1. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT -
COMPREHENSIVE CITY-WIDE AMENDMENT IN RESPONSE TO RETAIL-RELATED APPEALS TO
THE 2003 OFFICIAL PLAN MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL – MODIFICATION DE PORTÉE GÉNÉRALE FAISANT
SUITE AUX APPELS CONCERNANT LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL INTERJETÉS CONTRE LE PLAN
OFFICIEL DE 2003
|
Committee RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That
Council:
1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan (2003) to make changes throughout the text and to Schedule 'B', Urban Policy Plan, as detailed in Document 2, as amended by the following:
a)
Amend Schedule "B" by designating Main
Street from the Canal to the McIlraith Bridge in old Ottawa East as a
Traditional Mainstreet from General Urban.
b)
Add to Figure 2.5.6 Structure of Community
Design Plans, under B. Existing Conditions (Page 19):
11. Watershed or sub-watershed plans,
hydrological resources, and ground water conditions.
c)
Add to 3.6.1 General Urban Area – Policy 5,
insert (b):
"Large scale “big box” retail store (i.e.,
over 8000 sq.m.) and shopping centres under 50,000 sq. m. and over 10,000 sq.
m. will be directed to locations along the rapid transit system or an arterial
road with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated
and where frequent, all-day transit service can be provided”.
And
re-number previous (b) to (c).
d)
3.6.5 Employment Area and Enterprise Area (Page
32)
Policy 2
(c) add “child care” to the list of illustrative examples
e)
Section 4.11 compatibility – Policy 2 (Pages
39, 40 and 41).
2(a) Traffic - delete “Generally”
2(b) Vehicular Access - delete “wherever the
opportunity exists”
2(c) Parking Requirements - delete “where
appropriate”
2(g) Loading Areas - delete “wherever
possible”
2(h) Lighting - delete “or mitigated”
2(j) Sunlight - delete “to the extent
practicable”
f)
That the following sections from 2.5.1 Schedule
1 be removed from Schedule 1: Sections 1, 2, 6, 7 (Pages 41 and 43).
And that
the following sections from 2.5.3 Schedule 3 be removed from Schedule 3:
Sections 25 and 26.
2. Direct staff to finalize
Annex 3, 'Community Design Framework' (in particular the portion 'Some Design
Considerations') in conjunction with the retail appellants and other interested
parties and bring it back to Council for approval during the summer of 2005.
RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIées
DU Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve
et adopte une modification au Plan officiel de la Ville d’Ottawa (2003) afin
d’apporter dans l’ensemble du texte, ainsi qu’à l’Appendice B, intitulé Plan
des politiques en milieu urbain, les changements décrits dans le document 2, sous
réserve des modifications suivants :
a)
modifie l’Appendice B en
désignant « rue principale traditionnelle », plutôt que « rue
principale en milieu urbain », la section de rue qui va du Canal au pont
McIlraith dans le vieil Ottawa-Est;
b)
ajoute au Tableau 2.5.6 Structure des plans de
conception communautaire, sous B. Conditions existantes (page 19) le
point :
11. Plans des bassins et sous-bassins
hydrographiques, ressources hydrologiques et conditions de la nappe phréatique
c)
ajoute à la section 3.6.1 Aire urbaine générale,
Politique 5, le point (b) suivant :
« Les magasins à grande surface
(plus 8 000 m3) et les centres commerciaux de moins de 50
000 m3 et de plus de 10 000 m3 seront dirigés
vers des emplacements le long du réseau de transport en commun rapide ou vers
une artère ayant une capacité suffisante pour accommoder le volume anticipé de
circulation qui sera produit par ces commerces et sur laquelle on peut assurer
un service de transport en commun fréquent durant la journée entière. »
et
renumérote les anciens points (b) et (c);
d)
ajoute, sous
la Section 3.6.5 Zone d’emploi et zone
d’entreprises (page 32), Politique 2 (c), le mot « garderie » à la
liste des exemples illustratifs.
e)
supprime, dans la section 4.11 Compatibilité,
Politique 2 (pages 39, 40 et 41) :
sous (a), Circulation, le mot
« généralement »;
sous (b), Accès des véhicules,
la locution « là où c’est possible »;
sous (c), Exigences en matière de
stationnement, les mots « au besoin »;
sous (g), Zones de chargement,
l’expression « si possible »;
sous (h), Éclairage, les mots
« ou atténué »;
sous (j),
Lumière du soleil, les mots « dans la mesure où c’est pratique ».
f)
Que les sections 1, 2, 6, 7 (pages 41 et 43) de
2.5.1 Appendice 1 soient enlevées de l’Appendice 1.
Que les
sections 25 et 26 de 2.5.3 Appendice 3 soient enlevées de l’Appendice 3.
2. donne instruction au personnel,
travaillant de concert avec les commerçants ayant interjeté appel et les autres
parties concernées, de finaliser l’Annexe 3 « Cadre de conception
communautaire » (notamment la partie portant sur les
facteurs relatifs à la conception) et de la soumettre à l’approbation du
Conseil au cours de l’été 2005;
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 5 May 2005 (ACS2005-PGM-POL-0006).
2. Extract of Draft
Minutes, 24 and 31 May 2005.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
27 April 2005 / le 27 avril 2005
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 Planning / Approbation des demandes
d'aménagement
(613) 580-2424 26653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan (2003) to make changes throughout the text and to Schedule 'B', Urban Policy Plan, as detailed in Document 2.
2. Direct
staff to finalize Annex 3, 'Community Design Framework' (in particular the
portion 'Some Design Considerations') in conjunction with the retail appellants
and other interested parties and bring it back to Council for approval during
the summer of 2005.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement recommande au Conseil :
1. d'approuver et d'adopter une modification au Plan officiel de la Ville d'Ottawa (2003) visant à effectuer, dans l'ensemble du texte ainsi qu'à l'annexe B, intitulée Plan des politiques en milieu urbain, les changements précisés au document 2.
2. de donner instruction au personnel de finaliser l'appendice 3, portant sur le Cadre de conception communautaire (notamment la partie portant sur les facteurs relatifs à la conception), de concert avec les commerçants ayant interjeté appel et les autres parties concernées, et de le soumettre à l'approbation du Conseil au cours de l'été 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions
and Analysis:
In May of 2003, City Council adopted a new Official
Plan to replace the official plans of the 12 former municipalities that had
continued in force following the amalgamation.
The Plan was subsequently forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing for approval. The final
Notice of Decision was issued in November of 2003, triggering the 20-day period
wherein appeals could be filed against any portion of the Minister’s decision
either approving or modifying the Plan.
At the end of the appeal period, 85 appeals had been filed with the
Ministry and were forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Among the appeals were a group of 26 that had
been filed by members of the retail and commercial land development industry
and by various residential community associations. This group had many issues in common and consequently a process
was established in concert with these appellants to meet in a facilitated
format to explore solutions. Over 30
hours of facilitated discussions occurred between representatives of the
industry, community associations and the City over the period April to October,
2004. This Amendment contains proposed
changes to the Official Plan that are the result of these discussions. It is noted that it was not possible to
reach agreement on all matters of contention.
All parties did not accept all of the proposed revisions and some of the
changes requested by some of the participants have not been included in the
Amendment.
The proposed changes to the 2003 Official Plan
occur both to the text and to several of the land use designations on Schedule
'B', the Urban Policy Plan. The
affected sections of the Plan are in Volume 1 and include: Compatibility of
Development, A Design Strategy for Ottawa, Collaborative Community Building and
Community Design Plans, General Urban Area, Mixed-Use Centres, Mainstreets,
Employment Area and Enterprise Area, Major Urban Facilities, Provision for
Retail, Villages, and General Rural Area.
The amendment also proposes a new Annex and a change to the Glossary,
neither of which are actually part of the Official Plan.
A summary of the key changes introduced by the
proposed Amendment follows:
·
Section 2.5.1 ‘Compatibility of
Development’ and Section 2.5.6 ‘A Design Strategy for Ottawa’ have been
rewritten and combined into a single new Section 2.5.1 entitled Compatibility
and Community Design. City-wide design
principles and objectives are introduced to assist Council in the assessment of
development applications as well as public works carried out by the City. The overall changes contribute to an
understanding of the role of the City in the design of the built environment
and the City’s expectation that development proponents indicate how their
proposals meet the design principles and objectives;
·
A revised Section 2.5.7 (formerly S.2.5.6) ‘Collaborative Community
Building and Community Design Plans’ revises and clarifies when a community design
plan must be adopted as part of the Official Plan and the circumstances where
it can be approved by Council as a stand-alone document outside of the Official
Plan. A new table has been added that
replaces the former description of the content of community design plans;
·
In the General Urban Area designation (Section 3.6.1), revisions have
been made that permit stand-alone retail buildings of over 8,000 sq. metres
gross leaseable (subject to all other policies of the Plan) whereas the
existing policy requires that they be part of a shopping centre if located in
this designation;
·
In the Mixed-Use Centre designation (Section 3.6.2) many of the
design-oriented policies and those related to community design plans have been
removed in light of changes incorporated above in Sections 2.5.1 and
2.5.6. A greater recognition of
differences among Mixed-Use Centres as they mature over time has been
introduced;
·
In the Mainstreets designation (Section 3.6.3) separate policies making
a distinction between Traditional Mainstreets (the older parts of the city) and
Arterial Mainstreets (newer, more suburban areas) have been added. Policies to enhance pedestrian-orientation
and to clarify how intensification and infill along
Mainstreets will be achieved and evaluated have been added. Recognition that it will take time to
achieve the transition to a more compact, pedestrian-oriented form has been
added. Prohibitions on the addition of
new gas stations and drive-through facilities on Traditional Mainstreets have
been added, but where these uses are currently permitted by existing zoning
by-laws, they are recognized as permitted uses. Parking between a building and the street is not permitted on
Traditional Mainstreets, except in exceptional circumstances. Support for a range of building heights
along both types of Mainstreets is identified.
Many of the design-oriented policies and those
related to community design plans have been removed in light of changes
incorporated above in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.6;
·
In the Employment and Enterprise Area
designations (Section 3.6.5) retail uses continue to be limited, but the
amendment provides more description – e.g. service commercial, sample and
showroom uses. The designation does not
permit ‘big box’ retail – an exception in this regard is provided for in the
case of the lands west of Terry Fox, south of Highway 417, north of Palladium
Drive and east of the Carp River.
Clarification has been added regarding the key purpose of the Employment
and Enterprise Areas as places of business and economic activity. In the case of the Enterprise Area
designation, the policy has been revised to stress that the introduction of
residential uses is to be done in such a way that a functional integration of
residential and employment uses is achieved.
A new policy has been added to this section requiring the City to carry
out an employment lands strategy prior to conducting the 5-year review of the
Official Plan - to evaluate long-term matters such as land supply, the
marketplace, and job location trends;
·
In the section entitled ‘Major Urban Facilities’ (Section 3.6.7) a
number of policies associated with major shopping centres have been moved here
from the section entitled ‘Provision for Retail’ (Section 3.6.8). The amendment deletes Section 3.6.8;
·
The section
entitled ‘Provision for Retail’ (Section 3.6.8) has been deleted, save and
except for those general retail polices relating to major shopping centres and
retail uses within Villages and on land designated General Rural, which are
moved to other sections of the Official Plan;
·
In the section
entitled ‘Villages’ (Section 3.7.1) policies dealing with retail in Villages
that had been contained in the section ‘Provision for Retail’ have been
relocated here. Some minor editorial
changes have also been made;
·
In the section
entitled ‘General Rural Area’ (Section 3.7.2) policies dealing with retail in
the General Rural Area that had been contained in the section ‘Provision for
Retail’ have been relocated here;
·
A new section,
entitled ‘Compatibility’ (Section 4.11) has been added that
includes a discussion of the City’s intent and purpose in requiring
compatibility policies, what the term means and the type of criteria that may
be used to assess the compatibility of development proposals within the context
of existing built form. This
complements the revisions incorporated in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.6 described above;
·
Schedule ‘B’, Urban Policy Plan, has been amended to incorporate changes
to the land-use designation of several parcels of land in order to accommodate
existing or planned retail uses (thereby avoiding the creation of substantial
non-conformity issues), recognize existing commitments
given by Council, rationalize the designation of areas that are in the process
of redeveloping to a land use pattern that is desirable and/or in keeping with
adjacent areas, and to implement
other changes consistent with the discussions between the City and the
appellants;
·
In addition to addressing issues requiring substantive revision or
addition to policy, the amendment also responds to concerns that the intent of
some parts of the Plan could be more clearly stated. Broad portions have been rewritten to improve clarity and
conciseness. In order to accommodate
the changes, in many cases the amendment deletes and replaces entire sections
of the Plan, rather than itemize the numerous non-substantive changes to
individual words, phrases and structure of the text. The following sections are impacted by this approach: Compatibility of Development; A Design
Strategy for Ottawa; Collaborative Community Building and Community Design
Plans; General Urban Area; Mixed-Use Centres; Mainstreets; Employment Area and
Enterprise Area; Major Urban Facilities; Provision for Retail.
One area where disagreement remains outstanding
with some of the parties is that of retail uses within the Employment and
Enterprise Area designation. Many of
the retail industry's appeals requested that any retail use (including
'big-box') be allowed in these land use designations, either as-of-right, or by
zoning amendment, subject to certain means tests. The Department is recommending that retail permitted in these
designations only be service commercial (which includes convenience-level
retail) and sample and showroom uses in association with a permitted use.
Financial Implications:
Public
Consultation/Input:
The process followed for addressing the appeals to
the 2003 Official Plan has dealt first and foremost with those parties who had
submitted appeals. Accordingly, it has
not involved the general public. In the
particular case of the 26 appeals that were primarily focused on
retail/commercial issues, however, it was considered that the changes proposed
to the Plan are likely to be of interest to a wider constituency. Hence, it was decided to produce an
amendment to the Official Plan, rather than request the Ontario Municipal Board
to modify the Plan. This entailed a
public distribution and general notification of the draft amendment.
Approximately 200 copies were circulated to
registered community organizations within the Urban Area, those parties within
the Urban Area who had submitted an appeal to the 2003 Official Plan, selected
parties who had been actively involved and had commented in the past during
consideration of the 2003 Official Plan but who were not directly represented
in the current process, parties that staff became aware of during the process
who expressed an interest, and selected Advisory Committees. The amendment was
made available in both official languages as part of the public consultation
process. An advertisement was also
posted in the Citizen and Le Droit summarizing the intent of the proposed
amendment and advising of its availability.
All members of Council were also sent a copy of the proposed
amendment.
At the time of writing of this submission, 24
written replies had been received to the circulation. These are summarized, with a staff response in Document 4.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
En mai 2003, le Conseil municipal a adopté un nouveau
Plan officiel qui visait à remplacer ceux des 12 anciennes municipalités, qui
étaient demeurés en vigueur après la fusion. Le Plan a ensuite été soumis à
l'approbation du ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement. L'avis de
décision final a été publié en novembre 2003. Les parties concernées ont alors
eu 20 jours pour interjeter appel d'un élément quelconque de la décision du
Ministre (approuvant ou modifiant le Plan). Au cours de ce délai, 85 appels ont
été interjetés auprès du Ministère. Ils ont alors été soumis à la Commission
des affaires municipales de l'Ontario.
Parmi les appels, il s'en trouvait 26 qui
avaient été déposés par des membres du secteur immobilier commercial et par
diverses associations communautaires de résidents. Ce groupe ayant de multiples
revendications communes, on a établi, de concert avec ces appelants, une
démarche qui prévoyait la tenue de rencontres dirigées par un animateur dans le
but de trouver des solutions. Les représentants du secteur immobilier, des
associations communautaires et de la Ville ont ainsi eu plus de 30 heures de
discussions au cours des mois d'avril à octobre 2004. La présente modification
renferme les changements proposés au Plan officiel par suite de ces discussions.
Il convient toutefois de souligner qu'il n'a pas été possible de parvenir à une
entente sur la totalité des points en litige. Les parties n'ont pas toutes
accepté intégralement les révisions proposées et certains des changements
demandés par un certain nombre de participants ne sont pas inclus dans la
modification.
Les changements proposés au Plan officiel de
2003 portent à la fois sur le texte et sur plusieurs des affectations du sol
prévues à l'annexe B, intitulée Plan des politiques en milieu urbain. Les
sections visées du Plan se trouvent dans le volume 1. Ce sont les
suivantes : Aménagement compatible, Une stratégie de conception pour
Ottawa, Développement coopératif de la communauté et plans de conception
communautaire, Aire urbaine générale, Centres polyvalents, Rues principales,
Zone d'emploi et zone d'entreprise, Grandes installations urbaines, Commerce de
détail, Villages et Aire rurale générale. La modification propose
également une nouvelle annexe et un changement au glossaire, ces deux documents
ne faisant pas partie du Plan officiel proprement dit.
Voici un sommaire des principaux changements de la modification
proposée :
·
Les
paragraphes 2.5.1 « Aménagement compatible » et 2.5.6 « Une
stratégie de conception pour Ottawa » sont reformulés en un nouveau
paragraphe 2.5.1 intitulé Compatibilité et conception communautaire. Les
principes et objectifs de la conception à l’échelon municipal sont présentés
pour aider le Conseil à évaluer les
demandes d’aménagement et les travaux publics de la Ville. Les changements dans
l’ensemble aident à faire comprendre l’intervention de la Ville dans la
conception du milieu aménagé et ses attentes, à savoir que les promoteurs
d’aménagements devraient préciser comment leurs propositions correspondent aux
principes et objectifs de la conception.
·
Au paragraphe modifié 2.5.7 (auparavant p.2.5.6)
« Développement coopératif de la collectivité et plans de conception
communautaire », la Ville a révisé et précisé quand un plan de conception
communautaire doit être adopté comme volet du Plan directeur et les
circonstances justifiant que le Conseil approuve un document distinct hors du
Plan directeur. Un nouveau tableau ajouté remplace la description précédente de
la matière des plans de conception communautaire.
·
La désignation Zone urbaine générale
(paragraphe 3.6.1) a été révisée pour permettre l’aménagement d’édifices
distincts de commerce de détail d’une superficie brute locative de plus de
8 000 mètres carrés (compte tenu de toutes les autres politiques du
Plan). La politique actuelle exige que ces superficies soient intégrées à un
centre commercial si elles sont aménagées dans cette désignation.
·
À la désignation Centre polyvalent
(paragraphe 3.6.2), nombre de politiques axées sur la conception et celles
qui s’appliquent aux plans de conception communautaire sont éliminées, compte
tenu des changements intégrés ci‑dessus aux paragraphes 2.5.1 et
2.5.6. Les différences entre les centres polyvalents en évolution sont
précisées.
·
À la désignation Rues principales (paragraphe 3.6.3),
des politiques particulières ajoutées font une distinction entre les rues
principales habituelles (anciens quartiers de la ville) et les principales
artères (zones plus récentes, en banlieue surtout). Des politiques sont aussi
ajoutées, afin d’accentuer l’orientation piétonnière et de préciser comment l’intensification
et l’aménagement intercalaire sur les rues principales seront accomplis et
évalués. Ajout : il est convenu qu’il faudra du temps pour conclure la
transition vers une formule plus compacte, axée sur les piétons. Autre
ajout : il est interdit d’aménager de nouveaux postes d’essence et
installations de service à l’auto sur les rues principales habituelles, mais
ils sont acceptés aux endroits où ils sont permis selon les règlements de
zonage actuels. Le stationnement entre un édifice et la rue est interdit sur
les rues principales habituelles, sauf dans des circonstances exceptionnelles.
Diverses hauteurs d’édifice sur les rues principales et les artères sont
soutenues et précisées. Des politiques axées sur la conception et d’autres
politiques appliquées aux plans de conception communautaire ont été retirées,
compte tenu des changements apportés aux paragraphes 2.5.1 et 2.5.6 ci‑dessus.
·
Aux désignations Zones d’emploi et d’entreprises (paragraphe 3.6.5),
les services de détail continuent d’être limités, mais la modification
approfondit de la description – p. ex., service commercial,
échantillon et salle d’exposition. La désignation interdit les grandes
superficies de commerce de détail – une exception est prévue en ce sens
pour les terrains à l’ouest de Terry Fox, au sud de l’autoroute 417, au
nord de la promenade Palladium et à l’est de la rivière Carp. Une précision est
ajoutée sur le principal objet des Zones d’emploi et d’entreprises comme lieux
d’activités économiques et d’affaires. À la désignation Zone d’entreprises, la
politique a été révisée pour préciser que l’ajout d’utilisations résidentielles
doit permettre d’obtenir une intégration fonctionnelle des utilisations
résidentielles et d’emploi. Une nouvelle politique ajoutée à cette section
exige que la Ville applique une stratégie aux terrains réservés à l’emploi
avant de procéder à l’examen quinquennal du Plan directeur, afin d’évaluer les
questions à long terme, par exemple, la réserve de terrains, le marché et les
tendances géographiques de l’emploi.
·
À la désignation « Grandes installations
urbaines » (paragraphe 3.6.7), des politiques appliquées aux
principaux centres commerciaux sont supprimées de la section « Commerce de
détail » (paragraphe 3.6.8) et ajoutées ici. La modification supprime
le paragraphe 3.6.8.
·
La
désignation « Commerce de détail » (paragraphe 3.6.8) est
supprimée, sauf les politiques appliquées aux services de détail en général qui
ciblent les principaux centres commerciaux, les utilisations réservées aux
services de détail de la désignation Villages et les terrains désignés Zone
rurale générale. Ces politiques sont intégrées dans d’autres sections du Plan
directeur.
·
Les
politiques appliquées aux services de détail de la section Villages et qui
étaient formulées à la section « Commerce de détail » sont intégrées
dans la section « Villages » (paragraphe 3.7.1). La formulation
est aussi légèrement modifiée.
·
Les
politiques appliquées aux services de détail de la désignation Zone rurale
générale formulées à la section « Commerce de détail » sont passées à
la section « Zone rurale générale » (paragraphe 3.7.2).
·
Une
nouvelle section intitulée « Compatibilité » (paragraphe 4.11)
est ajoutée et explique l’intention et l’objectif de la Ville qui exige
l’application de politiques de compatibilité, la signification du terme et le
genre de critères applicables pour évaluer la compatibilité des propositions
d’aménagement dans le contexte d’un milieu déjà aménagé. Voilà qui complète les
révisions intégrées dans les paragraphes 2.5.1 et 2.5.6 décrits ci‑dessus.
·
L’Annexe « B », Plan des politiques en
milieu urbain, est modifiée pour intégrer les changements apportés à la
désignation de l’utilisation des terrains de plusieurs parcelles de terrain,
afin de tenir compte des services de détail actuels ou prévus (pour éviter de
gros problèmes de non-conformité). La modification tient compte des engagements
actuels du Conseil, rationalise la désignation de zones
en réaménagement pour obtenir une caractéristique d’utilisation des terrains
souhaitable ou pour tenir compte des zones adjacentes et pour apporter d’autres
changements, compte tenu des discussions
entre la Ville et les appelants.
·
La modification tient non seulement compte des enjeux
exigeants une révision de la politique ou un ajout important, elle répond aussi
aux préoccupations exprimées, à savoir que l’intention de certains volets du
Plan pourraient être exprimée plus clairement. De grandes sections ont été
reformulées pour améliorer la précision et la concision. Compte tenu des
changements, la modification supprime et remplace des sections complètes du
Plan dans de nombreux cas, au lieu d’énumérer par point les nombreux
changements secondaires de termes, de phrases et de structure du texte. Cette
approche a des répercussions sur les sections suivantes : Aménagement
compatible, Une stratégie de conception pour Ottawa, Développement coopératif
de la collectivité et plans de conception communautaire, Zone urbaine générale,
Centre polyvalent, Rues principales, Zones d’emploi et d’entreprises, Grandes
installations urbaines, Commerce de détail.
Il subsiste un désaccord entre quelques intervenants sur la question des commerces de détail dans la zone d'emploi et la zone d'entreprise. Un grand nombre des appels interjetés par le secteur du commerce de détail visaient à obtenir que tous les commerces de détail (y compris les grandes surfaces) puissent être autorisés dans ces zones soit de plein droit, soit par voie de changement de zonage, moyennant certaines vérifications des ressources. Le Service recommande que les seuls commerces permis dans cette zone soient les établissements de services (ce qui comprend les dépanneurs) et les salles de montre et de présentation d'échantillons associées à une utilisation permise.
Répercussions
financières :
Consultation publique / commentaires :
La démarche qui a été retenue pour résoudre les
appels interjetés relativement au Plan officiel de 2003 a consisté d'abord et
avant tout à traiter avec les appelants. La population n'y a donc pas été
associée. Toutefois, dans le cas particulier des 26 appels qui portaient
principalement sur les utilisations commerciales, on a jugé que les changements
proposés au Plan officiel allaient probablement intéresser un plus large
public. Par conséquent, il a été décidé de produire une modification au Plan
officiel plutôt que de demander à la Commission des affaires municipales de
l'Ontario de modifier le document. Le projet de modification a ainsi été
diffusé dans la population, qui a pu en prendre connaissance.
Quelque 200 exemplaires du projet de
modification ont été distribués aux organismes communautaires inscrits du
secteur urbain, aux intervenants du secteur urbain qui avaient interjeté appel
du Plan officiel de 2003, à certains intervenants qui avaient activement
participé à l'étude du Plan officiel de 2003 et qui l'avaient commenté, mais
qui n'étaient pas directement représentés dans le processus actuel, aux intervenants
dont le personnel a appris l'existence au cours du processus et qui ont
manifesté de l'intérêt pour le projet de modification, ainsi qu'à certains
comités consultatifs. La modification a été présentée dans les
deux langues officielles, dans le cadre de la consultation publique. On a également fait paraître dans les
quotidiens Ottawa Citizen et Le Droit une annonce qui résumait
l'esprit de la modification projetée et qui précisait la façon de l'obtenir. Une copie de
la modification projetée a également été envoyée à chacun des membres du
Conseil.
Au moment de la rédaction du présent document, 24 réponses écrites avaient été reçues à la suite de la diffusion du projet de modification. On en trouvera le résumé, accompagné des commentaires du personnel, au document 4.
This amendment to the 2003 City of Ottawa
Official Plan has been initiated by the Planning and Growth Management
Department following extensive consultation with the representatives of 26
organizations that had appealed a wide range of policies in the Plan to the
Ontario Municipal Board (the Board).
This group of appellants is comprised of members of the retail and
commercial land development industry as well as various residential community
associations and share many issues in common.
A process was established in concert with these appellants to meet in a
facilitated format to explore solutions.
As a result, changes to several parts of the Plan are now proposed in
order to address many of the issues raised in the appeals.
Because the scope of the appeals was so extensive and affected so much
of the Plan, the changes that are now being proposed are quite
comprehensive. Document 1 provides a
list of the parts of the Plan affected by the appeals submitted by this
group. Since the changes being proposed
are likely to be of interest to the wider community, it was considered that the
preparation of a comprehensive amendment to the Plan would be preferable to
requesting the Board to make numerous modifications. The amendment process will allow for a wider public consideration
of the proposed changes. Furthermore,
it was realized that among the remaining 59 appellants to the Official Plan who
were not part of the facilitated discussions, there would be those who also
would have an interest in the parts of the Plan affected by the proposed
changes and would want the opportunity to comment in a public forum. The proposed amendment to the 2003 Official
Plan is identified as Document 2.
DISCUSSION
The appeals raised a large number of detailed
concerns with the 2003 Official Plan. A
summary of the main issue areas and the key changes to the Plan that have been
proposed in response may be found in PART A of the proposed amendment,
identified as Document 2. Generally,
the nature of changes proposed may be categorized as follows:
1. Editorial changes that shift and
consolidate policies for the purpose of improving clarity and providing greater
ease of reference. There are a large
number of changes that fall within this category. For the most part, they have not been identified individually, as
in many instances it is proposed that entire sections be deleted and replaced,
due to the number of changes involved.
These changes are either proposed by staff in response to issues raised
during the facilitated sessions, or are suggestions offered by the participants
themselves.
2. Substantive policy changes. These are proposed in direct response to the appeals through the facilitated sessions with the appellants.
Retail in Employment and Enterprise Areas
One area where disagreement remains outstanding
with some of the appellants is that of retail uses within the Employment and
Enterprise Area designation. The 2003
Official Plan only permits what amounts to convenience-level retail. Many of the retail industry's appeals
requested that any retail use (including 'big-box') be allowed in these land
use designations, either as-of-right, or by zoning amendment, subject to
certain means tests. The Department is
recommending that retail permitted in these designations be service commercial
(which includes convenience-level retail) sample and showroom uses in
association with a permitted use. The
rationale for this position includes the need to reserve some lands exclusively
for employment use so that they remain affordable for employment purposes in
the long term and can develop over time without conflict from competing land
uses. Retail, particularly large-format
retail, shares a common need with industrial and employment uses for large
parcels of land (storage, parking, building floorplate), good visibility and
good access. These considerations
aside, the amendment proposes increased opportunity for retail through the
redesignation of lands on Schedule B, the Urban Policy Plan, and increased
flexibility within the policies associated with other land use
designations. Together, these have
determined the Department's response to this particular issue.
Design Framework
The draft amendment makes reference to Annex 3,
entitled 'Design Framework', which was included in PART 'C' of the amendment
when originally circulated to the public in December of 2003. Annexes to the Official Plan are not part of
the Official Plan. The Design Framework
includes the Design Objectives and Design Principles set out in S.2.5.1 of the
proposed amendment, but its main purpose is to provide a series of associated
'Design Considerations'. During
discussions with the appellants, it became apparent that there was a desire to
reach a greater understanding and agreement on how the Design Objectives and
Design Principles might be realized.
Accordingly, a list entitled 'Some Design Considerations' was developed
by staff and included in a table entitled 'Design Framework'. This was inserted in PART 'C' of the
amendment for the purpose of information and soliciting comment. However, because it had not been possible
during the facilitated sessions to provide the same level of discussion and
scrutiny to the Design Considerations as was devoted to the actual policies of
the amendment, it was agreed that the collaborative process would continue
solely for the purpose of finalizing the Design Considerations portion of Annex
3. These discussions were scheduled to
begin at the time of writing of this submission. Consequently, Annex 3 has not been included in Document 2 (the
amendment) to this submission.
Recommendation 2 directs staff to return to Committee and Council with
Annex 3 for approval once the meetings have concluded and the text has been
completed.
Changes Incorporated in Document 2 (draft
Amendment)
Following circulation of the draft amendment in December of 2004, and the subsequent notification of the availability of the document in French during March of 2005, staff incorporated a number of changes. Many of these were strictly editorial, such as correcting typographical errors or correcting grammar. However, staff also made a number of changes directly in response to comments received during the circulation period in December/January and again following the notice given in March. Where this latter type of change occurred, it has been referenced within Document 4, the summary of written comments and staff response. These changes, as well as the more substantial editorial-type changes have been highlighted within Document 2 itself (the draft amendment) by italicizing and underlining or by strike-out of the affected text wherever it occurs. Those changes that were made following the translation of the document into French have been shown with the addition of an asterisk (*) in order to distinguish them from those made in response to the circulation of the draft in December.
The changes proposed in Section 3.7.1 (Villages) and 3.7.2 (General Rural Area) do not represent substantive policy revisions, but are either editorial in nature or consist of relocating existing policy.
CONSULTATION
The basis for addressing the appeals to the 2003 Official Plan, has been that it is preferable to attempt to reach a satisfactory solution to the issues without resorting to expensive and time-consuming Ontario Municipal Board hearings.
Over 30 hours of formal facilitated discussions occurred between City staff and those representatives of the retail industry and community associations who had appealed the Plan over the period April to October, 2004. Once the policy drafting stage was reached, there were numerous additional opportunities provided for feedback between staff and the appellants. A complete summary of the facilitated discussion process may be found in PART C of the proposed amendment, identified as Document 2.
It is noted that it was not possible to reach agreement on all matters of contention. All parties did not accept all of the proposed revisions and some of the changes requested by some of the participants have not been included in the proposed amendment. It is not known at this time how many of the appeals will be withdrawn in whole or in part in the event the changes contained in the proposed amendment are approved. Nevertheless, the general consensus has been that the process was a valuable one that has resulted in recommended solutions that will, if approved, be acceptable to many of the parties. A second benefit is that the scope of the issues appears to have been significantly narrowed.
Once the proposed amendment had been drafted,
approximately 200 copies were circulated to the following groups:
1. All
retail appellants (the group that had engaged in the facilitated discussions).
2. All
parties who had appealed policies that apply to the Urban Area.
3. Registered
community organizations within the Urban Area.
4. Any
parties that staff became aware of
during the process who expressed an interest.
5. Selected parties who had been actively involved and had commented in the past during consideration of the 2003 Official Plan, who may not be directly represented in the current process.
6. Selected
Advisory Committees.
In addition, an advertisement was placed in the
Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit, announcing the availability of the proposed
amendment and providing a brief summary of its intent.
At the time of writing of this submission, 24 written replies had been received to the circulation. These are summarized, with a staff response in Document 4.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Policies
Appealed by the Group Included in the Facilitated Discussion Process
Document 2 Proposed Official Plan Amendment (Distributed and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 3 Consultation
Details
Document 4 Summary of written comments on draft Official Plan Amendment and staff response
DISPOSITION
Department of Planning and Growth Management to
prepare the implementing by-law and forward it to Legal Services Branch, and
undertake the statutory notification of the amendment to the City of Ottawa
Official Plan (2003).
Department of Corporate Services, Legal
Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
Department of Corporate Services, Legal
Services Branch to forward any appeals that may be submitted to the amendment
to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration in conjunction with the outstanding
appeals to the 2003 Official Plan at such time as the Board may determine.
|
Section |
Title |
Policy |
|
2.5 |
Building Livable Communities |
Preamble |
|
2.5.1 |
Compatibility of Development |
1, 2, 3, 4 & Preamble |
|
2.5.6 |
A Design Strategy for Ottawa |
1,2 & Preamble |
|
2.5.7 |
Collaborative Community
Building and Community Design Plans |
ALL plus Preamble |
|
3.6.1 |
General Urban Area |
2, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
3.6.2 |
Mixed-Use Centres |
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
3.6.3 |
Mainstreets |
1 through 9 inclusive plus
Preamble |
|
3.6.5 |
Employment and Enterprise
Areas |
ALL, plus Preamble |
|
3.6.8 |
Provision for Retail |
ALL, plus Preamble |
|
3.7.1 |
Villages |
ALL, plus Preamble |
|
Schedule 'B' |
Urban Policy Plan |
Variety of site specific |
|
|
|
|
CONSULTATION DETAILS Document
3
The process followed for addressing the appeals to
the 2003 Official Plan dealt first and foremost with those parties who had
submitted appeals and did not involve the general public. Once an amendment had been drafted, a wide
distribution and general notification was initiated on December 10, 2004. Following the translation of the draft
amendment into French, notification as to its availability was sent to these parties
on March 4, 2005.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
At the time of writing of this submission, 24 written replies had been received to the circulation. These are summarized, with a staff response in Document 4.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
All members of Council were circulated a copy of the proposed amendment.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
At the time of writing of this submission, written comments were received from the Innes Re-zoning and Development Group; the Copeland Park Community Alliance; and an individual associated with the Manor Park Community Association.
Their input has been summarized in Document 4.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The proposed Amendment was circulated to four advisory committees: the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee; the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee; the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee; and the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee. The Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee subsequently requested and received a copy of the draft amendment. All Advisory Committees received a copy of the notification of the availability of the translated amendment in March of 2005.
|
RESPONSE TO DRAFT OPA (RETAIL APPEALS) |
||
|
Policy / Raised By |
Issue |
Response |
|
2.2.3 (S.2.2.a of OPA) Federation of
Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton Associations and Hintonburg
Community Association |
The phrase shown struck within the following sentence in the paragraph describing Mixed-Use Centres could be interpreted to mean that additional development and a greater mix of uses is to be encouraged not only within the Mixed-Use Centre, but in the surrounding area outside of this designation as well. A change as noted is requested: “Additional development and a greater mix of uses |
Concur. The intent of the sentence is to apply to the Mixed-Use Centre
designation. The proposed changes were arrived
at through mediation with the community associations and were not part of the
discussions with the retail appellants.
They are included in the draft amendment for the sake of convenience
and because they are not considered to contradict the changes proposed in the
remainder of the document. |
|
2.5 (S.2.2.b of OPA) Federation of
Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton Associations, and Hintonburg
Community Association |
The final two sentences of the third paragraph of the preamble should be revised to as follows: “A focus on community design draws attention to how buildings and the spaces around them look and function in their setting. |
Concur. These changes do not impact the intent or
effect of the affected section. The proposed changes were arrived at through mediation with the
community associations and were not part of the discussions with the retail
appellants. They are included in the
draft amendment for the sake of convenience and because they are not
considered to contradict the changes proposed in the remainder of the
document. |
|
2.5.1 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Retail
appellants (design framework sub-group) |
The use of the word ‘Community’ as part of the ‘Community Design Framework’ could be confused with ‘Community Design Plan’. It would be preferable to simply refer to it as ‘Design Framework’. |
The
change has been made throughout the document wherever the phrase occurs. |
|
2.5.1 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Canadian Tire
(Delcan). |
Remove
references to Annex 3 in the OPA, as it has not been subject to collaborative
review by stakeholders. |
References are
made throughout Section 2.5.1 to Annex 3:
Design Framework. This Annex
will be developed in a collaborative process with the appellants and other
stakeholders and will be subject to Council approval. It will not form part of the Official
Plan. The draft Annex was circulated
with this Amendment for information and comment. It is anticipated that it will be in final form in the summer
of 2005. The references in S.2.5.1 to Annex 3 should be retained, as its
purpose is to provide a greater understanding of how the Design Objectives
and Principles in S.2.5.1 could be realized.
The references made to Annex 3 have been modified to be future tense,
to reflect that the preparation of the Annex is still underway. |
|
2.5.1 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Early in the
site development process, the needs of the community as a whole should be
considered rather than only the interests of the developers. |
This is a valid
comment and is addressed throughout the planning process, and is reflected in
the Preamble to S.4 of the adopted Official Plan (‘Review of Development
Applications’). It is not specific to
the matter of compatibility and design. |
|
2.5.1 second
paragraph of preamble (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
How does this relate to ‘Where Will We Live’ (WWWL) - it seems that throughout this amendment you deal with compatibility but the WWWL report does not seem to care - both must be consistent or this document may not survive without an appeal. |
Good
design is the link between compatibility and increased density as modeled in
WWWL. The report to Planning and
Environment Committee on WWWL at http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2004/10-26/ACS2004-DEV-POL-0050.htm
indicates that an emphasis on good design is needed to make increased density
more attractive and enjoyable. A
quote from the report, for example: “For our mainstreets to be desirable places to live, where people
will commit to mortgages and retailers will be drawn to open businesses, it
will be paramount to have well-designed buildings. Quality of urban design is
a cornerstone of a successful intensification strategy”. |
|
2.5.1 second
paragraph of preamble under ‘Compatibility’ (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Retail
appellants (design framework sub-group) |
Provide
recognition that compatibility will sometimes need to address a new vision
for an area that has been identified through a community design plan or other
Council-approved planning exercise. |
Concur – see new
sentence added at the end of the second paragraph of the section entitled
‘Compatibility’. |
|
2.5.1 second
paragraph under ‘Design Objectives and Principles’ (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Retail
appellants (design framework sub-group) |
Clarification of
the manner in which the Design Framework is to be interpreted should be
provided. |
Concur – see
revised phrasing and new sentence added within the second paragraph under the
‘Design Objectives and Principles’ section. |
|
2.5.1 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Emphasis on the
needs of persons with disabilities appears to be lacking – references are too
general. Requires separate and
distinct policy to guide interior & exterior construction principles. |
Concur. See proposed revision to the first
principle under Objective 3 (‘To create places that are safe, accessible and
are easy to get to, and move through’).
The additional text in Objective 3 will address the issue raised, as
it is consistent with ‘barrier-free design’ implemented through the Ontario
Building Code. |
|
2.5.1 Principle
4 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Manor Park
Community Association (Keyes; Thiessen) |
Reorganization
of S.2.5.1 is a distinct improvement.
However, should add from old Ottawa OP some additional design
principles: 12.6.2.1a) high intensity development sites – be
compatible in architectural form with abutting neighbourhoods; forms a
cohesive & unified cluster of buildings which are architecturally
compatible with each other. Also 12.6.2..2
complementary building heights - achieve a transition between high and low
profile buildings through the application of such urban design measures as
incremental changes in height, substantial space separation or a planting
buffer, or through the use of an existing topographical break or waterway;
establish guidelines for the preservation of openness to the sky which will
take into account the existing building profiles in established areas of
Ottawa. |
These
suggestions would benefit from the discussion that is being set up to deal
with Annex 3. They represent possible
means by which design of new development can respect for the character of
existing areas. The level of detail
contained in the former Ottawa Official Plan is greater than what has been
established in the adopted Plan and recommended in the amendment. The Design Considerations in Annex 3 were
not subject to the same scrutiny and discussion by the appellants as the
actual proposed policy revisions have been.
Staff has committed to meet with the appellants, or a representative
sub-group of them and other stakeholders, to further explore the details of
the proposed annex. |
|
2.5.1 Principle
6 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Promotion of preservation
of existing topography emphasizes importance of preserving a hardwood maple
stand on a natural ridge in the centre of the Orleans Industrial Park. |
Noted. The preservation of as much vegetation as
possible through the development review process is supported by S.4.7.2 (1.a)
of the adopted Official Plan. |
|
2.5.1 Ottawa By
Design (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Retail
appellants (design framework sub-group) |
Clarification sought as to the purpose of the urban design strategy,
particularly in relation to the preparation of urban design guidelines. |
This section has been renamed from ‘Urban Design Strategy’ to ‘Ottawa
By Design’ in recognition of initiatives that have already taken place under
this title subsequent to the adoption of the Official Plan. The proposed amendment adds two sentences
at the beginning of this section and a paragraph at the end to provide an
introduction to the strategy and an explanation of how urban design
guidelines that arise from Ottawa By Design will be used. |
|
2.5.1 Ottawa By
Design, penultimate bullet (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
Who has to provide art and who is paying? |
No
one has to provide art and the costs could be funded from many
sources. Policy 3 has the City
providing a leadership role by providing art in municipal facilities; this
art could be funded through many sources, including donations and
donations-in-kind. |
|
2.5.1 Policy 1 (S.2.2.1 of OPA) Retail
appellants (design framework sub-group) |
The underlined phrase in the sentence “The Design Considerations in
Annex 3 provide illustrations of how the Design Objectives and
Principles might be realized” could be misleading, since Annex 3 does not
attempt to provide physical illustrations. |
The
amendment proposes that the underlined phrase be revised to read “offer some
ways in which” and this is acceptable to the group. |
|
2.5.1 Policy 3
(S.2.2.1 of OPA) Community and
Protective Services Department |
There is a possibility that the phrase “municipal facilities” could be interpreted narrowly to mean only “buildings”, whereas the intent is to include all types of municipal structures, and lands. |
Noted. The
policy has been revised to clarify this. |
|
2.5.6 (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
First step in
preparing a Community Design Plan must include the identification of roots
& founding history. More emphasis
is needed on identification of historical sites that preserve the origins of
the community. |
Policy 1 of the
revised S.2.5.6 (S.2.2.3 of the amendment) requires that the Community Design
Plan is to translate the principles, objectives and policies of the Official
Plan to specific areas and streets.
This would include the provisions of S.2.5.5 ‘Cultural Heritage
Resources’ and S.4.6 ‘Heritage Buildings and Areas’. |
|
2.5.6 (S.2.2.3 of OPA) OCCSB
(MacMillan). |
School boards
must continue to play a significant role in future Community Design Plan
exercises (have found process necessary and positive approach to
institutional land use planning). |
Noted. |
|
2.5.6 (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Equity Realty (FoTenn) |
Confirm that the
‘City Centre Site Specific Policies and Planning Recommendations and Design
Guidelines’ developed under the old Ottawa Official Plan maintain their
status and relevance and that a Community Design Plan will not be required
for the redevelopment of the City Centre lands. |
Policy 5 of the
revised S.2.5.6 states that Community Design Plans will draw on earlier
studies for the community as appropriate.
In this case, the work completed by the applicant and the former City
of Ottawa would apply. The City
Centre site is designated Mixed-Use Centre, with a Traditional Mainstreet
designation along the Somerset St. West frontage. Neither designation requires the completion of a Community
Design Plan prior to development proceeding. |
|
2.5.6 (S.2.2.3 of OPA) First Pro (Mary
Bull) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
Amend so as to
make it consistent with Preamble to OPA by replacing the words “should not”
in the 4th introductory paragraph with the words “need not” in
order to give the City the necessary flexibility to adopt Community Design
Plans as amendments to Official Plan in these circumstances. |
Concur with the
need to ensure consistency – see revision to the fourth paragraph of the
preamble to S.2.5.6 (S.2.2.3 of the amendment). The revision is also more consistent with the wording of
policy 6 of this section. |
|
2.5.6 (4) (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
Check
the use of the word " will " in the sentence: “Once City Council
approves a Community Design Plan…the approved plan will guide future
development of the area.” (in Policy 4) |
The concern implies there may be a conflict with the recent OMB Order involving revisions to S.5.4 of the Official Plan that indicates CDP’s (and other non-statutory documents referred to in the Official Plan) “may” be used to guide Council decisions. Policy 4 of S.2.5.6 states the intent of Council – that Council-approved CDP’s “will” be used to guide development for specific areas of the city. S.5.4 is a recognition that documents such as design guidelines, planning studies and CDP’s that are not part of the Official Plan are not legally binding and thus, in a legal sense, “may” be used to guide Council decisions. No change is recommended. |
|
2.5.6 (5) (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
You must apply weights here, as a land-owner must have more
consideration than an interested party.
There is no way " other groups " should initiate a Community
Design Plan without proprietary interest |
CDPs have been and will be prepared in a variety of contexts—existing communities, new communities, villages—and the policy has to allow for a range of participants in a variety of contexts. This is the heart of the collaborative community building process embraced by Ottawa 20/20. In any given circumstance, landowners will have a significant interest and their participation in the process will ensure a great level of consideration by decision-makers. CDPs have been initiated by a variety of groups, not all of them landowners. The Beechwood Avenue CDP, for example, was initiated by residents and strongly supported by their municipal councilor, in response to concerns about the loss of retail. The Conroy area study was initiated by the City in response to uncertainties about the future of this area and the need for direction. It is also understood that OCHBA has expressed interest in initiating a CDP in partnership with a local community. Once initiated, a CDP that proceeds without the input from landowners or other groups with a key interest in the plan would be seriously impaired. No change is recommended. |
|
2.5.6 (6) (S.2.2.3 of OPA) First Pro (Mary
Bull) |
Community Design
Plans should be required to be adopted as amendments to the OP. |
There was no
consensus among appellants on this (see the following issue, for
example). Policy 6 states that a CDP may
be adopted as a Secondary Plan via an amendment to the Official Plan, but
that an amendment will only be required in the case where a change in
Official Plan policy is contemplated (text or schedule). The policy states the situations where an
amendment is not required – 1) where it is done primarily to direct
zoning changes and the zoning amendment accompanies the CDP (avoids
duplication of process – i.e. the zoning can be appealed to the OMB should
parties disagree – there is no need to have policies from the CDP before the
Board at the same time). 2) where it is done on lands designated Developing
Community (this is consistent with the adopted Official Plan – lands under
this designation had development rights under former municipal official plans
and it was resolved that additional layers of approval would not be imposed
by requiring amendments to the new Plan, provided the type of development
proposed is consistent with the policies of the Plan). 3) where all parties (proponent, affected
community, and City) all agree that Council waive the requirement for a
Secondary Plan. |
|
2.5.6 (6) (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
The need for an OPA should be eliminated unless a clear schedule or
policy change occurs. Also in this policy you are to clarify that any of the
3 are exceptions not all combined. This was not the deal that was made to accept a Developing Communities
designation (e.g. the Riverside South mixed-use area does not need an OPA for
the area shown as ‘Mixed Use’ on the CDP as there are not enough jobs). Upon completion of a CDP does the Developing Communities designation
get lifted? |
Policy 6 states
that a CDP may be adopted as a Secondary Plan via an amendment to the
Official Plan, but that an amendment will only be required in the case where
a change in Official Plan policy is contemplated (text or schedule). It is agreed that some clarification is
necessary to ensure that the three situations not requiring an
amendment are mutually exclusive (see revisions to Policy 6). Policy 6 also
indicates that a CDP carried out for lands designated as Developing Community
on Schedule ‘B’ of the Official Plan does not require an amendment to the
Plan. The mixed-use area in Riverside
South is not designated as a Mixed-Use Centre in the Official Plan, but is
part of a Developing Community designation.
It does not require an amendment to the Plan. The
Developing Communities cross-hatch is treated as an over-lay and is removed
at the next consolidation of the Plan.
It is not removed by amendment. |
|
2.5.6 (8) (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Orleans
Industrial Park in its entirety should be subject to a Community Design Plan
(not just the Mixed-Use Centre).
Cross-reference ‘strategic development plan’ prepared by the community
and urban design guidelines that were adopted by Council in Nov.’04. |
The Mixed-Use
Centre portion of this area must have a Community Design Plan done prior to
development occurring (see policy 4 of S.3.6.2 in the amendment and policy 5
of the adopted Plan). The Employment
Area portion of the business park has already been subject to serviceability
studies and design guidelines. It may
be appropriate to carry out a Community Design Plan on the proposed Arterial
Mainstreet portion along Innes Road.
This could be added as part of the Department’s work program as a
priority should Committee so direct. |
|
2.5.6 (8) (S.2.2.3 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
What is the authority for a Secondary Plan for the Mer Bleue Mixed-Use Centre area - did not see it in the May 03 OP? |
The
authority for this plan is in the adopted Official Plan (May, 2003) in
Section 3.6.2 policy 5. |
|
3.6.1(1) (S.2.3.1 of OPA) Canadian Tire
(Delcan). North American
Acquisition Corp., First Capital
(Eagleson Cope Drive) Corp. Inc., Barrhaven Town Centre Inc.,
Barrhaven Developments Inc., & Orleans Gardens Development Inc. (Kathleen
Willis) Canadian Petroleum
Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Gas bars,
service stations, convenience stores and car washes permitted in General
Urban Area? |
Gas bars,
service stations, convenience stores and car washes are permitted in General
Urban Area under Policy 1 as either a service use or a retail use. |
|
3.6.1 (5) (S.2.3.1 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Confirm that
larger sites (including retail) are permitted in the General Urban Area,
provided impacts can be mitigated, on the perimeter of neighbourhoods,
generally at transit stations and on major roads. |
The statement is
correct. Policy 2 applies the design
and compatibility provisions of the Plan.
See proposed staff revision to Policy 5, which also clarifies the
nature of the uses anticipated. |
|
3.6.1 (6) (S.2.3.1 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Confirm that
smaller uses, including local convenience & service uses are encouraged
in appropriate locations within established neighbourhoods in the General
Urban Area. |
The statement is
correct. See proposed staff revision
to Policy 6 – the intent is to encourage the creation of more complete
communities by permitting uses that supply everyday convenience goods and
services, subject to the stated criteria and policies of the Plan. |
|
3.6.1 (6) (S.2.3.1 of OPA) North American
Acquisition Corp., First Capital
(Eagleson Cope Drive) Corp. Inc., Barrhaven Town Centre Inc.,
Barrhaven Developments Inc., & Orleans Gardens Development Inc. (Kathleen
Willis) |
Confirm that
small, locally-oriented convenience and service uses are permitted ‘within’
the General Urban Area – clarification sought as to what the term ‘within’
means. |
See proposed
staff revision to Policy 6, where the term ‘within’ is replaced by
‘throughout’. |
|
3.6.1 (6) (S.2.3.1 of OPA) Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association (A.Keith) |
The Village of
Rockcliffe Park heritage conservation district has a zoning policy that
precludes commercial enterprises.
Therefore, please add words that exclude this area from the provision
of convenience and service uses as envisaged by policy 6. |
This policy
encourages the provision of small, locally-oriented convenience and service
uses that complement adjacent residential land uses. It is a policy that addresses the notion
of ‘complete communities’ as expressed in the Ottawa 20/20 principles. However, the policy does not require that
the zoning by-law permit local convenience and service uses everywhere in the
General Urban Area. The preamble to
S.3.6.1 underscores this fact. There
are many areas throughout the city that are zoned exclusively for residential
uses and there is no issue of conformity with the Official Plan in such
cases. The Village of Rockcliffe Park
Secondary Plan, contained in Volume 2A of the Official Plan, excludes commercial
uses from the Village. S.4.1 of the
Official Plan (Volume 1) indicates that Secondary Plans must conform with the
policies and plans of Volume 1, but that they can be more restrictive than
the policies contained in Volume 1.
Hence, given that there is a Secondary Plan and zoning by-law in place
that prohibit commercial uses, and given that policy 6 of S.3.6.1 does not
require such uses in every part of the General Urban Area, there is no need
to provide exemption from the policy.
|
|
3.6.1 (7) (S.2.3.1 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Confirm that the
exclusion of uses requiring large land areas for outdoor storage, sale or
service of goods does not include retail uses w/associated surface
parking. |
The statement is
correct. The intent of the policy is
to avoid uses for which large land areas for permanent storage is an integral
part of the operation. |
|
3.6.2 (2) (S.2.3.2 of OPA) Canadian Tire
(Delcan). North American
Acquisition Corp., First Capital
(Eagleson Cope Drive) Corp. Inc., Barrhaven Town Centre Inc.,
Barrhaven Developments Inc., & Orleans Gardens Development Inc. (Kathleen
Willis – 1st point only). Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates – 1st
point only) |
Confirm that gas
bars, service stations, convenience stores, and car washes permitted in
Mixed-Use Centres (MUC).
Alternatively, request that two existing uses (500 Terry Fox Drive
& 2010 Ogilvie Rd.) be recognized as permitted and that maximum parking
rates will not be applied to the Ogilvie site (Blair Rd. transit stn.). There are
several existing gas bar type developments in areas designated MUC (e.g.
Kanata Town Centre) and vacant lands zoned for this use (e.g. Palladium Auto
Park). Will lands
presently zoned for these uses continue to have this zoning? |
See proposed
revisions to S.3.6.2 (2) in response. Generally, there will not be a blanket removal of zoning for
these uses, but as Community Design Plans are approved at Mixed-Use Centres,
this may change, and there may be restrictions on these types of uses on lands
close to transit stations. Site-specific
zoning may be enacted to recognize existing uses or lands currently zoned to
allow these uses. |
|
3.6.2 (3) (S.2.3.2 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (D.Kennedy) |
Please confirm this policy (requiring employment targets of at least
5,000 jobs) does not apply to Riverside South's mixed-use (MU) area. |
This
policy requires at least 5,000 jobs in areas designated Mixed-Use Centre on
Schedule ‘B’. The mixed-use area in
the proposed Riverside South CDP is part of Developing Community designation
in the Official Plan and so Policy 3 does not apply. |
|
3.6.2 (7.e) (S.2.3.2 of OPA) Staff-Initiated |
The current wording of S.3.6.2 Policy 4 b) i) of the adopted Plan and
Policy 7e) of the amendment states that zoning and Community Design Plans
will provide a maximum and minimum parking requirement for development within
400 metres of a rapid-transit station. The amendment further recognizes that the actual rate will vary
depending upon the geographical location of individual Mixed-Use
Centres. The 400-metre distance has
historically been used as the benchmark establishing the distance people will
walk to transit. This is not
considered to be an appropriate figure to use in association with the
establishment of parking rates that will be supportive of achieving transit-oriented
development, particularly within the Mixed-Use Centre designation, where the
focus is upon taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the presence
of the rapid-transit system. |
It
is recommended that the distance from a rapid-transit station within which
minimum and maximum parking rates could be established be changed from 400
metres to 600 metres. This is
consistent with other parts of the Official Plan that address infill and
intensification to promote increased transit usage within 600 metres of
transit stations – e.g. S.2.2.3, Policy 3.a) and S.4.3, Policies 3 and
4. The latter policy states that the
City may reduce parking requirements as one method of reducing reliance on
the automobile for uses located within 600 metres of a rapid-transit
station. Using
600, rather than 400 metres, in the case of Mixed-Use Centres is logical in
that these areas have been identified by the Plan as strategic to the
achievement of the City’s growth management strategy. The Plan encourages higher density
development in Mixed-Use Centres, particularly in the vicinity of
rapid-transit stations. Rapid-transit
stations (as opposed to a transit stops) are characterized by or are planned
to handle high volumes and frequency of transit traffic. The
City of Calgary uses 600 metres and studies in Seattle indicate that people
are willing to walk further when the destination is a transit station, as
opposed to a bus stop. |
|
3.6.2 (7) (S.2.3.2 of OPA) Federation of
Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton and Hintonburg Community
Association |
A transition is needed between Mixed-Use Centres, which are the focus of higher intensity development, and adjacent General Urban Areas. This transition should be provided within the lands designated Mixed-Use Centre, not within those designated General Urban. |
Concur. If a transition in height or density were
to be provided within an adjoining General Urban Area, it could introduce
development that is out of scale or character with the existing context. The Mixed-Use Centre is the focus of
intensification and it is appropriate that a transition be provided within
the designation itself. See
additional text ‘i’ proposed to be to be added by the amendment to policy 7. The proposed
changes were arrived at through mediation with the community associations and
were not part of the discussions with the retail appellants. They are included in the draft amendment
for the sake of convenience and because they are not considered to contradict
the changes proposed in the remainder of the document. |
|
3.6.3 (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
General support
for proposed approach that introduces “Traditional and Arterial Mainstreet”. |
Noted. |
|
3.6.3 (1) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Canadian Tire
(Delcan). |
Concern that the
policy indicating that zoning may define the portion of street frontage of an
Arterial Mainstreet to be occupied by buildings located at or set back
minimally from the sidewalk may unreasonably hinder development or
redevelopment. |
This policy went
through a number of iterations and the issue raised was the subject of
discussion among staff and the appellants.
It is felt that the way it has been drafted satisfies the majority of
parties and allows for maximum flexibility.
No change is recommended. |
|
3.6.3 (2) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) First Pro (Mary
Bull). |
Confirm that the
Arterial Mainstreet designation applies to the entire First Pro property at
s.w. quadrant of Mer Bleue and Innes Rd |
Policy 2 of
S.3.6.3 has been drafted to take into account the situation where extra deep
lots lie adjacent to Mainstreets. A
minor revision to this policy is proposed by staff to provide additional
clarity in response to a similar question being raised by certain land owners
within the Arterial Mainstreet designation proposed along the west side of
Eagleson Road. |
|
3.6.3 (6) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Tim Hortons McDonald’s
Restaurants (Michael Polowin). |
Traditional
Mainstreets do not permit drive-through uses. |
The policy
permits existing drive-through establishments if allowed under the zoning in
force at the time of adoption of the Official Plan. The zoning of many of the areas proposed in the amendment as
Traditional Mainstreets currently does not allow the use. The basis for prohibiting new
drive-through uses is set out in S.3.6.3 and within proposed policy 6 of this
section. |
|
3.6.3 (6) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Tim Hortons McDonald’s
Restaurants (Michael Polowin). |
Remove phrase “Council-approved
guidelines”, by which new gas bars, etc. be evaluated on Arterial
Mainstreets. |
This reference
is appropriate. Design guidelines are
one component of the Urban Design Strategy (‘Ottawa By Design’) identified in
the adopted Official Plan. They will
be developed in partnership with the industry and will be approved by
Council, a procedure that has been followed successfully by other
municipalities across the Province. |
|
3.6.3 (6) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Concur with the
policy, except for the use of the word “will” in 9th line before
the words “be evaluated” in context of application of Design Objectives,
Policies, Guidelines, etc. because it requires the entire battery of tests be
applied. The gas bar uses are the
only ones to which it applies.
Proposed that “may” be substituted for “will” to allow for reasonable
flexibility. |
The design
objectives and principles were developed jointly with the appellants to
provide for more flexibility and to establish an understanding of the City’s
role in design. S.2.5.6 in the
amendment clearly sets out how they will be applied. It is not appropriate to make the
suggested change as it would mean that consideration of the objectives and
principles themselves could become optional.
The sentence that includes the word ‘will’ has been used throughout
the amendment in several other policies. |
|
3.6.3 (7)
identified as 3.6.3 (6) in error) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Tim Hortons McDonald’s
Restaurants (Michael Polowin). |
Extend
flexibility in circumstances where parking permitted between building &
street on Traditional Mainstreets to include drive-through
establishments. |
Policy 7 makes
no distinction among land uses. The
flexibility set out in the policy applies to all uses permitted in the
designation. |
|
3.6.3 (8) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Tim Hortons McDonald’s
Restaurants (Michael Polowin). |
The phrase “must
meet all of the objectives of this Plan…and the Compatibility policies set
out in Section 4.11” was intended to be removed. |
Concur. See proposed revisions to the policy. The reference to Compatibility (S.2.5.1)
and S.4.11 is included in Policy 5.
The reference to “all the objectives of this Plan” is unnecessary,
since it applies in all instances, unless otherwise stipulated. |
|
3.6.3 (8) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Building heights
of up to 8 stories on Arterial Mainstreets may not be appropriate in all
neighbourhoods (e.g. North side of Innes Rd.) – where it runs adjacent to a
residential neighbourhood, a two-storey limit would be reasonable. |
The policy states
that building heights “up to” eight stories are supported. This does not
require the zoning by-law to zone to the maximum in all circumstances. Distinctions will be made as appropriate
in accordance with the provisions of S.2.5.1 and 4.11. The comprehensive zoning by-law will not
be changed to specify building heights on individual mainstreets. Changes will be considered in the context of an application or the
approval of a Community Design Plan. |
|
3.6.3 (8) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Canadian Tire
(Delcan) |
Confirm that
references to # of building stories are maximums, not minimums. |
Policy 8 of
S.3.6.3 refers to building height ranges supported by the policies of the
Plan. They are maximums, not
minimums. |
|
3.6.3 (9) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Uncertain how
minimum building height equivalent of a two-storey building will be
implemented and what it means (false façade?). Concern that economic implications will discourage smaller
independent retailers. |
The type of
development that characterizes the older Mainstreets, which have been
designated ‘Traditional’ Mainstreets by the amendment, is generally
multi-storey. The insertion of
modern, single-use, single-storey buildings amidst three and four-storey
structures breaks the feel of the traditional streetscape by interrupting the
pattern and detracts from the overall sense of enclosure and scale that is so
valued in these areas. The ideal
response is to require multi-storey buildings. This was not acceptable to the appellants. The proposed wording requires buildings
“the equivalent of a two storey building”.
The means of achieving this could involve false façades or other
architectural methods that will give the impression of a taller building in
keeping with its context. |
|
3.6.3 (9) (S.2.3.3 of OPA) Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
The word
“generally” should be inserted after the word “will” in the first line to
convey policy intent while allowing flexibility to respond to local
conditions and not conflict with existing zoning provisions of policy 6. |
See proposed
revisions to policy 9, which are intended to avoid the possibility of
conflict with policy 6. |
|
3.6.5 (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Position that
City needs to protect employment lands is unsubstantiated by any
comprehensive study (reference ‘Inventory of Vacant Business
Park/Industrial Sites in the City of Ottawa’, Nov., 2002). |
Preliminary
analysis carried out subsequent to 2002 suggests that a significant amount of
the City’s inventory of employment lands is under pressure for development to
other uses. In response, policy 5 of
the proposed amendment provides direction to undertake an employment lands
strategy. The new Provincial Policy
Statement, which came into force on March 1, 2005, supports the retention of
a sufficient supply of employment lands in cities for future needs. |
|
3.6.5 (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Discriminates
against retail employment, which is a significant employment generator, often
well in excess of employment generated in traditional business parks; no
evidence that retail is of any lesser value for Ottawa economy than any other
type of employment; no evidence that retail in employment areas detrimental
to any sector or neighbourhood; in certain circumstances retail in employment
areas is appropriate & in public interest. |
While it is
recognized that retail uses do generate employment (as do other forms, such
as institutional) the value of retail lies primarily in its role in
contributing to vibrant, mixed-use communities. The Employment and Enterprise Area designations are intended to
meet the need for places of business and economic activity – see proposed
revision to the introductory paragraph of S.3.6.5 in this regard. |
|
3.6.5 (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Creation of non-conformity
– “many” sites - developed, in development review process, or awaiting
development. |
FoTenn has
confirmed that ‘many’ refers to two sites – Walkley and Conroy; and Trim
Road. Both of these are discussed
under Schedule ‘B’ below. |
|
3.6.5 (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Retail uses
permitted by existing zoning by-laws should remain as permitted uses (i.e.
remove possibility of them becoming legal non-conforming in Employment
/Enterprise Areas). |
The Planning
Act anticipates the creation of legal non-conformity. It is not the long-term intent of the
Official Plan to encourage the continuance of retail in areas designated for
employment purposes, other than as set out in S.3.6.5. At the same time, it is also not the
intent to create substantial non-conforming situations. To this end, the amendment proposes that
the vast majority of areas containing large-scale retail uses be redesignated
to a designation that permits retail uses.
|
|
3.6.5 (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Big box stores
and small service/retail businesses in the Orleans Industrial Park do not
offer solid, career-oriented employment.
The recommendation of the amendments to the OP really does not address
the needs of our community. |
The area along
the south side of Innes Road is proposed to be redesignated to Arterial
Mainstreet, partly in response to approvals that have been granted in the
past and partly in order to retain the inner area of the Orleans Business
Park for employment uses. |
|
3.6.5 (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Proposed ‘super
snow disposal facility’ within an Employment Area (such as Orleans Business
Park) is not compatible and would discourage prestigious uses with signature
addresses from locating there. |
Noted. |
|
3.6.5 (2) (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Canadian Tire
(Delcan) Loblaws (FoTenn) First Pro (Bull) |
Proposed
policies do not permit suitable range of retail uses in appropriate
locations. Restriction of retail in
Employment or Enterprise Areas – larger retail should be permitted, subject
to certain means tests in context of zoning amendment (demonstrate that the
planned employment function will not be undermined; will improve available
retail services in surrounding area & not threaten existing planned
retail structure in area; compatible & complementary per S.2.5.1 &
S.4.11). Perimeters of Employment
Areas, particularly in locations near residential communities are appropriate
locations for large-scale retail (good access to intended market and can be
developed in a manner compatible with surroundings). Exclusion not consistent with previous
staff recommendations. |
With the
exception of the Employment and Enterprise Area designations, every urban
land use designation permitting development allows for a full range of retail
opportunities. Discussions at the
Planning and Environment Committee meeting directing staff to re-examine the
question of retail uses in Employment Areas raised the possibility of re-designating
lands to a more appropriate designation, rather than revising the Employment
designation to permit large-scale retail.
This is the approach that was followed in order to provide sufficient
locations where retail is permitted. |
|
3.6.5 (2.c) (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Confirm that the
policy permits a car wash. |
Confirmed,
provided all the applicable requirements of the Official Plan have been
satisfied. |
|
3.6.5 (2.d) (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Development
Advisory Group, 1374924 Ontario Inc., Kestrel Properties Inc. (Novatech) |
Concern with the
portion of the policy that requires the proportion of the gross
leaseable area of a building devoted to sample and showroom space to be subordinate
to the primary use of the building for warehouse storage. It is felt that this severely limits the
ability of many commercial distributors to make the most effective use of
their warehousing facilities, as many of these distribution centres now focus
on displaying a large selection of goods that are then ordered specifically
from the larger distribution centres in Toronto and Montreal. This reflects a business practice that
minimizes holding of large (and costly) inventories. Production facilities and distribution
centres are concentrated in just a few regions or countries and used to
service most of Eastern Canada.
Companies no longer need to maintain production and/or distribution
facilities in every city in which they operate. Also some
concern with limiting the associated use in which the sample and showroom
space is located to a warehouse only. |
There are examples of warehouse and distribution centres in Ottawa servicing other outlets, both within the city and beyond – for example the Sears warehouse on St. Laurent Blvd. services many other Ottawa-area locations, while the Giant Tiger facility in the Walkey/Russell Road area services parts of Eastern Canada, including Quebec. The concern of staff is that the policy not be made permissive to the point of allowing these uses to become retail stores in their own right in Employment and Enterprise Areas. It is considered that where sample and showroom space is not subordinate, it will simply become another destination retail use, contrary to the intent of the Employment and Enterprise Area designations. One minor change is proposed to accommodate the concern that sample and showroom space be allowed in association with permitted uses of the designation, other than a warehouse alone. This would allow, for example, situations such as an office building devoting part of a ground floor to sample and showroom space. |
|
3.6.5 (4.b) (S.2.3.4 of OPA) Cavanagh
Developments (FoTenn). |
Criteria
governing residential uses in Enterprise Areas should be based on target
density, rather than housing form.
Suggest modification as follows: “A mix of
housing is provided but all housing is in the form of townhouses, stacked
townhouses or apartments; provided however that exceptions may be made to
allow additional housing forms, as part of the housing mix, if the proponent
can demonstrate that density targets will, nevertheless, be achieved.” |
The wording
contained in the amendment was arrived at following consultation. Should innovative approaches to achieving
residential development in Enterprise Areas be submitted to the City,
site-specific amendments would be considered. |
|
3.6.7 (4) (S.2.3.5 of OPA) Rideau-Carleton
Holdings Ltd. (P.Vice /
FoTenn) |
Policy 4 has
already been approved by Council as part of Amendment 12 to the Official Plan
(2003), adopted on September 8, 2004.
There were no appeals to this particular policy. Section 2.3.5 of the proposed amendment
repeals and replaces the entire S.3.6.7, for reasons of clarity and
conciseness. The new S.3.6.7
reiterates site specific policy provisions relating to the Rideau Carleton
Raceway and Slots facility that were contained in the approved Amendment
12. The concern is that, being part
of the larger amendment, the specific matter relating to the Raceway and
slots facility will be re-opened for potential appeal and may become
entangled in on-going appeals related to other issues. |
The introductory
portion to S.2.3.5 of the amendment has been revised to remove the
site-specific policy from the Amendment, thereby avoiding the issues
raised. |
|
3.6.7 (11) (S.2.3.5 of OPA) Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Confirm that the policy permits gas bar, service station, car wash and convenience store. |
Confirmed,
provided all the applicable requirements of the Official Plan have been
satisfied. |
|
3.7.1 (4) (S.2.3.7 of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Why the upper
limit of 10,000 square metres on retail and commercial service facilities if
market conditions can support the development & they meet design
objectives & compatibility criteria?
These uses provide services to the local community. |
Consistent with
S.2.2 , the intent of the adopted Official Plan is to manage growth in the
city by concentrating it within the urban area to make the most efficient use
of facilities and services. |
|
4.1 (1) (S.2.4.1 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders |
There was
concern that the statement indicating that Community Design Plans approved
after the adoption of the Official Plan will be deemed to conform with the
Plan could be interpreted to conflict with Policy 4 of S.2.5.6 of the
amendment. |
The reference in
Policy 1 of S.4.1 to a Community Design Plan (CDP) being deemed to conform
with the policies of the Official Plan does not have a legislative basis to
support it. The policy is considered
redundant, in that Policy 4 of S.2.5.6, as set out in the amendment,
establishes the circumstances under which a Community Design Plan will be
approved as an amendment to the Official Plan. Further, the reference to a CDP being shown in Appendix 3 is
also redundant as this is also covered in Policy 4 of S.2.5.6 as set out in
the amendment. Hence, the amendment
proposes that Policy 1 of S.4.1 be deleted.
|
|
4.11 (S.2.4.2 of OPA) John Blatherwick |
The measures
contained in S.4.1 ‘Compatibility’ all contain the permissive phrases
“should” or “may”, rather than the words “shall” or “will” that are used in
the former City of Ottawa Official Plan for similar policies. There are no
measures to:
The measures
lack conditions to make them tight infill standards and will not always fully
apply to development applications, as they will vary depending “on the use
proposed and the planning context”.
There is too much room for interpretation as to the applicability of
the measures. Where intensification
is a Council-approved aim, vulnerable neighbourhoods require fairly
prescriptive residential infill criteria. Response (cont’d. from right-hand column) The location of
outdoor amenity space, when provided, is important vis à vis its relationship
to existing development and this is addressed by Policy 2.f). Minimizing shadowing effects is addressed
by Policy 2.j). Ensuring that the
physical potential of a site can accommodate the proposed structure is a
function of the zoning by-law and would be very difficult to interpret in
measures of compatibility. The
adequacy of services is addressed throughout S.4 of the Plan (e.g.
S.4.4). The protection of urban
forest is addressed in S.4.7.1 and 4.7.2. |
The
compatibility criteria of this section are predicated upon Policy 1 of S.4.11
which states that the City “will’ have regard for the policies of the
land use designation applicable to a given site, all applicable Community
Design Plans, Secondary Plans or Site Specific Policies (which may contain
additional compatibility measures), as well as the Design Objectives and
Principles in S. 2.5.1, and the preceding policies in S.4.1 through
S.4.10. Policy 2 of S.4.11 states
that the City “will” evaluate compatibility on the basis of the 12
measures that follow, even though the weight and applicability may vary,
depending on the site circumstances. Throughout the
preparation of the Official Plan and its various iterations, there have been
concerns over the issues of design and compatibility – from the industry that
policies were too prescriptive; from representatives of the community at
large that they were not prescriptive enough. The Department’s response has been to acknowledge that there
will be more than one response possible in any given situation to address
these issues. Some flexibility is
essential in the policy framework to enable an appropriate response to be
crafted, taking into account individual circumstances presented by
development situations, while holding to overall design principles and
measures of compatibility. With respect to
the bulleted list, use of words like “ensure” and “require” in association
with compatibility are not appropriate, since, in many cases, guaranteeing
the stated aim may not be possible, practical, or relevant in every
circumstance. The specific issues
raised are addressed by policies in the adopted Plan or within the proposed
amendment, though not in the prescriptive manner requested. Should Council determine it wishes the
first two items in the bulleted list to be referenced, they could be added to
Policy 2. e), as they relate to the measure dealing with the ‘Pattern of the
Surrounding Community’. The third
bullet (require amenity space) is not an appropriate requirement in measures
dealing with compatibility and would be dealt with by individual site plan
agreements when it is determined that it is needed. |
|
4.11 Paragraph 4 (S.2.4.2 of OPA) Manor Park
Community Association (Keyes; Thiessen) |
Invites erosion
of established neighbourhoods with radically different development at their
peripheries – distorts basic concept of compatibility and conflicts with
established planning principles requiring a transition between high and
low-rise development – suggests deleting the word “much” before “more
intensive development”. The 4th
paragraph of the preamble of S. 4.11 relates to the 3rd paragraph
of the preamble of S.2.5.1 of the adopted Official Plan, but alters it in
several significant ways: ·
“More
intensive development than has occurred in the past” may be allowed not only
in areas adjacent to major roads, but also “at the periphery of
neighbourhoods and proximate to transit stations”. The existing S.2.5.1 only indicated that these areas are
excellent locations for “compact and mixed-use development”. The
compatibility criteria 2.d) and 2.e) require further attention: ·
2.d) Building
Height and Massing - should say new buildings ‘must fit into the area
context’ rather than “should have regard to the area context”. A
transition in building heights should be ‘required’, rather than
merely be “desirable”. A reference to
maintaining human scale, particularly in residential developments, should be
added and the term ‘human scale’ defined in terms of auditory and/or visual
impacts and should be limited by height limits or a ratio of height to the
width of the right-of-way. ·
2.e) Pattern
of the Surrounding Community – indicates that the proposed design may
compensate for variation in height, building mass, proportion, street setback
and distance between buildings through its treatment of other characteristics
common to the surrounding community.
It is not clear how or to what degree this compensation may take place
and may allow for radically larger development as long as it replicates some
of the architectural features of its surroundings. Response (cont’d.) through S.4.10. Policy 2 of S.4.11 states that the City “will” evaluate compatibility on the basis of the 12 measures that follow, even though the weight and applicability may vary depending on the site circumstances. A reference to ‘human scale’ has been added to 2.d) and a definition added to the Glossary (Part ‘C’ of the amendment). Regarding 2.e), staff do not agree with the concern – the criteria cannot be read in isolation of one another, or ignore the overall context as stated in S.2.5.1 or S.4.11. |
Concur with the
removal of the word “much” – see revision to the fourth paragraph of the
preamble to S.4.11. The reference to
more intensive development at the periphery of neighbourhoods and proximate
to transit stations is consistent with other parts of the adopted Official
Plan (e.g. S.2.2.3, policy 3) and with the proposed amendment (e.g. S.3.6.1,
policy 5). The intent is to direct
intensification to areas where it will have the least impact on established
communities and where the infrastructure is in place to accommodate it. The preamble to S.4.11, ‘Compatibility’,
emphasizes the importance of the existing context. S.4.11 does not require intensification at the periphery
of neighbourhoods. Rather, zoning
will establish regulations in a manner that achieves compatibility among
proximate uses and built forms. The
various criteria set out in S.4.11 provide the basis for evaluating the
compatibility of development applications. Throughout the
preparation of the Official Plan and its various iterations, there have been
concerns over the issues of design and compatibility – from the industry that
policies were too prescriptive; from representatives of the community at
large that they were not prescriptive enough. The Department’s response has been to acknowledge that there
will be more than one response possible in any given situation to address
these issues. Some flexibility is
essential in the policy framework to enable an appropriate response to be
crafted, taking into account individual circumstances presented by
development situations, while holding to overall design principles and
measures of compatibility. Use of
words like “must” and “require” in association with compatibility are not appropriate,
since, in many cases, guaranteeing the stated aim may not be possible,
practical, or relevant in every circumstance. The compatibility criteria of this section are predicated upon
Policy 1 of S.4.11 which states that the City “will’ have regard for
the policies of the land use designation applicable to a given site, all
applicable Community Design Plans, Secondary Plans or Site Specific Policies
(which may contain additional compatibility measures), as well as the Design
Objectives and Principles in S. 2.5.1, and the preceding policies in S.4.1 |
|
4.11 (1) (S.2.4.2 of OPA) Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association (A.Keith) |
Following the
words “Secondary Plans” on line 3, please add the words “management
guidelines of Heritage Districts”.
We, and City staff, have found it crucial to have these management
guidelines in mind when reviewing development applications for this heritage
district. |
The policy in
question references the parts of the Plan that the City will have regard for
when evaluating development applications from the perspective of their
compatibility with an existing context.
Included are S.4.1 through 4.10 within which is S.4.6.1 “Heritage
Buildings and Areas”. Policy 2 of
this section states, in part, that new construction in a Heritage
Conservation District is proposed, the applicant will consult the heritage
conservation district study for design guidance. Management guidelines have typically evolved out of heritage
conservation district studies and are referenced by them. It is not considered necessary to include
a cross-reference to them in policy 1 of S.4.11, as they will be captured
through the requirement to have regard for S.4.6, ‘Cultural Heritage
Resources’. |
|
4.11 (2.d) (S.2.4.2 of OPA) Manor Park
Community Association (Keyes) |
Strengthen to
state more firmly the requirement for compatibility – rather than “new
buildings should have regard for the area context”, say “must fit into the
area context” and a transition in building heights should be “required”, not
merely desirable”. |
These matters
were the subject of much discussion, both during the preparation of the
adopted Official Plan and the proposed amendment. It was concluded that policy language that could be interpreted
as requiring new development to replicate what currently exists should be
avoided. S.4.11 acknowledges that
change will happen and provides assistance in addressing change in
communities, while respecting the area context. |
|
Schedule ‘B’ (S.2.5 of OPA) OCCSB
(MacMillan). |
Redesignation of
Employment or Enterprise Areas to General Urban may result in new residential
development and increased enrolment at schools – request to be kept informed
of decision on OPA. |
Noted. |
|
Schedule ‘B’ (S.2.5.1 (1, 2,
4, 6, 7, 8) Schedule 1 of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (Don Kennedy) |
Would like an explanation as to the rationale for Changes 1, 2 & 4 and Changes 6, 7, 8, given the existing uses. |
The type of development that has occurred in the areas affected by Changes 1 and 2 are characteristic of a General Urban Area pattern of development. In considering residential use in the Enterprise Area, it is important to create a functional integration between the employment and residential components. Many of the proposals to date have tended to isolate residential blocks from employment and the acceptance of residential has been focused more on whether or not the overall employment potential can be maintained. As a result, in the final analysis the development looks and acts like a General Urban Area. Considering the changes proposed to the Enterprise Area set out in the draft amendment, it was considered preferable to label areas that had already received approval under the existing Enterprise Area provisions as General Urban Area. In the case of
#4, the change reflects an existing Loeb store in the Enterprise Area. The Enterprise Area does not permit retail
uses at this scale. Further, the
parcel includes an area at the terminus of a dead end road (100 Steacie
Drive) that is isolated from the remainder of the area by a railway line and
is unlikely to have any future connection with it. There is interest in developing it for residential
purposes. Changes 6 and 7
represent small areas that are unlikely candidates for significant
intensification. The General Urban
designation will still permit the industrial and commercial uses within these
areas at present, but will enable redevelopment of a wider variety and
intensity of activity that is more in keeping with the extensive General
Urban Area that surrounds them. In the case of Change 8, the majority of
this area has developed with retail commercial uses. Given the direction of the draft amendment
to exclude this range and variety of use from the Employment Area
designation, the retention of the designation would have meant the creation
of significant non-conformity. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.1 (10) and Schedule ‘1’ of OPA) North American
Acquisition Corp., First Capital
(Eagleson Cope Drive) Corp. Inc., Barrhaven Town Centre Inc.,
Barrhaven Developments Inc., & Orleans Gardens Development Inc. (Kathleen
Willis) |
Concern that
development rights of existing Eagleson South Centre at Michael Cowpland
Drive and the vacant, but zoned site at Cope Drive may not be fully protected
by the proposed Mainstreet designation with the underlying Enterprise Area. |
It is felt that the changes proposed in the third sentence of Policy 2 of S.3.6.3 will address this concern and are consistent with the intent of the policy. |
|
Schedule ‘B’ (S.2.5.1 and
Schedule ‘1’ of OPA) Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Question
appropriateness and feasibility of Traditional Mainstreet designation on
Richmond Rd. west of Roosevelt to Western Parkway. |
The long-term
direction is to move this area towards a Traditional Mainstreet land use
pattern, rather than one that is characteristic of an Arterial Mainstreet. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.1 (4) and Schedule ‘1’ of OPA) Steacie Drive
Inc. (Kathleen Willis). |
100 Steacie
Drive (Kanata) redesignation from Enterprise Area to General Urban – SUPPORT. |
Noted. |
|
Schedule ‘B’ (Schedule ‘1’ of
OPA) NorthTech Land
Development Inc. (Novatech) |
Blocks 5 & 7
(4M-1075) in the Kanata North Business Park were the subject of amendments to
the former Kanata and Regional Official Plans, approved by Council in
September of 2003. The effect was to
permit residential development, subject to a number of conditions. The proposed redesignation to Employment
Area would remove the Council approved ability to develop the lands for
residential uses. Also, the
extension of the change to Employment Area east of Legget Drive does not
correspond with any known property lines – the eastern boundary should be
Legget. |
The changes in
designation within the Kanata Business Park have for the most part been
proposed to address the type of issue raised here. The request is consistent with the approach followed overall in
the amendment for changes to Schedule ‘B’ and has been incorporated on
Schedule ‘1’ of the amendment. |
|
Schedule ‘B’ (S.2.5.1 and
Schedules 1 and 3 of OPA) Tim Hortons McDonald’s
Restaurants (Polowin). |
Six Traditional
Mainstreet designations: should either be General Urban or Arterial
Mainstreet to further the natural market transition. Schedule ‘1’ of the OPA - Richmond
Rd., between Cleary & Ottawa River Pkwy. (request Arterial); Merivale,
between Carling & Caldwell (request Arterial); Stittsville Main (certain
portions – request General Urban); Schedule ‘3’ of the OPA - McArthur,
between Vanier Pkwy. & St. Laurent (request Arterial); Bronson, between
417 & Carling (request General Urban); Scott, between Churchill &
Parkdale (request General Urban). |
The long-term
direction is to move these areas towards a Traditional Mainstreet land use
pattern, rather than one that is characteristic of an Arterial
Mainstreet. In the case of the
Stittsville mainstreet, discussions have indicated that the concern may be
resolved simply through clarification of the location of the northerly
boundary of the designation. In the
case of Merivale, McArthur, Bronson and Scott in particular, much of the
existing built form on the street is of a pattern that is consistent with the
Traditional Mainstreet designation and the adjoining areas have been built in
a grid form at intensities that are supportive of the development of a more
pedestrian-oriented mainstreet. In
the case of Richmond, particularly east of Woodroffe, there are unique
opportunities to create a Traditional format, due to the presence of the
linear park that lies between Byron and Richmond, the presence of
street-oriented mixed-use buildings and stable residential communities
nearby, and plenty of residential density.
In the case of Richmond, it is critical that the impetus of
redevelopment happening along the Westboro portion of the Traditional
Mainstreet be encouraged to extend westward, rather than creating an
automobile-oriented form of development.
All areas would benefit from a Community Design Plan process where
City-sponsored improvements to the street environment would complement and
support the vision for the mainstreet as set out in the policies. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.3 (18-22) and Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (Don Kennedy) |
Explanation for the rationale of changes18-22? |
Changes 18, 19, & 21 - The type of development that has been approved in the areas affected by these changes are characteristic of a General Urban Area pattern of development. One of the intents in considering residential use in the Enterprise Area has been the creation of a functional integration between the employment and residential components. Many of the proposals to date have tended to isolate residential blocks from employment and the acceptance of residential has been focused more on whether or not the overall employment potential can be maintained. As a result, in the final analysis the development looks and acts like a General Urban Area. Considering the changes proposed to the Enterprise Area set out in the draft amendment, it was considered preferable to label areas that had already received approval under the existing Enterprise Area provisions as General Urban Area. No. 20 - This reflects an existing approval from Council. No.22 -
Having proposed Changes 18, 19 and 21,it is preferable to revert this area to
Employment Area in order to have a better chance of ensuring employment uses
in future on these lands. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.3 (20) and Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Trim / Queen site (from Enterprise to General Urban) needs to be extended easterly to reflect property ownership. |
Concur – this
change is supported to more accurately reflect existing ownership lines. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.3 (20) and Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (Don Kennedy) |
If Change 20 is because of Loblaws, it is recommend that it be
extended to Cardinal Creek to make the entire St. Joseph's frontage consistent. The lands in question are quite small, have development issues on the Cardinal Creek side and no room to grow to the north because of the dairy. The site has excellent frontage on Montreal Road and is, in my opinion, an ideal extension of the commercial uses being considered on the adjoining site. |
The Loblaws should provide a significant amount of retail to this area. The advantage of arterial road frontage for future employment uses on the remainder of the Employment Area should not be denied. The redesignation of lands set out in the amendment was determined in part by existing commitments by Council, which was the case in the Loblaw property. It is not felt that further erosion of the Employment Area designation is warranted, particularly in light of the distribution of Employment lands in the east. The new
Provincial Policy Statement stresses the importance of employment lands to
the economic development and competitiveness of Ontario municipalities and
indicates that conversion of these areas to other uses should not be done in
the absence of a comprehensive review that will demonstrate that the land is
not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a
need for conversion. The proposed
changes to Schedule ‘B’ represent what was arrived at through the mediation
process. Additional requests to
change the designation of Employment Area lands, such as this one, should be
addressed within the context of the preparation of the employment lands
strategy described in proposed Policy 5 of S.3.6.5. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.3 (23) and Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Innes Re-Zoning
and Development Group (Woods, Lawrence) |
Support
redesignation from Employment Area to Arterial Mainstreet in Orleans
Industrial Park, but only after a complete & thorough Community Design
Plan has been completed. |
It may be
appropriate to carry out a Community Design Plan on the proposed Arterial
Mainstreet portion along Innes Road.
This could be added as part of the Department’s work program as a
priority should Committee so direct. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.3 (23) and Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (Don Kennedy) |
Change 23 - is the land owner (s) aware of this? |
Individual
landowners have not been notified of the proposed amendment, but much of the
area affected by the proposed Arterial Mainstreet designation is either
approved or under consideration.
Several of the landowners have been part of the retail appeals process
and support the proposed change. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(S.2.5.3 (24, 25, 28) and Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Ottawa Carleton
Homebuilders (Don Kennedy) |
An explanation for the rationale of changes 24,25 & 28? |
No. 24 - simply
rationalizes the extent of the Mainstreet - there is no need to extend it
south on Russell - it is strictly residential, part of a larger residential
neighbourhood. No.25 - This
area is devoted almost exclusively to large format retail and since the
proposed OPA does not support this type of use in an Employment Area, it is
recommended that the designation be changed to one that does (General
Urban). See discussion of Change 8
on Schedule 1 above. No.28 - The
General Urban Area will permit the types of low-density office uses that have
developed west of the hospital complex and will also allow for a broader
range of uses in support of the institutional area. This change is similar to several across the city affecting
smaller areas designated Employment Area. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Loblaws (FoTenn) |
Walkley / Conroy
site for proposed big box is not being recommended for redesignation as were
most, if not all, the other retailers requests, despite supporting studies. |
The proponents
for this project were involved in the process. However, due to the scale of the development proposed and its
site-specific nature, staff determined that it should proceed by way of a
separate amendment to the Plan. The
proponents have been advised and are proceeding with the required development
applications. |
|
Schedule ‘B’
(Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Bridgewater
Properties Inc. (Brian Gold) |
Change designation
of 955 Dairy Drive (vacant, 6.66 acres, N.E. corner Trim & Dairy) and
905 Taylor Creek Drive (vacant, 2.44 acres N.W. corner Trim & Taylor
Creek) from Enterprise Area (adopted OP) / Employment Area (proposed OPA) to
General Urban Area (GUA). Reasons:
arterial road frontage (employees, visitors, residential growth to south);
similar consideration to proposed redesignation of Loblaw property on south
side of Dairy Rd.; promote harmonious development at Trim/Dairy/Taylor
Creek/Hwy.174 intersections; as Loblaw develops will be a need for overflow
retail uses that cannot be accommodated by Employment designation; retail
more compatible / consumer-oriented on Trim Rd. than light industrial;
increased demand for retail in area; still leaves significant inventory of
industrial land in interior of Taylor Creek Business Park and GUA will not
limit type of development on these lands; contiguous Park & Ride facility
will result in more demand for GUA uses. |
The
redesignation of lands set out in the amendment was determined in part by
existing commitments by Council, which was the case in the Loblaw property
referenced by Bridgewater Properties.
It is not felt that further erosion of the Employment Area designation
is warranted, particularly in light of the distribution of Employment lands
in the east. The
new Provincial Policy Statement stresses the importance of employment lands
to the economic development and competitiveness of Ontario municipalities and
indicates that conversion of these areas to other uses should not be done in
the absence of a comprehensive review that will demonstrate that the land is
not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a
need for conversion. The proposed
changes to Schedule ‘B’ represent what was arrived at through the mediation
process. Additional requests to
change the designation of Employment Area lands, such as this one, should be
addressed within the context of the preparation of the employment lands strategy
described in proposed Policy 5 of S.3.6.5.
|
|
Schedule ‘B’
(Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Emparrado
(D.Kelly) |
Concerning the
proposed Arterial Mainstreet designation of Innes Road, an earlier draft had
indicated the designation extending west of Belcourt. It is requested that the Mainstreet be extended
west, between Belcourt and the Builders Warehouse site in order to provide
for redevelopment. It is understood
that redevelopment will probably take a number of years, however. (A sketch was
subsequently provided indicating the portion of the subject lands suggested
as appropriate for the Mainstreet designation, as the Emperrado holdings
extend over the full depth of the Employment Area designation south of Innes
Road). |
The proposed
Arterial Mainstreet designation runs between Tenth Line and the projection of
Belcourt on the south side of Innes.
This collectively adds approximately 57 ha. of land for retail
purposes. While it may be that the
Emparrado property will redevelop at some future date, it is considered that
the amount of retail land added by the proposed amendment is adequate. The
new Provincial Policy Statement stresses the importance of employment lands
to the economic development and competitiveness of Ontario municipalities and
indicates that conversion of these areas to other uses should not be done in
the absence of a comprehensive review that will demonstrate that the land is
not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a
need for conversion. The proposed
changes to Schedule ‘B’ represent what was arrived at through the mediation
process. Additional requests to
change the designation of Employment Area lands, such as this one, should be
addressed within the context of the preparation of the employment lands strategy
described in proposed Policy 5 of S.3.6.5.
|
|
Schedule ‘B’
(Schedule ‘3’ of OPA) Barry Lithwick
(D.Kennedy) |
We feel that
Barry Lithwick's Cyrville Road sites (1417 , 1429 , 1435 and 1481 Cyrville
Road ) should all be part of the mixed use area just to the east (Note:
should read ‘just to the north’). It makes sense for several reasons: ·
Existing
uses are of a mixed use nature including office, retail and service and as
such are similar to the lands to the east (north) that you have already
designated as mixed use, ·
The
lands are a prime candidate for redevelopment and having a greater
flexibility will encourage redevelopment, ·
The
designation would be more reflective of the area's existing uses, ·
Such
as designation would be consistent with the Cyrville Road study of the old
City of Gloucester. |
The new
Provincial Policy Statement stresses the importance of employment lands to
the economic development and competitiveness of Ontario municipalities and
indicates that conversion of these areas to other uses should not be done in
the absence of a comprehensive review that will demonstrate that the land is
not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a
need for conversion. The proposed
changes to Schedule ‘B’ represent what was arrived at through the mediation
process. Additional requests to
change the designation of Employment Area lands, such as this one, should be
addressed within the context of the preparation of the employment lands
strategy described in proposed Policy 5 of S.3.6.5. |
|
Annexes (Part
‘C’ of OPA) Tim Hortons
(Polowin). Novatech (Murray
Chown - all clients). First Pro
Shopping Centres (Eberhard). McDonald’s
Restaurants (Polowin). Canadian Tire
(Delcan ). Loblaws
(FoTenn). First Pro
(Bull). North American
Acquisition Corp., First Capital
(Eagleson Cope Drive) Corp. Inc., Barrhaven Town Centre Inc.,
Barrhaven Developments Inc., & Orleans Gardens Development Inc. (Kathleen
Willis). Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Annex 3 – no
opportunity for discussion – inappropriate to be in the OPA without the
discussion having occurred first.
Defer until the planned additional consultation process is completed. |
This Annex will
be developed in a collaborative process with the appellants and other
stakeholders and will be subject to Council approval. It will not form part of the Official
Plan. The draft Annex was circulated
with this Amendment for information and comment. It is anticipated that it will be in final form in the summer
of 2005. |
|
Annexes (Part
‘C’ of OPA) Canadian Petroleum
Products Institute (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Annex 3 –
Portion “Some Design Considerations” too detailed and will present conflicts;
even if not part of the Plan, may be applied as if they were; are
non-appealable. Concern that the
Design Consideration relating to properties located at intersections could
require every major intersection to be treated as a place for some sort of
landmark – can work with the concept, but don’t want guideline to be used to
oppose a petroleum retail development at a busy intersection highly
appropriate for this use. |
The planned
discussion with the appellants will address concerns such as those raised
here. |
|
Glossary (Part
‘C’ of OPA) Loblaws
(FoTenn). |
No changes made
to Glossary – delete terms such as ‘Big Box Retail’ and add new definitions
of retail terms. . |
S.3.0 of Part C
of the OPA deletes big box retail from the Glossary. There isn’t a need to add definitions of
retail terms if they are no longer used in the OP. What terms remain have been adequately defined as part of the
policy in which they are used. It is noted that the Glossary is not part of
the Plan. |
GENERAL COMMENTS
|
||
|
Copeland Park
Community Alliance (K. Yach, President) |
Intent is to
render obsolete or significantly reduce the effectiveness of the zoning
system; long-term goal of establishing a one-size-fits-all zoning system;
thrust is to facilitate erosion of protective measures in current system. Those parts
seeking to reassure citizens that existing communities will be safeguarded
lack strength & credibility (especially with phrases “where possible and
appropriate”). Thrust is
rampant intensification without guidelines to manage rationally nature &
scope of outcome – recent development approvals make this apparent – headlong
rush to intensify… |
Staff disagree
with these comments. |
|
Manor Park
Community Association (Keyes) |
Insufficient
time to comment. |
Noted. Two opportunities were available for comment – December 10, 2004 – January 10, 2005 and March 4 – April 2, 2005. |
|
Palladium Auto
Park Limited (Lloyd Phillips & Associates) |
Confirmation
that the Palladium Auto Park is recognized and permitted under the terms of
the draft Amendment (interpreted as being permitted in the adopted Official
Plan per J. Moser Nov.13’03). |
The Palladium
Auto Park is recognized and permitted through the adoption of the Kanata West
Concept Plan. See Policy 4 of S.2.5.6
in S.2.2.3 of the amendment and Policy 5 of S.2.5.7 of the adopted Plan. |
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - Comprehensive City-Wide Amendment in response to retail-related appeals to the 2003 Official plan
MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL - MODIFICATION DE PORTÉE GÉNÉRALE FAISANT
SUITE AUX APPELS CONCERNANT LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL INTERJETÉS CONTRE LE PLAN
OFFICIEL DE 2003
ACS2005-PGM-POL-0006 city-wide
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.
N.
Lathrop, Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment
and Infrastructure Policy, J. Moser, Lesley Paterson, Program Manager,
Planning Policy, T. Marc and Jack Ferguson, Planner, appeared before the Committee with
respect to departmental report dated 27 April 2005. Prior to the presentation, Chair Hume
indicated he had been requested by Mr. Marc to advise everyone who participated
in the mediation session that PEC/Council will consider participation in that
session to satisfy the requirements to comment on the application to be
sufficient for an OMB Appeal. Mr. Jacobs
provided preliminary remarks followed by a PowerPoint presentation by Mr.
Ferguson and Ms. Paterson, which was circulated and a copy of which is held on
file with the City Clerk. The issue of
clarity was raised and staff undertook the opportunity to clarify a number of
sections of the OP.
·
The provisions contained in Section 3.6.8 for Major
Shopping Centres are now located in Section 3.6.7; and, Major Urban Facility is
not a land use designation. They are
permitted in General Urban Areas (GUA) through rezoning, subject to a number of
criteria that are now permitted in Section 3.6.7. A major shopping centre must be next to rapid transit and the
station is incorporated in the design of the site. That is lifted right out of Section 3.6.8 and placed in Section
3.6.7. In one of the very first
iterations of the OP, a major shopping centre was part of Major Urban
Facilities. They were not placed in
their own separate section. Section 4
is an entire section of the OP that deals with development applications, which
includes everything in terms of servicing, walking, cycling, transit, roads and
parking lots, housing, cultural resource, environmental protection, health and
safety issues, servicing the public service area, etc. all of which applies to
a major shopping centre in a GUA. Those
are provisions that apply across the board.
The community can participate through the Zoning By-Law process and
added that the entire premise of the OP is to do away with needless OPAs. The level of detail and the amount of
planning control can be exercised through the Zoning By-Law process. The designations established and the
development review process outlined in Chapter 4 provides for that level of
control to be exercised by PEC and Council in making those decisions on whether
that is the appropriate location for a shopping centre, etc. There is no additional control gained by
requiring someone to undergo two sets of processes; one to amend the OP and one
to amend the Zoning By-Law. Staff
wanted to avoid that duplication. The
principles are established in the OP and they are implemented in the Zoning
By-Law.
·
Protection lies in the fact the City has a planning
staff that reviews the application on behalf of the community and Council and
makes a recommendation to PEC.
PEC/Council makes the decision as to whether or not it appropriately
satisfies the development industry and the community interest. That is accomplished through the Zoning
By-Law. Mr. Ferguson had a correction
with respect to the designation of the land and the permission for a shopping
centre. Council permitted major
shopping centres under the adopted Plan in May in GUAs and there is no change
through this amendment. Big Box
was permitted, provided it was part of a shopping centre. A free standing store is now permitted. In the adopted Plan, a store is over 8,000
square metres, provided only it is part of a shopping centre. The Amendment does not place a limit on the
size of the store and it does not have to be part of a shopping centre. Mr. Ferguson
advised there is one additional policy that talks about large uses in general
(Policy 5), p. 21 of the Amendment that relates to “traffic, noise or other
impacts that have the potential to create conflicts with the surrounding
residential community…”. Mr. Jacobs
reported the formal opportunity for the community to receive assurance its
interests will be protected in the study is at PEC during the public meeting on
a proposal. There is the opportunity to
speak to a development review application, a re-zoning or a site plan, if that
rises to PEC. The issue about who has
conducted the study, whether it is an OPA to designate the land for a shopping
centre or a Zoning By-Law Amendment to rezone the property for the shopping
centre, it would still be incumbent upon the developer to provide that Traffic
Impact Analysis.
·
Proximity to rapid transit in terms of
intensification, from 400m to 600m. Ms.
Paterson pointed out the 400m is contained in the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) and the OP to refer to the maximum walking distance to a bus stop; and,
600m is generally considered to be the area of impact of a rapid transit
station, in terms of walkability or impact on surrounding uses. The 600m was used on this occasion because
it refers to rapid transit stations; all the mixed use centres are on rapid
transit stations, but staff is retaining the 400m walking distance to a bus
stop. Responding further, Ms. Paterson
advised the 600m is contained in the OP adopted by Council (Chapter 2), where
we talk about managing urban growth and 600m is the number generally accepted
in the literature to the impact area of a rapid transit station as opposed to a
bus stop. Ms. Paterson
was fairly certain the 600m distance is also in the TMP for the same purpose.
·
Schedule B, changes of Employment Areas to General Urban. There are changes to recognize existing
concentrations; i.e. Hunt Club and Merivale is an Employment Area change that
recognize the big box with a mirror image of that at Cyrville and Innes,
where although it has been designated as Employment, it is virtually all big
box retail. That is one category of
change undertaken. Another category of
change that took place was in smaller or older industrial areas that are
surrounded by existing residential neighbourhoods and, even though the
industrial zoning will remain on those parcels for some time, staff felt
compelled to provide a broader range of uses that could be permitted, given
their size. In certain cases, staff was
looking at lands that over the long term life of the Plan, the edges of which
were likely going to change; i.e. Woodward/Laperriere is likely to see changes
on the perimeter to a wider range of uses (residential or service
commercial). Councillor Cullen used
Queensview Drive as an example, is an Employment Area. In changing it to General Urban, staff is
saying it will accommodate retail uses the Employment Area does not. The industrial zone is seen to remain for
the most part in these areas, but the surrounding neighbourhoods are built up
as low density residential and because it is at a transit station, over the
life of this plan, someone may come in with a mixed-use development.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants
Ltd. (NECL) was present on behalf of Kestrel Properties Inc. (formerly
Development Advisory Group), Innes Centre, DIR Investments, PCM Kanata South,
Costco and Home Depot Canada. Mr.
Chown advised that NECL, on their behalf, or in support of other parties are
involved in eight separate Appeals related to the Retail Policies and the most
important thing for him to say before making his presentation is that on behalf
of the vast majority of the Appellants he would endorse the comments by Mr.
Ferguson in terms of the exceptional process undertaken over the last year to
reach the point today before PEC with an OPA that, generally speaking, most of
his clients support. In fact, of those
eight Appeals, he would only be making representation with respect to two and
the second one will be with Mr. Polowin.
The other is an Appeal initially filed in the name of
the Development Advisory Group and there has been a restructuring of the
ownership and NECL is now acting on behalf of a group referred to as
Kestrel. Mr. Chown referred to a
written submission on behalf of the Kestrel, dated 18 May 2005, that was
circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. They were focussing on a very specific policy issue. He referred to the Draft OPA and p. 32 of
that document, Policy 2 (d) in Section 3.6.5 ‘Employment Area and Enterprise
Area’ will restrict the ability to locate showroom/warehouse distribution
facilities on land with the Employment Area and Enterprise Area
designations. Generally speaking they
are on the same page as staff. He was
talking about kitchen cabinet supplies, tile suppliers, pool and spa suppliers,
carpeting suppliers; those showrooms are seen everywhere in business parks
where there is a small area in the back for inventory storage or where
inventory flows through the facility and back out to the homeowner or
purchaser. They were in agreement that
those uses are appropriate in the business employment areas. The concern is that the policy then goes on
to provide a greater or more detailed definition in terms of what these are and
the definition implies something that is out of date in terms of how the
industry functions. It goes on to say
“and where the proportion of the gross leaseable area (GLA) of a
building devoted to sample and showroom use is limited in the zoning by-law so
that sample and showroom space is secondary and subordinate to the primary use
of the building for warehouse storage;”.
They trip over the words “proportion of”. There is no objection or concern the GLA of
the building devoted to sample and showroom space should be limited in the
zoning by-law. They understand staff
does not want to see a 100,000 square foot Leon’s going in under this
provision. The problem is the notion of
the proportion of the GLA of the building devoted to sample and showroom
use is limited in the Zoning By-Law.
The policy goes on to explain what that means so
that sample and showroom space is secondary and subordinate to the primary use
of the building for warehouse storage.
The wording that causes some difficulty is what is meant by secondary
and subordinate to and those words provide guidance to staff and will
provide guidance to PEC and Council when the Zoning By-Law come forward. If secondary and subordinate to means
that less than 50% of the area of the building will be showroom space, that
simply is not the manner in which these businesses operate today. The showroom space in many of these
facilities is larger than the warehouse and storage space. There is no money to be made in storing
inventory. This wording would prevent
development of these showrooms in the business parks. The request made in the letter to PEC is a request to tweak
the wording so that Council does not tie its hands when the Zoning By-Law comes
forward to implement this policy. This
definition/approach to these uses is simply out of date and NECL is asking PEC
to refine the wording slightly to provide more flexibility when dealing with
the Zoning By-Law and to provide NECL and their clients more flexibility in
terms of their sales and leasing to these end users and understand the City
might want to place a cap in terms of the actual size of the buildings and that
is fine.
Following on the presentation and in response to Chair
Hume, Mr. Ferguson remarked the biggest concern is in the former municipalities
where there are issues in trying to control these uses (buildings) from turning
into destination retail. There is a
great amount of flexibility in the way the buildings are build and by moving
counters/partitions around the building would comply with the intent and
results in a retail store drawing residents as a destination into the
employment areas and that is a concern more from practice than theory. There was a significant attempt to arrive at
a resolution on this Policy.
Councillor Hunter questioned the danger of a ripple effect
of this change and pointed to an area such as Merivale Road with retail
enterprises such as The Brick, which is 95% showroom space and 5% storage. They are in an expensive commercial area,
but if PEC approved the request, that business could re-locate into an old
Nortel building or Gandalf building on Colonnade Road, at a lower cost and the
City would not have any control. The
businesses doing legitimate assembly and warehousing because of the price
escalation could be forced into less valuable areas. Mr. Chown understood the concern expressed, but emphasized it can
be controlled. NECL did not want to see
The Brick, Leon’s, etc taking advantage of this Policy to move into the
business parks, which is why he would agree with a Policy that sets a limit on
the GLA for these types of uses and that can be done on a tenant by tenant or
building by building basis, but what the City does not want to do is the
reverse, which is to force the pool companies and the tile suppliers into those
more expensive properties on Merivale because that is not where the City wants
them located. The Policy may prevent
them from locating anywhere because of the terminology used, but there is
certainly a way to ensure The Brick and the Leon’s do not move into the
business parks.
Councillor Harder informed PEC she did have a Motion
on Policy 2 (d) and did not have the concern expressed by Councillor Hunter.
Michael S. Polowin, McCarthy, Tétrault, Murray Chown, NECL, and
Tony Gatti and Vince Mazzarello, TDL Group (Tim Horton’s). Mr.
Polowin advised that on behalf of TDL he echoed Mr. Chown’s remarks relative to
the process, which was excellent as is the report presented by staff. TDL had two small concerns relative to the
report, both of which can be categorized under the heading of trying to make
them consistent with the approach of the balance of the document. First, Policy 3.6.3, page 28 of the Draft
OPA - he wanted to offer a contrast in approach dealing with the issue of
drive-throughs as contrasted with the issue of surface parking in the
Traditional Mainstreet designation.
Policy 6, the OPA provides that new gas bars, services stations,
automobile sales and drive-through facilities will not be permitted on
Traditional Mainstreets in order to protect and enhance the pedestrian
environment. It is an absolute
prohibition. In the next Policy dealing
with surface parking, which is equally of concern on Traditional Mainstreets,
there is a strong discouragement, but the door is left open a crack. It reads On Traditional Mainstreets
surface parking will not be permitted between the building and the street. The location of surface parking will avoid
interruption of building continuity along the Traditional Mainstreet street
frontage and will minimize impacts on pedestrians. However, there may be exceptional circumstances, where locating
parking adjacent to the street frontage is unavoidable. In these cases, appropriate means such as
coordinated tree planting and landscaping, pedestrian amenities and the
dimension, location and number of vehicular access will be used to minimize the
interruption of the Traditional Mainstreet street frontage and to ameliorate
the impact on the pedestrian environment.
TDL shares staffs’ concern in this report that drive-throughs do not
work on a Traditional Mainstreet; TDL does, however, believe there are
exceptional circumstances where a drive-through could work and that would be
where the building continuity is preserved and access to a drive-through in the
rear is through either an adjacent parking lot already permitted or by a side
street, where that side street traffic flow will support the use of the
drive-through. TDL believes that with
the addition of two sentences Policy 6 can be made to agree in terms of
approach with Policy 7. TDL is simply
asking the two sentences be added after the outright prohibition contained in
the first sentence that he just read from Policy 6: However, there may be
exception circumstances where a drive-through facility may be located on a
Traditional Mainstreet where the intent of this Official Plan regarding
Traditional Mainstreets can otherwise be preserved. In these cases, appropriate means such as coordinated tree
planting and landscaping, pedestrian amenities and the dimension, location and
number of vehicular access will be used to minimize the interruption of the
Traditional Mainstreet street frontage and to ameliorate the impact on the
pedestrian environment. The second
sentence is taken directly from Policy 7.
The
second concern with the OPA has to do with designation of five streets as
Traditional Mainstreets. When the
Working Group arrived at the splitting of the designation between Arterial and
Traditional split, the designations were almost entirely arrived at on the
basis of not what will be, but what is.
Therefore, when looking at the fact that Merivale and Bank, as it passes
through the Glebe, both started with the same designation; the splitting was
based on what Merivale is today. If you
look at the Arterial Mainstreet Policies they are developed to encourage the
development of Merivale into Bank at some future date, while allowing it to
take place through evolution, not revolution.
TDL believes that in the case of five roads (Richmond between Cleary and
the Ottawa River Parkway; Merivale between Carling and Caldwell; McArthur
between the Vanier Parkway and St. Laurent; Bronson between the 417 and Carling
Avenue; and, Scott between Churchill and Island Park) an error has been
made. Each has been designated in
Schedule B as Traditional Mainstreet, but are not and staff has recognized
this. If you look at the responses to
comments; these were made in a letter from him to staff on January 10th,
on Schedule B, staff responds as follows:
The long term direction is to move these areas towards a Traditional
Mainstreet land use pattern rather than one that is characteristic of an
Arterial Mainstreet. With that
sentence alone staff has recognized the five roads referred to are not today
Traditional Mainstreets. Mr. Polowin
underscored TDL supports those provisions in the Plan that will encourage the
development of all five of these roads and indeed others into a more pedestrian
friendly, compact urban form. That
applies to Merivale equally as it does to these five streets. The notion is, however, that if you put the
Traditional Mainstreet designation on these five, all of which are roads badly
in need of investment, the bar is set so high no one will be willing to invest
the money required to bring them up to a Traditional Mainstreet pattern. TDL encourages PEC to re-designate those
five roads GUA so they can evolve towards the kind of pattern PEC and members
of the Retail Working Group support.
In
response to a query from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Chown did not specifically look
at the stretch from Caldwell to Base Line, but would not disagree with the
Councillor; there is the concentration of office towers at the intersection of
Base Line and Merivale, but once you travel north of the office complex, you
are basically in a GUA and, therefore, it might make sense to extend that GUA
to the back of the Meriline Court Complex.
But, Merivale from Caldwell to Carling does act as a Mainstreet to the
community that backs onto it. There is
some solely residential use on the street, but there has been some moderate
intensification taking place along the northerly edge, with three and four
storey apartment buildings being added.
Much of the retail currently located on the street is not terrific
retail, but it does back onto neighbourhoods that are low and moderate income
households and a considerable portion does function as the Mainstreet
collection of areas for residents to go (for shopping and servicing). There is certainly room for improvement on
the public’s side of the ledger, in terms of a Community Design Plan (CDP) to
be conducted for Mainstreets on all five streets mentioned. If a CDP was conducted there could be a lot
done to improve the attractiveness of those streets for future investment.
Responding
to Councillor Harder, Mr. Polowin confirmed the position taken is that TDL
supports the Traditional Mainstreet designation and do not have any difficulty
bringing in an application for Re-zoning if a rezoning would be required to
establish a drive-through use. TDL does
not have any difficulty in conforming at Site Plan to the requirements of the
OP in terms of the Traditional Mainstreet.
Mr. Jacobs maintained the staff issue with drive-through, gas station
and variety of uses listed under the Section quoted by Mr. Polowin is that they
are in total opposition to a pedestrian environment. The comparison to the parking; it is still taking a car, parking
it and leaving it. In a drive-through
situation, gas station or other use, it is cars in/out on a constant basis
across the sidewalk the City wants pedestrians walking on and not having to
dodge cars.
In response to Councillor Bédard, Mr. Polowin confirmed TDL had asked in its letter of January 10th that all five roads, plus Stitsville (that was corrected), be designated as Arterial Mainstreets rather than Traditional Mainstreet; quite frankly TDL would accept either GUA or Arterial. Today, TDL asked for GUA because it was felt a GUA designation might be more palatable than an Arterial Mainstreet designation because of the parallels drawn with roads that are seen as far less friendly scattered throughout the City. Mr. Polowin also wanted to be clear, TDL is not asking for car sales, parking lots or gas bars on Traditional Mainstreets. The request is restricted to drive-throughs because they believe that is the only one of the four uses that could conceivably function on a Traditional Mainstreet and remain hidden to that street. Responding to Councillor Bédard relative to the comments from Mr. Polowin, Mr. Jacobs would not categorize either GUA or Arterial as being bad designations. They reflect specific purposes. Mr. Polowin is correct, these areas do not exhibit to the same degree the type of uses in some of the other Traditional Mainstreets, but they also haven’t tipped towards the Arterial Mainstreets, which is very much more a car oriented environment, although staff is attempting to move it away from that. GUA is a designation that provides for a range of uses, but the Traditional Mainstreet is where staff wants these streets to be and that is why an OP has to show some vision and direction and staff would like to encourage these along a Traditional Mainstreet development pattern.
Lloyd Phillips, representing Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which is an umbrella
organization covering the major fuel companies. In the fall of 2003 when the Appeal was filed, they were not very
optimistic this would result in a positive outcome and thought there would be a
major battle at the OMB, but through the process the City undertook with great
leadership by staff and great facilitation by Larry Spencer and his Associates
what is being presented to PEC is a very balanced and reasonable approach. The Institute still has a number of
concerns, which are listed in the Matrix at the end of the report, but on
balance asked him to come before PEC to advise it does support the proposal and
recommended PEC approve same.
Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, echoed the process was very positive and
overall a lot of kudos go to Larry Spencer and Bob Webster for the excellent
facilitation and to staff for pulling it together. Mr. Fobert represented Loblaws at that round table and, on behalf
of Loblaws, he was in support of the staff recommendation. He was present today on behalf of Cavanagh
Developments, that has an application for an enterprise area and, if PEC were
to turn to page 81 of the staff report, their concern is shown. It deals with policy 3.6.5 (4. b), the
second box on that table. Enterprise
Areas, as approved in the 2003 OP, and allows for limited residential use and
in general that has been supported wholeheartedly and no one has raised a
concern in that regard. The concern
expressed is that Policy 4. b) indicates that Residential uses are permitted
in Enterprise Areas by amendment to the zoning by-law. Application to provide for residential uses
within an Enterprise area will be considered provided the following criteria
are met: b) A mix of housing is
provided but all housing is in the form of townhouses, stacked townhouses or
apartments. The residential areas
approved and developed in an Enterprise Area are restricted to those housing
forms. Cavanagh does not believe that
is an appropriate mix in a community.
The primary issue is the density of development to support the
employment uses that surround it and that a broader range of uses should be
permitted, provided certain density criteria can be met. To have only townhouses, stacked townhouses
or apartments does not provide for a variety of lifestyles and did not believe
it was the type of communities desired to be developed. He suggested wording under the Issue box on
page 81 that adds to that Policy that says: A mix of housing is provided but all housing is in the form of
townhouses, stacked townhouses or apartments, provided however that exceptions
may be made to allow additional housing forms as part of the housing mix if the
proponent can demonstrate the density targets will nevertheless be achieved. Staff responded under the Response column: the
wording contained in the Amendment was arrived at following consultation. Should innovative approaches to achieve
residential development in Enterprise Areas be submitted to the City, site
specific amendments would be considered.
Cavanagh does not believe that it should be necessary to come through an
OPA to achieve that. It does make sense
to add the wording.
The
other comment he wanted to raise is one that he did not represent anyone, but
it is a Policy that does cause some issue; it deals with Mainstreets. Policy 3.6.3 (8), page 29 in the OPA. It is where redevelopment infill is
encouraged on Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets. It talks about specific heights being established in a By-Law on
the basis of a study or a Plan. The
Policy is problematic. The range of 4-6
storeys on Traditional Mainstreets is going to be in some cases problematic for
appropriate infill and be referred to some of the development proposals the
City has recently dealt with on Richmond (Canderel), which is a Traditional
Mainstreet designation where it was deemed appropriate to go to 21
storeys. Setting a prescriptive
requirement, although there is the flexibility to go to higher height levels,
will establish a base building height that is the expectation with respect to
the development area. Also, 4-6 storeys
in some communities may be too high. A
bar is being established along Arterial Mainstreets at eight storeys and on
Traditional at 4-6, where perhaps a different height is appropriate. The second provision with respect to greater
building heights talks about prevailing building heights in the area conforming
to that. It is known that whenever
dealing with higher density or profile buildings, we are always dealing with a
prevailing building height that is lower because it is an area that is in
transition and will redevelop. He
recommended PEC take out the last sentence of the prelude in Police 8 to remove
specific building heights, to talk about achieving greater building heights
with respect to those criteria and look at the wording in b) and the others
should remain. It is setting up a major
confrontation relative to what is appropriate in terms of those Mainstreet
developments.
Arising
out of the presentation, Councillor Deans noted the first point made by Mr.
Fobert made perfect sense and questioned why staff did not accept that wording
on the mix of housing provided it was still meeting the density targets. Mr. Jacobs explained the issue with the
Enterprise Areas and allowing development in that format was to deal with
medium to higher density building forms.
It was not to permit lower density building forms, even if the target is
met; the principle of that area is to have higher intensity uses and for those
to foster and complement the employment or other uses in that specific
area. Not every block within the
community can provide every range of housing; this is an area that would be
meeting the medium and higher density housing forms. Staff did not feel there is a need to change the Policy; the
suggestion to Mr. Fobert with respect to considering a site-specific amendment
is just that, if there is something that is quite unique, staff would consider
it, but the OPA route was suggested because it is changing the principle and
intent of what was originally set out in the Plan.
Adam Thompson, Richcraft Group of Companies (RGC), noted the second half of Mr. Fobert’s presentation
sounded similar to his. Richcraft has
not appealed any of the Retail Policies since they are rarely involved in these
situations, but it came to their attention when the City was creating the
differentiation between Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets that there would
be some height requirements included.
Although RGC agrees with the differentiation between the two types of
Mainstreets, RGC has a general concern with the inclusion of height
requirements, whether they be minimum or maximum, and Mr. Fobert dealt with
that quite well. He referred to the
building before the OMB for Rideau, which would be considered a Traditional
Mainstreet, where the OMB found an appropriate height limit would be nine
storeys considering the make-up of the neighbourhood. That same street recently went through a CDP; that report came
forward and recommended a variety of heights along the street, ranging between
two and in excess of 15 and 16 storeys, depending upon the section of the
street. He wanted to ensure that as Mr.
Fobert mentioned consideration is put forward there are many extenuating
circumstances when developing streets or sites that would make it inappropriate
to put a minimum or maximum on height restrictions.
Alan Cohen, Soloway, Wright, appeared on behalf of Loblaws and Trinity
with Mr. Fobert and Nadia De Santi. This Committee, Mr. Lathop, Mr.
Jacobs, Mr. Ferguson, Ms. Paterson and other staff should be congratulated on the
mandate to set up a mediation process that might see a resolution of these
conflicts and Mr. Spencer and Mr. Webster did an excellent job.
Many were suspicious of the process, but it was extremely well
done. It was important to point out his
clients still have nagging problems relative to the Policies that remain in the
OP, but Mr. Jacobs explained that through his mandate, he would be prepared to
support modifications that allowed the thrust, the major principles and new
Policies of the Plan to be carried forward. In other words, the vision of the Plan would not be destroyed or
obscured by anything that would be accomplished. It is for that reason his clients find themselves accepting a
great deal of what is in the Plan.
Relative to Councillor Cullen’s reference to – the OP/Zoning distinction
and how that was superior for the developers, in fact, developers and community
were eye to eye on that point and both welcomed more OP work and protection
through the OP. He did not want PEC to
assume they received everything they wanted, that was not the case. It is likely they will live with it,
depending on the decisions made by PEC.
It is for that reason they preserve their Appeal Rights and hope this
works out well.
Janet Bradley, Borden Lodner Gervais, on behalf of Loeb, voiced very similar comments to
that of Mr. Cohen. When the original OP
was put out, Loeb felt it would be difficult to continue to provide the type of
stores that it has historically provided to the community, given the number of
restrictions and restraints and Loeb was an active participant in the process
described. It was an excellent process,
as others have indicated. The document
before PEC is not perfect for Loeb.
Loeb is not happy that in Traditional Mainstreet areas where most of
their stores are located it is prohibited to place parking between the front of
the building and street, but it is an important example because it illustrates
that by being present suggesting PEC adopt the report, it demonstrates there
was substantial give and take, as the process should have been and therefore,
Loeb recommends PEC adopt the report as a compromise report. It has been two years since the OP was
adopted and there is a need in the community for certainty and clarity in
Planning documents. This is the first
step towards having this document into full force and effect.
Jonah M. Bonn, on behalf of Brian Gold and Bridgewater Properties Inc., with respect to two sites in
the same area, 955 Dairy Drive, northeast corner of Trim and Dairy, and 905
Taylor Creek Drive, being the northwest corner of Trim and Taylor Creek. They were not part of the facilitative
discussions directly, although their comments were incorporated (page 92 of the
staff report). Mr. Bonn was present
simply to preserve their right to state they were still in opposition. While the OP designation is proposed to be
changed from Enterprise to Employment, they are still seeking to change to GUA
for both sites, representing an extension of the GUA on the Loblaws lands at
the southeast corner at Trim and Dairy.
Doug Kelly, Soloway Wright, advised the process undertaken was much better than the first ROP that
resulted in a two year OMB Hearing rather than the mediated solution that has
taken place. He sat at the table on
behalf of Shenkman, the Leiken Group and Emperado; there are still a few minor
areas being worked out with staff, but again he complemented staff on the work
accomplished. With respect to his other
client, the Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association, they were not participants
and had some concern with respect to the changed designation. Mr. Kennedy emailed the PEC on Friday and
indicated he was satisfied with the staff explanation; there are still some
concerns around CDPs, which they have maintained their Appeal on and he would
also agree with the comments heard from Mr. Fobert regarding the height
limitation on Mainstreets. Mr. Kelly added there are changes that take away densities in
certain areas. The Association wants to
ensure that when they come forward with infill, it can be undertaken without
undergoing a long process. They are in
favour of infill; many members have come forward with projects for infill and
would like that to take place in a quicker and more efficient manner.
Brian Harvey
was representing himself and could not comment on the process since he only
became aware of it 10 days ago through the paper, nor was his community
association and therefore he was not aware how broadly the community was
represented. He was in opposition,
specifically the Mainstreet’s section.
As the delegate from Tim Horton’s stated, the new designations reflect
what those streets were and to embody those into a Vision document is to steer
by looking in the rear view mirror. The
original Plan already acknowledged this distinction and to set them out so
strongly is effectively to provide a notwithstanding clause, which he had heard
staff (Mr. Ferguson) say they did not want to do. There are only 15 years left to 2020 and in the development cycle
of a retail section, that goes by very quickly. Five years ago, under the former City of Nepean, when the
Merivale Road Secondary Plan was updated there was considerable discussion
along the lines of Mainstreet to move towards more street oriented pedestrian
friendly. His concern with the
amendments is specifically in the designation Arterial. Policy 2, page 27, on lots where
development has the potential to develop both adjacent to the street (which
is what the vision is all about) or to the rear of the property (which
is what there is along all of the suburban stripmalls already), the
Mainstreet designation will apply to the entire lot and development situated on
the rear portions will not be considered to be non-conforming by virtue of not
being located adjacent to the street.
Mr. Harvey stated if requirements are not going to be put in place that
can be met by justification and by CDP, etc., then this is really just a
statement of what happened to these suburban stripmalls since 1945. When there is a loophole the size of a truck
and the distinction of Arterial and Traditional reflect what used to be, this
document should be strongly engaged towards where the City wants it go and
simply acknowledge that some sections (Traditional), are further along. They are in closer proximity to the notion
of a Mainstreet as we would like to see it and a number of other sections in
the Plan. If the City is not going to
build in some criteria and limits to protect the community, then he feared that
sections such as the Merivale corridor and others will remain suburban
stripmall-type areas forever. After the
Secondary Plan was approved a giant strip mall was approved and built at
Merivale and Viewmount. Similarly, one year
ago, a major addition was placed onto an old building at Merivale and Meadowlands. Whereas that building may have obsoleted
sometime within the planning period and there would have been an opportunity to
develop more in a Mainstreet fashion, the life of that existing building has
been extended considerably.
Peter Vice, Vice and Hunter, represented Canadian Tire Corporation (CTC),
along with Ron Clark, Delcan, as well as Kathleen Freiman, Vice-President, CTC was also involved in the
process. CTC is happy, not as happy as
it wanted to be at the outset, but it has been a good process. His mandate was two-fold; one, it was to
have CTC have an ability within designated areas to restore new stores in the
area (presently 10); and, the second part, was to ensure the 10 stores could
continue to operate in the future. The
process has come a long way to ensure Ottawa residents can pick up many toys. He was displeased to hear the community
groups who were part of the process have now presented an 11-page submission
since everyone gave up a lot to move it forward. Having said that, CTC does accept, although it is still looking
at some areas with respect to existing stores, the negotiated settlement and he
thanked everyone for their cooperation throughout.
In
response to Councillor Feltmate on community representation, Mr. Ferguson
advised the Federation of Citizens Associations (FCA) was at the table as well
as their membership associations. In
some cases they were there on their own and other cases they were present as
the Umbrella Group. FCA were the
Appellants to the Plan. Responding
further, Mr. Ferguson added that when the City underwent the OPA route, there
was circulation of the first Draft in December 2004 to the list of 200+
organization and to anyone who had appealed any designation of an urban nature
in the City and those were re-circulated in March. It was also advertised in the paper.
Responding
to Councillor Deans relative to Mr. Vice’s comment on the public consultation,
Mr. Lathrop continued on Mr. Ferguson’s response to Councillor Feltmate, that
this is a comprehensive amendment and staff wanted to ensure the City did not
only speak to the respondents. The City
also wanted to ensure the balance of the community was aware of the OPA, which
is why staff undertook the OP process and there was not only one but two
circulations. Staff believed it was
more than upfront in terms of informing everyone what was happening because
staff did not want it a solely negotiated settlement presented to the OMB. Chair Hume clarified that he believed Mr.
Vice’s comment was not specific to that public comment, but one with respect to
the Applicants at the table during the mediation process. Mr. Vice submitted it was both. The FCA was present at each meeting he
attended and there was at least three from other individual community associations
and although there were differences, he was of the view at the end of the day
that Mr. Spencer had mediated a settlement.
Gary Ludington, provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file
with the City Clerk, the main points of which are noted below. Mr. Ludington also provided pictures of The
Great Canadian Superstore in Westboro.
·
Big
box stores such
as The Great Canadian Superstore do not work when located on Traditional
Mainstreets. 10 acres of prime
residential land is now covered with cement and asphalt; the owner has not kept
promises made to the community nor does the City have the ability to enforce
promises understood to be requirements.
·
The
store was to be similar to a building further west (Widdicomb Building) that
contains more than one store (#1, #2 and #2A).
Big box (#3) that has no resemblance to pictures #1, #2 and
#2A. There is no street presence. Promised multiple entrances on Richmond to
the various shops, but there is only one that is difficult to find on Richmond
(#4)
·
Best
view of the store is the rear entrance from the parking lot (#5), which is not
pedestrian oriented. Windows on
Richmond do not invite shoppers with interesting displays, but rather with
signs that outline store hours and proclaim real savings (#4).
·
The
florist shop has an exit, not an entrance, and the sign on the open door (#6)
tells you ‘PLEASE ENTER ON RICHMOND ROAD’ with an arrow pointing to the
right (#7).
·
Westboro
may have needed a grocery store, but not one of this size, which belongs
elsewhere and PEC should reject the staff recommendation for Section 3.6.1 to
permit stand-alone retail buildings of 8,000 square metres anywhere in the GUA.
·
Following
on Mr. Polowin’s presentation to make Scott GUA as opposed to the Traditional
Mainstreet, in 1998 his community looked at the light industrial on Scott and
McRae and rezoning took place to promote the use of Scott as a Traditional
Mainstreet and development is taking place (residential and commercial) that
will make this a better place. As far
as Richmond, PEC has approved a CDP that will be undertaken this year and he
opined that should be done before PEC considers any request from a Tim Horton’s
or a McDonald’s to make part of Richmond Arterial Mainstreet to accommodate a
drive-through.
Amy Kempster
advised that although she is a member of FCA, she did not participate in the
Retail sessions. In general she
supported the document presented by FCA, but had concerns she would raise as a
private citizen. Somehow the City is
going the wrong way and there is a need for another category somewhere between
mixed used centres and GUA that allows for a mixture of uses. She was concerned they are more traditional
Employment Areas than they are suitable for residential and the City may be
loosing too many opportunities for employment.
She also had a question as a result of reading page 32, that the City
would allow vehicle sales and service in Employment and Enterprise areas, yet
it would not allow most types of retail.
That was inconsistent and illogical.
She was not in total agreement with the new PPBS with regard to
Employment Areas; you have to preserve employment areas, but she opined they
were deserts and need more areas within them that are gathering places that can
fulfill needs. She did not want a big
box store on a local road, but she did not mind it on an arterial
road. There does not appear to be a
clear prohibition in this document. In
the area of design, she approved Objective 6 and the principles which embody a
little bit of the design with nature that was present in the former ROP, but
the whole idea of designing with nature should be more emphasized in all
development.
Don Kennedy
was not present when PEC considered the matter, but had presented written
submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk, that
staff had provided satisfactory response to most of his questions, except for:
2.5.1, 2.5.6(5), Schedule B – Area adjacent to Change 20 and Schedule B – his
comments on behalf of Barry Lithwick on Schedule 3.
Dennis Eberhard, Vice-President, First Pro Shopping Centres, agent for
Innes Shopping Centres Ltd. (Innes), who is an Appellant to the Retail Policies
in the new OP. Mr. Eberhard actively
participated in the mediation sessions that culminated in the document before
PEC. This was a very long process as
explained by previous delegations and the document before PEC is fair and
reasonable. Innes is reluctantly
supporting the staff report and the OPA before PEC and is pleased the amendment
supports a rezoning application that is very important to their project on
Innes Road. That application is coming
before PEC on June 14th for consideration. For this reason, Innes is in support of the report. Their disappointment is obviously that
Retail OP Policies dramatically reduce development opportunities for his
company; they are very active in the business and it was felt the document has
limited future opportunities, but not necessarily those in the immediate time
frame. In conclusion, he looked forward
to moving forward with PEC approval of the amendments before Committee.
Robert Brocklebank, and Linda Hoad, Federation of Citizens’ Associations
of Ottawa Carleton (FCA), provided a detailed 13-page written submission that was circulated and
is held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. Hoad provided details on the requested wording changes relative to
the following sections. Many of the
changes do not change the intent of the policy, but clarify them. In some cases they tighten the Policy,
particularly where it concerns the compatibility criteria.
·
Page
15, OPA, Revised Section 2.5.1 Compatibility and Community Design
referring to Ottawa By Design; second bullet delete “seek ways to integrate
design”. It merely tightens the wording
and does not change the meaning.
·
Page
17, Revised Section 2.5.6 Policy 6 – recommend delete Subsection B. This relates to the concern on the need for
CDPs being adopted as Secondary Plans.
·
Page
19, Figure 2.5.6 Section B – add “Watershed or sub-watershed plans,
hydrological resources, and groundwater conditions.”
·
Page
21, Section 3.6.1 – delete Policy 3d completely or modify it (with suggested
wording). It seems to imply all of
these housing forms (ground oriented multiple housing forms) are appropriate in
all communities.
·
Page
21, Section 3.6.1, Policy 6 add to preamble and Subsection e), “size and scale”
the word “type”, so it would read “size, scale and type”.
·
Page
22, Section 3.6.2, first sentence should be amended to read “However the areas
that have been designated as Mixed–Use Centres extend beyond the limits of
these concentrations.”
·
Section
3.6.2, third paragraph, the term “internal and external commuting”, rewritten
paragraph.
·
Page
24, Section 3.6.2, Policy 8 e), the reference to 400m should be changed to
600m. This appears to be inconsistent
with the measures elsewhere in the same section providing for special parking
arrangements in a 600m radius of transit stations.
·
Section
3.6.3 Mainstreets, Policy 3.
·
Page
29, Policy 8, concerning Mainstreets and the height limits – she was inclined
to agree with Mr. Fobert that it is possible to remove the height limits from
the policy as long as the City can rely on the zoning or CDP. There is existing zoning that covers heights
on the now designed Traditional Mainstreets that can be relied on until the new
Zoning By-Law or a CDP comes into effect.
·
Page
29, Section 3.6.3, Policy 9 – change to accept that “the minimum height limit
on a Mainstreet could be the equivalent of a two-storey building” is simply in
total contradiction to the preceding policy, which requires that Mainstreets be
the focus of intensification and infill.
Should be amended to read “the minimum building height will be a
two-storey building”.
·
Page
31, Section 3.6.5, recommend that the “prestigious uses” bullet be moved from
the description of “Employment Areas” into the “Enterprise Areas”. Alternatively, strongly recommend that
“change 12 on Schedule B” be deleted.
·
Page
32, Section 3.6.5, Policy 2 c), the words “day care” should be added as one of
the examples of complimentary uses permitted in these areas.
·
Page
38, Section 4.11, preamble, add the word “privacy” to the first sentence.
·
Policy
4.11, Policy 1, re-write the preamble.
It is stronger language.
·
Page
40, Policy 4.11, Policy 2 d), modify the third sentence. Relates to shadow studies
Ms.
Hoad advised there were other changes that she would leave to the other
Councillors to move.
Councillor
Hunter noted the extensive list of changes and asked if these suggestions were
raised during the process and refused or are these subsequent ideas. Ms. Hoad advised she was one of the prime
members of FCA that participated in the process and it did become intense
during the mediation. FCA simply ran
out of steam. She took responsibility
for the fact the comments did not reach PEC, staff and the other appellants
until this morning. The suggestions
were certainly brought up during the discussions, but not part of the massive
exchange of emails that took place. She
did not have the time or resources to consider them all or organize the small
working group of FCA members, who are volunteers to meet at their mutual
convenience to forward something, which they clearly should have done. Mr. Ferguson explained it was difficult to
quickly respond to this bulk of suggestions.
He did not recognize many of the suggestions. If these had been submitted either in the December circulation or
in the March re-draft, staff could have responded in the report. It is difficult for him to react and would
like the opportunity to review and respond on whether they offend any parts of
the OPA. Mr. Jacobs interjected that it
would certainly be staff’s position that while there is some fine-tuning
suggested, they do not substantially add to the Amendment that has undergone a
considerable process to this date.
Councillor Cullen asked about the stand alone retail buildings of over 8,000 square metres. Mr. Brocklebank submitted the assumption was that they would rather not have them on a local street. It is a reasonable assumption and he doubted anyone wanted to place a big box on a local street. Frankly, his concern about liberating the big box store to float anywhere in the City is not that he envisaged Home Depot is going to build a large shop opposite Mr. Lathrop’s house, it is rather that there is no guidance as to what to expect from the Zoning By-Law, which will presumably control this. Councillor Cullen indicated he would be moving a Motion that says to add to that second sentence, these uses are often large and serve to serve or draw from broader areas such as a large scale big box retail store, (i.e. over 8,000 square metres) and shopping centres under 50,000 square metres. Mr. Jacobs advised it was certainly staff’s opinion that was unnecessary and as soon as you start identifying specific uses, other uses are left out. Illustrative comments tend to point you in a specific direction.
Mr. Lathrop took exception to questioning staff on the extensive list of changes without a comprehensive review. He would not support staff giving off the cuff comments or adjustments or changes in what was a complex, developed process through a complex amendment.
Councillor Bédard suggested PEC simply hear the delegations and possibly dedicate another day to consider the material allowing staff the opportunity to review the material, in particular the proposed amendments. In response to a question of time frame from Chair Hume, Mr. Marc advised there is a significant portion of the OP that has been and continues to be tied up in this appeal. Two years have transpired since the enactment of the Plan and this is an issue that must be resolved to bring it into force. The pre-hearing for these matters is scheduled to take place on October 3. If the matter was deferred for one further meeting, it would not present a problem, but he was concerned if there was much further delay, with the summer months, the City will lose the October 3 date. Awaiting the resolution of these Appeals, is also the matter concerned with Appeals 84 and 85, by Mr. Monson with respect to the OP. He has agreed to allow these amendments to proceed and not push his case for a hearing, which has been tied up in part due to these matters. If this matter were before Council on June 22, as opposed to the 8th, it would not make much of a difference. The possibility of adjourning the meeting to another date was discussed as well as deferring the matter to the next meeting.
As a result of the FCA presentation, Councillor Cullen indicated he had four motions he was prepared to consider on their behalf and in the particular case of figure 2.5.6, Structure of CDPs, if we add to existing conditions, the City would look at watershed or sub-watershed plans, hydrological resources and ground water conditions. Ms. Paterson advised this is a list of things the City would look at, many of which would come out of sub-water shed plans. Of course, staff would look at existing watershed and sub-watershed plans.
Section 4.11, pages 39-41, 10
sections under compatibility, use of the word should. Councillor Cullen asked if PEC were to move from should to will,
would that not ensure these policies would therefore be affectively
implemented. Mr. Ferguson remarked that
Policy 2 in that section says the city will consider them. These have to be taken into account. He did not believe there is any need to
change the shoulds to woulds, etc.
The
Committee received the following correspondence:
·
Email dated 17 May 2005 from Paul Webber in
opposition
·
Email dated 19 May 2005 from Pierrette Woods and
Sharon Lawrence in support
·
Letter dated 20 May 2005 from Casey Malone,
Hydro Ottawa Ltd.
·
Email dated 23 May 2005 from Alayne McGregor
outlining concerns relative to the Section 3.6.5 Employment and Enterprise Area
Councillor Cullen returned to the redesignation of the Employment and Enterprise Centres to General Urban. Mr. Ferguson clarified the redesignations largely came from staff in response to concerns over the amount of land that was available for retail as options. Many are old industrial areas surrounded by burgeoning communities. They are an anomaly in the middle. Councillor Cullen then identified on page 41, Schedule 1, a number of items that are being converted from Enterprise to General Urban or Employment Area to General Urban. And on Schedule 3, page 43, where they are going from Enterprise to General Urban. Mr. Ferguson noted these were specific sites that no one appealed. There were a number of factors that resulted in changes to the schedule; some were direct appeals. Loblaws, for example, had site-specific appeals across the city on some of their sites and some of the changes from an Enterprise to a General Urban, relate thereto. Others arose out of the objections to restricting retail in Employment areas. Staff redesignated lands that were already taken over by retail from Employment to General Urban; i.e. Hunt Club and Merivale where there is a big collection of big box retail stores, designated Employment Area, those were under appeal. The response to that was not to permit retail in Employment Areas, but to change the designation to one that permitted retail.
Councillor Cullen suggested Sections from 2.5.1, Schedule 1, and Sections from 2.5.3, Schedule 3, be referred to staff to provide an analysis and rationale for the redesignation. The report could be presented to the PEC meeting after next, which would still be within Mr. Marc’s timeline.
Chair Hume stressed PEC had to cognizant, as pointed out by Mr. Marc, to have the matter before Council in a timely fashion. There is an extra Tuesday in May, next Tuesday – 31 May, which holds no Standing Committee meetings. That would still allow the report to rise to Council on the 22nd June meeting and provide Councillors not on PEC a full 2½ weeks. At that time, PEC would receive a document from staff that would comment on those issues and Motions brought forward and if there were other issues, these could come forward at that time. PEC would not hear any public delegations. The meeting would be to receive Motions, debate and make recommendation to Council. Councillor Cullen confirmed it would basically adjourn this portion of the meeting to next Tuesday and received confirmation he could table his five Motions. Councillor Hunter opined it was appropriate to ensure today was the last opportunity for public delegations to be heard and also had a number of Motions, as did Councillor Harder, that could be tabled to the meeting.
Councillor Harder advised for the record, she would be unable to attend since her house was closing on Tuesday.
Given what had transpired, Chair Hume asked if there were any additional public delegations, who would like to speak to this matter before he closed the public meeting.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Alan Cohen appreciated PEC is being asked to assimilate considerable information today and would not try to interfere with the desire of any Councillor to review points, investigate them or make recommendations. His concern, of course, and he may be speaking for many, is that they have not seen these points. It was suggested there would not be input or delegations next time and wondered whether PEC would reconsider. He had already asked Nadia De Santi to review the 13 pages to provide a response in an effort to discern whether there was any objection. If they did not have any objection, they would not stand on ceremony, but if they did narrow it down to a few points, he hoped PEC might hear them on those points. A negotiated settlement is at stake and he reminded PEC that Council had turned it over to staff to mediate a settlement. They came before PEC in good faith having gone through that exercise and he for one and his clients, did not want to see it fail.
Murray Chown echoed Mr. Cohen’s comments. They spent the better part of a year to reach this point. PEC heard from a number of people who, having participated in this process arrived at a compromise and were willing to live with that compromise. On behalf of eight appellants, he informed PEC they are prepared to live with what is in front of PEC, with one very minor wording change to one clause. If PEC is going to start to tear this apart over the next week, he was not sure they could remain silent and will want to participate in the process.
Councillor Deans referred to the Employment and Enterprise Areas, looking at the definitions, she was given to understand what was proposed is that the City will not continue to allow big box retailing in the Employment and Enterprise Areas, but will be expanding the range of retail uses permitted. Mr. Ferguson explained it is not really expanding it; there is a better explanation of what is meant by a Service Commercial designation. Mr. Lathrop added the Service Commercial and principal behind not allowing big box retailing into those designations would be reinforced in the Zoning Bylaw to ensure that would not happen, so it is only service commercial. In fact, the City no longer allows big box retailing in Employment Areas. The old municipalities did and many in the planning field felt it was a loophole. Big box retailing should not be looked at as a destination only, but integrated into the fabric of the development scenario of the City. Big box retailing should not be viewed as this big enemy to be allowed only in the worst possible locations and always driven to. It is an economic generator and a fact of life; it attracts retailing and a centralized focus for many associated uses.
Chair Hume closed the Public Hearing and the Committee agreed to adjourn this item to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. on 31 May 2005, in the Champlain Room to debate and decide on Motions and staff recommendation. Chair Hume advised that all Motions will be published in the Disposition that will be released and published on the City’s website so the public is aware of the Motions.
The following Motions were referred to staff for consideration at the 31 May 2005 meeting.
Moved by Councillor J. Harder:
I. That the wording of policy 2 (d) in
section 3.6.5 ‘Employment Area and Enterprise Area’ (on page 32 of the Draft
OPA) be amended by:
1.
deleting “proportion of the” from the sixth line of
the policy; and,
2.
deleting “so that sample and showroom is secondary and
subordinate to the primary use of the building for warehouse storage”
Moved by Councillor Hunter:
II. Section
3.6.3, Policy 6 be amended to add the following after the first sentence:
However, there may be exceptional circumstances
where a drive-through facility may be located on a Traditional Mainstreet where
the intent of this Official Plan regarding Traditional Mainstreets can
otherwise be preserved. In these cases,
appropriate means such as co-ordinated tree planting and landscaping,
pedestrian amenities and the dimension, location and number of vehicular access
will be used to minimize the interruption of the Traditional Mainstreet Street
frontage and to ameliorate the impact on the pedestrian environment.
III. The
following Traditional Mainstreet designations on Schedule “B” be amended as
follows:
a.
Richmond Road from approximately Cleary Avenue (near
Kristy’s Restaurant), west to the Ottawa River Parkway, be re-designated as
General Urban.
b.
Merivale Road from Caldwell Avenue north to Carling
Avenue be re-designated as General Urban.
c.
McArthur Avenue from Vanier Parkway to St. Laurent
Boulevard be re-designated as General Urban.
d.
Bronson Avenue, south of the Queensway to Carling
Avenue be re-designated as General Urban
e.
Scott Street between Churchill Avenue and Island Park
Drive be re-designated as General Urban
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
IV. Add
to Figure 2.5.6 Structure of Community Design Plans, under B. Existing
Conditions (Page 19):
“11. Watershed
or sub-watershed plans, hydrological resources, and ground water conditions”
V. Add
to 3.6.1 General Urban Area – Policy 5, in preamble to 2nd sentence
(Page 21):
“such as a large scale ‘big box’ retail
store (i.e. over 8,000 sq.m) and
shopping centres under 50,000 sq. m”
VI. 3.6.5
Employment Area and Enterprise Area (Page 32)
Policy 2 (c) add “child care” to the list of
illustrative examples
VII. Section
4.11 Compatibility – Policy 2 (a) to (l) replace “should” in all sections with
“will” (Pages 39, 40 and 41).
VIII. Section
4.11 Compatibility – Policy 2 (Pages 39, 40 and 41).
2(a) Traffic
- delete “Generally”
2(b) Vehicular
Access - delete “wherever the opportunity exists”
2(c) Parking
Requirements - delete “where appropriate”
2(g) Loading
Areas - delete “wherever possible”
2(h) Lighting
- delete “or mitigated”
2(j) Sunlight
- delete “to the extent practicable”
IX. That
the following sections from 2.5.1 Schedule 1 be referred to staff to provide an
analysis and rationale for these re-designations: Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8. (Pages 41 and 43).
And that the following sections from 2.5.3
Schedule 3 be referred to staff to provide an analysis and rationale for these
re-designations: Sections 18, 19, 20,
21, 25, 26, 28.
31 May / 31 mai
2005 – 9:30 a.m. / 9 h 30 – 12:30 p.m. / 12 h 30
At the outset, Chair Peter Hume reminded
those present that, on 24 May 2005, the Planning and Environment Committee
agreed to reconvene on 31 May 2005 to debate this item. N. Lathrop, D. Jacobs and J. Ferguson
were present to answer questions from Committee members. Mr. Jacobs indicated Mr. Ferguson and he
were prepared to answer any questions that relate to Mr. Lathrop’s memorandum
of 30 May 2005 circulated via electronic mail on the same date. T. Marc and J. Moser were also present to
answer questions from Committee members.
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen about his Motion relating to big box stores (see V, below), Mr. Ferguson reiterated staff’s position that there is no need for the proposed change, as it would impair the integrity of the mediated solution. Mr. Jacobs added that big-box stores provide opportunities outside employment areas and come in several formats with no clear definition of what these are. As well, the reference to big box retail and size no longer has context with the proposed repeal of Section 3.6.8 and staff are not prepared to propose numbers which it feels is not required.
Councillor Cullen pointed out that planners
often make contradictory statements at hearings and that more precise wording
would ensure these facilities are not built on major collectors and
streets. He stated that, as there is
currently no limitation, the policy would be subject to testing, and with a
number of large sites coming on the market, City Council would be forced to
evaluate these on the existing language.
Vice Chair Feltmate made reference
to the Employment Area and Enterprise Area (Schedule 1), noting that this
classification reflects more what is happening in any specific area. She questioned whether, in the face of a
changing economy, more employment areas would be required and whether this
would have a negative impact on filling intensification goals. Vice Chair Feltmate expressed the view there
is sufficient land to meet ratios in the western part of the City, and that job
to housing ratios are still being met.
Mr. Lathrop, indicated there are
moves towards better re-integration and a desire to get away from the term big box. Staff also believe that Mainstreets work and
don’t need to be segregated and that, by showing more flexibility to office
parks, better integration between residential and office uses can be achieved.
Vice Chair Feltmate opined this will
contribute to high infrastructure costs.
She pointed out that the east-west light rail line has yet to be
determined, and she expressed a concern that more land being required for
employment areas in the future.
Councillor Hunter wanted to know why staff could not support amending the Traditional Mainstreet designation for Richmond Road (see III (a) below). Mr. Jacobs responded by saying that part of the mediated solution involved compromises the City could make, but in the case of Richmond Road, it was felt the current policy should be retained because it works effectively.
When asked by Councillor Bédard how the redevelopment of gas bars and services would be encouraged, Mr. Jacobs stated this would be subject to site plan control and/or expansion of existing, non-conforming uses. Mr. Moser added that additions under 200 sq m would be exempt from the site plan process. Councillor Bédard said he thought this would be difficult to implement and that an addition would not be considered “small” if it doubled the size of an operation.
Councillor Deans said the City has no mechanism to control design features and she averred that design standards could be imposed under the City of Ottawa Act. She circulated photographs that illustrate current design trends on Canada’s west coast. Mr. Jacobs concurred with this view, but he noted that staff has the ability to negotiate a building site and feel. Staff is seeking opportunities to get more involved in this regard and the Downtown Design Pilot project may provide them. Mr. Lathrop cited the Trainlands as a good example of where the City negotiated a good building site, and utilized good moral suasion.
When asked by Chair Hume when the Downtown Design Pilot would come before the Committee, Mr. Moser stated it would be brought forward this summer. He added that, while the report only deals with the downtown area, the Ottawa by Design process would eventually encompass the entire City. Councillor Deans asked whether there were impediments to imposing either design standards or a design committee. Mr. Lathrop said staff could implement what is currently in the Official Plan, i.e., to cover the existing geographic area of the old City of Ottawa, but he felt this should be expanded to cover the entire new City. Mr. Moser reiterated the approach was to start with downtown, then move forwards throughout the entire city.
Departmental staff responded to Councillor Doucet’s questions clarifying the size and catchment area of a new grocery/retail store at Walkley and Conroy Roads and whether there is revenue loss in taxation for big-box as opposed to standard stores. Having heard from Mr Jacobs that the appellants were supportive of the proposed amendments, Councillor Doucet inquired whether the public was consulted about these proposed changes. Mr. Jacobs pointed out that all levels of developers, small convenience stores and the FCA were consulted, and that input was received from over 200 community associations: further comments were elicited in March 2005. Mr. Jacobs expressed the belief that the community was given opportunities to comment.
At this point, Chair Hume inquired about the process that would ensue from the Committee's decisions about the amendment. Mr. Marc said the adopted amendment would go out on its appeal period, when he believed it would be appealed and an OMB hearing would be scheduled. In the event there were no appeals, the existing appeals would be withdrawn. When asked by Chair Hume about whether changes made by the Committee would be before the OMB, Mr. Marc pointed out that the Board has broad authority with respect to retail policies and that any appellant could make representations before that body. Chair Hume advanced the view that this meant the City could be back before the Board fighting the same battle.
Councillor Cullen then presented a new Motion with respect to S3.6.1, Policy 5 (see V below) and asked for a staff comment. Mr. Jacobs reiterated that staff feels this has been adequately covered and that there is no need to provide additional restrictions.
Commenting on a Motion of referral introduced by Vice Chair Feltmate and dealing with big-box stores (see A. below) Mr. Jacobs said staff grappled with this issue when dealing with the retail appeals. He thought that, while it was possible to take out one piece and try to fix it there were wider ramifications. Mr. Jacobs was of the opinion that staff had put in place a framework to regulate this kind of land use and he felt this should be seen in that perspective.
Councillor Doucet said the big-box
issue is seizing every city in North America.
He opined that these facilities create landscapes that are difficult to
service: they impact on the quality of a community and they need to be “taken
on” at some point. Councillor Doucet
spoke about the need to rethink the kind of City people want and he felt this
should be the subject of wider debate.
Councillor Deans spoke in support of
referral, and of wider community debate.
She expressed the belief the proposed amendment is an expansion of the
use, and that proponents will have more ability now. The Councillor added there are many tracts of land where this can
happen and she asked how the City could achieve the goal of less dependence on
cars if it keeps approving facilities that attract cars.
Councillor Hunter pointed out that
this debate has been going on for four years, through the Official Plan review,
retail plans, and discussions about where big-box stores should be
located. He reminded the Committee that
the aim is to mediate a resolution to retail appeals, and he thought could be
done by amending particular clauses, but not by sending back this item. Councillor Hunter said he did not want years
of consultation to be followed by years of dealing with appeals.
Mr. Lathrop commented that the
amendment tries to implement Official Plan policies, and posits that big-box
stores should be integrated in the City, where good transit service
exists. He opined that the mediated settlement
would bring this about. He urged the
Committee to move ahead and to look at design issues.
Councillor Cullen said he felt the proposal before Committee was quite different from that what is in the 2003 Official Plan. He averred that big-box stores promote automobile use over public transit, cycling and pedestrian activity. He did not see the need to change what has been approved, saying this would represent a step backwards. Councillor Cullen reaffirmed the need for very clear language as relates to the Ontario Municipal Board and he asked that referral be supported.
At this point, the Committee considered the
following Motions:
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate
A. WHEREAS the big-box issue is a
central one to the new city’s tax revenue, quality of community and
streetscapes and many cities have decided to regulate them very carefully;
AND WHEREAS an issue of this importance should be subject to a
wider, more comprehensive public discussion than the normal committee procedure
permits;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that big-box size, design and location be referred back to a public consultation process such that the public has a greater opportunity to comment on the desirability of expanding or contracting these commercial areas.
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): Councillors H. Kreling, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
Moved by Councillor G. Hunter
I. That the wording of policy 2 (d) in
section 3.6.5 ‘Employment Area and Enterprise Area’ (on page 32 of the Draft
OPA) be amended by:
3.
deleting “proportion of the” from the sixth line of
the policy; and,
4.
deleting “so that sample and showroom is secondary and
subordinate to the primary use of the building for warehouse storage”
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors H. Kreling, G. Hunter
NAYS (5): Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M Bellemare, G. Bédard, P.
Hume
With respect to S3.6.3, Policy 6 (see II below),
Councillor Hunter commented that staff have done a good job separating
arterials from Mainstreets and that, with the proper mitigating elements,
drive-through facilities are possible in remote cases and would represent no
detriment to a Mainstreet or an existing plaza. Both Councillors Cullen and Bédard spoke against the proposed
amendment, the latter indicating that, based on his experience in his ward,
these do not work.
Moved by Councillor G. Hunter
II. Section
3.6.3, Policy 6 be amended to add the following after the first sentence:
“However, there may be exceptional
circumstances where a drive-through facility may be located on a Traditional
Mainstreet where the intent of this Official Plan regarding Traditional
Mainstreets can otherwise be preserved.
In these cases, appropriate means such as co-ordinated tree planting and
landscaping, pedestrian amenities and the dimension, location and number of
vehicular access will be used to minimize the interruption of the Traditional
Mainstreet Street frontage and to ameliorate the impact on the pedestrian
environment”.
LOST
YEAS (1): Councillor G. Hunter
NAYS (7): Councillors H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G.
Bédard, P. Hume
Councillor Bédard requested that the elements of the
next Motion (see III below) be divided.
He also asked for a staff comment on Councillor Cullen’s addition of
Main Street, from the Canal to the McIlraith Bridge, to the Mainstreet
designation. Mr. Jacobs indicated that
Main Street is designated at General Urban and was not put forward as a
Mainstreet. He added, when asked by
Chair Hume about the differences in policies between Traditional Mainstreets and
General Urban that intensification is not encouraged on General Urban. Councillor Doucet pointed out that Main
Street is one of the oldest in Ottawa and the community wants it revitalized as
a traditional shopping street.
Moved by Councillor G. Hunter
III. The
following Traditional Mainstreet designations on Schedule “B” be amended as
follows:
a.
Richmond Road from approximately Cleary Avenue (near
Kristy’s Restaurant), west to the Ottawa River Parkway, be re-designated as
General Urban.
LOST
YEAS (1): Councillor
G. Hunter
NAYS (6): Councillors
H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
b.
Merivale Road from Caldwell Avenue north to Carling
Avenue be re-designated as General Urban.
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors
M. Bellemare, G. Hunter
NAYS (5): Councillors
H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, .G. Bédard, P. Hume
c.
McArthur Avenue from Vanier Parkway to St. Laurent
Boulevard be re-designated as General Urban.
LOST
YEAS (1): Councillor
G. Hunter
NAYS (6): Councillors
H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
d.
Bronson Avenue, south of the Queensway to Carling
Avenue be re-designated as General Urban
LOST
YEAS (1): Councillor
G. Hunter
NAYS (6): Councillors
H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
e.
Scott Street between Churchill Avenue and Island Park
Drive be re-designated as General Urban
LOST
YEAS (1): Councillor
G. Hunter
NAYS (6): Councillors
H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
f. That Main Street, from the Canal to
the McIlraith Bridge in Old Ottawa South be designated as a Traditional
Mainstreet from General Urban.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): Councillors
H. Kreling, A. Cullen, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
NAYS (1): Councillor
G. Hunter
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
IV. Add
to Figure 2.5.6 Structure of Community Design Plans, under B. Existing
Conditions (Page 19):
“11. Watershed
or sub-watershed plans, hydrological resources, and ground water conditions”
CARRIED
Speaking to this Motion, Councillor Cullen said the
policy applies to more than big-box stores and clarifies what is to be
covered. He restated his earlier claim
that there were more prescriptive policies in the 2003 O.P. The Councillor cautioned against allowing
big-box stores in the urban area without being covered by adequate
language. He gave this as the rationale
for adding the words “such as, and not limited to” prior to the words “a large
scale big box.
Replying to a question from Councillor Bellemare, Mr.
Jacobs said that staff stands by the comments in the memorandum but will work
with what the Committee determines.
Councillor H. Kreling sought clarification on
Councillor Cullen’s subsequent Motion (see B. below) as it relates to major
collectors. Mr. Jacobs indicated that
not allowing the described land uses along major collectors would accomplish
what Councillor Cullen is seeking.
Moved by
Councillor A. Cullen
V. Add
to 3.6.1 General Urban Area – Policy 5, in preamble to 2nd sentence
(Page 21):
“such as a large scale ‘big box’ retail store
(i.e. over 8,000 sq.m) and shopping centres under 50,000 sq.m”
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors A. Cullen, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): Councillors H. Kreling, G. Hunter, M.
Bellemare, G. Bédard, P. Hume
Moved by
Councillor A. Cullen
B. Under Section 3.6.1 General Urban
Area, Policy 5, insert:
(b)
“large-scale, “big box” retail store (i.e.,
over 8000 sq m) and shopping centres under 50,000 sq m and over 10,000 sq m
will be directed to locations along the rapid-transit system or an arterial
road with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated
and where frequent, all-day transit service can be provided”.
And that the previous (b) be re-numbered to
(c).
CARRIED
Moved by
Councillor A. Cullen
VI. 3.6.5 Employment Area and Enterprise Area
(Page 32)
Policy 2 (c) add “child care” to the list of
illustrative examples
CARRIED
Moved by
Councillor A. Cullen
VII. Section 4.11 Compatibility – Policy 2 (a)
to (l) replace “should” in all sections with “will” (Pages 39, 40 and 41).
At
the request of the mover, this Motion was WITHDRAWN
Moved by
Councillor A. Cullen
VIII. Section 4.11 compatibility – Policy 2 (Pages
39, 40 and 41).
2(a) Traffic - delete “Generally”
2(b) Vehicular Access - delete “wherever the
opportunity exists”
2(c) Parking Requirements - delete “where
appropriate”
2(g) Loading Areas - delete “wherever possible”
2(h) Lighting - delete “or mitigated”
2(j) Sunlight - delete “to the extent
practicable”
CARRIED
Councillor Cullen asked that the vote on these items
be separated. He pointed out that, as
part of the debate on growth communities, the Regional Municipality of
Ottawa-Carleton had wanted to ensure there would be employment nodes in the growth
areas of Kanata and Cumberland. The
Councillor felt this should now be applied to new growth areas and to ensure
that City Council can deal with these on a case-by-case basis.
Vice-Chair Feltmate said she supported retaining
Sections 1 and 2, noting that there should be no expansions until roads and
infrastructure are in place. Councillor
Hunter said he could not support the removal of Section 8 as this is a
developed area containing commercial enterprises and is a typical commercial
node in the General Urban Area
Moved
by A. Cullen
IX (a) That
the following sections from 2.5.1 Schedule 1 be removed from Schedule 1:
Sections 1, 2, 6, 7.
CARRIED
with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting on 1, 2 and 7.
Councillor Kreling asked about Sections 19 and 21,
specifically he recalled that this had been examined and found to be sufficient
to meet targets set. He also expressed
the belief that these parcels were not necessary for employment targets.
After further discussions, Councillor Cullen agreed to
modify his amendment as follows:
IX (b) And
that the following sections from 2.5.3 Schedule 3 be removed from Schedule 3:
Sections 25, 26.
CARRIED with Councillor G. Hunter dissenting.
The Committee then approved the report recommendations as amended.
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan (2003) to make changes throughout the text and to Schedule 'B', Urban Policy Plan, as detailed in Document 2, as amended by the following:
a)
Amend Schedule "B" by designating Main
Street from the Canal to the McIlraith Bridge in old Ottawa East as a
Traditional Mainstreet from General Urban.
b)
Add to Figure 2.5.6 Structure of Community
Design Plans, under B. Existing Conditions (Page 19):
“11. Watershed or sub-watershed plans,
hydrological resources, and ground water conditions”
c)
Add to 3.6.1 General Urban Area – Policy 5,
insert (b):
"Large scale “big box” retail store (i.e.,
over 8000 sq.m.) and shopping centres under 50,000 sq. m. and over 10,000 sq.
m. will be directed to locations along the rapid transit system or an arterial
road with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated
and where frequent, all-day transit service can be provided”.
And re-number
previous (b) to (c).
d)
3.6.5 Employment Area and Enterprise Area (Page
32)
Policy 2
(c) add “child care” to the list of illustrative examples
e)
Section 4.11 compatibility – Policy 2 (Pages
39, 40 and 41).
2(a) Traffic
- delete “Generally”
2(b) Vehicular
Access - delete “wherever the opportunity exists”
2(c) Parking
Requirements - delete “where appropriate”
2(g) Loading
Areas - delete “wherever possible”
2(h) Lighting
- delete “or mitigated”
2(j) Sunlight - delete “to the extent
practicable”
f)
That the following sections from 2.5.1 Schedule
1 be removed from Schedule 1: Sections 1, 2, 6, 7 (Pages 41 and 43).
And that
the following sections from 2.5.3 Schedule 3 be removed from Schedule 3:
Sections 25 and 26.
2. Direct staff to finalize
Annex 3, 'Community Design Framework' (in particular the portion 'Some Design
Considerations') in conjunction with the retail appellants and other interested
parties and bring it back to Council for approval during the summer of 2005.
CARRIED
as
amended
[U1]Summarize the implications and end with…The impact of the Official Plan Amendment is viewed as negligible.
[U3]If there are objections or significant comment, use the following
[U5]Summarize the public notification and consultation undertaken.
[U6]If there are a number of comments/concerns, please list each comment separately along with the corresponding response.
If there are a small number of related comments, please summarize them and provide one response.
[U7]Insert Councillor’s comments
[U8]Insert Community Organization Comments
[U9]Insert our response
[U10]Insert Advisory Committee comments
[U11]Insert our response