OTTAWA CITY COUNCIL
10 JUNE 2009
ANDREW S. HAYDON HALL
10:00 a.m.
MINUTES 68
The Council of the City of Ottawa met at Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, on 10 June 2009 beginning at 10:00 a.m.
The Deputy Mayor, Michel Bellemare, presided and the Deputy City Clerk led Council in prayer.
The National Anthem was performed by the Nathan Haller.
Announcements/Ceremonial Activities
RECOGNITION – BARBARA CLUBB
Deputy Mayor Michel Bellemare presented Barbara Clubb with a special commendation in recognition of her receiving two prestigious awards from the Canadian Library Association and the American Library Association.
Roll Call
ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT MAYOR O’BRIEN.
Confirmation of Minutes
The Minutes of the regular and In Camera meeting of 27 May 2009 were confirmed.
Declarations of interest including those originally arising from prior meetings
No declarations were received.
Communications
The following communications were received:
· Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Alerts :
· AMO comments on Long Term Care Homes Act Proposed Regulations
· Reminder: Labour Mobility Survey
· Needle Safety Regulatory Review
· Government Announces Consultation Process on Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy
· Federal and Provincial Governments Commit $2.3 Billion to Municipal Infrastructure in Ontario
· Responses to Inquiries
· 13-09 - Changes to the Planning Act
· 14-09 – Enforcement of Site Plan Conditions
Regrets
Mayor O’Brien advised he would be absent from the Council meeting of 20 June 2009.
Motion to Introduce Reports
MOTION NO. 68/1
Moved by Councillor D. Thompson
Seconded by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 41, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Planning and Environment Committee Joint Report 1, Community and Protective Services Committee Report 41, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 43, Planning and Environment Committee Report 52 and Transit Committee Report 27A be received and considered.
And that the Rules of Procedure be suspended to receive and consider the report from Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. entitled “Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. – 2008 Annual Report”; and to receive and table the report from the City Manager entitled “Mid-Term Governance Review” and to receive a briefing from the City Manager with respect to negotiations between the City and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) on the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.
CARRIED
Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc.
HYDRO OTTAWA HOLDING INC. – 2008 ANNUAL REPORT
SOCIÉTÉ DE PORTEFEUILLE HYDRO OTTAWA INC. – RAPPORT ANNUEL DE 2008
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council:
1. Receive the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements of Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. for the Year 2008 as set out in the Annual Report at Document 1 (issued separately and held on file with the City Clerk);
2. Appoint Ernst & Young LLP as the auditor of Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. for the Year 2009;
3. Re-appoint the persons identified at Document 2 to serve as members of the Boards of Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. and Hydro Ottawa Limited for the corresponding terms as specified;
4. Confirm the amendments to By-law No. 1 of Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. in the form set out in this report at Document 3; and
5. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign a written resolution on behalf of the City of Ottawa as shareholder of Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. setting out the resolutions approved by the City Council.
CARRIED
Reports
|
EXAMEN DE MI-MANDAT SUR LA GOUVERNANCE
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That, at its meeting of June 10, 2009, Council receive and table the “Mid-term Governance Review” report and refer the report to the June 16, 2009 meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for the purpose of receiving public delegations.
2. That, at it its meeting of June 24, 2009, Council consider and approve the following recommendations related to the Council and Committee structure and procedures:
Part I – Standing Committees
1) The principles and process for delegation to Standing Committees, Ward Councillors and staff outlined in the report.
2) The process for Standing Committee strategic planning as outlined in the report.
3) The ability of Standing Committees to identify ‘policy sponsors’ to work directly with staff on specific Committee initiatives.
4) The following Standing Committee structure for the remainder of the 2006-2010 Council term as outlined in the report:
a. Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
b. Audit, Budget and Finance Committee
c. Planning and Environment Committee
d. Community and Protective Services Committee
e. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
f. Transportation Committee
g. Transit Committee
5) The Council and Standing Committee Meeting Calendar as outlined in the report.
6) The Council and Standing Committee process improvements outlined in the report related to:
a. Items that Cross Committee Mandates
b. Motions Arising from ‘Open Mike’ Sessions
c. Advisory Committee Extra-Mandate Recommendations
d. Meeting Times and Location
7) That Standing Committees proceed with confirming the Chairs at the first Standing Committee meeting following the adoption of this report, notwithstanding the Rules of Procedure.
Part II – City Council
1) The implementation of a Bulk Consent Agenda and the procedures for lifting an item from the Bulk Consent Agenda as outlined in this report.
2) That the Mayor and Standing Committee Chairs be authorized to place related items together on the relevant agenda.
3) The process for listing responses to Council Inquiries with Standing Committee Inquiries at the relevant Standing Committee and then Council.
4) That boilerplate information be included on the Council Agenda listing as outlined in the report.
5) That Committee Chairs, or their designate, present Committee recommendations to Council as outlined in the report.
Part III – Local Boards
1) That the Library Board report directly to Council and that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board sit on the Selection Panel to appoint new Members.
2) The establishment of a separate Board of Health and direct staff to take the necessary steps to effect change.
Part IV – Citizen Engagement
1) Direction to City Clerk staff and City staff to work with Advisory Committees to identify processes and procedures to help Advisory Committees more effectively fulfill their individual mandates.
2) The Advisory Committee processes as outlined in the report.
3) That the Procedure By-law be amended to permit Advisory Committee representatives to address Standing Committees for ten minutes on any item within the Advisory Committee’s mandate.
4) Direction to City Clerk staff to develop a Petition Policy as outlined in the report.
Part V – Governance – Other Matters
1) That the Procedure By-law be amended so that the Ward Councillor(s) have the opportunity to open and close debate, on matters that directly affect identifiable wards, subject to the overarching right of the Chair.
2) That the City’s report template and processes be amended to provide the Ward Councillor(s) with the opportunity to provide formal comments on staff reports related to an identifiable ward(s).
3) That Councillors be provided with a global budget with which to run their offices, modelled after the Mayor’s budget.
4) Increasing the office budgets of Standing Committee Chairs to approximately .5 of an FTE in order to assist the Chair in managing the additional workload.
5) The amendments to the Procedure By-law as outlined in the report related to the following:
a. Suspension of the Rules
b. Recommendations Rejected by Standing Committees
c. Reconsideration
d. Directions to Staff
e. Meetings Investigator Recommendations Regarding In Camera Process
f. Voting in Council
6) Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law as outlined in the report.
7) That the Procedure By-law and the Delegation of Authority By-law and any other related By-laws, as amended by this report, be included in the by-law listing of the July 8, 2009 Council meeting.
8) That the current Meetings Investigator’s contract be extended until formal consideration of the 2010-2014 Governance Review and that future reports to Council from the Meeting Investigator include a staff comment.
MOTION NO. 68/2
Moved by Councillor B. Monette
Seconded by Councillor D. Thompson
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that deliberations on the Mid-term Governance Review take place at the August 26, 2009 Council meeting.
LOST on a division of 6 YEAS to 15 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (6): Councillors E. El-Chantiry, B. Monette, R. Bloess, D. Thompson, G. Hunter and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
Nays (15): Councillors S. Desroches, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, S. Qadri, J. Legendre, D. Deans, G. Bédard, R. Jellett, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, M. Wilkinson, D. Holmes, M. McRae, G. Brooks and A. Cullen.
The City Managers report entitled “Mid-Term Governance Review” was then put to Council and was RECEIVED, TABLED AND REFERRED with Councillor B. Monette dissenting.
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 41
|
1. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: ANOMALIES AND MINOR CORRECTIONS- SIXTH REPORT
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE 2008-250 : ANOMALIES ET CORRECTIONS MINEURES – SIXIÈME RAPPORT
|
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Recommendation
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve the amendments recommended in Column 3 of Document 2, to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law 2008-250.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Committee Recommendations As amended
That Council approve the amendments recommended in Column 3 of Document 1, to correct anomalies in Zoning By-law 2008-250, as amended by the following:
· That Item 2-Column 2 be amended by adding the following as a new paragraph, after “…as per the OMB Order” and before “This implements the Uptown Rideau Community Design Plan”:
“To fully implement the OMB Order by-law 2008-62 must be correctly reflected in the zoning by-law.”
· That Item 2–Column 3 be amended by adding the following at the end:
“Further amend Part 15, Section 239 by amending column V of exception 1603 by deleting the number 18.5 and replacing it with the number 5.”
· That Item 9 be added to Document 1 as follows:
Column 1: 9. Grenwich Circle – R1S subzone, Ward 16
Column 2: There is an error on the zoning map for the R1 S subzone on Grenwich Circle. Exception 515 was created for these properties but it was not applied on the zoning map.
Column 3: Amend the zoning map by adding exception 515 to the R1S subzone for properties on Grenwich Circle.
MOTION NO. 68/3
Moved by Councillor M. McRae
Seconded by Councillor P. Hume
WHEREAS a clarification is necessary regarding Planning and Environment Committee Agenda 55, Item 5, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: ANOMALIES AND MINOR CORRECTIONS - SIXTH REPORT, Document 1, item 9;
WHEREAS the intention of item 9 in Document 1 was to amend the zoning map by adding exception 515 to the entire R1S subzone, including properties on Grenwich Circle;
AND WHEREAS properties located on Whitestone Drive are also located within that R1S subzone;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following modifications be made to Item 9 in Document 1:
1. That exception 515 is to be applied to the entire R1S subzone which applies to Grenwich Circle and Whitestone Drive, and;
2. That the zoning map is to be amended by adding exception 515 to the entire R1S subzone which applies to Grenwich Circle and Whitestone Drive.
That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED
|
2. ZONING - 2002 CARP ROAD
ZONAGE – 2002, CHEMIN CARP
|
Committee Recommendation
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to amend the zoning of 2002 Carp Road from RR 10 Rural Residential to RC 11 [XXXX] Rural Commercial as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
|
3. ZONING - 3311 AND 3325 EAGLESON ROAD
ZONAGE - 3311 ET 3325, CHEMIN EAGLESON
|
Committee Recommendation
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3325 Eagleson Road from AG Agricultural Zone to AG5 [rural exception XX], as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 1.
CARRIED
|
4. ZONING - 3775 CARP ROAD, 458 DONALD B. MUNRO DRIVE AND 107 FALLDOWN LANE
ZONAGE - 3775, CHEMIN CARP, 458, PROMENADE DONALD B. MUNRO ET 107, RUELLE FALLDOWN
|
Committee Recommendations
(This application is subject to Bill 51)
That Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3775 Carp Road, 458 Donald B. Munro Drive and 107 Falldown Lane shown in Document 1 from VM (Village Mixed Use Zone) to VM SXX (Village Mixed Use Zone with a Schedule) to permit an increase in building height and allow for a reduction in the rear yard setback as detailed in Documents 4 and 5.
2. Approve a site-specific amendment to the Village of Carp Community Design Plan as detailed in Document 6 for lands located at 3775 Carp Road, 458 Donald B. Munro Drive and 107 Falldown Lane to permit an increase in height for a senior residential care facility/retirement home only.
CARRIED
|
5. DESIGNATION OF ST. ISIDORE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1135 MARCH ROAD, UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
DÉSIGNATION DE L’ÉGLISE CATHOLIQUE ST. ISIDORE, SITUÉE AU 1135, CHEMIN MARCH, AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO
|
Committee Recommendation As amended
That Council approve in lieu of the recommendation for the heritage designation, that the expanded church includes: the stonework, the stained glass windows and the bell, that forms part of the existing church as well as a replica of the former steeple.
MOTION NO. 68/4
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
Seconded by Councillor G. Bédard
That Council approve the designation of the St. Isidore Roman Catholic Church, 1135 March Road, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, attached as Document 4.
LOST on a division of 5 YEAS to 17 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (5): Councillors C. Doucet, J. Legendre, G. Bédard, D. Holmes and A. Cullen.
Nays (17): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, D. Deans, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, B. Monette, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, M. McRae, G. Brooks, D. Thompson, G. Hunter, R. Chiarelli and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
Item 5, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 41 was then put to Council and CARRIED with Councillors C. Doucet, J. Legendre, G. Bédard, D. Holmes and A. Cullen dissenting.
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE JOINT REPORT 1
|
1. COMPREHENSIVE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN - PUBLIC MEETING
RÉVISION QUINQUÉNNALE DÉTAILLÉE DU PLAN OFFICIEL - ASSEMBLÉE PUBLIQUE
|
JOINT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve the following:
1. That further to the Jellett motion regarding Schedules R35, R38, R44 and R45, adopt the City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment on Urban Expansion Areas as shown in Document 4, subject to the following:
a. That the boundary for Area 1C (Schedule R34) be shifted eastward to coincide with the boundary of the escarpment.
b. That in addition to the staff recommended conditions applying to the urban expansion lands, that the following additional conditions apply to the lands east of Cardinal Creek described in the staff report as Area 11:
i. The City will complete the Cardinal Creek Sub-watershed Plan before Council commences the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan and community design plan for the area. The sub-watershed plan and the Environmental Management Plan will identify the Natural Heritage System, as defined in the proposed Official Plan policies and further identified through on-site investigation, and will recommend means to protect this system in the context of this land being part of the urban area. The EMP will identify the natural features remaining on the land and measures to maintain or restore their ecological function.
ii. Prior to the redesignation of Area 11 as part of the Urban Area by the City the landowner(s) will:
· Transfer the lands identified by the Sub-watershed Plan and the Environmental Management Plan as the natural heritage system to the City as public land for the sum of $1.
· Provide a written undertaking to plant a minimum of $250,000 value of trees as part of the development of this area and ensure that a portion are butternut trees, an endangered species in the Province of Ontario and a tree common to this area.
· Provide a written undertaking to construct a pathway connection to Watters Road East and Petrie Island as part of the City’s pathway system.
· Provide a written undertaking to contribute a minimum of $250,000 for the construction of a new sports complex in the vicinity of Cardinal Village.
· Undertake to hold quarterly on-going public consultations with the community on all key planning and development matters related to this community over the next five years.
iii. In order to accommodate the increased traffic demand from Area 11 the traffic studies that support the community design plan will identify:
· The timing and need for widening of Ottawa Road 174 and the early provision of traffic control measures to ensure a safe and secure access to this busy road.
· The timing and need for widening of Old Montreal Road through the study area to Trim Road.
· The need for widening and the need to advance the construction of the Trim Road realignment from Ottawa Road 174 to Innes Road.
· The provision for adequate public transit to this new community.
iv. That landowner(s) provide a buffer for the land adjacent to Frank Kenny Road, similar to the buffer adjacent to Ted Kelly Lane.
v. That when Council considers the proposed Urban Tree Conservation By-law, that that it also consider extending the by-law to include additional lands, such as lands within approximately one kilometre of the urban boundary or land approved by Council for urban expansion. This will assist in preventing the Kanata and Cumberland tree clear-cutting experiences from happening in the future. It will also demonstrate the City of Ottawa's leadership in environmental stewardship.
2. Adopt the City of Ottawa Comprehensive Official Plan Amendment dated May 2009 as detailed in Document 13, subject to the following:
a. That Council reinforce its commitment to intensification through:
· Support for proactive, multi-faceted marketing and incentive programs to promote appropriate intensification;
· Support of intensification in the target areas in the Plan, with emphasis on rapid transit stations;
· Support for staff reviewing zoning by-laws and secondary plans in intensification target areas to ensure that targets can be met within established zoning;
· Support for the proposed intensification working group and its objective to coordinate all City practices, by-laws and administration to support intensification and lead discussions with all external stakeholders such as school boards and utilities to improve the success of the residential land strategy;
· Support for design review to ensure high quality development in target areas; and
· Support for the Capacity Management Strategy to provide infrastructure capacity in intensification areas.
b. That the appropriate wording be brought forward for Council’s consideration of the comprehensive Official Plan Amendment that will provide:
i. A moratorium be placed on the creation of new Country Lot Estate Subdivisions and Conservation Lot Subdivisions which moratorium shall end at the earlier of five years from the adoption of the Amendment or the coming into force of an Official Plan Amendment that addresses the matters in Recommendation 2 of this motion;
ii. That during the moratorium staff be instructed to study issues around Country Lot Estate subdivisions, particularly “cluster” developments, including:
· Whether the clustering of Country Lot Subdivisions has the potential to cause problems with groundwater that are not picked up in the studies for a single subdivision
· How much growth will be encouraged in the long term in these areas and whether in fact the presence of these settlement areas will encourage country lot development where it may otherwise not have been contemplated
· The implications of such development on the need for communal services and the feasibility of providing such
· The relationship between these clusters, as complete communities, and existing villages
· How the presence of clusters of Country Lot Estate subdivisions on the edge of the urban boundary will affect any expansion of the urban boundary, particularly efforts to avoid building over prime agricultural land and rural natural features
· Costs to the taxpayer of providing services
· Impact on the Official Plan objective of sustainability
· Impact on character of Rural Ottawa.
iii. That prior to reporting back to Council, have staff consult with the community and in particular consult with the rural working groups who contributed to the Rural Settlement Strategy:
· If there is support for cluster development, seek to achieve consensus on where and how big these clusters should be since this approach will remove development rights from properties outside of these areas.
· Assess how willing the rural community is to accept more intense development around them, especially residents already within these clusters.
· Recognizing the impact of country lot estate development on residents of the urban area, include residents of communities inside the urban boundary most affected by traffic and pressure on city services like recreation from country lot estates and groups concerned about the cost of growth.
c. The Village of Sarsfield Plan in Volume 2C of the City Official Plan is hereby amended by:
i. re-designating the land shown by heavy outline and a note on the attached Schedule A, from ‘Village-Residential’ to ‘Village-Mixed-Use’; and
ii. amending the designation shown on Schedule E , Volume 2C - Village Plans (Cumberland, Navan , Notre Dame des Champs, Sarsfield, Vars) accordingly.
d. That the long-term urban land needs of the City be examined as part of the Choosing our Future public engagement process and the results used to inform the next Official Plan update.
e. That the policies related to the minimum density of single detached dwellings be revised to allow for an overall minimum density which addresses all housing types, not singles specifically. Policy 19 in Section 2.2.2 be deleted and replaced with the following:
For those lands outside of the Greenbelt that are included in a community design plan approved by Council after June 10, 2009, the following housing mix and density provisions apply to the mix and density of residential dwellings will constitute the following:
· At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.
· Overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare. Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.
That the draft urban expansion amendment be revised as follows:
In Section 3.12, replace policy 4e with the following:
4 e) Establish the mix and location of residential dwellings which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:
i) At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.
ii) In Urban Expansion Study Area designations, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare. Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.
Renumber policy 4f to 4g, and introduce a new policy 4f to read:
4 f) Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, affordable housing and design.
In Section 3.13, replace policy 3d with the following:
d. Establish the mix and location of residential dwelling which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:
iii) At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings, other than apartments.
iv) In Developing Community (Expansion Area) designations, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare. Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.
Renumber policy 3e to 3f, and introduce a new policy 3e to read:
3 e) Show how the plan will achieve other policies of this Official Plan including, but not limited to, affordable housing and design.
In Section 3.6.4 replace policy 4a with the following:
4a) Establish the mix and location of residential dwellings which, as a minimum, will constitute the following:
i) At least 45% single detached but not more than 55% single detached, at least 10 per cent apartment dwellings and the remainder multiple dwellings other than apartments,
ii) In Developing Communities outside the Greenbelt, overall residential development will meet a minimum average density target of 34 units per net hectare. Net residential density is based on the area of land in exclusively residential use, including lanes and parking areas internal to developments but excluding public streets, rights-of-way and all non-residential uses.
f. That Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (a) be amended by adding:
Where the existing zoning provisions are sufficient to meet the intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these targets shall not be used as a planning rationale for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning.
And that Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (b) be amended by adding:
Where community design plans and secondary plans contain sufficient development potential to meet intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these plans shall not be altered for the purpose of achieving intensification.
3. Direct staff to prepare the amendment in the standard format to replace the tracked changes version and to ensure that all policy numbering and cross-references are correct, prior to being adopted by by-law.
4. Forward the Official Plan Amendment as adopted, along with the “Record” as required under the Planning Act, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for final approval.
5. Approve the 2009 Infrastructure Master Plan.
6. Receive for information the updated list of submissions attached as Part 1 of Document 15.
7. Receive for information some corrections to documents previously provided and attached as Part 2 of Document 15.
8. Adopt the additional proposed changes to the Official Plan attached as Part 3 of Document 15 and more specifically numbered as items 4, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 26, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,71, 72, 73, 74, and 75.
MOTION NO. 68/5
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet
Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes
WHEREAS the urban growth boundary is a key to restraining service sprawl, reducing city costs and improving services to all the developed areas of the city;
AND WHEREAS the increasing costs of oil, energy and construction materials are forcing municipal servicing costs up faster than taxes can be raised and this situation is exacerbated by urban sprawl.
WHEREAS there is already sufficient land for urban growth in the city at the projected rates of growth for the next 15 years;
AND WHEREAS the recession has made it clear we may not even experience the growth predictions in the Official Plan
WHEREAS the maintenance or dissolution of the urban growth boundary is of such importance that it should be referred to a public referendum and not be decided by City Council;
AND WHEREAS many city councillors enjoy electoral financial support from developers who will benefit from the expansion of the urban boundary and thus there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
WHEREAS Portland, Oregon and other North American cities where the urban growth boundary has also come under pressure from developers have referred to the maintenance of the urban growth limit to public referenda.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the urban growth boundary be maintained until a public referendum can be held on the matter during the election of 2010.
LOST on a division of 4 YEAS to 19 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (4): Councillors C. Doucet, J. Legendre, D. Holmes and A. Cullen.
Nays (19): Councillors S. Desroches, C. Leadman, S. Qadri, D. Deans, G. Bédard, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, B. Monette, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, M. McRae, G. Brooks, D. Thompson, G. Hunter, R. Chiarelli and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
MOTION NO. 68/6
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
Seconded by Councillor C. Doucet
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the urban boundary not be expanded.
LOST on a division of 10 YEAS to 13 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (10): Councillors C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, G. Bédard, R. Jellett, P. Hume, D. Holmes, G. Brooks, A. Cullen and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
Nays (13): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, D. Deans, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, B. Monette, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, M. McRae, D. Thompson, G. Hunter and R. Chiarelli.
MOTION NO. 68/7
(Replaces Committee Recommendation 1)
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS staff have produced a draft Official Plan amendment extending to the year 2031 which, while calling for more intensification and higher densities in suburban areas, also requires the expansion of the urban area by approximately 850 hectares; and
WHEREAS the Province requires that municipalities provide for at least a 10-year supply of urban residential land at all times between five year reviews of the Official Plan, which is interpreted to mean at least a 15-year supply of urban residential land is required at the time of each comprehensive review of the Plan; and
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has sufficient land within the current urban boundary to provide for:
- an 18-year supply of single detached and semi-detached housing;
- a 25-year supply of townhouses;
- opportunities for apartments for well beyond 25 years; and
WHEREAS the Province allows municipalities to designate land for up to 20 years but does not require that the maximum 20 years be planned for; and
WHEREAS the consequences of not expanding the boundary are that the supply of land for lower density housing forms would be slightly less than 20 years while the supply for higher density dwellings would be more than 20 years; and
WHEREAS Council seeks to plan for a more sustainable future for the City of Ottawa through the Choosing Our Future initiative and by supporting appropriate intensification at locations that support transit and higher densities in suburban areas; and
WHEREAS lands within the Fernbank Community Design Plan area that are not currently designated as Future Urban Area are an integral part of the Fernbank CDP and should therefore be included in the Urban Area notwithstanding;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council retain the existing urban boundary as part of this comprehensive review of the Official Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that notwithstanding this, that lands within the Fernbank CDP area and areas designated as 6A, 6B, and 6C, that are not in the Future Urban Area should be redesignated as Future Urban Area on Schedules A and B.
CARRIED on a division of 12 YEAS to 11 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (12): Councillors C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, D. Deans, G. Bédard, R. Jellett, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, D. Holmes, G. Brooks, A. Cullen and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
Nays (11): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, E. El-Chantiry, B. Monette, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, M. McRae, D. Thompson, G. Hunter and R. Chiarelli.
MOTION NO. 68/8
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS the Provincial Policy Statement states that Council is to:
Maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development;
AND WHEREAS through the Policy Statement, the Province has required in all cases intensification and redevelopment and has provided that only if necessary shall designated and available lands be utilized for the requirement of 10 years supply (at all times) for residential growth;
AND WHEREAS in furtherance of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Joint Committee has recommended Official Plan policies which strongly support intensification and redevelopment;
AND WHEREAS with such policies, the City of Ottawa has approximately an 18 year supply of residential land which complies will provincial policy and will continue to comply at the conclusion of the next five year review required by the Planning Act;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the amendment to the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa provide the following:
Section 2, opening paragraph be modified to read:
Section 2, Strategic
Directions, outlines the broad policies that will govern growth and change in
Ottawa over the next 20 to 25 15 to 20 years. This
Plan will accommodate a 15-year supply of land for residential purposes,
despite projections to the year 2031, and a 20-year supply of land for
non-residential purposes.
Section 2.2.1, fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the preamble as modified by the comprehensive amendment be modified to read:
Sufficient land is designated in the Official Plan
to meet the demands for a range and mix of employment opportunities, housing
and other land uses to meet the projected needs for 20 years. In the case of housing, this Plan designates
sufficient land for 15 years.
Section 2.2.1, Policy 2 be modified to read:
Sufficient land will be provided in the urban area to meet a 15 year forecast for housing and a 20 year forecast for employment and other purposes;
Section 2.2.1, Policy 3a) be modified to read
- The forecasted demand for land for employment in the 20-year period and housing in the 15-year period;
Section 2.2.1, Policy 3d) be modified to read:
d. The extent to which the existing land supply can meet the 20-year forecast for employment lands and the 15-year forecast for residential lands through reconsideration of permitted land uses;
A new Section 2.2.1, Policy 7 be inserted:
- Council shall provide
funding in
20132012 to permit an examination of the supply of / demand for land for employment, housing and other purposes to meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement with the results of such study to be submitted to Council no later than June, 2014.
Section 2.5.1, Preamble, first sentence under the heading ‘Compatibility’ as modified by the comprehensive amendment be modified to read:
In support of lively and complete mixed-use communities, the City's growth management strategy includes intensification of development in the urban area over the next 15 to 20 years and concentrating rural development in Villages.
CARRIED with Councillors S. Qadri, E. El-Chantiry, M. Wilkinson, D. Thompson, G. Hunter and R. Chiarelli dissenting.
MOTION NO. 68/9
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS the current Official Plan update is a refresh, while the next update of the Official Plan in 2013 is intended to be a more comprehensive review;
AND WHEREAS some critical broad-based initiatives are underway or soon to be underway;
AND WHEREAS the Choosing Our Future initiative has been launched by the City of Ottawa and its partners as a means to make our City and the National Capital Region more sustainable and resilient in the long term; and is intended to update our Ottawa 20/20 Vision, produce a set of sustainability principles, and be developed with widespread community engagement;
AND WHEREAS Agricultural Land is a non-renewable resource, a review of the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) criteria, weighting and model will result in a city-wide, standardized update or recommitment to our Agricultural Resource Areas;
AND WHEREAS Mineral Aggregates are a non-renewable resource and a review of the need to designate additional Mineral Resource Areas has not been assessed since 1995 and is timely;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
- the long-term urban land needs of the City be examined as part of the Choosing our Future public engagement process and that the results of the project along with the results of the LEAR review and Mineral Resource review be used to inform the next Official Plan update.
- Section 2.2.1, Policy 7 be amended as follows:
“Council shall provide funding in 2012 to permit an examination of the supply of, and demand for land for employment, housing and other purposes to meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy statement with the results of such study to be submitted to Council no later than June, 2014. The long-term urban land needs of the City will be examined as part of the Choosing Our Future public engagement process. The results of the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) review and a review of the Mineral Resource policies will also be used to inform the next comprehensive update of this Plan.”
CARRIED
MOTION No. 68/10
(Replaces Committee Recommendation 2.b.)
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate
Seconded by Councillor G. Brooks
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa seeks to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability in the Official Plan;
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa is committed to having growth occur in a way that keeps both capital and operating costs under control;
AND WHEREAS the number of Country Lot Subdivisions has led to clusters forming that are for all intents and purposes suburban developments outside of the urban boundary;
AND WHEREAS the majority of Country Lot Subdivisions residents in the workforce commute into the urban area;
AND WHEREAS allowing low-density suburban developments outside the urban boundary where people are required to drive to access all services undermines the work being done to encourage intensification and ensure greenfield development within the urban boundary is sustainable;
AND WHEREAS the findings in Comparative Municipal Fiscal Impact Analysis by Hemson Consulting showing a much higher net cost per unit for new development in the rural part of the City of Ottawa means that permitting additional Country Lot subdivisions is significantly more expensive for taxpayers than development within the urban boundary;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1. A moratorium be placed on the creation of new Country Lot Estate subdivisions and Conservation Lot Subdivisions which moratorium shall end at the earlier of five years from the adoption of the amendment or the coming into force of an official plan amendment that addresses the matters in Recommendation 2 of this motion;
- That during the moratorium staff be instructed to study issues around Country Lot Estate subdivisions, particularly “cluster” developments, including:
a) Whether the clustering of Country Lot Subdivisions has the potential to cause problems with groundwater that are not picked up in the studies for a single subdivision
b) How much growth will be encouraged in the long term in these areas and whether in fact the presence of these settlement areas will encourage country lot development where it may otherwise not have been contemplated
c) The implications of such development on the need for communal services and the feasibility of providing such
d) The relationship between these clusters, as complete communities, and existing villages
e) How the presence of clusters of Country Lot Estate subdivisions on the edge of the urban boundary will affect any expansion of the urban boundary, particularly efforts to avoid building over prime agricultural land and urban natural features
f) Costs to the taxpayer of providing services
g) Impact on the Official Plan objective of sustainability
h) Impact on character of Rural Ottawa.
- That prior to reporting back to Council, have staff consult with the community and in particular:
a) Consult with the rural working groups who contributed to the Rural Settlement Strategy
b) If there is support for cluster development, seek to achieve consensus on where and how big these clusters should be since this approach will remove development rights from properties outside of these areas
c) Assess how willing the rural community is to accept more intense development around them, especially residents already within these clusters
d) Recognizing the impact of country lot estate development on residents of the urban area, include residents of communities inside the urban boundary most affected by traffic and pressure on city services like recreation from country lot estates and groups concerned about the cost of growth.
5. That Section 3.7.2 of the Official Plan, General Rural Area, be modified by inserting a new policy 10 immediately after Conservation Subdivisions to say:
Moratorium on Country Lot Development
10. Notwithstanding policies 6, 7, 8 and 9 permitting the creation of country lot subdivisions and conservation subdivisions, a moratorium is placed on the creation of any new ones, which moratorium shall end at the earlier of five years from the date of adoption of this Plan or the coming into force of an official plan amendment that removes this moratorium and reinstates the existing policies or replaces them with new policies. Any changes will be based on a critical review of country lot subdivision policies and in particular the proposal to cluster country lot subdivisions and will examine, but not be limited to:
a. The impact on existing villages;
b. The potential impact on groundwater;
c. The development potential in these clusters;
d. The implications for the demand for communal services;
e. The costs to taxpayers;
f. The impact on rural character.
CARRIED with Councillors R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, D. Thompson and R. Chiarelli dissenting.
MOTION NO. 68/11
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
Seconded by Councillor G. Bédard
WHEREAS the Official Plan supports a preferred development scenario by housing type of 40% Single; 5% Semi, 27% Row and 28% Apartment;
AND WHEREAS meeting density targets by the excessive building of apartments, usually in high-rise development, will not create liveable, walkable, healthy cities;
AND WHEREAS growth management should not be driven by consumer-choice alone;
AND WHEREAS a lower target for Singles and higher targets for Semi and Row units would result in a more compact form of urban development that would:
· Promote greater environmental conservation, air and water protection,
· Lower infrastructure delivery costs; and
· Reduce annual operating and servicing costs;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Official Plan’s development scenario by housing type be amended to: 25% Single; 15% Semi; 40% Row; 20% Apartment.
LOST on a division of 6 YEAS to 15 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (6): Councillors C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, G. Bédard, D. Holmes and A. Cullen.
Nays (15): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, D. Deans, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, M. McRae, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, R. Chiarelli and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
MOTION NO. 68/12
Moved by Councillor C. Leadman,
Seconded by Councillor R. Chiarelli
WHEREAS Community Design Plans (CDPs) are pivotal planning documents that often are developed in heavy consultation with the affected communities to define local planning issues and method of development;
AND WHEREAS Appropriate criteria for identifying compatible heights are crucial in ensuring the original vision and specifics of CDPs;
AND WHEREAS Increasing clarity on height profiles does not limit growth but enhances the parameters in which it is undertaken;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff be directed to amend Section 4.11.8 of the draft Official Plan to identify a medium rise as five to six stories and medium high rise as seven to nine stories in Community Design Plans.
LOST on a division of 8 YEAS to 13 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (8): Councillors C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, G. Bédard, M. Wilkinson, D. Holmes, A. Cullen and R. Chiarelli.
Nays (13): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, D. Deans, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. McRae, G. Brooks, G. Hunter and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
MOTION NO. 68/13
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
Seconded by Councillor C. Leadman
WHEREAS the Official Plan supports medium-rise building heights of 6 storeys in Traditional Mainstreets and 9 storeys in Arterial Mainstreeets;
AND WHEREAS Section 4.11.10 also permits high-rise buildings to be considered in these areas, and there is no upper limit on the number of floors in high-rise building as defined in Section 4.11.8;
AND WHEREAS there needs to be additional direction in the Official Plan on compatibility, community context, and urban design guidelines that respect the existing built form of a mainstreet and its adjacent neighbourhood, to ensure that new developments do not overwhelm the predominant character of an established maintstreet:
BE IT RESOLVED that Section 4.11 be amended by the attached revisions.
CARRIED
Attached Revisions:
Building Profile
8. The following guidance is provided in the preparation of building profile policies in community design plans, secondary plans, and in the consideration of development applications:
a. Low-Rise – a one to four storey building;
b. Medium-Rise – a five to nine storey building;
c. High-Rise – a building 10 storeys or more.
9. High-rise buildings may be considered on lands within the following designations as defined on Schedule B of this Plan, provided all other policies of this Plan are met:
a. Central Area;
b. Mixed-use Centres and Town Centres;
c. Employment Areas that are principally prestige business parks and Enterprise Areas, subject to the provision of appropriate built form transitions between the Employment or Enterprise Area and adjacent residential communities built at lower profiles; and
d. Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets, provided the provisions of policy 10 below are satisfied.
10. In addition to provisions in policy 9 above, high-rise buildings may be considered in the following locations, provided all other policies of this Plan have been met:
a. Within areas characterized by high-rise buildings that have direct access to an arterial road, or;
b. Within 600 metres of a rapid transit station, or;
c. Where a community design plan, secondary plan, or other similar Council-approved planning document identifies locations suitable for the creation of a community focus on a strategic corner lot, or at a gateway location, or on a terminating site to strategic views, or a site that frames important open spaces, or at a location where there are significant opportunities to support transit at a transit stop or station by providing a pedestrian and transit-oriented mix of uses and activities, or;
d. Within areas identified for high-rise buildings in the Zoning By-law, community design plans, secondary plans, or similar plans approved by Council, or;
e. Within areas where a built form transition as described in policy 12 below is appropriate.
- Heights greater than those identified in Section 3.6.3 on Mainstreets may be considered in the same circumstances as described in policy 10 above.
Building Profile and Compatibility
11. Integrating taller
buildings within an area characterized by a lower built form is an important
urban design consideration, particularly in association with intensification.
Development proposals will address issues of compatibility and integration with
surrounding land uses by ensuring that an effective transition in built form is
provided between areas of different development profile. Transitions in built
form will serve to link proposed development with both planned, as well
as existing uses, thereby acknowledging that the planned function of an area as
established though Council-approved documents such as a community design plan
or the Zoning By-law, may anticipate a future state that differs from the
existing situation. Transitions should be accomplished through a variety of
means, including measures such as:
a. Incremental changes in building height (e.g. angular planes or stepping building profile up or down);
b. Massing (e.g. inserting ground-oriented housing adjacent to the street as part of a high profile development or incorporating podiums along a Mainstreet);
c. Character (e.g. scale and rhythm, exterior treatment, use of colour and complementary building finishes);
d. Architectural design (e.g. the use of angular planes, cornice lines), and
e. Building setbacks.
The use of transitions may vary according to such factors as the size of the development area, the planned intensity of use in the immediate area, the size of the lower-profile area, the street widths and the analysis of impacts on the lower-profile areas set out in policy 14 below.
12. [Former policy 2.d), S.4.11 modified] The need to provide transitions in built form may be offset or reduced where natural buffers and features or changes in grade and topography exist, or through the orientation of buildings and the arrangement of land uses patterns.
13. A high-rise building will be considered both as an example of architecture in its own right and as an element of urban design sitting within a wider context.
14. By virtue of their size and prominence, high-rise buildings perhaps have greater potential to harm the qualities that people value about a place than lower profile buildings. Notwithstanding policies 9 through 13 above, not all sites may be appropriate for a high-rise building or for a building that is significantly taller than the context in which it is to be situated. Application of design principles that contribute to a sense of human scale will improve and enhance user comfort and enhance the perception of new development within its existing context. The City will consider proposals submitted for high-rise buildings in light of the fit of the proposal within its neighbouring context and in light of the following measures, depending on the type of approval sought:
- How the scale, massing and height of the proposed development relates to that of adjoining buildings, its contextual fit with the character of the immediate area, and the vision for the area established in Council-approved community design plans, secondary plans, other similar Council-approved planning documents, or the Zoning By-law;
- The establishment of appropriate transitions and/or building setbacks from adjoining areas built at a lower profile;
- How the proposal relates to the setting, character, and integrity of cultural heritage resources adjacent to or across the street from the site, consistent with the provisions of S.4.6.1 of this Plan;
- The width of the public right-of-way on which the proposed building has frontage. A wider right-of-way will enable greater building height. In this regard, general guidance will be is provided in the City’s urban design guidelines for high-rise buildings;
- The depth and width of the lot on which the proposed building is to be located. Greater lot depth and width will enable greater flexibility in determining building height;
- How the proposal enhances existing or creates new views, vistas and landmarks;
- The effect on the skyline of the design of the top of the building;
- The quality of architecture and urban design, consistent with Council-approved design guidelines;
- How the proposal enhances the public realm, including contribution to and interaction with its surroundings at street level (e.g. the provision of publicly accessible landscaped area, amenity space and pedestrian respite areas, street trees public art, active land use frontages, legible entrances and views to the street, canopies, awnings and colonnades for continuous weather protection);
- The maximization of
accessibility to,
relationshipintegration with and support of public transit; - The adequacy of vehicle movements into and out of the site and the carrying capacity of the street network serving the development;
- The adaptability of the
design over time to enhance resource and energy efficiency
., and; - How the proposal minimizes any sun-shadowing or uncomfortable wind conditions on sensitive areas such as residential areas, sidewalks, pedestrian gathering places, and parks through its design, articulation, size, orientation and massing;
- How the proposal addresses safety, physical, visual, and noise impacts of associated service functions (e.g. parking, loading, air conditioning, meters, vents, garbage storage and collection) on the street and adjacent property;
- The adequacy of resulting privacy and/or natural light conditions on adjacent private amenity areas (residential windows, balconies, yards) through mitigation of any overlook from the proposal and/or the orientation, facing distance and space between building walls and windows and between building walls and property lines.
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/14
Moved by Councillor C. Leadman
Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes
WHEREAS The City of Ottawa must ensure intensification moves forward and is supported and accepted by the communities impacted;
AND WHEREAS Community concerns on the application of intensification policies are primarily focused upon ensuring the appropriate, compatible and complimentary nature of developments;
AND WHEREAS Clear, descriptive and prescriptive language is needed to state the City’s intention on appropriate development to ensure the appropriate guidance for development and protection of affected communities;
AND WHEREAS Infill development can cause significant disruption in existing neighbourhoods and when improperly implemented can lead to community concerns on the application of intensification policies;
AND WHEREAS Infill development is encouraged in the Official Plan in existing established neighbourhoods however strengthening the compatibility of new developments when different from the established build pattern should utilize the established build pattern as the basis for redevelopment while still not tied to its exact build form;
AND WHEREAS Enhancing the development review section of the Official Plan with the following provision will seek to encourage infill development but within a balanced context of seeking both growth in existing neighbourhoods while respecting the character and nature of the neighbourhoods in which that growth will occur;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff be directed to include the following provision in Section 4.11 of the draft official plan:
“Infill and redevelopment within the interior portions of stable, low-rise neighbourhoods will occur in accordance with policy 14 of Section 2.2.2. Where development is proposed that requires an amendment or variance to the zoning by-law with respect to lot area, yards and/or building setback, or building height, and which varies from the established area’s pattern of built form and open spaces, the appropriateness of the proposal will be considered in light of the following measures:
- Building height, massing and scale permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the immediate area;
- Prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the immediate area;
- The need to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale as set out in policies 12 and 13 of this Section;
- The provision of adequate privacy, sunlight and sky views for residents of new and existing buildings as set out in policy 3 of this Section and through the use of such means as distance and separation between building walls and using landscaping, planting and fencing to enhance privacy where needed; and
- The mitigation of resulting traffic and parking impacts on adjacent neighbourhood streets so as not to diminish the residential amenity in accordance with policy 3 of this Section.”
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/15
Moved by Councillor C. Leadman
Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes
WHEREAS The City of Ottawa must ensure intensification moves forward and is supported and accepted by the impacted communities;
AND WHEREAS Community concerns on the application of intensification policies are primarily focused upon ensuring the appropriate, compatible and complimentary nature of developments;
AND WHEREAS Clear, descriptive and prescriptive language is needed to state the City’s intention on appropriate development to ensure the appropriate guidance for development and protection of affected communities;
AND WHEREAS The proposed direction explicitly enhances the compatibility criteria in the development application review section of the Official Plan;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff be directed to include the following provision in section 4.11 of the draft Official Plan:
“Proponents of intensification development proposals in targeted areas will address the larger context of their proposals. Intensification development will be massed to fit harmoniously for the area in which the proposed development is located. Proponents will include an assessment of the impacts and compatibility nature of the proposed development focusing on appraising its complementary form, scale and impact with the target segment through examination of patterns of streets, blocks, lanes, parks and public building sites, prevailing building type(s), setbacks of buildings from the street or streets, height, massing, scale, and dwelling type of nearby abutting and adjacent properties.”
CARRIED on a division of 12 YEAS to 9 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (12): Councillors C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, D. Deans, G. Bédard, R. Jellett, R. Bloess, D. Holmes, M. McRae, A. Cullen, R. Chiarelli and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
Nays (9): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, J. Harder, M. Wilkinson, G. Brooks and G. Hunter.
MOTION NO. 68/16
Moved by Councillor C. Leadman
Seconded by Councillor R. Chiarelli
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa must ensure intensification moves forward and is supported and accepted by the communities impacted;
AND WHEREAS community concerns on the application of intensification policies are primarily focused upon ensuring the appropriate, compatible and complimentary nature of developments;
AND WHEREAS clear, descriptive and prescriptive language is needed to state the City’s intention on appropriate development to ensure the appropriate guidance for development and protection of affected communities;
AND WHEREAS the first addition seeks to provide Council the ability to develop unique area specific policies if particular circumstances are present as determined by Council;
AND WHEREAS the second addition seeks to clearly establish a guideline of the prevailing building type in a planning context as has been approved in other municipalities in Ontario;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff be directed to amend the draft Official Plan to include the following provision:
- “Intensification of land adjacent to existing neighbourhoods will be carefully controlled so that the neighbourhoods are protected from negative impact. Where significant intensification of land adjacent to a neighbourhood is proposed, council will determine, at the earliest point in the process, whether or not an area specific policy will be created in consultation with the local community”;
AND THAT City staff be directed to amend the draft Official Plan to include the following provision:
- “The prevailing building type will be the predominant form of development in the neighbourhood. Where a more intense form of development than the prevailing building type has been approved on a street in a neighbourhood, it will not be considered when reviewing prevailing building type(s) in the assessment of development proposals.”
LOST on a division of 10 YEAS to 12 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (10): Councillors C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, G. Bédard, B. Monette, R. Bloess, D. Holmes, M. McRae, A. Cullen and R. Chiarelli.
Nays (12): Councillors S. Desroches, S. Qadri, D. Deans, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, J. Harder, M. Wilkinson, G. Brooks, G. Hunter and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
MOTION NO. 68/17
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett
Seconded by Councillor G. Hunter
WHEREAS the City’s Official Plan regulates the development of land in the rural area and in particular limits the creation of new residential lots, by severance and subdivision, to lands designated General Rural Area and Rural Natural Features;
AND WHEREAS it is argued that severed lots encourage a greater choice of housing by allowing a more affordable and compatible form of development than that provided by country lot subdivisions;
AND WHEREAS the Official Plan permits the creation of residential lots by severance only where there is a retained parcel of 10 hectares or larger;
AND WHEREAS the requirement for a 10-hectare retained parcel limits the opportunities for many landowners with smaller lots to obtain a severance.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that Council Amend Section 3.7.2, General Rural Area, as follows:
1. Change the heading “Infill Areas” immediately before policy 15 to say “Infill in Historical Settlements.”
2. Provide new policies as follows:
“INFILL OUTSIDE OF HISTORICAL SETTLEMENTS
19. Limited residential infill through the severance of lots, will be considered in areas meeting the following criteria:
a. The proposed severance has road frontage on a paved and maintained public road; and
b. The proposed severance is opposite residential lots with frontage on the same road; and
c. The lot to be created is between two existing dwellings that are situated on the same side of the road and are not more than 250 metres apart; and
d. The lot(s) created, including the retained parcel, must be at least 0.8 ha in size
20. In reference to policy 19, no more than two lots will be created from any lot in existence on the 13 May 2003 and no further severance will be permitted from either the severed or retained lot.”
CARRIED on a division of 15 YEAS to 7 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (15): Councillors S. Desroches, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, D. Deans, G. Bédard, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, B. Monette, R. Bloess, M. McRae, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, A. Cullen and R. Chiarelli.
Nays (7): Councillors S. Qadri, P. Feltmate, P. Hume, J. Harder, M. Wilkinson, D. Holmes and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
MOTION NO. 68/18
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes
WHEREAS the Official Plan identifies good design as being a major requirement for successful intensification;
AND WHEREAS Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan, Compatibility and Community design, Policy 3 states that the City will encourage other public- and private-sector owners and developers to include art as a public component of their developments;
AND WHEREAS there is a need to be more aggressive in pursuing public art in major developments in the City of Ottawa
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to investigate means to strengthen the policy and programs surrounding this initiative and that a policy 4 be added to Section 2.5.1 that states:
“4. Further to Policy 3 above, the City will prepare a strategy to be more aggressive in achieving public art in major developments by investigating means to require a “percentage as public art” from the private sector. The City will examine best practices in other jurisdictions, and consult with the development community and approve a revised approach by the end of 2010.”
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/19
Moved by Councillor C. Leadman
Seconded by Councillor M. McRae
WHEREAS Properly mitigating traffic issues through TDM measures is crucial in achieving a system of supporting intensification as there is limited ability to augment road capacity to deal with growth as is common practice outside the greenbelt;
AND WHEREAS Currently funding and priority of TDM measures do not fully align with City planning priorities;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff be directed to amend Policy 12 in Section 2.2.2 of the Official Plan to include “Implement the coordinated delivery of Transportation Demand Management measures as described in S.2.3.1 of this Plan;”
AND THAT City staff be directed to provide direction and priority funding for identified TDM measures in targeted areas outlined in the Official Plan;
AND THAT Implementation of interconnected TDM measures be undertaken in unison.
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/20
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard
Seconded by Councillor R. Bloess
WHEREAS it is the intent of Council to remove Rideau Street and King Edward Avenue from the Regional Truck Route System on completion of an inter provincial corridor;
AND WHEREAS both the Transportation Section and the Central Area Section of the Official Plan make reference to this commitment;
AND WHEREAS the wording in each section is different and should be made consistent;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that both the Transportation Section and the Central Area Section of the official plan be replaced as follows:
The City will, working with other levels of government, remove Rideau Street and King Edward Avenue from the City’s identified truck route system upon the completion of a new inter provincial corridor to accommodate trucks.
CARRIED on a division of 10 YEAS to 9 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (10): Councillors C. Leadman, S. Qadri, J. Legendre, D. Deans, G. Bédard, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, M. Wilkinson, D. Holmes and M. McRae.
Nays (9): Councillors S. Desroches, R. Jellett, E. El-Chantiry, B. Monette, R. Bloess, G. Hunter, A. Cullen, R. Chiarelli and Deputy Mayor M. Bellemare.
MOTION NO. 68/21
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS land designated as Natural Environment Area, Urban Natural Features and Major Open Space do not permit development and because of this prohibition the Official Plan requires the acquisition of these lands if the owner requests the City to do so;
AND WHEREAS the current acquisition policies do not require the City to acquire land designated Major Open Space if it is also part of a flood plain or is characterized by steep or unstable slopes;
AND WHEREAS the draft Amendment recommended by staff proposed to include similar exclusions for land designated as Natural Environment Area or Urban Natural Features but in doing so the proposed policies have been inadvertently worded differently to the policies for Major Open Space;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council correct this discrepancy by amending Section 5.2.1 Policy 5(c) to read as follows:
“c. Where land that is designated Natural Environment Area or Urban Natural Feature is not otherwise identified as flood plain or steep or unstable slopes, the City will acquire the land at the request of the landowner;”
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/22
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS the City’s Official Plan prohibits development and site alteration in natural areas designated in the Official Plan and the designations have policies that do this in various ways.
AND WHEREAS development and site alteration is defined in a number of designations and the proposed Official Plan amendment seeks to standardize the interpretation of these terms for consistency and conformity with Provincial Policy;
AND WHEREAS Section 3.2.2 in the draft Official Plan amendment, dealing with the Natural Environment Area designation, inadvertently includes two different references to the new definitions and needs to be corrected;
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that Council correct this inconsistency by amending Section 3.2.2-Natural Environment Areas, by deleting proposed policies 2 and 3 and renumbering the following policies accordingly.
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/23
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS there is a desire by the Village Working Group to understand the policies in other sections of the Plan that apply to villages
AND WHEREAS the revised plan as presented at the public meeting included paraphrased policies that are dealt with elsewhere in the Plan with the potential for confusion in interpretation
THEREFORE be it resolved that the paraphrased policies be replaced with references to the substantive policy and Section 3.7.1 – Villages, be amended as follows:
Policies
Location and Distribution of Villages
1. Villages are designated on Schedule A with the intent of permitting a variety of land uses to provide for the daily needs of the rural community and to ensure that they remain distinctly rural in character and scale.
2. Villages vary in size and function and have different needs with respect to land-use plans.
3. Changes to village
boundaries will be considered in the context of Section 2.2.2 2.2.1 of this Plan.
Plans for Villages
4. The intensity and distribution of land uses within a Village will be determined in the context of:
a. Any plan for the Village contained in Volume 2, or a community design plan where such a plan has been undertaken;
b. The ability to support development on private water and wastewater services or on public services where such exist.
5. Villages vary in size
and function and have different needs with respect to land-use plans. The City
will undertake community design plans for those villages where public services
are contemplated or where village expansions are contemplated. Council will
also consider the need for a CDP where large areas of vacant land (more than 50
hectares) are being proposed for development within the village boundary. In
all these cases, Section 2.2, policy 11 will apply.
6. For Villages that do
not meet the criteria in policy 4 above, The City will undertake a review of Village Plans on a five year basis that
includes:
c. An analysis of changes in the previous five years;
d. A review of any existing secondary plan or community design plan for the Village;
e. At least one public meeting to consider needs and challenges;
f. A report to Council on the Village and any required policy initiatives.
7. Community design plans for Villages will be consistent with Section 2.5.6 of this Plan. First and foremost, the participants will develop a vision for the village and identify the qualities and characteristics of the village that should be preserved while recognizing that other aspects may change.
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/24
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS the City’s Official Plan prohibits development, such as residential uses, on land in and within 300 metres of a Sand and Gravel Resource Area designation and in or within 500 metres of a Limestone Resource Area designation because these uses may conflict with existing and future extraction of aggregate resources;
AND WHEREAS the Plan permits the severance of a dwelling from land within a Sand and Gravel or a Limestone Resource Area provided that the dwelling was built prior to July 9, 1997 and the retained land is rezoned to prohibit a new dwelling.
AND WHEREAS the current policies do not permit a similar opportunity for existing dwellings on land adjacent to the designations thereby creating an inconsistency between land in and adjacent to the resource designations;
AND WHEREAS some site specific policies should be identified under a separate heading instead of being interspersed with the general policies;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council correct the abovementioned inconsistency and reorder the polices by amending Section 3.7.4, Mineral Resources to:
1. Move policy 10 (a) to the end of Section 3.7.4 and renumber it under a new heading “ Site Specific Policies.”
2. Replace Policy 13 with the following:
13. The City will permit the creation of new lots in the Sand and Gravel and the Limestone Resource Areas and on land within the influence areas, identified in Policy 10, where the following criteria are met:
a. the intention is to sever a lot for a house existing as of July 9, 1997; and
b. the vacant parcel that remains within the Sand and Gravel Resource Area, the Limestone Resource Area or within an influence area identified in Policy 10, is rezoned to prohibit the construction of a new residential building; and
c. where the severance is within an influence area identified in Policy 10 it must also be permitted by and be consistent with the policies of the underlying designation of the land.
CARRIED
MOTION NO. 68/25
Moved by Councillor P. Hume
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS King Edward Ave has been designated as a Traditional Mainstreet in its extent beyond the Central Area (Section 3.6.6, Policy 7h.);
AND WHEREAS Schedule R42 identifies all of King Edward Avenue and not just the part beyond the Central Area;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council adopt the revised Schedule R42, attached to this motion.
CARRIED
