|
10. fOLLOW-UP REPORT: EXCHANGE OF INCREASED HEIGHT OR DENSITY |
Committee recommendationS as
amended
That the
original Report Recommendation 1, with amendments to Document 2 (Amended
Density Incentive Implementation Guidelines), as outlined hereunder, be
referred to Council:
1.
Defer
implementation of the draft guidelines outlined in Document 2, as amended by
the following, until the new comprehensive zoning by-law is in place to
provide a more consistent zoning framework for development review.
Document 2
10. Community
benefits to be considered shall include but not be limited to the following:
i.
Affordable housing including housing
on site, land, or cash contributions dedicated to the construction of new units
to accommodate those on the Social Housing Registry waiting list, to remain
affordable for fifty (50) year;
and add:
v. Affordable market rental units available to a mix of incomes between the
10th and 30th percentiles.
2. That
Council amend the draft guidelines as shown in Document 2, as amended,
to incorporate greenspace issues raised by the Ottawa Forest and Greenspace
Advisory Committee.
Recommandations modifiÉes du Comité
Que la Recommandation 1 du rapport
d’origine, avec les modifications au Document 2 (Lignes directrices modifiées
concernant la mise en œuvre des mesures incitivatives en matière de densité),
telles qu’elles sont indiquées ci-dessous, soit présentée au Conseil :
1. différer la mise en œuvre du projet de lignes
directrices indiqué dans le Document 2, telle que modifiée par ce qui suit,
jusqu'à ce que le nouveau règlement municipal précis de zonage soit en place
pour offrir un cadre de zonage plus uniforme pour l'examen de projets
d'aménagement.
Document 2
10. Les avantages pour la collectivité que l'on
doit examiner comprendront, sans s'y limiter, ce qui suit :
i. le logement abordable, notamment le logement
sur place, les terrains ou les contributions pécuniaires dédiées à la
construction de nouvelles unités afin de loger les personnes inscrites sur la
liste d'attente du Registre de logement social doit demeurer abordable pendant
cinquante (50) ans;
et ajouter :
v. le marché des unités de location abordables
doit être disponible à toute une gamme de revenus situés entre le 10e
et le 30e centile.
2. Que le Conseil modifie le projet de lignes
directrices tel qu'indiqué dans le Document 2, et tel que modifié, afin
d'y intégrer des questions liées aux espaces verts soulevées par le Comité
consultatif sur les forêts et les espaces verts d'Ottawa.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report (Planning
and Growth Management) dated
5 April 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-POL-0031).
2. Memorandum from C. Boucher, Executive
Coordinator, Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation, dated 20 January 2006
(previously distributed and held on file with City Clerk).
3. Letter from D. Barton, Chair,
Ottawa Social Housing Network, dated 21 March 2006 (previously distributed and
held on file with City Clerk).
4. Extract of Draft Minute, 25 April 2006.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
05 April 2006 / le 05 avril 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager/
Directeur municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure
Policy/Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x22653,
Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the following recommendations to:
1.
Defer
implementation of the draft guidelines outlined in Document 2 until the new
comprehensive zoning by-law is in place to provide a more consistent zoning
framework for development review; and
2.
Amend
the draft guidelines as shown in Document 2 to incorporate greenspace issues
raised by the Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee.
Que
le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement approuve les recommandations
suivantes de :
1.
différer
la mise en œuvre du projet de lignes directrices indiqué dans le Document 2
jusqu’à ce que le nouveau règlement municipal précis de zonage soit en place pour
offrir un cadre de zonage plus uniforme pour l’examen de projets d’aménagement;
2.
modifier
le projet de lignes directrices tel qu’indiqué dans le Document 2 afin d’y
intégrer des questions liées aux espaces verts soulevées par le Comité
consultatif sur les forêts et les espaces verts d’Ottawa.
BACKGROUND
In September 2005, Planning and Environment
Committee (PEC) considered a report on the exchange of increased height or
density for community benefits. The report was prepared at the request of City
Council, which asked staff to investigate the use of various planning
incentives to promote the achievement of the new affordable housing policies in
the Official Plan. A report on these
incentives was considered at Council on June 23, 2004.
One of
the planning tools for affordable housing and other community benefits is
Section 37 of the Provincial Planning Act, R.S.O.1990 which deals with density
bonusing. Section 5.2.1.6
Implementation in the Official Plan already contains policies to allow for the
exchange of height and density. As the City has had little experience with the
use of the provisions of Section 37, the report proposed a set of guidelines to
assist in the implementation of density incentives. The guidelines were
discussed with members of the Federation of Community Associations (FCA) and
the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association (OCHBA). Their comments were
summarized in the report.
The guidelines set a framework for City staff,
developers, and the community to make use of the provisions of Section 37. PEC was asked to support in principle the
guidelines as the basis for further discussions with stakeholders and for all
parties to gain experience in the use of Section 37. Several delegations appeared at the PEC meeting to speak to the
report. PEC carried the recommendation
but included a series of amendments as well (Document 1). Staff were directed
to hold public consultations on the amended guidelines, (Document 2), with
community associations who represent the areas contiguous with the Central
Area, arterial mainstreets, mixed-use centres, brownfields and rapid transit
stations. Developers with interests in these areas also were to be included as
were the local school boards.
In order to facilitate the consultation process, invitations were extended to all community associations inside the urban area as well as the school boards and the City’s Advisory Committees to attend an information meeting on January 25, 2006. Information on density incentives and the public meeting was posted on the consultation page of the City’s website with links to the staff report, the amended guidelines and minutes of the PEC meeting. Notice of the meeting and the website page also was placed in the daily newspapers in French and English.
The development community, as represented by OCHBA and the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), chose to meet separately with staff. This meeting was held on February 2, 2006.
Ten people attended the public meeting and five representatives of OCHBA and BOMA attended the developers meeting.
DISCUSSION
· Centretown Citizens’ Community Association wants the existing zoning in their neighbourhood vigorously applied. Negotiations with the development industry to secure community benefits could occur without the need to utilize the provisions of Section 37. For example, a benefit to the community could simply be a reasonably sized but well designed building.
· The Hintonburg Community Association wants the City to ensure developers do not circumvent the proposed guidelines by seeking variances for increases in height and density through the Committee of Adjustment. Community associations should be directly involved in the negotiations for the benefit together with the developer and city staff. The City needs to assist those community groups that do not have the same level of expertise as the more organized ones do to become involved.
·
The Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee
asked that Guideline number 11 (ii) be amended to remove ‘the preservation of
valued greenspace’ as an exception. Guideline number 10 (ii) should be amended
to read “conservation of existing greenspace or the creation of
new greenspace.”
The following points were raised by the representatives from OCHBA and BOMA:
·
Zoning applications to permit increases in height and
density should be evaluated based on the planning and design merits of the
proposed developments. The proposal represents either good planning or it does not.
Enforcing the proposed Section 37 implementation guidelines will deter
proponents of quality developments from proceeding with their projects, which
would be detrimental to the City’s growth policies.
· The City is proposing to formalize a process to secure community benefits in advance of development proposals being presented to staff. This effectively limits any opportunity for negotiation and obliges the developer to provide a contribution if the proposal falls within the proposed guidelines. Even if a development proposal represents good planning, the City would still want to extract additional funds or some form of benefit from the proponent.
· Density incentives assume there is a reasonable ‘box’ or framework in place that would permit good development to proceed, and that changes to ‘the box’ represent higher returns to the developer. Neither assumption is true. Many properties are zoned well below the height or density of their neighbours and the existing zoning is not reasonable. Or, the existing zoning does not permit the best design on the site; for example, more height could be exchanged for more open space on the site.
· The development industry is being penalized in the downtown area. There are no assurances that zoning changes promoting better design will be supported politically even if a community benefit is provided. Density should be supported in return for well-designed buildings regardless of the zoning regulations. Establishing fixed guidelines for the implementation of Section 37 runs counter to the City’s intensification policies supporting infill development in its Official Plan. The thrust of the Official Plan is to support growing in before growing out, yet the City is seeking a payment to do so.
· The basic premise that there is an increased value associated with higher density is flawed. A development will only proceed if it makes business sense. Occasionally this means building ‘outside the box’ of established regulations. The onus should be on the proponent to suggest a reasonable community benefit which would be advantageous to all stakeholders in return for building ‘outside the box’. This process opens the doors to a consensual consultation process.
·
In conclusion, it is premature to consider using the
proposed implementation guidelines without giving the development industry
adequate time to adjust to the City’s new zoning by-law once approved, and to
the Official Plan policies. The ‘box’ will be better defined through experience
and consultation.
Staff acknowledge
that in many areas of the City appropriate for intensification, the existing
zoning permits less density than might be expected, given the surrounding land
uses and Official Plan policies. In some cases, for example, the surrounding
lands have redeveloped at a higher density, or the land has increased
development potential as a result of the removal of incompatible uses or
construction of public infrastructure.
As part of the staff
presentation at the public meeting, five examples were provided of recent
inner-city developments which sought and received approval for increases in
height and density. All five projects involved the redevelopment of
underutilized properties, including a former auto repair shop, a used car
dealership, a car wash and a temporary parking lot. On a percentage basis, the
height increases approved ranged from 15% to 85% while the density increases
ranged from 35% to a high of 250% with 40% being the norm. In three of the five
projects, the increases sought were obtained by way of minor variance
applications through Committee of Adjustment (COA). These projects are
considered to be examples of good planning and quality urban design. If staff were to comply with the PEC
amendment to oppose applications to the COA for minor variances involving
increases in height and density in excess of 25% of the permitted zoning, the
applications in all three situations mentioned above would have been
opposed. Instead, the request for
increases would have to be processed through a re-zoning application and a
community benefit would have to be negotiated. This would be a deterrent for
some developers to proceed with their projects and the City could stand to lose
some quality infill redevelopment.
Section 37 is a
worthwhile planning tool and nothing prevents a developer from coming forward
at any time to offer a community benefit in exchange for increases in height or
density. Each application received would be considered on its own merits and
would be subject to negotiations with the applicant and consultation with the
community. There would be ample opportunity for community input.
The draft new
comprehensive Zoning By-law, which will be released shortly for public
consultation, is intended to provide greater flexibility in building design.
This may result in fewer requests for density increases and more creative
design.
Staff support the
view that it may be premature to introduce the Section 37 implementation
guidelines at the present time considering the development industry will have
to adjust to the new Zoning By-law once it is approved and gain experience with
its use. The industry is also in a learning curve with the Official Plan and
more time is needed to adapt to its policies.
Staff recommend deferring implementation
of the draft guidelines (incorporating the changes proposed by the Forest and
Greenspace Advisory Committee) until the new comprehensive zoning by-law is in
place. This approach would provide a more consistent zoning framework for
development review.
CONSULTATION
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are
no financial implications for this report.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 2 Amended Density Incentive Implementation
Guidelines
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management Department to inform FCM, OCHBA, BOMA and the School Boards of the Planning and Environment Committee decision.
AMENDMENTS – SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
That the Planning and Environment
Committee support in principle the “Guidelines to Assist in the Implementation
of Density Incentives” contained in Document 2 of this report as the basis for
further discussion with stakeholders, as amended by the following:
1. That DOCUMENT 2 – ‘Guidelines to Assist in the Implementation of Density Incentives’ be amended to include consideration of applications for increased height by the addition of ‘…and height’ following the word ‘density’ in Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14, when the increase in building height exceeds 25% of the maximum allowable height permitted under the Zoning By-law.
2. That the threshold for minimum development size be amended to 2,500 square metres, or 25,000 square feet.
3. That community benefits
considered as ‘affordable housing’ be further defined as ‘cash or land
contributions dedicated to the construction of new units to accommodate those
on the Social Housing Registry waiting list’.
4. That following the pre-consultation, there be public notification through on-site signage of applications for Exchange of Increased Height or Density for Community Benefits; and that community groups are consulted for their input on the type of benefit to be sought; and that staff ensure that community associations are made aware of the Guidelines.
5. That the Planning and Growth Management Department oppose applications to the Committee of Adjustment for increased height or density exceeding 25%, and request that they should be considered under this policy.
6. That staff monitor the use and impact of height and density incentives; report back on the number of applications, the benefits negotiated, and request feedback from community groups and the Federation of Citizens’ Associations on the community experience in the implementation of the Guidelines.
7. a) That the public consultation include community associations representing the areas that would be contiguous with the areas of the Central Area, rapid transit stations, arterial mainstreets, mixed use centres and brownfields.
b) That developers working in these contiguous
areas be included in the community consultation.
c) That School Boards be included.
DOCUMENT 2
AMENDED DENSITY INCENTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDELINES
Note: The
amendments to the Guidelines approved by Planning and Environment Committee on
September 27th, 2005 are underlined below. The revisions made to reflect the changes proposed by the
Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory
Committee are shaded below.
REVISED DRAFT GUIDELINES TO ASSIST IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DENSITY INCENTIVES
1. The use of density and height incentives will generally be focussed on those areas identified for intensification in the new Official Plan or in Community Design Plans.
2.
Density and height incentives should only be
considered for developments whose overall project size exceeds 2,500
square metres (25,000 square feet) or 25 residential units and
where the proposed density increase will exceed 20 per cent of the project’s
gross floor area or 5 residential units.
3.
Incentives for increases in height are to be negotiated
when the increase in building height exceeds 25% of the maximum allowable for
developments whose overall project size exceeds 2,500 square metres (25,000 sq.
ft.)
4. Density and height incentives will be considered:
i. Where a Council-approved Community Design Plan exists and it supports the proposal; and
ii. On individual sites supporting high density in accordance with Official Plan strategic directions. Included are properties where it is in the City’s interest to ensure preservation (i.e. affordable rental housing, heritage buildings or valued greenspace).
5. Development involving increases in density or height must constitute good planning and be consistent with the Official Plan.
6. The design quality of a proposed development must constitute an essential consideration during negotiations for increases in density or height and not be compromised.
7. The increase in density or height will be approved through an amendment to the Zoning By-law. Community groups will be consulted on the application and the proposed benefit. Prior to the enactment of the amending by-law, an agreement shall be entered into between the City and the developer specifically identifying the community benefits that have been secured, including land or cash if applicable, and how they are to be provided and sustained over time. The agreement shall be registered on title.
8. There should be a reasonable planning relationship between the community benefits and the proposed development.
9. The community benefits provided in exchange for increased density or height must be over and above those facilities and services that would otherwise be required as part of the City's standard development approval process.
10. Community benefits to be considered shall include but not be limited to the following:
i.
Affordable housing, including specifically land
or cash contributions dedicated to the construction of new units to
accommodate those on the Social Housing Registry waiting list;
ii. Conservation of existing greenspace or the creation of new greenspace and preservation of heritage resources;
iii. Public transit facilities; and
iv. Community facilities.
11. The rate of exchange of community benefits for increased density or height shall be 50 per cent of the net increase in land value resulting from the density increase. Exceptions are:
i. Redevelopment of brownfield sites to
non-industrial uses. In such instances, the City will not apply a fixed,
predetermined exchange rate. Rather,
the City will negotiate to secure
public benefits which are considered necessary as part of the overall
planning for the redevelopment; and
ii. Preservation
of affordable housing, heritage resources or structures and
valued greenspace.
12. The increased value of the land, resulting from the density increase, and the value of the benefit to be provided, shall be estimated through the following process:
i. Real Estate
Services (RES) maintains a list of professional real-estate appraisers under a standing offer;
ii. At the developer's
request, RES staff will arrange for an
appraisal from the standing offer;
iii. The developer will pay in advance for the appraisal costs;
iv. RES staff will review the
appraisal and provide comments on the valuation.
13. The payment of public benefits secured in the form of cash shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. In a phased development, cash payments may be phased and the details of the payments shall be outlined in the agreement.
14. Density and height incentives
for non-profit housing development can be considered without receipt of
community benefits.
15. The guidelines are to help gain
experience with the use of density and height incentives do not preclude
City Council from considering exceptions.
fOLLOW-UP REPORT:
EXCHANGE OF INCREASED HEIGHT
OR DENSITY FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITs
rAPPORT DE SUIVRE: EXPLOITATION ACCRUE EN HAUTEUR OU EN DENSITE EN
EXCHANGE D'AVANTAGES POUR LA COLLECTIVITe
ACS2006-PGM-pol-0031 CITY-WIDE / À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Mr. Dennis
Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, and
Mr. Stan Wilder, Planner, were present to respond to questions from Committee
members.
The
Committee heard from Mr. Dennis Carr, on behalf of the Centretown
Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) and the Ottawa Social Housing Network, who
spoke in opposition to Recommendation 1.
He pointed out that the City is responsible for social housing, and
there already are few tools available and no money to create new affordable
housing (the provincial housing program is not working at all).
Mr. Carr raised the following additional
points from his written submission (held on file with the City Clerk):
·
Housing should be affordable for a minimum of 50
years;
·
Incentives should include the option of providing
the affordable housing on site as opposed to specifically land or cash;
·
Affordable housing should be targeted to households
with incomes such that they would be eligible for a subsidy in not-for-profit
housing.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the Ottawa Social
Housing Network also supports these recommendations. He also suggested the addition of point 10 vi,
namely, that the ultimate decision about community benefits be made by
Committee and Council, and not depend on the quality of the design.
Councillor
Diane Holmes moved that the recommendations highlighted by Mr. Carr be adopted
as part of the Amended Density Incentive Implementation Guidelines, Point #10.
Councillor
Georges Bédard asked for the rationale behind the staff recommendation to defer
Item 1. Mr. Jacobs indicated that,
through discussions with the development industry, it was made clear that the
imposition of guidelines without a clear understanding of how these would be
applied would result in an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. He said staff preferred to try negotiating
in order to achieve a guideline that works for everybody.
Councillor
Bédard wanted to know who determines “good design”. Mr. Jacobs said staff interprets this as meaning that the
building design is paramount, and does not just involve increasing height or
density for additional units. He added
that staff makes recommendations but the ultimate determination rests with
Committee and Council. With regard to
Councillor Bédard’s question about the timing of the new Comprehensive Zoning
By-law, Mr. Jacobs indicated that a by-law might be adopted by January 2007,
but its final determination will depend on the number of appeals it faces.
Councillor
Jan Harder signalled her preference to receive the report, as is, adding that
she did not feel comfortable with ad hoc amendments at this time. The Councillor also thought that the
development industry and community associations should be represented and offer
their views.
Chair
Peter Hume then presented the following Motions:
Moved by
D. Holmes
That Document 2, Amended Density Incentive Implementation Guidelines,
article 10, be amended to read:
10. Community
benefits to be considered shall include but not be limited to the following:
ii.
Affordable
housing including housing on site, land, or cash contributions dedicated to the
construction of new units to accommodate those on the Social Housing Registry
waiting list, to remain affordable for fifty (50) year;
CARRIED with Councillors J. Harder and G.
Hunter dissenting
and
add:
10. v. Affordable market rental units available to a mix of incomes between
the 10th and 30th percentiles.
The report recommendations, as amended by the
foregoing, were then considered:
That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the following
recommendations:
1.
Defer
implementation of the draft guidelines outlined in Document 2, as amended,
until the new comprehensive zoning by-law is in place to provide a more
consistent zoning framework for development review.
NAYS (3):G.
Bédard, P. Feltmate, D. Holmes
YEAS (3):
J. Harder, G. Hunter, P. Hume
2. Amend the draft guidelines as shown in
Document 2 to incorporate greenspace issues raised by the Ottawa Forest and
Greenspace Advisory Committee.
CARRIED
Moved by
D. Holmes
That Recommendation 1, as amended, be
referred to Council:
YEAS (4):
G. Bédard, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, P. Hume
NAYS (2): J. Harder,
D. Holmes