1. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL POSITION FOR
URBAN BOUNDARY PHASE 2 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD POSITION RECOMMANDÉE DU CONSEIL CONCERNANT LA LIMITE
DU SECTEUR URBAIN – PHASE 2 - COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE
L’ONTARIO |
Committee
recommendations as amended
That Council approve:
1.
The parcels shown in
Document 3, as Schedules R36, R37, R38, R45 and Revised Schedule R34, as
the City’s submission to the Ontario Municipal Board for the balance of the
urban area expansion; and
2.
An amendment to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law, By-law
2009-200, effective 28 September 2011, extending the application of the by-law
to the parcels recommended to be added to the urban area; and
3.
That the
following corrections be made to Page 22 of the staff report:
For parcel 1c:
- “Arterial & Collector Road Frontage” should state “March”
instead of “none”
- “Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score” should be “4” instead of “0”
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité
Que le Conseil approuve :
1.
La présentation à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario
des parcelles illustrées comme annexes R36, R37, R38, R45, et annexe
révisée R34 dans le document 3 pour constituer le reste de l’expansion du
secteur urbain; et
2.
adopte une modification au Règlement 2009-200 sur la conservation des
arbres urbains devant entrer en vigueur le 28 septembre 2011 et ayant pour
effet d’étendre l’application du règlement aux parcelles qu’il est recommandé
d’ajouter au secteur urbain; et
3. que
les modifications suivantes soient apportées à la page 22 du rapport du
personnel :
À la parcelle 1c :
- Sur
la ligne « Façades des artères et des routes collectrices », il
faudrait remplacer « Aucun » par « Mars ».
- Sur
la ligne « Note des façades des artères/routes collectrices », il
faudrait remplacer « 0 » par « 4 ».
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, dated 1 September 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0187).
2. Extract of
Minutes 19, Planning Committee meeting of 13 September 2011
3. Extract of
Draft Minutes 20, Planning Committee meeting of 27 September 2011
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
1 September 2011 /
le 1ier septembre 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy
Development and Urban Design/ Élaboration de la politique et conception
urbaine
Planning
and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424 ext.22653,
richard.kilstrom@ottawa.ca
City Wide / À l’échelle de la ville Ref
N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0187
That
Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:
1.
The parcels shown in Document 3
as Schedules R36, R37, and R38 and Revised Schedule R34 to form the balance of
the urban area expansion; and
2.
An amendment to the Urban Tree
Conservation By-law, By-law 2009-200, effective 28 September 2011, extending
the application of the by-law to the parcels recommended to be added to the urban
area.
Que le
Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver :
1.
La présentation à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario
des parcelles illustrées comme annexes R36, R37, R38 et annexe révisée R34 dans
le document 3 pour constituer le reste de l’expansion du secteur urbain;
2.
D’adopter une modification au Règlement 2009-200 sur la conservation des
arbres urbains devant entrer en vigueur le 28 septembre 2011 et ayant pour
effet d’étendre l’application du règlement aux parcelles qu’il est recommandé
d’ajouter au secteur urbain.
Background
On June 3, 2011 the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) released its decision on
the Phase 1 urban boundary appeals under Official Plan Amendment No. 76 (OPA
76). The decision concluded that 850 gross hectares is the appropriate amount of
land for urban expansion to accommodate residential growth to 2031. The Board gave
significant weight to the Official Plan review process completed by the City in
2009. The upcoming Phase 2 OMB hearing will deal with what specific lands will
form the urban expansion.
On July 4, 2011 Planning Committee considered Report ACS-2011-ICS-PGM-0153
dated June 24, 2011 on the recommended process to establish Council’s position for
the Phase 2 hearing on lands to be added to the City’s urban area. On July 13,
2011, Council approved the process outlined in Document 1 of the Planning
Committee report. This process carries forward staff’s approach to analysis of
potential expansion areas, which evaluated potential areas based on a series of
criteria, subject to any new information that had become available since the
May 2009 evaluation.
The purpose of this report is to:
1.
Provide
an update of the parcel scores with identified new information;
2.
Recommend
to Planning Committee and Council what lands should be supported as the 850
gross hectares of urban area expansion; and
3.
Recommend
that Planning Committee and Council extend the application of the City’s tree
preservation by-law to the lands recommended for urban area expansion.
DISCUSSION
Recommendation 1
The Board’s June 3, 2011 decision determined that the process and methods
used by the City throughout the 2009 Official Plan review were sound.
Therefore, subject to review of any new information, the analysis undertaken
for the 2009 Official Plan review forms the basis of City’s position for Phase
2 of the urban boundary hearing.
The process of evaluating potential areas for urban expansion in May 2009
identified candidate areas based on five selection criteria then evaluated them
relative to each other based on 16 criteria as detailed in Document 6 of report
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0080
dated May 4, 2009.
From July 13, 2011 to August 12, 2011, staff consulted with landowners
regarding any new information relevant to updating the evaluation of candidate
parcels. The correction of minor errors is considered new information. There
was no change to the criteria or method of analysis. Although requests were
received to include other parcels, no new parcels were included in the detailed
analysis. This was because either the lands were designated Agricultural
Resource Area in the Official Plan, and were therefore excluded, or because
they were not close to scoring well enough to be recommended.
The top ranked areas that cumulatively add to 850 gross developable hectares
are those parcels that will form the City’s position on what lands are to be
added to the urban area at the Phase 2 hearing. Based on the evaluation of new
information, the only change to what
staff recommended in 2009 for lands to be added to the urban area is to include
a small parcel (1bE) at the north end of Kanata and to exclude an adjacent
parcel (1cW). That has the effect of increasing the recommended land area from
the 842.6 hectares recommended in 2009 to 851.9 hectares in this report, an
additional 9.3 hectares. Although the recommended addition is 1.9 hectares
above the figure named in the OMB decision it is not considered significant,
especially given that the estimates of developable land in each parcel did not
take account of required setbacks from the edge of slopes watercourses and the
like. When more detailed planning is undertaken, the actual amount of
developable land will be less than 850 gross hectares.
The 851.9 hectares include 163 hectares in the Fernbank area added by OPA
77 (candidate areas 5a and 5b) and 67 hectares south of Fernbank (parcels 6a,
6b and 6c), which together are the 230 hectares Council adopted as the OPA 76
urban expansion on June 10, 2009.
Details
of the review of information and revised scoring are contained in attached
Documents 1 and 2. Map schedules of the recommended parcels, other than those contained
in OPA 76, are provided in Document 3.
Recommendation 2
The Ontario Municipal Board, in its
consideration of the first Urban Boundary Hearing also proposed approval of the
policies that would apply to the new urban expansion areas and define how these
areas will be developed. The two new Sections (3.12 Urban Expansion Study Area
and 3.13 Developing Community (Expansion Area)) contain policies that require
the identification and protection of lands that form part of the natural
heritage system. The policies require that these areas, which contain
significant tree cover, are to be conveyed to the City. In anticipation of these areas becoming
urban, it is important that these natural features are left intact.
At present the only method that the City has to regulate tree removal
on private land is the City’s Urban Tree Conservation By-law that only applies
to the urban area and candidate urban Area 11 (added as a result of the 2009 tree clearing in that
area). The By-Law does not apply to the remaining candidate areas for urban
expansion. Consequently, it is
recommended that the application of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law 2009-200
be extended to protect the balance of candidate urban lands recommended by this
report.
In 2009, Council adopted the staff recommendation to allocate nine per cent of dwelling units and ten per cent of population growth to the rural area. All parties during the Phase 1 urban boundary appeal also agreed to this allocation. The recommendations contained in this report will seek to redesignate lands from the rural area to the urban area at the upcoming Phase 2 hearing.
Landowners
for the candidate areas were consulted through the end of July up to August 12,
2011. Staff also received submissions and responded to questions from
non-candidate landowners.
Comments by the Ward Councillor(s)
N/A
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The Ontario Municipal Board has set down the date of October 19th, 2011 for a pre-hearing with respect to the Urban Boundary Phase 2 matter. Only after Council considers the present report on September 28th, 2011 will it be known with certainly if a phase 2 hearing will be required. The extent of the hearing will turn on the number, if any, of the appellants to Official Plan Amendment 76 who wish to challenge Council’s determination as to which lands are to be added to the Urban Area. It is anticipated that any hearing on this matter would be in February/March, 2012. The hearing will be conducted by staff within Legal Services. Should this report be adopted by Council, it is also anticipated that all of the City’s witnesses would be staff.
Risks have been
identified and explained in the Legal Implications section.
There are no financial implications. Should an Ontario Municipal Board hearing be required, the hearing would be conducted by Legal Services staff, and all of the City’s witnesses would be staff.
Environmental
Implications
The environmental aspects of
the candidate parcels for addition to the Urban Area were analyzed as part of
the process prior to the adoption of OPA 76. Proposed policies in the amendment
provide for natural heritage system lands in each area to be transferred to the
City for $1.
The report recomends that the
City’s Urban Tree Conservation By-law be extended to apply to the candidate
areas recommended by this report to ensure the protection of those lands with natural heritage values.
Technology Implications
N/A
City
Strategic Plan
This report supports Planning and
Growth Management priorities to manage growth and create sustainable
communities and to ensure that the City infrastructure required for new growth
is built or improved as needed to serve that growth.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Candidate Area New Information
Document 2 Urban Expansion Areas – Review of Candidate Areas including New Information
Document 3 Recommended Parcels for Urban Expansion
DISPOSITION
The
recommendations contained in this report are to form Council’s position for
lands to be added to the Urban Area at the upcoming Urban Boundary Appeals,
Phase 2 Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
The
Legal Branch is to bring forward an amendment to the Urban Tree Conservation
By-law for Council adoption on 28th September 2011.
Candidate Area
New Information DOCUMENT
1
The
analysis undertaken in 2009 was reviewed and updated based on available new
information. The update resulted to a change to two land parcels in north
Kanata, including one and excluding the other, but otherwise did not alter the
2009 staff recommendation for lands to be included in the urban area.
As
instructed by Council, the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management
notified all those people who had made submissions to the City in respect to
OPA 76 of the opportunity to make further submissions on the candidate lands
for urban expansion. The letters went out on July 21st and advised
that the City would receive and consider any new or updated information that
may have bearing on the staff evaluation undertaken in 2009 of the candidate
lands for urban expansion.
In response
to the request for new information relevant to the parcel evaluation, a number
of submissions were received by the August 12th, 2011 deadline for
submissions. A list of these submissions is provided in the following table.
Several submissions related to lands that were not included in the 2009
evaluation, either due to their location, because the land was designated
Agricultural Resource Area in the Official Plan, or other factors that made the
land unsuitable candidates. In general, little relevant new information was
provided by the submissions.
List of Submissions Received
Submitter |
Area / Parcel # |
Staff Note |
Comments on
Evaluated Parcels: |
|
|
Novatech Engineering |
1a, 1cE, 1cW, 1d, 1h |
|
Metcalfe Realty c/o Lloyd
Phillips & Assoc. |
1b & 1c |
|
Thom van Eeghen |
1e |
|
Jim Maxwell |
South portion of 1f |
|
Paul Renaud |
South March Highlands and
Shirley’s Brook subwatershed |
Environmental issues |
Richcraft Group of
Companies |
2 |
|
Irena Krypel |
1905 Richardson Side Rd and
1876 Bradley Side Rd, west of Area 2 |
Non-candidate area |
William Davidson |
6a |
|
Regional Group (Idone) |
8a |
|
Claridge Homes |
9a |
|
Urbandale Corporation |
9b |
|
Taggart Investments |
11 |
|
Comments on
Other Parcels: |
|
|
N.
and G. Thompson and C.
McDonald and H. Thompson |
1465
and 1479 Second Line Rd, north of parcel 1i |
Non-candidate
area |
Bradley
Heights Group c/o Colville Consulting |
North
of Kanata West |
Non-candidate
area |
6458513 Canada Inc. c/o D. G. Belfie |
West
of 6c |
Non-candidate
area |
Walton
Development and Management LP |
South
of Kanata |
Non-candidate
area |
Caivan
Communities |
South
of Barrhaven |
Non-candidate
area |
Cardel
Homes |
3680
Barnsdale Road |
Non-candidate
area |
Minto
Communities and Mattamy Homes Ltd. |
South
of Barrhaven and south of Orleans |
Non-candidate
area |
Ken
Gordon c/o J. L. Richards & Assoc. |
South
of Riverside South |
Non-candidate
area |
River
Road Landowners Association |
Lots
1-17, Con I, Osgoode |
Non-candidate
area |
2108939
Ontario Inc. c/o Stantec Consulting Ltd. |
Northwest
of River Road and Rideau Road |
Non-candidate
area |
Longwood
Building Corporation |
East
of 10b |
Non-candidate
area |
Broccolini
Construction |
Southeast
corner of Innes and Trim Road |
Non-candidate
area |
Keith
Sennett |
1276
Watters Road |
Non-candidate
area |
Ontario
Realty Corporation |
Southeast
of Greenbelt |
Non-candidate
area |
Derek
Oudit |
East
of Kenmore |
Village
expansion |
Other Comments: |
|
|
Greenbelt
Coalition of Canada’s Capital |
Not
area-specific |
|
National
Capital Commission |
Not
area-specific |
|
Ben
Novak |
Not
area-specific |
Opposes
expansion |
Ottawa
Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee |
Not
area-specific |
|
Bob
Stevenson |
Not
area-specific |
Opposes
expansion |
Revisions Made to Parcel Scores
The
following points summarize revisions made to the parcel scoring under each
criterion. There were no changes made to the criteria themselves. The changes
made were of four types: infrastructure scores were updated with new
information; distance-related measures were revised where required to reflect
improved data; the land supply scoring was updated from the 2007 data available
two years ago to 2009 data, and; a small number of errors were corrected.
Although
individual point scores changed slightly for a number of parcels, the only
change to what staff recommended in 2009 for which lands should be included in
the Urban Area is to include parcel 1bE (now the east part of parcel 1b) and
exclude parcel 1cW (the west part of 1c).
URBAN EXPANSION AREAS – REVIEW
OF CANDIDATE AREAS INCLUDING NEW INFORMATION DOCUMENT 2
The
intent of the evaluation undertaken as part of the 2009 Official Plan review
was to add small amounts of urban land to the boundary in a number of locations
and thereby use residual capacity in existing infrastructure and provide the
highest probability of integration with the existing community. The purpose of
Document 2 is to present information for each candidate area including any new
or revised information available since the 2009 analysis and to confirm or, if
warranted, revise the previously recommended locations for changes to the urban
boundary.
The
recommended expansion areas are based on balancing various considerations:
·
The availability of land in a non-agricultural designation
·
The expected absorption rate in various areas
·
The relative merit of each parcel based on a number of evaluation
criteria
Areas included for review of new information are the
same areas included in the May 2009 analysis. As noted in Document 1, while
information was also received on other parcels not evaluated in 2009, review of
these did not indicate that any were close to attaining a sufficient score to
be included in the urban area and they are not included in Document 2.
The parcels evaluated are shown on the maps in Annex
1. As done in 2009, the tables in Annex 1 provide a basic description of each
area including the location, size, designation, zoning, and current and
adjacent land uses. Any relevant planning history is also provided. Individual
criteria scores have changed from 2009 are indicated by shading.
The areas were screened based on the presence of
Natural Heritage System components. Focus was placed on forested areas, wet
areas, escarpments and valleylands. Other constraints to development, such as
Hydro corridors and required setbacks from mineral resources, wetlands and
other features, were also removed. This information was used to understand the
availability of developable land within the study area and to profile the
possibility of securing natural system lands through the process at no cost to
the City. Constraint features were not included in the definition of
“gross developable” residential hectares.
The purpose of the evaluation was and is to identify
the specific 850 ha to be recommended for inclusion in the urban area, from
among the 1935 ha initially identified.
The
overall objective is to select areas that make the best use of existing
available infrastructure capacity and community resources. These parcels should
be developable within a reasonable period of time such as the next five to 10
years. The Official Plan is reviewed every five years and the condition of City
infrastructure is monitored continuously. Lands that score lower today may very
well be good candidates later.
Table 1: Potential Evaluation Scores (weighted) by
category |
|||
Category
|
Criterion |
Weighted Score |
% of total |
Engineering |
Water |
8 |
9 |
|
Wastewater |
8 |
9 |
|
Stormwater |
8 |
9 |
|
Depth
to Bedrock |
2 |
2 |
Total for Engineering |
|
26 |
30% |
Transportation |
Capacity |
6 |
7 |
|
Accessibility |
8 |
9 |
|
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
10 |
11 |
Total for Transportation |
|
24 |
27% |
Integration
with Community |
Distance
to Mixed-use Centre (MUC) or Mainstreet |
5 |
6 |
|
Ability
to work in community |
3 |
3 |
|
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
5 |
6 |
|
Distance
to Emergency Services |
5 |
6 |
|
Conflicting
Land Uses |
4 |
5 |
|
Connectivity |
4 |
5 |
|
Local
Bus Service |
2 |
2 |
|
Agriculture
Conflict |
2 |
2 |
Total for Integration |
|
30 |
34% |
Land
Absorption |
Approximate
Years Supply |
8 |
9% |
TOTAL |
|
88 |
100% |
The
purpose of the evaluation is to assess the relative merits of the
various candidate areas. Each candidate area was evaluated against the criteria
in Table 2. All distances are measured from the centroid of the parcel to the
facility or service being assessed. The possible scores are distributed as
follows and then weighted.
Table 2 – Evaluation Criteria and Scores
Criteria |
Description |
Scores |
Possible Score |
|||||||||||||||||||||
1.
Servicability – Water |
Scores
for each site ranged from 0 to 4 based on consideration of the factors in the
next column |
0 – major upgrade / expansion of pump
station and/or distribution system required to service development area; 2 – good integration with existing network
but requires moderate upgrades to existing facilities; 4
– residual capacity available in pressure zone to service development area
with no or minimal investment in existing distribution system. |
4 weighted
by 2 =
8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
2.
Servicability – Wastewater |
Scores
for each site ranged from 0 to 4 based on consideration of the factors in the
next column |
0 – no gravity outlet; may require new
local pump station and forcemain due to topographic conditions; capacity
upgrades required in external trunk sewers and / or pump station; 2 – access to gravity sewers but requires
moderate upgrades to existing facilities; 4 – existing trunk sewers and / or pump
stations have residual capacity to service development area with no or
minimal investment. |
4 weighted
by 2 =
8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
3.
Servicability – Stormwater |
Scores
for each site ranged from 0 to 4 based on consideration of the factors in the
next column |
0
- existing servicing constraints; flood hazard constraints; no Environmental
Management / Subwatershed Plan available to guide development area; 2
- no flood hazard constraints; Environmental Management / Subwatershed Plan
available to guide development, but requires update to consider cumulative
impact of additional growth area; 4
- up-to-date Environmental Management / Subwatershed Plan available to guide
development; drainage system and stormwater management systems approved and
ready to accommodate future development. |
4 weighted
by 2 =
8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
4.
Capacity - Roads |
Examined the
existing/ planned road infrastructure to determine if capacity can
accommodate demand |
See table below |
3 weighted
by 2 =
6 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Note: The Transportation Master Plan seeks to
provide a sufficient peak hour directional capacity to achieve a Level of
Service “D” for screenlines outside of the City’s inner core.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
5.
Accessibility –Arterial and Collector Roads |
· Direct access
to existing or planned arterial and
collector roads |
·
0 – No direct access ·
1 – Direct access to one or more collector roads ·
2 – Direct access to one arterial road ·
3 – Direct access to 1 arterial and 1 or more
collectors ·
4 – Direct access to two or more arterials and any
number of collectors |
4 weighted
by 2 =
8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
6.
Accessibility – Transit |
· Distance to
existing or planned rapid transit network or to park and ride. The average is
2.9 km (revised from 2.8; new information). The points measure up to
25% more or less and 50% more or less. |
·
0 points – more than 4.4 km ·
1 points – 3.7 to 4.3 ·
2 points – 3.0 to 3.6 ·
3 points – 2.3 to 2.9 ·
4 points – 1.5 to 2.2 ·
5 points – 0 to 1.4 (revised based on
new information) |
5 weighted
by 2 =
10 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
7.
Accessibility to existing or planned retail/commercial
focus |
· Distance to a
Mainstreet or Mixed-Use Centre. The average is 4.8 km (revised from 4.4; new
information) |
·
0 points – more than 7.4 km ·
1 points – 6.1 to 7.3 ·
2 points – 4.9 to 6.0 ·
3 points – 3.7 to 4.8 ·
4 points – 2.5 to 3.6 ·
5 points – 0 to 2.4 (revised based on
new information) |
5 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
8.
Ability to work in community |
· Jobs/Housing
Balance. This is cumulative, starting at the parcel nearest the urban
boundary |
·
0 – <1.10 ·
1 – 1.1 to 1.19 ·
2 – 1.2 to 1.24 ·
3 – equal to or over 1.25 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
9.
Accessibility to community facilities |
· Distance to a Major
Recreational Facility. The average is 4.0
km (revised from 3.6; new information) |
·
0 points – more than 6.1 km ·
1 points – 5.1 to 6.0 ·
2 points – 4.1 to 5.0 ·
3 points – 3.1 to 4.0 ·
4 points – 2.1 to 3.0 ·
5 points – 0 to 2.0 (revised based on
new information) |
5 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
10.
Availability of existing or planned emergency services |
· Distance to
emergency services – fire, ambulance and police (total /3). The average is 5.0 km (revised from 4.9; new
information) · |
·
0 points – more than 7.6 km ·
1 points – 6.4 to 7.5 ·
2 points – 5.1 to 6.3 ·
3 points – 3.9 to 5.0 ·
4 points – 2.6 to 3.8 ·
5 points – 0 to 2.5 (revised based on
new information) |
5 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
11.
Connectivity to the Community |
· The ability to
connect is available or can be planned |
·
4 points – good – totally unobstructed in all
directions; ·
3 points – less than good – partial obstruction in one
direction; ·
2 points – medium – unable to connect in one direction; ·
0 points – poor – obstructions in 2 or more directions. |
4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
12.
Existing Bus Service |
· Local bus service
exists today at the parcel (new information used) · |
·
2 points – all day service exists ·
1 point – peak period service exists ·
0 points – service does not exist |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
13.
Potential Conflicting Land Uses |
·
Agricultural Resource Area within 500 metres |
·
0 – yes ·
2 – no |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
14.
Potential Conflicting Land Uses |
·
Adjacent rural development (Country Lot or Village) or
adjacent landfill constraint |
·
0 – yes ·
2 – no |
2 weighted
by 2 =
4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
15. Depth to Bedrock |
|
·
0 is 0-2 metres ·
1 is 2 to 5 metres ·
2 is 5 or more metres |
2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
16.
Land Absorption |
·
Approximate years supply in 2009 (new information) |
·
0 – >19 (Leitrim, Riverside South) ·
1 – 18 to 19 ·
2 – 16 to 17 (Kanata-Stittsville) ·
3 – 14 to 15 ·
4 – <14 (South Nepean, Orleans) (revised based on
new information) |
4 weighted by 2 = 8 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
|
|
88 |
Recommended
Urban Expansion Areas
1. The following areas were
eliminated from the analysis of candidate areas because there was no
residential development potential:
Area |
Gross Ha |
|
1f |
42.8 |
Proximity
to explosives range |
1g |
30.0 |
Proximity
to explosives range |
7a |
20.4 |
Active
pit |
11f |
39.6 |
Servicing
difficulties and small developable area |
Area |
Gross Developable Ha |
Cumulative Developable Ha |
Point Score |
5 (now urban) |
163.0 |
163.0 |
n/a |
10a |
78.7 |
241.7 |
66 |
6a |
35.0 |
276.7 |
64 |
11a |
45.7 |
322.4 |
64 |
10d |
8.3 |
330.7 |
62 |
11c |
9.9 |
340.6 |
62 |
11e |
16.9 |
357.5 |
61 |
7b |
35.6 |
393.2 |
58 |
7d |
27.1 |
420.3 |
58 |
10e |
19.9 |
440.1 |
58 |
11d |
39.3 |
479.5 |
56 |
6b |
12.3 |
491.8 |
55 |
7c |
39.5 |
531.3 |
55 |
11b |
33.2 |
564.5 |
55 |
9a |
37.1 |
601.6 |
53 |
1b |
53.9 |
655.5 |
52 |
1h |
15.6 |
671.1 |
52 |
10b |
79.8 |
750.9 |
52 |
11h |
11.8 |
762.6 |
52 |
1a |
25.9 |
832.0 |
51 |
1d |
43.5 |
806.1 |
51 |
6c |
19.8 |
851.9 |
51 |
It is recommended that the following parcels not be supported for inclusion in the urban area.
Area |
Gross Developable Ha |
Cumulative Developable Ha |
Point Score |
3 |
69.5 |
921.3 |
49 |
10c |
54.6 |
975.9 |
49 |
2 |
47.2 |
1023.2 |
48 |
9b |
29.0 |
1052.1 |
48 |
11g |
43.5 |
1095.6 |
47 |
1c |
39.5 |
1135.1 |
46 |
8a |
21.1 |
1156.2 |
46 |
9c.1 |
17.7 |
1173.9 |
46 |
1e |
37.7 |
1211.6 |
45 |
9d |
13.7 |
1225.3 |
44 |
4 |
38.5 |
1263.8 |
42 |
8b |
16.5 |
1280.3 |
41 |
1i |
19.1 |
1299.4 |
39 |
9c.2 |
5.2 |
1304.6 |
37 |
8d |
30.7 |
1335.3 |
34 |
8c |
17.6 |
1352.9 |
33 |
8e |
41.2 |
1394.1 |
30 |
8f |
43.1 |
1437.2 |
27 |
Area |
Supply of vacant residential
land, 2009 (gross ha) |
Proposed additional gross
residential ha |
% increase in gross land |
Approximate years supply
with additions (from 2009) |
Kanata-Stittsville |
1,489.6 |
206.0 |
14% |
20.0 |
Barrhaven |
808.8 |
102.3 |
13% |
13.1 |
Riverside South |
1,020.8 |
0.0 |
0% |
57.6 |
Leitrim |
256.4 |
37.1 |
14% |
26.3 |
Orléans |
822.8 |
343.5 |
42% |
20.2 |
Total |
4,398.4 |
688.9* |
16% |
21.4 |
|
|
|
|
1. Water
Infrastructure |
2. Sewer
Infrastructure |
3.
Stormwater |
4. Road
Capacity |
5.
Arterial-Collector Frontage |
6. Transit
Score |
7.
Mainstreet Score |
8.
Jobs-Housing Balance |
9. Major
Recreational Facility |
10.
Emergency Services |
11.
Connectivity to Community |
12.
Existing Bus Service |
13.
Agricultural Land Conflict |
14.
Country Lot or Landfill Conflict |
15. Depth
to Bedrock |
16. Land
Absorption |
Total
Weighted Score |
Maximum unweighted score |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
58 |
|||
Weight |
|
|
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
- |
Maximum weighted score possible |
8 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
88 |
|||
Area |
Gross Ha |
Gross Developable Ha |
Cumulative Developable Ha |
Weighted Scores |
||||||||||||||||
10a |
88.7 |
78.7 |
241.7 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
66 |
6a |
41.0 |
35.0 |
276.7 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
64 |
11a |
62.7 |
45.7 |
322.4 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
64 |
10d |
8.3 |
8.3 |
330.7 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
62 |
11c |
19.8 |
9.9 |
340.6 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
62 |
11e |
38.9 |
16.9 |
357.5 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
8 |
61 |
7b |
35.6 |
35.6 |
393.2 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
58 |
7d |
27.1 |
27.1 |
420.3 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
58 |
10e |
19.9 |
19.9 |
440.1 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
58 |
11d |
39.3 |
39.3 |
479.5 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
56 |
6b |
12.3 |
12.3 |
491.8 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
55 |
7c |
39.5 |
39.5 |
531.3 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
10 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
55 |
11b |
44.2 |
33.2 |
564.5 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
55 |
9a |
37.1 |
37.1 |
601.6 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
53 |
1b |
55.9 |
53.9 |
655.5 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
52 |
1h |
18.2 |
15.6 |
671.1 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
52 |
10b |
88.8 |
79.8 |
750.9 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
52 |
11h |
26.8 |
11.8 |
762.6 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
8 |
52 |
1a |
27.0 |
25.9 |
788.6 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
51 |
1d |
43.5 |
43.5 |
832.0 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
51 |
6c |
19.8 |
19.8 |
851.9 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
51 |
|
|
|
|
1. Water
Infrastructure |
2. Sewer
Infrastructure |
3.
Stormwater |
4. Road
Capacity |
5.
Arterial-Collector Frontage |
6. Transit
Score |
7.
Mainstreet Score |
8.
Jobs-Housing Balance |
9. Major
Recreational Facility |
10.
Emergency Services |
11.
Connectivity to Community |
12.
Existing Bus Service |
13.
Agricultural Land Conflict |
14.
Country Lot or Landfill Conflict |
15. Depth
to Bedrock |
16. Land
Absorption |
Total
Weighted Score |
Maximum unweighted score |
|
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
58 |
||
Weight |
|
|
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
- |
Maximum weighted score possible |
8 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
88 |
|||
Area |
Gross Ha |
Gross Developable Ha |
Cumulative Developable Ha |
Weighted Scores |
||||||||||||||||
3 |
69.5 |
69.5 |
921.3 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
49 |
10c |
88.6 |
54.6 |
975.9 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
49 |
2 |
75.2 |
47.2 |
1023.2 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
48 |
9b |
29.0 |
29.0 |
1052.1 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
48 |
11g |
43.5 |
43.5 |
1095.6 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
47 |
1c |
41.5 |
39.5 |
1135.1 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
46 |
8a |
22.5 |
21.1 |
1156.2 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
46 |
9c.1 |
33.7 |
17.7 |
1173.9 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
46 |
1e |
51.7 |
37.7 |
1211.6 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
45 |
9d |
17.4 |
13.7 |
1225.3 |
6 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
44 |
4 |
59.0 |
38.5 |
1263.8 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
42 |
8b |
22.6 |
16.5 |
1280.3 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
41 |
1i |
46.7 |
19.1 |
1299.4 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
39 |
9c.2 |
6.7 |
5.2 |
1304.6 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
37 |
8d |
33.7 |
30.7 |
1335.3 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
34 |
8c |
48.2 |
17.6 |
1352.9 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
33 |
8e |
74.3 |
41.2 |
1394.1 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
30 |
8f |
61.1 |
43.1 |
1437.2 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
27 |
ANNEX 1
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE AREAS
Location: Northern
extension of the Kanata urban area on either side of March Road |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area |
Current
Land Use(s): Primarily farms and forests with some pockets of
rural development. The Ottawa Central Rail line (owned by CN) runs
north-south between parcels b-c and f-g. Shirley’s Brook runs through parcels
a, b and c. |
Size: Gross
ha = 357 Gross
developable ha = 235 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside |
|
Planning
Status: 1i
was the subject of an Official Plan Amendment application in 2007 from
Richcraft Group of Companies, deemed incomplete. |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: North: General Rural Area
East: Greenbelt Rural South: Urban Area West: Natural Environment Area |
Adjacent Land Use(s): To the south is Urban
Kanata, primarily residential. To the west are the South March
Highlands. To the north is
countryside. To the east is the Greenbelt (DND Explosives Range). Three
existing areas of rural development are located within or adjacent to the
study area. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha developable |
1a |
27.0 |
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
Shirley's Brook
floodplain |
25.9 |
1b |
55.9 |
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
Shirley's Brook
floodplain |
53.9 |
1c |
41.5 |
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
Shirley's Brook
floodplain |
39.5 |
1d |
43.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
43.5 |
1e |
51.7 |
Woodland-Wetland |
14.0 |
|
|
|
|
37.7 |
1f |
42.8 |
|
|
|
|
42.8 |
DND Explosives Range |
0.0 |
1g |
30.0 |
|
|
|
|
30.0 |
DND Explosives Range |
0.0 |
1h |
18.2 |
|
|
|
|
2.6 |
church and cemetery |
15.6 |
1i |
46.7 |
Woodland-Wetland |
25.0 |
|
2.6 |
|
|
19.1 |
Sub-total |
357.2 |
|
39.0 |
0.0 |
2.6 |
80.4 |
|
235.2 |
Additional Comments:
Areas 1f and 1g may be appropriate for urban
employment uses at some point in the future.
Criteria |
Area 1 - Infrastructure |
1. Water |
The water supply (existing and
proposed) to Area 1 in Pressure Zone 2W is generally good. Servicing Area 1e
would require an upgrade of the
Morgan’s Grant PS and likely some of the suction/discharge piping to the pump
station. Alternatively it may be possible to utilize a future Watermain at
Goulbourn Forced Road as a second source. The remainder of Area 1 would be
serviced by the March Road watermain, which varies from 1067 mm diameter near
Corkstown Road to 406 mm near Old Carp Road. Some improvements have been
proposed for parts of the March Road W/M, which has sufficient residual
capacity to supply approximately 3,690 units (10,700 additional persons) in
Areas 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1f, 1g, and 1h. Area 1h is located furthest from away
from Old Carp Road and would likely be the last area serviced. |
2. Wastewater |
The existing sanitary sewer
downstream of Shirley’s Brook (East March Trunk) has residual capacity, with
the exception of 400 m, for most of its length to service over half of Area
1. Upgrading this 400 m of sewer would create capacity in the East Match
Trunk for up to 2700 units. A new sanitary sewer would need to be installed
on March Road to service 1a, 1d, 1e, and 1h. Areas 1b and 1c would likely be
serviced by construction of new sewers and replacement of existing sewers
that discharge to Briar Ridge Sewer Pump Station. This pump station would
require upgrades to accept the additional area. Areas 1f and 1g would require
a new pump station / forcemain to service the parcels, thus leading to higher
capital and operating costs. |
3. Stormwater |
Shirley’s
Brook subwatershed plan would require updating to guide development. Some
floodplain constraints exist in parcels east of March Road. Parcels west of
March Road may have areas where overburden is shallow (blasting may be
required to service). No significant drainage constraints exist that could
not be overcome with application of conventional engineering methods. |
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. Based on this standard there is not sufficient
planned future road capacity across the Campeau Road screenline (#53) and
Eagleson Road screenline (#10) to accommodate this growth.
|
Criteria
¯ |
1a |
1b |
1c |
1d |
1e |
1h |
1i |
Water |
1
|
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
2 |
Wastewater |
2
|
8 |
6 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Stormwater |
3
|
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Road Capacity |
4
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
March |
March |
March |
March |
none |
March |
none |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Second Line &
Old Carp |
- |
Second Line &
Old Carp |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Distance
to Main-street or MUC |
7 |
7.6 |
7.9 |
8.3 |
8.4 |
6.4 |
8.8 |
6.3 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.41 |
1.39 |
1.37 |
1.36 |
1.34 |
1.34 |
1.33 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Distance
to Major Rec Facility |
9 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
3.4 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
9.1 |
9.4 |
9.8 |
9.9 |
9.0 |
10.3 |
8.9 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
2.3 |
3.5 |
1.8 |
4.3 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
8.1 |
8.4 |
8.9 |
8.9 |
7.5 |
9.3 |
7.4 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
6.7 |
6.9 |
7.1 |
7.0 |
6.7 |
7.1 |
6.9 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Connectivity |
11 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
Local
bus |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
March-brook |
none |
Houston |
Marchbrook &
Nadia |
Marchbrook &
Panandrick |
none |
Thomas Fuller |
Country Lot or Land-fill adjacent Score |
14 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Urban
Land Supply |
16 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Location: West
of Terry Fox Drive north |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area |
Current
Land Use(s): Undeveloped
scrub land |
Size: Gross
ha = 75 Gross
developable ha = 47 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside |
|
Planning
Status: Richcraft
Group of Companies submitted an Official Plan Amendment application in 2007
that included these lands. It was deemed incomplete. |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: South
and West: Agricultural Resource Area East: Urban Area North: Natural Environment Area |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Huntmar Drive and agriculture to the west, Carp River to the south,
future Terry Fox alignment to the east, and South March Highlands to the
north. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
2 |
75.2 |
Escarpment |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
27.0 |
Carp River floodplain |
47.2 |
Additional
Comments:
Criteria |
Area 2 - Infrastructure |
1.
Water |
The water supply (existing
and proposed) to Area 2 in Pressure Zone 3W is very good and no specific
upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping would be required. |
2.
Wastewater |
The
area can be serviced by routing the flow towards the Signature Ridge Pump
Station (SRPS). An upgrade of the SRPS is required in order to service
existing build-out conditions and could incorporate a further capacity
increase to service the subject area. Approximately 1600 m of trunk sewer
will be required along Terry Fox Drive. This sewer will also service the
adjacent development on the interstitial lands within the urban boundary.
Given the elevation of the subject lands, a separate PS may be required due
to overflow elevation constraints stemming from the SRPS. If the serviced area
is limited to higher elevations the property can be serviced by a gravity
sewer. |
3.
Stormwater |
There
would be a need to update the impact assessment for the Carp River. |
Transportation
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. Based on this standard there would be sufficient
planned future road capacity at the Campeau Road screenline (#53) to
accommodate this growth but the Eagleson Road screenline (#10) at the Greenbelt
does not have capacity for this Level of Service.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 2 |
Water |
1 |
8 |
Wastewater |
2 |
6 |
Stormwater |
3 |
4 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Terry Fox |
5 |
Huntmar |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
6 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
3.9 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
2 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
3.4 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
4 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.40 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
3 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
3.5 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
3 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
4.5 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
6.1 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
5.0 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
5.2 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
2 |
Connectivity |
11 |
0 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
117 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
0 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
over 5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
2 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
4 |
Location: North
of Stittsville urban boundary, west of Kanata West urban boundary, south of
Hwy 417 and three lots east of Carp Road |
OP
Designation: Rural
Natural Feature |
Current
Land Use(s): Vacant |
Size: Gross
ha = 70 Gross
developable ha = 70 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside |
|
Planning
Status: No
active application; Subject
of an appeal on the 2003 Official Plan urban boundary |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: South
and East: Urban Area West: Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area North: Rural Natural Feature |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Vacant
to north; Residential
in south; Planned
employment in east; Rural
residential along Lloydalex and Carp Road in west. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
3 |
69.5 |
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
69.5 |
Additional
Comments:
The property is designated Rural Natural Feature in the OP but the owner has recently cut down all the trees.
Criteria |
Area 3 - Infrastructure |
1. Water |
The water supply (existing
and proposed) to Area 3 in Pressure Zone 3W is very good and no specific
upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping would be
required. The proposed 762 mm diameter
Hazeldean watermain feeding this area would only need to be up-sized if all
Areas 3, 4, 6b and 6c were to be serviced and the Stittsville Elevated Water
Tank is relocated in the future. |
2. Wastewater |
Area
3 lies immediately west of the Kanata West Development Area, and hence can be
serviced by the proposed Kanata West Pumping Station. The proposed trunk
sewer on Maple Grove can be upsized and extended to the parcel. |
3. Stormwater |
Drains
to Feedmill Creek (within Carp River watershed). Existing studies would
require updating; some areas of shallow overburden (blasting may be required
to service). |
Transportation
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. Based on this
standard the future road capacity across the Terry Fox screenline (#44) can
accommodate this growth, however the Eagleson Road screenline (#10) at the
Greenbelt does not have capacity for this Level of Service.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 3 |
Water |
1 |
8 |
Wastewater |
2 |
8 |
Stormwater |
3 |
4 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Carp |
5 |
- |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
4 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
3.0 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
4 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
2.3 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
5 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.39 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
3 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
5.4 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
1 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
3.1 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
3.3 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
3.6 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
3.3 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
4 |
Connectivity |
11 |
0 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
1 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
Lloydalex |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
0 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
2-5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
1 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
4 |
Candidate
Area for urban boundary rationalization
Location: West
of Stittsville, north of Hazeldean Road |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area |
Current
Land Use(s): Fields,
forest, one residential use |
Size: Gross
ha = 59 Gross
developable ha = 39 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside |
|
Planning
Status: No
application |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: North: Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area West: General Rural Area South: Rural Natural Feature East: Urban Area |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Urban
residential to the east, forested to the south, forest and farm to west,
rural industrial to the north and quarry to the northwest. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS
feature
|
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
4 |
59.0 |
Woodland-Wetland |
17.0 |
1.2 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
Hydro ROW |
38.5 |
Criteria
|
Area 4 -
Infrastructure |
1. Water |
The
water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 4 (future Stittsville Pressure
Zone) would require a minor expansion of the future Stittsville PS. Piping
upgrades on Hazeldean Road (west of Carp Road) and through the development
east of Area 4 would also be required. The proposed 762 mm diameter Hazeldean
watermain feeding this area would only need to be up-sized if all Areas 3, 4,
6b and 6c were to be serviced and the Stittsville Elevated Water Tank is
relocated in the future. |
2. Wastewater |
Area
4 is located east of Stittsville. Following the extension of the trunk sewer
to service Area 3, an additional 1200 m of trunk sewer along Rothbourne/Maple
Grove Road will be required. This additional flow will also need to be
accounted for in the upgrades along Maple Grove and at the Kanata West
Pumping Station |
3. Stormwater |
Drains
to Feedmill Creek (within Carp River watershed). Drainage of Area 4 may be
challenging because of constraints created by the existing Timbermere
subdivision to the east. Existing studies would require updating; some areas
of shallow overburden (blasting may be required to service). |
Transportation
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. With the coming
into effect of OPA 77, lands added in Area 5 will use all capacity that been
assigned to Area 4 in the 2009 analysis. Based on the Level of Service
“D” standard the future road capacity across the Terry Fox screenline (#44) can
accommodate this growth, however the Eagleson Road screenline (#10) at the
Greenbelt does not have capacity for this Level of Service.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 4 |
Water |
1 |
4 |
Wastewater |
2 |
4 |
Stormwater |
3 |
4 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Hazeldean |
5 |
Rothbourne |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
6 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
4.9 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
0 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
2.0 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
5 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.40 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
3 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
4.5 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
2 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
4.9 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
4.2 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
3.2 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
4.1 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
3 |
Connectivity |
11 |
0 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
2-5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
1 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
4 |
Location: South
of Stittsville and Fernbank Urban Area |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area |
Current
Land Use(s): 6c
is cleared for development and the rest is scrub and old fields. |
Size: Gross
ha = 73 Gross
developable ha = 67 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside RR2 – Rural Residential |
|
Planning
Status: Ray
Bell has an active application for an urban expansion on parcel 6c. |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: North: Urban Area East: Agricultural Resource Area South: General Rural Area West: General Rural Area |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): South
of 6c is a Country Lot Subdivision, scrub and forest are south of 6a and b,
Stittsville residential is to the north and agriculture is to the east. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
6a |
41.0 |
|
|
|
|
6.0 |
Hydro ROW |
35.0 |
6b |
12.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.3 |
6c |
19.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.8 |
Sub-total |
73.1 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.0 |
|
67.1 |
Criteria |
Area 6 - Infrastructure |
1. Water |
The
water supply to Area 6a (Pressure Zone 3W) could easily be included as part
of the Fernbank CDP and servicing could be easily integrated into this future
development at a very small cost. The water supply (existing and proposed) to
Areas 6b and 6c (future Stittsville Pressure Zone) would require a minor
upgrade to the future Stittsville PS
and the installation of a check valve connection to the future water
distribution system in Fernbank. The proposed 762 mm diameter Hazeldean
watermain feeding this area would only need to be up-sized if all Areas 3, 4,
6b and 6c were to be serviced and the Stittsville Elevated Water Tank is
relocated in the future. |
2. Wastewater |
Area
6a, 6b, and 6c generally slope in an easterly direction, and would fall
within the area serviced by Hazeldean Pump Station. Relatively high ground
elevations present an opportunity to service these lands through the Fernbank
community. Further upsizing of the Fernbank Trunks and upgrade to the
Hazeldean PS will be required. Alternatively, a portion of the areas may be
serviced by the Stittsville PS. In addition to the same downstream upgrades,
an upgrade to the Stittsville PS will be required. |
3. Stormwater |
The
Area 6 alternative sites fall within the Jock River Reach 2 subwatershed. The
existing subwatershed study and/or Fernbank EMP would require
updating/expansion for southerly parcels. All alternatives sites have little
or no drainage constraints. Drainage / stormwater management of the
alternative sites is reasonably straightforward using conventional
engineering methods. |
Transportation
The Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a
sufficient peak hour directional capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for
screenlines outside of the City’s inner core. Based on this standard the
future road capacity across the Terry Fox screenline (#44) can accommodate this
growth, however the Eagleson Road screenline (#10) at the Greenbelt does not
have capacity for this Level of Service.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 6a |
Area 6b |
Area 6c |
Water |
1 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
Wastewater |
2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Stormwater |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Fernbank |
none |
Stittsville Main |
5 |
Shea |
Hartsmere |
Hartsmere |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
2.0 |
2.8 |
3.3 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
1.6 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.40 |
1.40 |
1.39 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
1.8 |
2.4 |
3.2 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
6.3 |
7.0 |
8.0 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
2.3 |
2.1 |
1.6 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
1.6 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
3.5 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Connectivity |
11 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
49 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
none |
Forestgrove & Brads |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
0-2 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Location: East
of Hwy 416 south of the urban boundary |
OP
Designation: Sand
and Gravel Resource Area |
Current
Land Use(s): Mineral
extraction and agriculture |
Size: Gross
ha = 123 Gross
developable ha = 102 |
Zoning: MR
– Mineral Aggregate Reserve ME
– Mineral Extraction |
|
Planning
Status: Official
Plan Amendment Application submitted by Minto Communities for a larger area |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: North
and East: Urban Area South: Agricultural Resource Area West: General Rural Area |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Currently
under development to the north, agriculture and urban development to the
east, agriculture to the south, and mineral extraction and landfill to the
west. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
7a |
20.4 |
|
|
|
|
20.4 |
active pit |
27.2 |
7b |
35.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.6 |
7c |
39.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.5 |
7d |
27.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27.1 |
Sub-total |
122.7 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
20.4 |
|
102.3 |
Additional Comments:
A requirement exists for a “notice on title” advising of odours for residential properties within one kilometre of the Trail Road landfill property boundary. Residential uses are not permitted within 500 metres of the landfill.
Criteria |
Area 7 - Infrastructure
|
1. Water |
The
water supply piping (existing and proposed) to Area 7 is very good and no
specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping would be required.
However, the City is currently planning a major reconfiguration of Pressure
Zones BARR and 2W with a new future Pressure Zone 3C which would impact the
pressures available to Area 7. A new booster pumping station would likely be
required to service the majority of Areas 7a, 7b and 7c (with minimal or no
piping upgrades required) that are at elevation of 106 metres or higher The cost per unit would be reduced by only
servicing the lower lying areas or maximizing the number units serviced by a
new pumping station. |
2. Wastewater |
The
total area can be serviced through the South Nepean Collector (SNC). The area
may be serviced by gravity by upsizing the proposed trunks along Greenbank
Road and Cambrian Road. Any low lying area (potentially within Area 7a) may
be serviced by upsizing the Barrhaven South trunk sewer along the Jock River.
According to the Barrhaven South Master Servicing Study (June 2007), a
proposed trunk sewer (900 mm) from Greenbank to SNC has a residual capacity
that would allow for the servicing of all 2781 units or 8033 people (the
trunk has been recently installed). The next bottleneck in the system is West
Rideau Collector (WRC) downstream of Hunt Club Road with residual capacity
that would limit development to 1750 units (5000 people). This constraint can
be alleviated to service entire area by simply diverting flow from the
Barrhaven Community to the Greenbank Trunk at a relatively low cost. |
3. Stormwater |
Area
is in the Jock River watershed. The subwatershed plan and/or the Barrhaven
South Master Servicing Plan would need updating. The incremental impact of
Area 7a on drainage constraints in Barrhaven South may be manageable,
however, the cumulative impact of drainage from Areas 7a, 7b, and 7c would be
challenging given the constraints in storm drainage systems planned and built
in Barrhaven South. |
The Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a
sufficient peak hour directional capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for
screenlines outside of the City’s inner core. Based on this standard the
future road capacity across the Jock River screenline (#49) and Fallowfield
screenline (#9) can accommodate this growth.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 7a |
Area 7b |
Area 7c |
Area 7 d |
Water |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Wastewater |
2 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Stormwater |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Greenbank extension |
Greenbank extension |
Greenbank extension |
Greenbank extension |
5 |
Cedarview |
Cedarview |
Cedarview |
Barnsdale
& Cedarview |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
2.8 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.24 |
1.22 |
1.20 |
1.19 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
6.7 |
6.0 |
5.5 |
4.7 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.3 |
2.5 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
4.5 |
5.1 |
5.3 |
5.5 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Connectivity |
11 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
0 |
40 |
122 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
Trail Road Landfill |
Trail Road Landfill |
Trail Road Landfill |
none |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Candidate Area for urban boundary rationalization
Location: South
of Leitrim Urban Area |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area |
Current
Land Use(s): Scrub Racetrack |
Size: Gross
ha = 262 Gross
developable ha = 170 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside RC4 – Rural Commercial
(racetrack) ME
– Mineral Extraction |
|
Planning
Status: OPA
application from Richcraft Group of Companies includes part of Area 8c. |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: South: Sand and Gravel Resource Area North: Urban Area East: Limestone Resource Area and General Rural
Area West: Sand and Gravel Resource Area |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): South: sand and gravel pits North: under development (residential) East: Quarry West: Idle, golf course, potential future
location of CCE. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
8a |
22.5 |
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
21.1 |
8b |
22.6 |
Wetland |
1.0 |
5.1 |
|
|
|
16.5 |
8c |
48.2 |
Woodland-Wetland |
17.0 |
13.6 |
|
|
|
17.6 |
8d |
33.7 |
Wetland |
3.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
|
30.7 |
8e |
74.3 |
Woodland |
26.0 |
7.1 |
|
|
|
41.2 |
8f |
61.1 |
Woodland |
3.0 |
15.0 |
|
|
|
43.1 |
Sub-total |
262.4 |
|
50.0 |
42.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
170.2 |
Additional
Comments:
The
Rural Road Network Schedule shows a Conceptual Arterial (alignment undefined)
road between Albion Road and Bank Street south of the Leitrim urban boundary.
Criteria |
Area 8 -
Infrastructure
|
1. Water |
Collectively
Area 8 and Area 9 could add a potential 1,620 units to Leitrim and would
necessitate pumping and piping upgrades. However, as individual parcels they
do not represent a significant increase in water demand, but the topography
of these parcels precludes inclusion of a portion of 8a and all remaining
areas in the 3C pressure zone. The Leitrim pump station would have to be upgraded
and some additional watermains installed to provide appropriate pressures. |
2. Wastewater |
The Conroy Road Trunk is constrained and provides no residual
capacity beyond current build-out conditions. The replacement of
approximately 1500 m of the Conroy Trunk would provide residual capacity for
up to 1200 units (3500 people). Servicing of the entire area would require
the higher cost upgrade/replacement of Leitrim PS, additional segments of the
Conroy Road Collector, and the Green Creek Collector. An alternative to the
Green Creek Collector upgrades would be to install a bypass pipe connecting
the Conroy Road Collector to the South Ottawa Collector. A trunk sewer from
Area 8 leading to the Leitrim PS will also be required. |
3. Stormwater |
All
the parcels are in Findlay Creek watershed. No subwatershed plan available to
guide development. All alternative sites have little or no drainage
constraints. Drainage/stormwater management of the alternative sites is
reasonably straightforward using conventional engineering methods. |
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. Based on this standard future road capacity is
available at the Rideau River screenline (#42) but the Leitrim Road screenline
(#8) does not have capacity for this Level of Service.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 8a |
Area 8b |
Area 8c |
Area 8d |
Area 8e |
Area 8f |
Water |
1 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Wastewater |
2 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Stormwater |
3 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Bank |
Albion &
Armstrong |
Bank |
Albion &
Armstrong |
Albion & Bank |
Bank |
5 |
future collector to
north |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Rideau Rd |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
4.7 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
3.5 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
6.0 |
6.3 |
6.6 |
7.6 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.25 |
1.20 |
1.15 |
1.07 |
0.98 |
0.90 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
4.3 |
4.6 |
5.0 |
5.4 |
5.6 |
6.0 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
3.1 |
3.4 |
3.7 |
4.7 |
4.2 |
5.0 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.9 |
4.8 |
4.4 |
5.1 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
9.9 |
10.2 |
10.5 |
11.4 |
11.0 |
11.7 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
5.4 |
5.7 |
6.0 |
7.0 |
6.5 |
7.3 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Connectivity |
11 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
over 5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Location: East
and south of Leitrim, east of Bank Street. |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area |
Current
Land Use(s): Scrub
and scattered commercial uses |
Size: Gross
ha = 124 Gross
developable ha = 103 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside |
|
Planning
Status: No
active applications |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: North: Urban Area South and East: Rural Natural Feature West: Urban Area |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Urban
residential development to the north and west. Forest to the east. Quarries to the south. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
9a |
37.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.1 |
9b |
29.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29.0 |
9c.1 |
33.7 |
|
|
|
|
16.0 |
Stormwater pond |
17.7 |
9c.2 |
6.7 |
Woodland |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
5.2 |
9d |
17.4 |
Woodland |
3.0 |
0.7 |
|
|
|
13.7 |
Sub-total |
123.9 |
|
4.5 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
102.7 |
Additional
Comments:
The provision of a sanitary sewer through parcel 9a eliminates the need for a pumping station within the current urban boundary. Both parcels 9a and 9b would drain to the stormwater pond in parcel 9c.1.
Criteria |
Area 9 - Infrastructure |
1. Water |
Recent
and planned upgrades to the water supply system will permit servicing of the
individual areas. However, if they were to be developed collectively, some
pipe and pump station upgrades would be required. Pumping and piping upgrades would be
required to service more than approximately 1,620 units (4,700 additional
persons) in Areas 8 and 9 combined (1,946 units or 5,643 persons are planned
for Area 9 alone). |
2. Wastewater |
The
Conroy Road Trunk is constrained and provides no residual capacity beyond
current build-out conditions. Upgrade to a section of Conroy Road sewer (with
no residual capacity) will accommodate approximately 1200 units (3500
people), beyond which further upgrades will be required. Areas 9a, 9b, and
part of 9c may be serviced with the upgrade. Servicing of the entire area
would require the higher cost upgrade/ replacement of Leitrim PS, additional
segments of the Conroy Road Collector, and the Green Creek Collector. An
alternative to the Green Creek Collector upgrades would be to install a
bypass pipe connecting the Conroy Road Collector to the South Ottawa
Collector. |
3. Stormwater |
All
the parcels are in Findlay Creek watershed. No subwatershed plan available to
guide development, however the Findlay Creek Stormwater Facility was subject
to extensive review and has a relatively current MOE Certificate of Approval.
With the exception of Area 9d, all alternative sites have little or no
drainage constraints. Drainage / stormwater management of sites 9a, 9b, and
9c is reasonably straightforward using conventional engineering methods. Area
9d is constrained by watercourses that cross the land with sizeable external drainage
areas. |
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. Based on this standard the future road capacity is
available at the Rideau River screenline (#42) but the Leitrim Road screenline
(#8) does not have capacity for this Level of Service.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 9a |
Area 9b |
Area 9c.1 |
Area 9c.2 |
Area 9d |
Water |
1 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
Wastewater |
2 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Stormwater |
3 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Bank |
Bank |
Bank |
none |
Bank |
5 |
- |
- |
Blais |
Blais |
Blais |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
4.8 |
5.1 |
5.1 |
6.0 |
5.7 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
4.7 |
5.6 |
5.2 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
1.20 |
1.12 |
1.08 |
1.06 |
1.03 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
2.8 |
3.1 |
3.3 |
4.2 |
3.8 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
1.6 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.9 |
2.5 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
1.7 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
3.0 |
2.7 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
8.4 |
8.7 |
8.8 |
9.7 |
9.3 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
3.9 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
5.2 |
4.8 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Connectivity |
11 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
over 5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Location: South
of Orleans Urban area between Mer Bleue Road and Tenth Line Road south to
Notre-Dame-des-Champs. |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area and Village (Notre-Dame-des-Champs) |
Current
Land Use(s): Agriculture
and Bush Strip
development along major roads |
Size: Gross
ha = 294 Gross
developable ha = 241 |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside Village
Zones |
|
Planning
Status: Mattamy
has an Official Plan Amendment application for urban expansion on parts of
10a and 10b. |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: General
Urban Area to the north and west Agriculture
Resource Area to the east |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Urban development to the
north and northeast including stormwater management pond; Scrub
forest and agriculture in lands to be urbanized to the west; Agriculture
to the east. |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
10a |
88.7 |
|
|
|
|
10.0 |
floodplain |
78.7 |
10b |
88.8 |
|
|
|
|
9.0 |
Floodplain and NDC
existing development |
79.8 |
10c |
88.6 |
Woodland |
4.0 |
|
|
30.0 |
Notre-Dame-des-Champs village |
54.6 |
10d |
8.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.3 |
10e |
19.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.9 |
Sub-total |
294.3 |
|
4.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
49.0 |
|
241.4 |
Criteria |
Area 10 - Infrastructure |
1. Water |
The
water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 10 in Pressure Zone 2E is very
good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or pumping
would be required. |
2. Wastewater |
Given
the close proximity of the area to the Tenth Line PS and the downstream trunk
sewers (500 m downstream), Area 10 would be most appropriately serviced by
the Tenth Line PS. Servicing of Areas 10a and 10d, e will be limited to an
upgrade of the Tenth Line PS. Inclusion of Areas 10b and 10c will also
require an upgrade to the Orleans-Cumberland Collector. |
3. Stormwater |
All
the parcels are in the McKinnons Creek watershed. No subwatershed plan is available to guide
development. Area 10a is constrained by McKinnons Creek which bisects the
area, requiring two separate SWM facilities to service, and the area also
includes floodplain constraints. However the outlet from stormwater pond
servicing an adjacent urban area may be able to accommodate area 10a.
Drainage of all sites is poor due to flat topography. Servicing the area
would require constructing a storm trunk outlet 1-2 km downstream of Mer
Bleue Road to establish a sufficient gravity outlet. Poor soils (Leda clay)
exist in some areas, and could limit potential to resolve HGL constraints by
filling alternative sites. |
Transportation
The
Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a sufficient peak hour directional
capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for screenlines outside of the
City’s inner core. Based on this standard the future road capacity
across the Bilberry Creek screenline (#45), Innes Road screenline (#47) and the
Greens Creek screenline (#16) can accommodate this growth.
|
Criteria`
¯ |
Area 10a |
Area 10b |
Area 10c |
Area 10d |
Area 10e |
Water |
1 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Wastewater |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
Stormwater |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
10th Line |
10th Line |
10th Line |
10th Line |
none |
5 |
Mer Bleue |
Mer Bleue & Wall |
Wall |
- |
future
collector to north |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
1.8 |
2.4 |
3.3 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
8 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
1.3 |
2.3 |
3.2 |
2.2 |
3.2 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
0.89 |
0.87 |
0.86 |
0.85 |
0.85 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
4.0 |
4.6 |
4.9 |
3.5 |
4.4 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
5.8 |
6.4 |
6.7 |
5.3 |
6.2 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
1.6 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1.8 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
1.2 |
1.9 |
2.7 |
2.2 |
3.2 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
2.9 |
3.1 |
3.4 |
2.8 |
3.7 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Connectivity |
11 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Local
bus |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
20 |
55 |
70 |
32 |
97 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
NDC village |
NDC village |
none |
none |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
over 5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Location: East of Cardinal Creek and the east
boundary of the Orleans Urban Area |
OP
Designation: General
Rural Area Rural
Natural Feature |
Current
Land Use(s): agriculture, commercial nursery, boat storage, scattered development. |
Size: Gross
ha = 315 ha Gross
developable ha = 200 ha |
Zoning: RU
– Rural Countryside RI
5 – Rural Institutional RR
– Rural Residential EP
– Environmental Protection (along creek) O1
– Open Space |
|
Planning
Status: No
applications |
Adjacent
Land Use designations: Urban
Area in the west; Agricultural Resource Area in the south, and General Rural
Area in the east. |
Adjacent
Land Use(s): Cardinal
Creek to the west; Ottawa
River to the north; Country
lots to the east; Agriculture
to the south |
Parcel ID |
Gross ha |
NHS feature |
NHS areas removed |
Limestone Resource
500m setback |
Landfill 500m
setback |
Other constraints |
Notes re other
constraints |
Gross ha
developable |
11a |
62.7 |
Valleyland |
17.0 |
|
|
|
|
45.7 |
11b |
44.2 |
Woodland-Escarpment |
11.0 |
|
|
|
|
33.2 |
11c |
19.8 |
Valleyland-Escarpment |
9.9 |
|
|
|
|
9.9 |
11d |
39.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.3 |
11e |
38.9 |
Woodland, Valleyland
& Escarpment |
17.0 |
|
|
5.0 |
174 ROW |
16.9 |
11f |
39.6 |
Woodland, Valleyland
& Escarpment |
35.0 |
|
|
4.6 |
servicing |
0.0 |
11g |
43.5 |
Woodland |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
43.5 |
11h |
26.8 |
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
|
11.8 |
Sub-total |
314.7 |
|
104.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
9.6 |
|
200.2 |
Additional
Comments:
Parcels 11g and 11h are designated Rural Natural Feature in the OP but the owner has recently cut down most or all of the trees.
Criteria |
Area 11 - Infrastructure |
1. Water |
The
water supply (existing and proposed) to Area 11 in Pressure Zones 1E and 2E
is very good and no specific upgrades to any existing or proposed piping or
pumping would be required. |
2. Wastewater |
With
the exception of a portion of Area 11e, the entire area can be serviced by
gravity through an extension of the Ottawa River Sub-Trunk to the Candidate
Area Parcels. The sewer extension would cross the creek with trunk sewers
routed above the creek culvert. Servicing all of Area 11e would either
require a local PS or the lowering of the trunk services, which would then
necessitate a siphon or pumped crossing of the creek. This latter option
would result in higher capital and operating costs. The evaluation is based
on a portion of 11e not being serviced . |
3. Stormwater |
Areas
11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d drain to Cardinal Creek, while Area 11e drains to the
Ottawa River. The Cardinal Creek subwatershed study is underway, but would
need to be updated to provide guidelines for development. All sites have good
drainage due to the comparatively steep topography. The greatest stormwater
challenge servicing the site would be providing erosion protection along
steeply sloped outlets. Engineering requirements, while challenging, are not
expected to involve more than conventional drainage systems. |
Transportation
The Transportation Master Plan seeks to provide a
sufficient peak hour directional capacity to achieve a Level of Service “D” for
screenlines outside of the City’s inner core. Based on this standard the
future road capacity measured across of the Bilberry Creek screenline (#45) and
the Greens Creek screenline (#16) can accommodate this growth.
The Bilberry screenline extends from the Ottawa
River south to near Wall Road and has capacity available in the south at Innes
Road, Des Épinettes Avenue and the Blackburn Hamlet By-pass extension and in
the north at St. Joseph Boulevard and Jeanne d’Arc Boulevard. Ottawa Road 174
will have an additional lane in each direction added between Jeanne d’Arc and
the Highway 417 split.
|
Criteria
¯ |
Area 11a |
Area 11b |
Area 11c |
Area 11d |
Area 11e |
Area 11g |
Area 11h |
Water |
1 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Wastewater |
2 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
Stormwater |
3 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Road
Capacity |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Arterial
& Collector Road Frontage |
5 |
Old Montreal |
Old Montreal |
Old Montreal |
Old Montreal |
174 |
none |
none |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
Ted Kelly |
- |
Ted Kelly |
- |
|
Arterial-Collector
Frontage Score |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
Distance
to Rapid Transit |
6 |
2.1 |
2.8 |
1.6 |
2.9 |
2.1 |
3.3 |
2.5 |
Transit
Score |
6 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
6 |
Distance
to Mainstreet or MUC |
7 |
4.0 |
4.8 |
3.7 |
4.9 |
4.7 |
5.4 |
4.5 |
Mainstreet
Score |
7 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance |
8 |
0.90 |
0.89 |
0.89 |
0.88 |
0.87 |
0.86 |
0.86 |
Jobs-Housing
Balance Score |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Distance
to Major Recreational Facility |
9 |
4.3 |
5.1 |
4.3 |
5.2 |
5.3 |
5.6 |
4.8 |
Major
Rec Facility Score |
9 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Emergency
Services POLICE |
10 |
3.3 |
4.1 |
3.3 |
4.2 |
3.8 |
4.6 |
3.8 |
Emergency
Services FIRE |
10 |
4.5 |
5.2 |
4.4 |
5.3 |
5.5 |
5.7 |
4.9 |
Emergency
Services AMBULANCE |
10 |
5.3 |
6.0 |
5.2 |
6.1 |
5.8 |
6.5 |
5.7 |
Emergency
Services AVERAGE |
10 |
4.4 |
5.1 |
4.3 |
5.2 |
5.0 |
5.6 |
4.8 |
Emergency
Score |
10 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Connectivity |
11 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
Local
Bus |
12 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Agricultural
land adjacent |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
68 |
44 |
Agricultural
land adjacent Score |
13 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
Country
Lot or Landfill adjacent |
14 |
none |
Ted Kelly |
none |
Ted Kelly |
none |
Ted Kelly |
none |
Country Lot or Landfill adjacent Score |
14 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
Depth
to Bedrock |
15 |
over 5 |
2-5 |
over 5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
2-5 |
Depth
to Bedrock Score |
15 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Urban
Land Supply Score |
16 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
RECOMMENDED PARCELS FOR URBAN
EXPANSION DOCUMENT 3
Item |
OPA76 |
City recommended changes |
269 |
Schedule A, Rural Policy
Plan, is hereby amended as follows: 1. At another hearing, 2. At another hearing , 3. Withdrawn, 4. At another hearing, 5. Withdrawn, 6. At another Hearing, 7. At another Hearing, 8. At another Hearing, 9. At another Hearing, 10. At another Hearing, 11. At another Hearing, 12.
At another
Hearing, 13. At another Hearing, 14. At another Hearing, 15. At another Hearing, 16. At another Hearing, 17. At another Hearing, 18. At another Hearing, 19. At another Hearing, 20. At another Hearing, 21. Approved by OPA
22. At another Hearing; 23. By changing the designation for
the lands shown on Schedule R44 to this amendment from General Rural Area to “Developing Community
(Expansion Area)” |
Approve as amended by the following: 24. by showing the proposed boundary of the
‘Urban Expansion Study Area’ as shown on Schedule R34 25. by showing the proposed boundary of the
‘Urban Expansion Study Area’ as shown on Schedule R36 26. by showing the proposed boundary of the
‘Urban Expansion Study Area’ as shown on Schedule R37 27. by changing the designation of the lands
shown on Schedule R38 from ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ to ‘Urban Area’ and
to show the proposed boundary of the “Urban Expansion Study Area” 28. by changing the designation of the lands
shown on Schedule R45 from ‘General Rural Area’ to ‘Urban Area’. |
270 |
Schedule B, Urban Policy
Plan, is hereby amended as follows: 1. At another hearing, 2. At another hearing, 3. At another hearing, 4. At another hearing, 5. At another hearing, 6. Addressed at another hearing,, 7. Addressed at another hearing, 8. Addressed at another hearing, 9. Addressed at another hearing, 10. Addressed at another hearing , 11. Addressed at another hearing, 12. Addressed at another hearing, 13. Addressed at another hearing, 14. Addressed at another hearing, 15. By designating the lands shown on Schedule R44 to
this amendment as “Developing
Community (Expansion Area)” |
Approve as amended by the following: 16. by changing the designation of the land shown on
Schedule R34 to ‘Urban Expansion Study Area’. 17. by changing the designation of the land shown on
Schedule R36 to ‘Urban Expansion Study Area’. 18. by changing the designation of the land
shown on Schedule R37 to ‘Urban Expansion Study Area’. 19. by changing the designation of the lands
shown on Schedule R38 to ‘Urban Expansion Study Area’ and ‘Developing
Community(Expansion Area)’. 20. by changing the designation of the land
shown on Schedule R45 to ‘Developing Community(Expansion Area)’. |
extract of PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes 19 13 SEPtEMBER 2011 |
|
extrait dU ProcÈs-verbal 19 ComitÉ de
l’urbanisme le 13 SEPTEMBRE 2011 |
Recommended council
position for urban boundary - phase 2 - ontario municipal board
POsition recommandée du conseil concernant la limite du secteur urbain –
phase 2 - commission des affaires municipales de l’ONtario
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0187 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:
1.
The parcels shown in Document 3
as Schedules R36, R37, and R38 and Revised Schedule R34 to form the balance of
the urban area expansion; and
2.
An amendment to the Urban Tree
Conservation By-law, By-law 2009-200, effective 28 September 2011, extending
the application of the by-law to the parcels recommended to be added to the
urban area.
Committee received the following written submissions, in addition to
those listed in the staff report. All submissions are held on file with the
City Clerk:
·
Comments
dated 11 Aug and 15 Sept. from Paul Renaud
· Two letters dated 12 Sept 2011 from Lyon Sachs, Urbandale
·
Letter
dated September 13th from Amy Kempster, Greenspace Alliance of
Canada's Capital
·
E-mail
dated 12 September 2011 from Deborah Belfie, for 6458513 Canada Inc.
·
Letter
dated 12 September 2011 from Gregory Winters, Novatech, on behalf of Kanata
Research Park Corporation and J.G Rivard Limited
·
Letter
dated 13 September 2011 from Paul Johanis
·
Letter
dated 12 September 2011 from Faith Blacquiere
·
Letter
dated 9 September 2011 from Paul Webber, Bell Baker LLP, on behalf of the
owners of the Idone lands.
·
Letter
dated 12 September 2011, and comments dated 13 September and from Jim Maxwell
·
Comments
dated 13 September 2011 from William Davidson.
·
Comments
dated 13 September 2011 from Keith Sennett.
Ian
Cross, Program Manager of Research and Forecasting, provided an overview of the
staff report and recommendations. A copy
of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Committee heard from the following public delegations:
Richard Mahoney and Paul Mondell, Walton
Development and Management,*
were opposed to the staff recommendations as presented.
They requested a portion of their lands in
Southwest Ottawa, immediately adjacent to the existing urban boundary adjacent
to Fernbank Road, be included in the urban boundary, as outlined in their
written submission to Planning Staff.
Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes¸ was in support of the inclusion in the
urban boundary of Candidate Area 9a, located in the Leitrim community on the
east side of Bank Street across from Findlay Creek Drive, as recommended by
staff. A copy of Claridge’s Written
Submission to planning staff is held on file. He further supported the
consideration of other lands in the Leitrim area for inclusion in the Urban
Boundary.
Lyon Sachs, Urbandale,* opposed the staff recommendations as
presented, on behalf of the owners of parcel 9b. He requested inclusion of area that parcel the
Urban Boundary. He challenged the scoring that had resulted in the parcel’s
exclusion, as detailed in the written submissions to Planning Staff and
Committee, which are held on file.
Paul Webber, Bell Baker LLP,* opposed the staff recommendations. He requested the inclusion of candidate area
8d in Leitrim (the Idone Lands) in the Urban Boundary. He expressed concerns with the process and
the evaluation of the lands, as outlined in the written submission to Committee
held on file. Mr. Jim Moffatt, IBI Group, engineers of record for the
Leitrim Community accompanied him and spoke to the issue of water servicing.
Deborah Belfie, on behalf of 6458513 Canada
Inc.* was opposed to the
staff recommendations as presented. She requested
the inclusion in the urban boundary of her client’s eight-hectare parcel of
land located immediately south of the urban boundary on the west side of
Stittsville Main Street, across from the Area 6 lands, and north of Healey
Avenue. She spoke to the rationale for their inclusion, as outlined in the
written submission to Planning Staff and Committee, held on file.
Paul Johanis* recommended rejection of the staff
recommendations. He argued that Council
should proceed with the original expansion areas identified in the 2009 Staff
report to Council, without exception, as outlined in his written submission to
Committee, which is held on file.
Murray Chown and John Riddell, on behalf of
Valecraft and Kanata Research Park Corporation (KRP)*, owners of candidate area 1c, were opposed
to the staff recommendations as presented, specifically as they pertained to
Area 1 in Kanata. Their position is outlined
in the written submission to Committee submitted by Greg Winters of Novatech. Mr.
Chown requested that Committee direct staff separate areas 1b and 1c into 1b
–East and West and 1c East and West consistent with the 2009 staff report and
revisit their analysis. Failing that, they asked that staff be directed to meet
with KRP, Valecraft and Metcalfe Realty and the affected Ward Councillors.
Ted Phillips, Taggart,* was in support of the staff
recommendations as they pertained to the inclusion of his lands, area 11, in
the urban boundary. However, he
expressed concerns with the overall process and criteria.
He suggested the most defensible position for
the City was to put forward 2009 staff report.
His written submission to Planning staff is held on file.
Lloyd Phillips and Jan Haubrich for Metcalfe
Realty, owners of area 1b
and 1f. They were in support of the
staff recommendations to include area 1b in the urban boundary. Metcalfe’s
submission to Planning staff is held on file.
Mr. Phillips also wished to correct the record that the comments he had
submitted pertained exclusively to areas 1f and 1b, and had not submitted
comments to area 1c.
*Written
comments are held on file with the City Clerk
Jim
Maxwell* and Keith
Sennett* were also registered as delegations in opposition to the staff
recommendations. Their written comments
are held on file with the City Clerk.
*Presentation or Written
Comments held on file with the City Clerk
MOTION NO PLC 19/2
Moved by Councillor
J. Harder:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the public hearing be
closed and Committee’s consideration of the item be postponed to the 27 September
2011 Planning Committee meeting.
CARRIED
Recommended council
position for urban boundary - phase 2 - ontario municipal board
POsition recommandée du conseil concernant la limite du secteur urbain –
phase 2 - commission des affaires municipales de l’ONtario
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0187 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Deferred from the Planning Committee meeting
of 13 September 2011
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning Committee recommend that Council approve:
1.
The parcels shown in Document 3
as Schedules R36, R37, and R38 and Revised Schedule R34 to form the balance of
the urban area expansion; and
2.
An amendment to the Urban Tree
Conservation By-law, By-law 2009-200, effective 28 September 2011, extending
the application of the by-law to the parcels recommended to be added to the
urban area.
Committee received a letter dated 26 September 2011 from D. Kenneth
Gibson on behalf of Jim Maxwell. Other
correspondence received and public delegations who spoke on this item are
listed in Minutes 19 of the Planning Committee meeting of 13 September 2011.
MOTION NO PLC 20/1
Moved by
Councillor J. Harder:
That
the English and French versions of Recommendation 1 read:
1. The parcels shown in Document 3, as
Schedules R36, R37, R38, R45 and Revised Schedule R34, as the City’s
submission to the Ontario Municipal Board for the balance of the urban area
expansion; and
1. La présentation à la Commission des
affaires municipales de l’Ontario des parcelles illustrées comme annexes R36,
R37, R38, R45, et annexe révisée R34 dans le document 3 pour constituer
le reste de l’expansion du secteur urbain;
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following corrections be made to Page 22 of the
staff report:
For
parcel 1c:
- “Arterial &
Collector Road Frontage” should state “March” instead of “none”
- “Arterial-Collector Frontage Score”
should be “4” instead of “0”
CARRIED
The following motion was put forward by Councillor Monette on behalf of
Councillor Clark:
MOTION NO PLC 20/2
Moved by Councillor B. Monette:
WHEREAS
in 2009 staff analysis divided many parcels including 1bw and 1cw to provide
for gravity service along March Road; and
WHEREAS
the changes recommended in the 2011 staff report constitute a change in
criteria leading to different analysis (and increase municipal costs)
BE
IT RESOLVED that 1bE be removed and 1cW be reinstated.
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors S. Blais, A. Hubley
NAYS (8): Councillors R. Bloess, R.
Chiarelli, K. Hobbs, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Taylor, J. Harder, P. Hume
The report recommendations were put to
Committee and CARRIED, as amended by Motion No. PLC 20/1, on a
division of 6 YEAS to 4 NAYS as follows:
YEAS (6): Councillors R. Chiarelli, K. Hobbs,
B. Monette, M. Taylor, J. Harder, P. Hume
NAYS (4): Councillors S. Blais, R. Bloess, A.
Hubley, S. Qadri.