|
3. gateway and entrance
features pOINTS D'ACCÈS ET ENTRÉEs |
Planning
and Environment Committee and Agriculture
and
Rural Affairs Committee RECOMMENDATIONS as amended
That Council:
1. Authorize staff from Planning, Transit and
Environment Department to prepare detailed guidelines and standards, to be
brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee by the end of October 2008, pertaining to the design,
construction, financial opportunities, and long term maintenance for
future Gateway/Entrance Features, based upon the principles detailed in this
report; and,
2. Direct Public Works and Services Department
staff to undertake an assessment survey of existing Gateway/Entrance features
estimated to cost $75,000 to be funded from the City Wide Capital Reserve Fund
as part of the capital closure process, and that such report include the cost
of reinstating maintenance of existing Gateway/Entrance features on City right
of ways prior to the tabling of the 2009 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets.
3. Direct
staff to ensure consultation with the public includes long term costs of
maintaining gateway and entrance features.
RECOMMANDATIONs
modifiÉs du COMITé DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT et du Comité de l'agriculture
et des questions rurales
Que
le Conseil :
1. autorise
le personnel de la Direction de l’urbanisme, du transport en commun et de
l’environnement à rédiger des lignes directrices et des normes complètes, qui
seront présentées au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et au Comité
de l'agriculture et des questions rurales d’ici la fin du mois
d’octobre 2008, au sujet de la conception, la construction, les
possibilités financières et l’entretien à long terme pour des futurs points
d’accès et entrées, en se fiant aux principes détaillés dans le présent
rapport;
2. informe
le personnel de la Direction des services et des travaux publics d’effectuer
une évaluation des points d’accès et des entrées existants dont le coût prévu
de 75 000 $ sera financé par le Fond de réserve pour immobilisations
de la Ville d’Ottawa, dans le cadre du processus de fermeture des
immobilisations, et que le rapport comprenne le coût de relance de l’entretien
des points d’accès et des entrées déjà existants sur les emprises de la Ville
avant le dépôt des Budgets d’immobilisations et de fonctionnement provisoires
de 2009;
3. enjoigne
le personnel de s’assurer que la consultation auprès du public comprend les
coûts à long terme pour l’entretien des points d’accès et des entrées.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report (Planning,
Transit and the Environment) dated
11 March 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0001).
2. Extracts of Draft Minutes:
·
Planning
and Environment Committee, 22 April 2008 and
·
Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee, 8 May 2008.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnment
and/et au
and
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l’agriculture et des questions
rurales
11 March 2008 / le 11 mars 2008
and Council / et au Conseil
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 : Michael Wildman,
Acting Manager/Gestionnaire par intérim,
Infrastructure Approvals/Approbation des demandes d'infrastructure
(613) 580-2424, 27811 Mike.Wildman@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee recommend Council:
1. Authorize staff from Planning, Transit and Environment Department
to prepare detailed guidelines and standards pertaining to the design,
construction and long term maintenance for future Gateway/Entrance Features
based upon the principles detailed in this report; and,
2. Direct Public Works and Services Department staff to undertake an
assessment survey of existing Gateway/Entrance features estimated to cost
$75,000 to be funded from the City Wide Capital Reserve Fund as part of the
capital closure process, and that such report include the cost of reinstating
maintenance of existing Gateway/Entrance features on City right of ways prior
to the tabling of the 2009 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l'urbanisme et de l'environnement et le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires
rurales recommandent au Conseil :
1. d'autoriser
le personnel du Service de l'urbanisme, du transport en commun et de
l'environnement à rédiger des lignes directrices et des normes circonstanciées
qui portent sur la conception, la construction et l'entretien à long terme des
futurs points d'accès et entrées, en se fondant sur les principes détaillés
dans le présent rapport;
2. de
demander au personnel des Services et Travaux publics de mener un sondage en
vue d’évaluer les points d’accès et les entrées existants dont le coût prévu de
75 000 $ sera financé par le Fonds de réserve pour immobilisations de
la Ville, dans le cadre du processus de fermeture des immobilisations, et
d’inclure dans ledit rapport l’évaluation des coûts liés à la
réintégration de l’entretien des points d’accès et des entrées existants qui
sont situés sur des emprises de la Ville avant le dépôt des budgets
préliminaires de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations de 2009.
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2007, Planning and Environment Committee carried a motion (Document 1) which directed "staff to undertake a review of Gateway Features in new developments". This motion was tabled in part, due to concerns raised with respect to on-going maintenance and associated costs of gateway features which are located within the public domain.
DISCUSSION
A gateway can be described as a feature intended to assist commuters in way finding, and in so doing contribute in providing an identity for a community as noted in the Official Plan. The feature should be visually striking such that it can be noticeable to passers by but should also blend and fit in with the surrounding landscape and built form. Gateways can be thought of as community signatures and their design should somehow reflect elements of local culture, natural landscape, built form or community history. Gateways help to clearly define community boundaries. Gateway features are typically thought of as some form of structure (not necessarily man-made) with text or a logo and integrated with landscaping. Materials can range from natural stone to concrete or brick products. Gateways may also incorporate lighting, water features, banners or other features.
The Official Plan provides high level guidance which can be applied to gateway features. Applicable language can be found in Section 1.3 of the Official Plan:
- A creative city rich in heritage, unique in identity. A proud city - The people of Ottawa are proud of their city and treasure its identity as a wonderful place to live.
- A city of distinct, liveable communities. A Sense of Community - All communities look right and feel right. They have an identity that defines them and fosters pride and belonging among residents. Beauty - Ottawa's communities are pleasing to the eye. They are interesting, clean and benefit from an abundance of trees.
In response to the April 10, 2007, Planning and Environment Committee motion to investigate and report on Gateway/Entrance features (hereafter referred to as gateway features), staff, with the assistance of a consultant, collected relevant background data, reviewed good/bad gateway feature examples, interviewed City staff, researched best practices of similar Canadian municipalities, and conducted round table discussions with developer representatives.
Research
and Interviews
In completing a best practices survey of similar sized Canadian municipalities, whose climates are comparable to that of Ottawa's, the following observations were made. Like Ottawa, most municipalities are experiencing varying degrees of budget pressures, and efforts are underway to minimize on-going operational costs. It should be noted, however, that most municipalities surveyed have only general practises, and deal with gateway features more on a "case by case basis". The municipalities surveyed do not have detailed guidelines to administer the design and maintenance of gateway features. The general practices of the surveyed municipalities are summarized in Document 2. The municipalities that were surveyed are also listed in the consultation section of this report. In summary, there are no consistent approaches with respect to placement of gateway features within municipally owned rights-of-way. In most cases, gateway features were permissible on private lands. With respect to maintenance of gateway features, most municipalities did maintain gateway features which were placed within the municipal rights-of-way. In some cases, this only occurred after a warrantee period had elapsed. In general, developers were required to maintain gateway features during the warrantee periods, or where these gateway features were on private property, while in some instances homeowners or Community Associations were involved in maintenance as well. As noted, few design standards exist; however, the main theme was to design for longevity and low long term maintenance costs.
Of note, the City of Mississauga takes a more active approach than many municipalities. Mississauga does permit entrance features to be located within the municipal right-of-way; however, they maintain tight controls on the number and style. Mississauga discourages any materials which require frequent maintenance such as wood, metal fencing and painted signs. Furthermore, they require structural certification prior to assumption by the City. Kitchener/Waterloo permits gateway features within the right-of-way; however, a payment in the amount of 50 per cent of the construction cost is made by the developer in order to create a repair/replacement fund for future life cycling.
Interviews were conducted with various City Branches that have an interest in the design, approval or maintenance of gateway features. Throughout the course of the initial interviews, other internal stakeholder groups were identified and follow up interviews were completed. The list of internal stakeholder groups that were consulted is provided in the consultation section of this report.
In Ottawa, funding for on-going maintenance of gateway features was essentially eliminated during the Universal Program Review in 2004. In 2006, a small amount of funding was reinstated for tree trimming and weed removal. As such, the City no longer maintains gateway features/structures; however, in the event of a safety concern, the City will remove a feature. Replacement and/or repairs are no longer undertaken. It is for this reason that some staff did not favour publicly owned and maintained gateway features under the current budget setting due to the unavoidable increased costs that would be incurred both in on-going maintenance and replacement costs. Others supported publicly owned and maintained gateway features provided that adequate funding could be secured to provide for maintenance costs. Regardless, it was felt that material selection for either landscaping or structures associated with gateway features must be fundamental in the design and approval process. Concern was also expressed with respect to placing gateway features on private property of a single homeowner. Safety and adequate public land to allow for proper placement of utilities was also identified as critical.
There was consensus that greater clarity is needed in order to identify who is responsible for the design, approval and maintenance of gateway features. There was also consensus that efforts should be made to limit the number of gateway features that would be permitted on public lands. It was also felt that there is need to develop design standards, and in so doing establish a hierarchy of the types of gateway features which could be permitted. It was also felt that gateway features should be addressed as early as possible in the planning or design stage, and wherever possible, Community Design Plans should address the application of gateway features.
It was determined during the course of investigation that there are a number of policies and by‑laws which may have overlapping requirements when considering gateway features. The Official Plan, the Tourism and Public Services Signs policy, the Signs By-law, and Encroachments on City Highways By-law all come into play. In some cases, these documents may be in conflict.
A round table discussion was also held with local developer representatives. The list of developers that were invited to participate is provided in the consultation section of this report. The developer group contend that a gateway feature can be more than a marketing tool, in that it provides an identity to a neighbourhood or residential enclave. It also can be aesthetically pleasing, providing landscaping or other design features. The developer representatives see the need for early identification of criteria for gateway features, and they further see that the Community Design Plan process would be an excellent vehicle for resolving such issues as the selection of community names and by extension the names that might appear on gateway identification features, location and ownership of gateway features, as well as short and long term maintenance criteria. The developer representatives did not favour contributing to a life cycling fund.
Considerations
It is clear based on the foregoing, that in order to determine the acceptability of gateway features, there must first be a common understanding of the elements that make up a gateway feature. These elements include the physical structure (man-made versus natural), landscape materials, hierarchy or definition, scale, appearance, location, ownership, and maintenance.
With respect to gateway features, hierarchy rose as one the more principal elements that required consideration. Through consideration of hierarchy, clear definition of the levels of gateway features would emerge. There would appear to be a general hierarchy which already commonly exists, though it has not yet been documented. The progression is demonstrated as follows:
- Community Level Feature;
- Neighbourhood Feature (primary and secondary);
- Condominium/Private Feature.
In general a Community Level Feature will identify a large distinct geographic area within the city, such as the "Kanata" feature along Highway 417, the Village of Richmond, or even potentially business communities such as the Preston Street Italian Arch.
Examples of Primary Neighbourhood Features would be for both established or newer neighbourhoods such as Bridlewood, Barrhaven, Riverside South, etc. These features would be considered primary as they provide identification for large areas that are generally accepted as distinct neighbourhoods. Initially these areas tend to develop as part of smaller subdivisions but over time they evolve into their own distinct broader based community character.
Smaller developments within a larger neighbourhood or community would be viewed as having a Secondary Neighbourhood Feature. These features tend to identify smaller distinct developments which could be used as way finding tools within a primary neighbourhood. Examples of secondary features would include Springcreek Woods, White Pines or Pine Hill within the Bridlewood primary area.
Document 3 provides samples of various types of gateway features.
Location is also an integral element of a gateway features. For the purposes of this report, location is intended to signify whether on private or publicly owned lands. In the past, where funding was available some municipalities tended to be more receptive to permitting gateway features to be placed within the municipal right-of-way; however, due to declining operational budgets, the trend has been to try to move away from locating gateway features on public lands. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the location of a gateway feature within a right‑of‑way would in many cases have depended upon the hierarchy of the feature. Community level or primary neighbourhood level features were more readily accepted within city rights‑of‑way, whereas, smaller classifications tended to be on private property.
Other elements which were considered important included such things as physical structure, materials, appearance, scale, warrantee and maintenance. It was felt that these elements along with hierarchy and location could be addressed through the development of standardized design and implementation guidelines.
Conclusion
Gateway features do provide a beneficial function within the city from many perspectives. There is, however, a desire to establish tighter controls over the proliferation of gateway features in order to limit financial burden to both the City and private landowners. Further consultation with the various internal and external stakeholders would help facilitate the development of standardized guidelines. Guidelines should be prepared recognizing the concerns that have arisen through experience and through the research conducted as part of this report.
The following principles should guide the preparation of Guidelines in accordance with recommendation 1 of this report:
- Gateways shall be designed to limit financial burden to the City or private landowners;
- Gateways shall be designed for longevity and low maintenance;
- Gateways shall be placed in such a way as to eliminate conflicts with utilities or snow storage;
- Gateways shall be designed and located in the safest possible manner;
- Gateways shall be aesthetically pleasing;
- Gateways shall be integrated with community and its surroundings;
- Gateways shall be maintained by developers through a warrantee period;
- Gateways shall be certified by a qualified professional prior to acceptance by the City;
- Proliferation of Gateways on public property shall be discouraged and limited;
- Contributions to a life cycling fund shall be made by developers who wish to locate Gateways on Public Property;
- Gateway on-going maintenance and life cycling costs shall be monitored annually and budgeted accordingly;
- Gateways shall be clearly defined, with an established hierarchy and shall be planned for integration with the community;
- Consultation should occur with a broad range of external stakeholder groups in the development of the guidelines including community groups, Business Improvement Associations, etc.;
- Guidelines shall be developed so as to streamline and harmonize existing policies.
In addition, an assessment survey of existing gateway features must be undertaken so as to determine the appropriate amount of funds required for ongoing maintenance. This inventory will detail the location and relative condition of all features and will provide staff with the necessary information to provide Committee with an estimate of the funds required in the 2009 draft budget for the reinstatement of maintenance.
CONSULTATION
The following City Branches were consulted:
- Traffic and Parking Operations, Public Works and Services Department (PWS);
- Surface Operations, Public Works and Services Department (PWS);
- Infrastructure
Services, Public Works and Services Department (PWS);
- Real Property and Asset Management, Business Transformation Services;
- Planning Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE) (includes Development Approvals, Infrastructure Approvals and Community Planning and Design);
- Building Code Services, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE).
The following Canadian municipalities were consulted:
- Markham;
- Mississauga;
- London;
- Guelph;
- Hamilton;
- Kitchener/Waterloo;
- Richmond Hill;
- Gatineau;
- Calgary;
- Edmonton.
The following local developers were invited to participate:
- Tamarack;
- Ashcroft;
- Urbandale;
- Richcraft;
- Longwood;
- Tartan;
- Mattamy;
- Claridge;
- Minto.
This report was advertised in accordance with City policy and put on the City web page.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Gateway/Entrance Features Detailed Guidelines & Standards will be subject to a future report to Council which will identify the detailed guidelines and standards for consideration by Council. The report will also identify the operating and capital budget impacts of reinstating maintenance at the existing gateway/entrances features for Council consideration as a 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressure. The maintenance program for Gateway/Entrance Features was eliminated as part of the 2004 Universal Program Review. Currently, the 2009 Operating and Capital forecast have not taken this into consideration.
No funding for conducting an
assessment survey of existing Gateway Features estimated at $75,000 has been
included in the 2008 operating budget.
The 2008 corporate budget includes a number of one-time operational
requirements which are to be funded from the City Wide Capital reserve fund
subject to the availability of funds resulting from the closure of capital
projects. The costs of this survey would also represent a
one-time operational funding requirement.
Therefore, it is recommended that the funding of this requirement be
made from the City Wide Capital Reserve Fund as part of the capital closure
process. Staff will be submitting the
"Capital Adjustments and Closing of Capital Projects" report to
Council this spring.
The preparation of Guidelines will involve staff
time and a consultant will be required to assist in the preparation of the
Guidelines. Funding will
be provided through Planning Development Studies Program, Account 903265 and
Road Development Studies Program Account 903249.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 -
April 10, 2007 Planning and Environment Committee Motion
Document 2 - Table
summarizing surveyed municipalities
Document 3 - Sample of Gateway
Community Feature - Kanata
Document 4 - Sample of
Gateway Community Feature - Richmond
Document 5 - Sample of
Gateway Community Feature - Stittsville
Document 6 - Sample of
Gateway Primary Neighbourhood Feature - Bridlewood
Document 7 - Sample of
Gateway Secondary Neighbourhood Feature - Chapman Mills
Document 8 - Sample of
Gateway Secondary Neighbourhood Feature - Havenlea
Document 9 - Sample of
Gateway Secondary Neighbourhood Feature - Springcreek Woods
Document 10 - Sample of
Gateway Secondary Neighbourhood Feature - Winding Way
Document 11 - Sample of
Gateway Private/Condo Feature - Southgate Square
Document 12 - Sample of
Gateway Private/Condo Feature - Uplands Court
Document 13 - Sample of Gateway Private/Condo Feature - Windsor Park
DISPOSITION
Planning,
Transit and the Environment Department shall initiate the preparation of
Guidelines for the Design, Approval and Maintenance of Gateway/Entrance
Features. The Guidelines shall be brought to Planning and Environment Committee,
Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee and Council for consideration.
Public Works and Services
Department shall undertake an inventory analysis of existing Gateway/Entrance
Features and identify funding sources for on-going maintenance and life cycling
of Gateway/Entrance Features and shall introduce funding for Council
consideration in 2009.
