Report to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité
d'agriculture et des affaires rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
18 April 2012
/ le 18 avril 2012
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire
Policy Development
and Urban Design/Élaboration de la politique et conception urbaine
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379
Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommend Council:
1.
Approve and adopt Official Plan
Amendment XX, an amendment to Volume 2C of the Official Plan of the City of
Ottawa as detailed in Document 1;
2.
Approve and adopt the Carp
Community Design Plan as amended as detailed in Document 2;
3.
Approve and adopt the Constance
Bay Community Plan as amended as detailed in Document 3;
4.
Approve and adopt the Greely
Community Design Plan as amended as detailed in Document 4.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au
Conseil :
1.
d'approuver et d'adopter
la modification XX du Plan officiel, qui modifie le volume 2C du Plan officiel
de la Ville d'Ottawa comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 1
2.
d'approuver et
d'adopter le Plan de conception communautaire de Carp,
dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 2;
3.
d'approuver et
d'adopter le Plan communautaire de Constance Bay,
dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 3; et
4.
d'approuver et
d'adopter le Plan de conception communautaire de Greely,
dans sa forme modifié comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 4.
This report recommends amendments to
Volume 2C of the Official Plan and updates to the Community Design Plans (CDPs)
affecting lands within the Village designations as shown on Schedule A of the
Official Plan. These amendments will update all the village plans
contained in Volume 2C, except those for the villages of Manotick, Richmond and
North Gower. Updates are also recommended for the Village of Carp CDP,
Constance Bay Community Plan (CP) and the Greely CDP. It is important to
note that because the review of village plans did not constitute a
comprehensive review of the Official Plan, expansion of village boundaries to
accommodate future growth has not been considered.
The amendments to Volume 2C of the
Official Plan replace the existing plans affecting 20 villages, which consist
of sections extracted from pre-amalgamation Township and City plans. The new
plan contains a community based vision, goals and objectives for future
development in each village, a newly prepared set of consolidated village
planning policies, updated land use schedules, and an overlay of the natural
heritage system. The recommendations include proposed policies and schedules
that will strengthen and enhance the village cores, measures to broaden the
scale of home-based businesses in parts of villages, and new policies to limit
new or expanded residential care facilities.
The changes to the Carp, Constance Bay
and Greely Plans provide necessary updates to the respective plans to: reflect
changes in the villages since the plans were originally approved; address
errata from the original plans; and provide necessary updates based on changes
to the Official Plan. These updates also contain recommended action items such
as additional studies arising from the current review and public consultation.
Changes to the CPs do not form part of the Official Plan amendment, however
they will require the approval of City Council to be implemented.
An information section of the report
provides detail on necessary work to be undertaken to review the Village of
Manotick Secondary Plan.
The report also provides detail on the
very large scope of the public consultation on this policy initiative and provides
description and discussion of public input that contributed to the final
recommendations.
Le présent rapport décrit le processus de consultation et d'examen,
recommande l'adoption des modifications qu'il est proposé d'apporter au volume
2C du Plan officiel aux plans de conception communautaire (PCC) touchant les
terrains à l'intérieur de la désignation Village, tel que le fait voir
l'annexe A du Plan officiel. Ces modifications auront pour effet de
mettre à jour les plans de village contenus dans le volume 2C, exception faite
des villages de Manotick, de Richmond et de North
Gower. Des mises à jour sont également proposées pour le PCC du village de Carp, le Plan communautaire (PC) de Constance Bay et le PCC de Greely. Ii
importe de signaler que, comme l'examen des plans de village ne constitue pas
un examen détaillé du Plan officiel, l'élargissement des limites des villages
en prévision de la croissance future n'a pas été envisagé.
Les modifications du volume 2C du Plan officiel remplacent le plan
existant portant sur 20 villages, qui consiste en des sections extraites des
plans des cantons et des villes d'avant la fusion municipale. Le plan contient
une vision communautaire, des buts et des objectifs pour l'aménagement futur
dans chaque village, un nouvel ensemble de politiques d'urbanisme codifiées
pour les villages, des annexes mises à jour d'utilisation du sol et une
désignation superposée pour le système du patrimoine naturel. Les
recommandations comprennent des politiques et annexes proposées pour renforcer
et mettre en valeur le cœur des villages, des mesures pour accroître la taille
des entreprises à domicile dans des secteurs des villages et de nouvelles
politiques pour limiter l'implantation ou l'expansion des établissements de
soins pour bénéficiaires internes.
Les changements apportés aux plans de Carp, de
Constance Bay et de Greely
mettent à jour les plans respectifs afin de refléter les changements survenus
dans les villages depuis l'approbation originelle des plans, de rectifier les
erreurs dans les plans originels, d'apporter les mises à jour nécessaires
basées sur les modifications du Plan officiel et de recommander des mesures de
suivi, telles que des études supplémentaires, de l'examen et de la consultation
publique. Les changements apportés aux CP ne font pas partie de la modification
du Plan officiel; elles ont néanmoins besoin de l'approbation du Conseil
municipal pour être mise en œuvre.
Une section d'information du rapport donne des détails sur les travaux à
entreprendre pour l'examen du Plan secondaire du village de Manotick.
Le rapport donne des détails sur la consultation publique de très grande
envergure à laquelle cette initiative d'orientation a donné lieu, ainsi qu'une
description et une discussion des interventions du public qui ont influé sur
les recommandations finales.
Land use policies and schedules for
many of the villages in the rural area of Ottawa are found in Volume 2C of the
Official Plan. The plans are mostly comprised of text and maps extracted from
the local Official Plans that existed prior to amalgamation and have not
changed in many years. The result is that the Volume 2C is out of date. The
Official Plan provides for the review of these plans every five years prior to
the next Official Plan review and that is the subject of this review.
The five year review also applies to
CDPs for the villages of Carp and Greely and the CP of the Village of Constance
Bay. CDPs or CPs are a form of district or neighbourhood plan unique to the
City of Ottawa. These plans are like secondary plans because they guide the
long-term growth and development of villages based on the vision for the
village. CDPs also provide guidelines beyond those in a secondary plan for
day-to-day decision-making on land use planning. They also set out the
community's priorities for the future with regard to social, cultural and
physical planning. Because the plans for Carp, Constance Bay and Greely are
more than five years old, the review of these plans has been completed.
There are five purposes to this
report.
1.
To update and replace the former Township policies and
schedules residing in Volume 2C of the Official Plan with a uniform policy
framework, unique village derived visions, goals and objectives for future
development and updated land use schedules. The Official Plan amendment will
apply to and replace the plans for the following villages.
|
·
Ashton ·
Burritt’s Rapids ·
Carlsbad Springs ·
Cumberland ·
Dunrobin ·
Fallowfield ·
Fitzroy Harbour ·
Galetta ·
Kars ·
Kenmore |
·
Kinburn ·
Marionville ·
Metcalfe ·
Munster ·
Navan ·
Notre Dame des Champs ·
Osgoode ·
Sarsfield ·
Vars ·
Vernon |
2.
To update the CDPs for the Villages of Carp, and
Greely and the CP for the Village of Constance Bay.
3.
To advise Committee and Council on the information
relating to the ongoing update to the Manotick Secondary Plan in Volume 2C of
the Official Plan.
4.
To advise Committee and Council on the implementation
of certain planning recommendations originating in the Vars
Village Neighbourhood Planning Initiative that is executed through amendments
to Volume 2C of the Official Plan.
5.
To advise Committee and Council on the implementation
of certain planning recommendations originating in the Cumberland Village
Visioning Report that is executed through amendments to Volume 2C of the
Official Plan.
This is a report with amendments and
updates to consolidate various older plans into a cohesive policy structure for
all villages in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. This report does not change any
policy or schedule in Volume 1 of the Official Plan. The amendments to Volume
2C in this plan are not based on an analysis of village land supply and do not
provide for growth or expansion of village boundaries to define additional areas
for development. It is important to understand that the amendments recommended
in this report do not constitute a comprehensive review of the Official Plan as
defined in the Planning Act.
The Rural Review is an umbrella term
that Committee has applied for a number of policy planning projects currently
underway that encompass five separate planning policy projects:
1. Review of
Village Plan policies;
2. Review of
Country Estate Lot policies;
3. Review of LEAR
(Land Evaluation and Agricultural Review);
4. Review of
mineral resources policies and schedules;
5. Review of
severance policies relating to lots greater than 10 acres.
The rural review is being undertaken
in order to fulfill obligations arising from OPA 76 – the Official Plan update
in 2009 that included a commitment to review village plans on a regular basis.
There are 26 villages designated on
Schedule A of the Official Plan. Development in each village is guided by
Volume 1 of the Official Plan as well as Volume 2C and/or a CDP. The most contemporary of the village plans
are in North Gower (2008) and Richmond (2010). Because these two plans are less
than five years old it was been determined that they would not be re-evaluated
in this study.
The village study has been further
divided into two parallel sections – the review of village secondary plans and
the review of village CDPs or CPs. The following subsections of this report
address the review of village secondary plans for 20 villages, the secondary
plan for the village of Manotick and the CDPs for Carp and Greely and the
Constance Bay CP.
The village Secondary Plans are found
in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. These secondary plans are comprised of text
extracted from the local Official Plans that existed in the township prior to
amalgamation. The result is that the
City’s Official Plan has parts of six former municipal plans in Schedule 2C
(see to the table below).
|
Table 1: Villages and Former Municipalities
Incorporated into Schedule 2C |
|||||
|
Cumberland |
Nepean |
Goulbourn |
Osgoode |
Rideau |
West Carleton |
|
· Carlsbad
Springs3 · Cumberland1 · Navan · Notre
Dame des Champs · Sarsfield · Vars2 |
· Fallowfield · Manotick
(Nepean portion) |
· Ashton4 · Manotick · Munster |
· Kenmore · Marionville4 · Metcalfe · Osgoode · Vernon |
· Burritt’s
Rapids4 · Kars |
·
Dunrobin ·
Fitzroy Harbour ·
Galetta ·
Kinburn |
|
Notes [1] The City has completed the Cumberland Village Visioning
Report that informs this review. 2 Vars has recently
completed a neighbourhood planning initiative that informs this review. 3 Carlsbad Springs (located in former Cumberland) was
designated as a village after amalgamation and therefore this village does
not have secondary plan policies in Volume 2C of the Official Plan. 4
Part of this village or community area is
located in another municipality outside the City of Ottawa. |
|||||
The review of the existing plans
contained the following components:
·
an analysis of changes in the previous five years;
·
a review of any existing secondary plan or Community
Plan for the village;
·
at least one public meeting to consider needs and
challenges; and
·
a report to Council on the Village and any required
policy initiatives.
An analysis of changes in the previous
five years was completed first. The study consisted of a profile for each village and analysis of the changes that have
occurred over the last 10 years.
The village
profile included the following information:
·
Population and dwelling units
– changes over the last 10 years
·
Development rates and
development potential
·
Land use map – from the 2010
Land Use Survey
·
Employment – from the 2006
Employment Survey, and
·
Village characterization –
details of what makes the village special.
The analysis for each village was
posted on the village review website for the public to review and was used to formulate
the scope of public consultation and the review of the secondary plan policies.
Review of the existing plans began
with a series of public meetings in the spring of 2011. Staff held 14 different public meetings with
village residents to share their ideas on the future of their village. City
planners acted as facilitators through a three-part discussion with residents.
The facilitation began with residents giving their thoughts on what should be the
long-term vision for their community. The facilitation continued with a SWOT
(Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats) strategic analysis of the village
done by villagers using an air photo. After the SWOT residents were asked to
review the land use map for the village and to answer a question or two about
the village. Over 500 people attended the series of spring workshops and the
consultation was considered to be very successful.
The discussion in villages
demonstrated some similar themes and those that were quite different. For
example, staff noted that within the discussion for most villages the
facilitators reported that:
·
Residents consider their village to be unique in
character and history and their vision for the future is therefore also very
unique.
·
Villages are a form of community distinct from urban,
suburban, exurban or broader rural area and should stay that way.
·
Most villages aspired to be a complete community with
various businesses, schools, recreation areas and services available.
·
Planning and development in the villages should be more simple to reflect the smaller context of a village.
Growth was mentioned at a number of
village meetings with different perspectives. Some village discussions for
instance suggested that growth with new residences and businesses was very
important and to be encouraged. Residents in other villages suggested they did
not want any growth.
Following the spring meeting a summary
of the village consultations was compiled and this information was placed on the
City website. The summary was called “As
We Heard It”.
Staff prepared a consolidation of
village policies and schedules after the spring meeting. Staff met extensively
with the Ward Councillors, village Community Associations and Rural Affairs
Office during the preparation of this consolidated document. With the help of
the Rural Affairs Office planners also checked and confirmed each of the
village plan designations in each of the villages. The consolidated village
policies are a result of the public meetings observations and discussions with
Councillors and staff and an analysis of the policy structure in Volume 1 and
2C of the Official Plan.
In the fall of 2011 a second series of
12 meetings were held in the villages to introduce the public to the consolidated
policies, land use schedules and natural heritage system overlays proposed to
replace the existing plan in Volume 2C. The response to the proposed amendments
was generally very positive.
At the conclusion of the fall public
meetings staff proceeded to prepare the technical circulation and conducted
additional consultation with Councillors, Community Associations and agencies.
For details on the communications plan
for this study please see Document 5- Consultation Detail and Response to
Comments.
The consolidation of the policies in
Volume 2C strongly reflects the individual nature of each village. Each of the
villages in the plan has a unique village vision for the future as well as goals
and objectives for future development so that the village vision can be
achieved in the long-term. The plans for each village also reflect changes that
have occurred over the years since the plans were first adopted by the former
Townships. The resulting plan modernizes the planning for future village
development under a consistent set of policies and up-to-date schedules.
The proposed amendment to Volume 2C in
Document 2 of this report is a complete replacement of the existing policies
for the 20 villages in the plan. Although the plan has undergone a complete
rewrite there are relatively very few changes to current land use permissions.
The following table describes many of the key improvements in the new plan.
|
Table 2: Key Changes Proposed to Volume 2C of the
Official Plan |
|
Key Policy Direction |
Notes |
|
Consolidation of policies from the
previous Township plans |
·
The plan recognizes that uses
were permitted in similar designations in the former Township plans and has brought
together all the former plans into a single set of village policies. ·
The consolidation simplifies
development and redevelopment in the villages under uniform policies and
reduces the potential for any inconsistency with Volume 1 of the Official Plan. |
|
Village vision, goals and objectives |
·
The plan (re)establishes a
unique vision for each village within the broader context of the City of
Ottawa. ·
The Vision describes succinctly
the long-term aspirations for each village through the development and
redevelopment process. ·
The Goals describe specific
desired outcomes to achieve the vision. ·
The Objectives provide specific
direction to achieve the goals and thus the overall vision for each village. |
|
General policies for all villages in
the plan |
·
The plan provides for policies
that will apply to all villages in the plan. The policies seek to define the
parameters within which villages will be treated as a distinct form of
community under the Official Plan. |
|
Land use designations |
·
Land use
designations have been prepared that are unique to a village context. The
intent has been to be consistent with previous plans and supportive of
compatible growth in the future. |
|
Expanded home based business
provisions |
·
It was understood that a great
deal of economic activity exists in villages within residential areas. A
special residential designation has been prepared (Village Residential –
Enterprise) to allow for broadened home based businesses in the villages. The
designation recognizes that the context of residential land use in villages
is more consistent with that of the rural area than the urban or suburban
context of the city. |
|
Rules for residential care
facilities |
·
Criteria for new or expanded residential
care facilities have been included in the plan to ensure that facilities will
meet the needs of their residents and the community. |
|
Emphasis on the village core as the
centre of village activity |
·
Greater recognition of the
importance of the village core has been identified. All villages now have a
village core defined in the plan and the core is intended to be a pedestrian
oriented, multi use district in each village. ·
Where possible, places of
worship, libraries, community centres and other institutional uses such as
schools that are community focal points have been placed in the village core
designation on the village schedules |
|
Rules for retirement homes |
·
New retirement homes will be directed
towards the village core area or main streets to ensure that these facilities
are part of the central life of a village and so that older residents can
access goods and services within the core by walking. |
|
Rules for institutional uses |
·
Institutional uses are
encouraged to locate in or near to the village core ·
New institutional uses have
been directed to main streets or collector streets |
|
Revised land use plan |
·
Land use schedules have been
updated based on Schedule A of the Official Plan. ·
Changes have been made to
recognize past approvals, existing uses and recommendations based on
consultation and site visits. ·
The location of conceptual
roads as defined in the previous township plans have been carried forward but
no additional conceptual roads have been added. |
|
Limits to heavy industry |
·
The plan limits industrial
activity to light industry in villages. |
|
Detail on natural heritage system
and natural heritage system overlay |
·
A natural heritage system overlay
has been prepared for each village that identifies areas of potential
environmental significance. These areas were inconsistently identified in the
former plans. ·
Development within the overlay
area will,
consistent with the Official Plan, require an Environmental
Impact Statement. |
|
Housekeeping amendments to the
village plans |
·
In some villages, the boundary
was adjusted to include existing homes and businesses that were adjacent to and
also consistent with the village context. These adjustments are considered
housekeeping amendments to the village boundary because: they are consistent
with a fine-tuning of the village boundaries as displayed in Schedule A of
the Official Plan; they recognize decisions since the village plan was last
approved by the local municipality; do not change municipal servicing
requirements; and do not add any further developable land to the villages. |
This study resolves a number of action
items and recommendations in the 2010 Vars
Neighbourhood Planning Initiative.
In February 2010, City Council
approved the Neighbourhood Planning Initiative (NPI) Pilots Report
(ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0002) which included the Vars NPI
pilot project. Council also directed
staff to report back with implementation strategies for each Neighbourhood Plan
and an assessment of how the NPI could be integrated into the City’s overall
Community Planning processes.
In June 2011, the Environment
Committee was provided an update on the implementation strategies in the
Neighbourhood Plan (see report ACS2011-ICS-CSS-0012). As part of the Vars implementation strategy, staff prepared amendments to
Volume 2C. The following table describes the how recommendations contained in
the Vars Neighbourhood Plan will be resolved through
amendments to Volume 2C.
|
Table 3: Resolution of
Recommendations in the Vars Neighbourhood Planning
Initiative |
|
# |
Items in
the Vars Neighbourhood Plan (ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0002) |
Resolution
in the Proposed Amendment to Volume 2C of the Official Plan |
|
9 |
That developers be encouraged
to build a seniors' residence in the village centre. |
Volume 2C
will limit development of new seniors residences to the
village core or near the village core. |
|
16 |
That the City support
the limiting of new residential care facilities. The portion of land use for
residential facilities is very high. Vars welcomes and supports current facilities, it is of
the opinion that there is a limit to the number of such facilities one small
village can support. The village is in
need of seniors housing, and any new future residential facilities be
exclusively for housing of seniors. |
Proposed
amendments to Volume 2C of the Official Plan will have new limits to new or
expanded residential care facilities. |
|
17 |
To ensure the diversity of land uses in Vars, and the ability for all residents to age in place, the village requests the approval
of a moratorium on new residential care facilities unless specifically
identified to serve persons over the age of 65. |
Proposed
amendments to Volume 2C include specific policies addressing new or expanded
residential care facilities. |
|
24 |
It is recommended that the growth of new homes be
limited to no more than 150 dwellings over the next 10 years and that the
building be done on a gradual basis and that the preservations of wetlands
and agricultural land be taken into consideration. |
Proposed
amendments to Volume 2C: ·
do
not propose additional development area within the village; ·
Include
a natural heritage system and policies to protect wetlands and other natural
areas; ·
Do
not propose development on current agricultural lands. |
|
35 |
Ensure new development is permeable and provides
multiple connections for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. |
Proposed
amendments to Volume 2C include goals and objectives to enhance non-motorist
connectivity through the village. |
|
36 |
Ensure pedestrian network is continuous and
connects to village destinations. |
As noted
above the plan has goals and objectives to enhance non-motorist connectivity
through the village. |
|
37 |
Connect and integrate natural areas such as
creeks and wetlands into pedestrian network. |
As noted
above the plan has goals and objectives to enhance non-motorist connectivity
through the village. |
|
44 |
Rezoning occur along Rockdale Rd. to promote its vision
of small local businesses, while maintaining to the fullest degree the
agricultural land in Vars. |
Proposed
amendments to Volume 2C will establish a village core along Rockdale Road. No
agricultural lands are identified on Rockdale Road in the village. |
|
45 |
Consultative process be undertaken to review
lands in and around Vars in order to develop a plan
for the village and determine potential areas for growth. |
The
proposed amendments to Volume 2C represent a consultative review of lands
within the village. Development outside the village and determination for
further growth are not addressed by the village plan review but rather
through a comprehensive review of the Official Plan. |
|
50 |
That Rockdale Road. be
defined as the new Main St. of Vars.
Upgrade and install additional lighting on Rockdale using the same or
similar theme that currently exists on Buckland Rd |
Proposed
amendments to Volume 2C will establish a village core along Rockdale Road. |
The Cumberland Village Visioning
Project was initiated by the Cumberland Community Association (CCA) and
facilitated by staff to identify key issues and opportunities relating to an
appropriate long- term vision for Cumberland Village. Although the report from
this process is intended to be primarily a community resource there are certain
recommendations within the document that are appropriate for inclusion in a
review of the village plan. The following table describes a number of items
noted in the village visioning report and how they are resolved through the
current review of the village plans.
|
Table 4: Resolution of Recommendations in the Vars Neighbourhood Planning Initiative |
|
|
Excerpt from the
Cumberland Village Visioning Report |
Resolution in this Amendment |
|
Any new
infill development within the core should be compatible with Cumberland’s
heritage character. Corporate chain and big box developments that reproduce
generic buildings without regard for the surrounding context would be
discouraged from locating within the historic village core Conversions of
existing homes to businesses along Old Montreal Road through the village core
would continue to be supported as an effective way of preserving village
character while building a more continuous and cohesive streetscape. |
The
village policies do not allow for large scale retailers in the core. Properties
within the core and in the adjacent Village Residential – Enterprise
designation will support economic activity within and adjacent to the core
and will help to preserve village character. Goals and
objectives of the plan seek to ensure that infill development maintains the
character of the village core. |
|
Residential
zones on old Montreal Rd. through the village core should be rezoned to allow
for the potential of commercial or mixed use conversions. |
This plan
will re-designate some lands to form a cohesive village core. In addition
residential lands will be redesignated to allow for
expanded home based businesses. |
|
To move
closer toward the envisioned level of business and service along Old Montreal
Rd, residents of Cumberland should embrace opportunities for residential
conversions within the core, residents should also encourage residential
infill and be open to comprehensive proposals to expand the Village boundary. |
Redesignation of land to form
a clear village core will allow for residential conversions into a variety of
businesses. This plan
does not address expansion of the village boundary; however it contains a
Goal that encourages viable proposals to increase the population of the Village
in support of the Community’s vision for an increased variety of business and
service within the Village Core. |
|
Any
future development proposals within the historic village core should be
reviewed against the City of Ottawa Village Design Guidelines 2008, as well
as relevant content from older documents such as the Queen Street Design
Guidelines, and Development Guidelines for Historic Cumberland Village (1994)
to ensure that new developments are respectful of the Historic character of
Cumberland Village. |
The
secondary plan provides for site plan review with the village design
guidelines and other City design guidelines. A goal of the plan is to
highlight and build upon existing village character. |
|
Any
future residential development should encourage a healthier mix of housing
types that can accommodate people of varied ages, income levels and stages of
life i.e. apartments above commercial, seniors housing, varied lot and unit
types to accommodate young families, artists, agricultural and service
workers. |
An
objective of the plan is to encourage a greater mix of housing choices that
will allow residents to stay within the Village through all phases of their
lives. |
|
As a
highest priority, community efforts should focus on advancing a detailed a
community connectivity plan. |
The secondary plan includes a community
connectivity plan for the village to achieve greater connections between
neighbourhoods. |
|
Due to
the current design of OR174 several neighbourhoods and key public amenity
areas are inaccessible to pedestrians, cyclists, and other forms of active
transportation. |
A goal
has been added to the secondary plan that seeks improved connectivity and
community access to the riverfront and the amenity spaces along it through
any future study or works related to Ottawa Road 174. |
Staff began
review of the Carp CDP with an analysis of changes since the inception of the
CDP. The analysis was posted on the City’s website and was used as background
to the overall review. The analysis determined that many of the actions
outlined in the CDP had been undertaken and several developments, though not
yet complete, were underway. The analysis also determined that the CDP was
meeting its objectives should only require updates at this time.
A public
workshop was held in spring of 2011 to discuss planning and development in the
village. The workshop was well attended and productive. Residents contributed
their thoughts on many issues in the village such as planning, the environment,
and transportation. After the meeting staff compiled an “As We Heard It”
summary of the meeting and posted this on the website. The results can be
summarized simply to say that residents are satisfied with the CDP direction,
are optimistic of the future of the village and continue to share the same
long-term vision for the village’s future. Based on the public consultation
staff confirmed the original assessment of the CDP and continued with a scoped
review of the CDP.
The CDP was
reviewed in four stages.
1.
Public comments were reviewed to determine
whether the existing CDP addressed them.
2.
A review of the CDP was completed for errata
(small mistakes such as misspellings) and housekeeping amendments – items that
need to be updated based on past decisions or changes to the Official Plan.
3.
Necessary additions to the plan were
identified based on new policies.
4.
A draft plan was prepared and brought forward
to a public meeting and for a technical circulation. Following this second
public meeting and the technical circulation to agencies final changes were
prepared to the plan to bring to committee and council.
The review
has resulted in a revised CDP that carries forward the original vision and many
of the policies of the CDP with necessary updates and amendments. The following
table describes some of the key updates or additions that are proposed for the
CDP through this review.
|
Table 5:
Key Updates to the Carp CDP |
|
|
Sections
in the CDP |
Key
Updates or Additions |
|
Creating a relationship to the Carp Road Corridor
CDP |
·
The proposed
CDP contains a section defining the relationship between the village and the Carp
Road Corridor. Specifically, employment lands will be located in the corridor
and residential, commercial and retail will be best located in the village. |
|
Future Growth and Servicing |
·
This section includes
an update demonstrating that there may be a servicing shortfall in the
village and that the city should address this shortfall in the next 10 years. |
|
Environmental Protection |
·
The proposed
CDP contains updates referencing the Carp Environmental Management Plan, as
well as the City’s Natural Heritage System. ·
A new Schedule
F illustrates the boundaries of the natural heritage system. ·
Additions have
been made to the proposed CDP to include reference to Source Water Protection
planning. ·
Additions
include a new Schedule E illustrating the Carp Well Head Protection Area from
the Mississippi Rideau Assessment Report |
|
Potential Fairground Expansion |
·
Lands for an
expansion to the fairgrounds were protected in the original CDP. The proposed
CDP moves the dates forward to allow more time to secure these lands. |
|
Design Cues for the Village Core |
·
Additions have
been made to the CDP to reference Village Design Guidelines. |
|
Summary of Future Priorities and Responsibilities |
·
Many of the
accomplishments of the original CDP have been updated. ·
The CDP
identifies a number of new actions be undertaken as follows: o Provide for greater coordination between the Carp
Village CDP and the Carp Corridor CDP; o Undertake a Brownfield Study of the village to
promote redevelopment of contaminated and potentially contaminated lands in
the village; o Further amend the CDP and Zoning Bylaw based on
the approved Source Water Protection Plan (expected 2012) and raise awareness
of drinking water protection; o Undertake a parking study for the Carp village
core. |
|
All Schedules |
·
Revise the
village boundary in the CDP to match Schedule A in the approved Official
Plan. ·
Updated the
road and parcel fabric. |
|
Schedule A -
Land Use |
·
Remove the
floodplain as a land use category and add the Conservation Authority
regulation limit. ·
Change lands
on Rivington Street designated ‘Village Core’ to
‘Residential – Ground Oriented Multi-Unit’ to implement a Council decision
from July 14, 2004. ·
Minor
adjustments to the ‘Open Space’ land use category for pathway network north
of Langstaff Drive to reflect development which has
occurred since 2004. ·
Land use
categories have been amended to match a recent decision on the Karson Haulage Lands. |
|
Schedule B:
Road Network |
·
Change Langstaff Drive between Cavanaugh Drive and Inniskillin Drive from Proposed Collector to Existing
Collector because it has been built. |
|
Schedule C –
Pedestrian Connectivity Plan |
·
Connections
(both existing and proposed) have been mapped to show both sides of the
street rather than just one. ·
Trail behind
medical centre was removed (not enough space). ·
Trails of the
Carp River restoration project have been added. ·
Addition of
future sidewalk all the way to multi-unit housing. ·
Addition of
pathway from Langstaff Drive to the village core. ·
Future
pathways now described as ‘approximate’. ·
Refined
pathway on west end away from the floodplain at the Carp River and onto a
proposed sidewalk of Donald B Munro. |
The Constance Bay CP (Document 3) is
intended to replace the current Council-approved village plan which was
completed in May 2006.
During the process involved to update
the Constance Bay CP, staff consulted twice with Constance Bay residents on
March 26 and November 26, 2011. At the
March meeting approximately 60 residents participated in a workshop format and
had opportunities to share their comments, issues/concerns with staff. Based on this feedback in March, staff
prepared:
i)
Written responses to issues/concerns;
ii)
Identified revisions needed to re-fresh the
CP; and
iii)
Specified future work program items.
All this material
was presented at the November meeting where residents were able to ask
questions and provide comments to staff. Following a public and technical
circulation of the Plan, staff revised the Constance Bay CP. Staff provided written responds to all residents’
concerns that were received during the consultations (Document 5).
Throughout the consultation process,
information such as summary of public feedback, notification of upcoming
meetings, and a draft version of the Plan were all posted on the City’s web
site for residents’ review.
A number of revisions and updates have
been made to the Constance Bay CP including:
·
Update of and deletion of completed projects from
the plan and implementation of recommendations where required;
o
Environmental Management Plan has been
prepared and approved for the New Residential Area;
o
Boundary between Community Park and Torbolton Forest is now clearly identified in the Zoning
By-law;
o
Need for update of Torbolton Forest
Management Plan by Forestry Services to respond to community input;
o
Progress on establishing public accesses to
the water and those found inland; and
o
Parking studies and associated improvements
undertaken including a widening of a portion of Ritchie to accommodate parking
for cars and trailers;
·
Update of facts and figures e.g. population,
land supply and geodetic elevation that delineates floodway and flood fringe
and other minor revisions suggested by Mississippi Valley Conservation; and
·
Edits and corrections.
The following table reflects the range
of public comments received during the public consultations and Departmental
responses (a complete table of public comments and the Department’s responses
can be found in Document 5 and at Ottawa.ca/ruralreview):
|
Table 6:
Public Comments and Responses – Constance Bay |
|
|
Public
Comment |
Departmental
Responses |
|
Desire to have increased
recreational activities in the Torbolton Forest and
concern about different vehicles using the Forest. |
·
This will be addressed when the current
Management Plan for the Torbolton Forest is
revised. The Forestry staff who will be involved in
the new plan have been involved in the consultations in Constance Bay and
understand the concerns. |
|
Residents are keen to see not only
public accesses to the water identified, but also those located inland. |
·
Work to properly identify and clear the
public accesses will continue. |
|
Request for intersection improvements
at Dunrobin Road and the provision of cycle lanes |
·
Traffic signals are not warranted but other
improvements such as road shoulders will paved when road resurfacing is
undertaken to accommodate cyclists. |
|
Concerns about speeding in the community. |
·
Residents are able to contact the City by
calling 3-1-1 and are able to work with City staff to request a speed display
board through a new City program in an effort to address speeding concerns. |
|
Request
for staff to consider an alternative to the secondary access road shown in
the Council-approved Community Plan. |
·
The suggested road alignment is linked to a
desire to expand the village boundary which is not warranted by growth in the
village. As a consequence the City would be required to acquire the land and
construct the road without any justifiable need to do so. |
The existing lot size and lot coverage
provisions along with inconsistencies between the CPs land uses and zoning need
to be reviewed.
The Greely CDP (Document 4) is
intended to replace the current Council-approved village plan which was
completed in February 2005. The review process for the Greely CDP followed a
similar process to the one for the Constance Bay CP.
Staff
met with residents on March 30 and December 15, 2011 to identify community
issues/concerns and to provide responses, recommended changes to the Greely CDP
and future work program items. Materials
were available on the City’s web site for residents to review including summary
of workshop results, notification of upcoming meetings and draft plan changes
for comment. Community comments and the
Department’s responses are found on the City’s web site at - http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/rural_review/villages/greely_en.html
Undertake a transportation study to
assess the range of needs in the Village of Greely. An overall transportation review is needed
for the Village in order to develop a comprehensive approach rather than
piecemeal fashion, which is now the case.
Needs that should be assessed include transportation facilities of
pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, trucks, recreational pathways. The expected outcome: is to identify future
requirements and improvements that need to be in place to meet the travel needs
of residents and to support the growth patterns in the Village.
The concerns raised by residents
focussed primarily on transportation issues, which will be reviewed as part of
the transportation work recommended above. Some of these issues are:
Residents also identified a range of
other concerns including the following:
|
Table 7:
Public Comments and Responses – Greely |
|
|
Public
Comment |
Departmental
Responses |
|
The
shopping centre location at Bank Street/Parkway Drive is located too far
east. |
·
The Ontario Municipal Board directed that
the village boundary be expanded east of Bank Street to accommodate a
shopping centre and additional commercial uses. The concern cannot be
addressed through the Greely CDP. |
|
Residents
would like more park amenities such as soccer fields, baseball diamonds, and
a hockey arena. |
·
These comments have been forwarded to park
planning staff in the Department. |
|
Request
for village expansion in the Cedar Lakes subdivision area. |
·
The review of 24 village plans is meant to
be a re-fresh and any consideration of village boundary expansion will be
undertaken at the time of a comprehensive review. The current land supply exceeds
a 10-year supply as required by the Official Plan. |
|
Since
the majority of Greely is privately serviced, there were concerns about the
impact of development on the quality and quantity of groundwater supply. |
·
Through the development application process,
developers must demonstrate that: o
There is sufficient quantity of ground
water; o
A well can be constructed without being
impacted by identified potential sources of groundwater contamination; o
The quality of groundwater meets or exceeds
the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines; and o
Operation of on-site wastewater systems
will not adversely impact a well to be constructed on the proposed lot and on
well of adjacent properties. |
The Manotick Secondary Plan forms part
of the Official Plan and changes require an Official Plan Amendment, which will
be undertaken at a future date. Similar
to Constance Bay and Greely, staff consulted with Manotick residents in the
spring of 2011 and a wide range of issues were identified by residents. On December 6, 2011 staff presented their
recommendations, responses to residents’ concerns and next steps. They were also informed that the results of
staff’s work and next steps would be brought to the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee as an information item in the spring of 2012. Some of the issues identified by residents
include the following:
-
Concern about the future of the Mill Quarter
and desire to retain its character.
-
Lack of continuous sidewalks and the lack of
pedestrian crossings to cross Manotick Main Street.
-
Need for the Village Core to be linked
through pathways and cycling routes to the rest of the Village, Rideau River
and regional recreational networks.
-
Vehicle speed through the core.
-
A need
for truck traffic restrictions through the core.
-
Trucks making turns onto Bridge Street
sometimes jumping the sidewalk putting pedestrians at risk.
-
Concerns about big box development and Trinity’s
Ontario Municipal Board appeal to expand the village boundary to accommodate
large format retail development which they believe would negatively impact
businesses in the Village Core.
-
Concerns that the existing zoning does not
implement the land use plan.
-
Concern about the impact of central services
on mainstreet development.
-
Address existing traffic concerns on First
Line Road, Bridge Street, and Bankfield Road.
-
Truck traffic travelling through the Core.
-
Concern about traffic impacts of Mahogany
development.
-
Parking supply in the core.
-
Concern about ensuring that there are pathway
connections created throughout the Village and also between the Mahogany
development and the rest of Manotick.
·
Greenspace network
-
Need for a parks master plan in Manotick.
-
Need for pathways throughout the Village.
-
Retention of off-leash dog
park.
-
Need to preserve Mahogany Forest and
inclusion of pathways.
-
Concern about numerous visioning and
strategic planning documents that have been prepared and their possible
conflicts. This includes documents
prepared by five separate groups including the Manotick Village and Community
Association, Rideau Township Historical Society, Watson’s Mill, Manotick
Culture Parks and Recreation Association, and the City.
During public consultations the
Department received a request by Trinity development to consider expansion of
the village boundary to lands located at Mitch Owens and River Road. Earlier Trinity had requested that the
Ontario Municipal Board postpone its appeal with respect to Official Plan
Amendment 76 so that it could participate in the re-fresh of the Manotick
Secondary Plan. Since village boundary
expansion accommodating development is not being considered as part of the
village plan review the Manotick Secondary Plan specifically refers to the core
as “the Village’s “heart”, its social centre and the focus of its economic
activity” (Section 3.7.2.4), the Department is not recommending a boundary
expansion to accommodate commercial development that could negatively impact
it. Further the Department recognizes
that the City has dedicated significant financial and staff resources in the
Mill area that is expected to enhance its historic character and contribute to
vitality of the Village Core. Any
boundary expansion to accommodate large format commercial development would not
be supportive of current plans and direction for Manotick.
Review of the Manotick Secondary Plan
revealed a number of additional initiatives that need to be undertaken to
refresh the existing planning document.
Time required to do this was much more than the time allocated during
this re-fresh of the village plans.
These include: policy review,
mapping updates and further study. It is
anticipated that the Department will bring forth a single staff report that
will encompass all required amendments described below to the Secondary Plan.
The following is a list of work items that still need to be addressed:
·
Review of employment policies
·
Review and update of servicing policies
·
Undertake a Village Core and connectivity
study to plan the Core’s future growth and to plan links from the mainstreet area to the rest of Manotick to
o
improve connections to neighbourhoods,
greenspace network, Rideau River and regional
recreational networks;
o
address pedestrian safety;
o
review need to expand Village Core in light
of planned growth; and
o
review impact of
the provision of central services on development of property in the mainstreet area.
·
Review Schedule A – land use to ensure
consistency with zoning
·
Revise Schedule A to re-designate lands north
of Bankfield Road to reflect existing development
·
Re-designate Special Design Area to reflect
existing development
·
Show park location in Special Design Area
·
Create separate map for Village Core
Character Areas for improved legibility
·
Rectify anomalies
·
Revise references from “family” since the
City plans for land uses and not families
·
Update facts and other editorial changes
·
Assess visioning documents of various
community groups
The
fallout work recommended for the Village of Manotick will be added to the
Departmental workload pressures and will be reviewed during the 2013 review of
the Term of Council Work program. Should
other projects take priority at that time, it will be included in the next term
of Council Work Plan.
RURAL
IMPLICATIONS
All sections of this report deal with
matters pertaining to rural villages.
Review of the village plans have
provided an opportunity for the City to hear from rural residents about
specific planning concerns and issues in their village. The results are village plans that are shaped
to respond to community needs and some additional projects that need to be
completed.
CONSULTATION
Notice of this amendment was carried
out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.
Details on the public consultation and
responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 5.
COMMENTS BY
THE WARD COUNCILLORS
The Ward Councillors are aware of this
application and the staff recommendations.
Councillor Blais has reviewed the
Official Plan Amendment proposal regarding the update to village plans. He actively participated in the rural
review. The new vision statements,
objectives and goals will be very useful moving forward.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct legal implications
associated with this report.
RISK
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no
risk implications associated with this report.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial
implications.
ACCESSIBILITY
IMPACT
There are no
direct accessibility impact implications associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendments to Volume 2C
of the plan update environmental policies in the plan to be consistent with the
Official Plan and provincial policy. The plan schedules include a natural
heritage system overlay to be used in development review.
Policies in the Carp Community CDP
have been updated to include a map of the wellhead protection area of the Carp
municipal well. The CDP also includes an overlay of the natural system where,
consistent with Official Plan policies, an environmental impact statement will
be required prior to development. Finally, floodplain mapping within the Carp
CDP has been replaced with the more current definition of a Conservation
Authority regulation limit.
TECHNOLOGY
IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct technical
implications associated with this report.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMMENTS
TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES
This report is supportive of the
following objectives in the City strategic plan.
EP3 – Support growth of local economy
ES2 – Enhance and protect natural
systems
HC1 – Achieve equity and inclusion for
aging and diverse population
GP3 – Make sustainable choices
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATIONS
Document
1 Amendment to Volume 2C of the
Official Plan to replace the secondary plans for the villages of:
|
·
Ashton ·
Burritt’s Rapids ·
Carlsbad Springs ·
Cumberland ·
Dunrobin ·
Fallowfield ·
Fitzroy Harbour ·
Galetta ·
Kars ·
Kenmore |
·
Kinburn ·
Marionville ·
Metcalfe ·
Munster ·
Navan ·
Notre Dame des Champs ·
Osgoode ·
Sarsfield ·
Vars ·
Vernon |
Document 2 Carp Village Community Design Plan (2012)
(attached separately)
Document
3 Constance Bay Village Community
Plan (2012) (attached separately)
Document
4 Greely Village Community Design
Plan (2012) (attached separately)
Document
5 Village Review Consultation Detail
and Responses to Comments (distributed separately and on file with the City
Clerk)
DISPOSITION
Legal
Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
Planning and
Growth Management to prepare and consult on Zoning By-law Amendments to
implement the adopted Official Plan Amendment and updated CDPs.