1.             REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW - URBAN AREA: FINAL PUBLIC MEETING AND APPROVAL

 

ÉBAUCHE RÉVISÉE DU RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL - SECTEUR URBAIN: DERNIÈRE 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 Règlement 51)

 

Que le Conseil :

 

1.         approuve les modifications au volume 1 (texte) et au volume 2 (plans) du Règlement 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 après 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 problèmes 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 à 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 à la mise à jour des règles 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 à service complet » pour ces secteurs : « un restaurant qui vend et sert à 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 à la Stratégie de conception urbaine du centre‑ville;

(i)   créer une exception particulière 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 à 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 à moins de 400 m d’une station du Transitway doivent avoir une hauteur minimale de 6,7 m;

(k) changer de AM3 à AM le zonage du 1980 et du 1988, boulevard St. Joseph;

(l)   étendre la zone LC de manière à ce qu’elle englobe le 178, promenade Meadowlands, afin qu’un dépanneur constitue une utilisation permise;

(m) changer de DR à LC [E]-h le zonage du 6126, chemin Renaud, partie de la réserve routière entre les lots 5 et 6, concession 4, orientée vers la rivière des Outaouais (fermée par voie du règlement 207-132, partie 2, plan 4R-21751 adjacent au 6126, chemin Renaud, Ottawa, désigné comme les parties 2 à 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 à 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 à Stittsville qui sont situées à 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 à 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 à 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 à interdire les utilisations agricoles mais à autoriser sur les superficies de lots actuelles une maison isolée qui n’est pas accessoire à une utilisation agricole.

 

 

À TITRE D’INFORMATION AU CONSEIL

 

Le personnel a été chargé :

(a)        de préparer le Règlement 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 règlements 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.

 


Report to/Rapport au :

 

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

 

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0074

 

 

SUBJECT:

REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW - URBAN AREA: final PUBLIC MEETING AND APPROVAL

 

 

OBJET :

Ébauche révisée du Règlement de zonage général – secteur urbain : Dernière réunion publique et approbation finale

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

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.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

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 Règlement 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 après 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 problèmes 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 Règlement 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 règlements municipaux de zonage approuvées depuis novembre 2007.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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.

 

 

RÉSUMÉ

 

Hypothèses et analyse :

 

Le présent rapport porte sur l’approbation finale du nouveau Règlement 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 à la version préliminaire du Règlement 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 dernière réunion publique avant l’adoption du nouveau Règlement par le Conseil.

 

La recommandation 1 porte sur les quatre documents qui seront soumis à 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 être 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 à prévoir pour les cours arrière dans les zones résidentielles. Le document 2 contient tous les commentaires reçus après les réunions publiques tenues par le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement en octobre 2007, mais avant le 7 mars 2008, de même que les recommandations du personnel.

 

Le document 3 présente les modifications préconisées pour le Règlement de zonage préliminaire à 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 Règlement et les corrections supplémentaires qui ont dû y être apportées; nombre d’entre elles se rattachent à un lieu particulier ou consistent en des modifications de forme.

 

La recommandation 2 fournit au personnel les instructions nécessaires pour préparer le Règlement 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 règlements de zonage municipaux depuis novembre 2007.

 

Répercussions financières :

 

Les coûts associés à l’impression du Règlement de zonage général pour son adoption par le Conseil et à la publication des avis en raison de l’approbation de la recommandation 2 sont évalués à 5 000 $ et les fonds nécessaires pour couvrir ce montant ont déjà été réservés dans le poste 900852 du budget des immobilisations.

 

Consultation publique / commentaires :

 

De nombreuses séances de consultation sur le Règlement de zonage général préliminaire ont eu lieu sous diverses formes depuis l’amorce des travaux en 2005. Cette audience publique est la dernière 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 à propos du secteur urbain. Quelques-uns de ceux-ci ressemblent à certains des commentaires recueillis auparavant, auquel cas une note en fait mention. Le personnel préparera un résumé des commentaires reçus après le 7 mars 2008 qui sera distribué le 8 avril 2008 à la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

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.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law - Urban Area reflects the intent of the Official Plan, where zoning is considered an appropriate implementation mechanism, with respect to environmental policies.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Various and numerous consultations on the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law, 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. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

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


 

DISPOSITION

 

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

 

Discussion

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.

 

Discussion

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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.

 
Discussion

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.

 

Table 1 – Proposed and Existing Minimum Parking Requirements for Various Canadian Municipalities not in proximity to a rapid transit station

 

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:

  1. The rate applies to ‘Multiple Attached Dwelling’ units
  2. The rate applies to ‘Row Dwelling’ units
  3. The rate applies to ‘Row Dwelling and Multiple Horizontal Dwelling’ units
  4. The rate applies to ‘Condominium Townhouse units’
  5. For buildings with less than 25 units. For 25+ units, the parking rate is 1.0 space per 102 sq.m/ gross floor area

 

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-à-vis the parking requirements. The results are illustrated in Table 2.

 

Table 2 – Results of the December 2007 Survey of Stacked Dwellings and Apartment Buildings in Ottawa Suburban Areas not in proximity to a rapid transit station.

 

 

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:

  1. Development not completed yet

 

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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.

 
Discussion

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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.

 

Discussion

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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.”

 

Discussion

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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”.

 

Discussion

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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

by the Official Plan; otherwise, must follow the development approval process.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No further change required

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).

Concur - staff recommend that  storage yards be permitted in the GM23 subzone as it is appropriate in this area

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.

A zoning amendment process is underway for this site, to permit two apartments buildings, both with heights of 63.8 m.

Should this site be rezoned, as per the current zoning amendment request under the current old Ottawa Zoning By-law, the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law will reflect the permissions granted, including any changes to FSI to ensure compliance with the new Zoning By-law.

No change required at this time

 

 

314 Athlone

Ward 15

 

(Robert Bailey on behalf of Lynn Erichsen)

Allow offices on ground floor similar to existing zoning.

Proposed TM zone does not allow office uses to occupy entire ground floor, however this property is currently fronting on Athlone and is occupied by a ground floor use.

Agree - modify exception [102] so as to exempt 314 Athlone from Sections 197(1)(b) and (d).

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.

Permit indicates an approved height of 22 storeys.

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.

Do not support change


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.

Permit indicates an approved height of 18 storeys.

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? 

Agreed – the proposed R5A sites at 701 Cedar Creek Drive and along White Alder Avenue between Bank Street and Meadowlilly Drive will recognize the fact that these vacant properties are relative small; therefore imposing the new 6 m restriction may cause problems with future conformity. As such, the existing 5 m restriction is more appropriate.

The other sites with this zoning in former Gloucester are already built up with apartments, which are predominately built back from the street.

 

Agreed – the lands located at 4798 Bank Street should be zoned R3VV(1318) as per the current zoning.

 

Although the March 2008 release indicates that parking for this area will be 1 space per dwelling unit plus 0.2 for visitor, staff are putting forth a recommendation in this report to change the rate to 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.2 for visitor.

Create a new exception for the subject lands to permit a front and rear yard setback of 5 m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone the lands at 4798 Bank Street R3VV[1318]

 

 

No change required - for clarification only

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.

Do not support change.

 

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;

- instructional facility;

- 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

 

 

 

STAFF-INITIATED CHANGES  - ZONING ISSUES                                         DOCUMENT 3

 

 

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.

 

Staff recommendation

 

Reduce the parking exemption for ground floor uses in TM zone from 420 square metres to 150 square metres.

 

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

 

  1. Eliminate the “retail store limited to a building supplies outlet” as a permitted use in the IH1 subzone;
  2. Properties zoned IL2 and IL4 be changed to the IL zone;
  3. Delete “retail store” and “retail food store” from exceptions IL2 [262] at 1683 and 1681 Woodward, 900 and 908 Clyde, 1615 Laperriere, and [277] at 891, 885, 895 Churchill, 1577, 2573, 1569, 1599, 1517 Laperriere;
  4. Properties zoned IL6 located south of Palladium Drive be changed to the IL zone;
  5. Properties zoned IP1 be changed to the IP zone;

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;

  1. Change the proposed GM 16 F(1.0) H(11) zone at the southwest corner of Hunt Club and Paul Anka, 660 Hunt Club, to IL F(1.0) H(11);
  2. Change the AM-h zone for the property at the southwest corner of Hazeldean and Iber Roads, 2 Iber Road, to an IL zone with exceptions and holding provisions in accordance with the existing MBP-1 h zone of former Goulbourn.
  3. Add a new definition “Display and Sales Area means an area of a building which is:
    1. accessory to a permitted use in that building;
    2. primarily used for the display of samples, patterns or other goods, and
    3. wherein orders are taken for merchandise which is stored in bulk in part of that building for future delivery to its customers.”
  4. Permit only those ancillary uses in industrial zones, with the exception of day care, that are currently permitted in the existing zoning.
  5. Create an IL9 (South Merivale Business Park) subzone for the area defined as Prestige

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-à-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

 

Discussion

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.

 

Staff Recommendation

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

 

 

  1. Revise subsection 134 (2) to reflect consistent wording as used elsewhere in the Zoning By-law, so that the phrase “…need not extend across a waterway, highway or any other…” with “…need not extend across a highway, grade-separated arterial roadway, railway yard, Rideau or Ottawa Rivers, or Rideau Canal, or any other…”
  2. Change the proposed IL2 zone at Paul Anka and Dean Martin, 700 and 770 Hunt Club, (currently zoned MP(E17) to IL with an exception retaining the permitted hotel use.
  3. Change AM2[225] zone located at Hazeldean Road, near the Carp River, to require a 15-metre building setback from the interior side lot line abutting the Carp River, for any hard surfaces, including a parking lot.
  4. Change the zoning of 575 and 551 Laurier Avenue West from 01 to R5Q H(37) to reflect the existing high-profile residential zoning, which also allows a park and community garden as a permitted use.
  5. Modify exception 713 located at 981 – 1071 Innes, to include the following additional provisions to better reflect the existing R3D X5 zoning of Cumberland:
    1. minimum rear yard setback of 9 m abutting an arterial roadway;
    2. minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5 m;
    3. minimum lot width of 5 m.
  6. Modify the AM2[224]H(20) zoning for 300 Hazeldean Drive to prohibit convenience store in the annex building located on the southerly portion of the site and to clarify that the additional permitted use of amusement centre is limited to the main shopping centre and that is not permitted in the southerly annex building.
  7. Modify exception [272] to delete the prohibition on “car wash” and “gas bar” to reflect the existing zoning and land use of the affected site at the south-west corner of Conroy and Walkley Roads.
  8. Modify the wording of exception [277] to reflect better the true intent of the current [641] exception in the former Ottawa Zoning By-law.

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.

  1. Revise the zoning of 800 Hunt Club Road so that the GM1 F(1.0) H(11) zone covers the entire site.
  2. Revise exception [1318] affecting 4738, 4742 and 4798 Bank Street to include the following provision: “Uncovered step, ramp, deck or porch, not being part of the main building foundation, that is erected on sonotubes or some other self-supporting mechanism, except for a ramp designed to be used by persons with disabilities, where no minimum setback is required: 1.5m on roadway width not less than 18m or 3.0m on roadway width not less than 14m not greater than 17.5m.”
  3. Change the zoning of 10, 12 and 40 Arthur Street and 54 and 58 Primrose Avenue from R5B and R5B H(36) to R4T to better reflect the existing zoning for this area.
  4. Change the zoning of 40, 50 and 60 Beech Street and 490 and 492 Rochester Street from R5B[881] to R4T[881] to better reflect the existing zoning for this area.
  5. Change the zoning of 2825 Merivale Road from AG to R1E to reflect the fact that the subject site is located within the urban area.
  6. Modify the zoning at 4252, 4201 and 4570 Albion Road to include an “h” in order to reflect the holding provisions of the current Gloucester By-law for this area.

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.

  1. Add the following wording to Section 204 as it affects the IL3 subzone, located along Morrison Drive:

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.

  1.  That the zoning of 495 Richmond Road be revised to state TM [157] F(2.3) S149 instead

       of TM1 [157] F92.3) S149.

  1. Create and apply new exception [1484] for lands at Sparks, Lyon, Queen and Kent to eliminate duplication of exception number.
  2. Modify exception R1HH[714] along Innes and Dorima to allow a lot frontage and front yard setback of 5 m for multiple attached dwellings.
  3. Change zoning of 140 Hartsmere from R2A[958] to R1T[721] to correct an existing zoning boundary error.
  4. Modify TM zone, clause (1) (b) to clarify wording as follows:

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)

and (f) re-lettered accordingly.

25.  Eliminate the parking garage use in the GM3 subzone and exception [1420] at 127 Catherine Street.

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 RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE GÉNÉRAL – SECTEUR URBAIN : DERNIÈRE RÉUNION PUBLIQUE ET APPROBATION FINALE

ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0074                                 City-Wide / À 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