|
1. REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING BY-LAW - URBAN AREA: FINAL PUBLIC MEETING AND APPROVAL ÉBAUCHE
RÉVISÉE DU RČGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL - SECTEUR URBAIN: DERNIČRE RÉUNION
PUBLIQUE ET APPROBATION FINALE |
Committee recommendationS as
amended
(This matter is subject to Bill
51)
That Council:
1. Approve modifications
to the December 7, 2007 City Council-approved Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law, Volume 1 (text) and Volume 2
(maps)
brought
forward by:
(a) Councillor motions to
review specific provisions, as detailed in Document 1;
(b) Submissions received
after the October 22 and 23, 2007 Planning and Environment Committee public
meetings with staff recommendations, as detailed in Document 2;
(c) Staff initiated
changes - zoning issues, noted in Document 3, subject to the following:
·
By amending Section 101, Table 101 – Minimum
Parking Space Rates, Column I, row (a)(ii) – to state “for any use in the TM
Zone, other than a restaurant on Elgin Street, Somerset Street (between Bay
Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street as defined by the Preston Street
Business Improvement Area boundaries.”
·
That options regarding updating of parking rules
of certain non -residential uses not apply to Areas C and D.
(d) Staff-identified
corrections and anomalies, noted in Document 4;
(e) Submissions
received between March 7, 2008 and April 4, 2008, noted in Document 5;
(f) Additional
staff corrections, noted in Document 6;
as
amended:
(g) To
apply an exception provision to the TM zones on Elgin Street, Somerset Street
(between Bay Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street that modifies the
definition of ‘full service restaurant’ for these areas to state “means a
restaurant that sells, serves and prepares on site food and beverages to
patrons seated at tables, for consumption on the premises”;
(h) To
designate the blocks of new R5B[482] F(3.0) zone (residential mid-high profile)
shown on Map 1 as a ‘Special Study Area’ to determine appropriate building
envelopes that will be consistent with the policies of the secondary policy
area, the heritage conservation district, and the Downtown Urban Design
Strategy;
(i) To
apply a site-specific exception at 2013 St. Laurent Boulevard to allow an
automobile service station as an additional permitted use, subject to a maximum
15% lot coverage to reflect the size of the existing building footprint;
(j) To
remove the minimum building height requirement for the MC(1333) F(2.0) zone at
2975 St. Joseph Boulevard and remove the general requirement of a minimum
building height of 6.7 m for existing or future service stations in other MC
Zones within 400 m of a Transitway Station;
(k) To
change the zoning of 1980 and 1988 St. Joseph Boulevard from AM3 to AM;
(l) To
extend the LC zone to encompass 178 Meadowlands to allow a convenience store as
a permitted use;
(m) To change 6126 Renaud Road, part of the
road allowance between lots 5 and 6 concession 4, O F. (closed by-law 207-132,
being part 2, plan 4R-21751 adjacent to 6126 Renaud Road, Ottawa Designated as
Parts 2 to 19, inclusive), and Part of 3138 Navan Road (described as Block 166
on a Draft 4M-Plan prepared by Edward Lancaster on February 19, 2008), from DR
to LC [E]-h. The purpose of the h
designation is to ensure that the two properties are developed comprehensively
and with the benefit of urban services;
(n) To
make the minimum residential parking requirement for stacked town homes and
apartment dwellings in suburban Area C 1.2 spaces per dwelling;
(o) To
revert to the existing requirement for parking for detached, semi-detached and
town house dwellings in Stittsville, which have a 3-meter or less setback from
the road, to allow further study of possible changes;
(p) To
create an exception zone affecting the lands municipally known as 2345 Alta
Vista, and proposed to be zoned I1A, to permit a group home, subject that no
separation distance is required from any other group home;
(q) To
create a exception for lands currently zoned CG-6 in order that the existing
requirements for buffers between parking lots and Irwin Gate or Bachman Terrace
are retained;
(r) To
permit child care facilities with no maximum size limitations in all zones in
the Kanata North Business Park;
(s) To
change the zoning of 15, 23, 33 and 39 Deerfox Drive and 3102, 3112, 3120, 3150
and 3162 Woodroffe Avenue from DR-Development Reserve to DR with an exception
to prohibit agricultural uses but to permit on the existing lot sizes a
detached dwelling not accessory to an agricultural use.
FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL
Staff were
directed to:
(a) Prepare
the Zoning By-law for adoption, which will include any and all modifications by
Council, as well as Zoning By-law amendments to the former municipal Zoning
By-laws approved since November 2007;
(b) Review the list of submissions and
issues listed in Document 7 with a view to providing motions for Council’s consideration.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité
(Cette question est assujettie au Rčglement 51)
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve les
modifications au volume 1 (texte) et au volume 2 (plans) du Rčglement de zonage
général préliminaire entériné par le Conseil municipal, lesquelles font suite :
a) aux motions des
conseillers portant examen de dispositions précises (v. le document 1);
b) aux commentaires reçus
aprčs les réunions publiques du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement qui
ont eu lieu les 22 et 23 octobre 2007 et aux recommandations du personnel (v.
le document 2);
(c) aux solutions apportées
par le personnel concernant les problčmes de zonage (voir le
document 3), sous réserve de ce qui suit :
·
qu’on
modifie le tableau 101 – Taux minimaux de places de stationnement,
colonne I, rangée (a)(ii) – de l’article 101 en y inscrivant l’énoncé
suivant : « pour toute utilisation dans la zone TM autre que celle
relative ŕ un restaurant sur les rues Elgin, Somerset (entre les rues Bay et
Preston) et Preston, conformément aux limites de la Zone d'amélioration
commerciale de la rue Preston »;
·
que
les options relatives ŕ la mise ŕ jour des rčgles de stationnement concernant
certains usages non résidentiels ne s’appliquent pas aux secteurs C et D;
(d) aux anomalies répertoriées
par le personnel et aux corrections proposées pour les résoudre (voir le
document 4);
(e) aux commentaires reçus entre le
7 mars et le 4 avril 2008 (voir le document 5);
(f) aux corrections additionnelles proposées
par le personnel (voir le document 6);
modifiés aux fins
suivantes :
(g) créer
une disposition d’exception visant les zones TM sur les rues Elgin, Somerset
(entre les rues Bay et Preston) et Preston et ayant pour effet de modifier
comme suit la définition de « restaurant ŕ service complet » pour ces
secteurs : « un restaurant qui vend et sert ŕ des clients assis aux
tables des repas et des boissons préparés et consommés sur place »;
(h) désigner les îlots de la nouvelle zone
R5B[482] F(3.0) (zone résidentielle de densité 5) figurant sur la
carte 1 comme « aire d’étude spéciale », afin de déterminer des
enveloppes du bâtiment appropriées qui seront conformes aux politiques du
secteur stratégique secondaire, au district de conservation du patrimoine et ŕ
la Stratégie de conception urbaine du centre‑ville;
(i) créer une exception particuličre visant le
2013, boulevard St. Laurent afin qu’une station‑service constitue
une utilisation supplémentaire permise, sous réserve d’une superficie du lot
maximale de 15 % compte tenu de la superficie actuelle du bâtiment;
(j) éliminer l’exigence relative ŕ la hauteur
minimale des bâtiments pour la zone MC(1333) F(2.0) au 2975, boulevard
St. Joseph, et éliminer l’exigence générale selon laquelle les stations‑services
existantes ou futures se trouvant dans d’autres zones MC et ŕ moins de
400 m d’une station du Transitway doivent avoir une hauteur minimale de
6,7 m;
(k) changer de AM3 ŕ AM le zonage du 1980 et du
1988, boulevard St. Joseph;
(l) étendre la zone LC de maničre ŕ ce qu’elle
englobe le 178, promenade Meadowlands, afin qu’un dépanneur constitue une
utilisation permise;
(m) changer de DR ŕ LC [E]-h le zonage du 6126,
chemin Renaud, partie de la réserve routičre entre les lots 5 et 6, concession
4, orientée vers la rivičre des Outaouais (fermée par voie du rčglement
207-132, partie 2, plan 4R-21751 adjacent au 6126, chemin Renaud, Ottawa,
désigné comme les parties 2 ŕ 19 inclusivement), et d’une partie du 3138,
chemin Navan (décrit comme l’îlot 166 dans le plan 4M provisoire préparé Edward
Lancaster le 19 février 2008); la désignation « h » vise ŕ
s’assurer que les deux propriétés feront l’objet d’un aménagement complet et
qu’elles profiteront des services urbains;
(n) établir l’exigence minimale relative au stationnement
résidentiel de 1,2 place par habitation pour les maisons en rangée superposées
et les immeubles d’appartements situés dans le secteur suburbain C;
(o) rétablir l’exigence existante relative au
stationnement pour les maisons isolées, les maisons jumelées et les maisons en
rangée ŕ Stittsville qui sont situées ŕ 3 m ou moins de la route, afin de
permettre l’examen supplémentaire de changements possibles;
(p) créer une zone d’exception visant les
terrains situés au 2345, Alta Vista dont le zonage proposé est I1A, afin
d’autoriser un foyer de groupe, sous réserve qu’aucune distance de séparation
par rapport ŕ un autre foyer de groupe ne soit requise;
(q) créer une exception pour les terrains dont
le zonage actuel est CG‑6, afin de maintenir les exigences existantes
relatives aux zones tampons entre les parcs de stationnement et Irwin Gate ou
la terrasse Bachman;
(r) autoriser les établissements de services
pour enfants, sans limites concernant la taille maximale des établissements,
dans toutes les zones du parc commercial de Kanata Nord;
(s) changer de DR – zone d’aménagement
futur ŕ DR le zonage des 15, 23, 33 et 39, promenade Deerfox et des 3102, 3112,
3120, 3150 et 3162, avenue Woodroffe, en prévoyant une exception visant ŕ
interdire les utilisations agricoles mais ŕ autoriser sur les superficies de
lots actuelles une maison isolée qui n’est pas accessoire ŕ une utilisation
agricole.
Ŕ TITRE D’INFORMATION AU CONSEIL
Le
personnel a été chargé :
(a) de préparer le Rčglement
de zonage pour son adoption, ce qui signifie que le document devra intégrer
toute modification apportée par le Conseil ainsi que les modifications de
zonage aux anciens rčglements municipaux de zonage approuvées depuis novembre
2007;
(b) d’examiner
la liste des soumissions et des questions énumérées dans le Document 7 en vue de présenter des motions aux fins d’examen par le
Conseil.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 28 March 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0074).
2.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 8 April 2008.
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
28 March 2008 / le 28 mars 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the
Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et
Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Richard Kilstrom,
Manager/Gestionnaire,
Community
Planning and Design/Aménagement et conception communautaire
Planning
Branch/Direction de l'urbanisme
(613)
580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
That
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Aprove modifications to the December 7,
2007 City Council-approved Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1 (text) and Volume 2 (maps) brought forward by:
(a) Councillor motions to
review specific provisions, as detailed in Document 1;
(b) Submissions received
after the October 22 and 23, 2007 Planning and Environment Committee public
meetings with staff recommendations, as detailed in Document 2;
(c) Staff initiated
changes - zoning issues, noted in Document 3; and
(d) Staff-identified
corrections and anomalies, noted in Document 4.
2. Direct staff to prepare the Zoning
By-law for adoption, which will include any and all modifications by Council,
as well as Zoning By-law amendments to the former municipal Zoning By-laws
approved since November 2007.
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement recommande au Conseil :
1. d’approuver les modifications au volume
1 (texte) et au volume 2 (plans) du Rčglement de zonage général préliminaire
entériné par le Conseil municipal, lesquelles font suite :
a) aux motions des
conseillers portant examen de dispositions précises (v. le document 1);
b) aux commentaires reçus
aprčs les réunions publiques du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement qui
ont eu lieu les 22 et 23 octobre 2007 et aux recommandations du personnel (v.
le document 2);
c) aux solutions apportées
par le personnel concernant les problčmes de zonage (v. le document 3);
d) aux anomalies
répertoriées par le personnel et aux corrections proposées pour les résoudre
(v. le document 4);
2. de charger le personnel de préparer le
Rčglement de zonage pour son adoption, ce qui signifie que le document devra
intégrer toute modification apportée par le Conseil ainsi que les modifications
de zonage aux anciens rčglements municipaux de zonage approuvées depuis
novembre 2007.
Assumptions and Analysis:
This
report deals with the final approval of the new Comprehensive Zoning
By-law. Previous Planning and
Environment Committee (PEC) public meetings have been held, with all PEC
recommendations, as approved or modified by City Council on December 7, 2007;
incorporated into a clean copy of the final draft version, for additional
public review prior to final approval.
This final version was released, on the City's web site, to the public
on March 7, 2008 and is to be discussed at a final public meeting prior to
Council enactment of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Recommendation
1 deals with the four documents being presented to Planning and Environment
Committee for approval. Document 1 includes discussion and staff recommendation
on each of PEC’s motions for staff to review, including: higher density
residential use parking rates in suburban areas, amenity area requirements for
higher density residential uses and caps on rear yards in residential zones,
amongst others.
Document
2 discusses each submission received after the October 2007 PEC public meetings
but prior to March 7, 2008 and includes staff recommendations. Document 3
includes recommended new changes to the Draft Zoning By-law, based on
additional staff review, and deals with issues such as: retail and ancillary
service uses in Industrial zones, parking requirements for commercial uses on
ground floor in the Traditional Mainstreet zone, revisions of parking rates for
certain non-residential uses, amongst others.
Document 4 lists additional staff-initiated corrections and anomalies,
many of which are site-specific or technical in nature.
Recommendation 2 directs staff to prepare the Zoning By-law for final Council adoption, which will include all Council modifications as well as approved Zoning By-law amendments to former municipal Zoning By-laws since November 2007.
Financial
Implications:
Costs associated with the printing of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for adoption by City Council and the notice requirements as a result of approval of Recommendation 2 are estimated to be no more than $5,000 and the funds are available under the capital budget 900852 for this project.
Public
Consultation/Input:
Numerous consultations on the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law have been held since consultation on the project was initiated in 2005. This is the final scheduled PEC public hearing. There have been 41 submissions related to the Urban Area received since the October 2007 PEC meetings, although some are reflections of previous submissions and are noted as such. Staff will prepare a summary of submissions received after March 7, 2008 which will be made available at the April 8, 2008 PEC meeting.
Hypothčses et analyse :
Le
présent rapport porte sur l’approbation finale du nouveau Rčglement de zonage
général. Les réunions publiques du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
ont été tenues et les recommandations du Comité approuvées par le Conseil
municipal le 7 décembre 2007 sous la forme présentée ou modifiée ont été
intégrées ŕ la version préliminaire du Rčglement en vue d’un examen public
supplémentaire avant l’approbation finale. La version finale a été affichée sur
le site Internet de la Ville le 7 mars 2008 afin que les résidents puissent la
consulter et fera l’objet d’une derničre réunion publique avant l’adoption du
nouveau Rčglement par le Conseil.
La recommandation 1 porte sur les
quatre documents qui seront soumis ŕ l’approbation du Comité de l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement.
Le document 1 comprend les débats et
les recommandations du personnel sur chacune des motions du Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement qui devront ętre examinés par le personnel,
par exemple : les taux de stationnement dans les utilisations résidentielles de
haute densité des banlieues, les exigences relatives aux aires d’agrément dans
les utilisations résidentielles de haute densité et les limites ŕ prévoir pour
les cours arričre dans les zones résidentielles. Le document 2 contient tous
les commentaires reçus aprčs les réunions publiques tenues par le Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement en octobre 2007, mais avant le 7 mars 2008,
de męme que les recommandations du personnel.
Le document 3 présente les
modifications préconisées pour le Rčglement de zonage préliminaire ŕ la suite
d’un examen supplémentaire effectué par le personnel et traite entre autres des
sujets suivants : les utilisations de vente au détail et de services
auxiliaires permises dans les zones industrielles, les exigences de
stationnement pour les utilisations commerciales situées au rez de chaussée
d’un bâtiment dans la zone de rue principale traditionnelle et les taux de
stationnement pour certaines utilisations non résidentielles.
Le document 4 répertorie les
anomalies relevées par le personnel dans le Rčglement et les corrections
supplémentaires qui ont dű y ętre apportées; nombre d’entre elles se rattachent
ŕ un lieu particulier ou consistent en des modifications de forme.
La recommandation 2 fournit au
personnel les instructions nécessaires pour préparer le Rčglement de zonage en
vue de son adoption par le Conseil, ce qui signifie que celui-ci devra
comprendre toutes les modifications approuvées par le Conseil ainsi que les
modifications de zonage apportées aux anciens rčglements de zonage municipaux
depuis novembre 2007.
Répercussions financičres :
Les
coűts associés ŕ l’impression du Rčglement de zonage général pour son adoption
par le Conseil et ŕ la publication des avis en raison de l’approbation de la
recommandation 2 sont évalués ŕ 5 000 $ et les fonds nécessaires pour couvrir
ce montant ont déjŕ été réservés dans le poste 900852 du budget des
immobilisations.
Consultation publique / commentaires
:
De
nombreuses séances de consultation sur le Rčglement de zonage général
préliminaire ont eu lieu sous diverses formes depuis l’amorce des travaux en
2005. Cette audience publique est la derničre planifiée par le Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement dans ce dossier. Depuis les réunions
publiques tenues par le comité en octobre 2007, 41 commentaires ont été reçus ŕ
propos du secteur urbain. Quelques-uns de ceux-ci ressemblent ŕ certains des
commentaires recueillis auparavant, auquel cas une note en fait mention. Le
personnel préparera un résumé des commentaires reçus aprčs le 7 mars 2008 qui
sera distribué le 8 avril 2008 ŕ la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement.
On
December 7, 2007, City Council approved the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
and directed staff to release the final draft version of the document, which
was to include City Council disposition of the Planning and Environment
Committee (PEC) Recommendations 2 and 3 of the October 23, 2007 meeting
(report ACS2007-PTE-POL-0061), so as to allow stakeholders a final review of
the wording and mapping. In addition, a
final public meeting is to be held prior to City Council adoption of the
Comprehensive Zoning By-law to provide stakeholders an additional opportunity
to address Planning and Environment Committee, primarily with new
comments.
On
May 10, 2006 City Council approved the project and public consultation
timelines (report ACS2006-PGM-POL-0024) for the draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law project. The initial draft was
released on May 26, 2006, with a revised second draft for the urban area
(excluding the Greenbelt) released on May 1, 2007. Public meetings were held before the Planning and Environment
Committee on June 8 (report ACS2007-PTE-POL-0027), October 22 and 23, 2007 (report
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0061). A final draft of
the Comprehensive Zoning By-law including both Urban, Rural and Greenbelt
Areas, was released on March 7, 2008.
DISCUSSION
Recommendation 1
This
report details those issues that arose at, or following, the October 22 and 23,
2007 PEC and the December 7, 2007 Council meetings at which the draft
Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Urban Area was dealt with. The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law –
Urban Area was approved, with the recommendation that staff bring forward a
“clean copy” of the Zoning By‑law with all changes which Council approved
in December 2007.
In
addition, PEC directed staff to review a number of issues and bring forward
staff recommendations to be deliberated upon at the final public meeting. Amongst the issues, detailed in Document 1,
include parking rates for stacked dwellings and apartment buildings in the
suburban areas (Area C) of the city; amenity area requirements for higher
density residential uses; landscaped area requirements for small apartment
building and stacked dwelling developments; the minimum required rear yard
setback cap of 7.5 metres for some residential zones; and a few site-specific
zoning issues (Navan Road, Bentley and Hunt Club). The March 7, 2008 release on the web notes possible
additional changes to the By-law as a result of staff's responses to these
motions.
A
number of submissions were received following the PEC October 2007 meetings, of
which some are repetitions of previous submissions, while others are new. Staff have reviewed each submission and
provide recommendations in Document 2.
In
addition, staff identified a number of zoning issues that require further
consideration by Committee, as detailed in Document 3. Amongst these issues are reduced parking
requirements for ground floor uses in the Traditional Mainstreet zone; revised
parking rates for certain non-residential uses based on recent data; revisiting
the permission for retail and ancillary service uses in Industrial zones,
amongst other matters. The March 7 release on the web notes possible changes to
the By-law as a result of staff's recommendations on these zoning issues.
Document
4 details further site-specific and technical staff-initiated corrections or
anomalies.
Staff
will be reporting on all Rural and Greenbelt submissions received following the
Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) public meetings held in October
and November 2007, at a final public meeting to be held on April 10, 2008
before ARAC (report ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0075).
Recommendation
2
Following
the final public meeting, Planning and Environment Committee should recommend
that Council direct staff to prepare the final legal version of the
Comprehensive Zoning By-law for City Council adoption, anticipated at the end
of May 2008. The Comprehensive Zoning
By-law before City Council will include both the Urban and the Rural and
Greenbelt Areas. The Zoning By-law will
include all modifications as recommended by PEC and ARAC and approved by City
Council, including any further modifications by Council, as well as all Zoning
By-law amendments to existing Zoning By-laws since November 2007. The Comprehensive Zoning By-law will be
released on the City’s web site immediately following adoption.
Following
City Council adoption, any appeals to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law will be
forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for hearings. As approved by Council at its December 2007
meeting, should there be appeals, the most restrictive applicable provisions in
any particular case, of either the existing Zoning By-law of the affected
former municipality or the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, will apply until such
appeals are disposed of by the OMB.
Finally,
from time to time, staff will present to PEC update reports on outstanding
matters and appeals, as well as on identified anomalies to be corrected.
CITY
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
This
Comprehensive Zoning By-law will assist in satisfying the following City
Strategic Directions:
B. Transit
1. Attain transit goals (30 per cent modal
split) by 2021.
E. Sustainable Healthy and Active City
6. Require walking, transit and cycling
oriented communities and employment areas.
F. Planning and Growth Management
2.
Respect
the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard
services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established
communities
3.
Encourage
the development of existing employment lands to promote job creation and
minimize infrastructure costs.
H. Service Delivery
1. Continue
to improve the service culture at the City specifically so that it recognizes
and balances the needs of all citizens in their encounters with City services,
programs and staff, in both English and French pursuant to current policy.
The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area reflects the intent of the Official Plan, where zoning is considered an appropriate implementation mechanism, with respect to environmental policies.
Various and numerous consultations on the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, both for the Urban and Rural and Greenbelt Areas, have been held since consultation on the project was initiated in 2005. More particularly, staff have received approximately 480 written submissions related to the Urban Area to March 7, 2008.
The costs
of printing the final version of the Zoning By-law for Council adoption and
providing notice can be covered under the existing project budget.
Document
1 - Planning and Environment Committee Motions for Staff to Review
Document 2 - Public
Submissions Made Post October 22 and 23, 2007 PEC to March 7, 2008
Document 3 -
Staff-initiated changes - Zoning Issues
Document 4 - Staff-identified Corrections and Anomalies
Document 5 - Summary of Public Submissions Post March 7th, 2008 to April 4th, 2008
Document 6 - Additional Staff Corrections
Document 7 - List of Submissions and Issues for Review
Document 8 - List
of Written Submissions received by the Committee Coordinator, as of
April 11, 2008
Planning,
Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the final legal version of
the Comprehensive Zoning By-law – Urban Area for adoption, incorporating all
changes to the City Council-approved December 7, 2007 version; forward to Legal
Services Branch, and undertake statutory notification.
Legal Services Branch to forward implementing by-law to Council.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MOTIONS
FOR STAFF TO REVIEW DOCUMENT
1
(ITEM 5 DISPOSTION 19, FOLLOWING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF 22 AND 23 OCTOBER 2007)
The exact wording of each motion is included as the underlined title to each section.
(a) The extension of the GM23 H(22) zone southerly to the properties municipally known as 145, 149, 151 Bentley Avenue
The Official Plan delineation between the “Urban Area” designation and the “Employment Area” designation cuts through the properties known as 145, 149 and 151 Bentley Avenue following the curve of Hunt Club Road, rather than more closely following the rear property lines of those lots fronting on Hunt Club Road, known as 100 Hunt Club Road. Given the Official Plan boundary is not clearly defined in this area, and a portion of the lands are designated General Urban Area, staff can support a change of zoning from a Heavy Industrial (IH1 H(22)) zone to a General Mixed Use zone (GM23 H(22)) similar to the lands along Hunt Club Road. It should be noted the existing zoning permits a retail use limited to building supplies with no restrictions on size other than indirectly by the maximum 35% lot coverage.
Staff Recommendation
Revise the zoning of 145, 149, 151 Bentley Avenue to GM23 H(22).
(b)
A storage yard be allowed as an accessory use in the GM23H(22) zone.
The
proposed GM23 subzone currently permits a “storage yard limited to a fuel
storage tank farm”. No other types
of outdoor storage are permitted in the GM zone and in this subzone. The
existing MM-Industrial Manufacturing Zone in the former City of Nepean Zoning
By-law permits a fuel storage tank farm; as well, uses must be conducted either
entirely within an enclosed building or within an uncovered area associated
with a building, which is fully screened from streets and adjacent properties
by means of fencing and/or landscaping features and may not be located in a
front yard or closer to a street than the front wall of a building. As
accessory outdoor storage is permitted in the existing Zoning By-law subject to
screening requirements, staff are prepared to recommend that the proposed GM23
Subzone be revised to permit accessory outdoor storage contingent on these same
restrictions.
Revise the draft Zoning By-law to permit
accessory outdoor storage in the GM23 subzone provided:
-it is fully screened from streets and adjacent
properties by means of fencing or landscaping, and
-it may not be located in a front yard or
closer to a street than the front wall of a building.
(c) The minimum residential parking requirement for stacked dwellings and apartment dwellings in Area C be 1.2 spaces per dwelling, which does not include visitor parking.
Table 1 illustrates the Zoning By-law parking space requirements for apartment buildings and stacked dwellings in suburban areas for a select number of Canadian municipalities including those of former Region of Ottawa-Carleton. In some municipalities parking standards are based on the number of dwelling units regardless of size, while for others it varies by the unit size (i.e., number of bedrooms). From Table 1, below, it is observed that parking rates in larger cities (e.g., Calgary, Edmonton, former and amalgamated Toronto) are generally lower than those of smaller-sized municipalities, averaging around 1.0-1.2 space per unit for residents and 0.2 space per unit for visitors. These rates are in line with those currently proposed in Ottawa’s Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law (March 2008 release) – that is 1.0 space per unit for residents and 0.2 for visitors for Area C, which represents the suburban areas (i.e., Orleans, Stittsville, Kanata, Barrhaven) as well as areas along the inside edge of the Greenbelt.
|
Location |
Parking Spaces
for Stacked Dwellings (per unit) |
Parking Spaces
for Apartment Dwellings (per unit) |
||
|
Residents |
Visitor |
Residents |
Visitor |
|
|
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law –Area C |
1.0 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
|
Former Nepean (Urban) |
1.31 |
0.2 |
1.3 |
0.2 |
|
Former Gloucester |
1.22 |
0.3 |
1.2 |
0.3 |
|
Former Cumberland (Urban) |
1.2752 |
0.225 |
1.275 |
0.225 |
|
Former Goulbourn |
1.5 (including visitors) |
1.5 (including visitors) |
||
|
Former Kanata (Urban) |
1.0 or 1.5 (depending on
the Zone) |
0.25 or 0.75 (depending on
the Zone) |
1.5 |
0.25 |
Calgary |
1.05 |
0.15 |
1.05 |
0.15 |
|
Edmonton |
1.0-1.75 depending on the
unit size |
0.2 |
1.0-1.75 depending on the
unit size |
0.2 |
|
Winnipeg |
1.4 |
0.1 |
1.4 |
0.1 |
|
London |
1.5 (including visitors) |
1.25 (including visitors) |
||
|
Mississauga |
1.25-2 depending on the
unit size and tenure (i.e., rental vs. condo)3 |
0.25 |
1-1.75 depending on the
unit size and tenure (i.e., rental vs. condo) |
0.2 for rental; 0.25 for
condos |
|
Toronto - draft Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw (proposed rates) |
0.8 (for bachelor unit) to
1.2 (for 3-bedroom unit) |
0.2 |
0.8 (for bachelor unit) to
1.2 (for 3-bedroom unit)4 |
0.2 |
|
Former North York |
1.51 |
0.25 |
1.25 |
0.25 |
|
Former City of Toronto |
Data not available |
15 |
0.25 |
|
|
Former Etobicoke |
Data not available |
1.05-1.35 depending on the
unit size |
0.2 |
|
|
Former Scarborough |
Data not available |
1.1 if rental; 1.2 if
condo |
0.2 |
|
Notes:
Of note, the parking rates shown for Toronto are based on a recent large-scale parking study commissioned by the amalgamated City of Toronto as part of the development of its new Zoning By-law in order to determine minimum and maximum (where applicable) parking standards for apartment buildings and townhouses. The study involved a survey of more than 9,000 households in both condominium and rental apartment buildings. The main purpose of the survey was to analyse the relationship between the households’ car ownership level and parking needs accounting for a range of physical and locational factors such as type and size of units, type of building, tenure (rent versus own), and locational class (i.e., Downtown; Avenues; Designated Centres; Rest of City) to name a few. Based on the analysis results, the study has recommended parking rates that vary by type of unit (bachelor, one, two and three plus bedrooms) and by location. The proposed minimum parking standards for the ‘Rest of City’ category (i.e., areas in the general urban area, which are closely related to the Area C in the City of Ottawa Draft Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw) are as follows:
Bachelor: 0.8/unit + 0.2/unit visitor
1-bedroom: 0.9/unit + 0.2/unit visitor
2-bedroom: 1.0/unit + 0.2/unit visitor
3+bedroom: 1.2/unit + 0.2/unit visitor
In addition to the review of Zoning By-laws in other Canadian jurisdictions, staff conducted a limited survey of a sample of apartment buildings and stacked dwellings complexes in Ottawa’s suburban areas in December 2007.
The main purpose of the survey was to try to obtain information on the level of parking demand/supply for the above uses that reflect local conditions. Additionally, a number of recent development application files were reviewed to examine the parking supply vis-ŕ-vis the parking requirements. The results are illustrated in Table 2.
|
Location |
Number of units |
Number of
vehicles owned by residents |
Parking Spaces:
Stacked Dwellings |
Parking Spaces:
Apartment Buildings |
||
|
Required |
Supplied |
Required |
Supplied |
|||
|
Gloucester: Miss Ottawa project1 1380 Ogilvie Road Place des Gouveneur 1599 Lassiter Terrace |
42 86 128 156 |
n/a 65 132 (estimate) 166 |
63 107 - - |
66 146 - - |
- - 154 234 |
- - 155 198 |
|
Nepean: 251 Deercroft 2380 Baseline1 |
144 140 |
144 (estimate) n/a |
180 - |
177 - |
- 210 |
- 182 |
|
Kanata: 111 Hope Side Road |
96 |
n/a |
168 |
168 |
- |
- |
Notes:
The above Table 2 shows that the total number of parking spaces provided is close to (and generally lower than) the existing Zoning By-law requirement of respective former municipalities averaging around 1.33 spaces per unit including visitor parking. The number of vehicles owned by residents of these buildings (which is an indicator of residents demand for parking) is also generally lower than the number of supplied parking spaces for residents, averaging around 1 vehicle per unit. Of note, one of the surveyed sites indicated concerns with respect to lack of visitor parking during weekends/holidays.
Based on the information in Table 2 and as described above, it is recommended that the proposed minimum parking requirement for apartment buildings and stacked dwellings in Area C be increased to 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit excluding visitor parking. The visitor parking would remain unchanged at 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit. While the new rate is slightly lower than the rate of 1.2 for these residential uses, as directed in the motion by the Planning and Environment Committee for review by staff, it is in line with the City’s Official Plan policies of reducing automobile use, the needs of residents and visitors, as well as prevailing market conditions.
Note, also, that staff are recommending an additional change to permit both required minimum parking as well as required visitor parking to be allowed in tandem in a driveway where each unit has its own driveway accessing a garage or carport, to enable the required parking and required visitor parking to be met on individual properties in all geographical areas of the city.
(d) The
“Amenity areas” definition be restored and that amenity area requirement be
re-instated indoor and outdoor wherever they are removed.
Staff agree that amenity area requirements
should be reintroduced into the new Zoning By-law, but with some modifications
from the existing approaches used in the current former municipality’s Zoning
By-laws.
The proposed regulations retain the numerical
requirement existing in former Ottawa; however, the minor requirement of 1.0
square metre for indoor communal amenity area has been removed as it is
considered onerous and inflexible. The
proposed regulations affect higher density uses, including apartments, stacked
dwellings, retirement homes and residential care facilities, as well as planned
unit developments of those uses.
Overall, the regulations are meant to ensure that there is some useable
communal amenity area on-site. The
definition has been expanded from the typical amenity area definition, to
indicate that rooftop gardens, balconies and patios are considered to be
amenity areas, while it should be clarified that laundry and locker facilities
are not to be counted within any amenity area requirement.
Revise the draft Zoning By-law to add a new
definition for amenity area, as follows:
“Amenity
area means the total passive or active
recreational area provided on a lot for the personal, shared or communal use of
the residents of a building or buildings, and includes balconies, patios,
rooftop gardens and other similar features, but does not include indoor laundry
or locker facilities;”
Revise the draft Zoning By-law to add a new Section 137 – Amenity Area in Part 5, Residential Regulations:
Amenity Area (Section 137)
(1)
Amenity area must be provided for a residential use that is a permitted use in
the zone in which it is located, in accordance with Table 137.
(2)
Amenity area must be located on the same lot as the use for which it is
provided.
(3) Amenity area provided outdoors must not be located in a required front or corner side yard.
(4)
Where amenity area is located outside at grade, it may be included in the
calculation of landscaped area requirements.
(5)
Minimum required communal amenity area may only be included as part of a
required landscaped buffer where it is aggregated into areas of 54m2 or
more.
Table
137- Amenity Area
|
I Land Use |
II Total Amenity Area |
III Communal Amenity Area |
IV Layout of Communal Amenity Area |
|
(1) Apartment Building, low rise
of more than four units |
6m2 per dwelling
unit, and 10% of the gross floor area of each rooming unit |
A minimum of 50% of the required
total amenity area |
Aggregated into areas up to 54 m2,
and where more than one aggregated area is provided, at least one must be a
minimum of 54 m2 |
|
(2) Apartment Building, mid-high
rise |
|||
|
(3) Mixed Use Building with 9 or
more dwelling units or rooming units |
|||
|
(4) Stacked dwelling of 9 or
more dwelling units |
|||
|
(5) Retirement Home |
|||
|
(6) Retirement Home, Converted |
|||
|
(7) Residential care facility |
10% of the gross floor area of
each rooming unit |
All of the total amenity area |
|
|
(8) PUDs |
As per dwelling type |
As per dwelling type |
As per dwelling type |
|
(9) Other uses |
Not required |
||
(e). The addresses at 2820 to 2878 Navan Road be reinstated as single residential zoning, with a holding provision requiring that any future developments on these lands be subject to completion of site servicing requirements to the satisfaction of the City.
The proposed DR zoning reflects both the
current FG-Future Growth zoning in the Gloucester Zoning By-law and the
Developing Communities designation in the Official Plan, and is therefore
appropriate at this time. Prior to the current FG zoning, these lands were
zoned Rg-Rural General in the former Gloucester Zoning By-law 222-1984. Like
the current FG and proposed DR zones, the Rg zone limited development to one
single dwelling unit per lot. At no point in recent history have these lands
been zoned for urban residential development.
As
these lands will be a part of Phase II of the East Urban Community Design Plan
(CDP), which is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2008, it is recommended
that the proposed zoning of 2820 Navan Road to 2878 Navan Road remain DR
in the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The CDP process will determine the
appropriate zoning for these lands through a more detailed analysis of the
area.
No change
(f). The R4 Zone, Endnote 2 be deleted: “despite Section 161 (8), where an apartment building, low-rise of four units or stacked dwelling of up to eight units is not within a Planned Unit Development, no landscaped area is required.”
Given that there is a four-unit limit in the case of any apartment, low-rise in many R4 zones to which Endnote 2 applies; requiring landscaping for developments with only a few units in what is otherwise a mid-density residential zone, would further constrain opportunities for small-scale intensification. Given that a triplex would not be subject to any landscaping, adding one more unit should not necessitate landscaping requirements. Similarly, a stacked dwelling of four pairs of units is also considered too small a land use to necessitate additional landscaping requirements. Such requirements take up additional land which could make infill more onerous, despite the already limited density permitted.
Moreover, there are requirements for the landscaping of all yards where there are no driveways, walkways or paths, in addition to landscaping along the perimeter of any on-site parking lot.
No change.
(g). The R4 Zone, Endnote 4 be deleted: “Minimum rear yard setback is
25% of the lot depth and no less than 25% of the lot area, however it need not
exceed 7.5 m”.
The minimum rear yard setback of 25 per cent of the lot depth, which must comprise at least 25% of the area of the lot, however it need not exceed 7.5 metres; is a city-wide standard found not only in Endnote 4 of the R4 zone, but in various Endnotes throughout all of the residential zone categories (R1-R5). Therefore, if the requirement were to be changed, to be consistent, all affected residential zones and Endnotes would need to be revised.
The 7.5-metre cap is a standard number as found throughout the various former municipalities’ Zoning By-laws; it is based on 25 per cent of a lot with a depth of 30 metres. Most required a standard 7.5 metres, while former Ottawa translated their former zoning by-law requirement of 7.6 metres to a 25 per cent of the lot depth which must comprise at least 25 per cent of the area of the lot, with the cap of 7.5 metres in Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998.
Endnote 4 of the R4 Zone, as well as other Endnotes, carried forward the Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 standard, the effect of which is to enable smaller rear yard setbacks on lots of less than 30 metres; the standard 7.5 metres on lots of 30-metre lot depth, and the city-wide standard of 7.5 metres continuing as the cap. To remove the cap will require a higher rear yard setback than the longstanding regulation of 7.5 metres found throughout many existing Zoning By-laws, and could result in non-compliance across the city for those lots of a depth greater than 30 metres which might have built beyond the 7.5-metre setback. However, it must also be noted that most dwellings on deep lots do not extend as far back as the minimum 7.5 metres and indeed end up with much larger rear yards than the minimum required.
The vast majority of lots in the urban area are not deeper than 30 metres. Moreover, the R4 Zone, which is the zone standard under discussion, is precisely where a cap of the standard 7.5 metres should continue, given that it is the second highest density residential zone. At this density level, infill of higher density residential uses should be both permitted and expected, and requiring a larger than standard setback would be at odds with the Official Plan objectives of intensification.
The overall nature of the neighbourhood should be focussed on the streetscape, with front and side yards maintained, as well as height. Increasing the cap could affect the viability of infill and redevelopment. The concern centers mostly on lots where rear yard additions are requested.
Since the newer developing
communities are in fact recognizing smaller rear yard setbacks of
6.0 metres rather than the traditional 7.5 metres, the trend is towards
smaller, or shallower lots and not towards deep lots of greater than 30
metres. In those instances, a 6.0-metre
rear yard minimum will be required.
No change.
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS – POST OCTOBER 23,
2007 PEC MEETING TO
MARCH 7, 2008 DOCUMENT 2
|
Address and Ward Number (Name) |
Description |
Discussion |
Staff Recommendation |
|
Citywide (Ontario
Realty Corporation) |
General comments regarding Hydro Corridor lands. |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of the by-law (subject to some minor adjustments to boundaries based on land ownership) |
No further change required |
|
Citywide (Doug Kelly) |
Visitor parking for stacked dwellings |
Request that the draft regulation exempting multiple dwellings from
visitor parking requirements where there are individual driveways (where
visitors could park), be extended to also apply in the case of stacked
dwellings designed with each unit having its own driveway. |
Staff recommends that Section 102 (Minimum Visitor
Parking Rates) be modified to permit required visitor parking in tandem in a
driveway where each dwelling unit has a driveway accessing its own garage or
carport, and have this apply to both multiple dwellings as well as to stacked
dwellings. |
|
City-wide (Conservation Partners) |
Retain watercourse setbacks in by-law for all development. |
Watercourse setback in Zoning By-law has been re-instated for
development not subject to Site Plan Control Approval or Plan of Subdivision;
and for development subject to these processes, the watercourse setback
policy of the Official Plan will be implemented through those application
processes as it is considered more effective. |
Change made to establish setback in Zoning
By-law for development not subject to site plan and plan of subdivision
approval, but staff feels it is more effective to apply the setback through
site plan or plan of subdivision. |
|
Citywide (Loblaw Properties Limited) |
Comments
regarding the definition of Gross Leasable Floor Area and Shopping Centre; parking requirements in the TM zone; the depiction of future transit station on Schedules 2A and 2B; and the illustration of parking lot landscaping. |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of by-law As a point of clarification, the full perimeter of a parking lot
means along all abutting lot lines and building walls- thus, the entire edge
of the parking lot; note that landscaping includes walkways and hard
landscaping |
No change required |
|
Orleans Town Centre Ward 1 (Richard Abboud – Forum Leasehold) |
Inconsistencies between current and proposed zoning as
they related to proposed development on town centre lands. |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of by-law (subject to some
minor adjustments to zone boundaries) |
No change required |
|
(Novatech
Engineering Consultants Ltd) |
Revise zone boundaries to reflect the registered plans. |
||
|
1887 St. Joseph Blvd. Ward 1 (ECL Properties Limited) |
Subject lands should not be impacted by either Section 103 (1) or (2) of the draft bylaw which imposes maximum parking requirements in proximity to rapid transit stations, if the property is within 600 m (direct line) or 800 m (actual walking distance) from a rapid transit station. |
Staff have reviewed the site and calculated the distances from the north and south transit station to the closest property lot line on Youville Dr. and have confirmed that the existing perpendicular and walking distances are within the area subject to the maximum parking requirements. Even adding the 120 m distance from the northern property line to the main building's footprint (spot furthest away from the rapid transit station), brings the 'crow distance' and walking distance to the transit station to 520 m and 770 m, respectively. Recognizing minor variations in aerial photography measurements, these distances satisfy both subsections (1) and (2) of the Section 103 of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law. |
Do not support change |
|
3581 Innes Ward 2 (De Almeida) |
Request a change from Residential zoning (current
Rs3, proposed R1WW) to Local Commercial (LC) zoning. Neighbour has submitted a rezoning request
to Commercial, and being located on Innes Road it would be appropriate to
redevelop the site for commercial uses. |
The site is currently zoned Rs3, which is a
low-density residential zone limited to detached dwellings, and similar uses,
with no permission for commercial. Current zoning is reflected in the new draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Site-specific rezonings to change from a residential to a
commercial zone are not contemplated in this project unless directed |
Do not support change |
|
2727 Innes Road Ward 2 (Paramount Properties) |
Request that height limit on zoning map be changed
from 22 metres to 25.2 metres to reflect actual building height as per
building the permit. |
Permit indicates an approved height of 82’7”. |
Change the height limit for 2727 Innes Road from 22
metres to 26 metres to recognize the actual height of the existing buildings. |
|
3231 Cedarville Road Ward 3 (Estate of William Clarke) |
Section 9 (Transition) is unclear and the definition of Expropriation is too narrow |
Council carried PEC’s recommendation of not supporting
the allowance of minor variance approvals to be effective in perpetuity, as
the variances granted may ultimately be in conflict with long-term planning
objectives. The transition period for all application processes has been
extended to three years from the date of Council approval of the new Zoning
By-law. Where the three-year transition period is determined
to be insufficient, application can be made to the Committee of Adjustment to
extend this time. A revision has been made to the definition of expropriation to
include conveyances to, and expropriation by, the City or any other
authorities having the power of expropriation. |
Do not support change |
|
Morgan's Grant Ward 4 (Minto) |
Remove the holding symbol from the Morgan's Grant lands. |
An amendment to remove the holding symbol is in process and will
ultimately be reflected in the draft by-law following Council approval |
Will be addressed in draft by-law once
amendment is approved |
|
11-50
Turtle Point Way & 15-129 Marsh Sparrow Ward 4 (Kanata Research Park Corporation) |
The proposed zoning map for this area shows several inconsistencies in the R3X zone boundaries as they relate to the approved lot lines. |
Agreed – maps will be modified to more actually reflect the actual
lot boundaries. |
Revise R3X boundary to follow lot lines |
|
Definitions |
Definition of golf course should be expanded to allow pro shop, club house, banquet facilities |
These are considered to be accessory uses to a golf course, so do not
have to be added to the definition |
No change required |
|
Call Centre is not a listed permitted use |
Call centre is considered to be an office use in the draft by-law |
||
|
A combined research, laboratory and related manufacturing facility is not a listed permitted use |
This would constitute a technology industry in the draft by-law |
||
|
525,555
Legget Drive; 2505 Solandt Drive, 373 Legget Drive; 340,400 Legget Drive Ward 4 |
Recognize sharing of parking now occurring on these sites |
Concur- add an exception to exempt these sites from the requirement
for parking to be on-site (Section 100(1)(c)) |
Create and apply an exception to these
sites which exempts them from Section 100(1)(c) |
|
Maximum
Parking Rate Near Rapid Transit Stations |
Exempt
IP6, IG3 and IG4 Subzones from this requirement |
This requirement
emanates from Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan policies and
should continue to apply |
Do not support
change |
|
IP6, IG3,
IG4 Subzones |
Delete maximum 2.0 FSI |
A 2.0 fsi is a reasonable standard for an industrial park, consistent
with other industrial zones and generally represents an increase from
existing size restrictions. Work being undertaken regarding the City’s
Employment lands may provide opportunities to review the development
potential of these areas. |
Do not support change at this time |
|
IP6[301]
H(60) Subzone (515,525,535, 555
Legget Drive) Ward 4 |
Expand list of permitted uses to include a range of commercial uses |
Existing M2S(7) Zone is reflected in the proposed IP6[301] H(60)
Zoning, with the exception of artist studio, day care, instructional
facility, place of assembly, personal service business, restaurant and retail
store- the maximum floor area limit
of 3,716m2 for these uses in the existing by-law should be
retained |
Revise exception[310] to permit artist studio, instructional facility
and place of assembly; day care, personal service business, restaurant and
retail store also to be permitted provided the combined gross floor area of these uses plus
a medical facility does not exceed 3,716 square
metres |
|
IP8 H(15)
Subzone (175,275,425 March Valley Drive) Ward 4 |
Reflect location of Marshes Golf Course; golf driving range, golf maintenance facility, place of assembly |
Concur- reflect location of permanent portion of golf course (some
areas are zoned for a temporary use); driving range, maintenance facility are
accessory uses. Place of assembly should only be added through a Zoning
By-law amendment (note that a banquet hall as part of the club house is
considered an accessory use) |
Revise zoning to create exception to
reflect permanent golf course |
|
IG3 H(22) Subzone (415 Legget Drive) Ward 4 |
Add instructional facility, place of assembly, amusement centre, amusement park, artist studio, call centre, day care; delete Table 200C entirely |
Concur - reflect the existing M2 Zone by adding instructional
facility and place of assembly as permitted uses; day care is already
permitted and call centre is already permitted as an office; the other uses
are not currently permitted and should be subject to a Zoning By-law
amendment. Table 200C reflects existing zoning and should be retained |
Create new exception for these lands which
permits instructional facility and place of assembly Do not support change |
|
IG4 H(22) Subzone (340,390,400 Legget Drive) Ward 4 |
Add instructional facility, amusement centre, amusement
park, artist studio, call centre, day care; delete Table 200D entirely |
Concur - reflect the existing M1 Zone by adding instructional
facility as permitted use; day care is already permitted and call centre is
already permitted as an office; the other uses are not currently permitted
and should be subject to a Zoning By-law amendment. Table 200D reflects existing zoning performance standards and should
be retained |
Create new exception for these lands which
permits instructional facility Do not support change |
|
555 and 591 March Road Ward 4 (Novatech Engineering) |
Revise proposed GM[1149] H(12) and GM[1084] H(12) to reflect existing C1S(3) and C1S(4) Zones |
Concur- place entire site in an IG4 H(12) Subzone to reflect Official
Plan Employment Area designation, and retain and revise the two exceptions to
reflect existing provisions |
Revise zoning of these lands to place both
sites in an IG4 H(12) Subzone while retaining the exceptions Revise exception [1149] to allow animal
hospital, instructional facility, post office, retail store, retail food
store, convenience store, personal service business, restaurant,
drive-through facility and recreational and athletic facility Revise exception [1084] to allow animal
hospital, instructional facility, post office, retail store, retail food
store, convenience store, personal service business, restaurant,
drive-through facility, recreational and athletic facility, automobile
service station and car wash Revise both exceptions
to eliminate the 300m2 size limit for commercial uses -revise both exceptions to reduce the
minimum lot width to 40 metres, the front and corner side yard to 10 m. and
the interior side and rear yards to 3.8m. |
|
1145 Stittsville Main Street Ward 6 (Ottawa Catholic School Board) |
Revise zoning from R3Z[728] to recognize elementary school now under construction |
Concur - place site in I1B H(15)- Minor Institutional Zone to
recognize school |
Revise zoning of site to I1B H(15) |
|
2 Wildpine Court Ward 6 (Wildpine Holdings Inc.) |
Request that the height limitation be maintained at 15 metres, given the approved site plan at the 15 m rather than the newly-proposed maximum height of 11 m. Objecting to the Conservation and Flood plain zoning, indicating that the location of the floodplain is incorrect, although acknowledging that a portion of the site lies within the floodplain |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of by-law The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority has been
consulted on this matter, and they found that the location
of the floodplain overlay is accurate.
If the creek itself has shifted slightly within its meander belt since
the time the floodplain mapping was produced, the regulatory flood line (100
year flood) will still not have changed.
The flood line appears to follow the base of a slope that confines the
low, flat wetland area. |
No change required Do not support change |
|
Scotiabank
Place Lands 1000
Palladium Drive Ward 6 (Scotiabank
Place) |
The proposed restriction of the FSI is inconsistent with the Kanata West Concept Plan (KWCP) and Official Plan designations and policies for intensive development of the lands. |
Concur - Scotiabank Place does not currently have a maximum FSI, so this 2.0 FSI restriction should be removed, however, there is an existing 60-metre height limit which should be carried forward. |
Remove the maximum FSI from these lands, but add a
60-metre height limitation. |
|
Lazy Nol
Court and Poole Creek Crescent - Ward 6 (Phil Sweetnam) |
Request mapping changes from Open Space zone to Residential zone to align with property boundaries. |
The proposed zoning lines reflect the current zoning lines which were
not geo-referenced as they are now available under the new Zoning By-law. It
is appropriate to revise the zoning lines for those properties on Poole Creek
Crescent and Lazy Nol Court such that the rear of the properties are zoned
residential rather than open space. |
Revise zoning boundaries |
|
1001
Canadian Shield Avenue Ward 6 (Fotenn Consulting Ltd.) |
The site has a draft zoning of MC [142]-h F(1.5) and notes that the current site-specific policies indicate a minimum FSI of 1.5, rather than a maximum FSI of 1.5. Please confirm whether error in placing a maximum FSI of 1.5 |
Has been rezoned to DR-Development Reserve in March 2008 release of
by-law in order to allow for a full public
process to occur when the lands are rezoned for development. The DR Zone
is similar to and in fact less restrictive in its range of permitted uses
than the existing TC-H: Town Centre Holding Zone |
Do not support change |
|
Woodpark Community Ward 7 (Woodpark Community Association) |
Comprehensive comments regarding the by-law as they affect the Woodpark Community. |
Many of the comments are reflective of their previous submission
already dealt with by Council wherein it concurred with staff to not delete
the various affordable housing types of land uses, including secondary
dwelling units, converted dwellings, retirement homes, converted and rooming
houses, converted , as to do so conflicts with OP policies. See Document 4 (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0061) for staff response to
Woodpark’s requests, raised by Councillor motion, to have two R4 Endnotes
deleted or revised (Document 1 herein, Items f and g). The Association continues to request rear yards based on the average
of the block face, but has increased the cap from 7.5 to 10 m in this latest
submission. |
Do not support |
|
271 West
Hunt Club Ward 9 (Kestrel
Properties Inc.) |
Permit
storage yard as an accessory use to a subzone of the General Mixed-Use zone
(currently restricted to fuel storage tank farm only). |
Permit a storage yard by deleting the words “limited to
fuel storage tank farm” |
|
|
815-835 Taylor Creek 174 Cleopatra Drive Wards 1 and 9 (Controlex) |
Don’t agree with 300 m limit for each use and total limit of 25% of
lot area for complementary commercial occupancies; increase to 25% of
permitted floor space index. |
The industrially zoned properties at Taylor Creek and Cleopatra Drive
currently permit a limited range and broader range of ancillary uses
respectively, however all uses in these existing industrial zones are
currently limited to a 40% and 35% lot coverage respectively. The proposed total 25% of lot area
restrictions on ancillary uses are intended to limit the use of industrial
sites for non-employment uses while still providing service uses to employees
of these area. It should be noted that the proposed zoning does however
increase the lot coverage to 65% which has the effect of increasing the
development potential for employment uses. |
Do not support change |
|
1216 Hunt Club Road Ward 10 (Assunnah Muslims Association) |
Modify zoning to reflect the proposed Mosque project. |
Concur- create site-specific exception to reflect 5.0-m rear yard
setback in approved site plan
(exception [1343] shown on zoning maps is an anomaly) |
Delete reference to exception [1343] and
add new exception that permits a minimum rear yard setback of 5 metres |
|
Rideau
Centre Ward 12 (Viking Rideau Corporation) |
Request that an exception be created for the Rideau Centre’s existing parking garage at Nicholas and Daly to exempt it from providing retail at grade in the event that it is reconstructed |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of the by-law |
No change required |
|
Block bounded by Thomas, Stanley, John, and Charles Streets Ward 13 (Timburwal Development Inc.) |
Request that development rights under current Ottawa 93-98 By-law be retained with regard to development within the floodplain. |
The
delineation of the floodplain overlay between the former Ottawa Zoning By-law
and the draft Zoning By-law has not changed. The entire block is located
within the 100-year floodplain. There are
more restrictions on development within the floodplain with the new Zoning
By-law reflecting the new Provincial Policy Statement and the stronger
prohibition on development in the floodplain. There are no mitigating
circumstances or initiatives at this time which would qualify these lands for
the status of flood fringe or area of flood reduction. |
Do not
support change |
|
Rockcliffe Park Ward 13 (Iola Price) |
Names of numerous streets are either incorrect or omitted from Schedule 5; Unable to find setbacks and lot sizes for the I1A zone |
Schedule 5 was deleted in the May 2007 Draft; with exceptions placed on Rockcliffe Park in response to concerns with respect to FSI. The new mapping (not Schedule 1 but the map) for the neighbourhood has all of the proper street names The lot requirements for I1A are noted in Table 170 A; Rockcliffe Park in Area C of Schedule 1 |
No
change required |
|
301 Elgin Street Ward 14 (Mr. Brian Karam) |
Restaurants in the TM zones be permitted above and below grade, and
not only at grade Parking requirements be eliminated in the TM Zone or at least along
Elgin up to Gladstone Request offices at grade in TM Allow rooftop amenities for hotels. |
Restaurants are restricted to ground floor locations to reflect the
existing zoning, resulting from the Elgin Street Study Parking requirements have been eliminated for a portion of the ground
floor, but must be provided for all other floor area, to acknowledge that
on-street parking is often insufficient to accommodate demand Office may be located at grade, but not within 6 metres of the front
property line, as it is not a pedestrian- oriented or active use The draft by-law does not prevent these uses |
Do not support change Do not support change Do not support change No change required |
|
240
Catherine Street Ward 14 (Metcalfe
Realty Company Ltd) |
Current
old Ottawa zoning permits a medical facility; however, the new zoning
prohibits the use. Requests
that medical facility be added as a permitted use or the zoning be changed to
allow the continued use of the property for medical purposes. |
This would appear to be
an anomaly that should be corrected to continue the permitted use of the site
for a medical facility. |
Recommend that the GM3 subzone be modified
to include medical facility in the list of permitted uses. |
|
801 Wellington Street Ward 14 (DCR Phoenix Corp.) |
Allow FSI of 2.9 on the subject site. |
||
|
314 Athlone Ward 15 (Robert Bailey on behalf of Lynn Erichsen) |
Allow offices on ground floor similar to existing zoning. |
||
|
Island Park Drive, Patricia Ave. and Clearview Ave. Ward 15 (Marcella and David Winship) |
Request that an isolated
piece of land located at the back of the properties of about 10 houses
located on Island Park Drive, Patricia Ave. and Clearview Ave. be re-zoned
for leisure or for open space use. |
The subject lands currently have a residential zoning in the 1998-93
by-law and also had a residential zoning in the former Z2K by-law. As such,
the proposed residential zoning for these lands is appropriate. The lands may
be offered at some time in the future for sale to adjoining property owners
and therefore a residential zone is appropriate. |
Do not support change |
|
Laurentian High School Ward 16 (Smart! Centres) |
Zone Laurentian High School site as an Arterial Mainstreet
zone rather than an Institutional zone. |
On many of the city’s Traditional and Arterial
Mainstreets, existing schools and residential buildings have not been rezoned
to the TM or AM zone, rather these have remained as institutional or
residential zones. This approach is
compatible with Official Plan policies regarding Mainstreets. School sites
that are declared surplus and no longer used for institutional uses are
required to go through a rezoning process. |
Do not support change |
|
1170 Walkley Road and 1920 Bank Street Ward 16 (Andrex Holdings) |
Add hotel as a permitted use in the GM 1F(1.22) H (35) zone for the property at 1170 Walkley Road. Current CG [879] F(1.22) H(35.0) zoning does not allow hotel either. |
The proposed zoning reflects the existing zoning. This request would be better reviewed through a site specific rezoning application as is currently underway. Should the rezoning be approved, this will be reflected in the new Zoning By-law. |
Do not support change at this time |
|
1375 Prince of Wales Drive Ward 16 (Paramount Properties) |
Request that height limit on zoning map be changed from 54 metres to 82.3 metres to reflect actual building height as per the building permit. |
Change the height limit for 1375 Prince of Wales Drive
from 54 metres to 83 metres to recognize the actual height of the existing
buildings. |
|
|
360 Bell Street Ward 17 (Soloway
Wright) |
Request
that the existing high-rise apartment building be made to conform. |
The
high-rise apartment building was built in conformity with the Zoning By-law
of that time (AZ-64) when built in 1971, but became non-complying as to
height in 1987, the height was revised following an Interim Control (IC)
by-law and study to a maximum 13.2m (which is a 3.5-4‑storey
building). The IC results reconfirmed
that the area should remain low-rise in height. Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 carried forward the height limit,
which led to the preclusion of the high-rise apartment use from the area. The new Zoning By-law project does not have the
mandate to acknowledge and legalize non-complying or non-conforming
situations. Where future development is proposed for this site,
the development approval process would be the
appropriate method to request an increase in height. |
|
85 Plymouth Ward 17 (Taggart Realty) |
The proposed zoning has this property zoned as TM[36] H(11)(13.2) S128
and L1. The adjacent properties along this part of Bronson Ave are to be
zoned TM H(18.5). Requesting that the property have single zoning, that being TM, and that
exception [36] and Schedule 128 be removed. Removal of exception [36] would
allow uses other than office and increase the allowable FSI thereby bringing the zoning of this property in line
with the intention of the TM zone. The removal of Schedule 128 would lift the height limit and thereby
also allow development of the property to be in keeping with the TM zone for
Bronson Avenue which aims for a consistent street frontage, building height
and massing. The adjacent TM zoned properties fronting this
part of Bronson Avenue have a height limit of 18.5m allowing for 5 storeys
whereas this property’s height limit allows for only two on the west 30 m and three on the east
portion. |
Concur that the L1 Zones should be removed as they apply
to an accessory parking lot (TM would be the most logical zoning). The height, schedule and exception were carried forward from the existing zoning by-law. Removal of the heights and exception should be handled as a separate zoning by-law amendment to ensure a proper public consultation process. However, as the heights are already shown on the maps, the schedule is redundant and can be removed as it also shows only the heights |
Revise the L1 H(11)zone to TM[36] H(11), and the L1
H(13.2)zone to TM[36] H(13.2) Delete Schedule 128 and the references on the zoning
maps and text |
|
1525 Alta Vista Ward 18 (Paramount Properties) |
Request that height limit on zoning map be changed from 54 metres to
67.06 metres to reflect actual building height as per the building permit. |
Change the height limit for 1525 Alta Vista Drive from
54 metres to 68 metres to recognize the actual height of the existing
buildings. |
|
|
Citywide, 3033 Woodroffe Avenue, 3730 and 3868 Innes Road. Wards 22 and 2 (Trinity Development Group) |
Comments
regarding the definition of Gross Leasable Floor Area and Shopping Centre;
parking requirements in the TM zone; the depiction of future transit station
on Schedules 2A and 2B; and the illustration of parking lot landscaping. Request that a new exception be included for this
property to reflect the Ontario Municipal Board Decision #2652, issued on
September 21, 2006. Request that the site be zoned as an Arterial Mainstreet subzone or as an Exception. |
Has been addressed in March 2008 release of by-law All OMB decisions will be reflected in the final by-law document |
No change required Will be included in final by-law document |
|
701 Cedar Creek Drive and the Southeast corner of White Alder Avenue
and Meadowlilly Drive 4798 Bank Street Ward 22 (Tartan Land Consultants Inc.) |
Request
that the existing Gloucester 5.0 m front and rear yard setback requirements
be reinstated instead of the proposed 6.0 m in the proposed R5A subzone. Request
that the lands be zoned R3VV(1318) instead of the proposed DR Please confirm that for apartment dwellings in area C, a minimum number of parking spots is 1 spot per dwelling unit + 0.2 visitor spots per dwelling unit? |
The other sites with
this zoning in former Gloucester are already built up with apartments, which
are predominately built back from the street. |
|
|
20 Frank Nighbour Place Ward 23 (Regional Group) |
Proposed zoning is not consistent with Official Plan policies. A broad range of retail should be permitted. |
Current and proposed zoning limit retail to a wide variety of home
renovation related retail development. This limitation was established
through site-specific review and an expansion of the types of retail
permitted should be deal with through a site-specific zoning amendment
applications. |
|
|
5264 Fernbank Ward 23 (DIR Developments) |
Requesting the addition of the following uses to the I1A zone which
are felt to complement the proposed list of permitted uses: -accessory retail to a permitted use; - training centre; - funeral home; - medical facility; - office Some of these uses are currently permitted in the Goulbourn Zoning
By-law. The other uses complement, or
are permitted pursuant to the Enterprise Area designation of the Official
Plan. |
The proposed I1A Zoning is intended to reflect existing permitted
uses. Any of the additional uses should be handled via a zoning by-law
amendment. Staff concur that instructional facility is currently permitted
and should be accommodated in the new zoning (recreational and athletic
facility and training centre are already permitted in the proposed I1A
Zoning) |
Revise zoning to create an I1A exception
for this site that permits the following additional use: -instructional facility |
1.
Exemption of Parking Requirements for Ground Floor Uses in Traditional
Mainstreet Zone
Discussion
Concerns were expressed with respect to the
proposed exemption from parking requirements for ground floor uses in the TM -
Traditional Mainstreet Zone, particularly with respect to the potential for the
concentration of restaurants in certain areas due to the proposed exemption
from parking. Further, staff have been able to review how other municipalities
are dealing with parking requirements along similar types of streets. As a result of this review, it is felt that
the proposed parking exemption for ground floor uses up to 420 square metres
is too much all at once. Instead, it is recommended that the exemption
for parking continue for all uses on the ground floor, including restaurants,
but that the exemption be lowered to uses 150 square metres of gross floor area
or less. This will allow for easy changes in existing buildings for small-sized
operations since no additional parking will need to be provided, and as well it
will encourage a mix of different ground floor uses within a new development.
Larger uses, beyond gross floor areas of 150 square metres, would be required
to go through the cash-in-lieu of parking process where the required parking
cannot be provided on site.
2. Retail and Ancillary Uses Within Industrial
Zones
Discussion
The development of the draft Industrial zones
occurred prior to the resolution of the retail appeals to the 2003 Official
Plan (known as OPA #28). While a number
of the new industrial zones in former Ottawa reflected the Zoning By-law 1998
regulations which permit limited stand-alone retail within industrial zones; a
number of zones in former Nepean and Gloucester which do not permit stand-alone
retail were mapped in error with the same industrial subzones as the former
Ottawa subzones. The Official Plan
since has been changed and quite clearly prohibits retail in areas designated
Employment Area and Enterprise Area. In
addition, staff undertook site visits of all industrially-zoned areas within
former Ottawa, and found very few stand-alone retail uses, and where they
existed, was mostly by site-specific exception.
In light
of these facts, staff are recommending the removal of permission for
stand-alone retail in a number of the Industrial subzones - which both
implements the Official Plan policy as well as correcting the mapping error for
many industrial lands outside old Ottawa and returns them to their
original-style industrial zoning which did not permit stand-alone retail.
This
approach properly implements the Official Plan’s policy to protect Employment
and Enterprise Areas from development of non-industrial uses, and will help
assist in dealing with the trend of the last eight years which has seen a loss
of 35 per cent of the City's Urban Employment lands.
It should be noted though that in accordance
with the Official Plan policies, the proposed industrial zones will continue to
permit sample and showroom areas, and the proposed zoning includes a provision
that up to 25 per cent of the gross floor area of an industrial building may be
used for display and sales areas of products that have been manufactured or are
warehoused in the industrial building itself.
A definition of sample and showroom areas is proposed to be introduced
in the definitions section to clarify what is meant by the term.
There are also a number of properties that are
located in an Employment designation but that have been zoned to reflect the
abutting designation in error. These zones were mapped before staff had the
ability to overlay the air photos over the zoning maps to ensure better
accuracy of the zone boundaries. It is recommended that these properties be
properly zoned to reflect their appropriate designation. Furthermore, the
Official Plan, Secondary Plan for Merivale South Business Park, has site
specific provisions for this Employment Area which for the area west of Merivale
Road, should be reflected in the proposed zoning.
With respect to ancillary uses (recreational
and fitness centers, restaurant, bank, personal service and gas bar etc.) in
Employment and Enterprise areas, which are intended to serve employees of the
area and the general public in the immediate vicinity and passing traffic; upon
further review staff feel that permissions for these uses in industrial zones
should be more closely aligned with current permissions. There are a number of
industrial areas which currently do not permit ancillary uses, or permit very
few of these uses, and have developed as such, often because of the proximity
of those industrial areas to nearby commercial zones which provide those
ancillary uses to the employees in the industrial areas. In order to preserve
the character of such areas, and to protect industrial areas, it is recommended
that the permissions for ancillary uses in various industrial zones be changed
to be more in line with existing permissions. It is recommended however, that
the permissions for day care centers, as currently proposed, do not change.
Staff recommendation
6. Change AM5 zoning of northeast corner of Montreal and Shefford, 2201 Montreal, to IL zone, with an exception permitting a hotel and with a 48 m maximum height limit;
Business Park in
area bounded by Merivale Road to the East, Prince of Wales Drive to the South,
and the Greenbelt to the West and North using the zoning provision outlined in the current Nepean MBC zone and
the land uses listed in section 2.1.1 of the South Nepean Secondary Plan in the
Official Plan.
3. Updating of Parking Rates
for Certain Non-residential Uses
Discussion and Staff recommendation
Parking requirements for a number of land uses have changed since the original release of Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law in May 2006. The changes are mainly as a result of new land use and transportation information/data that have become available since the parking analysis was undertaken a few years ago. These include the 2006 Ottawa Employment Survey and the 2005 Transportation Origin-Destination Survey. The following table illustrates the land uses where there are new staff recommended changes in the minimum and/or maximum parking requirement vis-ŕ-vis those of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law (March 2008 release).
As well, it should be noted that with the March 2008 release, the schedule identifying Areas A to D for parking requirement purposes, has been modified such that Area B (Inner City) has expanded into part of what was originally Area C (Suburban), where typically parking rates of the latter are higher.
Generally the minimum and maximum rates have increased or decreased slightly depending on they type of use.
Office (space/100 m2 gfa):
|
|
Min |
Max |
|
New Recommended Rate |
|
|
|
Area B (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
1.8 |
2.2 |
|
Area B (Other cases) |
2.0 |
No change |
Rate in Draft
Comprehensive By-Law – March 2008 release
|
|
|
|
Area B (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
1.6 |
2.0 |
|
Area B (Other cases)) |
1.8 |
n/a |
|
Existing By-Law(s) Rate |
|
|
|
Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 |
2.0 |
n/a |
Shopping Centre (space/100 m2 gla):
|
|
Min |
Max |
|
New Proposed Rate: |
|
|
|
Area B (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
3.0 |
3.6 |
|
Area C (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
3.4 |
4.0 |
Rate in Draft Comprehensive By-Law – March 2008 release |
|
|
|
Area B (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
3.4 |
3.8 |
|
Area C (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
3.4 |
3.8 |
|
Existing By-Law(s): |
|
|
|
Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 |
5 |
n/a |
|
Cumberland Zoning By-law 1-84 |
5.4 |
n/a |
|
Gloucester Zoning By-law 333 of 1999 |
5-5.4 (depending on the size) |
n/a |
|
Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000: |
|
|
|
within 400m of a transitway station |
2.5 |
5 |
|
Other cases |
5 |
n/a |
|
Kanata Zoning By-laws (55-95; 167-93; 168-93) |
5.5 |
n/a |
|
Vanier Zoning By-law 2380 |
6 |
n/a |
Retail Store; Retail food Store (space/100 m2 gfa):
|
|
Min |
Max |
|
New Proposed Rate: |
|
|
|
Area B (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
no change |
3.6 |
|
Area C (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
no change |
4.0 |
Rate in Draft Comprehensive By-Law – March 2008 release |
|
|
|
Area B (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
2.5 |
3.8 |
|
Area C (within 600m of rapid transit station) |
3.4 |
3.8 |
|
Existing By-Law(s): |
|
|
|
Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998: |
3 - 5 (depending on the size) |
n/a |
|
Cumberland Zoning By-law 1-84 |
5.4 |
n/a |
|
Gloucester Zoning By-law 333 of 1999 |
5 |
n/a |
|
Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000: |
|
|
|
within 400m of a transitway station |
2.5 |
5 |
|
Other cases |
5 |
n/a |
|
Kanata Zoning By-laws (55-95; 167-93; 168-93) |
5 |
n/a |
|
Vanier Zoning By-law 2380 |
3.3 |
n/a |
Hospitals (space/100 m2 gfa):
|
|
Min |
Max |
|
New Proposed Rate: |
|
|
|
Within 600m of rapid transit station |
1.2 |
1.6 |
|
Other cases |
1.4 |
no change |
Rate in Draft Comprehensive By-Law – March 2008 release |
|
|
|
Within 600m of rapid transit station |
1.1 |
1.4 |
|
Other cases |
1.2 |
n/a |
|
Existing By-Law(s): |
|
|
|
Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 |
1.5 |
n/a |
|
Gloucester Zoning By-law 1-84 |
1 per 4 beds |
n/a |
|
Kanata Zoning By-laws (55-95; 167-93; 168-93) |
0.5 per bed |
n/a |
|
Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 |
Determined via site plan control |
n/a |
Post Secondary (space/100 m2 gfa):
|
|
Min |
Max |
|
New Proposed Rate: |
|
|
|
Area A and B |
No change |
1.2 |
|
Area C and D |
1.0 |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
Rate in Draft Comprehensive By-Law – March 2008 release |
|
|
|
Area A and B |
0.75 |
1.0 |
|
Area C and D |
1.1 |
1.4 |
|
Existing By-Law(s): |
|
|
|
Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998 |
1 |
n/a |
|
Gloucester Zoning By-law 333 of 1999 |
not defined |
n/a |
|
Kanata Zoning By-laws (55-95; 167-93; 168-93) |
8 per classroom |
n/a |
|
Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 |
Determined via site plan control |
n/a |
|
Vanier Zoning By-law 2380 |
1.05 |
n/a |
4. Staff
recommendation affecting Ward 17, as detailed under Section 160: R3 Subzones of
Document 2, Page 110, of ACS2007-PTE-POL- 0061 - Draft Comprehensive Zoning
By-law- Urban Area - Summary of Comments on the May 2006 and 2007 versions of
text and maps and Modifications
The Glebe Community Association requested that the minimum rear yard setback for lots with depths 15 metres or less be changed to 4.0 metres to ensure that any future severance activity that results in shallow lots provides a slightly higher minimum (from 25per cent of the lot depth, or 3.75-metre on a lot of 15-metre depth) rear yard setback. Staff concurred, however its recommendation was to “create an exception zone and apply to those areas of the Glebe where there are lot depths of less than 15 metres, to require a minimum rear yard setback of 4.0 metres”. The recommendation should have been written so as to amend the rear yard setback on all residential lots with lot depths of 15m metres or less, so that all future severances that result in shallow lots would be subject to the 4 m minimum rear yard setback.
Modify the following rear yard endnotes in the Residential zones by adding an additional requirement of a minimum rear yard setback of 4.0 metres on lots with depths of 15 metres or less: R1 Zone Endnote 4; R2 Zone Endnote 6; R3 Zone Endnote 2; R4 Zone Endnote 4; and R5 Zone Endnote 5; thus applying to similar situations outside the Glebe neighbourhood.
Modify Exception 1460 to delete the minimum 4.0-metre rear yard requirement and delete the seven sites within the Glebe to which that part of the exception would apply. Given that the requirement will be noted in the affected Endnotes within each Residential Zone category, there is no longer any need for that part of the exception.
5. Permitted Uses in Local
Commercial Zones
Discussion
Existing local commercial zones in the former municipal Zoning By-laws permit differing ranges of commercial, institutional and residential type uses.
When the draft Local Commercial, LC zone was prepared, it provided a wide range of uses incorporating the various uses permitted throughout the city in local or neighbourhood commercial zones. Given that many of these local commercial zones are located in the interior of residential neighbourhoods, or in proximity to residential areas, it has been determined that in some situations, the wider range of uses permitted in the new LC zone is inappropriate for the location of some of the local commercial zones. It would be more appropriate to simply carry over only the types of commercial uses that are currently permitted.
Staff Recommendation
Only permit Local Commercial zones the commercial uses that are currently permitted under existing zoning of the former municipalities.
STAFF-IDENTIFIED CORRECTIONS AND ANOMALIES DOCUMENT 4
9. Modify the wording of the second provision in exception [264] affecting the lands at the corner of Russell Road and Industrial Avenue, 1665 and 1645 Russell Road, to read “total gross floor area of all commercial uses must not exceed 50% of the lot area” to reflect the intent of the current zoning.
17. Create an exception for the lands currently zoned Mp(R) and HMp(R) in the Gloucester By-law along Albion Road, south of Leitrim Road, 2440-2670 Leitrim, 4084 Albion, 2623-2793 Fenton Rd, 4521-4555 Southclark Place, 4750 Leitrim Rd, 4201 and 4151 Albion Road to reflect the “R” provisions contained in Section 9.1.3 of the Gloucester By-law.
In the IL3 subzone, the
following uses,
i.
restaurant, fast food;
(b)
restaurant, take-out;
are
permitted if,
(i) they are located in a building containing one or more of the permitted uses of the IP2 subzone, other than a restaurant full service;
(ii) there is no visible indication of the use from the exterior of the
building
(iii) access is only possible from within
the building; and
(iv) the
cumulative total of the gross leasable area they occupy does
not exceed 10% of the permitted gross
leasable area or 280
square metres, whichever is the
greater.
19. Add a new Section
44 in Part 1 to explain the purpose of Endnotes, as follows:
Endnotes are attached in most instances to a
Residential Subzone, as noted in Column
XI of each Residential Subzone Provision
Table in Part 6. These endnotes refine
or
modify one or more of the provisions
identified in Columns III through X and are
described in Additional Zoning Provisions
Tables applicable to each Residential Zone
category.
of TM1 [157] F92.3) S149.
“where in a mixed use building and located on the ground floor abutting a street having direct pedestrian access to that street, residential, office and research and development centre uses must not be located within a depth of six metres of the front wall of the main building abutting the street ;” clause (d) should be deleted, with the new clauses (1) (e)
26. Amend Subsection 133 (10) – Secondary Dwelling Units to add a new paragraph “(d), following (c), as follows, and by replacing the period at the end of (c) with a semi-colon and the word “nor”, so that paragraphs (c) and (d) would read:
“(c) require the removal of a doorway entrance to a house that already contains more than one doorway entrance in the front wall; nor
(d) prohibit the addition of one doorway entrance along the front wall of a dwelling unit on a corner lot where there is no doorway entrance along that front wall, but where there is one along the corner side wall of the dwelling unit.”
REVISED DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW - URBAN AREA: FINAL PUBLIC MEETING AND APPROVAL
ÉBAUCHE RÉVISÉE DU RČGLEMENT DE ZONAGE
GÉNÉRAL – SECTEUR URBAIN : DERNIČRE RÉUNION PUBLIQUE ET APPROBATION FINALE
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0074 City-Wide / Ŕ l’échelle de la Ville
(This matter is subject to
Bill 51)
Chair Hume began by providing a roadmap of upcoming key dates with respect to the Comprehensive By-law, notably:
· Standing Committee recommendations on the staff reports will go to Council on April 23, 2008.
· A web version of the new final by-law will be released to the public on May 30, 2008.
· Council will consider the new final by-law on June 25, 2008.
· The 20-day appeal period follows and the by-law will either be appealed, or in force and in effect.
Françoise Jessop, Program Manager, Zoning Studies and Area Planning (Central) provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following staff accompanied Ms. Jessop:
· John Moser, Director of Planning
· Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Community Planning and Design
· Elizabeth Desmarais, Planner II, Community Design and Environment
· Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services
Most delegations provided written submissions, which were circulated to Council, are held on file with the City Clerk, and are noted in Document 8.
Bill Holzman, Holzman Consultants Inc. touched on site-specific issues. With respect to 2013 St. Laurent Boulevard, he sought recognition of a use that pre-dates previous zoning by-laws, dating back to 1964. Chair Hume noted a motion to that effect would be considered. Two properties on St. Joseph Boulevard and Greenbank Road are affected by the maximum parking rate by transit stations and clients oppose the change. In regard to 1655 Carling Avenue, RUMCO Limited seeks that the height limit be set at 20 metres, as opposed to 18 metres. For 230 Elgin Street, the proponent is opposed to the reduction in the unit size area exemption for parking along Traditional Mainstreets.
In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Holzman confirmed that the only situation he raised that does not conform either to the existing zoning or the Official Plan is 2013 St. Laurent, which pre-dates the first municipal zoning by-law. With regard to St. Joseph Boulevard, zoning along that roadway was amended in 2003 as a result of a Community Design Plan, bringing the client’s property into non-conformity.
Councillor Harder noted that many urban planners and lawyers have stated that there have been so many changes to the by-law since March that they would be speaking against the whole by-law to reserve their appeal rights. Mr. Holzman indicated he shares those concerns generally, but is bringing site-specific concerns to the attention of the Committee. He touched on the complexity of the by-law and the lengthy process. Councillor Harder gave notice that she may move that additional time be added to the approval process to ensure the by-law works.
Nick Masciantonio, John Dance, Anthony Leaning, Paul Goodkey, Stephen Pope, and Suzanne Johnston, representing the Ottawa East Community Association, requested a cap to the maximum development height of three of 20 blocks on Main Street. The Traditional Mainstreet (TM) zone proposed in the new by-law has grown out of the Official Plan policies for intensification. The zone proposes continuance of building along the sidewalk, uses that are suitable to Traditional Mainstreet, a reduced front-set back, and stepping back above 15 metres to emphasize a four-storey character. A total building height of 20 metres would be permitted to increase the development density, which is opposed by the community for three blocks within the area, as a 15-metre cap would be more appropriate. A Community Design Plan (CDP) is underway between Echo and Clegg. Main Street was also designated as Traditional Mainstreet in the Official Plan. They touched on the implications of the new height on adjacent homes.
Chair Hume pointed out that Planning staff would be prepared to leave the existing zoning in place until the CDP is approved. The delegation and Councillor Doucet suggested that the Committee deal with this specific request at this time.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, staff
reiterated that they were willing to keep the existing zoning in place until
the Community Design Plan comes forward.
They noted however that the Community Association was content with some
aspects of the new zoning provisions but sought changes for three blocks.
Michael Polowin addressed
the Committee on behalf of three clients, referencing concerns with the process
and other site-specific and definition issues.
He raised, on behalf of the TDL Group, detailed concerns, which are
extensively elaborated in written submissions on file. With respect to two other properties, he
advanced the following:
199 Sussex Drive (Aga Khan)
·
A minor variance was granted for building height to
allow a maximum height of 13.25 metres to permit an architecturally
experimental roof. The minor variance
should be recognized permanently either through a change to the by-law or by
recognizing in perpetuity minor variances granted by the Committee of
Adjustment.
·
The present zoning does not impose a maximum parking
standard and the current Site Plan requires 63 spaces. The existing parking standard should be
continued.
Ms. Jessop confirmed that the issues around 199 Sussex Drive have been addressed in the addendum and the building height will be recognized. With respect to minor variances, Mr. Marc stated the timeframe for non-complying rights is three years more than Council is required to give under the Planning Act. Mr. Polowin requested that the minor variance continue as permission and not as a non-complying right.
1872 Merivale Road
· With respect to parking, the property allows for retail and industrial service. The request is to restore the industrial service parking rate, instead of the higher retail rate.
· A minor variance was granted for a reduction in parking requirement and the previous comments on the perpetuity of minor variances also apply to this property.
Lloyd Phillips elaborated on issues identified in his submissions:
Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute (CPPI)
· 1980 and 1988 St. Joseph Boulevard: all existing uses should be permitted (gas station/gas bar, drive-thru, car wash, and convenience store).
· 2975 St. Joseph Boulevard: the new minimum building height should not apply.
Councillor Bloess notified the delegation that Councillor Monette would be moving motions on his behalf to address the issues raised for those properties on St. Joseph Boulevard. Ms. Jessop indicated the draft by-law reflects the Community Design Plan; however, staff confirmed the motions reflect the current uses and built form, which are legal non-complying with the existing and new by-law.
Cassone Construction, owner of
300 Richmond Road
· The applicant does not oppose the 15-metre height limit, just the setbacks that have been included.
· The 3.0 m corner side yard setback and the additional 2.0-metre setback above a 15.0-metre height limit should be deleted.
· The minimum rear yard requirement of 4.5 metres adjacent to a public laneway should be deleted.
· The minimum width for landscaping requirements in Transitional Mainstreets should be deleted.
· The threshold for not providing parking in TM zones should be retained at 420 metres, as opposed to 150 metres.
Michael Heenan, read from
his written submission with the subsequent main points:
· More scrutiny should be required before a group home can be established. The 300-400 metre separation distance from another group home is not sufficient.
· Riddell Avenue North homeowners are opposed to a request for a new group home to increase the number of residents from 8 to 10 and a reduction in parking spots from 5 to 4.
· Rideau Regional Centre residents could be housed at this location and an investigation into the nature of care, services and impact to the community should be conducted.
Replying to questions from Councillor Monette, Ms. Jessop noted the maximum residency was 8 under the former City of Ottawa in low-density residential zones and other municipalities allowed 10. Existing facilities could increase the number of residents to 10. Ms. Desmarais added that the standard requirement for group home parking is 1 per 100,000 square metres of gross floor area with a minimum of 1.
David Jenkins, Stittsville Village Association
(SVA) addressed
specific issues raised in the SVA’s submission, which is held on file with the
City Clerk:
·
The
maximum densities as prescribed in the existing Goulbourn R4 and R5 zones must
be clearly reflected in Part 6, Section 159-162 (Residential Zoning).
·
The
original setbacks in TM-9 (Stittsville Main Street) should be retained.
·
Concern
was noted regarding the reduction in the minimum requirements for parking
spaces for single detached homes, semi-detached and townhouses.
In response to questions from Councillor Qadri,
Ms. Jessop confirmed the densities are reflected in the exemptions. She undertook to review the TM-9 setbacks.
Miguel Tremblay, FoTenn, on behalf of Metcalfe
Realty, requested
that the property at 240 Catherine Street retain all permitted used under the
current zoning by carrying over the list of permitted non-residential uses,
allowing office and medical facility as permitted uses.
Ms. Jessop explained that medical facility was
included and staff will look into the issues raised in the second submission. The intent would be not to exclude any uses
currently permitted on site.
Sandy Schaffhauser, FoTenn, on behalf of Arnon
Corporation
addressed the main points contained in Arnon’s submission of April 11, 2008,
which is held on file with the City Clerk.
The following site-specific examples were raised:
·
1
Laser: A 2005 zoning amendment
permitted the existing automobile dealership as a primary use. The draft by-law shows it as a conditional
use.
·
74
Jamie: It is proposed as a Light
Industrial zone; however, the existing dance studio is an instructional
facility within the by-law and is only permitted as a conditional use. A site-specific exception is requested to
allow instructional facility as a primary permitted use. (This request was previous received and
staff did not support the change.)
·
120,
160 and 170 Hearst Way (Kanata Town Centre):
The site is currently zoned TC-4, which allows for a small range of
light industrial uses. In the first and
second iterations of the new by-law, a mixed-use centre zone was applied but it
has now reverted to Light Industrial, which reflects the existing zone in the
Kanata by-law. Arnon requested that the
mixed-use designation be considered as the north side of Hearst Way has a wide
range of uses.
Brian Casagrande, FoTenn, spoke to issues previously raised
on behalf of Arnon Corporation. The
buildings at 245 Cooper and 180 Elgin have height and mass that are existing
non-complying established through a zoning amendment. The client wishes that those development envelopes be established
in the new zoning by-law.
In response to questions from Councillor
Holmes, Ms. Jessop confirmed these comments were previously received in October
2007 and staff did not support a change.
Ashcroft – 119 Richmond Road
·
The Canadian
Tire retail store and surface parking at this location. The current zone is CN(498) with an FSI of 1
and height of 13.8 metres. The proposed
new zone designates the site as Traditional Mainstreet, exception 83,
permitting a 19-metre building on the property.
·
The
Community Design Plan identifies a height of six storeys, but the client wishes
to submit an application to increase the building height.
·
The
same concerns apply to the Bourk family property located in Westboro.
Mr. Casagrande referenced documentation tabled
at the meeting with regard to Mr. Brian Karam’s remaining concerns. There is an interest to maintain the
existing building height of the Business Inn on Elgin Street in the by-law. He requested that that existing height also
be applied to the rear parking area with a set back at the rear. The Heritage Overlay should also be
removed. With respect to the TM1 zone,
restaurants above and below grade should be permitted.
Retirement homes or respite care facilities
should be permitted in this zone as a listed use. Parking should not be required with these Traditional Mainstreet
uses, many of which were established before 1945.
Mr. Karam also addressed the Committee addressing
concerns previous raised.
Pamela Sweet, FoTenn, representing Metcalfe Realty
with respect to 221 Champagne, requested that the current zoning that permits
certain height at the rear of the property be continued. This request would maintain current
development rights.
The Committee recessed and returned at 1 p.m.
Gary Jones, Redeemer Alliance Church, spoke on behalf of his church and
neighbouring Ste. Marie Parish located at 4825 and 4831 Innes Road. The parking located under the hydro line
easement should be reflected in the zoning to reflect the existing exemption. The entire area should be covered and no set
back applied. The variance granted in
1996 to allow 52.3 per cent of lot coverage on Block 105 should be reflected in
the zoning to protect future development of the church. For 4831 Innes Road, Mr. Jones stated the
parking issue is the same.
Ms. Jessop added that the addendum provides a
recommendation to change the zoning to allow the parking. The lot coverage issue and 4831 Innes Road
would be looked at.
Douglas Kelly, Soloway Wright, on behalf of the
Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association, reserved his client’s right to appeal after
reviewing the final by-law. He raised
specific concerns related to Urbandale lands in the Kanata Town Centre zoned
development reserve and floodplain.
Other technical issues, such as maximum amenity area in some zones
raised by Monarch, will be looked at further.
Urbandale is also of the opinion that Urban Natural Features should not
be zoned Open Space until acquired.
Other concerns were raised in written correspondence held on file with
the City Clerk. He touched on issues
raised by previous delegations, including the disappearance of variances after
three years and concerns related to definitions.
Kathleen Willis addressed points submitted in emails dated
April 7, 2008. She noted that three
sites require one lot for zoning purposes designation that they currently
enjoy. She also highlighted the
following main concerns:
First Capital Realty
·
Opposition
to maximum parking restrictions in MC zones.
·
The 15
per cent requirement in the landscaping provisions for Parking Lots (Section
11) prevents site-specific flexibility.
·
700
Eagleson, 100 and 130 Michael Cowpland: The AM exception zone should be
reapplied to the site.
·
866
Eagleson at Terry Fox: The lands zoned GM(1055) and GM(992) should be
considered one lot. The exception must
state that the maximum setback requirement does not apply to Terry Fox Drive.
·
3302
Woodroffe: The proposed CMU(194) zone
does not accurately reflect the existing zoning.
·
1980
Ogilvie Road: To impose a maximum of
3.8 spaces per 100 square metres of Gross Floor Area is arbitrary and punitive.
North American Property Group
·
The
imposition of a maximum parking ratio to a site within 600 metres of a transit
station is inappropriate and should be deleted from the by-law.
·
3777
Strandherd: The maximum parking ratio should be deleted.
·
5649
and 5705 Hazeldean: A clause should be added to eliminate the requirement for a
landscaped strip adjacent to the O1R zone.
Elk Property Management, owner of 292 and 378
London Terrace
·
Previous
comments with respect to the timeframe associated with minor variances were
reiterated as later phases of the townhome development could occur outside the
three-year window.
Councillor Bellemare noted that the Gloucester
Centre (1980 Ogilvie Road) recently underwent a redevelopment. The shopping centre was originally built to
accommodate a future office tower over the food court on the second floor. He added that the new by-law recommends an
increase in the minimum and maximum for parking that for office and hospital
uses. Ms. Willis indicated her
representation does not address future office expansion but further
intensification would address provision of parking, possibly through parking
structures.
In reply to questions from Councillor
Bellemare, Ms. Jessop responded that the new parking requirements only apply to
future phases (addition/new building) and not retroactively to the entire
site. Other shopping centres in the
east end, St. Laurent and Place d’Orléans, are also in proximity to a transit
station and are subject to the new requirements for new development. Both property owners have raised no concerns
in this regard. In the context of a
scenario where an office tour would be built over a portion of a shopping mall,
the parking standard would be determined by the office use, which is separate
from the retail use. Staff previously
responded to the general concern regarding the parking standard and staff will
review 1980 Ogilvie as part of its further review.
Councillor Desroches sought clarification to
determine the impact of imposing a maximum parking standard, notably residents
would shop elsewhere if they cannot get a parking spot. Ms. Willis indicated the measure is punitive
and does not allow for redevelopment or intensification for those sites in
proximity to a transit station.
Chair Hume questioned the assertion that
reducing the requirement from 5 to 3.8 spaces per 100 square metres of Gross
Floor Area would jeopardize the viability of the centres. Ms. Willis replied that not allowing
developers to provide more than 3.8 spaces could impact development, as the
industry norm is between 5 and 5.5 spaces.
Amy Kempster stated she could not find reference to her
previous submission on the issue of National Capital Commission (NCC)
lands. She called for the list of
exemptions to be granted on an interim basis, pending the completion of the
NCC’s urban lands study.
Ms. Jessop clarified that the Greenspace
Alliance’s original submission was reviewed by staff and comments are noted on
the City’s website.
Emma Blanchard, on behalf of Wabano Centre for Aboriginal
Health, asked that the zoning at 272 and 274 Bradley Avenue be modified to
include a site-specific exception to permit Wabano to operate a day care or
homework club and seniors drop-in centre at these locations. Specifics are provided in her letter dated
April 7, 2008, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Jessop indicated staff would review the
letter prior to consideration by Council.
Greg Winters, Novatech Engineering, referenced documentation submitted
on behalf of Taggart Realty Management Properties, as well as the Kanata
Research Corporation and Brookstreet Research Park Corporation. He requested time to review with staff issues
addressed in the correspondence. Chair
Hume noted the submissions would be reviewed for staff comment.
Kevin Yemm and Lisa Dalla Rosa
of Richcraft Homes
referenced arguments set forth in a submission dated April 4, 2008. The remaining points to address were the
following:
·
Part
2, Section 65: Feature #1 in regards to the allowable maximum projection should
be amended.
·
Part
4, Section 101, the minimum required space rates for residential stacked
dwellings is excessive.
·
Part
4, Section 111: The required rate of bicycle parking for Stacked Dwelling Units
is excessive.
·
1512
Walkley, 4025 Canyon Walk, 251 Deercroft: bicycle parking and stacked dwelling
parking rates should be revisited.
In response to clarifications from the Chair,
the delegation explained that no issues currently exist with the amount of
bicycle parking, as racks are provided and residents tend to bring their
bicycles inside. The issue with the new
provisions is the requirement for a physical dimension for the space, which is
difficult to accommodate in the suburbs where underground parking is not
provided.
Joan Hammond and Archie Campbell (Dalhousie
Community Association) registered to speak in opposition but were not in attendance.
Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting portion of
the proceedings.
In response to questions from Councillor
Doucet, Ms. Jessop explained that a 30 per cent standard for landscaped open
space applies to a residential zone, such as R4 and R5. A new amenity area is required for Traditional
Mainstreet zones and mixed-use developments.
The Site Plan process is the vehicle for negotiating the design of a
site.
In response to a line of questioning from
Councillor Holmes, Ms. Jessop also noted that open space also includes hard
surface elements such as a patio. Mr.
Marc advised that the proposed by-law does distinguish in its definitions
between soft and hard landscaping, as well architectural elements. The 30 per cent open space requirement is a
combination of all three elements.
Councillor Doucet undertook to work with staff on a possible motion to
maximize soft landscaping as part of the 30 per cent open space requirement.
Councillor Harder recalled that she submitted an inquiry at the last Planning and Environment Committee meeting to revisit and review Ottawa’s current planning processes with regard to streetscaping, sidewalks, laneways, and rear lanes in light of the season’s very difficult snow clearing and surface operations. She questioned changes when current requirements do not work.
Mr. Moser responded that staff is preparing a response to the inquiry; however, the zoning by-law must reflect the policies of the Official Plan and for the most part it carries over existing zoning provisions. Discussion will occur in the upcoming review on how to accommodate growth and intensification. He opined that the zoning by-law could continue to move forward.
Councillor Harder suggested additional time is required to respond to questions related to suburban communities. She questioned the urgency to approve the by-law at today’s meeting and touched on the numerous concerns raised by delegations.
Councillor Feltmate asked a question with
respect to by-law enforcement and the minimum number of parking spaces
required. Ms. Jessop clarified parking
spaces (size and number) on private property are regulated through the zoning
by-law. Councillor Feltmate questioned
the impact of new parking requirements on by-law enforcement.
The Committee then proceeded to consideration
of the departmental recommendations and motions brought forward by Councillors.
Document 1
(a) Councillor motions to review specific
provisions, as detailed in Document 1;
CARRIED
Document 2
At the request of Councillor Harder, staff undertook to review and comment on the inclusion of a Plasco Facility in the Bentley Business Park and how it could be accommodated within the new zoning by-law.
Staff informed members on how staff comments and recommendations are reflected in Document 2. Ms. Jessop also responded to site-specific issues and submissions addressed in the document.
(b) Submissions received
after the October 22 and 23, 2007 Planning and Environment Committee public
meetings with staff recommendations, as detailed in Document 2;
CARRIED,
with Councillor Hunter dissenting on any recommendations that seek to institute
a maximum parking rate.
Document 3
Staff expressed support for Councillor Holmes motion, as it would allow more flexibility in the Traditional Mainstreet designation and is an improvement from the current situation.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by amending Section 101, Table 101
– Minimum Parking Space Rates, Column I, row (a)(ii) – to state “for any use in
the TM Zone, other than a restaurant on Elgin Street, Somerset Street (between
Bay Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street as defined by the Preston
Street Business Improvement Area boundaries.”
That no
further notice be given pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Councillor Hunter also reiterated his objection to the inclusion of maximum parking rates for sites in proximity to transit stations.
Ms. Jessop clarified that a developer would not be required to remove parking spaces when intensifying a retail centre in proximity to a transit station. The applicant would be required to provide a minimum amount of parking but with a limit. For the most part, minimum parking requirements can be satisfied with existing parking, which exceeds the minimum requirement.
Mohammad Tayyaran, Program Manager of Transportation Planning and Environmental Assessments, explained that the parking requirement for shopping centres consists of a minimum of 3.4 spaces with a maximum 3.8 spaces per 100 square metres of Gross Floor Area applied to sites within 600 meters of a rapid transit station.
Councillors commented on the parking requirements and how the application should be different in the suburban and rural areas. Councillor Harder moved the following motion as a result.
Moved by J. Harder:
That
options regarding updating of parking rules of certain non-residential uses not
apply to Areas C and D.
That no
further notice be given pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
(c) Staff initiated
changes - zoning issues, noted in Document 3, subject to the following:
·
By amending Section 101, Table 101 – Minimum
Parking Space Rates, Column I, row (a)(ii) – to state “for any use in the TM
Zone, other than a restaurant on Elgin Street, Somerset Street (between Bay
Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street as defined by the Preston Street
Business Improvement Area boundaries.”
· That options regarding updating of parking rules of certain non-residential uses not apply to Areas C and D.
CARRIED as amended
Document 4
In response to
questions from Councillor Qadri, Hazeldean Road, staff indicated 15-meter
building setback from the interior lot line on Hazeldean Road is particular to
one site and is merely a carry over from the existing provision.
(d) Staff-identified corrections and anomalies, noted in Document 4;
CARRIED
Document
5
The Committee referred the following motion to staff for comment and follow up:
BE
IT RESOLVED that the opened road allowance along the northern edge of Lindenlea
Avenue at Springfield:
a) Be
closed as a road allowance; and
b) That
the closed road allowance be rezoned to be included within the adjacent L1
zone.
(e) Submissions
received between March 7, 2008 and April 4, 2008, noted in Document 5;
CARRIED
Document 6
(f) Additional staff corrections, noted in Document 6;
CARRIED
Document
7
Chair Hume reviewed the list of issues and submissions to be reviewed by staff prior to consideration of this report by Council.
That
staff be directed to review the list of submissions and issues listed in
Document 7 with a view to providing motions for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED
The Committee proceeded to consideration of motions brought forward by Councillors.
Exception
provision to the TM zones on Elgin, Somerset and Preston
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised to apply an exception provision to the TM zones on Elgin Street, Somerset Street (between Bay Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street that modifies the definition of ‘full service restaurant’ for these areas to state “means a restaurant that sells, serves and prepares on site food and beverages to patrons seated at tables, for consumption on the premises”;
That no
further notice be given pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
R5B[482]
F(3.0) – Special Study Area
Moved by D. Holmes:
WHEREAS in
1998 the former City of Ottawa re-zoned five blocks of the R6A[172] Zone
(Highrise Apartment) situated within the High Profile Residential Area of
Schedule H – Centretown Land Use, by removing the maximum permitted height, but
retaining the floor space index at 3.0; and prior to this these blocks had a
maximum permitted height of 36.6 metres; and the balance of the old R6A zone
within Centretown retained both the 26.6 metres height limit and 3.0 Floor
Space Index;
AND
WHEREAS this High Profile Residential Area was intended to be located adjacent
to the Central Area and to serve as a transition between the higher commercial
district and the low and medium profile residential areas to the south;
AND
WHEREAS the current Comprehensive Zoning By-law carries forward these five
blocks as a new R5B zone still have an FSI maximum of 3.0 but no maximum height
limit, which would result in building heights up to three times than first
contemplated for the high profile areas;
AND
WHEREAS the designation fails to respect the transitional function of these
blocks, by overwhelming the low and medium profile areas to the south, which
have now been designated by the Centretown Heritage District and the Heritage
Overlay Zones, a further rationale for limiting building heights in this area;
AND
WHEREAS a further policy direction has been established through the approval of
the Downtown Urban Design Strategy, which places these blocks within the
Targeted Precinct Strategies for the Centretown East and Metcalfe Gateway
areas;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the blocks of the new R5B[482] F(3.0) zone (residential
mid-high profile) shown on Map 1 be designated as a ‘Special Study Area’ to
determine appropriate building envelopes that will be consistent with the
policies of the secondary policy area, the heritage conservation district, and
the Downtown Urban Design Strategy.
AND THAT
no further notice be given pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
2013 St. Laurent
Moved by P. Feltmate, on behalf of the Chair:
WHEREAS the property at
2013 St. Laurent Boulevard is currently developed with an automobile service
station;
AND WHEREAS the automobile
service station currently has a non-conforming status;
AND WHEREAS the draft
zoning by-law proposes an R3A-Residential Third Density Subzone for these
lands, which does not recognize this land use;
AND WHEREAS the automobile
service station is established within this community;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to apply a
site-specific exception at 2013 St. Laurent Boulevard to allow an automobile
service station as an additional permitted use, subject to a maximum 15% lot
coverage to reflect the size of the existing building footprint.
AND THAT
no further notice be given pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Moved by B. Monette:
That the
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-Law be revised by removing the minimum building
height requirement for the MC (1333)F (2.0) zone at 2975 St. Joseph Blvd.
That the
draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised by removing the general
requirement of a minimum building height of 6.7 m for existing or future
service stations in other MC Zones within 400 m of a Transitway Station,
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
1980 and 1988 St. Joseph
Ms. Jessop explained the AM3 sub-zone restricts a number of uses and the motion would allow for a broader range of uses. Councillor Bloess stated the motion seeks to recognize the current situation and operation of the site.
Moved by B. Monette
That the
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by changing the zoning of 1980 and
1988 St. Joseph Blvd from AM3 to AM.
That there
be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
178
Meadowlands
Moved by P. Feltmate, on behalf of the Chair:
WHEREAS
the property at 178 Meadowlands Drive is currently a convenience store which
has operated on the site for many years;
AND
WHEREAS 178 Meadowlands Drive is proposed to be zoned R1FF– “Residential First
Density” only residential uses are permitted;
AND
WHEREAS the convenience store is established within this community and does not
want to become a legal non-conforming use;
AND
WHEREAS the parcel immediately to the west of 178 Meadowlands is proposed to be
zoned “LC – Local Commercial”;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the draft comprehensive zoning by-law be revised to extend
the LC zone to encompass 178 Meadowlands to allow a convenience store as a
permitted use.
That
there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
6126 Renaud
Councillor Bloess advanced that the properties are identified as Neighbourhood Commercial in the Community Design Plan. An application would be required to lift the holding provision and the motion would allow the properties to develop concurrently.
Moved by B. Monette:
That
the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised to conform to the East Urban
Community (EUC) Community Design Plan (CDP) by changing the zoning of
·
6126 Renaud
Road, and part of the road allowance between lots 5 and 6 concession 4, O F.,
closed by-law 207-132, being part 2, plan 4R-21751 adjacent to 6126 Renaud
Road, Ottawa Designated as Parts 2 to 19, inclusive, AND
·
Part of 3138
Navan Road, described as Block 166 on a Draft 4M-Plan prepared by Edward
Lancaster on February 19, 2008,
from DR to LC [E]-h. The
purpose of the h designation is to ensure that the two properties are developed
comprehensively and with the benefit of urban services.
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Minimum
Residential Parking for Stacked Town Homes and Apartment Dwellings
Moved by S. Qadri:
WHEREAS
it is being recommended that the minimum requirement for stacked town homes and
apartment dwellings be 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit;
AND
WHEREAS it is unreasonable to provide such requirements for the amount of
parking for areas of the City that do not have the same geographical distances
nor the same public transit that have the urban downtown wards;
AND
WHEREAS in the staff report the provided comparison of current Ottawa by-laws
notes that the current by-laws for former municipalities illustrates the
parking requirement is greater than 1.1 spaces per unit;
AND
WHEREAS other municipalities similar to the City of Ottawa such as Winnipeg,
London, Mississauga and former North York have required parking spaces ranging
from 1.25 to 1.5 parking spaces per unit of similar housing.
AND
WHEREAS the purpose of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law is to harmonize the
existing zoning by-laws;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the minimum residential parking requirement for stacked town homes and apartment dwellings in suburban Area C be 1.2 spaces per dwelling.
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED with Councillors Holmes and Hume dissenting.
Existing
requirement for parking in Stittsville
Councillor Qadri proposed the following motion, which was referred to staff for further study following discussion by members and staff with regard to implications, and as a result of the Harder motion:
WHEREAS
the proposed minimum requirement of 1.0 parking spaces for each single
detached, semi-detached and town house dwelling is impractical and unrealistic
as it does not meet the needs of suburban communities;
AND
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa should not be imposing “one size fits all”
requirements to both urban and suburban areas fo the city when they are so
vastly different in nature;
AND
WHEREAS the garage or carport should not be considered the only parking space
provided for a dwelling unit;
AND
WHEREAS home and land developers will use minimum requirements as their
standards for development;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT detached, semi-detached and town house dwellings in
suburban Area C which have 3 meters or less setback from the road require a
second parking space.
Moved by J. Harder:
That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised to revert to the existing requirement for parking for detached, semi-detached and town house dwellings in Stittsville, which have a 3-meter or less setback from the road, to allow further study of possible changes.
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
2345
Alta Vista
Moved by D. Holmes, on behalf of the Chair:
That
the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by creating an exception zone
affecting the for lands municipally known as 2345 Alta Vista, and proposed to
be zoned I1A, to permit a group home subject to the following provision:
o In the case of a group home, no separation distance is required from any other group home.
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Buffer
Between Parking Area and Residential
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS
one of the goals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law process is to avoid major
changes to existing zoning provisions and maintaining zoning provisions that
were put in place to deal with local conditions;
AND
WHEREAS the existing CG-6 zoning in the former City of Kanata includes a
requirement that there be a 4.5-metre buffer between a parking lot with more
than four spaces and Irwin Gate or Bachman Terrace;
AND
WHEREAS the proposed buffer requirement is between one third and two thirds
smaller than the existing requirement;
AND
WHEREAS the existing requirement helps the impact of commercial development in
the CG-6 zone on nearby residential atreas;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT an exception be created for lands currently zoned CG-6 so
that the existing requirements for buffers between parking lots and Irwin Gate or Bachman Terrace are
retained.
That there be no further notice pursuant
to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
Maximum
Units in Each Multi-family Rental Site in Kanata
Following staff comment, the following motion moved by Councillor Feltmate, on behalf of Councillor Wilkinson, was referred to staff for review and comment.
WHEREAS
by-laws in Kanata for multiple rental units has the existing number of rental
units on each site listed as the maximum number on that site;
AND
WHEREAS the City of Kanata had placed these numbers as a result of a commitment
to residents so that any increases in development on any site would require
public notification and a public meeting;
AND
WHEREAS the Comprehensive Zoning By-law was to consolidate existing by-laws
rather than make significant changes;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the maximum units on each multi-family rental site in
Kanata be included as an exception for each site as originally stated in the
Kanata zoning by-laws.
Childcare
Facilities in Kanata North Business Park
Moved by P. Feltmate:
WHEREAS
the new zoning by-law will permit child care facilities in business parks;
AND
WHEREAS in some areas in the Kanata North Business Park there is a limit to the
size of such facilities;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT all zones in the Kanata North Business Park permit child care facilities with no maximum
size limitations.
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
15,
23, 33 and 39 Deerfox and 3102, 3112, 3120, 3150 and 3162 Woodroffe
Councillor Harder requested the change to deal with a problematic situation in her ward. Staff concurred with the amendment.
Moved by J. Harder:
That the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised by changing the zoning of 15, 23, 33 and 39 Deerfox Drive and 3102, 3112, 3120, 3150 and 3162 Woodroffe Avenue from DR-Development Reserve to DR with an exception to prohibit agricultural uses but to permit on the existing lot sizes a detached dwelling not accessory to an agricultural use
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
The departmental
report was carried as amended.
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve modifications to the December
7, 2007 City Council-approved Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, Volume 1
(text) and Volume 2 (maps) brought
forward by:
(a) Councillor motions to review specific
provisions, as detailed in Document 1;
(b) Submissions received after the October 22 and
23, 2007 Planning and Environment Committee public meetings with staff
recommendations, as detailed in Document 2;
(c) Staff initiated changes - zoning issues, noted
in Document 3, subject to the following:
·
By amending Section 101, Table 101
– Minimum Parking Space Rates, Column I, row (a)(ii) – to state “for any use in
the TM Zone, other than a restaurant on Elgin Street, Somerset Street (between
Bay Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street as defined by the Preston
Street Business Improvement Area boundaries.”
·
That options regarding updating of
parking rules of certain non residential uses not apply to Areas C and D.
(d) Staff-identified corrections and anomalies, noted in Document 4;
(e) Submissions received between March 7, 2008 and April 4, 2008, noted
in Document 5;
(f) Additional staff corrections, noted in Document 6;
as amended:
(g) To apply an exception provision to the TM zones on Elgin Street,
Somerset Street (between Bay Street and Preston Street), and Preston Street
that modifies the definition of ‘full service restaurant’ for these areas to
state “means a restaurant that sells, serves and prepares on site food and
beverages to patrons seated at tables, for consumption on the premises”;
(h) To designate the blocks of new R5B[482] F(3.0) zone (residential
mid-high profile) shown on Map 1 as a ‘Special Study Area’ to determine
appropriate building envelopes that will be consistent with the policies of the
secondary policy area, the heritage conservation district, and the Downtown
Urban Design Strategy;
(i) To apply a site-specific exception at 2013 St. Laurent Boulevard to
allow an automobile service station as an additional permitted use, subject to
a maximum 15% lot coverage to reflect the size of the existing building
footprint;
(j) To remove the minimum building height requirement for the MC(1333)
F(2.0) zone at 2975 St. Joseph Boulevard and remove the general requirement of
a minimum building height of 6.7 m for existing or future service stations in
other MC Zones within 400 m of a Transitway Station;
(k) To change the zoning of 1980 and 1988 St. Joseph Boulevard from AM3
to AM;
(l) To extend the LC zone to encompass 178 Meadowlands to allow a
convenience store as a permitted use;
(m) To change 6126 Renaud Road, part of the road allowance between lots
5 and 6 concession 4, O F. (closed by-law 207-132, being part 2, plan 4R-21751
adjacent to 6126 Renaud Road, Ottawa Designated as Parts 2 to 19, inclusive),
and Part of 3138 Navan Road (described as Block 166 on a Draft 4M-Plan prepared
by Edward Lancaster on February 19, 2008), from DR to LC [E]-h. The purpose of the h designation is to
ensure that the two properties are developed comprehensively and with the
benefit of urban services;
(n) To make the minimum residential parking requirement for stacked town
homes and apartment dwellings in suburban Area C 1.2 spaces per dwelling;
(o) To revert to the existing requirement for parking for detached,
semi-detached and town house dwellings in Stittsville, which have a 3-meter or
less setback from the road, to allow further study of possible changes;
(p) To create an exception zone affecting the lands municipally known as
2345 Alta Vista, and proposed to be zoned I1A, to permit a group home, subject
that no separation distance is required from any other group home;
(q) To create a exception for lands currently zoned CG-6 in order that
the existing requirements for buffers between parking lots and Irwin Gate or
Bachman Terrace are retained;
(r) To permit child care facilities with no maximum size limitations in
all zones in the Kanata North Business Park;
(s) To change the zoning of 15, 23, 33 and 39 Deerfox Drive and 3102,
3112, 3120, 3150 and 3162 Woodroffe Avenue from DR-Development Reserve to DR
with an exception to prohibit agricultural uses but to permit on the existing
lot sizes a detached dwelling not accessory to an agricultural use.
2. Direct staff to:
(a) Prepare the Zoning By-law for adoption, which
will include any and all modifications by Council, as well as Zoning By-law
amendments to the former municipal Zoning By-laws approved since November 2007;
(b) Review the list of
submissions and issues listed in Document 7 with a view to providing motions
for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED as amended