Report to/Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee/

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

and Council/et au Conseil

06 May 2002/le 06 mai 2002

Submitted by/Soumis par: Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

Contact/Personne-ressource: Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals / Gestionnaire, Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

(613)580-2424 Ext 13242, Grant.Lindsay@city .ottawa.on.ca

Ref N°: ACS2002-DEV-APR-0080

SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE FORMER REGION OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AND CITY OF KANATA AND ZONING BY-LAW 132-93 – 321 TERRY FOX DRIVE

OBJET: MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AUX PLANS DIRECTEURS DES ANCIENNES RÉGION D’OTTAWA-CARLETON ET VILLE DE KANATA ET AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 132-93 – 321, PROMENADE TERRY FOX

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve and adopt the application to amend the Official Plans of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Kanata to permit residential development within the Kanata North Business Park, as detailed in Document 1.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 132-93, to rezone 321 Terry Fox Drive from “Light Industrial, General – Special” (M2S-9) to “Business Park – Residential’ (BPR) zone.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

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

1. d’approuver et d’adopter la demande de modification des Plans directeurs des anciennes Région d’Ottawa-Carleton et Ville de Kanata en vue de permettre un ensemble résidentiel dans le parc d’affaires de Kanata Nord, comme il est indiqué dans le document 1;

2. d’approuver une modification au Règlement municipal de zonage 132-93 de l’ancienne Ville de Kanata en vue de remplacer la désignation de zonage « Industrie légère, générale – spéciale (M2S-9) » du 321, promenade Terry Fox par la désignation « Parc d’affaires – zone résidentielle (BPR) ».

BACKGROUND

In October of 2001, an application was filed on behalf of Kanata Research Park Corporation (KRPC), to amend the Regional Official Plan (1997) and City of Kanata’s Official Plan, as they apply to lands owned by KRPC, in the Kanata North Business Park including lands east of March Road and north of Klondike Road. The application requests that the subject lands be considered for residential land uses in addition to the business park/industrial uses, as are currently permitted. As a “test case” for this proposed mixed use development, KRPC also filed a site specific Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of approximately 104 semi-detached and townhouse dwelling units, on lands northwest of the intersection of Legget Drive and Herzberg Road. The applicant has advised staff that they are proposing this new form of development in the Kanata North Business Park to enhance the existing mix of employment, commercial, and recreational use in contrast to the “single use” more traditional form of business park.

Subsequently, KPRC has filed subdivision and Site Plan Control applications for the same parcel of land to which the Zoning By-law amendment applies. Document 2 is the site plan as submitted outlining the various components of the proposed development. The internal private road, visitor parking areas, and landscaped open space within the development will remain under common ownership. The landscaped open space areas will be interconnected by way of a recreational trail that will be further connected to an overall trail system, established earlier through KRPC’s development of the Business Park. Both of these applications are on circulation and currently being reviewed in parallel with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

Location

The requested Official Plan Amendment as modified applies to two different areas of land in the Kanata North Business Park. Document 3 highlights the subject lands. Firstly, the amendment applies to an area bounded by Terry Fox Drive from McKinley Drive to Legget Drive, and Legget Drive to the west and south, Herzberg Road and the Ottawa Central Railway line to the east and the line between the south half and north half of Lot 9, Concession 4, to the north. The amendment also applies to the land bounded by March Road to the west, Klondike Road to the south, Ottawa Central Railway line to the east and the lot lines between Lots 11 and 12, Concession 4 to the north.

Due to concerns regarding the timing of the required approvals and those expressed by the Department of National Defence and the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, KRPC modified the lands to which the original Amendment applied. The Zoning By-law amendment specifically applies to a 7-hectare parcel of land, legally described as Block 4 and part of Block 6 on Plan 4M-1096 and located northwest of the Legget Drive and Herzberg Road intersection. This site is situated alongside the 16^th fairway of the recently constructed Marshes Golf Course.

DISCUSSION

To proceed with the development as proposed by the applicant, both the former Regional and City of Kanata Official Plans and Zoning By-law 132-93 required amending to redesignate the lands to allow residential uses, to establish policies and an appropriate range of uses, and to develop zoning provisions that would apply to the site. The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment application, as submitted, is to redesignate the entire parcel of lands north of Klondike Road to a “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-4) and the lands within the Kanata North Business Park to a “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-5), and establish new polices to permit residential development within the business park. The associated Zoning By-law Amendment application proposes to rezone the site-specific parcel of land to a “Business Park – Residential” (BPR) zone, thereby permitting a limited amount of residential land uses.

OFFICIAL PLAN

The lands are currently designated “Business Park” by the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton. According to the policies of Section 4.4 of the Plan, the “Business Park” designation includes such uses as industrial and business parks, research parks, warehousing, and manufacturing areas, and other related non-residential uses. The non-residential uses primarily relate to such uses as retail, office, small-scale institutional and recreational uses. These non-residential uses are intended to primarily function to service/support the main uses in the Park, therefore, encouraging employees to acquire their services within the surrounding business park community. Residential uses are not currently permitted in the “Business Park” designation. Kanata’s Official Plan currently designates the lands “Restricted Industrial” (MR) and “General Industrial” (MG) and permits office, prestige industrial, light manufacturing, warehousing and commercial uses which service the business park. These designations also allow recreational, social and cultural land uses. The only difference between the two designations is that the lands designated “MG” permit open storage and open operations as they relate to the light industrial land uses. Again, residential uses are not currently allowed in the “MR” or “MG” designations.

The original intent of the “Business Park” and “Restricted Industrial”/“General Industrial” designations was to serve as a major employment area of the city and to separate uses with conflicting requirements and/or performance standards. This was based on the traditional planning theory that industrial uses may be hazardous or noxious and would conflict with other land uses, particularly residential uses. It should be acknowledged that the traditional form of industrial development does not exist within this portion of the city. The form of development occurring within the Kanata North Business Park, is “clean” office development that is likely to have more in common with residential uses than with traditional intensive heavy industrial uses.

The area subject to the Official Plan Amendment request is actually in two separate areas, being separated by the Riddell Village Community (Document 3). The first area is the land within the Kanata North Business Park, of which KRPC currently owns 139 hectares and has developed approximately 150,000 square metres of office and light industrial space over the last 10 – 15 years. The second parcel to which the amendment applies is located within lands known as the Kanata North Urban Expansion Area of which KRPC currently owns 37 hectares. For the balance of this Section, staff have separated the analysis based on the two parcels and have drafted specific policies for each of the areas.

Kanata North Business Park

The first area, within the Kanata North Business Park, is unlike other business parks in the City. This is largely due to two reasons; firstly, growth is almost entirely a result of one industry, the high technology sector, which has demanded a unique form of development to satisfy new company management techniques where employees are encouraged to work, live, and play within the “Business Park Community” and in adjacent communities. Secondly, the majority of the Business Park has been developed by a few development companies, one of them being KRPC. The area is largely dominated by large office/industrial developments, and recently, by an 18 – hole championship golf course and luxury hotel, also being developed by KRPC. The types of businesses contained in the Kanata North Business Park are mostly high-tech companies related to the telecommunications sector. The more traditional industrial manufacturing component of these businesses tends to be very small and limited to the development of small components for the computer and telecommunications industry. Unlike older forms of Business Parks in suburban areas, the buildings are generally higher density so that the area around them could be used for soft landscaped areas, other amenity space and ample parking.

Staff have concluded that there is very little that could be deemed as being noxious, dangerous or basically incompatible with any of the surrounding existing residential uses. An example of the compatibility between the two forms of development is evident along the boundary between the Business Park and the Riddell Village Community, where a number of office/industrial buildings have been located immediately adjacent to homes for a number of years without any evidence of conflict. It is clear that this residential area has formed a relationship with the adjacent Kanata North Business Park. Many employees who work in the business park also live in the Riddell Village and South March Communities. New commercial uses have been added to the area largely to serve the employees that work and live in the area.

Document 1 outlines the polices of the “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-5), that would apply to the lands within the Kanata North Business Park. Although there are few remaining undeveloped portions of the Business Park owned by KRPC, it is intended that any new residential developments take place on sites that are compatible with adjacent existing and proposed uses. The residential clusters will be encouraged to locate on the perimeter of the Business Park, adjacent and accessible to major transit routes and also adjacent to existing or planned residential communities. The residential development will also be encouraged to retain as much natural vegetation as possible: preserve vistas, facilitate walking, cycling and transit use. Although the initial development will occur at a low density (14 units per net ha.) any subsequent residential development within the Park must achieve a minimum density of 35 units per net hectare.

Kanata North Urban Expansion Area

The second area is located in the Kanata North Urban Expansion Area, a largely undeveloped area that has been subject to extensive study and analysis since the early 1990s. Only a portion of the Expansion Area, north of Klondike Road, east of March Road, west of the Ottawa Central Railway Line is subject to this current amendment. The entire expansion lands encompassed approximately 150 hectares of land. The Expansion Area were to be extensions of the South March and Riddell Village Community’s and add urban land to the Kanata North Business Park. The original Kanata North Urban Expansion Study completed in 1991, indicated that the subject lands should be developed for residential purposes, which was the designation envisioned up until late 2000.

Through the approval and adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment 8 and Local Official Plan Amendment 58, which brought all of the Expansion Area into the Urban Area, the subject lands were redesignated to a Business Park designation, following an appeal by KRPC, who had acquired the lands. There are still some outstanding appeals against Amendment 58, however, they relate to lands on the west side of March Road and have no impact on the subject lands. Amendments 8 and 58 have been deemed to be in effect as they apply to the subject lands.

Document 1 outlines the policies of the “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-4), that would apply to the lands north of Klondike Road. It is recommended that, if a residential component is to be included in the development of this area, the policies will require the submission and approval of a concept plan, including design guidelines that will set standards for the distribution of residential and non-residential uses, open space, parkland and recreational corridors within the community and to adjacent communities. This will enable the City and surrounding community the opportunity to participate in the development of this area prior to the submission of formal applications. In keeping with the policies of the Official Plan, and the vision cultivated in previous communities, new residential development will occur in clusters and take into account the topography and vegetation, and will preserve natural features such as Shirley’s Brook that flows through the area. Document 1 being the Draft Official Plan Amendment outlines the proposed policies for these lands.

ZONING BY-LAW

Staff are recommending that the lands highlighted in Document 3 be rezoned to a “Business Park – Residential” (BPR) from the existing “Light Industrial, General – Special (M2S-9) zone to implement the Official Plan Amendments. The implementing zoning by-law will insert all the general residential provisions (definitions, parking etc.) into the Kanata North Business Park Zoning By-law as would be found in most residential Zoning By-laws. The BPR zone would allow the development of semi-detached and multiple-attached dwelling units, subject to the development provisions outlined on Document 4.

Through the circulation of the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments, comments were received from two adjacent landowners concerning the proximity of the proposed development to an existing Adult Entertainment Parlour on Herzberg Road. Section 5.28 of By-law 132-93 states that “No Adult Entertainment Parlour shall be located within 500 metres of any Residential Zone”. Staff have reviewed the proposal in light of the zoning provision and note that the provision was designed to prevent a new Adult Entertainment Parlour from opening close to an existing residential development. In this instance, the proposed residential development is new, and any prospective purchasers would be fully aware of the existence of the Adult Entertainment Parlour. A significant amount of existing commercial and industrial development exists between the proposed residential development and the existing Adult Entertainment Parlour acting as an additional buffer between the two conflicting land uses.

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendments are intended to provide an innovative model of development for Business Parks within the City of Ottawa that will adopt contemporary goals for communities as advocated in existing Official Plan policies. Through a mixture of uses, the overall vision of both Official Plans will be maintained and enhanced by: providing housing in proximity to employment areas; maintaining green spaces near places of work and residential areas; making efficient use of existing services and limiting the need for new and expensive transportation infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed development will result in the removal of some existing trees and vegetation through the construction of the private road and residential units. However, it is acknowledged that the level of removal will be significantly less than if the land were developed as originally designated for industrial development with associated surface parking. The applicant, through the subdivision and site plan application proposes to preserve a large amount of natural vegetation on the site. The residential development will also occur on both sides of the Kizzell Drain, a small watercourse tributary to the Ottawa River. The proposed development will maintain the vision of integrating land development, recreation, and environment originally introduced through previous phases of the subdivision. As part of these earlier developments, significant steps were taken to preserve and enhance existing vegetation, and to protect fish habitat through improvements to the Kizzell Drain and the development of a number of stormwater facilities throughout the Business Park.

CONSULTATION

Staff circulated the proposed amendment applications to various technical agencies, City Departments, the South March (SMCA), March Rural (MRA) and Beaverbrook Community Associations, and adjacent landowners, including the Department of National Defence (Connaught Range). A number of on-site signs were posted on KRPC lands advising of the various development applications. Notice of the Public Meeting to hear the proposed amendments were provided as required by the City’s Notification and Consultation Policy.

The proponents attended a monthly meeting of the MRA as part of the consultation process. Neither the MRA or the SMCA had any significant concerns or issues with the amendment applications. They did, however, provide some generic comments relating to the development of the subdivision and site plan applications, which are being reviewed in the context of these two applications.

The Department of National Defence (Connaught Range) advised that they had reservations regarding the proposed changes. They stated that given the scale of their operations (rifle target range/training facility) they are concerned that new residential development near or adjacent to the range boundary would pose problems, and adversely impact on the quality-of-life for any future residents. Through the circulation to the Department of National Defence, the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, a national chartered amateur sports association for target shooting, also provided a written submission. They wrote that they were concerned with the proposed Official Plan Amendment applications on the basis that residential development could occur on lands adjacent to Fourth Line Road, being very close to Connaught Rifle Range. Both organizations, have advised staff, that since the Official Plan Amendments no longer apply to the Fourth Line Road area, that neither have any major concerns with the applications.

A small group of existing residents along a portion of Herzberg Road have submitted a letter objecting to the Zoning By-law Amendment application. Their objections are based on the following concerns: possible loss of industrial lands, concern over the possible increase in traffic and the proximity of the development to the existing Adult Entertainment Parlour. Staff, are not overly concerned with the loss of industrial land as the Kanata North Business Park has developed at a higher density than originally envisioned. In terms of traffic impact, from the current industrial uses would have a greater impact than the proposed residential uses. As stated previously in the report, the lands north of Klondike Road were originally intended for residential development.

The Ward Councillor is aware of these applications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

These applications did not meet the required timelines due to the complexity of the issues and time required to resolve most issues.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 – Draft Official Plan Amendment

Document 2 – Proposed Site Plan

Document 3 – Location Map

Document 4 - KRPC Residential Zone Provisions

DISPOSITION

City Clerk to notify the owners ( Kanata Research Park Corporation, 555 Legget Drive, Suite 206, Kanata, Ontario K2K 2X3, Attention Ms. Bronwen Heins) of City Council’s decision.

Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-laws to City Council.

Development Services Department

i) prepare the implementing amendment to Zoning By-law 132-93 of the former City of Kanata; and

ii) prepare and circulate the notice of passing of the Zoning By-law to those landowners within 120metres and those persons and public bodies who requested notification.

iii) Prepare and circulate the notice of Adoption of the Official Plan Amendment to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to those persons and public bodies who requested notification

Draft Official Plan Amendment Document 1

Draft Amendment 25 and 66 to the former Regional &

former City of Kanata Official Plans

AMENDMENT 25 TO THE FORMER REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN &

AMENDMENT 66 TO THE FORMER CITY OF KANATA OFFICIAL PLAN

COMPONENTS

Part A – The Preamble does not constitute part of this Amendment.

Part B – The Amendment, consisting of the following text and map (designated Schedule “A”), constitutes Amendments 25 and 66 to the Official Plans of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Kanata.

PART A – THE PREAMBLE

PURPOSE

The purpose of Amendments 25 and 66 are to permit residential development within the Kanata North Business Park including lands north of Klondike Road which are currently owned by Kanata Research Park Corporation and designated for Business Park type land uses. The addition of the residential land uses into the Business Park is an opportunity to allow residential development in the Kanata North Business Park to enhance the existing mix of employment, commercial and recreational uses in contrast to the “single use” more traditional form of business park development. The Regional Official Plan Amendment is a policy change for the specific parcels of land to allow a limited amount of residential development. The Amendments to the former City of Kanata’s Official Plan will specifically redesignate the lands from “Restricted Industrial” (RM) to “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (RM-4) and “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (RM-5) as shown on Schedule “A” to this Amendment.

BASIS

In October 2001, an application was filed on behalf of Kanata Research Park Corporation (K.R.P.C.), to amend the Regional Official Plan (1997) and City of Kanata’s Official Plan, as they apply to lands owned by K.R.P.C., in the Kanata North Business Park including lands west of March Road and north Klondike Road. The lands are currently designated “Business Park” by the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and “Restricted Industrial” (MR) and “General Industrial” (MG) by the former Kanata Official Plan. Neither of these Official Plans ever contemplated residential development occurring within Business Park areas.

The lands subject to the Official Plan Amendment request are actually in two separate areas, being separated by the Riddell Village Community. The first area, within the Kanata North Business Park, is unlike other business parks in the City. This is largely due to two reasons; firstly, growth is almost entirely a result of one industry, the high technology sector, which has demanded a unique form of development to satisfy new company management techniques where employees are encouraged to work, live and play within the “Business Park Community”. Secondly, the majority of the Business Park has been developed by a few development companies, one of them being K.R.P.C. The area is largely dominated by large office/industrial developments, and recently, by an 18 – hole championship golf course and luxury hotel, also being developed by K.R.P.C. The more traditional industrial manufacturing component of these businesses tends to be very small and limited to the development of small components for the computer and telecommunications industry. There is very little that could be deemed as being noxious, dangerous or basically incompatible with any of the surrounding existing residential uses. An example of the compatibility between the two forms of development is evident along the boundary between the Business Park and the Riddell Village community, where a number of office/industrial buildings have been located adjacent to homes for a number of years without any indication of conflict. Therefore, staff are recommending that the lands within the Kanata North Business Park be redesignated to a “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-5), which would permit a limited amount of residential development.

The second area falls into the Kanata North Urban Expansion Area, a largely undeveloped area that has been subject of extensive study and analysis since the early 1990’s. Only a portion of the Expansion Area, east of March Road, north of Klondike Road and west of the Ottawa Central Railway lines is subject to the current amendment (see Schedule “A” to this Amendment). In general terms the Expansion Area were to be extensions of the South March and Riddell Village Community’s and add urban land to the Kanata North Business Park. The original Studies completed for the expansion lands indicated that the subject lands should be developed for residential purposes, which was the designation envisioned until late 2000. Through the approval and adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment 8 and Local Official Amendment 58, which brought the Expansion Area into the Urban Area, the subject lands were redesignated to a “Business Park” designation. Following an appeal by KRPC. Therefore, staff are recommending that the lands be redesignated to a “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-4), which would allow the lands to be developed for the originally envisioned lands use. The MR-4 policies require the development of an overall concept plan for the lands, which must meet and achieve specific polices so that it can develop as a planned community.

LOCATION

The lands affected by this amendment are bounded by Terry Fox Drive from McKinley Drive to Leggett Drive, and Legget Drive to the west and south, Herzberg Road and the Ottawa Central Railway line to the east, and the line between the south half and north half of Lot 9 to the north AND the land bounded by March Road to the west, Klondike Road to the south, Ottawa Central Railway line to the east, and the lot line between Lots 11 and 12 to the north, ALL located in Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 Concession 4, former Township of March, now in the City of Ottawa.

The lands affected by the Amendment are highlighted on Schedule “A” to this Amendment, which is a portion of Schedule “B”, Urban Area – Land Use, to the Official Plan of the former City of Kanata. The change in land use designation from “Restricted Industrial” to “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-4) and “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-5) as described in the Purpose section of the Amendment, are reflected on Schedule “A” to this Amendment. The Regional Official Plan Amendment is a policy change for the specific parcels of land to allow a certain amount of residential.

PART B – THE AMENDMENT

1. Introduction

All of this part of this document entitled Part B – The Amendment, consisting of the following text and attached map designated Schedule “A” to Amendment 66 (Urban Area – Land Use), constitutes Amendment 25 to the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and Amendment 66 to the Official Plan of the former City of Kanata.

2. Details

The following changes are hereby made to the Official Plans of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Kanata.

AMENDMENT 25 OFFICIAL PLAN (1997) REGION OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

That Section 4.4 BUSINESS PARK, is hereby amended by adding the following new section, entitled “Kanata North Business Park – Special Policy Area”

“ 4.4.6 Kanata North Business Park – Special Policy Area

Notwithstanding the uses permitted in policy 2 above, also permit residential development within lands bounded by Terry Fox Drive from McKinley Drive to Legget Drive, and Legget Drive to the west and south, Herzberg Road and the Ottawa Central Railway line to the east, and the line between the south half and north half of Lot 9 to the north AND the land bounded by March Road to the west, Klondike Road to the south, Ottawa Central Railway line to the east, and the lot line between Lots 11 and 12 to the north, ALL located in Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11, Concession 4, former Township of March, now in the City of Ottawa.”

AMENDMENT 66 CITY OF KANATA OFFICIAL PLAN

That Subsection 5.8 Business Parks, is amended by adding the following section, entitled “Kanata North Business Park - Special Policy Area”

“5.8.6 Kanata North Business Park – Special Policy Area (MR-4)

Notwithstanding the policies of Sections 5.8.1.2, 5.8.5, and 6.9.2 to the contrary, on lands designated “Restricted Industrial – Special Policy Area” (MR-4) located north of Klondike Road and east of March Road, a mix of residential and restricted industrial uses shall also be permitted.

Council shall only permit the zoning, subdivision and development of these lands where a Concept Plan has been submitted and approved. The Concept Plan shall

Show the distribution and form of all residential and non-residential uses.
Provide for public open space and recreational corridors that integrate with such facilities in the surrounding community and are designed to provide a high level of pedestrian access to services in the Community.
Contains design guidelines that encourage the integration and scale of residential and non-residential uses to ensure compatibility of uses and maintenance of residential amenities. The Concept Plan shall also take into account the surrounding land uses outside the lands designated MR-4 and ensure that the abutting uses are compatible.
Provides for a mix of housing types and tenure with higher density sites located close to existing and future transit routes. A minimum density of 35 units per net hectare shall be achieved for all residential development within the MR-4 lands.
Recognize the existing topography and vegetation, taking every effort possible to preserve the natural features through the concept design.
Development of these lands shall only take place by Plan of Subdivision.
The policies of the MR-4 designation are to be reflected in the provisions of the implementing zoning by-law amendments.”

That Subsection 5.8 Business Parks, is amended by adding the following new section, entitled

“Kanata North Business Park – Special Policy Area” (MR-5).

“5.8.7 Kanata North Business Park – Special Policy Area (MR-5)

Notwithstanding the policies of Sections 5.8.1.2, 5.8.5, 5.8.6, and 6.9.2 of this Plan, residential uses are also permitted, provided they are semi-detached, multiple-attached, stacked –townhouses or apartment dwelling units.

8. That the initial development within Block 4 and part of Block 6 on Plan 4M-1096, can be developed at a density of 14 units per net hectare. Any subsequent residential developments in the MR-5 designation shall achieve a minimum density of 35 units per net hectare.

9. Residential clusters shall be encouraged to locate on the perimeter of the Business Park, adjacent to major transit routes or adjacent to existing or planned residential developments.

10. That residential clusters shall recognize existing topography and vegetation, taking every effort to preserve these natural features. The developments shall be buffered from adjacent industrial uses by a combination of increased separation distance, landscaping and fencing, in order to reduce the potential for any future land use conflicts.

11. Connections to the existing and proposed network of sidewalks and pathways shall be provided for use by pedestrians and cyclists as a means of recreational enjoyment and as alternative methods of travel for potential commuters in the Business Park.

12. The policies of the MR-5 designation are to be reflected in the provisions of the implementing zoning by-law amendment.

Implementation

The implementation of this Amendment to the Official Plan documents shall be in accordance with the respective policies of the Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Kanata, and with the provisions of 132-93, as amended, being the Zoning By-law for the Kanata North Business Park.

Location Map Document 3

KRPC Residential Zone Provisions Document 4

DEFINITIONS
Attached	Attached means a building or structure otherwise complete in itself, which depends for structural support, or complete enclosure, upon a division wall or walls shared in common with an adjacent building or structure.
Building Separation	Building separation means the least horizontal distance permitted between the nearest portions of the main walls of any detached buildings on a lot.
Dwelling	Dwelling means a Building used or intended to be used for human habitation and in which all normal domestic functions may be carried on.
Dwelling Units	Dwelling Unit means a suite of 2 or more habitable homes in which sanitary conveniences are provided an in which no more than one kitchen is provided, and with an independent entrance either directly from outside the Building or through a common corridor or vestibule inside the Building. This definition shall not include any part of a Recreational Vehicle or mobile home as defined herein.
Semi-Detached Dwelling	Semi-Detached Dwellings means the whole of a Dwelling divided vertically by a common wall above and below Finished Grade into two separate Dwelling Units.
Multiple-Attached Dwelling	Multiple-Attached Dwelling means a Dwelling divided vertically and/or horizontally into 3 or more separate Dwelling Units, each such Dwelling Unit having at least one independent entrance accessible from the outside ground level.
Home Occupation	“Home occupation” means an accessory use of a dwelling by at least one of the permanent residents of that dwelling to conduct one or more full-time or part-time occupations or business activities, butshall not include: an animal hospital or veterinary establishment; an automotive commercial use of any type, a day nursery, a drug store; a dry cleaning outlet or distribution station; a hone for the aged; a laundromat or laundry shop; a restaurant of any type; a retail or wholesale outlet; a retail store; the sales or service of “Take-out restaurant” means a building used for the preparation and offering of food for sale to the general public to be taken out or delivered for consumption off the lot on which such building is located.
Satellite Dish Antenna	“Satellite Dish Antenna” means an antenna device used for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving communication signals through a communications satellite.
Swimming Pool	“Swimming pool” means a privately owned outdoor container of water used for bathing, swimming, wading or diving and which has a capacity of holding water to a depth exceeding 45.0 centimetres at any point.

ZONE PROVISIONS
Lot Area (minimum)	4000.0 square metres
Lot Frontage (minimum)	30.0 metres
Front Yard Depth (minimum)	6.0 metres
Exterior Side Yard Width (minimum) (i) main building (as it abuts Farrar Road) (ii) accessory buildings	7.5 metres 1.0 metres
Rear Yard Depths (minimum) (ii) main building (ii) accessory buildings	7.5 metres 1.0 metres
Interior Side Yard Width (minimum (iii) main building (ii) accessory buildings	7.5 metres 1.0 metres
Coverage (maximum) (i) main building (ii) accessory buildings	40% 5%
Building Heights (maximum) (i) main buildings (ii) accessory buildings	9.5 metres 4.0 metres
Building Separations (minimum) (iii) between main buildings (iv) between other buildings	3.0 metres 1.0 metres
Distance to Private Street (minimum) between main building and street in the yard having a driveway crossing said yard	6.0 metres
Dwelling Units per Dwelling (maximum)	7
Kizzell Drain Setback (minimum)	15.0 metres
Special Provisions Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 5 (3), the lands zoned BPR described on Schedule “A” to this By-law shall be considered as one LOT for zoning purposes despite the lawful severance of a LOT pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended, the Condominium Act, as amended, or any similar legislation. The lands identified shall be considered as one LOT for the purpose of applying the zoning provisions.
Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses	As outlined in Section 3 – General Provisions, Subsection (1)(a)(b)(i)(a)(b)(c) (d)(i)(ii)(iii) of Zoning By-law 161-93.
Home Occupation	As outlined in Section 3 – General Provisions Subsection 8(a) to (l) of Zoning By-law 161-93.
Swimming Pool	As outlined in Section 3 – General Provision Subsection 23(a)(b) of Zoning By-law 161-93.
Parking Space Provision Semi-Detached and Multiple Attached Dwelling	1.0 parking space per dwelling unit, plus 0.25 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit.
Parking Area Provisions	Section 5, Subsection 5.15 (b)(i) shall not apply as outlined in Zoning By-law 132-93.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE FORMER REGION OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AND CITY OF KANATA AND ZONING BY-LAW 132-93 – 321 TERRY FOX DRIVE

MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AUX PLANS DIRECTEURS DES ANCIENNES RÉGION D’OTTAWA-CARLETON ET VILLE DE KANATA ET AU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 132-93 – 321, PROMENADE TERRY FOX

ACS2002-DEV-APR-0080

Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

Mr. Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, advised that Wayne Morris would provide a detailed presentation of the proposed amendment. It was a progressive and innovative approach to development in the new urban areas. It instills many of the Smart Growth principles; hence, staff was seeking the Committee’s support. Mr. Morris brought to the Committee’s attention a memo distributed by Murray Chown, who represented Kanata Research Park Corporation [KRPC], which alludes to one of the policies within the draft Official Plan. Staff indicated the existing development could be developed at 14 units per net hectare, but subsequent development should achieve a density of 35 units per net hectare. Mr. Chown is recommending two options. In one option he is asking that it be removed completely; and, in the other he is asking that certain words be included to allow some flexibility to that 35 units. Kanata’s OP is very prescriptive. There are density provisions, which speak to between 25 and 35 or 25 and 55 and those targets must be met. The new OP will hopefully not have those targets, but staff was willing to look at Option 2, which stated that a density of 35 units per net hectare would need to be achieved subject to certain on site conditions of that particular site.

The Committee heard from the following delegations.

Ms. Molly Brennan requested that Mr. Murray Chown speak first. The Committee consented and agreed that he return to address the Committee should it be required.

Murray Chown and Bronwen Heins, representing Novatech (KRPC) Mr. Chown indicated he would endeavour to keep his presentation brief and anticipate some of the comments that may be received and possibly facilitate the matter. He would appreciate the opportunity to come back at the end of the presentations to address any outstanding questions. He provided a brief description of the project to put it into perspective,. It is a jewel in the crown of the municipality and is one of the most attractive and prestigious business parks developed in Eastern Ontario and possibly the Province. It contains modern office buildings developed in a campus-like setting. The core consists of a number of ten-storey office buildings and a five-star hotel scheduled to open in the spring of 2003. Low-rise commercial industrial buildings surround that core, with a championship golf course scheduled to open in a couple of weeks. The proposal before Committee introduces a residential component, which will allow people to live, work and play in their own neighbourhood. A number of planning approvals are required commencing with the applications before Committee today.

The OP Amendment Application introduces a residential use into the Business Bark, with some guidelines in terms of where and how that residential development could occur. The Zoning Application is very site specific. It deals with the first project, which is being marketed as Marshes Village. He provided a rendered landscape plan for the project. It is a townhouse project designed to fit around the existing features of the site. There is significant vegetation on the property, which the developer will be saving. The Kizzell drain runs through the site and will be protected with a buffer along both sides of that watercourse through the site. The site is adjacent to a large storm water management facility, with setbacks, and part of the 16^th fairway of the Marshes Golf Course.

The City held a public meeting some months ago in the area and residents as well as DND representatives expressed some concerns. The riffle range specifically is concerned with the issue of noise. A diagram was provided to facilitate discussion. Highlighted in blue were the areas subject to the OP Amendments. Highlighted in red is the Briarbrook Subdivision, which is an approved Plan of Subdivision, and approved residential development immediately to the north. Highlighted with asterisks and stars is the Connaught Rifle Range. The application before Committee is easily three times further from the range than the Briarbrook Subdivision. That is not to suggest that people moving into the community won’t be aware of the rifle range. One can hear the rifle range from Aylmer, Dunrobin and many places, because it is a very sharp, crisp, loud sound, which travels. As Mr. Morris indicated, the initial application included these lands. Following discussions and representations by DND and a number of other groups associated with the rifle range, the developer agreed to withdraw those lands from the application. The developer is satisfied the applications before Committee are no different than developments already approved in this location and should be treated in the same manner.

With respect to the memo circulated to the Committee, Mr. Morris very succinctly explained the issue. The OP Amendment establishes a minimum density for future developments of 35 units/hectare. The developer wants some flexibility to consider the attributes of individual sites to achieve that density, but it should not be a hard line drawn in the sand, which could result in the necessity of further OP Amendments. In conclusion, the OP Amendment simply creates the opportunity to introduce residential uses to the Business Park, which is something the developer feels is a desirable and marketable goal that may be a model for development in the future.

The second aspect of the report is the rezoning application, which affects only the parcel of land in the south corner of the park. Any subsequent developments will require a re-zoning and site plan application.

Ms, Brownwen Heins wanted to address the OP Amendment and Option One. She preferred Option 1 for the following reasons: a 35 unit per net hectare restriction will cause her to put in developments that resemble, with no offence Claridge, Richcraft and Minto, with bulldozing, eliminating every natural element and packing in as many houses as possible. There is nothing left for children to recreate among natural elements. They want to work with existing natural elements similar to other developments that resemble what everyone commends, which is Campeau’s development in Kanata. Yet, there has been a departure from that with developments with barely any elbows room between houses. You need trees and space for people to recreate. The developer would like Option 1 to continue to maintain a complimentary marriage between what exists naturally on the site and housing units.

Councillor Munter agreed with Ms. Heins and City staff that the notion of integrated uses, with a mixed-use community where people can live, work and play in the same neighbourhood is a good concept. On the last point, he referred to a Minto development with 300 fewer units on a larger parcel, which eliminated open space, e.g. a parcel with 40% open space that was supposed to be high density, but will be lower density covering more land. One advantage of density is that it allows for the protection of natural environment areas by building up, not out. There is no better place to build up than in a business park with that built form. He raised it as a counter point. He was aware Ms. Heins disagreed, but he also was aware she was very imaginative and committed to protecting the environment. He received comments from the Morgan’s Grant/Briarbrook Community Association. Was there a reason the pathways and trails were not open to the public at this point? Ms. Heins responded that the first goal was to concentrate its efforts into opening up the golf course in two weeks. The pathways along Terry Fox are there, contrary to that comment. Their first objective is to complete the pathway through the NCC land, which is already cut through and requires stone dust to complete the small piece from Terry Fox to the back of that community the Councillor referred to. It is in the plans for the end of the July, if not the end of June.

Councillor Munter advised the other question related to traffic. He presumed the 104 units would not generate more traffic than the current commercial designation; and, two that as future zoning applications occur traffic impact issues will be dealt with at the time of the zoning application. Mr. Chown responded that discussions were held with staff and it was opined that a change from commercial office complex to residential would dramatically reduce the traffic generated during peak hours, alleviating that situation over the years. In response to the Councillor, Mr. Morris advised that a traffic study would be undertaken for the initial project.

Councillor Eastman referred to the DND rifle range. Rural areas often have a statement on title that indicates there will be sights, sounds and smells associated with normal farming practices, so theoretically someone cannot complain they were not aware or did not like the grain dryer running all night during fall harvest. He inquired if something similar would be a safeguard for DND, to ensure buyers were aware of the rifle range and associated noises. Mr. Chown responded that concern was raised by DND and others associated with the range, but it is not a solution acceptable to the developer since there is no such condition or requirement imposed on other residential development. The onus is on the developer to make the public aware and it could be discussed at the subdivision stage, but it would be unreasonable and unfair to impose it on this development and no one else. It has not been an issue in terms of commercial developments to date. Councillor Eastman suspected there will be more development in the future and was not singling this particularly development, but it might be wise to implement such measures.

Molly Brennan asked for a brief clarification. She represented 1 Sandhill Road, which is located on what remains of Sandhill Road, Hertzberg Road and the Fourth Line. It has been consumed by many constructural changes, developmental land and zoning applications in the past six years. The description of 1 Sandhill Road may or may not be accurate. The City of Ottawa seems quite determined to suggest it is located in the Kanata North Research Park. She has been unsuccessful in her quest to discover how a privately owned property became part of that Park. She sought documentation from the Development Services Department and faxed Wayne Morris on March 14^th, with follow up telephone conversations. His response of May 14^th was not satisfactory; however, his efforts were appreciated. As the property owner she was concerned with taxing and zoning considerations. KRPC has not considered the best interests of the small few privately owned lands. A corporation that surrounds and exercises its power to such an obvious extent must be accountable and cooperative. In summary, there are many comments and issues to address; however, the experience and diligence of the Corp Park cannot be left unnoticed; therefore, she proposed that the proposed amendments be applied to 1 Sandhill Road concurrently. She also proposed that the present zoning of 1 Sandhill Road, being M3, remain.

In response to Councillor Munter, Ms. Brennan confirmed she wanted the same range of uses on her property that would be permitted under the application, but would like the existing M3 zoning to also remain. In response to a further question related to residential zoning, Ms. Brennan indicated she currently did not enjoy that use on her property. M3 was light industrial railway access. Councillor Munter sought clarification from staff and Mr. Morris responded that currently her lands are zoned M3, light industrial because of the railway that used to cross in front. She can have general industrial and heavy industrial. There is no residential zone on that property, since there is no residential dwelling on that property today. Councillor Munter suggested Ms. Brennan could file an application to change the zoning on her property and explained the process. Ms. Brennan indicated she would proceed accordingly.

Captain Justin Schmidt-Clever, Department of National Defence [DND], Connaught Range and Primary Training Centre, provided a written submission dated 16 May 2002, which was previously distributed and is on file with the City Clerk. He felt it was important to ensure that some of the background issues are brought forward in a public forum. He provided documentation on the history of Connaught Range, which covers 82 years as background reading and more depth, which is also on file. After reading the documentation related to the application, he had reservations regarding the proposed changes. Having been involved over the course of several years with the former City of Kanata, he was directly involved with the current zoning designation of the lands in question. From his perspective, there remained solid reasons to proceed with extreme caution and circumspection regarding the lands under consideration. At present, he did not feel the concerns raised by DND and Connaught Range and Primary Training Centre [Rifle Range] have been clearly acknowledged and addressed by the developer in either their written submission, or in subsequent undertakings.

As urban development has approached the Range boundaries in recent years, Connaught has worked very hard to accommodate changes in the surrounding area and remain involved in the community as a responsible neighbour. An effort, such as storm water management through the Connaught Range property is an example, which has benefited the surrounding community. As well, given the scale of their operations, over the years, they have recorded very few problems with neighbours. However, they do recognize the impacts of their activities on the surrounding area. Therefore, he strongly believed it was in the interests of the Connaught Range and the City to closely consider the implications of changes to the existing lands under consideration. Specifically, DND and the Rifle Range, sought clarification of several issues. Firstly, a firm undertaking that the owner shall advise purchasers through their Purchase and Sale Agreement of the specific operations at Connaught Range; as well as a clear and accurate description of the proximity to Connaught Range and the potential impact of those operations on residents. This will ensure that all potential buyers and future residents are clearly and fully informed of the operations and associated degree of noise. This is the minimum degree of openness and transparency required as the basis to mitigate future complaints against DND, and, it represents a good faith commitment on the developer’s part that all potential residents have clearly and properly been informed they will be living near a busy military firing range and training camp. Secondly, they would like to follow up on the developer’s commitment of a presentation of the noise mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed development. The developer does seem to be on track to look at passive noise mitigation; however they would still like to see the formal plan and do believe the new sound study will assist the developer in mitigating the impact on future residents.

Connaught Range has also been a committed and active steward of the land, with enduring and developed relationships with the Innes Point Bird Observatory, the Ottawa Duck Club, and the Ottawa Field Naturalist Club, all of which enjoy access to the property. It is also home to a substantial deer yard, and supports a considerable population of other valued wildlife. In addition to working with local conservation groups, Connaught Range has had an active program of reforestation for nearly a decade. In the past two years, staff coordinated the planting of nearly 3,000 seedling trees and a considerable number of mature trees. Captain Schmidt provided a detailed overview of the relationship of the Connaught Range with the local community, community based groups and charitable organizations.

It is realized that DND and the Connaught Range are only one of a number of stakeholders in this exercise, and that each group has valid and vested interests in the process. Accordingly, it is recognized that the decision regarding the proposal is rightly vested in the City of Ottawa and its officials and trust all views will be considered and weighed accordingly in arriving at a decision.

He summarized his issues. Mr. Morris provided them with an update and he wished to address four points, which were a major concern. One of which was dealt with the removal of the parcel, which he coloured orange directly adjacent to the Connaught Range from the OP and the City’s formal approval of that will go a long way to easing their concerns. The second is the Purchase and Sales Agreement. The assertion that Briarbrook is farther away than the proposed development is true; however, the representation of noise and activity is not unidirectional. Different activities create different sound footprints and impacts. The firing of flares has little to do with distance, but have a light issue associated as they travel into the atmosphere. The activities will not unduly compromise the enjoyment of personal property, but it was felt that in the public interest and the interest of the department, people should be aware, so they cannot make the assertion they were uninformed the activities existed. Connaught Range would like to see the noise mitigation measures proposed for the new development. It is believe on the initial and informal discussions they may be sufficient and Connaught Range believed it had information and expertise that will assist in mitigating these issues without the need for costly refit or the diminishment of its ability to perform its mission. He summarized that the Connaught Range does not oppose development; however, given there is an application to change the existing land uses, they would like to proceed with caution and ensure there is full knowledge and welcomed development in areas of Kanata.

Councillor Munter historically thanked Captain Schmidt, since the Rifle Range has always been a good neighbour in dealing with community concerns and appreciated the openness in dealing with the community. In response to Councillor Munter’s question related to complaints over the last 12 years, Captain Schmidt indicated that as Deputy Commandant, to date there were none from Briarbrook. Complaints were received from Aylmer last year. The houses were recently completed and currently heavy machinery is operating in their backyards and would be surprised if gunfire were heard over that machinery. Since there is a 12-year experiment, with no issue, it augurs well for the future. Simply because complaints have not been registered to date, there is still reason for caution and prudence to proceed. To staff, on the issue of noise abatement measures, Councillor Munter presumed those will be dealt with as part of the subdivision approval for the development. Mr. Lindsay responded that staff would expect the developer to indicate how they will address the issue of noise. It could be along the lines of specific house design, window design or air-conditioning. Councillor Munter requested staff to ensure DND was on the technical circulation for the detail Subdivision Application. Mr. Lindsay responded that since they are adjacent to the property they would be circulated the subdivision application for comment.

In response to the question by Councillor Cullen whether the activity on the rifle range would form part of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Morris acknowledged it could be discussed with DND and the applicant. It could be put in the draft conditions and into a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Staff will perform a noise study, in consultation with DND, and in the end determine where it would be appropriate. Secondly, Councillor Cullen received confirmation that as part of the subdivision process a noise study will be conducted and will ascertain the necessary noise mitigation measures. Captain Schmidt advised that DND asked Public Works and Government Services Canada Environmental Service to undertake a noise study this summer during the busiest period. Some activities were added after the last noise study was conducted, and Connaught Range would like to have the best science available. Connaught Range would like quantifiable data with regard to direction and intensity of sound since different activities create different noise footprints and at times the train will channel sound, which is independent of distance. Connaught Range is willing to share the results with the developer and the City to develop an appropriate plan for the minimum passive measures that are the least expensive and intrusive to neighbours and themselves.

Shirley Roy lives beside the proposed development. She also represents 280, 298, 300 and 302 Herzberg Road, who are the only residents in the area and affected by the proposed amendments. They are not trying to stop progress, but question the need and wisdom of rezoning industrial land to residential. The west end of the city has three industrial areas; the Kanata North Industrial Park, Kanata South Industrial Park; and, the area around the Corel Centre. They believe the rezoning is cutting into prime industrial area and possible future growth. They are also concerned about traffic, not just at peak hours, but it will now be seven days per week. They are concerned with the possibility of increased taxes and the value of their property, with high-end townhouses built next to them. Most of their homes have been located there for over 34 years, which is approximately the time the area was zoned industrial. The homes are quite nice country homes on small lots. They believe the property value will drop if they are situated next to high-end townhouses. They are definitely concerned and hope the Committee listens to their reservations.

Councillor Munter noted Ms. Roy raised a good point in terms of availability of industrial land and received confirmation staff was confident that with the 1,200 acres around the Corel Centre and the remaining lands to the north and south in the Business Parks in Kanata there was enough commercial industrial land available. This issue was significantly debated two years ago with the addition of the Kanata West Lands around the Corel Centre and the case in point was that they needed additional employment-based lands and as such, Council recognized that need and allowed those lands to be re-designated to allow for that opportunity. In essence, with the current absorption rates of industrial lands, there are considerable vacancies in the more established parks in the west end being the Kanata South Park. There are industrial lands in Stittsville and now with the Kanata West Lands it has certainly met and exceeded that demand such that the City has enough designated land. Councillor Munter recalled that staff recommended 800 acres be added around the Corel Centre and Council made it 1,300 acres. Mr. Lindsay agreed the final lands designated included those lands Councillor Munter referred to and they are employment lands or enterprise lands, which are more inclusive of a mixed use-type of opportunity. In response to a question by Councillor Munter whether she viewed property value was higher adjacent to commercial-industrial use (e.g. eight-storey building, with parking around it), as opposed to another residential use, Ms. Roy believed that to be the true. In response to a further question whether she spoke to a real estate appraiser to confirm that concept, Ms. Roy indicated there was a concern that with three fairly large industrial areas surrounded by residential, the city now wanted to rezone residential in the industrial park.

Having heard all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee.

Chair Hunter requested clarification on the problem for notification on title or a sign in the sales office on the surrounding uses. Mr. Chown explained that in his introductory comments he emphasized the developer wanted equal treatment regarding proximity to the rifle range and other facilities operated by DND. It is unreasonable and unfair to impose that condition on this project or any subsequent application from KRPC, when such was not applied to the Briarbrook community. He believed it was appropriate that Captain Schmid observed the only complaints were from the residents on the other side of the river and not from adjacent areas. It was the developer’s understanding that noise levels at the property line of DND lands meet MOE guidelines in terms of noise levels for adjacent uses and impacts on adjacent uses. Gunshots are heard, but not at a high decibel level. There is no need to introduce air-conditioning or similar controls in the design of individual residential units to address noise. There is an opportunity to introduce some passive controls as alluded to by Captain Schmidt and the developer is making every effort to maintain the existing vegetation on the north side of the property and Herzberg Road to provide some passive buffering. The specific suggestion that a notice be included in the Purchase and Sale agreement is unacceptable to his client, but the notion of providing information and/or a plan at the sales office is appropriate and not unusual. It is part of the normal course of developing a project and would be a standard condition through the Subdivision or Site Plan Process. The developer is prepared to discuss the issue of noise through the Subdivision Approval Process with DND and staff, but urged the Committee not to impose any such condition at this point in the process.

Chair Hunter referred to Option 2, which recognizes the existing topography and preserves natural features; the other limits the type of housing. Mr. Chown responded that one eliminates the reference to the 35 units per hectare entirely and the second simply qualifies the reference to the 35 units per hectare. He was apprehensive since there may be new players on the next project with different interpretations of the terms and intent. Even with the qualifying clause recommended in Option 2, the developer would like to deal with each property on a site-by-site basis and negotiate with staff and the community on the appropriate form and scale of development without unnecessarily being tied by the reference to a density provision in the OP Policies. Their preference would be to take it out. There is reference in the drafted document to the type of units; whether semi-detached, townhouses, stacked townhouses or apartments. That provides reasonable guidance in his opinion and the specific reference to 35 units per hectare is overly prescriptive for an OP Policy, which is the difference between the two.

Councillor Harder addressed the issue of notification or lack of it. In the case of Connaught Range most people might not know it is there and there needs to be a mechanism, but it is not at the Sales Office since she could foresee problems in that regard. The salesperson is there to sell the dream, not to talk about whether there is a driving range or rifle range within the vicinity that might bother the prospective purchaser. These are contained within the Plan of Subdivision. She wondered whether it could be dealt with as the City works through the new OP, as opposed to dealing specifically with the subdivision.

Mr. Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services Department, did not feel the City would want to include it in the OP. It should be included as part of a subdivision approval process. The Committee could identify the noise cone to apply in the Subdivision Approval Process. That would be his recommended course of action. Councillor Harder responded that would make sense to her.

Ms. Heins explained that the reluctance on the developer’s part to put it into the Agreement of Purchase and Sale is that unless it is clearly pointed out and everyone will clearly deny it was, the liability comes back to the developer for issues that are happening on DND lands. If uses change or if decibel levels go up, the developer, not DND, will face a lawsuit. She did not have an issue with putting it in the Subdivision Agreement that is registered on Title and agreed with Councillor Harder’s comments.

Chair Hunter asked whether there was a difference between the RM4/RM5 zone designation in the Regional OP and the MR4/MR5 in the Kanata OP. Mr. Morris clarified that the zoning designations were the same and the letters were inadvertently reversed.

Councillor Munter commented on Options 1 and 2 before Committee from Novatech and would move Option 2, which is that Policy 1 be amended by adding the wording “subject to recognizing existing topography and vegetation, taking every effort to preserve natural features.” As the Committee knew, the City, community and landowners in Kanata West are engaged in an exercise to develop a mixed-use integrated employment area where people can also live. The deliberate decision was taken by City Council to shift away from traditional segregated use industrial parks and to try to build a place as opposed to building an industrial park. The proposal is a very interesting and unique idea because it seeks to retrofit a typical industrial park by adding residential uses. That is very much in line with Smart Growth, the new OP and elsewhere in Kanata. The City should be striving for uses that in their built form are compatible with the surrounding industrial park. It is not feasible or practical to build a very low density-type of development. This particular proposal is in fact fairly low density. It is experimental and hopefully successful. The proposed OP Amendment will permit residential uses through much of the Kanata North Business Park. It is important the City sets some minimum densities to achieve a built form that fits and makes the delivery of services feasible. He remarked that it was very appropriate for this area, providing a form of housing that is not traditional suburban family style. It would be incredibly positive from a transportation, land-use and community-building point of view to provide housing within walking distance. He supported the staff report. It was a good idea to put into the OP the requirement that existing topography and vegetation needs to be preserved, in keeping with the nature of the development. In terms of the specific issues raised around noise and traffic, those are relevant and important issues the Committee can address as it moves to the next stage of planning for this parcel with the Subdivision. He reminded the Committee that any future development in this area is subject to a zoning application and specifics could be addressed at that time. He encouraged members of the Committee to support the report as amended.

Councillor Cullen would be supporting the proposal before the Committee, with the densities. The City has to acknowledge if it is going to walk the walk on Smart Growth, this was it and low-density sprawl should not be encouraged. These lands were originally designated employment area for the Business Park and he was selfish in supporting this conversion to residential. The more housing, the more people walk to work and the less pressure to widen Carling Avenue, between March Road and Moodie Drive. He wanted higher densities, since residents simply don’t want more traffic in their community.

Moved by Councillor Munter

That Policy 1 be amended by adding the words “subject to recognizing existing topography and vegetation, taking every effort to preserve natural features”.

CARRIED

That Schedule “A” to Amendment No. 66 (former City of Kanata) – Official Plan Schedule B – Urban Area Land Use be amended as follows:

1. “Lands Designated to a RM-4 Designation” now read “Lands Designated to a MR-4 Designation”; and,

2. “Lands Designated to a RM-5 Designation” now read “Lands Designated to a MR-5 Designation”

CARRIED

The Committee approved the departmental recommendations contained in the report, as amended.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

3. Approve and adopt the application to amend the Official Plans of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton and City of Kanata to permit residential development within the Kanata North Business Park, as detailed in Document 1.

2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Kanata Zoning By-law 132-93, to rezone 321 Terry Fox Drive from “Light Industrial, General

4. That Policy 1 be amended by adding the words “subject to recognizing existing topography and vegetation, taking every effort to preserve natural features”.

5. That Schedule “A” to Amendment No. 66 (former City of Kanata) – Official Plan Schedule B – Urban Area Land Use be amended as follows:

a) “Lands Designated to a RM-4 Designation” now read “Lands Designated to a MR-4 Designation”; and,

b) “Lands Designated to a RM-5 Designation” now read “Lands Designated to a MR-5 Designation”

Carried as amended

Committee Recommendations as Amended