(8)(b), (c), (d) (e), (f) are amended by deleting the
phrase “on Schedules “B” to “G” of this Plan” and replacing it with “Village
Schedules on Schedules “C” to “G” of this Plan”
3. Schedule “B” (the
land use plan) for Carp is deleted
4. Section 6(8)(g)
“The Village of Carp – Schedule B” is deleted
VILLAGE OF CARP - COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN
VILLAGE DE CARP - PLAN DE
CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE
ACS2004-DEV-POL-0031 west carleton (5)
Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Official Plan Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.
Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning,
Environment and Infrastructure Policy, and Miles Mahon, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to
departmental report dated 10 June 2004.
Mr. Mahon provided a comprehensive PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor Eli El-Chantiry thanked staff for the work accomplished on the
Village Plan and submitted an amendment to modify the Design Plan, which would
assist the Committee. Councillor Hunter
agreed to move the Motion on his behalf.
Whereas the Planning and Environment Commiteee recommend that Council
approve th Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp, subject to the
following amendment: That Schedule A be
amended to change designation of the properties located on Rivington Street
from “Village Core” to “Residential-Ground Oriented Multi Unit. The Motion was presented at the outset to
allow delgations to comment thereon.
Mr. Mahon explained there was no problem from a staff perspective. The original plan proposed one and two unit
residential, which was revised to village core after the community meeting, to
capture the idea of encouraging redevelopment of the co-op. The community opined a residential
designation is more appropriate. If the
feed store is redeveloped, it would be for residential purposes, consistent
with that contemplated in the plan.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Allan Joyner, Carp Ridge Society, provided
a detailed written submission, which was circulated and is held on file with
the City Clerk. Mr. Joyner opined the
process was stopped short of its goal.
Another communications initiative should be undertaken that would
explain the potential changes to village residents and provide a last
opportunity for input. Village
residents would not concur with the proposed density that would see a doubling
of the population over 20 years. The
Motion brought forward this morning is appropriate. It did not make sense to include the co-op store in the core
designation area.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering on behalf of Len Payne, recognized the work accomplished by staff, which represented discussion
that has taken place on this Community Design Plan (CDP). The CDP document accurately represents these
discussions. In particular, he came
away from the work shops and various meetings with a clear understanding there
was a strong support to encourage development and redevelopment of the core of
this Village to reach its potential.
There are two aspects to that.
One is to accommodate additional growth and the plan before Committee
does that. There are numerous barriers
to growth in the Village in the existing West Carleton OP documents, which were
incorporated into the City’s new OP.
The amendments before Committee will eliminate those barriers and he
strongly supported that on behalf of a number of his clients who own property
in the Village. The second aspect,
highlighted in the presentation, are the policies that would facilitate
development and redevelopment in the core area and he does represent property
owners in the core area as well. He
sought clarification with respect to the heritage properties in the Village
core, found at p. 15 of the CDP. He
wanted to be clear this policy combined with Fig. 1 does not necessarily lead
to the conclusion that every property shown on Fig. will necessarily be
protected and asked for clarification that the intent is to provide a process
for looking at opportunities to protect those buildings and, with
that clarification, he would strongly recommend the Committee support the
recommendations.
Following the
presentation, Mr. Mahon clarified that Policy 1 states that built and natural
features located in the village core that have historical significance to the
community will be protected. Future
development should reflect or enhance the existing character of the core. In terms of implementation of this policy,
it will be primarily through zoning and at that point there will need to be a
determination of what is significant.
Mr. Chown is correct that Figure 1 is a compilation of buildings of
heritage interest, but there has been no determination on the methodology.
Hugh Urbach provided a
written submission, in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file
with the City Clerk. Mr. Urbach
addressed the west end of Rivington Street change and agreed with the proposed
Motion. Ideally that end of the street
should remain single family, but residents realize there are two buildings that
are presently core (funeral home and Carp Co-op). Recognizing that, they agreed with the ground-level designation
Linda McCormick provided a
written submission, in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file
with the City Clerk. She did agree with
the Motion and Mr. Joyner’s suggestion that there be further consultation due
to changes made. There was opposition
to the increased density.
In response to
Councillor El-Chantiry on the pumping system, Mr. Mahon explained there were
430 houses on the system that was built to accommodate 760 households.
Gerald Augusta provided a
written submission, in support, which was circulated and is held on file with
the City Clerk. He did, however, share
Ms. McCormick’s views that there should be a broader scale planning exercise.
Bill Honeywell,
Honeywell Investments, provided a written submission that was generally
in support, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. There was one concern. Mr. Honeywell asked that access be provided
from Langstaff to the lands to the rear, across the ravine.
Stan Carruthers,
Team Member, Vision Committee, and Heritage Park of West Carleton, addressed the
Committee in support of the Plan. The
Heritage Park of West-Carleton is an Ad Hoc Committee of historical societies,
past Presidents of the Carp Fair, community centres, fire department and
churches. The Village of Carp has many
older buildings and unfortunately when there were fires nothing was rebuilt,
which gives the area the appearance of a disaster zone. The Plan envisaged that anything rebuilt
would enhance the Village similar to main street Manotick and Metcalfe. However, with the Village, it was felt at
the Planning and Visionary Committee, the number one topic was to contain the
heritage look. The heritage idea arose
in 1992 when the City and Township of West-Carleton decided to join and one of
the agreements discussed with the previous Council and Mayor was a location for
the records from when the village was planned in the 1800’s. That is how the Heritage Park came to
be. Also, the fairgrounds over these
years provided considerable land for recreation, which squeezed their
lands. He referred to the areas in Metcalfe,
Navan, Richmond, all of which are squeezed by development with no ability for
growth. He appreciated Mr. Honeywell’s
concern for that one parcel; there is an unopened street beside Mamma’s and
Papa’s Pizza that does have access from the Carp Road and the Donald B. Munro
interchange. They are trying to retain
this land for future development.
The Committee
also received correspondence (with a detailed submission in opposition) from
Simon P. Thompson dated 15 June 2004, which was circulated and is held on file
with the City Clerk.
Moved by Councillor G.
Hunter:
Whereas the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp, subject to the following amendment:
That Schedule A be amended to change the designation of the properties located on Rivington Street from “Village Core” to “Residential – Ground Oriented Multi Unit”.
CARRIED
Responding to
concerns raised with respect to the planning exercises in this area being
treated separately, Mr. Jacobs advised that is not the case. The exercises relate to very specific areas,
but the planning itself has been done in coordination and the plans coming
forward for the Airport, Carp Corridor, as well as Village of Carp, have been
conducted in consultation with each.
Staff is clearly looking at the area as whole, but with separate
plans. With respect to the cost of
growth, this would be covered by Development Charges (DC’s) and is included in
the proposed Development Charge By-Law.
This is in support of the OP policy of concentrating development in
developing areas such as villages. Any
revisions made today would come forward with respect to the OPA when it rises
to Council without a need for further public meetings.
Councillor Hunter
referred to the point by Mr. Honeywell on the need for a road to parallel the
creek to Lanstaff to connect those two multi-unit residential areas. Mr. Mahon responded that Schedule B depicts
the road network and the collector/main roads.
New roads constructed through the development process will not require
an amendment to the plan. Responding
further on the question of access to Lanstaff referred to by Messrs. Honeywell
and Carruthers, Mr. Mahon explained that John street is not an open road and
incorrectly shown on Schedule B. The
best means to access the property Mr. Honeywell referred to is from Langstaff
and perhaps staff could meet with Mr. Honeywell and interested parties to
revise the map before it rises to Council.
The Committee approveed the recommendations as amended.
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council:
1. Approve the
Community Design Plan for the Village of Carp, subject to the following
amendment:
That Schedule A be amended to change the designation of the properties located on Rivington Street from “Village Core” to “Residential – Ground Oriented Multi Unit”.
2. Adopt Ottawa Official Plan Amendment xx to repeal the Village Plan for Carp that is in Volume 2C of the Official Plan.
3. Adopt Amendment xx to the Official Plan of the former Township of West Carleton to delete Section 6(8)(g) and Schedule "B" as they relate to the Village of Carp
CARRIED
as amended