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

 

 

SUBJECT:

 

Recommended council position for urban boundary phase 2 ontario municipal board

 

OBJET :

 

POsition recommandée du conseil concernant la limite du secteur urbain – phase 2 - commission des affaires municipales de l’ONtario

 

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.

 

 
RecommandationS du rapport

 

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.

 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 

CONSULTATION

 

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.

 

 

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

Risks have been identified and explained in the Legal Implications section.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 

  1. Water infrastructure: Recent extensions have improved reliability in Area 9 adjacent to Leitrim and scores were increased for all parcels to reflect this.

 

  1. Wastewater infrastructure: Scores for parcels 1bW and 1cW in north Kanata were reduced by 2 points to reflect a change in planned flow direction to the east. This would require the same servicing upgrades as 1bE and 1cE. Because this gave the west parcels the same scores for wastewater servicing as parcels 1bE and 1cE it was determined that 1bW-E and 1cW-E should not be split. Therefore they were reconfigured into a single 1b parcel and single 1c parcel. This changed the points assessed in the evaluation such that 1b is now recommended for inclusion and 1c is not. 

 

  1. Stormwater: An engineers’ report submitted supported increased scores for all parcels in Areas 8 and 9 adjacent to Leitrim.

 

  1. Road capacity: The 2009 analysis identified a small surplus capacity in the Kanata-Stittsville area. With the approval of the Area 5 parcels within the Fernbank CDP this capacity is now gone. The only effect of this change is a loss of 3 points for Area 4.

 

  1. Arterial and collector road frontage: A typographical error was corrected in parcel 8f, which added 2 points.

 

  1. Distance to Mainstreet or Mixed-Use Centre: Minor revisions were made to all distance measures. That resulted in small point changes to several parcels.

 

  1. Distance to rapid transit: Minor revisions were made to all distance measures.

 

  1. Jobs-housing balance: Minor revisions were made to the ratios based on new housing supply data, but no changes resulted to the scoring.

 

  1. Distance to major recreational facility: Other than minor revisions to distance measures, an error in calculating distances for parcels in Areas 8 and 9 (Leitrim) was corrected. This reduced scores by one point for several parcels in this area.

 

  1. Distance to emergency services: Minor revisions to distance measures resulted in revised scores for a few parcels.

 

  1. Community connectivity: Minor revisions were made to ensure consistency of scoring.

 

  1. Existing local bus service: No change. Service changes coming into effect in September were taken account of.

 

  1. Agricultural land conflict: A typographical error was corrected in parcel 10a, which reduced its score by 2 points. It is noted that agricultural land within 500 m is measured from the nearest parcel edge, not from the parcel centroid, consistent with what was done in 2009.

 

  1. Country lot and landfill conflict: No change.

 

  1. Depth to bedrock: No change.

 

  1. Urban land supply: Data was updated to 2009. No changes resulted to parcel scores.

 

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

Background

 

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

 

Methodology

Identification of Candidate Areas

 

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.

Evaluation Criteria

 

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

 

Level of Service (LoS)

Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C)

Point scoring based on worst of two screenlines measured

A

0 to 0.60

not scored, none in this range

B

0.61 to 0.70

not scored, none in this range

C

0.71 to 0.80

3 (weighted by 2 = 6)

D

0.81 to 0.90

1.5 (weighted by 2 = 3)

E

0.91 to 1.00

0

F

> 1.00

0

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

 

2.      Based on review of identified new information, staff recommend that the following areas be supported by Council for inclusion for urban expansion. In order to reflect as closely as possible the 850 ha decided by the OMB, parcels 5a and 5b in the Fernbank CDP area are included even though they are now designated Urban Area. Parcels are shown in descending order of score. The total gross developable area is 851.9 ha.

 

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

 

3.      Based on these recommendations, the following distribution of vacant residential land is achieved. Approximate years of supply are based on average consumption rates over the previous ten years and are not intended to represent projected growth.

 

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

 

       * Total 851.9 ha including lands added in Fernbank (Area 5) by OPA 77


Table 3 – Areas Sorted by Total Score

 

 

 

 

 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