|
1. REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW – URBAN AREA – PUBLIC MEETING AND APPROVAL VERSION RÉVISÉE DU
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE PRÉLIMINAIRE – SECTEUR URBAIN, RÉUNION PUBLIQUE ET
APPROBATION |
Committee recommendationS as
amended
That Council :
1. Approve the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volumes 1
(text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – May 2007 (Urban Area) as
noted in Document 1, as amended by the following:
a)
The height limit
in the R4S zone be retained at 11 meters.
b)
The use of the
Floor Space Index (FSI) provisions, as they had existed within the boundaries
of the Heritage District of Rockcliffe Park, be continued.
c)
Schedule 2A be
revised to reflect the location of existing transitway stations in Kanata and
the most recent plans for additional transitway stations.
d)
The property at
the southwest corner of Eleanor and Burris be corrected to show it in the R1F
zone, which reflects its current use.
e)
The current
maximum densities as prescribed in the existing Goulbourn R4 and R5 zones be
retained for the corresponding zoning in the new by-law.
and as modified by:
f)
The staff
recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 –
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area -Summary of Comments on the May
2006 and 2007 versions and Modifications;
g) Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area – Staff-Initiated Changes to the May
2007 version as noted in Document 3;
h) The
changes noted in Document 4;
i)
Document 5 being Modifications Arising from written
and oral submissions received by PEC at its public meeting on October 22
j)
Document 6 being Modifications addressing comments and
housekeeping matters subsequent to the release of Documents 2, 3 and 4;
and
where there is conflict between the above documents, priority to resolving such
conflict shall be given to the adopted motions introduced by Councillors
followed in priority by the most recent document.
2. Adopt the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and in the event of
appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the most restrictive provisions
of either:
a)
the existing Zoning
By-laws of former municipalities, or
b)
the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law,
will apply
until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
Que le Conseil :
1. le volume 1 (texte et annexes) et le volume 2
(cartes de zonage) du Règlement de zonage urbain préliminaire (mai 2007),
comme le précise le document 1, sous réserve de ce qui suit :
a)
la limite de hauteur de 11 mètres en
vigueur dans la zone R4S sera maintenue,
b)
les dispositions relatives au rapport
plancher-sol qui s’appliquaient à l’intérieur des limites du secteur
patriomonial de Rockcliffe Park seront conservées,
c)
l’annexe 2A sera revue en fonction de
l’emplacement des stations existantes du Transitway à Kanata et des plus récents
plans de stations supplémentaires,
d)
le zonage du bien-fonds situé à l’angle
sud-ouest de la promenade Eleanor et de l’allée Burris sera modifié pour que le
bien-fonds fasse dorénavant partie de la zone R1F, qui correspond à
l’utilisation actuelle du bien-fonds visé,
e)
les densités maximales en vigueur qui sont
prescrites dans les zones R4 et R5 de Goulbourn seront maintenues de manière à
ce qu’elles correspondent à celles prévues dans le nouveau Règlement;
et sous réserve également :
f)
des recommandations du personnel énoncées
à la colonne IV du document 2 réservée aux recommandations sur le
Règlement de zonage urbain préliminaire – Résumé des commentaires reçus et des
modifications apportées aux versions de mai 2006 et 2007 dudit Règlement,
g)
des
changements apportés par le personnel à la version de mai 2007 du
Règlement de zonage urbain préliminaire, comme le précise le document 3,
h)
des
modifications indiquées au document 4,
i)
du
document 5, qui contient les modifications découlant de commentaires
écrits et oraux reçus par le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement à sa
réunion publique du 22 octobre 2007,
j)
du
document 6, qui contient les modifications découlant de commentaires et de
questions d’ordre administratif soulevés à la suite de la publication des documents 2,
3 et 4 ;
étant entendu qu’en cas de renseignements
conflictuels dans les documents susmentionnés, auront d’abord préséance les
motions adoptées par les conseillers, puis les documents les plus récents;
2. adopte du Règlement de zonage général et en cas d’appels
à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario (CAMO), les dispositions
les plus restrictives qui figurent :
a)
dans les règlements de zonage des
anciennes municipalités, ou
b)
dans le Règlement de zonage général;
s’appliquent tant que la CAMO n’aura pas rendu de décision à l’égard
desdits appels;
For the information of
council
The Planning and
Environment Committee also approved the following:
That the Planning
and Environment Committee:
1. a) Hold
a further Public Meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law -Urban Area in accordance with the Planning
Act.
b) Direct
staff to release the final version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning by-law
after City Council disposition of the Planning and Environment Committee
Recommendations and that a final public meeting be held prior to the adoption
of the Comprehensive Zoning by-law.
2. Receive the following to form part
of the record to be forwarded to Council:
Document
5 being Modifications
Arising from written and oral submissions received by PEC at its public meeting
on October 22;
Document
6 being Modifications
addressing comments and housekeeping matters subsequent to the release of
Documents 2, 3 and 4; and
Document 7 being List of Submissions-Non-Speakers (to be held on file by the Clerk and distributed to the Mayor and Councillors separately rather than as part of the Committee Report to Council).
3. Direct
staff to review the following as part of the direction outlined in 1(b):
a)
The
extension of the GM23H(22) zone southerly to the properties municipally known
as 145, 149, 151 Bentley Avenue.
b)
A
storage yard be allowed as an accessory use in the GM23H(22) zone.
c)
The
minimum residential parking requirement for stacked town homes and apartment
dwellings in Area C be 1.2 spaces per dwelling, which does not include visitor
parking.
d)
The
“Amenity areas” definition be restored and that amenity area requirements be
re-instated indoor and outdoor wherever they are removed.
e)
The
addresses at 2820 to 2878 Navan Road be reinstated a single residential zoning,
with a holding provision requiring that any future developments on these lands
be subject to completion of site servicing requirements to the satisfaction of
the City.
f)
The
R4 zone, endnote 2 be deleted: “Despite Section 161(8), where an apartment
building, low-rise of four units or stacked dwelling of up to eight units is
not within a Planned Unit Development, no landscaped area is required.”
g)
The
R4 zone endnote 4 be deleted: “Minimum rear yard setback is 25% of the lot
depth, however it need not exceed 7.5 m.”
Pour la gouverne du Conseil
Le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement a
également approuvé ce qui suit:
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement:
1. a) tienne une autre réunion publique au sujet du
Règlement de zonage urbain préliminaire de la Ville d’Ottawa, conformément à la
Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire,
b) charge
le personnel municipal de diffuser la version finale du Règlement de zonage
général préliminaire une fois que le Conseil municipal aura donné suite aux
recommandations du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement, et tienne une
dernière réunion publique avant l’adoption du Règlement de zonage général de la
Ville;
2. reçoive
les documents suivants, lesquels figurent au dossier qui sera transmis au
Conseil :
a)
le document 5, qui contient les modifications
découlant de commentaires écrits et oraux reçus par le Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement à sa réunion publique du 22 octobre 2007,
b) le
document 6, qui contient les modifications découlant de commentaires et de
questions d’ordre administratif soulevés à la suite de la publication des
documents 2, 3 et 4,
c) le document 7,
qui contient la liste des personnes et des groupes ayant soumis des
commentaires par écrit (conservée dans les dossiers du greffier et constituant
un document distinct à l’intention du maire et des conseillers plutôt qu’une
annexe au rapport du Comité au Conseil);
3. charge
le personnel d’examiner les éléments suivants, dans l’exercise de l’orientation
énoncée au point 1 b) :
a) le prolongement
de la zone GM23H(22) vers le sud de sorte qu’elle s’applique aux biens-fonds
dont les désignations municipales sont les 145, 149 et 151 de l’avenue Bentley,
b) l’autorisation
d’une cour d'entreposage à titre d’utilisation accessoire dans la zone
GM23H(22),
c) l’application de
l’exigence minimale relative au stationnement résidentiel de 1,2 place par
habitation pour les maisons en rangée superposées et les immeubles
d’appartements situés dans le secteur C, compte non tenu des places de
stationnement pour visiteurs,
d) le
rétablissement de la définition d’« aire
d’agrément » et des exigences relatives aux aires d’agrément
aménagées à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de bâtiments dans les cas où elles ont
été supprimées,
e) la remise en vigueur
pour les biens-fonds sis au 2820 et au 2878 du chemin Navan du zonage
résidentiel assorti d’une disposition d’utilisation différée, selon lequel tout
aménagement futur sur ces terrains sera permis dans la mesure où les exigences
en matière de services publics relatives auxdits bien-fonds auront été
respectées à la satisfaction de la Ville,
f) la suppression
de la note en fin de texte no 2 concernant la zone R4 :
« Nonobstant les dispositions du paragraphe 161 (8) du Règlement, aucun
espace paysagé n’est requis dans le cas d’immeubles d’appartements de faible
hauteur comptant quatre logements et d’habitations superposées d’au plus
huit logements qui ne font pas partie d’un complexe immobilier »,
g) la suppression
de la note de fin de texte no 4 concernant la zone R4 :
« Le retrait minimal de cour arrière correspond à
25 p. 100 de la profondeur du lot, mais ne dépasse pas
7,5 m ».
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 12 October 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0061).
2. Document 5 Modifications Arising from written and oral submissions received by PEC at its public meeting on October 22;
3.
Document 6 Modifications addressing comments
and housekeeping matters subsequent to the release of Documents 2, 3 and 4; and
4. Minutes
22 and 23 October 2007.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
12 October 2007 / le 12 octobre 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning and Growth Management/
Urbanisme et Gestion de la
croissance
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom,
Manager/Gestionnaire, Community Planning and Design/Aménagement et conception
communautaire, Planning Branch /
Direction de l’urbanisme
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°:
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0061 |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That Planning and Environment Committee:
1. Hold
a further Public Meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law -Urban Area in accordance with the Planning
Act.
2. Recommend Council
approve:
(a)
the Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volumes 1 (text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – May 2007 as noted
in Document 1;
(b)
the staff
recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 –
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area -Summary of Comments on the May
2006 and 2007 versions and Modifications;
(c)
Draft Comprehensive
Zoning By-law - Urban Area – Staff-Initiated Changes to the May 2007 version as
noted in Document 3; and
(d)
The additional
changes noted in Document 4.
3. Upon Council adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law,
and in the event of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the most
restrictive provisions of either:
a)
the existing Zoning
By-laws of former municipalities, or
b)
the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law,
will apply until such appeals are disposed
of by the OMB.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l'urbanisme et de l'environnement :
1. tienne une autre réunion
publique sur le règlement de zonage préliminaire – secteur urbain, conformément
à la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire;
2. recommande au Conseil
d'approuver :
a) les
volumes 1 (texte et annexes) et 2 (cartes) du règlement de zonage préliminaire,
version de mai 2007, constituant le document 1;
b) les
recommandations du personnel qui figurent dans la colonne IV
« Recommandations du personnel » du document 2 (Règlement de zonage
préliminaire – secteur urbain, Sommaire des commentaires sur les versions de
mai 2006 et 2007 et des modifications apportées);
c) les modifications
apportées par le personnel à la version de mai 2007 du règlement de zonage
préliminaire – secteur urbain, figurant dans le document 3;
d) les modifications
supplémentaires signalées dans le document 4;
3. recommande,
après l'adoption du règlement de zonage préliminaire par le Conseil et dans
l'éventualité de contestations devant la Commission des affaires municipales de
l'Ontario (CAMO), qu'entre les dispositions :
a) soit
du règlement de zonage d'une ancienne municipalité encore en vigueur,
b) soit du règlement
de zonage préliminaire,
ce soit la plus restrictive des deux qui s'appliquera jusqu'au moment où
la CAMO aura statué sur les contestations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
This report deals with the approval of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the urban area.
It is one of a number of tools available to guide development in the city and is an important means of implementing many of the policies of the Official Plan and other growth management strategies. The existing 36 by-laws are being brought together as one new by-law to support the implementation of many of the policy objectives of the new Official Plan, offer administrative efficiencies, and provide an interactive document that is fully accessible on the City's web site and in both official languages.
Recommendation 1 speaks to the holding of a further public meeting on October 22 and 23, to supplement the June 8, 2007 public meeting, held under the Planning Act. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide the public with an additional opportunity to address Planning and Environment Committee. Over 800 stakeholders have been notified and notices have been placed in the two dailies and community newspapers.
Recommendation 2 deals with the
four documents being presented to Planning and Environment Committee for approval. The first document is
the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law that was released in May 2007. The
second document details the numerous comments received from the public
regarding the May 2006 and 2007 versions of the draft by-law, including a brief
discussion and recommendation from staff for each comment. While most of the
concerns raised have been resolved, some outstanding issues remain for which
Committee must make a decision. Document 3 lists the various staff-initiated
changes to the May 2007 version. Document 4 includes a small list of additional
changes, which were identified after the initial list contained in Document 3
was posted on the website for review.
Recommendation 3 gives direction for the administration of the by-law during the approval process. This direction is needed in order to determine the procedure for applying zoning regulations within the city while both the old and new Zoning By-laws are in effect.
Financial Implications:
Costs associated with the production of the approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law and the notice requirements as a result of approval of Recommendation 2 are estimated to be no more than $10,000 and the funds are available under the capital budget 900852 for this project.
Public Consultation/Input:
Numerous consultations on the
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law have been held since consultation on the project
was initiated in 2005. Document 2 is a
summary of the over 380 submissions related to the urban area that were
received from the public, representing stakeholders from the development industry, numerous
community associations, public bodies and individuals.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
Le présent rapport concerne l'approbation par le
Conseil du nouveau règlement
de zonage préliminaire pour le secteur urbain. Il s'agit de l'un de plusieurs outils servant à orienter l'aménagement
sur le territoire de la ville, ainsi qu'un important moyen de mise en œuvre bon
nombre des politiques du Plan officiel et d'autres stratégies de gestion de la
croissance.
La codification des 36 règlements municipaux
actuellement en vigueur en un seul texte réglementaire favorise la réalisation
de beaucoup des objectifs de politique énoncés dans le nouveau Plan officiel,
offre des gains d'efficacité administrative et constitue un document interactif
intégralement accessible sur le site Web de la Ville dans les deux langues officielles.
La recommandation 1 préconise de tenir une
autre réunion publique les 22 et 23 octobre en complément de celle du 8 juin
2007, tenue en application de la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire. Cette réunion aurait pour objet de donner au
publique l'occasion d'intervenir de nouveau devant le Comité de l'urbanisme et
de l'environnement. Plus de 800 parties concernées ont été avisées, et des
annonces ont paru à cet effet dans les deux quotidiens et dans les journaux
communautaires.
La recommandation 2 a trait aux quatre
documents qui sont soumis à l'approbation du Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement. Le premier est la version du règlement de zonage préliminaire
qui a été publiée en mai 2007. Le deuxième document reprend les nombreux
commentaires reçus de la part du public sur les versions de mai 2006 et 2007 du
règlement de zonage préliminaire et comprend un bref exposé et la
recommandation du personnel sur chacun des commentaires. Bien que la plupart
des préoccupations soulevées aient été réglées, il en subsiste un certain
nombre que le Comité aura à trancher. Le document 3 énumère les diverses
modifications apportées par le personnel à la version de mai 2007. Le document
4 fait état d'un petit nombre de modifications supplémentaires, décidées après
que la liste initiale qui figure dans le document 3 a été publiée sur le site
Web à des fins d'examen.
La recommandation 3 propose des modalités
d'application du règlement durant le processus d'approbation. De telles
modalités sont nécessaires pour déterminer comment les règlements de zonage
s'appliqueront pendant la période au cours de laquelle les anciens règlements
et le nouveau seront simultanément en vigueur.
Répercussions financières :
Les coûts associés à la production du règlement
de zonage approuvé et aux exigences d'avis, advenant l'adoption de la
recommandation 2, sont estimés à moins de 10 000 $; des fonds sont
prévus pour ce projet dans le budget des immobilisations, poste 900852.
Consultation publique / commentaires :
De nombreuses consultations sur le règlement de
zonage préliminaire ont eu lieu depuis le lancement du projet en 2005. Le
document 2 résume les 380 mémoires et quelques portant sur le zonage dans
le secteur urbain qui ont été présentés par le public (représentants du secteur
immobilier et un grand nombre d'associations communautaires, d'organismes
publics et de particuliers).
BACKGROUND
On May 10th, 2006 City Council approved the
proposed project and public consultation timelines (report
ACS2006-PGM-POL-0024) for the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law project. The initial draft was released on May 26,
2006, with a revised second draft for the urban area (excluding the greenbelt)
released on May 1, 2007. The revised
draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the rural area and greenbelt was released
on September 25, 2007.
DISCUSSION
Recommendation 1
This report is a follow-up to the report
presented at the start of the public hearings regarding the Draft Comprehensive
Zoning By-law – Urban Area (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0027 dated May 22, 2007),
and pertains to both written and oral submissions made to the Planning and
Environment Committee (PEC) for the public meeting of June 8, as well as to new
submissions received since April 1, 2007 and up to August 31, 2007. Further, an open house was held on October
11, 2007 in accordance with the requirements of Bill 51. The PEC meeting of
October 22 and 23 is a further public meeting in addition to the June 8th
public meeting, held under the Planning
Act. The purpose of the public
meeting is to provide the public with an additional opportunity to address PEC,
as well as to present staff recommendations on each comment received, for
Committee’s final recommendations to Council.
Recommendation 2
Since completing the revised draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and its release in May 2007, staff have received some 170 new submissions on the draft Zoning By-law for the urban area, including submissions made to the PEC in June 2007.
Document 2 provides a summary of all the comments received since the May 2006 release, and includes all the new submissions received up to August 31, 2007 as well as staff's response to those comments. The comments, discussion and staff recommendations are organized in accordance with the various parts of the draft Zoning By-law, and by location (City-wide, Ward or specific area). An additional column has been added, entitled "Committee Recommendation", for ease of use as Committee reviews and provides a recommendation on each Section and Part of the draft Zoning By-law.
Notification of the public hearings started the week of September 21, 2007 and the summary of comments and modifications for the urban area was posted on the City’s website on September 28th. For ease of use, the name of the person, company, public body or other agency or committee who submitted the comment has been added in Column I. Also released on the same date, is Document 3, which lists staff-initiated changes to the May 2007 edition of the draft Zoning By-law. These recommended modifications are mostly technical in nature. The substantive changes include the zoning changes directed by City Council as a result of the Greenspace Official Plan Amendment (OPA #50) and corrections to the proposed zoning to reflect the Kanata Town Centre Site Specific Policies in the Official Plan. Document 4 includes additional changes required since the release of the documents.
In order to meet the tight deadline imposed by the approved consultation schedule, Documents 2, 3 and 4 include all the staff recommended changes to the May 2007 draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Urban Area. In response to the request of many stakeholders to have a new by-law in place as soon as possible, and to have City-wide consistency in zoning strategies and service efficiencies, it is necessary to have both the urban area and the rural area and greenbelt portions of the by-law proceed through the approval process by the end of the year. Following approval of this report, and any modifications thereto, a Comprehensive Zoning By-law, implementing all changes approved by Council, will be prepared and brought to Council for adoption in January 2008.
In general terms, many of the submissions deal with site-specific issues, development industry concerns with respect to industrial, commercial and residential zoning regulations, and some community concerns requesting more specific tailor-made zoning to reflect existing residential development patterns. It is important to note that many of the submission concerns have resulted in changes to the draft Zoning By-law. Moreover, staff have initiated additional changes, all of which have resulted in an improved by-law. While numerous concerns have been resolved, as noted in Document 2, there remain outstanding issues as detailed below.
Despite an extensive consultation period since
May 2006, there are still a few outstanding issues on which staff remain firm
in their position. Listed below are the key issues with a brief discussion of
staff’s rationale for not supporting a requested change to the draft
Comprehensive Zoning By‑law for the urban area.
1. Limits to non-industrial uses in industrial zones – While some of the proposed types of restrictions do not exist in some of the existing industrial zones in certain parts of the city, a consistent city-wide restriction is necessary to implement the policies of the Official Plan. One of the key objectives of the Official Plan is to ensure that, over the long term, sufficient areas of land are reserved primarily for places of business and economic activity. The City is concerned that employment lands may be developed for non-employment purposes, particularly during periods of a weak market for industrial or office uses. The proposed restrictions protect some lands primarily for employment use so that they remain affordable for employment purposes, and so that they can develop over time without conflict from competing land uses.
2. Prohibition of drive-throughs in some zones – The Official Plan specifies that drive-throughs are not to be permitted in the TM zone unless by site-specific zoning amendment. It is also not considered appropriate to permit drive-throughs in the R1-R5 and RM (mobile home) residential zones (this would only be an issue in those zones where commercial uses are permitted, such as in some of the R5 zones), and on local commercial zones not located on an arterial or major collector road, due to the possible negative impacts on the residential community. This use should also not be permitted in the MD zone that comprises most of the Central Area, as the use is incompatible with the urban design and pedestrian-oriented objectives for this area. Staff also do not support allowing drive-throughs in major institutional zones, as commercial uses in universities, hospitals and similar-scaled uses are intended to be ancillary, or secondary, only to those principal uses.
3. Maximum parking rates within 600 m of rapid transit stations - This provision is intended to assist in the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, which has a planning horizon to the year 2021. The purpose of the provision is to reinforce the use of public transit within walking distance of a rapid transit station by minimizing the amount of parking located in these areas. Stakeholders have requested that these maximums be eliminated or that they only apply to existing rapid transit stations. The intent is to plan appropriately so that when a proposed transit station is created, both current parking and proposed parking areas have not been, or will not be, overly developed.
4.
Eliminate
minimum height limit in MC zone - The proposed MC zone, which includes part
of lands designated as Mixed Use Centre in the Official Plan, will require a
minimum height of 6.7 metres. Staff are proposing to further limit this
requirement to only within 400 metres of a rapid transit station, as a tool to
encourage compact development at these locations however, the concept of
imposing a minimum height is to be retained.
5. Eliminate or reduce parking requirements in TM – Traditional Mainstreet zones - While staff have agreed to change the parking exemptions from what was originally proposed in order to support the planning objectives for the City’s traditional mainstreets, it is not reasonable to eliminate parking requirements completely in the TM zone. Very large ground floor uses would tend to generate considerable traffic and would tend to use large portions of available on street parking which could have an impact on other small operations.
6. Request increase in height on Traditional Mainstreets, as well as the elimination of angular-planed rear yard setbacks from low-rise residential - Increases in height on Traditional Mainstreets are intended to be dealt with through the Community Design Plan process or through site-specific application review. TM zones in former Ottawa that currently have height limits of 11 metres have been increased to 15 metres reflecting a height limit of at least four storeys as indicated in the Official Plan. Other height limits reflect existing heights (ranging from 16 to 42 metres) or those approved through the Community Design Plan process.
The 45-degree angular plane applies only at and above the 15-metre height level at the rear of the building and only abutting the R1to R4 zones, to minimize the impact on abutting low-rise residential zones.
7. Increase or retain higher current parking rates for a variety of residential, commercial and other uses - The proposed minimum rates are based on a review of Zoning By-laws in other Canadian cities and the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking manual. Note that these are minimums; often, developers provide more than the minimum requirement for uses such as office, retail and residential developments, particularly those under condominium ownership. Given there are fairly significant changes made to parking regulations within the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, staff will review the application of these rates over the next few years to determine if they are effective at meeting planning objectives, and adjustments will be made as required.
8. Minor variance applications – requests that these be reflected in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law; as well as requesting removal of time limit on these in the case of new developments - Zoning By-laws are usually not amended to reflect minor variances. This is a separate process through the Committee of Adjustment, under a different Section of the Planning Act (Section 45). Approved minor variances relate specifically to the Zoning By-law in effect at the time the minor variances are granted. Such variances do not modify new regulations under a newly approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Approved minor variances under
existing Zoning By-laws will continue to be in effect for three years after
Council approval of the new by-law.
While most municipalities do not grant any time for development to occur
based on minor variances that would no longer apply under a new Zoning By-law,
staff respect time constraints in the development approval and building stages;
and suggest that a three-year grace period is reasonable and adequate. If the development is not built within the
time frame, a new application for a minor variance would be required.
9. Requesting the use of site plan approval process in lieu of zoning to deal with various issues – Both zoning and site plan can be effective tools in the achievement of planning objectives. Staff have had to balance which tools are best used for which circumstances. One of the major objections raised by the development industry was the initial proposed requirement for the fronts of buildings in the Arterial Mainstreet zone to be located close to the sidewalk and the street. In this case, staff have agreed to remove this requirement from zoning and instead put the onus on the site plan process to achieve the design objectives. However, in other circumstances, such as the location of parking and garbage enclosures, it was felt that zoning was a more effective tool than site plan, particularly for long term compliance. As for the concern about the requirement for a minimum of 15 per cent landscape space in parking lots, the Zoning By-law is proposing a minimum amount, but it is through the site plan process that the determination of how that minimum is achieved takes place. Staff feel that it will be difficult to achieve adequate amounts of landscaped space in parking lots unless there is a requirement in the Zoning By-law.
10. Request that current uses and regulations be retained in the new Zoning By-law – Many property owners, while not objecting to the increased flexibility of some of the new zoning provisions for their property, may still request retention of one or more provisions in their existing zoning that may be more permissive, even if the property will comply with the new provisions. For example, there has been an increase in a rear yard setback in certain commercial zones to reflect the fact that the height or density of the property may have also increased, however, the owner is requesting the yard setback to remain as is. Other groups prefer to retain existing provisions which are more restrictive; for example, in the case of height, the current height in a residential area might be 13.5 metres, rounded and consolidated to 15 metres; 10.7 metres modified to 11 metres. Wherever staff have rounded numbers, a common approach to consolidation of similarly zoned areas, such rounding has not resulted in additional capacity that would be out of context with surrounding lots.
11. Request removal of separation distances for group homes based on Human Rights concern - Most land uses are restricted to specific zones, which naturally decreases the areas within the city available for development of those uses. Because the Official Plan requires that group homes be permitted everywhere, in all zones where a dwelling is permitted, which includes all zones other than hazard-type zones, it is reasonable to establish a separation distance, to reduce the potential for over-concentration, particularly along the same street. Separation requirements currently exist in all municipal Zoning By‑laws and have been long accepted by the Ontario Municipal Board as reasonable zoning standards for this use. It is important to note that within the urban area, the approach has been to establish a consistent separation distance regardless of geographic location.
The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area reflects the intent of the Official Plan, where zoning is considered an appropriate implementation mechanism, with respect to environmental policies.
CONSULTATION
Various and numerous consultations on the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area have been held since consultation on the project was initiated in 2005, and more particularly, staff has met with various stakeholders, at their request, to discuss their concerns since the June 8 public meeting, and have continued to respond to written comments and requests for information. This report documents all consultations since 2006.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area Volume 1 and Volume 2- May 2007 (on file with the City Clerk, distributed
separately to members of Council and available on
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw_en.html)
Document 2 Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law- Urban Area - Summary of Comments on the May 2006
and 2007 versions of text and maps and Modifications (on file with the City Clerk, distributed separately to members of
Council and available on
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw/consult_revision/index_en.html)
Document 3 Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area – Staff-initiated changes to the May
2007 version (on file with the City Clerk, distributed
separately to members of Council and available on
(http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw/consult_revision/urban/staff_en.html)
Document 4 Additional modifications and corrections
DISPOSITION
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the final version of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area incorporating all changes to the May 2007 version; and forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake statutory notification.
City Manager’s Office, Legal Services Branch to forward implementing by-law to Council.
ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING BY-LAW – URBAN AREA – May 2007 DOCUMENT 4
1. Incorporate all zoning amendments to existing zoning by-laws approved by City Council after July 1, 2007.
2. Modify staff recommendation in Document 2, Part 10 for 940 Belfast Road to allow outside storage on the west side of the property that abuts the IG, on the lands known as Part 2, Plan 5R-50 and including the triangle formed from a right angle at the east limit of Part 2 to the CNR right of way.
3.
Eliminate
the new 18-metre height limit for mid-high rise apartment dwellings for those
R5B F(3.0) subzones that currently have a floor space index of 3.0 but no
height limit.
4.
Modify the permitted height of the
R5A zone for 8911 North Service Road to reflect the existing permitted height
of 85.8 metres above sea level.
5. Correct column II of exception 478 to
make reference to the R4T rather than the R5B zone.
6. Exempt places of worship from Section
197(d) in the TM zone.
7. Create a new GM H(18.3) exception zone for 1481-1581
Greenbank Road that states "the lands in question are considered as one
lot for zoning purposes.”
8. That the lands currently zoned R2 in
the Goulbourn Zoning By-law No. 40-99, located along Hartsmere Drive; on a
through lot fronting on both Neil Avenue and Carp Road; and in the area
generally bounded by Victor Street, Denham Way, Iva, Greer and Savage Streets,
all of which are proposed to be zoned R2A [950], be modified to remove the
exception [950], so that the lands would be zoned R2A.
9. That the zoning of the lands known
municipally as 100 Rossignol Crescent be modified to reflect OMB Decision No.
1135 issued April 25, 2007.
10. That the zoning of the lands along Quito
Private and Citiplace Drive in Nepean proposed to be zoned R5A [1246]-h and R3Z
[1245]-h be modified to remove the -h holding symbol as reflected in Zoning
By-law amendment 2006-336.
11. Correct the zoning for 334 Dundas Street
to show a Floor Space Index of 3.0.
12. Eliminate exception 179 from the
GM(3.0)H(42) zone located on Selkirk and Montgomery Streets
REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
BY-LAW– URBAN AREA - PUBLIC MEETING AND
APPROVAL
VERSION RÉVISÉE DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE PRÉLIMINAIRE – SECTEUR URBAIN,
RÉUNION PUBLIQUE ET APPROBATION
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0061 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Councillor Feltmate was in the
Chair and opened the Public Meeting.
Françoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning Central, provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following staff accompanied her:
· John Moser, Director of Planning and City Planner
· Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Community Planning and Design
· David Leclair, Planner III
· Elizabeth Desmarais, Planner II, Community Design and Environment
· Jeff O’Neil, Planner II
· Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services.
Committee heard from the following public delegations:
Bill Holzman, Holzman Consultants Inc., on behalf of Allright Automotive Repair Inc., discussed the property at 2013 St. Laurent Boulevard, including the site’s current use, historical use and zoning. He asked that the zoning allow the site’s current use to continue, not by legal non-conforming rights. A copy of his written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Bruce Anderson, Allright Automotive Repair Inc., indicated he had owned the property at 2013 St. Laurent Boulevard and operated a business at that location since 1979. He maintained that he paid commercial taxes but did not have the benefit of commercial zoning and he asked that the property’s zoning be corrected.
Lloyd Phillips of Lloyd Phillips & Associates and Jean Roy of the
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI), spoke on behalf of the CPPI. Mr.
Phillips indicated the organization worked with staff on previous versions of
the draft by-law and several concerns were addressed.
Mr. Roy discussed some outstanding zoning issues with respect to
properties at 1980 and 1988 St. Joseph Boulevard, as well as 450 Bank Street
and 42 Montreal Road. A copy of their
written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Responding to a question from Councillor Hunter, Ms. Jessop explained
that in the case of 1980 and 1988 St. Joseph Boulevard, the gas bar and car
wash uses were removed through a community design plan. With respect to 450 Bank Street and 42
Montreal Road, she indicated these were designated Traditional
Mainstreets.
On behalf of the Rideau Centre, Alan
Cohen of Soloway Wright, accompanied by Cindy Van Buskirk, General
Manager, endorsed that a final draft of the by-law be prepared for
review. Mr. Cohen noted the Rideau
Centre is Ottawa’s most successful shopping centre with approximately 1600
parking spaces. He spoke of the
demolition of the older parking garage at the corner of Nicholas at Besserer
Streets, which is the subject of a proposed demolition and site plan for a
replacement with something modern, safe and substantially more attractive. Under the proposed by-law, a replacement
building must have retail on the Nicholas Street frontage for a depth of three
meters. Mr. Cohen stated the new design
for the garage allows for the conversion of the front three meters to retail at
the appropriate time. He suggested
retail is not currently viable and requested that the current CB1 zone
provision be reflected in the new zone to change the provision stating a
parking garage is permitted if the front three meters across the entire
frontage has within it one of the listed uses.
Katharine Elliott, resident, discussed problems associated with home-based businesses in adult lifestyle communities, outlining four recommendations to address these problems: that a home-based business involving the hiring of outside workers be prohibited; that the use of one’s garage for storage or warehousing or for any business purposes be prohibited; that home-based businesses not be visible in such a way that they would change the community’s character; and that a home-based business must not lessen the value of adjacent properties. A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Responding to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Jessop explained the home-based business in question would be permitted under the by-law. She noted enforcement staff visited this site and determined the current business complies with the existing by-law and the new by-law will likely not change its status.
Councillor Hunter suggested other by-laws could be used to deal with the issues of noise, safe storage of materials and on-street parking. He stated some of the measures proposed by Ms. Elliott could impact other home-based businesses that operate without impacting neighbours. Councillor Feltmate agreed noting by-law services has been called on numerous occasions.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd, on behalf of Jonah Bonn, owner of the property at 905 Taylor Creek Drive, discussed the current zoning of the subject property, recently approved by Committee and Council. He asked that the site-specific exception for this property include exemptions from the maximum size and cumulative gross floor area provisions that generally apply to uses in the Light Industrial zone. A copy of Mr. Chown’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Kevin Yemm and Lisa Dalla Rosa of Richcraft Homes, spoke from a PowerPoint presentation in which they discussed over-all provisions of the draft 2007 Urban Comprehensive Zoning By-law as well as various site-specific concerns. With respect to over-all provisions, they discussed transition, bicycle parking space rates, and exceptions. In terms of site-specific concerns, they talked about 146 Mountshannon Drive, 1512 Walkley Road, 19 Centrepointe Drive, 608 River Road, 2116 Montreal Road, West Ridge Drive, 4025 Canyon Walk Drive, 560 Rideau Street, 456 Lansdowne Road North and 1001 Klondike Road. A copy of their written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Lorna McCrea, resident, spoke in support of the by-law and recommended modifying the R2F zoning along Cabot Street in Ward 18 to create an exception prohibiting linked-detached and duplex dwellings. A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Janet Bradley of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, on behalf of DCR Phoenix Development Corp., discussed the property at 199 and 200 Kennevale Drive, 155 Prem Circle, 755 Cobble Hill Drive, 300, 309 and 350 Moffatt Pond Court and 674 Limeridge Circle. She explained that the subject property consisted of two parcels of land in the area of Kennevale and Strandherd Drives. She reviewed the property’s history and, in that context, she asked that the zoning for the subject property be changed in accordance with its commercial designation under the Official Plan. A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. Bradley also discussed the property at 2084 Montreal Road, which had been the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing. She referenced the OMB’s order, dated June 19, 2007 and asked that the provisions contained therein form part of the new Comprehensive By-law. A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Michael Polowin of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, spoke on behalf of TDL Group, owner and operator of Tim Horton’s restaurants. He discussed the issues of process, rationale and substance. In particular, Mr. Polowin objected to the fact that a revised draft was not being released for public comment, further to the input solicited in June, and he referenced the reasons given by staff for prohibiting drive-thru in areas of the City where these were currently permitted. A copy of Mr. Polowin’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Speaking on behalf of Andy’s Variety at 178 Meadowland Drive, Doug Kelly of Soloway Wright noted the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law proposes a R1FF zone for the property, which would not permit its use as a convenience store. He remarked the property immediately to the West was proposed to be zoned LC “Local Commercial”; therefore, he asked that the LC zone be extended further east to encompass the property at 178 Meadowlands Drive in order to recognize its current and long-time use. A copy of Mr. Kelly’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Responding to comments and questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Kelly stated the property has always been zoned residential and enjoyed a legal non-conforming use for more than 50 years. Councillor Hunter noted the former owner did reside on the property and suggested the ward councillor should be consulted.
Mr. Kelly discussed the property at 34 Edgewater Street, noting that it was currently zoned M2-1 “General Industrial”. He discussed some of the context and history relative to this property and requested, in order to avoid becoming legally non-compliant, that the City either remove the gross floor area restriction and FSI of 0.5 from the General Industrial zone or issue a site-specific exemption for the referenced address. A copy of Mr. Kelly’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. Jessop explained the FSI of 0.5 is a carry over from the existing by-law but agreed to confirm.
On behalf of Quickie Convenience Stores, Mr. Kelly thanked staff for their assistance in resolving most of the issues. He indicated the only outstanding issue was related to landscaping provisions for parking lots. A copy of Mr. Kelly’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Kelly discussed the existing College Square development at 1900-1980 Baseline Road. He referenced the property’s current zoning, under the former City of Nepean Urban Area Zoning By-law 100-2000 and the designation proposed in the 2007 Draft Zoning By-law. In particular, he objected to the proposed minimum height requirement, the newly imposed maximum parking requirement of 3.8 parking spaces per 100 square metres of floor area, as well as the minimum 3-metre wide landscape buffer that must be provided between a parking lot and a street. A copy of Mr. Kelly’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
David Jenkins of the Stittsville Village Association, discussed concerns with respect to parking provisions and residential zoning. In particular, he submitted that in outlying communities, it was not practical to limit parking space allocations to the extent proposed in the draft by-law, which he feared would encourage on-street parking. With respect to residential zoning, he expressed concerns with respect to density requirements and suggested inserting a provision exempting certain small-scale infill-type developments. A copy of Mr. Jenkins’ written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Janet Bradley of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, on behalf of 500 Coventry Road and the St. Laurent Shopping Centre, submitted that an amendment was required to the draft Zoning By-law for both of the subject properties. With respect to the St. Laurent Shopping Centre, she suggested there was no longer any justification in limiting the gross leasable retail area.
In terms of 500 Coventry Road, she referenced the Official Plan, which spoke to possible development at the site and argued that Exception 280 did not implement the Official Plan but merely provided that a retail store could develop up to 4,000 m2 of gross floor area. A copy of Ms. Bradley’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Alan Cohen of Soloway Wright, on behalf of the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association, called for the re-introduction of the floor space index for the Village of Rockcliffe Park. He touched on the Village’s history, which used to be part of the Township of Gloucester and was created in 1926. The first zoning by-law was enacted in 1974 following an Official Plan. The floor space index and maximum coverage provisions were eventually introduced to protect the balance between development and open space. He suggested the FSI provisions are important to continue 33 years of land use planning that has worked very successfully.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Legendre, Councillor Feltmate confirmed Committee was
in receipt of a motion with respect to Rockcliffe Park and that she would
ensure it was put forward on behalf of the Ward Councillor at the appropriate
time.
Speaking on behalf of the Timburwal Developments Inc., owned by John Doran of Domicile Developments, Mr. Cohen, spoke of a block across from old Ottawa City Hall, on the east side of the Rideau River, bounded by John, Charles, Stanley and Thomas streets. He spoke of the building form within the block and the infill potential. He noted Mr. Doran completed significant flood-proofing of his home, which he plans to expand in the future likely upward. The existing by-law had a flood plain provision that required a permit from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. The new by-law in addition limits expansion to approximately 20 square meters. He asked that the provisions of the existing by-law be retained.
Janet Bradley of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, on behalf of Canada Lands Company (CLC) Limited, which owns a large parcel of land at 800 Montreal Road, noted there were no height limits for development at the site but that the proposed zoning would impose a 25-metre height limitation. She referenced the height of other buildings in the immediate area and asked that the current zoning be retained, with no height limit. A copy of Ms. Bradley’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor Legendre asked if the proponent would accept a height limit of 12 storeys. Ms. Bradley confirmed that her client would accept such a limitation instead of the eight proposed, noting it would conform to concept plans.
Ms. Bradley, discussed the property at 747 Richmond Road and expressed her client’s objections to the proposed zoning, which would set height limitations much lower than what was sought by the owner and supported by studies. A copy of Ms. Bradley’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Speaking to the property at 747 Richmond Road, Ted Fobert of FoTenn Consultants, added the 15-meter height limit would result in a four and a half storey building on this site, which has probably the greatest potential to accommodate additional units in the Westboro area. He opined a bulky four-and-a-half storey building would block views and access to the river. Two slender towers would provide for slightly greater density but a much better spatial arrangement. He noted staff have supported 8 and 12 storey buildings, which should be dealt with through the application process and not this by-law.
Mr. Fobert discussed Canadian Pacific Railway lands at the Walkley Train Yards. In particular, he talked about the current zoning, the fact that the tracks were no longer being used for freight operations, and the potential for redevelopment. In closing, he recommended that the land be zoned either to a site-specific zoning to permit higher density, more prestige mix of business and office-related uses, or entirely IL to permit a greater range of employment-related uses. A copy of Mr. Fobert’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
In reply to questions from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Fobert confirmed his proposal does not impede the potential use of these lands for the transit corridor or an associated maintenance facility. He added his request would prevent a heavy industrial user to use the land. With respect to a maintenance yard, Mr. Fobert and Ms. Jessop confirmed transit amenities, including a maintenance facility, are permitted in most zones.
Speaking on behalf of Metcalfe Realty, Mr. Fobert discussed properties at 610-710 Industrial Avenue, 221 Champagne, 6 and 7 Hinton Avenue, and 258 Armstrong. With respect to 610-710 Industrial Avenue, he discussed the current use and zoning of the property and requested that the limit on office uses to a maximum of 4,000 square meters contained in the exception 1350 be removed from the draft zoning. In regard to 221 Champagne, he again discussed the current use and zoning and asked that the maximum permitted height for the rear part of the property remain 18 meters. Addressing the properties at 6 and 7 Hinton and at 258 Armstrong, Mr. Fobert referenced the site’s current status, noting that the exception for 6 Hinton did not refer to the permitted parking for uses at 7 Hinton and he asked that this be added to the exception 104 for 6 Hinton to explicitly permit parking on this site for the uses at 7 Hinton, as it was for 258 Armstrong. A copy of Mr. Fobert’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
On behalf of Arnon Corporation, Mr. Fobert discussed properties at: 1881 Merivale Road; 74 Jamie and 85/87 Bentley Avenue; 120, 160 and 170 Hearst Way; 450 Rochester Street; 544 to 548 Rochester Street; 180 Elgin Street, 10 The Driveway and 245 Cooper Street; and 56 and 62 Sparks Street. The following summarizes the main points raised and a copy of Mr. Fobert’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Fobert sought a site-specific exception to allow for “display and sales area” as a permitted use.
Mr. Fobert requested that “instructional facility” be a permitted use in the IH zone but that, should the City not support this recommendation city-wide, a site-specific exception be created for the property at 74 Jamie to allow “instructional facility” as a permitted use given that this currently existed legally on the site.
120, 160 and 170 Hearst Way
Mr. Fobert asked that the City revise the floodplain boundary to its draft zoning map in order that the Floodplain Overlay would not cover the properties at 120, 160 and 170 Hearst Way.
Mr. Fobert requested that 450 Rochester be zoned Mixed-Use Centre in order to recognize the current designation of the lands, and the potential of the site in terms of contribution to nearby residential, commercial and retail development and its proximity to the Transitway.
544 to 548 Rochester Street
Mr. Fobert discussed the current zoning and the current use of the property and he asked that a site-specific exception be created to permit “parking lot” for the parking on this site, which served adjacent properties.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to 548 Rochester Street, Ms.
Jessop could not confirm if this site contributed to the required parking. She explained parking standards were
generally lowered and the current plan called for this area to be
residential. She further advised that staff
were conducting a planning study for the area and, if there was any mixed use,
staff would be changing the requirements at that time.
Mr. Fobert called for a site-specific exemption to recognize existing conditions, including the permitted building height and setbacks, to avoid the introduction of legally non-complying rights on the property.
Mr. Fobert requested a maximum building height of 26.4 meters be permitted on 245 Cooper Street and a maximum building height of 52.6 meters be permitted on 10 The Driveway in order to recognize existing building heights.
56 and 62 Sparks Street
Mr. Fobert discussed the current use and zoning of the property and he sought a site-specific exception be created to retain the current FSI of 2.0 at 62 Sparks Street.
David Gladstone, on behalf of the Centretown Citizens’ Community Association, wondered whether allowable height limits increased by more than 0.8 meters in any part of the area bounded by Gloucester Street, Catherine Street, Bronson Avenue and the Rideau Canal. He expressed opposition to increasing height limits.
Responding to a question from
Councillor Holmes, Ms. Jessop confirmed that in some areas, height limits had
increased. However, she noted that in
some areas, there was a heritage overlay, which meant that unless there was a
vacant lot, existing heights were to be retained. With respect to the extension of the commercial zoning on
Somerset Street further to the east, Ms. Jessop confirmed that generally most
of the area is residential with the exception of one property, which is zoned
TM but will be corrected to a R5 zone.
Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd, noted some of his clients previously submitted written comments or spoke at the previous public meetings, thus protecting their right of appeal. He also thanked staff for responding to some of the issues raised by proponents with changes, the preparation of a final draft of the by-law for review, and the holding of a final public hearing. Mr. Chown addressed the general provision setting a maximum number of parking spaces for uses located within 600 meters of transit stations. He stated no quantitative analysis on the examination of parking demand, taking into account transit usage has been provided. He also touched on the provision for 15% landscaping around parking lots. He suggested it is a site planning issue that is more properly dealt with through the site plan control process. Mr. Chown also discussed the limitation on showrooms in some of the industrial provisions, noting there are numerous examples of retail and sales within business park and warehouse uses that cannot be accommodated under the 25% limitation set in the by-law. He posited it is overly restrictive and does not respond to the marketplace.
Nadia DeSanti of FoTenn Consultants, spoke on behalf of Uniform Developments Inc. with respect to the properties at 100 West Hunt Club as well as 145, 149 and 151 Bentley Avenue. She provided some background with respect to these lands and indicated Uniform Developments was requesting that the GM23 zone be extended to include the Bentley properties and that storage yard be listed as a permitted use, without the limitation of a fuel tank farm. A copy of Ms. DeSanti’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
The Committee took a brief recess and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Brian Casagrande of FoTenn Consultants, spoke on behalf of Controlex
Corporation with respect to the properties at 815-835 Taylor Creek Drive
and at 174 Cleopatra Drive.
Mr. Casagrande thanked staff for addressing concerns previously
submitted and advised of one outstanding concern with respect to the
aforementioned properties. He indicated
these properties were industrial business park developments with ancillary
commercial operations, noting the proposed limit to the size of complimentary
commercial occupancies to 300 square meters or 25% of the lot area. He advised that these properties were not
currently subject to any size limitations and he asked that Committee consider
applying the commercial limit proposed in the first version of the draft by-law
to these properties. A copy of Mr.
Casagrande’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Speaking
on behalf of Brian Karam, owner of the property at 301 Elgin Street, Mr.
Casagrande outlined various concerns with respect to rooftop amenities,
restaurants above and below grade, offices at grade and parking
requirements. In discussing these
concerns, he made the following recommendations: that gym, spa and pool be considered recreational rooftop
amenities appropriate for hotel uses; that restaurants be permitted above and
below grade; that offices be permitted at grade; and that parking requirements
be eliminated along Traditional Mainstreets, or at minimum, on Elgin up to
Gladstone Avenue. A copy of Mr.
Casagrande’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Amy Kempster of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital read from
a written submission (held on file with the City Clerk), specifically
addressing National Capital Commission (NCC) lands. She suggested the deletion of the unnecessary uses provided by
Exceptions 310 and 316 on lands designated in the Official Plan as major open
space, including most of Ottawa’s greenspace along the Rideau Canal, the Rideau
River, and the Ottawa River. She
indicated these exceptions also apply to other sites and suggested that where
the Plan for Canada’s Capital suggests that the NCC intends to keep these lands
as greenspace, they be deleted in those instances as well. She noted most of these uses were
grand-fathered from previous reiterations of the zoning by-law. She suggested one possible approach would be
to temporarily delete these uses until the NCC completes its long-awaited urban
area study.
Responding
to questions from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Jessop confirmed these uses were
carried forward from former Ottawa zoning by-laws of 1993 and 1998. Ms. Kempster noted the NCC appealed to have
those uses continue and a holding zone was instituted as part of a mediation
process. Ms. Jessop noted the holding
symbol does not address which party would complete the secondary study.
Councillor
Doucet questioned the main sustainability and green benefits of the harmonized
by-law.
On
behalf of the owners of the Carlingwood Shopping Centre, which includes
the property located at 2121 Carling Avenue, Mr. Tony Sroka of The Haven
Group Inc., submitted that there was no longer any justification for
limiting the gross leasable area of the Carlingwood Shopping Centre. A copy of Mr. Sroka’s written submission is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Martin Laplante, a resident, expressed concerns with respect to diminishing and disappearing amenity and landscape areas as well as rear yard setbacks in R4 and R5 zones. He discussed how these affect neighbourhoods and residents and he urged Committee and Council to restore the former requirements for amenity areas, landscaped areas and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Laplante also provided comments with respect to building heights, rooming units, parking requirements and drive throughs. A copy of Mr. Laplante’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Kathleen Willis submitted written comments (held on file with the City Clerk) on behalf of North American Property Group, First Capital Realty, Brigil Homes and Elk Property Management. She noted there are a number of abutting properties where a provision exists that for zoning purposes, they are to be considered a single lot. This permits the severance and sale of pieces of primarily shopping centre sites to other owners and consent for long-term land leases. Although the definition of lot was revised to include all contiguous properties under one ownership, Ms. Willis indicated it does not resolve the situation of a site owned by more than one company. She also addressed the issue of restrictions on parking within proximity of transit stations. The cap of 3.8 spaces per 100 m2 of gross floor area is considered to be overly restrictive given that one site is undergoing redevelopment and intensification with a minimum parking standard of 5 spaces per 100 m2. She requested some differentiation between existing and proposed transit stations and review of the interpretation that if any portion of a property falls within 600 meters of a transit platform the entire property is subject to the restriction. She also touched on parking lot landscaping (Schedule 9) stating this illustration is better located in design guidelines.
Ms. Willis also addressed site-specific concerns:
Gloucester Centre, located at 1980 Ogilvie Road.
A new O1P hydro corridor sub-zone intersects the middle of the site, which reflects an existing hydro line. Parking must continue to exist in that corridor and re-development must not be impeded by the sub-zone.
1460 Merivale Road
The existing by-law allows 3.2 parking spaces per 100 m2 of retail and staff support the requested change.
Petrie’s Landing, a Brigil Homes
site at 8911 North Service Road
Ms. Willis asked that staff incorporate a recently received variance (increasing the building height from 85.8 meters to 101 meters above sea level) from the Committee of Adjustment for this project. The site plan was approved and a building permit for the first building has been issued with construction underway. Petrie’s Landing consists of four 15-storey 89-unit condominium apartments for a total of 356 units and a future retirement home. The transition clause for variances is insufficient as the project will take more than 3 years to complete.
Linda Hoad of the Hintonburg Community Association (HCA), expressed support for the recommendations related to items 2 to 7 on Document 2, recommendation 3 with respect to process and transition, the modifications to clarify the standards for PUD development and the increase in lot area and lot width pertaining to stacked townhouse provisions. She discussed one outstanding issue with respect to secondary dwelling units. She indicated the HCA did not support the addition of a secondary dwelling unit on a lot smaller than that required for this dwelling type and she recommended revised wording for Section 134. A copy of Ms. Hoad’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Phil Sweetnam of PBC Sweetnam Holdings, discussed a 14.5-acre parcel of vacant land near Stittsville owned by Relocatable Homes and he asked that the zoning of these lands allow retail stores, including retail food stores. He noted staff’s opposition to this recommendation and their reasons for same. He outlined eight planning-based reasons for supporting the extension of the retail use to these lands, including the fact that on four occasions, staff had accepted that retail was an appropriate use along Hazeldean Road and the fact that the lands were designated as General Urban area, which was intended to provide a mixed use environment. A copy of Mr. Sweetnam’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Rob Pierce of Monarch Corporation, discussed provisions
relative to garage and driveway widths in the R3Z zoning, which would result in
hundreds of homes becoming non-conforming and would eliminate the bungalow
townhome from Monarch’s future inventory.
He requested that Committee direct staff to retain the provisions from
the R5B zone in the new by-law to permit double car garages on lots less than
10.5 meters in width and continue to employ provisions of the Private Approach
By-law, which limits driveway width at the property line to 50% of the frontage. A copy of Mr. Pierce’s written submission is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor Doucet countered a street parking spot would be created. Mr. Pierce responded the homebuyer expects two parking spots.
Councillor Holmes noted previous attempts to decrease the use of asphalt by decreasing the length and width of driveways with more on-street parking. Ms. Jessop clarified the new by-law eliminates the requirement that limits the size and width of garages.
A requirement does remain that no more than 50% of the width of the frontage can be used for driveway. She suggested it contributes to greening objectives and simplified the provision.
Scott Sigertson, a resident and owner of lot 47 on Patricia Street in the Champlain Park area, explained that an unopened lane that runs between Clearview Avenue and Patricia Avenue backs onto the backyards of residences on Patricia Street and Island Park Drive. It is a land-locked parcel, which was previously zoned open-space and now is zoned residential. The area abuts 12 homes and is maintained by the adjoining properties, which are not fenced.
Councillor Hunter stated the lot does not have frontage and probably could not be considered a building lot. Ms. Jessop stated the property was zoned residential but agreed to confirm its zoning history.
James Jones, a resident and former Nepean Councillor, commented on intensification and questioned the validity and usefulness of policies in this regard. He stated infill is causing all sorts of problems and speculation on property. He also touched on the number of minor variances required to develop infill lots and the detrimental impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. Jones suggested development should be targeted to greenfield areas as sewer and water systems capacity is an issue in existing areas. He also spoke of the rising cost of land and the declining affordability of housing for first time homebuyers and those on fixed incomes.
Councillor Doucet reiterated some of the points raised by the delegation with respect to affordability and the destruction of greenspace through yard variances by the Committee of Adjustment.
Ms. Jessop noted in a residential zone in the Glebe, a 1.2-meter side yard and 3-meter front yard are typically required. On some streets, a 6-meter front yard set back is in force and the new by-law proposes that 25% of the lot depth be the rear yard setback; therefore, lot line to lot line development would not be permitted.
Councillor Doucet suggested the zoning by-law should discourage developers from purchasing a site in order to up zone it for redevelopment with a plethora of minor variances, thus disrupting and damaging a community.
Mr. Marc responded that two changes are possible in this regard: one is drastic but is within Council’s control and the other is less drastic but will require an amendment to the Planning Act. He explained Council is not required to have a Committee of Adjustment and could chose to abolish it, thus removing minor variances. It would increase the workload of Council and staff as additional rezoning applications would be received. The other less drastic measure would amend the test for minor variances in Section 45 of the Act. The test has survived four major revisions of the Act and is unlikely to change.
Councillor Doucet noted intensification is a good idea but is not being applied in a way that many people consider to be fair.
After hearing from delegations, the Committee proceeded to questions to
staff.
Councillor Holmes referred to a letter from the Centretown Citizens’ Community Corporation with respect to the prohibition of rooming houses, shelters and group homes within a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Jessop agreed to review the matter and report back.
Councillor Feltmate raised the possibility of permitting two group homes in adjacent duplexes or semi-detached dwellings if the combined number of residents from both homes is fewer than 10. Ms. Desmarais noted that staff agreed to allow this in the by-law and the separation area will not apply to the units within the same building or for two abutting lots.
Councillor Feltmate noted that when the Ontario Municipal Board permitted a drive-thru at a Tim Horton’s in an area designated traditional mainstreet, it was reported that restrictions should have been part of the zoning by-law. She questioned if this can be enforced through site plan control. Mr. Marc responded the City is in a stronger position if the maximum setback requirements are in the zoning by-law and must be met when a site plan is brought forward; however, the disadvantage is the loss of flexibility.
Councillor Hunter spoke to the relationship of the by-law to the Official Plan. Ms. Jessop stated the by-law is one tool to implement the policies of the Official Plan but site plan control may also be utilised to implement a specific policy. With respect to the specific example of shopping centre expansions raised by certain delegations, she noted the Official Plan does not have a policy that caps shopping centres, but it does state a zoning by-law amendment is required to review expansion of those major urban facilities; therefore existing caps have been rolled over and a site-specific zoning amendment would be required.
A number of motions were tabled and reflected below.
Moved by S. Desroches:
That the Planning and Environment recess
the Public Meeting until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2007.
The Public Meeting reconvened with Councillor Hume
in the Chair and the following public
delegation was heard:
Robert Bailey suggested the proposed by-law was intended
to be a consolidation of existing by-laws.
He stated his hope is that this consolidation has not resulted in
significant changes to zoning of particular properties. He specifically referred to 314 Athlone
Avenue, which does not front on Scott Street. Section 638 refers to permitted
uses on all of the properties in the area but permits extra uses for those on
Scott Street. He suggested returning to
those uses previously set out in the former City of Ottawa by-law. Mr. Bailey noted for example office uses
were previously permitted on the second floor but now would be allowed on the
ground floor.
Ms. Jessop indicated staff compared the
differences and concluded some uses were taken out with the new by-law because
they are permitted in the general zone.
She noted that if the desire is to retain what is currently provided,
staff could make that change.
Chair Hume explained one of the motions to be
considered will allow for a final public hearing on the draft by-law, which
will provide an opportunity to make further technical changes. This matter was then referred to staff for
review.
Final Version and Final Public Meeting –
Councillor Holmes
Moved by D. Holmes:
That
recommendation 1 be amended to add:
(b) Direct staff to release the final version
of the draft Comprehensive Zoning by-law after City Council disposition of the
Planning and Environment Committee Recommendations 2 and 3, and that a final
public meeting be held prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning
by-law.
CARRIED
Mr. Moser confirmed that the final hearing would occur in February 2008 with final adoption by Council in March 2008.
Receipt
of Document 5, 6 and 7 – Councillor Feltmate
Moved by P. Feltmate:
That Planning and
Environment Committee receive the following to form part of the record to be
forwarded to Council:
Document
5 being Modifications Arising from written and oral submissions received by PEC
at its public meeting on October 22;
Document
6 being Modifications addressing comments and housekeeping matters subsequent
to the release of Documents 2, 3 and 4; and
Document
7 being List of Submissions-Non-Speakers (to be held on file by the Clerk and
distributed to the Mayor and Councillors separately rather than as part of the
Committee Report to Council).
CARRIED
Building Height in R4F Zone – Councillor
Holmes
Councillor Holmes explained that a heritage overlay has never been implemented in the Golden Triangle, which has only seen modest infill condominiums of four storeys or less. She suggested the new by-law would now permit five storeys by permitting a building height of 14.5 meters rather than 10.7 meters.
Ms. Jessop clarified the R4 zone by definition does not allow more than four storeys for low-rise apartment dwelling. The heights throughout the city have increased to a standard of 14.5 metres in the urban area for that zone. She clarified the number of storeys cannot be waived by the Committee of Adjustment as it involves the definition of the zone and would require a rezoning application. She noted the trend for higher ceiling height and changes in the Building Code allowing woodframe construction for four-storey buildings.
Moved by D. Holmes:
WHEREAS the R4S area bounded by Elgin
Street, Lisgar Street, the Rideau Canal and Argyle Avenue was formerly zoned to
a maximum building height of 10.7 meters;
AND WHEREAS the current built form of
this area is predominantly two to two-and-one-half storey homes, which are not
subject to a heritage overlay provision;
AND WHEREAS the provisions of the
revised Comprehensive Zoning By-law increasing the maximum permitted building
height to 14.5 meters, (allowing new apartment buildings of five storeys) would
encourage land assembly and the demolition of existing buildings;
AND WHEREAS the proposed increased
height from 10.7 to 14.5 meters is excessive, while the former height limit
allowed for moderate scaled infill buildings of three to four storeys;
BE IT RESOLVED that the height limit in
the R4S zone be retained at 11 meters.
CARRIED
Village of Rockcliffe Park – Councillor
Feltmate on behalf of Councillor Legendre
In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Kilstrom and Ms. Jessop noted the FSI would provide an additional protection. Lot coverage and maximum unit per density requirements remain as well. The area is a heritage conservation district but does not have a heritage overlay provision. Staff does not object to the proposal put forth by Councillor Legendre.
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS the former Village of Rockcliffe Park
has had experience of thwe absence of Floor Space Index (FSI) provisions in its
zoning by-laws; and,
WHEREAS the former Village of Rockcliffe
Park had found it necessary to introduce such additional restrictions (i.e. the
FSI provisions) in order to control the size of new developments and
redevelopments within the Village in order that its heritage character might be
preserved; and,
WHEREAS the former Council of the
Village of Rockcliffe Park and Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (the RPRA
– its successor organization) had found that FSI was effective as a tool to
control the scale of development in the village area;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended to allow the continuation of the use of
the Floor Space Index (FSI) provisions, as they had existed within the
boundaries of the Heritage District of Rockcliffe Park.
CARRIED
Group Homes – Councillor Feltmate
Moved by P. Feltmate:
BE IT RESOLVED that agencies providing housing through group homes for people with physical or intellectual disabilities be permitted to have semi-detached residence or two residences within 300 meters of each other considered as one group home for the purposes of the zoning by-law, provided the limit on the maximum number of residents is not exceeded.
Ms. Desmarais explained staff agree with and incorporated most aspects of the motion as explained in Document 6; however the distinction with respect to the type of group home is not permitted. The separation distances can be varied through the Committee of Adjustment.
Councillor Feltmate withdrew the motion.
Transitway Stations in Kanata – Councillor
Feltmate
Councillor Feltmate indicated her motion addresses anomalies in Schedule 2A.
In reply to a question from Councillor Desroches, Ms. Jessop noted the intent would be to update the zoning by-law when new transitway stations are approved through the Environmental Assessment process on an ongoing basis.
Moved by P. Feltmate:
BE IT RESOLVED that staff be instructed
to update Schedule 2A to reflect the location of existing transitway stations
in Kanata and the most recent plans for additional transitway stations.
CARRIED
Southwest Corner of Eleanor and Burris –
Councillor Hunter
Moved by G. Hunter:
That the property at the southwest
corner of Eleanor and Burris be corrected to show it in the R1F zone, which
reflects its current use.
CARRIED
145,
149, 151 Bentley Avenue – Councillor Hunter
Ms. Desmarais noted the department does not support the motion as Official Plan Amendment 28 (changing industrial lands to general urban along Hunt Club Road) is correctly implemented and reflected in the boundary. The requested change would provide access from Bentley Avenue, which is in an industrial area. Staff believe the employment lands along Bentley Avenue must be protected for employment uses and focus the commercial uses on Hunt Club Road.
Councillor Hunter suggested holding a one-foot reserve to deal with the issue of access on Bentley Avenue. Mr. Marc responded that the issue of a reserve can only be addressed through site plan control and not zoning.
Councillor Hunter agreed to refer this matter to staff for further study.
That the following motion be
referred to staff for review and response:
WHEREAS the 2006 Ontario Municipal Board Decision to
Amendment No. 28 to the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa stated that the
General Urban Area would apply to parcels of land fronting onto West Hunt Club
Road; and,
WHEREAS the Schedule to Amendment No. 28 is
ambiguous but was intended to follow property lines; and,
WHEREAS the owner of 100 West Hunt Club owned and
continues to own 145, 149, 151 Bentley Avenue; and,
WHEREAS the zoning proposed for 100 West Hunt Club
is GM23 H(22), appropriately implementing the General Urban Area designation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the draft
Comprehensive Zoning-Bylaw be amended to extend the GM23 H(22) zone southerly
to the properties municipally known as 145, 149, 151 Bentley Avenue.
CARRIED
Storage
Yard in the GM23H(22) Zone – Councillor Hunter
Ms. Desmarais indicated the provision was a carry over of the existing restriction, which limits the storage yard for fuel tanks and would permit other accessory storage.
Councillor Hunter agreed to refer the motion to staff for consideration.
That the following motion be
referred to staff for review and response:
WHEREAS the existing Zoning
By-law 100-2000 of the former City fo Nepean permits outdoor storage in the
form of a fuel tank farm in the MM zone; and,
WHEREAS the draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law prohibits storage yard in the GM23 H(22) zone on
certain lands previously zones MM, even as accessory use; and;
WHEREAS a storage yard is
an appropriate accessory use in the GM23 H(22) zone;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the draft Compressive Zoning-By-law be amended to allow a storage yard as an accessory use in the
GM23H(22) zone.
CARRIED
Residential
Parking for singles, semi-detached and town houses–
Councillor Qadri
Following
staff advice, Councillor Qadri withdrew the following motion:
WHEREAS
the proposed minimum requirement of 1.0 parking spaces for each single
detached, semi-detached and town house dwelling is impractical and unrealistic
as it does not meet the needs of suburban communities;
AND
WHEREAS it is unreasonable to provide such requirements for amount of parking
for areas of the City that do not have the same geographical distances nor the
same public transit has the urban downtown wards;
AND
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa should not be imposing “one size fits all”
requirements to both urban and suburban areas of the city when they are so
vastly different in nature;
AND
WHEREAS this requirement does not take into consideration the changes in
today’s society where many adult children are living with their parents
resulting in multiple cars in a single household;
AND
WHEREAS this requirement will only encourage on street parking which will
result in safety concerns and an increased nuisance to residents and the City;
AND
WHEREAS home and land developers will use minimum requirements as their
standards for development;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the minimum residential parking requirement for detached, semi-detached and town house dwellings in suburban areas be 2.0 spaces per dwelling.
Minimum
Residential Parking Requirements in Suburban Areas – Councillor Qadri
Councillor Qadri clarified that his motion applies to all of the suburban areas of the City.
Ms. Jessop indicated the Goulbourn By-law did not allow cars to be parked one behind the other. Although the new by-law lowers the rate it removes that provision, thus allowing a car to be parked in the garage and one in the laneway.
Discussion
occurred on changing the boundary of Area C to include all of Beacon
Hill-Cyrville. Councillor Bellemare
stated he would like to keep the same standard that would exist in Blackburn
Hamlet, Orléans and Gloucester North.
In
response to questions from Councillor Desroches, Ms. Jessop confirmed for
Gloucester that the current parking standard is 1.65 total including visitor
parking and this motion would bring it to 1.4 total. She confirmed that parking standards have been reduced overall to
promote the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan policies pertaining to
transit and sustainability. She also
touched on the issue of harmonization, as the intent is to have one set of
standards for similar areas throughout the City.
Councillor Qadri confirmed that his motion would
also affect requirements (minimum of 0.7 per unit and maximum of 1.75,
including visitor parking) that exist for apartments and stacked townhomes
within a rapid transit facility.
That the following motion be referred
to staff for review and response:
WHEREAS it
is being recommended that the minimum requirement for stacked town homes and
apartment dwellings is 1.0 spaces per dwelling;
AND WHEREAS
this is inconsistent with the needs of such higher density housing in suburban
communities that do not have the same geographical distances nor the same
public transit has the urban downtown wards;
AND WHEREAS
it is irresponsible that the City impose such requirements which do not take
into account any visitor parking;
AND WHEREAS
the City should not assume that there will only be one resident living in each
dwelling;
AND WHEREAS
there is an increasing demand for affordable housing in suburban communities
which can result in multiple residents in each dwelling;
AND WHEREAS
this requirement will only encourage on street parking which will result in
safety concerns and an increased nuisance to residents and the City;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the minimum
residential parking requirement for stacked town homes and apartment dwellings
in Area C be 1.2 spaces per dwelling, which does not include visitor parking.
CARRIED
Residential Zoning
Densities – Councillor Qadri
Ms. Jessop explained
that as part of the harmonization of the by-law, staff did remove existing unit
per hectare densities in main zones and subzones but only for lands that have
already been developed; therefore they remain for greenfield development sites.
Councillor Qadri
expresses his concern with respect to developed areas and infill. Ms. Jessop noted that removing the
density would only have the effect of possibly allowing some additional units
but usually most developments are built out as per all approvals.
In response to
questions from Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Desmarais explained the Official Plan
is promoting small types of infill through intensification or redevelopment and
the removal of unit per hectare densities would allow for some opportunity when
the existing development has not been developed to the maximum yard set backs
and height.
Councillor Qadri
noted this change would encourage more development and severance of suburban
large lots. He stated he is looking to
ensure infill is compatible with the existing areas. Ms. Desmarais explained the subzones are different and to reflect
the current existing development pattern in a specific area.
Moved by S. Qadri:
WHEREAS
the maximum density requirements have been omitted for certain zone types,
particularly for semi-detached, town house, stacked town homes and apartment
dwellings;
AND
WHEREAS the former Goulbourn Township Zoning By-Law 40/99 had maximum densities
within the residential zonings;
AND
WHEREAS this is of particular concern with the increase in infill projects in
the suburban wards;
AND
WHEREAS not having the maximum densities defined leaves this matter open to
interpretation which many times differs from the community and developer
perspective;
AND
WHEREAS by having the maximum density identified then all parties will be aware
of the density permitted on a site which provides the community with a greater
ability to assess the impact of any future development;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the current maximum densities as prescribed in the existing Goulbourn R-4 and R-5 zones be retained for the corresponding zoning in the new By- Law.
CARRIED
2820-2870 Navan Road – Councillor Monette on behalf
of Councillor Bloess
Councillor Bloess explained these lands had
residential status prior to the Community Design Plan. Ms. Jessop explained that typically staff
have zoned land as development reserve all lands that were future growth. Councillor Bloess agreed to refer this
motion to staff for review.
That the following motion be
referred to staff for review and response:
WHEREAS the municipal
addresses from 2820 Navan Road to 2878 Navan Road previously had residential
zoning; and,
WHEREAS these properties
are currently designated as Future Growth (FG) while a Community Design Plan
has been completed for the area;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the addresses at 2820 to 2878 Navan Road be reinstated s single
residential zoning, with a holding provision requiring that any future
developments on these lands be subject to completion of site servicing
requirements to the satisfaction of the City.
CARRIED
Secondary Dwelling
Units/Amenity Areas/R4 and R5 Zones - Councillor Doucet
Be it resolved that
Section 132 Secondary Dwelling Units, clause 3 be amended to read:
A
secondary dwelling unit is not permitted on a lot that does not meet the lot
width or lot area requirements as set out in Tables 156A, 158A, 160A, 162A-B,
164 A-B.
Ms. Jessop stated Mr. Laplante
raised some of the issues and staff did respond in Document 5. Ms. Desmarais indicated staff does not
support the change to the secondary dwelling unit provisions, as it is not
enforceable. Mr. Marc indicated a
Regulation does exist under the Planning Act, which states no planning
document shall prohibit the installation of a second residential unit in a
house if there is no exterior change to the house.
In light of this, Councillor
Doucet withdrew his motion.
With respect to the amenity area motions, Ms. Jessop
indicated staff do not support the change.
Through initial consultation on the draft by-law, comments were received
indicating indoor amenity space was not something that reflects current trends
and the site plan control process can deal with how amenity space is provided.
Councillor Doucet spoke about the role of the
Committee of Adjustment in deciding whether or not amenity space would be
provided. Mr. Moser noted amenity space
would no longer be a zoning issue and therefore would be dealt with under the
site plan control process. He expressed
confidence in achieving the requirements for amenity space through this process.
Councillor Holmes noted larger developments have
retained the 30 per cent landscape open space.
Ms. Jessop confirmed larger development includes as low, mid and
high-rise apartments, retirement homes and stacked dwellings. For smaller developments, side, front and
rear yards can be landscaped but no requirement exists in terms of a
percentage. The by-law requires that at
least 25 per cent of the lot depth be rear yard or 7.5 meters, whichever is the
least.
Councillor Doucet stated if Committee of Adjustment
has granted variances that preclude the provision of outdoor amenity area, no
amount of site planning could remedy it.
Mr. Moser responded that a large development does
require a 30 per cent landscaped area and the Committee of Adjustment can vary
this. He reiterated amenity areas for
small development would be enforced through the site plan control process. He suggested the matter be referred to
staff.
Councillor Doucet agreed to the referral of this
motion and those pertaining to the R4 and R5 zones.
That the following motions be
referred to staff for review and response:
(a)
The
“Amenity areas” definition be restored and that amenity area requirements be
re-instated indoor and outdoor wherever they are removed.
(b)
The
R4 zone, endnote 2 be deleted: “Despite Section 161(8), where an apartment
building, low-rise of four units or stacked dwelling of up to eight units is
not within a Planned Unit Development, no landscaped area is required.”
(c)
The
R4 zone endnote 4 be deleted: “Minimum rear yard setback is 25% of the lot
depth, however it need not exceed 7.5 m.”
CARRIED
Councillor Hunter referred to a delegation
with respect to a service station on St. Laurent Boulevard. Chair Hume indicated he was not bringing
forward a motion at this time, as the property would continue to benefit from legal
non-conforming rights.
With respect to Document 5, Councillor Holmes
sought confirmation with respect to the deletion of rooming houses, shelters
and group homes from Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Staff agreed to allow those uses within a PUD.
Councillor Doucet noted some of his
constituents did provide written comments.
He noted specifically a request to delete limits to non-residential
units other than office and research development centers to the ground floor of
a building in provision b of Section 197.1.
Chair Hume noted written comments have been
tabled and will be reviewed by staff.
The Committee then considered motions
pertaining to Documents 1 through 7.
Moved by P. Feltmate:
That Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council approve the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volumes 1
(text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – May 2007 (Urban Area) as
noted in Document 1 and as modified by:
a)
The staff
recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 –
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area -Summary of Comments on the May
2006 and 2007 versions and Modifications;
b)
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area –
Staff-Initiated Changes to the May 2007 version as noted in Document 3;
c)
The changes noted in Document 4;
d)
Document 5 being Modifications Arising from written
and oral submissions received by PEC at its public meeting on October 22;
e)
Document 6 being Modifications addressing comments
and housekeeping matters subsequent to the release of Documents 2, 3 and 4;
and where
there is conflict between the above documents, priority to resolving such
conflict shall be given to the adopted motions introduced by Councillors
followed in priority by the most recent document.
CARRIED
The Committee then considered the
departmental recommendations as amended.
That Planning and Environment Committee:
1. (a) Hold
a further Public Meeting on the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law -Urban Area in accordance with the Planning
Act.
(b) Direct
staff to release the final version of the draft Comprehensive Zoning by-law
after City Council disposition of the Planning and Environment Committee
Recommendations 2 and 3, and that a final public meeting be held prior to the
adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning by-law.
2. Recommend Council approve the Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law, Volumes 1 (text and schedules) and Volume 2 (zoning maps) – May 2007
(Urban Area) as noted in Document 1, as amended by the following:
(a)
The height limit
in the R4S zone be retained at 11 meters.
(b)
The use of the
Floor Space Index (FSI) provisions, as they had existed within the boundaries
of the Heritage District of Rockcliffe Park, be continued.
(c)
Schedule 2A be
revised to reflect the location of existing transitway stations in Kanata and
the most recent plans for additional transitway stations.
(d)
The property at
the southwest corner of Eleanor and Burris be corrected to show it in the R1F
zone, which reflects its current use.
(e)
The current
maximum densities as prescribed in the existing Goulbourn R4 and R5 zones be
retained for the corresponding zoning in the new by-law.
and as modified by:
(f)
The staff
recommendations noted in the Staff Recommendation Column IV of Document 2 –
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area -Summary of Comments on the May
2006 and 2007 versions and Modifications;
(g) Draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area – Staff-Initiated Changes to the May
2007 version as noted in Document 3;
(h) The
changes noted in Document 4;
(i) Document
5 being Modifications Arising from written and oral submissions received by PEC
at its public meeting on October 22;
(j) Document
6 being Modifications addressing comments and housekeeping matters subsequent
to the release of Documents 2, 3 and 4;
and
where there is conflict between the above documents, priority to resolving such
conflict shall be given to the adopted motions introduced by Councillors
followed in priority by the most recent document.
3. Upon Council adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law,
and in the event of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the most
restrictive provisions of either:
a)
the existing Zoning
By-laws of former municipalities, or
b)
the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law,
will apply until such appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
4. Receive the following to form part
of the record to be forwarded to Council:
Document
5 being Modifications Arising from written and oral submissions received by PEC
at its public meeting on October 22;
Document
6 being Modifications addressing comments and housekeeping matters subsequent
to the release of Documents 2, 3 and 4; and
Document 7 being List of Submissions-Non-Speakers (to be held on file by the Clerk and distributed to the Mayor and Councillors separately rather than as part of the Committee Report to Council).
5. Direct
staff to review the following as part of the direction outlined in 1(b):
a)
The
extension of the GM23H(22) zone southerly to the properties municipally known
as 145, 149, 151 Bentley Avenue.
b)
A
storage yard be allowed as an accessory use in the GM23H(22) zone.
c)
The
minimum residential parking requirement for stacked town homes and apartment dwellings in Area C be 1.2 spaces
per dwelling, which does not include visitor parking.
d)
The
“Amenity areas” definition be restored and that amenity area requirements be
re-instated indoor and outdoor wherever they are removed.
e)
The
addresses at 2820 to 2878 Navan Road be reinstated s single residential zoning,
with a holding provision requiring that any future developments on these lands
be subject to completion of site servicing requirements to the satisfaction of
the City.
f)
The
R4 zone, endnote 2 be deleted: “Despite Section 161(8), where an apartment
building, low-rise of four units or stacked dwelling of up to eight units is
not within a Planned Unit Development, no landscaped area is required.”
g)
The
R4 zone endnote 4 be deleted: “Minimum rear yard setback is 25% of the lot
depth, however it need not exceed 7.5 m.”
CARRIED as amended