3.         OFFICIAL PLAN - 6303 Hazeldean RoaD

 
PLAN OFFICIEL - 6303 chemin Hazeldean

 

 

 

Committee RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council:

 

1.         Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan by adding a site specific policy in the General Urban Area to permit an 11,000 m2 retail centre with a full range of retail uses at 6303 Hazeldean Road.

 

2.         Approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Office Plan to permit the establishment of retail uses on 6303 Hazeldean Road without submitting a market study.

 

as detailed in Documents 1 and 2.

 

And that Council reconfirm By-Law 2004-340 and that notice of this reconfirmation be provided to the public.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIées DU COMITé

 

Que le Conseil :

 

1.                  approuve une modification au Plan officiel approuvé par le Conseil municipal par l’ajout d’une politique s’appliquant à un site en particulier dans le secteur urbain général afin de permettre un centre de commerce de détail de 11 000 m2 comportant une variété de commerces de détail au 6303, chemin Hazeldean;

 

2.                  approuve une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancien Canton de Goulbourn afin de permettre l’établissement  de commerces de détail au 6303, chemin Hazeldean sans qu’une étude de marché ne soit soumise;

 

comme il est détaillé dans les documents 1 et 2.

 

Que le Conseil confirme le Règlement 2004-340 et en fasse part à la population.

 

 

Documentation

 

1.                   Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 27 June 2005 (ACS2005-PGM-APR-0166).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 12 July 2005.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

27 June 2005 / le  27 juin 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 : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x13242, Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

 

Goulbourn (6)

Ref N°: ACS2005-PGM-APR-0166

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN - 6303 Hazeldean Road (FILE NO. D01-01-05-0009)

 

 

OBJET :

PLAN OFFICIEL - 6303 chemin Hazeldean

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan by adding a site specific policy in the General Urban Area to permit an 11,000 m2 retail centre with a full range of retail uses at 6303 Hazeldean Road.

 

2.         Approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Office Plan to permit the establishment of retail uses on 6303 Hazeldean Road without submitting a market study.

 

as detailed in Documents 1 and 2.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil  :

 

1.           d’approuver une modification au Plan officiel approuvé par le Conseil municipal par l’ajout d’une politique s’appliquant à un site en particulier dans le secteur urbain général afin de permettre un centre de commerce de détail de 11 000 m2 comportant une variété de commerces de détail au 6303, chemin Hazeldean;

2.         d’approuver une modification au Plan officiel de l’ancien Canton de Goulbourn afin de permettre l’établissement  de commerces de détail au 6303, chemin Hazeldean sans qu’une étude de marché ne soit soumise;

 

comme il est détaillé dans les documents 1 et 2.

 

 

BACKGROUND

[U1] 

The subject property, 6303 Hazeldean Road, is located in the Stittsville Community.  The property is 4.98 hectares in size and is irregular in shape.  The site extends north of Hazeldean Road to Kittiwake Drive and also has frontage on Carp Road.  A hydro transmission corridor bisects the property diagonally from the intersection of Carp and Hazeldean Road to the rear.

 

The concept plan submitted in support of the Official Plan Amendment shows five buildings with a gas station at the corner of Carp and Kittiwake.  Buildings are located close to the street to provide an improved street presence and a large percentage of the transmission corridor is to be landscaped and will provide a pedestrian linkage between the subdivision adjacent to the property and the Carp Road and Hazeldean Road intersection.

 

An application to amend the Goulbourn Zoning By-law was originally submitted by the owner.  The intent was to add retail uses to the existing Highway Commercial uses permitted by the By-law.  The application was approved by Council, however, it was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).  The applicant has now applied to amend the Official Plans in advance of the OMB Hearing.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[U2] 

The City Council Approved Official Plan designates the property as General Urban Area, which permits a wide variety of retail uses in formats up to 50 000 m2.  The City Council Approved Plan does not specify where in General Urban Area retail and commercial activities are to occur.  The locations where these activities occur will be determined by the Zoning By-law.  The purpose of the Official Plan amendment is to permit retail uses on this site.  The applicant has requested that a site specific policy be added to Section 3.6.1 of the City Council Approved Official Plan permitting a commercial shopping centre of 11 000 m2 on this site.

 

The Regional Official Plan also designates the property as General Urban Area.  The application meets the criteria for retail stores and commercial services, which requires applications of over 10 000 m2 to be located on arterial roads with access to public transit.  Both Carp Road and Hazeldean Road are arterial roads and OC Transpo operates an express route on Kittiwake.  Public transit to this area will be expanded as Stittsville continues to grow.

 

The former Goulbourn Official Plan designates the property as Highway Commercial.  The Highway Commercial designation is intended to provide areas where retail and commercial uses which cater to the needs of the traveling public, vehicular traffic and single purpose shopping trips can locate.  Depending on the nature of the use, customers are drawn from passing traffic or a wider market area.  The former Goulbourn Official Plan also promotes the protection of existing commercial development within the Stittsville Core Area and Stittsville Main Street Mixed Use Area by requiring retail proposals outside of these areas to demonstrate, through a market study, that there will be no adverse impact.  The Official Plan amendment proposes a site specific amendment to the former Goulbourn Official Plan to specifically allow retail uses on the subject property without the need for a market study.

 

Retail Need

 

The commercial policies of the former Goulbourn Official Plan lists one of its objectives as being “to achieve a land development pattern that serves to preserve/enhance the existing  commercial/industrial base while encouraging new investment in sustainable commercial/industrial activities”.  The property is designated as Highway Commercial and the policies of the Plan as a whole are designed to sustain the retail uses along Stittsville Main Street.  The applicant has requested to add the retail use through the appealed zoning amendment.  This in effect would introduce another retail node off the Main Street corridor. 

 

The site ideal for a commercial use as it is located of the property adjacent to residential neighbourhoods and two arterial roads.  A pedestrian linkage is provided though the transmission corridor.  The impact of this development on the neighbouring homes will be minimized by single story construction and a 10 metre wide buffer strip along the residential properties.  The remainder of the site is separated from the subdivision by a park.

 

The rationale for the Official Plan amendment is that the new City Council Approved Official Plan has a different approach to locating retail centres.  Rather than limiting retail to Stittsville Main Street, the approved Plan generally allows retail centres to be located throughout the General Urban Area.  Zoning is used to specify where retail is located.  The City Council Approved Ottawa Official Plan provides Council direction regardless of its status with the OMB.

 

The applicant has not conducted a market study to identify any negative impacts on the existing commercial areas along Stittsville Main Street.  As explained above the policy direction approved in the new City Council Approved  Ottawa Official will not require a market studies in the future.  Staff believes that there will be little affect on the traditional commercial core of the Stittsville Community as the size of the proposal is more characteristic of adjacent commercial nodes located on the northern protion of Stittsville's Main Street.   There are larger stores with on site parking versus the core area which has narrow lots and smaller buildings.

 

Transportation

 

The subject property has frontage on three streets (Hazeldean, Carp and Kittiwake) two of which are arterial roads and one is a local collector.  This summer the City will be modifying the Carp/Hazeldean intersection to correct grade problems and provide turning lanes.  These modifications will correct some of the existing problems at this corner.  In the future Hazeldean Road will be upgraded to a higher standard and this intersection will be improved again.  These projects will reduce the traffic congestion prior to the site being developed.

A transportation overview was submitted with the previous zoning amendment.  The overview looked at changes in traffic volumes and change in traffic movement attributed to the anticipated development of this site.  It also considered the adequacy of the existing transportation network in accommodating development of this property.  The conclusions were that the existing road network could accommodate the traffic generated by a retail plaza consisting of 10,600 m2.  The overview did not make any assumptions on the difference between the permitted highway commercial uses and additional retail uses.

 

City staff agreed with the general findings of the traffic overview, however, has concerns about the conceptual plan particularity the locations of the ingresses and egresses.  When a site plan application is made for this property, a complete evaluation of the location of the accesses will be completed regarding future improvements to the area roads.

 

Conclusions

 

The Official Plan Amendment is intended to allow the development of this site to proceed under the policy framework of the City Council Approved Official Plan.  This allows a mix of commercial/retail uses, under 50 000 m2 in all areas designated as General Urban Area without a market study. 

 

First, this Amendment will make changes to the former Goulbourn Official Plan to allow up to 11 000 m2 of retail space to be located on this property without a market study.  Secondly, the Amendment adds a new site specific policy to the new City Council Approved Official Plan be to permit up to 11,000 m2 of retail space on this site.  This site specific amendment will not be subject to the existing appeals to the commercial policies of the General Urban Area. 

 

CONSULTATION

[U3] 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. 

 

Comments were received from the Stittsville Community Association who do not support the Amendment without a credible market study as required by the former Goulbourn Official Plan.  Their objection is that allowing retail businesses on this site will have an impact on retail activity on Stittsville Main Street.  As staff has indicated in the report, this Amendment is intended to change the former Goulbourn Official Plan and bring its policies in harmony with the City Council Approved Official Plan, which does not require a market study.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 


APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Official Plan Amendment applications.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

[U4] 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Proposed Official Plan Amendment

 

DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (Timberwood Development Corporation, 1000-121 Richmond Street West, Toronto, ON  M5H 2K1), applicant (JE Ironside Consulting Ltd. 2055 Prince of Wales Drive, Nepean, ON K2E 7A4) and the Manager of Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of the City Council’s decision.

 

Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

 

Department of Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to the City.


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1


PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT                                                        Document 2

 

Official Plan Amendement ¦ Modification du Plan directeur 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land use

Utilisation du sol


INDEX

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

 

PART A - THE PREAMBLE                                                                                                            

 

1.0       Purpose................................................................................................................................5

2.0       Location...............................................................................................................................5

3.0        Basis....................................................................................................................................5

 

 

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

 

1.0          Introductory Statement.......................................................................................................6

2.0           Details of the Amendment..................................................................................................6

3.0            Implementation and Interpretation.....................................................................................7

4.0            Schedule “A” Land Use, Site Specific Policy....................................................................8

 


THE STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS

 

PART A – THE PREAMBLE – introduces the actual Amendment but does not constitute part of the Amendment to the (former Township of Goulbourn) Official Plan and (City Council Approved) Official Plan.

 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT – the Text contained in this part constitute the Amendment to the (former Township of Goulbourn) Official Plan and (City Council Approved) Official Plan.


PART A – THE PREAMBLE

 

 

1.0  Purpose

                                                                                                                                                          

The purpose of Amendment No. xx for the former Township of Goublourn Official Plan is tocreate a Site Specific Policy to permit retail as site-specific restricted uses within a Highway Commercial Designation without the submission of a market study at 6303 Hazeldean Road.

                                                                                                                                              

The purpose of Amendment No. xx for the City Council Approved Official Plan is to create a Site Specific Policy to permit 11,000 m2 of retail/commercial space at 6303 Hazeldean

Road.

                                                                                                                                                            

2.0  Location

                                                                                                                                                          

The lands affected by these Amendments are located between Hazeldean Road and Kittiwake Drive, legally described as blocks 86, 95 and 101 on Plan 4M-1089 and are known municipally as 6303 Hazeldean Road.

                                                                                                                                                          

3.0  Basis

 

The basis of the Amendments are as follows:

 

The basis of the amendment to the former Goulbourn Official Plan is to permit retail uses within the existing listed commercial uses in the Highway Commercial.  The designation is intended to permit these uses without the market study required in Section 6.2.4.1(d).

 

The basis of the amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan is to permit an 11,000 m2 retail/commercial centre to be located on the subject land including a full range of retail uses will be considered as defined in Section 3.6.8.

 

An amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law (By-law, 40-99) was approved by Council (By-law 2004-340) on July 14, 2004.  The zoning amendment was intended to permit retail uses in addition to the existing Highway Commercial uses.  This amendment was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

 


PART B – THE AMENDMENT

 

 

1.0  The Introductory Statement

 

All of this part of the document entitled “Part B – The Amendment”, consisting of the following text constitute Amendment No. xx to the former Goulbourn Official Plan and Amendment No. xx to the City Council Approved Official Plan.

 

2.0  Details of the Amendment

 

The Former Township of Goulbourn Official Plan, is hereby amended as follows:

 

i)    In Section 6.2.2 Highway Commercial, the following text is to be inserted:

 

6.2.2(l)        Retail uses as described in the Zoning By-law shall be permitted on the lands legally described as Blocks 86, 95 and 101 on Plan 4M-1089 and known municipally as 6303 Hazeldean Road.  Notwithstanding the requirements of  Section 6.2.4.1(d) the establishment of these retail uses will not require a market study.

 

The City Council Approved Official Plan, is hereby amended as follows:

 

 

i)    In Section 3.6.1 General Urban Area, the following text is to be inserted:

 

3.6.1.11       Notwithstanding the policy 4 above, a retail/commercial centre with a full range of retail uses will be considered, as defined in section 3.6.8, with a maximum of 11,000 m2 of gross floor area on the lands legally described as Blocks 86, 95 and 101 on Plan 4M-1089 and known municipally as 6303 Hazeldean Road.

 

3.0  Implementation and Interpretation

 

Implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be made having regard as well to the applicable policies set the General Commercial policies (Section 6.1) of the former Goulbourn Official Plan.

 

Implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be made having regard as well to the applicable policies set the General Urban Area policies (Section 3.6.1) of the City Council Approved Official Plan.

 


OFFICIAL PLAN - 6303 Hazeldean RoaD

PLAN OFFICIEL - 6303 chemin Hazeldean

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0166                                                                 goulbourn (6)

 

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.

 

J. Moser, G. Lindsay and S. Belan appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 9 May 2005.  Following a PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Belan, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members and Councillor Stavinga, the Ward Councillor, and the following represent the main points:

·        Mr. Belan advised that if they waited for the new OP to be in place, a market study would not be required.  There may be impacts on the core area and the Stittsville Mainstreet mixed area, but staff does not use the OP to stop the addition of commercial.  Staff looks at the criteria of access to markets and to Regional roads, etc.

·        During the development of Stittsville in the late 1980s, early 1990’s and beyond, there was significant concern by the former Township the core area of the Stittsville community be protected in its viability for commercial uses and the concern of the Council of the day was that any additional commercial uses that would occur primarily along Hazeldean would not jeopardize the future of the Stittsville core.  That was the basis for the requirement of market studies for any development to occur outside the core area in Stittsville.  The new Council has recognized the core area is now quite strong and viable and, as shown in the results of that policy over the last 10-15 years in seeing very attractive commercial developments along Stittsville Mainstreet, with additional development north and south of the core area that has not threatened the core area.  The new Council direction was that in considering commercial development, the requirements for market analysis did not provide true answers to planning concerns with respect to compatibility and whether or not a particular development should be a certain size or not.  When the application came forward staff was mindful of existing policies in the Goulbourn OP and advised the proponent accordingly, but was also mindful of the new Council direction.  Staff ultimately agreed a market analysis would not provide any additional planning framework on the application and believed the application could proceed on its own merit.  Concern was expressed in the community with respect to a zoning that allowed additional automotive-related uses and there is a desire to move away from that.  The community has now matured to the point where market analysis is not required to protect the Stittsville core and will allow for additional uses that are more compatible with the adjacent community immediately surrounding this application.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, Barry Nabation and Herman Kercher appeared in opposition.  Mr. Cohen advised this matter was not before PEC as a result of Loblaws’ appeal, although Loblaws did appeal.  They are before the Board on two separate matters that relate.  The first is the Retail Policies, which are before Council the next day.  This site would be extracted from the entire panel of matters being considered by the City and OMB under the Retail Appeals and he urged the Committee not to do so.  In terms of background for this report, this matter did come before PEC in 2004 for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and went before the OMB.  Loblaws was concerned a market study had not been undertaken.  Their reading of the OP for the Township of Goulbourn (Township) suggested a market study was mandatory and so did the OMB.  He read from the OP for the Township of Goulbourn:  Commercial development outside of the Stittsville core area and the Stittsville Mainstreet use area shall be limited to those uses which are demonstrated to have no adverse impact on the commercial viability of these areas.  Such demonstration shall be, not may be, through the preparation of a market study.  They appeared before the OMB and said their client built a new store and was encouraged by the Council of the day to spend extra money to bring it up to the design standards and retained ownership of another building in which it put retail in light of existing policies, sensing there was a protection for them as food retailers and retailers.  No sooner had they completed that exercise than the previous Zoning By-Law was brought before PEC.  So, Loblaws filed an appeal and Ms. Bradley brought forward a Motion for dismissal of that appeal.  That Motion for dismissal was itself dismissed.  The Board said there would be a full hearing on the merits.  Loblaws advised the Board at that time, that they would undertake market research, which is being presently undertaken and analyzed.  And that is why Messrs. Nabation and Kercher were present.  They approached Ms. Bradley to say their client was prepared to co-operate with her client in terms of market research and if that research proves valueless to his client, they would go away.  The request was declined.  The item is before PEC to eliminate the requirement for the market study and to take that issue away from the Board is somewhat disrespectful.  He asked PEC not to approve the amendments but to let this matter proceed to the OMB and to let the Retail Policies Appeals rise to council tomorrow and to the Board on October 3rd, for a pre-hearing and a full hearing early in the new year.

 

In response to a question from Chair Hume, Mr. Kelly advised the matter was adjourned on consent of both parties so the market work could be conducted.

 

Mr. Nabation advised that in 1993/94 the Township was very concerned about the protection of Mainstreet and hired J.L Richards and him, with another company at the time.  They completed a retail study dated December 1994.  There was field research, analysis surveys as well as three public consultations, which he attended.  One of the major conclusions and recommendations of that report was that there should be no shopping centre permitted outside the core area in Stittsville because it would have a severe and detrimental impact on Main Street.  This policy has generally helped Main Street with many good developments located thereon, but there are ample vacancies for new businesses.  Nothing has changed that would make him, as a retail analyst, change his view that shopping centres off Main Street should be allowed without a market and impact study.  A great deal of public as well as private money has been spent to bring Main Street to where it is today and the 1994 recommendation is still valid.

 

Mr. Kercher advised the study Mr. Nabatian referred to dealt with the very site before PEC today.  This is a very significant development in the context of Stittsville.  11,000m2 is roughly 50% of the retail space on Main Street in Stittsville.  This is the biggest retail issue faced by Stittsville and its Main Street in its entire history.  Over 1,000 interviews were conducted.  They obtained permission to conduct interviews in more than half a dozen stores along Stittsville Main Street as well as Your Independent Grocer and approximately 70% of the customers originate from Stittsville.  Put into the context of the proposal, 110,000 feet2 at $300/foot2 would generate something in the neighbourhood of $30 Million in sales.  If 70% of that derives from the Stittsville area, that development will remove $20+ Million from the Stittsville Main Street area.  The study has not been completed and he could not indicate its outcome, but it would be significant.

 

Mr. Kelly added that this site is highway commercial in Goulborn's OP and the only retail permitted are such things as nurseries.  His client made a major investment under the umbrella of protection set out in the OP and is simply seeking to protect its investment.

 

As a result of the presentation and in response to Chair Hume’s request for clarification, Mr. Kelly advised the matter was before the OMB and adjourned to an uncertain date, to be brought back by either party.  Loblaws intended (once this work was completed) to write to the OMB to bring the matter back.

 

Councillor Hunter acknowledged extensive hearings on the adoption of the new OP and concerns expressed by Mr. Kelly’s clients and others on a number of issues.   He did not recall the issue of the removal of the requirement in the old Goulbourn OP that required a market study was raised during the hearings or as an appeal.  Mr. Kelly confirmed the reason for that is the provision in the 2003 OP that speaks to the protection of Mainstreets, upon which they intended to rely.  He would review the Plan and provide that information.

 

Janet Bradley, counsel for applicant, Janet Ironside, Planner, Richard Brisbain, Architect. Ms. Bradley did provide a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk and was speaking on behalf of the landowner, Timberwood Development Corporation.  The land use policies were raised and discussed at length by PEC last year, at which time the application to rezone was made.  Councillor Stavinga was very involved with her community and concerned with the issue of whether or not there was OP compliance.  It was raised extensively by Loblaws and she wanted to ensure this matter had complete due diligence.  Ms. Bradley read from the 2004 PEC Minutes:  “Arising from the delegation, Councillor Stavinga referred to the necessity for a market study and was informed by Mr. Lindsay that discussions centered on the scale and magnitude of the proposed development with the conclusion that to require the applicant to conduct a total market analysis to facilitate the development of this site was beyond the scope necessary for this rezoning application.”  And then, Councillor Hunter, having heard from Mr. Zakem, wanted to pursue it further and in response Mr. Lindsay provided the following information “The property sat vacant for a number of years with a highway commercial designation that reflected the environs.  The particular lands form part of an overall subdivision application, as explained by Mr. Brisbin, and the intent was to provide retail services to facilitate the needs of the adjacent subdivisions on the north side of Hazeldean and both sides of Carp Road.”  She then read “Hence the phrase “not limited to the following”, which range from automobile service stations to private recreational facilities and restaurants, retail nurseries and the like.  The CH zone is not changed, but adds retail as a permitted use within that zone.  Ideally, the new OP and Zoning By-Law will provide a more harmonious blending of the two.  Staff opines the application before the Committee is consistent with the direction of the Stittsville community.”  Ms. Bradley submitted that, as Councillor Hunter mentioned, when Council approved the OP in 2003, many former municipalities wanted their Secondary Plans or parts of their OPs incorporated into the new OP.  Volume II contains these.  Goulbourn’s OP is not contained in that volume and the new OP completely repealed Goulbourn’s OP.  By-Law 2004-340 was passed in 2004 with only one appellant, Loblaws.  Her client did bring a Motion to dismiss.  Mr. Cohen and Mr. Zakem appeared on the motion and objected, raising the issue of OP compliance as their main objection and claimed it did not comply for many reasons.  The OMB adjourned and dismissed her Motion so the hearing could proceed.  Mr. Cohen may have interpreted that as agreement and conducted a market study.  They interpreted that to mean there was enough for an issue on whether or not there was OP compliance.  They have been caught in a transitional period, with land that is no longer designated highway commercial in the Goulbourn OP because that has been repealed.  It is designated General Urban Area in the new OP because that schedule is now in full force and effect.  However, the retail policies in the new OP are under appeal and it is not known when that OMB hearing will take place.  And because there are no retail policies established, possibly the old Goulbourn retail policies apply, but would apply to something that is no longer designated on the plan. 

 

They approached staff and asked if Council should be asked to repeal the 2004 By-Law and come before PEC today with a new OPA so that this issue does not come up.  Staff quite rightly referred to the process and neighbourhood meetings.  It would be an undue and unreasonable process to ask Council to repeal a By-Law and the next day pass the exact same By-Law.  As a result, she wrote a letter to address it in a way that would resolve this dilemma.  The letter asked if PEC and Council are going to consider approving these amendments to both the new and the old; that as part of that, PEC and Council reconfirm the decision made July 2004.

 

Responding to Chair Hume, Ms. Bradley advised that reconfirming the By-Law would anticipate the argument that may still be made, but if she has an acknowledgement from Council on the policies and the decision is based, through the re-confirmation that the By-Law reflects the policies that are now approved that would be sufficient to establish there was a full awareness and intent on Council’s part.

 

Mr. Brisbin advised the intent at the outset was to be consistent with the new OP.  The site is 110,000 feet2 (smaller than a Loblaws Superstore by 20-30,000 feet2).  Mr. Cohen would have PEC believe retail is not allowed on this site, but it can now accommodate both a Home Depot and a Canadian Tire.  When they met with staff, it was apparent the full palate of retail uses was not available on site, but emphasized automotive, which was inconsistent with the community and plan of subdivision.  To that end, they talked to Council and PEC and Mr. Lindsay was asked the question and responded quite frankly that retail is a contemplated use where most of that 110,000 feet2 can now be used for extensively retail purposes and did not believe a market study was necessary.  They looked at buffers to the community, linear parkways, urban design guidelines, pedestrian connections through to the parks and parkland and that was the acid test to determine whether, in fact, they would meet the new OP’s aspirations.  Mr. Cohen and Loblaws have caught them in trying to prove themselves with the Goulbourn Township OP, which is obsolescent.  The retail in the new OP is under appeal, therefore they cannot prove themselves against either document; the applicant was before PEC asking to be lead out of limbo.

 

Councillor Stavinga noted there was mention of the comparison to size and retail development on Main Street and asked for a visual in terms of building size.  Mr. Brisbin advised that a 110,000 foot2 building would be somewhat smaller than the Westboro Loblaws, but the site is in fact L-shaped and the largest footprint that could conceivably be arranged on the site was 45,000 feet2.  Councillor Stavinga read out the extensive list of uses available under the existing highway commercial zone, which, in essence, could have a retail element associated thereto.  Responding to the Councillor, Ms. Bradley advised the current list permits a convenience store, but a grocery store could not be constructed without the amendments.  The existing zoning permitted a fair amount of retailing at the time, which was the Councillor’s point and that was absolutely correct.

 

Ms. Ironside indicated Mr. Cohen might address the 2003 OP and the phrase that related to the preservation of Main Street that he relied on, but reminded PEC that was under appeal and being revised.  She specifically spoke to Larry Spencer, one of the authors of the new documents that will come before Council tomorrow, who emphasized the concept of a market study has been expunged from the new OP.

 

In response to the question raised by Councillor Hunter, Mr. Cohen advised that Urban Designations 3.6, 3.6.1, General Urban Area, contains a paragraph on policies.  Policy 6 says applications to amend the Zoning By-Law within the General Urban Area to permit a variety of uses applying everyday goods and services will be subject to appropriate regulations to ensure that the uses compliment adjacent residential land uses and it goes on and lists the series of tests.  The 5th test - are not better located on lands designated as Mainstreets, which is the point they have made relative to this application.  Councillor Hunter indicated it did not satisfy the concern, but does answer the question.

 

Councillor Cullen noted the proposal presented by Miss Bradley to reconfirm By-Law 2004-340 and asked if PEC should be doing so.  Mr. Lindsay advised staff have no concerns and; if anything, it is reaffirming PEC’s previous decision, which would be useful at the OMB.  Mr. Lindsay could not answer if it was necessary, but does demonstrate consistency.

 

At this point, Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.  The Chair then noted the two recommendations along with Councillor Feltmate’s Motion that PEC and Council re-confirm By-Law 2004-340 and that notice of this confirmation be provided to the public.

 

Councillor Stavinga emphasized there was extensive consultation in the community, with staff regarding the necessity for a market study at that time and she was given every assurance it was not needed.  It was interesting to hear earlier comments with respect to what the core village will experience in terms of competition.  She emphasized the greatest pressure was Kanata West.  That was dealt with as a community in a collective and collaborative way with respect to protecting the interest within Stittsville Main Street.  Clearly, this was an opportunity to provide some retail facilities to one particular neighbourhood, Timbermere, which encompasses 400-500 homes, that has been an island upon itself because of the current lack of pedestrian linkages.  That is being dealt with through the Hazeldean widening, and Carp and Hazeldean improvements this year.  When this development comes on board with the linkages in the Zoning By-Law, which is unheard of, that she demanded because she wanted to ensure the concept plans put forward to PEC would be respected in the site plan and not be a source of contention at that point in time.  The Zoning By-Law approved last year is a good one and the one before PEC today to reconfirm remains a good one.  She asked PEC to support it.  As a final point, she wanted to correct Mr. Cohen’s understanding; when they talked of the investment made by Loblaws, Brown’s Your Independent Grocer, it was with this ward Councillor, not Goulbourn Council, but this Council.  In five years there has not been a site plan or subdivision approval that has come forward to PEC because of the direct consequence of working with the community and the proponents to make things happen.  Residents are very concerned there is only one store within the village.  Mr. Brisbin advised there is not the ability to put the size of retail that Loblaws is concerned about on that particular site because of the L-shape and hydro easements.  The Councillor stressed her concern with the OMB consistly overruling decisions made by a locally elected council.  Having said that Councillor Stavinga asked her colleagues to endorse the staff recommendation.  Hopefully the City can send a message to the OMB that locally elected Councils know what is best for their community.

On the advice of Ms. Nader-Merhi, the Committee dealt with the staff recommendation on the OP and then dealt with the Motion to confirm the By-Law.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan by adding a site specific policy in the General Urban Area to permit an 11,000 m2 retail centre with a full range of retail uses at 6303 Hazeldean Road.

2.         Approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Office Plan to permit the establishment of retail uses on 6303 Hazeldean Road without submitting a market study.

as detailed in Documents 1 and 2.

                                                                                                CARRIED

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate:

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council reconfirm by-law 2004-340, and that notice of this reconfirmation be provided to the public.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 


 [U1]Site Location and Description (which should include description of site i.e., flat, featureless, no vegetation, grade and drainage, adjacent to…)

 [U2]Choose Appropriate Heading(s)

 [U3]If there are no objections, use the following

 

 [U4]Include the documents that are applicable to this report