1.       OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 15 and 81 COLONNADE ROAD NORTH

plan officiel et zonage - 15 et 81, chemin colonnade nord

 

 

Committee recommendations AS AMENDED

 

That Council:

 

1.      Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan for the lands at 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.

 

2.   Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning for the lands at 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North as shown in Document 4 and detailed in Document 5 as amended according to the recommendations articulated in Table 1 of the Edgington report.

 

 

Recommandations MODIFIéES du Comité

 

Que le Conseil :

 

1.         approuve une modification au Plan officiel approuvé par le Conseil municipal pour les terrains du 15 et du 81, chemin Colonnade Nord comme il est indiqué dans le Document 1 et expliqué dans le Document 3.

 

2.         approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean en vue de changer la désignation de zonage des terrains 15 et 81, chemin Colonnade Nord comme il est indiqué dans le Document 4 et expliqué dans le Document 5, tel que modifié conformément aux recommandations formulées au tableau 1 du rapport Edgington.

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.         Deputy City Manager's report (Planning and Growth Management) dated
10 November 2005 (ACS2005-PGM-APR-0185).

 

2.         Table 1 of report entitled Planning Rationale for Site Specific Development - Alternatives to the Ashcroft Rezoning Proposal for 15 and 81 Colonnade Road, prepared by B. Edgington on behalf of the General Burns Community Association follows the staff report (Edgington report held on file with the City Clerk).

 

3.         Extract of Draft Minute, 22 November 2005.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

10 November 2005 / le 10 novembre 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 : Karen Currie, Manager

Planning and Infrastructure Approvals/Approbation des demandes d’aménagement et d’infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x28310, karen.currie@ottawa.ca

 

Bell-South Nepean (3)

Ref N°: ACS2005-PGM-APR-0185

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 15 and 81 COLONNADE ROAD NORTH (D01-01-05-0003 & d02-02-05-0016)

 

 

OBJET :

Plan officiel et zonage - 15 et 81, chemin colonnade nord (D01-01-05-0003 & D02-02-05-0016)

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.   Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan for the lands at 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.

 

2.   Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning for the lands at 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North as shown in Document 4 and detailed in Document 5.

 

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 pour les terrains du 15 et du 81, chemin Colonnade Nord comme il est indiqué dans le Document 1 et expliqué dans le Document 3.

 

2.   d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean en vue de changer la désignation de zonage des terrains 15 et 81, chemin Colonnade Nord comme il est indiqué dans le Document 4 et expliqué dans le Document 5.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The subject property is located on the north side of Colonnade Road North, adjacent to the Colonnade Business Park.  It is a vacant site with an area of 8.7 hectares.   A location map is attached as Document 1.  To the immediate south of the site, across Colonnade Road, is the Colonnade Business Park which contains a mix of office, light industrial, and sample/showroom uses. To the west are City owned soccer fields.  To the north and east is City open space consisting of Nepean Creek with a recreational pathway running along the top of bank and stormwater management facilities. Further to the north, across the Nepean Creek valley, are existing low density residential uses in the communities of Fisher Glen and Carleton Heights. 

 

Development Proposal

 

The proponent has prepared a conceptual site plan for the proposed development in support of the applications (Document 2).  The plan proposes a compact, mixed use development of office, retail and residential uses.  Proposed uses adjacent to Colonnade Road are a series of three storey buildings with office or retail uses occupying the ground floor and apartment units occupying the upper two floors.  A proposed public street that forms a "P" loop provides services and frontage for the parcels to the interior of  the property.  Several private streets branch off of the public street.  A series of blocks are proposed to be developed that will include a range of housing types,  either in freehold or condominium ownership.  Approximately 1100 residential units are proposed consisting of several low, medium and high rise apartments, stacked townhouse units, back-to-back townhouse units and conventional street townhouse units.  The development will have varied building heights and densities.  Some of the housing units will have underground parking while others will have surface parking or parking spaces in garages.  Some of the buildings will accommodate retirement units.  Private amenity space will be provided with each cluster of residential development. Two public parks are also proposed.

 

An application for Plan of Subdivision Approval  has also been submitted along with the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. As the Ward Councillor has removed Delegated Authority approval for the subdivision application, a separate report dealing with the subdivision application and containing the draft plan conditions has been prepared and will be brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee at the same time as the subject report.  Further details of the site's development will be dealt with through the Site Plan Control applications for the blocks at a later date.

 

Purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Proposal

 

The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend Section 4.8.7, Land-Use Constraints Due to Aircraft Noise, of the City Council Approved Official Plan, as it applies to the subject lands.  The intent is to allow residential uses within the Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone currently shown on Schedule K.

 

The proponent has requested that the lands be rezoned to permit mixed use, residential and park uses which reflect the proposed plan.  The application also requests approval to remove the Holding provision on the basis that a Traffic Impact Study and a draft road infrastructure improvements agreement has been submitted.  The Zoning By-law Amendment application also seeks to remove the Airport Operating Influence Overlay Zone applying to the site on the basis of new noise contours that project lower levels of airport related noise.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

City Council Approved Official Plan

 

The City Council Approved Official Plan designates the property as General Urban Area.  This designation permits all forms of housing, employment, shopping, service, industrial, park and natural areas, entertainment and institutional uses.

 

Former Regional Official Plan

 

The Regional Official Plan designation for this property is General Urban Area and the policies are similar to those found in the City Council Approved Official Plan.  A range of residential uses and non-residential uses are permitted.

 

Former City of Nepean Official Plan

 

The subject property is designated Business Park in the former City of Nepean Official Plan.  The purpose of this designation is to provide for both traditional industrial and current business park uses.  A range of non-residential uses are permitted such as light industrial, office, institutional, business and personal service uses, and convenience stores.

 

Due to there being no appeals to the City Council Approved Official Plan with respect to the subject lands and based on the submission date for these applications, the new Official Plan prevails and will be used in the evaluation of the subject proposal.

 

Existing Zoning

 

The current Zoning By-law zones the lands Industrial Business Campus - MBC(H) Blk 6.  This zoning allows a range of business park related uses including uses such as a bank, business office, light assembly and production, multiple occupancy industrial building, and restaurant.  The zone applies a maximum building height is 11.5 m and the maximum floor area ratio is 0.4.   Removal of the Holding provision is conditional upon the submission and approval of a Traffic Impact Study, an agreement between the City and the owners of the subject lands regarding cost sharing and implementation of a schedule for construction of road infrastructure improvements generated by development and submission and approval of a site plan application to the satisfaction of the City. The Zoning By-law also applies an Airport Operating Influence Overlay Zone which specifically prohibits noise sensitive land uses.

 


Proposed Official Plan Amendment

 

The site is within the Airport Operating Influence Zone in the City Council Approved Official Plan, one of two zones designated in the Plan to identify areas where land use and future development is constrained by aircraft noise.  New residential uses are considered a noise-sensitive land use and are not permitted in this zone.  The boundaries of these zones are based on the projected levels of noise around the airport resulting from current and future airport operations.  Federal guidelines for land use have been based on two measures of projected noise, the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) and the Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) that can be depicted as noise contours around the airport.  The boundary of the Airport Operating Influence Zone is based on the 30 NEF and NEP contour, whichever is more restrictive.  A composite of the 30 NEF/NEP contour has been created and mapped against physical features on the ground, to define the boundary of the Airport Operating Influence Zone and thus make the policy more readily interpreted and applied. 

 

Since the adoption of the Official Plan by City Council in May 2003, the NEF and NEP contours were revised by the Ottawa International Airport Authority in 2005 to reflect updated projections of future airport activity and associated noise. The subject site is outside both the revised 25 and the 30 NEF and NEP contours.  The work of mapping the revised contours against physical features to amend the boundary of the Airport Operating Influence Zone and other designations on Schedule K has been completed. A comprehensive Official Plan amendment has been prepared and is being brought to Committee and Council concurrently with the subject report.

 

Although the comprehensive OPA will accomplish what the site specific Official Plan Amendment will do, the site specific OPA is still being recommended as the applicant has requested the separate OPA in case the comprehensive OPA is not approved or appealed which would result in a delay in the proposed development. The site will continue to be within the Airport Vicinity Development Zone, where the Ottawa International Airport Zoning regulations apply and affect such matters as the location and height of objects on lands near the airport.

 

If the current airport noise constraint did not apply to the site, an Official Plan amendment would not be required and the development applications for the site would be evaluated in accordance with the General Urban Area policies.  The General Urban Area designation encourages the development of a full range and choice of housing types, densities and sizes for a variety of demographic profiles, in combination with conveniently located employment, service, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses. Official Plan policies support intensification, like the proposed development, in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the long-term vitality of the existing surrounding community. The proposed development is a well-designed, mixed-use community offering a wide range of housing types and forms of tenure, plus employment, commercial space for uses such as shops, restaurants, day-care centres and medical facilities, and active and passive parkland space.  Clustering of neighbourhood scale commercial services as part of the development with good pedestrian connections, make the development more complete and walkable.  It will be an integrated development with the opportunity to work, live, shop and play in the same general area.

 


Evaluation of Zoning Proposal

 

Compatibility and Diversity

 

When considering a proposed change of land use, the compatibility of the proposed use must be evaluated.  The concept plan for the development of  the site takes into consideration the pattern of the surrounding area.  The adjacent open space containing the creek valley, stands of mature trees and stormwater retention facilities provide a wide buffer between the residential community to the north and also housing on the east side of Prince of Wales Drive.  Along the Colonnade Road frontage, the use of three storey buildings with office and showroom uses on the ground floor and apartments above provide a transition between the business park across the street and the residential uses proposed for the interior of the subject property.  The use of two and three storey buildings towards Colonnade Road with high rise apartments planned farthest from Colonnade Road also provides a transition and separation space with the one and two storey buildings on the south side of Colonnade Road.  The addition of a sidewalk and street trees along the north side of Colonnade Road, adjacent to the development,  along with on-site parking areas being planned to be at the side or rear of buildings, will provide a pedestrian friendly, attractive streetscape.

 

This proposal will contribute to the diversity of the land use and activity in the area.  As the surrounding community does not contain a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances, this development will contribute to the diversity of the area by offering a choice of housing.  It will inject new investment into an area that contains mainly non-residential uses which may result in additional future investment as the area reinvents itself as a mixed-used neighbourhood.  As well, the provision of two public parks as part of the proposed development, meets an identified need for recreational space for future residents as well as providing existing employees and residents of the area with additional park space.  Finally, the proposed development can to be supported by existing infrastructure, including sewer, water and a major collector road, meeting a major underlying principle in the Official Plan of optimizing existing infrastructure wherever possible.

 

Transportation

 

In support of this application, a Traffic Impact Study was prepared and it concluded that the proposed residential-based development is compatible with the existing business park development from the perspective of maximizing the directional capacity of the surrounding transportation network.  In peak periods, traffic from the subject development will  travel mainly in opposite directions from that of traffic associated with the business park. The study indicates that the surrounding roadways and intersections which would serve the development, are operating at capacity during peak periods, but the addition of the traffic from the proposed development would only slightly add to traffic volumes.  On the basis of full build-out by a horizon year of 2013 and assuming stable growth in background traffic, the proposed development is estimated to contribute 5% and 10% to projected traffic volumes on Merivale Road and Prince of Wales Drive, respectively, at this horizon.  It is noteworthy, however, that these contributions would be approximately halved (3% and 5%) if full build-out of the proposed development occurred instead over 15 years, which is considered more realistic given local housing sales forecasts.

 

Some intersection modifications are recommended such as the addition of a second westbound left-turn lane on Colonnade Road onto southbound Merivale Road.  A cost-sharing agreement between the City and the owners of the subject lands as well as two other parcels of land yet to be developed on the north side of Colonnade Road, is to be completed and approved by the City prior to the Holding zone being lifted. Three OC Transpo routes currently operate on Colonnade Road in the vicinity of the subject lands.  Additional routes may have to be added after project build out. Finally, possible construction of the proposed east-west light rail line along the existing CN rail corridor  just south of the business park, with possible stations at the western and eastern limits of the business park, is seen as a positive feature for this development from a transportation perspective.

 

Pedestrian Network

 

With respect to integration of the development with existing pedestrian and bicycle networks, the proposed pedestrian network identified within the site plan provides good connection to the existing recreational pathway system situated to the north and east of the site.  The provision of a sidewalk on Colonnade Road is proposed along the site's frontage.  Sidewalks are also planned for both sides of the public street from where it connects with Colonnade Road and to the inside portion of the "P" loop that is adjacent to the terrace homes.  A need has been identified for a link to the Fisher Glen community to the north to allow future residents to access the schools and other community facilities located in that community.  Conceptually, this could be easily accomplished by the installation of a bridge structure across Nepean Creek immediately north of the proposed development and in the vicinity of Coolspring Crescent in Fisher Glen.   This enhancement to the existing pathway network is also viewed as being beneficial to the existing residents located to the north to allow them better access to the business park and surrounding recreational pathways and parkland.  Details with respect to location and timing of the bridge will be confirmed through the subdivision approval process, however, the proponent will be responsible for the full cost of the installation of the bridge.

 

 Environmental Studies

 

The adjacent City-owned property in which is located the Nepean Creek is designated as an Urban Natural Feature on Schedule B to the Official Plan.  As the subject property is within 30m of an Urban Natural Feature, an Environmental Impact Study is required.  The approach taken by the environmental consultants was to identify the most important features on the property that could be incorporated into the development in keeping with the City's design with nature policy and to ensure that no negative impact occurs on features and functions of the existing Urban Natural Feature on the adjacent property.  A Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan has also been submitted which includes an assessment of the quantity and quality of tree cover and opportunities for additional plantings.   The environmental consultants noted that the most mature trees in the area are either located off-site along the banks of the Nepean Creek or on-site along the perimeter of the property where the Tree Preservation Plan included the retention and preservation of these stands.  The environmental consultants concluded that use of mitigative measures, environmentally sensitive construction techniques and implementation of the recommendations in the Tree Preservation Plan will minimize impacts to the retained forest blocks and vegetation outside the development envelope. Details and implementation of the recommendations from the environmental reports will be done through the subdivision and site plan approval processes.

 

Details of Recommended Zoning

 

The Zoning By-law amendment application requests that the property be zoned to permit the proposed development and that special provisions, reflective of the proposed concept plan, be applied to the site. The application also seeks to have the Airport Operating Influence Overlay Zone removed from the site on the basis of the new NEF and NEP noise contours that project lower levels of airport related noise being experienced on-site.  Finally, the application also requests that the Holding provision be removed on the basis that a traffic impact study and cost sharing proposal have been submitted. 

 

Staff are recommending three main zones be applied to the site, as shown in Document 4 and  detailed in Document 5.    Firstly, the two proposed public parks located on the western edge and north central area of the property will be zoned Parks and Recreation (Public).  Secondly, the areas which will contain the mixed use buildings located along Colonnade Road and in the north west corner of the property will be zoned Commercial Mixed Use - CMU (H). Within this zone there will be two sub-zones (special provisions) in order to control building height and density and allow for a reduced parking standard for business office of 1 space per 50 m2 of gross floor area.  Staff are in support of the reduced parking standard for business office in this location as it has been approved for other office developments in the area and additional on-street parking will be available on Colonnade Road.

 

The areas containing the residential uses will be zoned primarily Residential Seventh Density - R7(H) with a small area for a block of street townhouses being zoned Residential Fifth Density - R5(H).  Within the R7 (H) zone, there are six special provision zones which will regulate land use (multiple attached or apartments), density, height, building coverage and setbacks. 

 

As requested, staff are recommending that the Airport Operating Influence Overlay Zone be removed for reasons previously mentioned. However, it is recommended that the Holding provision remain on the property until such time as the cost-sharing agreement for required road  modifications is resolved among all the interested parties.

 

Conclusion

 

It is staff’s opinion that the subject proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be approved as the proposed development is suitable and appropriate for the area as it is compatible with, and will have no negative impact on surrounding uses. The rezoning proposal conforms to Official Plan policies and will contribute to the City of Ottawa's intensification and residential housing objectives. 

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

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. Correspondence and phone calls from the public, both in support and against the proposal, were received including from area residents, area businesses, and the General Burns Community Association.  Comments were also received from several technical agencies.  An open house (March 8/05) and community meetings (May 17/05, September 6/05) were held with the applicant, Ward Councillor and staff in attendance. A community meeting was also held on October 18/05 in the adjoining ward, Ward 16 (River). As well, staff attended separate meetings with the Councillor and representatives of the Community Association.  A summary of the main issues identified through letters, email and the community meeting, is attached in Document 5. 

 

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

The applications were not processed within the “On-Time Review” timeframe established for the processing of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications due to the detail in the submission of required studies, the complexity and controversial nature of the subject  applications.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Conceptual Site Plan

Document 3      Draft Official Plan Amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan

Document 4      Proposed Zoning Map

Document 5      Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 6      Consultation Details

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (Ashcroft Homes , 18 Antares Drive, Ottawa, ON, K2E 1A9), applicant (Dave Krajaefski, Trow Associates Inc., 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, ON. K2E 7J5) All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1 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-laws, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

 

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


Document 1

 

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                                            

 


Document 2

CONCEPTUAL PLAN                                                                                                                     


Document 3

DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 

                                                                                                                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Official Plan Amendment XX /Modifications du Plan directeur

 

To the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land use

Utilisation du sol



 

DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT                                                                                 

 

 

AMENDMENT No. XX TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED OFFICIAL PLAN

 

 

 

                                                                        INDEX

COMPONENTS 

 

PART A   THE PREAMBLE                                                                                                             

 

1.0       Purpose

2.0       Location

3.0       Basis

 

 

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

 

1.0       Introduction

2.0       Details

3.0       Implementation


 

 

COMPONENTS

 

PART A - THE PREAMBLE does not constitute part of this amendment.

 

PART B - THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No.­­­­­­ XX to the City of Ottawa Council Approved Official Plan.

 


PART A - THE PREAMBLE

 

1.0   PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this Official Plan Amendment is to amend the policies of the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan for land located at 81 and part of 15 Colonnade Road North. Specifically the proposal is to amend Subsection 4.8.7 of the Official Plan to allow for residential uses within the Ottawa Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ) currently shown on Schedule K.

[U1] 

2.0   LOCATION

 

The subject site is located on the north side of Colonnade Road North and is known municipally as 81 and part of 15 Colonnade Road North, as shown in the attached location map.  The site is vacant and has an area of approximately 8.7 hectares.  To the immediate south of the site, across Colonnade Road is the Colonnade Business Park, a mix of office, light industrial, showroom and limited retail uses. To the west is City parkland consisting of soccer fields.  To the north and east are Nepean Creek and stormwater management facilities owned by the City. 

 

3.0   BASIS

 

The purpose of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is to allow the property to be developed with residential uses. Approximately 1100 residential units are proposed consisting of several low, medium and high rise apartment buildings and multiple attached dwellings. Office and retail development is also proposed.  The subject property is designated as General Urban Area in the City Council Approved Official Plan. Generally, this designation permits all types of densities of housing, employment, shopping, service, industrial, park and natural areas, entertainment and institutional uses.

 

However, the site is within the Airport Operating Influence Zone on Schedule K of Official Plan, one of two zones designated in the Plan to identify areas where land use and future development is constrained by aircraft noise.  The boundaries of these zones are based on the projected levels of noise around the airport resulting from current and future airport operations.  Federal guidelines for land use have been based on two measures of projected noise, the Noise Exposure Forecase (NEF) and the Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) that can be depicted as noise contours around the airport.  The boundary of the Airport Operating Influence Zone is based on the 30 NEF and NEP contour, whichever is more restrictive.  A composite of the 30 NEF/NEP contour has been created and mapped against physical features on the ground, to define the boundary of the Airport Operating Influence Zone and thus make the policy more readily interpreted and applied.  The 25 NEF and NEP contours, as well as the 35 NEF and NEP contours, are also used to define areas subject to noise constraints.

 

The NEF and NEP contours were revised by the Ottawa International Airport Authority in 2005 to reflect updated projections of future airport activity and associated noise. The subject site is outside both the revised 25 and the 30 NEF and NEP contours.  The work of mapping the revised contours against physical features to amend the boundary of the Airport Operating Influence Zone and other designations on Schedule K has just been completed. A comprehensive Official Plan amendment has been prepared and is being brought to Committee and Council concurrently with the subject report.

 

Although the comprehensive OPA will accomplish what the site specific Official Plan Amendment will do, the site specific OPA is still being recommended as the applicant has requested the separate OPA in case the comprehensive OPA is not approved or appealed which would result in a delay in the proposed development.

 

The site will continue to be within the Airport Vicinity Development Zone, where the Ottawa International Airport Zoning regulations apply and affect such matters as the location and height of objects on lands near the airport.

 

An amendment to the Zoning By-law and Subdivision Application are being reviewed concurrently with this Amendment.  The proposed Zoning amendment will provide the tools to establish the setbacks and limit the size of the development as well it will remove the property from the “Airport Operating Influence Overlay Zone”.

 

 

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

 

1.   INTRODUCTION

 

All of this part of the document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No.­­­­­­ XX to the City Council Approved Official Plan.

 

2.   DETAILS

 

That the City Council Approved Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.      Subsection 4.8.7. of the City Council Approved Official Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new policy 10 at the end of Policy 9:

 

“Notwithstanding the policies of Section 4.8.7, residential development and other noise-sensitive uses are permitted on the property known municipally as 81 and part of 15 Colonnade Road North and no noise studies as described in this Section are required.  This policy anticipates revision of the boundary of the AOIZ on Schedule K, based on revised projections of aircraft noise in 2005.  These projections indicate that the subject site is outside the revised 25 NEF and NEP contours.  The AOIZ Airport Zoning regulations will still apply.”

 

 2.  “The subsequent policies are renumbered as required.”

            

 

3.   IMPLEMENTATION

 

The implementation of this Amendment to the Official Plan document shall be in accordance with the respective policies of the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa.


 

LOCATION MAP


DOCUMENT 4

PROPOSED ZONING MAP


Document 5

 

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                         

 

Zoning Details

 

1.         A new CMU exception zone be created for Area B and Area C on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)      dwellings multiple attached and dwellings apartment will not be permitted on the ground floor;

b)      a day nursery will be considered as a primary use

c)      cinema/theatre, garden centre, outdoor vehicle or merchandise sales, refreshment vehicle and special event outdoor sales will not be permitted

d)   the maximum floor area ratio be 2.4

e)   the minimum yard front be 3.0 metres

f)    the minimum yard side be 1.5 metres

g)   the minimum yard rear be 6.0 metres

h)   the parking requirements for business office will be 1 space per 50 m2 of gross floor area.

i)        the maximum building height be 8 storeys.

j)    the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per   dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking.

 

2.         A new CMU exception zone be created for Area D and Area L on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)      dwellings multiple attached and dwellings apartment will not be permitted on the ground floor;

b)      a day nursery will be considered as a primary use

c)      cinema/theatre, garden centre, outdoor vehicle or merchandise sales, refreshment vehicle and special event outdoor sales will not be permitted

d)   the minimum yard front be 3.0 metres

e)   the minimum yard side be 1.5 metres

f)    the minimum yard rear be 6.0 metres

g)   the parking requirements for business office will be 1 space per 50 m2 of gross floor area.

h)   the maximum building height be 3 storeys.

i)    the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per   dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking.

 

 

3.         A new R7 exception zone be created for Area E on Document 1 including the following requirements:

            a)         For both dwellings multiple attached and dwellings apartment:

                        i)          the minimum lot area will be 4200 square metres

                        ii)         the minimum lot frontage will be 30 metres

                        iii)         the maximum lot coverage will be 50%

                        iv)        the minimum building main spacing will be 3.0 metres

            b)         For dwellings multiple attached:

                        i)          the minimum yard front will be 3.0 metres

ii)         the minimum yard rear will be 1.5 metres for the back-to-back units and 5.0 metres in all other cases

                        iii)         the minimum yard side will be 1.5 metres

            c)         where a dwelling multiple attached abuts a street where there is not a

sidewalk the required parking spaces will have a minimum length of 4.5

metres

d)         the parking requirements for dwellings multiple attached will be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit including visitor parking

e)         the dwelling units can later be legally severed or divided without each dwelling unit having to meet the zone requirements as long as the original lot continues to meet the overall requirements

 

4.         A new R5 exception zone be created for Area F on Document 1 including the following requirements:

            a)         The only permitted use will be dwellings multiple attached

            b)         the maximum lot coverage will be 60%

c)         the minimum yard rear will be 6.0 metres

           

5.         A new R7 exception zone be created for Area G on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)         the only permitted use will be dwellings apartment

            b)         the minimum lot area will be 3100 square metres

            c)         the minimum lot frontage will be 40 metres

            d)         the maximum density will be 195 units per hectare

            e)         the minimum yard front will be 6.0 metres

f)          the minimum yard rear will be 12.0 metres        

g)         the minimum yard side will be 7.5 metres

h)         the maximum building height will be 19.0 metres

i)          the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking

 

6.         A new R7 exception zone be created for Area H on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)         the only permitted use will be dwellings apartment

            b)         the minimum lot area will be 3300 square metres

            c)         the minimum lot frontage will be 30 metres

            d)         the maximum density will be 240 units per hectare

            e)         the minimum yard front will be 6.0 metres

f)          the minimum yard rear will be 7.5 metres          

g)         the minimum yard side will be 4.5 metres

h)         the maximum building height will be 25.0 metres

i)          the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking

 

7.         A new R7 exception zone be created for Area I on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)         the only permitted use will be dwellings apartment

            b)         the minimum lot area will be 4600 square metres

            c)         the minimum lot frontage will be 30 metres

            d)         the maximum density will be 375 units per hectare

            e)         the maximum lot coverage will be 45%

            f)          the minimum yard front will be 6.0 metres

g)         the minimum yard rear will be 5.5 metres          

h)         the minimum yard side will be 4.5 metres

i)          the maximum building height will be 25.0 metres

j)          the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking.

 

8.         A new R7 exception zone be created for Area J on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)         the only permitted uses will be dwellings apartment and retirement home

b)         the minimum lot frontage will be 30.0 metres measured along the lot line front.

c)         the maximum density will be 220 units per hectare

d)         the minimum yard front will be 6.0 metres

e)         the minimum yard rear will be 5.5 metres          

f)          the minimum yard side will be 5.5 metres

g)         the maximum building height will be 31.0 metres

h)         the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking.

i)          the R7 Block Y zone and the adjacent R7 Block Z zones will be considered as one lot for parking requirement purposes

 

9.         A new R7 exception zone be created for Area K on Document 1 including the following requirements:

a)         the only permitted use will be dwellings apartment

b)         the minimum lot frontage will be 0 metres as long as the lot has access to a public street through a private street

c)         the maximum density will be 345 units per hectare

d)         the minimum yard front will be 6.0 metres

e)         the minimum yard rear will be 5.5 metres          

f)          the minimum yard side will be 5.5 metres

g)         the maximum building height will be 50.0 metres

h)         the minimum parking requirements will be 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit plus 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking.

i)                    the R7 Block Z zone and the adjacent R7 Block Y zones will be considered as one lot for parking requirement purposes

j)          the minimum lot area will be 4400 sq. m

 


10.       Schedule B9 will be amended as follows:

 

            Area A on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to PRP

Area B on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to CMU(H) Block X

Area C on Document 1 be rezoned from PRP to CMU(H) Block X

Area D on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to CMU(H) Block Y.

Area E on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R7 (H) Block T.

Area F on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R5(H) Block U.

Area G on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R7 (H) Block V.

Area H on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R7 (H) Block W.

Area I  on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R7 (H) Block X.

Area J on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R7 (H) Block Y.

Area K on Document 1 be rezoned from MBC(H) Block 6 to R7 (H) Block Z.

Area L on Document 1 be rezoned from PRP to CMU(H)  Block Y.

 

Remove Airport Operating Influence Overlay Zone from the subject properties

as shown in Document 1.

 

 

11.       In all of the above noted exception zones, Section 13.3 will not apply.

 


Document 6

 

CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                                          

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council.  Since the posting of the signs, and the holding of many community meetings, staff have received many comments. In addition to comments received from the technical agencies, comments were received from the Environmental Advisory group and the public. A summary of the main issues received through correspondence, phone calls and the community meetings are as follows:

 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

 

Issue: The proposed development is incompatible with the residential community located to the north.  The development is too dense and proposed apartment buildings are too high. The same density and height restrictions that are currently in place for the business park zoning should be applied to the proposed development.

Response: The Department believes that the proposed development will have minimal impact on the residential community located to the north because the open space lands and stands of mature trees associated with the creek valley and stormwater retention facilities provides a wide buffer between the residential community and the proposed development.  As well, the highest apartment building  (16 stories) has been relocated away from the northern edge of the property which has placed it further away from the existing residents, thereby changing the site lines.  Given the width of the creek valley and significant vegetation existing between the proposed development and community to the north, existing residents will not be able to see the majority of the development as it will be sufficiently screened.

 

 

Issue:  The development should not be approved as roads serving the development are at capacity.  The traffic impacts on Prince of Wales and Merivale road could be serious as these roads are already operating beyond capacity.           

Response: The traffic study concluded that increased traffic volumes, intersection impacts and cut-through traffic as a result of the proposed development, would be insignificant.  The study indicates that the surrounding roadways and intersections which would serve the development, are operating at capacity during peak periods, but the addition of the traffic from the proposed development would only slightly add to traffic volumes.  On the basis of full build-out by a horizon year of 2013 and assuming stable growth in background traffic, the proposed development is estimated to contribute 5% and 10% to projected traffic volumes on Merivale Road and Prince of Wales Drive, respectively, at his horizon.  It is noteworthy, however, that these contributions would be approximately halved (3% and 5%) if full build-out of the proposed development occurred instead over 15 years, which is considered more realistic given local housing sales forecasts.

 

Issue:   Concerns have been expressed with the proposed accesses to the site, design and location of driving aisles and parking areas, screening of the rear of the buildings and adequate landscaping.

Response: Details of the site's development will be dealt with through the Site Plan Control process at a later date.

 

Issue:  Concerns that significant trees along the edge of the property and adjacent to the pathway will be lost or damaged.

Response:  Staff will ensure recommendations from the Tree Preservation Plan and Environmental Impact Study will be incorporated into the Subdivision and Site Plan Agreements.

 

Issue:  Existing residents have expressed concerns that blasting and pile driving from construction of the project could possibly damage their foundations.

Response:  There have been discussions with the developer regarding the requirement to complete pre-construction buildings surveys.  Further details on where and how such studies will be undertaken will be dealt with through the Subdivision and Site Plan Approval processes.

 

Issue:  There is not enough parkland to serve the future residents of the project.

Response:  The City has determined the appropriate amount of parkland, and two public parks will exist within the development  Staff will be engaged with the developer in designing park facilities on the larger park within this development. It is recognized that the future residents will need more active recreational areas, thus two public parks along with private amenity areas associated with each residential cluster will be provided. Also the linear park system which is extensive and circum-navigates the development, will provide the future residents with a valuable recreational trail.

 

Issue:  Existing residents are concerned that proposed zoning will allow the developer to build apartment buildings on any portion of the site.  There will be no limits to where the high-rises can be constructed.

Response:  Staff are recommending that the site have three zones with each zone having sub-zones to control building height and density.  For example, the proposed zoning will only permit the high rise apartments to be built as shown in the concept plan.

 

Issue:  Is it safe to construct adjacent to the slopes of Nepean Creek?

Response:  The top of the bank is not on the subject property but is on  the adjacent City property.  The property is set back approximately 20-30 metres from the top of bank . A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report concluded that the recommended building setback from the ravine is not on the subject property. The study further concluded due to the type of soils that lightly loaded buildings could be built on shallow footings whereas heavy structures, like apartment buildings, will likely require deep foundations, such as piles driven to the bedrock surface.

 

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION/ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

 

General Burns Community Association

 

The Association identified the same issues as stated above. The following are additional comments.

Issue: Do not want Grant Carmen Drive extended south to Colonnade Road or south and west to Merivale Road.  This is to ensure traffic is not increased on Viewmount Drive.

Response:  The extension of Grant Carmen Drive to Colonnade Road or Merivale is not being contemplated as a result of the proposed development.

 

Issue: The Holding zone limiting height and requiring traffic studies should not be removed. The Holding restriction for height was specifically applied to prevent shadowing of the Nepean Creek ravine and overwatch of neighouring homes to the north of the creek.

Response:  Staff are recommending that the Holding zone not be removed until a cost-sharing agreement for required road modifications is resolved among all parties.  The Holding zone is not in place as a mechanism to control the height of buildings. A Holding zone is put in place for the purpose of ensuring certain conditions have been met. All the conditions have been met with the exception of the finalization of a cost-sharing agreement.

 

Issue: The Holding zone requires the completion of a Traffic Study which has not been made available to the public. 

Response:  Since receiving the Association's comments, the Traffic Study has been made available to the group.

 

Issue: The densest portion, such as the apartments, of the development should be at, or near, Colonnade Road.

Response:  Staff feel the lower rise buildings should be adjacent to Colonnade Road as this height is similar to the existing heights of buildings located across the street in the Business Park.  As well, the proposed location of the cluster of apartment buildings at the north-east corner of the site allow for the buildings to be put into their own separate enclave, away from the lower rise buildings proposed for the rest of the site.

 

Environmental Advisory Committee

 

The Environmental Advisory Committee provided comments which included the following recommendations:

 

1)  The final approval for development on this site retain the restriction of 11.5 metres on building height.

Response:  The proposed height limits will not impact adjacent existing uses as sufficient distance and buffering/screening exists between existing and proposed buildings. Increased heights are required in order to achieve certain densities and meet intensification objectives.

 

2)  That no approval for this development be given until a study using appropriate modeling tools is completed that models current and potential population to full build-out of the overall area bounded by Hunt Club Road, Baseline Road, Merivale Road and Prince of Wales Drive to determine the cumulative impacts on traffic, public transit, and other infrastructure parameters in order to faciliate sound decisions relative to future Development Applications in this area.

Response: The traffic study concluded that increased traffic volumes, intersection impacts and cut-through traffic as a result of the proposed development, would be insignificant.  The study indicates that the surrounding roadways and intersections which would serve the development, are operating at capacity during peak periods, but the addition of the traffic from the proposed development would only slightly add to traffic volumes.  With respect to other infrastructure, studies have been completed which conclude that other infrastructure, including sewer and water, are available to serve the site.

 

3)  That if/when approval of residential development on this site takes place, Council designates that all or a portion of any funds-in-lieu of parkland be directed to support the Poets Pathway project along the adjacent Nepean Creek.

Response: Staff  will investigate and possibly recommend mechanisms to implement this project.  

  


Table 1

From Edgington Report: Planning Rationale for Site Specific Development -

Alternatives to the Ashcroft Rezoning Proposal for 15 and 81 Colonnade Road



OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 15 AND 81 COLONNADE ROAD NORTH

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 15 ET 81, CHEMIN COLONNADE NORD

ACS2005-PGM-APR-0185                                          BELL-SOUTH NEPEAN (3)

 

Ms. Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department (PGM), introduced Ms. Louise Sweet-Lindsay, Planner, Development Approvals, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, who provided the Committee with an overview of the staff report.  A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Councillor Gord Hunter sought clarification about a proposed technical amendment to Item 5, Aircraft Noise Constraints, as it was his belief there was consistency between the Official Plan and Zoning for Colonnade Rd and the airport item.  At issue was the staff proposal to "delete the area at Colonnade Rd from the Airport Operating Influence Zone (AOIZ)".  Councillor Hunter questioned whether this was not an error, since this would remove the Colonnade Rd north lands away from the AOIZ and from the Airport Vicinity Development Zone (AVDZ) causing a "hole" with airport influence zones around it.

 

Mr. Myles Mahon, Planner, confirmed that the requested technical amendment to Item 5 was incorrect and that the original recommendation was correctly worded.

 

The following public delegations were heard:

 

Representatives of the General Burns Community Association (GBCA) led by Mr. Michael Koch, P. Eng (Civil), who introduced his team members: Mr. Barry Edgington, former Director, Plans Administration Branch, RMOC Planning Department, Dr. Terry McIntyre, PhD, Environmental Science, Dr. Pierre Lavoie, PhD, Electrical Engineering, Gord Jenkins, former Director and Real Property Manager, Public Works Canada and Scott McEwen, Director, GBCA.  Delegation members provided detailed information to back up their rationale for not supporting the Ashcroft proposal:

·                    the loss of a significant portion of an important natural feature, the Nepean Creek (Mr. Koch);

·                    the huge gaps in environmental assessment, the ecological risks and confounding environmental factors (Dr. McIntyre);

·                    planning and process flaws (Mr. Edginton);

·                    an unsupportable traffic plan (Mr. McEwen).

 

Mr. Koch expressed the GBCA's belief that critical and necessary information is incomplete and/or missing, in order for the Committee to make a well-informed decision.  For this reason, he requested that the Committee defer consideration of the item until the following is available:

·                    a proper Environmental Impact Study;

·                    the recommendations of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES) for the protection of sites with high or moderate ecological significance;

·                    the City of Ottawa draft Intensification By-law;

·                    the Stormwater Drainage Management Strategy;

·                    a more comprehensive traffic management study.

 

Mr. Koch said that, in the event the Committee believes it has enough information to approve the proposal, it should consider restricting development to areas not impacted by the forthcoming UNAEES and adopt the GBCA's alternate view of the development, as articulated by the planning consultant, Mr. B. Edgington. 

 

Mr. Edgington presented his report entitled Planning Rationale for Site Specific Development - Alternatives to the Ashcroft Rezoning Proposal for 15 and 81 Colonnade Road (on file with the City Clerk).  In this document, Mr. Edginton makes four (4) recommendations;

1.         reductions in maximum building heights in Areas B, H, J and K as detailed in Table 1.

2.         referral of the revised height and density restrictions back to planning staff for the required adjustments.

3.         deferral of the subdivision plan (Agenda Item 2) until the zoning revisions have been fully considered.

4.         Consideration of further reductions in density to bring the project more in line with density limits envisioned as per the rezoning in 2000 of the property from "Institutional" to "Industrial Business Campus".

 

Speaking to the last recommendation, Mr. Edgington said consideration should be given to single family, low-to-medium density on the ravine side, with higher densities on Colonnade Rd North.  He noted there are provisions for 7 private roads and there may be future servicing and maintenance problems as relates to snow clearing, maintenance of condominiums, condominium associations and other matters that should be addressed.

 

The complete texts of the GBCA's and Mr. Edgington's submissions are on file with the City Clerk .

 

In reply to a question from Councillor Jan Harder, Mr. Koch said the material presented was recently created and it was not presented beforehand because the GBCA’s preference is still that the decision be deferred until environmental concerns are addressed.  The Councillor congratulated the group for their work and said she appreciated their efforts.

 

Councillor Hunter asked for a staff comment on the extensive use of private laneways in the proposed development.  Ms. Currie indicated there would be site plan approval for individual blocks and that the City was looking for alternative standards for public roads, with a view to having fewer roadway and more yield on the property.  Councillor Hunter pointed out that, in the Tanglewood area, with its 300 units, there is spillover parking on neighbourhood roads.  The proposed development, with its 1100 units and a   preponderance of private roadways would likely experience the same problems.

 

Councillor Harder wondered whether the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) had raised any concerns about environmental issues.  Dr. McIntyre responded by saying that conversations did occur between the RVCA and the developers and that the former would have been interested in proposals to deal with groundwater issues.  He speculated that, as relates to the absence of comment from OC Transpo, these agencies are likely over-extended.

 

Paul Koch, Chair, Environmental Advisory Committee, (EAC ) related the EAC's position, that  while in abstract terms the proposed development is an attractive one, it is in the wrong location and poses serious concerns in its current state.  An EAC Motion from 8 September 2005 recommends that there be a restriction of 11.5 metres on building height, that there be modelling of current and potential population to full build-out of the area bounded by Hunt Club Rd, Baseline Rd, Merivale Rd and Prince of Wales Dr to determine the cumulative impacts on traffic, public transit, schools and other infrastructure and finally, that consideration be given to designate all or a portion of any funds-in-lieu of parkland to support the Poets Pathway project along the adjacent Nepean Creek.  Mr. Koch concluded by urging the Committee to support the recommendations of the GBCA and to heed the comments of groups such as Canada's Capital Greenspace Alliance and the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee.

 

The complete text of the EAC's presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Chair Peter Hume asked why the provisions of the holding zones were not used, to ensure capacity as the project builds out.  The holding zone could be lifted when the traffic impact studies are completed.  Ms. Currie replied that staff is dealing with the existing restrictions imposed by the former City of Nepean.

 

Lee Farnsworth spoke in opposition to the development, based on promises made and trust.  As a former Nepean Councillor and Chair of the Nepean Parks and Recreation Committee, Ms. Farnsworth provided background information on the site, culminating in 1999 with a proposal by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and Public Works Canada for the re-development of the lands.  A compromised was reached to the satisfaction of all parties and promises were made to residents of the Fisher Heights area.  Ms. Farnsworth then addressed the issue of traffic management and the continual build-up, noting that Fisher Ave would take much of the diverted traffic.  She added that development at the west end of the lands or the lands on the other side of Merivale, currently owned by the NCC, has not yet been addressed. She requested that the Committee either turn down the proposal or defer it, expressing her belief it had been inappropriate of the City to enter into an agreement with the developer without dealing with the airport. 

 

When asked by Councillor Harder for additional comments on traffic issues, and on the fact that OC Transpo has not commented on the proposed development, Ms. Farnsworth said traffic in the area would worsen and traffic calming measures may need to be put in place.  As to OC Transpo and the absence of an east-west Transitway link, Ms. Farnsworth pointed out this was on the "wish list" and development should not be based on this possibility.

 

Chris Hubbard said she was speaking for mothers everywhere by expressing her concern with increased traffic and stress on roadways.  She said the area's traffic problems must be addressed before any new development takes place.  The current zoning's density and height restrictions should not be overturned simply to accommodate the proponent.  If allowed to build homes on Colonnade Rd, Ascroft Homes should preserve the pathway and ensure the new homes do not overshadow the existing ones.  The developer should be prepared to follow the zoning guidelines.

 

Iola Price, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, spoke in opposition to the proposed development.  To illustrate her points, Ms. Price used a slide presentation and read from a prepared statement, both of which are held on file with the City Clerk.  Ms. Price commented on the need for a passive, wooded park to be provided, given that 85% of trees are already gone from the urban natural area.  The comment about the site only containing scrub vegetation is incorrect: it is a young, upland deciduous forest.  Ms. Price also stated that she had expected a better Tree Preservation Plan than the one submitted.  She also averred that the clearing of land before approval is unacceptable, and that the City needs a mechanism such as a Tree Cutting By-law to address this situation.  Ms. Price felt there should be a well-defined buffer between the existing path and the new development.  There should also be a 30-metre setback from the top of the ravine slope for all buildings.

 

In reply to a question from Councillor Diane Holmes, Ms. Sweet-Lindsay said that the tree protection plan does specified which trees will be retained and this would be added to the site plan approval.

 

Erwin Dreessen, Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, spoke in opposition to the proposal, referring to a prepared handout and written comments, both of which are held on file with the City Clerk.  He expressed strong support for the recommendations put forward by the Environmental Advisory Committee and made reference to the fact that there are serious issues of connectivity in the proposed development.

William Watt stated his opposition to the proposal, referring to a prepared statement held on file with the City Clerk.  He spoke about dumping and other damage mostly in the vicinity of row house development and he asked that the City not allow development along waterways.  He felt the proposed development would be particularly intrusive along Nepean Creek.  He also requested there be parkland allocation within the development..

 

Ms. Carol Gutz, a resident of Portland Park, pointed out that the area has many traffic problems and is being asked to accommodate more traffic.  She felt that the cumulative impacts of traffic were not being studied and she asked that the proposal not be approved.

 

Al Speyers provided additional details about the process of rezoning the lands from Institutional to Industrial Park by the former City of Nepean in year 2000.  He made reference to events that followed the decision to turn down the application, and he asked that the City reconsider the original rezoning of the site.

 

Councillor Rick Chiarelli asked Mr. Speyers to clarify whether he was asserting that the original rezoning was made for non-planning reasons.  Mr. Speyers reiterated that the decision was made under duress.  Councillor Chiarelli stated that, by definition, items discussed at In Camera meetings cannot be planning principle matters, as this would be illegal.  The matters discussed dealt with a real estate offer and the receiving of legal advice on the offer.

 

Robert Brocklebank, President, Federation of Citizens’ Associations (FCA) indicated that the FCA raised concern about the ease at which spot rezonings were being approved, seemingly just through the use of the magic words "intensification" and "Official Plan".  In response, the FCA were reassured that the existing zoning by-laws would be respected until a new zoning by-law is in place. Mr. Brocklebank posited that the Colonnade Rd site should be zoned as a business campus, with a maximum height restriction of 11 metres.   He added that he failed to see the urgency in rezoning this land, and why it shouldn’t proceed in accordance with existing zoning. 

 

Mr. Martin Mudde is associated with the Redeemer Christian High School and has concerns with the safety of students having to cross the proposed development.  He would like to see the sidewalks, currently designed as partial, being extended all the way to the School and the sports field.

 

Paul Rothwell, Director of Planning, Ashcroft Homes introduced Dave Krasjewski, independent Planner, and Ron Jack (Delcan).  Mr. Rothwell stated that the time is now, and the place is here, to approve City Place.  Once completed, it will be a self-sustaining village.  The development fulfills the goals of the Official Plan for mixed-use density and represents a gentle form of intensification.  Mr. Rothwell stated that the required studies were rigorously done, by professionals respected in their fields.  A comprehensive plan for reforestation will ensure City Place is a responsible neighbour.  He admitted that some clearing had taken place, mostly of buckthorn trees, but the City was advised that this would take place.

 

Mr. Rothwell spoke about design features that call for the controlled use of materials, textures and colours, with 70,000 square feet of commercial retail space for 300 employees and a wide variety of dwelling styles: terraced homes, upscale patio townhouses, condominium units and full-service retirement suites.  Out of the proposed 1100 dwellings, 400 are geared to seniors and retirees and 40% of homes meet the criteria for affordability.  At the anticipated build-out rate, the project will take 10 to 15 years to complete. 

 

With regard to adding additional traffic to the area, Mr. Rothwell said there would be a signalized intersection at the entrance and plenty of visitors parking.  Ashcroft Homes contribute to the reconfiguration of the Merivale Rd/Colonnade Rd intersection.  The Environmental Assessment process for the East/West link of the Transitway is about to commence: the Transitway is only 600 metres away from the development. Other amenities will include 2 dedicated parks, a $600,000 contribution to the Park Development fund and links to existing parks.  Mr. Rothwell concluded his presentation by asking “if not here, where and if not now, when?”

 

Councillor Rainer Bloess asked the speaker to comment on concerns about building height and increased traffic in the area.  Mr. Rothwell said there would be no sun-shadow impact on homes to the north as they are too far away.  The sightlines are equal to two storey homes sitting on an adjacent lot and the towers are 10 times farther away.  With regard to traffic, the current zoning generates vehicle counts of 419 at peak morning hours and 483 at peak afternoon hours.  Those numbers will increase to 700 in the morning and 1100 in the afternoon but the flow will be complimentary, with people coming home and employees leaving.  With the mix of residential and commercial sites, a significant number of City Place residents could walk to their place of employment.

 

Written comments relative to the Official Plan and Zoning amendment were received from the following individuals:

·                    e-mail from Andrew Elliott;

·                    e-mail from Ann Raymond and family;

·                    e-mail from Steven Artelle, Director, the Ottawa Literary Heritage Society;

·                    e-mail from Graydon Patterson;

·                    e-mail from Mary and David Elliott, Nepean;

·                    e-mail from Ruth Iwancewicz;

·                    e-mail from Mary and Rod McDowell;

·                    e-mail from Urbano Novo;

·                    letter dated 22 November 2005 from Richard D. Drolet;

·                    Letter dated 30 October 2005 from Neil Standen, P. Eng, Urban Aerodynamics Ltd.

·                    Letter dated 18 November 2005 from Cal Kirkpatrick, Vice President Development,    Colonnade Construction.

 

Committee Discussion

 

Councillor Hunter thanked all the residents who made presentations on this issue.  He also wanted to acknowledge the openness of Ashcroft Homes, who he said have not tried to hide their intentions and have been willing to meet with the community.  The Councillor agreed with the presenters who said it was premature to consider applications for this area until policies are enunciated from the environmental point of view.  Councillor Hunter pointed out he has been dealing with intensification for the better part of a decade, and nothing close to the scale of this development has come forward.  I put forward the following Motion of deferral.

 

Moved by G. Hunter

 

WHEREAS a significant portion of 15 and 81 Colonnade Rd is located within Area 44 of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, and;

 

WHEREAS the study has yet to be completed with specific recommendations for activities on or adjacent to urban natural areas, and;

 

WHEREAS there is not yet a comprehensive standard Intensification By-law for the City of Ottawa, and;

 

WHEREAS a more comprehensive traffic study and an agreement for cost sharing of traffic improvements are needed;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this application be deferred until there is a resolution of these issues.

 

LOST

NAYS (5): R. Bloess, J. Harder, P. Feltmate, M. Bellemare, P. Hume

YEAS (2): D. Holmes, G. Hunter

 

Councillor Hunter next moved that Recommendation 1 of the staff report be approved, and that Recommendation 2 be amended to reflect the information contained in Table 1 of the Edgington Report.  The Councillor felt this represented a compromise that is approximately 90% of what the developer is seeking.

 

Councillor Michel Bellemare compared this development with one in his riding, La Place des gouverneurs, which has mostly residential apartment units with some commercial uses and is located adjacent to a major Transitway station.  He said he appreciated that Councillors Hunter and Harder were working hard to find a compromise acceptable to the community, and he could support the proposed amendments.  

 

In reply to a question from Councillor Bloess about the environmental work done so far, Ms. Susan Murphy, Planner, Environmental Sustainability, indicated that staff and the RVCA undertook to look at the impact of adjacent lands on the current natural features and the wooded land to see how natural vegetation could be augmented.  The Department of Fisheries and Oceans have determined that Nepean Creek was not a significant fish habitat.  The stormwater management facility is already accounted for in the design.  Overall, staff concurs with the studies to date.  In light of the response, Councillor Bloess said he was satisfied that concerns have been met, and because the amendment reduces the size of the development, he could support it.

 

Chair Hume called the vote on the report recommendations:

 

Moved by G. Hunter

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.         Approve an amendment to the City Council Approved Official Plan for the lands at 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 3.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

2.         Approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning for the lands at 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North as shown in Document 4 and detailed in Document 5, as amended according to the recommendations articulated in Table 1 of the Edginton report.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended

 

The following technical amendment was then considered:

 

3.         WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for 15 and 81 Colonnade Road North, in order to develop the site for a mixed-use subdivision;

 

            AND WHEREAS, the Draft Official Plan Amendment attached to the staff report as document 3 refers to the incorrect policies within the details of “Part B-The Amendment”,

 

            BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Planning and Environment Committee approve the modifications of the Draft Official Plan Amendment, Document 3 to the staff report, with the amended Document 3 attached to this motion.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED


 [U1]