Report
to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
08 May 2012 / le 08 mai 2012
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale
adjointe, Planning and Infrastructure/Urbanisme et Infrastructure
SUBJECT:
|
|
OBJET :
|
examen 2013 du Plan officiel et
du plan directeur de l'infrastructure – rapport sur les points à l'étude |
That the Planning Committee:
1.
Recommend
that Council approve the strategic directions identified by Planning and
Growth Management as the basis for the work program for the 2013 review of the
Official Plan;
2.
Recommend
that Council approve 2031 as the planning time horizon for the review of the
Official Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan, and Transportation Master Plan, and
update of the City’s Development Charges By-Law; and,
3.
Receive
the summary of participant comments from the discussion groups at the
Planning Summit.
Que le Comité de
l'urbanisme :
1.
recommande au Conseil d'approuver
les orientations stratégiques qui ont été dégagées à la faveur de la
consultation publique en tant que base du programme de travail pour l'examen
de 2013 du Plan officiel;
2.
recommande au Conseil de retenir
l'horizon prévisionnel de 2031 pour l'examen par le personnel du Plan officiel,
du plan directeur des transports, et du plan directeur de l’infrastructure, et
la mise à jour du Règlement municipal sur les redevances d'aménagement;
3.
reçoive le résumé des commentaires
formulés par les participants aux groupes de discussion du Sommet sur
l'urbanisme.
Assumptions and
analysis
The Planning Act provides that a municipality must review its Official Plan every five years. The last review occurred in 2008 and resulted in a comprehensive change to the Official Plan in 2009. As part of that change Council included a policy in Official Plan Amendment No.76 that anticipated a review of the City’s Official Plan in 2014. The policy also identified the following matters that would be addressed by staff leading up to that review:
a. Growth projections and urban
land supply;
b. Land Evaluation and Area
Review (LEAR) and agricultural lands;
c. Mineral aggregate Resources; and
d. Country lot subdivisions.
Through the review of development applications and various public consultation initiatives, Planning and Growth Management staff have also identified a number of areas where Official Plan policies and their implementation require review. Moreover, feedback from participants at the Planning Summit held on April 26, 2012 also confirmed that the following matters should be included in the proposed review:
a.
Intensification,
urban design and where tall buildings are permitted;
b.
Advancing
transit-oriented development (TOD) at light rail stations;
c.
Building
more complete, compact and vibrant places to live in our suburbs;
d.
Building
more complete rural villages; and,
e.
Developing
a strategy for the city’s employment lands.
Some of these matters will result in changes to Official Plan policies while others will be addressed through the review of departmental planning processes. A summary of comments from the table discussions at the Planning Summit is attached to this report (Document 1).
This report identifies the priorities and strategic directions to inform the review of the Official Plan and identifies the matters that will be addressed in the parallel updates of the Transportation and the Infrastructure Master Plans. The update of the master plans will provide financial input to support the update of the Development Charges By-law in 2014.
In support of this review of the Official Plan and the updates to the Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plans, this report recommends that Council retain the same time horizon of 2031 as approved in Official Plan Amendment No. 76.
Financial Implications
Initial funding has been approved within the 2012 budget; funding requirements to complete the updates have been identified in the capital forecast, and are subject to Council approval through the budget process.
Hypothèses et analyse
La Loi
sur l'aménagement du territoire prescrit à la municipalité d'examiner son
Plan officiel tous les cinq ans. Cet examen a eu lieu la dernière fois en 2008
et a abouti à la révision générale du Plan officiel en 2009. Dans le cadre de
cette révision, le Conseil a adopté une politique dans la modification no 76
du Plan officiel qui anticipait sur l'examen de 2014 du Plan officiel de la
Ville. Elle précisait également que les questions suivantes seraient étudiées
par le personnel en prévision de cet examen :
a. les projections de
croissance et l'offre de terres urbaines;
b. l'évaluation des
terres et l'analyse des zones (ÉTAZ) et les terres agricoles;
c. les ressources
minérales et en agrégats;
d. les lotissements
de lots de domaine.
Pour sa
part, le personnel d'Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance, grâce à son examen
des demandes d'aménagement et à diverses initiatives de consultation publique,
a été en mesure de cerner un certain nombre de domaines où les politiques du
Plan officiel et leur mise en œuvre nécessitent un examen. De plus, la
rétroaction des participants au Sommet sur l'urbanisme, tenu le 26 avril 2012,
a confirmé que les questions suivantes devraient être visées par l'examen
projeté :
a. la densification,
le design urbain et les endroits où les immeubles en hauteur sont permis;
b. l'évolution vers
un aménagement axé sur le transport en commun à proximité des stations du
train léger;
c. la création de
secteurs résidentiels plus complets, compacts et dynamiques dans la banlieue;
d. la création de
villages ruraux plus complets;
e. l'élaboration
d'une stratégie pour les biens-fonds destinés à
l'emploi de la ville.
Certaines
de ces questions nécessiteront des modifications de politiques du Plan
officiel, alors que d'autres pourront être abordées lors de la révision des
processus de planification urbaine du Service. Le résumé des commentaires
exprimés aux tables de discussion du Sommet sur l'urbanisme est joint au
présent rapport (document 1).
Le présent
rapport définit les priorités et les orientations stratégiques devant guider
l'examen du Plan officiel, ainsi que les questions qui seront visées par les
mises à jour parallèles du Plan directeur des transports et du Plan directeur
de l'infrastructure. La mise à jour des plans directeurs comportera de
l'information financière qui servira à la révision en 2014 du Règlement
municipal sur les redevances d'aménagement.
Il est
recommandé dans le présent rapport que le Conseil retienne, pour l'examen du
Plan officiel et la mise à jour des plans directeurs des transports et de
l'infrastructure, le même horizon prévisionnel de 2031 que celui adopté dans
la modification no 76 du Plan officiel.
Répercussions financières
Le
financement initial a été approuvé dans le budget de
2012; les exigences financières requises pour terminer les mises à jour ont
été dégagées dans les prévisions d’immobilisations et sont soumises à
l’approbation du Conseil par le biais du processus budgétaire.
Council in 2009 included a policy
in Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 76 that anticipated a review of the City’s
Official Plan (OP) by 2014 and identified a number of planning matters that
would be addressed by staff leading up to that review. This report outlines the issues, areas,
and/or gaps that have been identified as problematical in OP and Infrastructure
Master Plan policy. It also recommends that Council retain the same planning
time horizon of 2031 as approved in OPA. 76. This time horizon will form the
basis for the review of the population and land requirements for the Official
Plan, the Infrastructure Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan in
2013, and will be the timeframe for the updated Development Charges By-law in
2014.
Section 26 of the Planning Act requires municipalities to review their OP no less frequently than every five years from the date that the Plan takes effect. Where this review addresses matters of consistency with Provincial Policy and the expansion of Settlement Area boundaries or Employment Lands it is considered a "Comprehensive Review." The City undertook such a review of the OP over the two years leading up to June 2009. That work included the updating of population projections and urban land needs, the addition of new urban lands, and changes to policy to bring the OP into consistency with the updated Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement. The only outstanding matter from that OPA will be the decision made by the OMB on what land will be added to the urban area and the appeal by Trinity Property Holdings for lands outside the village of Manotick. The OMB decision on the urban boundary is expected later in 2012.
The Planning Summit held on April 26, 2012 provided an opportunity for a number of City leaders and stakeholders from the community and the development industry to discuss planning issues faced by Ottawa, and to identify opportunities to work together to improve the way the city develops. The proposed OP review provides a good opportunity to build upon the discussions at the Planning Summit, and to examine the effectiveness of current OP policies and planning processes and the way they are being implemented. A summary of the responses from the participants at the Summit is found in Document 1.
The OP review will also build upon the three “Framing our Future” sustainability plans received by Council in February 2012 (ACS2012-ICS-CSS-0005) that identified a long-term vision and set of goals to position the National Capital Region for economic, social, cultural and environmental success. These long-term goals are also included in City’s strategy map. One element emphasized in these reports is the notion of financial viability of growth, and this will be highlighted in the review of the timing and cost of transportation and piped infrastructure within the Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plans. This affordability review will dovetail with the required update to the City’s Development Charges By-law in 2014.
This
section outlines the issues that will be addressed by the Planning and Growth
Management Department in the 18-month Official Plan review that is planned to
wrap-up in December 2013. In June, a
detailed report outlining the statement of work will be prepared for Planning
Committee and Council that outlines the work items, timelines and consultation
strategy for the review of the Official Plan and the Infrastructure Master
Plan.
A separate work plan will be prepared for the update of the Transportation Master Plan, which will proceed in tandem with the Official Plan and the Infrastructure Master Plan, and will be presented to the Transportation Committee on June 6, 2012.
A. Council-directed Official
Plan Matters
Urban Land Needs
Council has directed staff to examine the supply of and demand for, land for employment, housing and other purposes to meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement in order to inform the review of the OP in 2013.
The staff report entitled “2011 Census Results and Relation to Population Projections” submitted to Planning Committee on April 24, 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0099) confirmed that the City’s population is growing with less than a 0.1% variance from that predicted by the OP in 2009.
The Provincial Policy requires municipal plans to maintain at all times, through intensification and new development, a 10-year supply of residential land and to ensure a three-year supply of residential units and draft approved or register plans of subdivision. Staff have observed that intensification trends are currently exceeding the levels predicted in 2009 and building activity is tracking well with the City’s projections. The Ontario Municipal Board still has to confirm the addition of 850ha of new urban land to meet residential land needs to 2031 that were identified in 2009.
Staff do not consider it necessary or prudent through this review to alter the planning period adopted in 2009, rather the focus of this review should be to better implement the Plan adopted by Council in 2009 and to complete tasks that could not be incorporated at that time.
To support this approach staff recommend that Council retain the current 2031 planning horizon established in 2009 by OPA 76. This horizon will form the basis on which population projections and land needs will continue to be monitored. Moreover, this horizon will form the basis of the review of the Official Plan and the updates of the Transportation Master Plan and the Infrastructure Master Plan to be undertaken in 2013, as well as the City’s Development Charges By-law in 2014.
Notwithstanding this, staff will continue to monitor responses to intensification and to assess the ongoing supply and demand for employment and residential land. Pursuant to Section 26 of the Planning Act, staff will report to Committee and Council at a meeting to be held in late 2012 on land needs and whether any change in this approach is necessary.
Updating Rural Components of the Official
Plan as Required by Council
In 2009, Council also identified a number of projects that were due to be undertaken and required them to be completed before 2014. They include:
Updating and Implementing LEAR: This project has already commenced and a LEAR Steering Committee comprised of members drawn from the agricultural and development industries, City and Ministry Staff and rural Councillors has been created. LEAR stands for Land Evaluation and Area Review, which is a provincially approved method to determine those lands that comprise prime agricultural areas in a municipality.
The outcome of this work will be a revised Agricultural Resource Area boundary. Any designation changes will be proposed as part of the amendment to the OP in 2013.
Mineral Aggregate Review: This project has also commenced and the City is being aided by the Province to complete a review of the City’s Mineral Aggregate Resource inventory and the update of the aggregate designations in the OP. The City currently protects aggregates for future use through the Limestone Resource Area and the Sand and Gravel Resource Area designations. Both designations reserve land for future extraction of these resources by preventing incompatible development on, and in proximity to, these resources. The outcome of this work will be revised policies and possible changes to aggregate designations as part of the amendment to the OP in 2013.
Country Lot Subdivision and Severance Policies: Council’s imposition of the moratorium on new country lot subdivisions included the requirement for staff to evaluate a clustering model for this form of development. The OMB supported the moratorium, and the Provincial Policy Statement provides guidance on residential development. This project has begun, and staff are evaluating a clustering model and the ongoing sustainability of country lot subdivisions and residential severances in the rural area. Staff will prepare a position paper for consultation, which will be followed by an amendment to the OP in 2013. The appellant to the moratorium on the Country Lot Subdivisions has sought leave to appeal the decision of the OMB.
B. Emerging Planning Issues
to be addressed in the Official Plan review
The Planning and Growth Management Department has identified the need to provide improved policy solutions for a number of topics so that implementation of the City’s growth management objectives through these policies is clear and easy to interpret.
These areas are:
Intensification and Tall Buildings
The OP has not clearly explained the concept of intensification and why it is needed. In the context of achieving a more compact city, including efficiencies and priorities for servicing, transportation and public amenities, it is imperative that the OP not only define where different types of intensification are appropriate but also how that can be achieved. This includes providing clearer direction on appropriate locations for tall buildings and higher densities, assessing mixed-use and employment areas within that context, examining the policy context for streets in transition, examining the policy regime for suburban communities, and clarifying urban design and the relationship of new buildings with their neighbourhoods.
Both the development industry and the community have identified that there is a need to bring more clarity into community planning with regard to where different types of intensification are appropriate, where tall buildings are to be permitted and how new development is to be designed to complement older stable neighbourhoods. This policy review will assist in resolving these concerns.
Transit-Oriented Development
The City’s investment in light rail necessitates achieving intensification at future rail stations in order to provide the necessary level of transit ridership. While the OP encourages transit-oriented development (TOD) at these stations, the policies and strategies need to be more proactive to enable liveable communities, along with a higher density and mix of uses than is currently identified. Policy changes will be coordinated with TOD plans currently being undertaken.
Employment
The City’s supply of employment land is greater than that required within the 2031 planning horizon for employment purposes. Most of this land is industrial land or land set aside for business park use. Ottawa’s employment base is becoming increasingly non-industrial in nature and not all employment land is well-located to promote economic activities or even accommodate many uses that would like to locate in Ottawa. The City needs a coordinated strategy to address employment needs for the future, and to build a stronger economic engine for Ottawa.
C.
Issues
to be explored in the Associated Master Plans
Transportation
Master Plan Issues
Staff are preparing a Statement of Work Report for the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) that will be going to Transportation Committee on June 6, 2012. That report will provide a detailed description of the work to be undertaken, the consultation and timelines. The issues to be addressed by the update of the Master Plan are:
Affordability
There is a likelihood that not all of the projects identified in the current TMP and associated plans can be completed by 2031. Consequently, there is a need for an affordability analysis for all projects and services identified within the planning horizon. This will also include a review of the capital and operating costs of various transportation modes and their impacts on the tax rate for the provision of these services.
Phasing of Infrastructure
The TMP and associated plans all include
extensive citywide infrastructure plans that include the phasing and
prioritizing of projects; however, some projects are not planned to be
implemented until well into the future. Where possible, the review will
identify interim solutions, such as extension of the O-Train in advance of
implementing North-South Light Rail Transit (LRT) to provide progress towards
the desired end-state result.
Intensification, Community Design Plans and Transit-Oriented
Development Plans
Areas identified for intensification
require a more coordinated transportation and land use approach in order to
maximize development potential and to achieve their growth targets. This process is also noted in the Council-approved
“Revised Planning and Growth Management Department Term of Council Work Plan”
with transit-oriented development plans to be done for select LRT stations.
Right-of-Way Trade-offs
In some instances transportation plans and
designs require the evaluation of trade‑offs when competing interests
are at stake, particularly in constrained environments where space is
limited. The City’s priority for
non-automobile modes of transportation, such as transit intensive corridors,
cycling routes and pedestrian needs, may necessitate reduced motor vehicle
service levels and/or the removal of on-street parking on some road corridors.
Infrastructure Master Plan Issues
The Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) will be updated concurrently with the OP to address affordability, intensification, and suburban and rural growth issues as follows:
Affordability
There is a need to update and understand the financial sustainability of identified capital projects that become assets and need to be operated and maintained by the City. This necessitates a re-evaluation of the levels of service to be provided and how water and wastewater services are financed. The update of the City’s Development Charges By-law necessitates the identification of long-term capital projects, as well as the associated costs and improvements required within the next five years to support growth through intensification.
Servicing
Limits
Monitoring and observing trends in water and wastewater generation, and forecasting future requirements for areas where intensification or new suburban growth is planned, may reveal when servicing limits will be reached and thus necessitate infrastructure upgrades.
Rural
Servicing
The anticipated Source Water Protection Plan may need to be incorporated in the IMP and may have implications for land use in parts of the rural area. Focusing development in villages raises the question as to the need to provide pubic water and wastewater service areas to support alternative village growth strategies. The cost and implications of such a strategy needs to be understood.
D. Participant Comments from
the Planning Summit
Roundtable discussions at the Planning Summit flagged issues and provided advice on six topics central to the review of the Official Plan and the Master Plans, or that might be addressed through Planning and Growth Management Department programs and processes identified in the PGM Work Plan. Major themes in the discussions, summarized in Document 1, also reflect the participants’ attitudes and expectations, and are summarized below.
The rural roundtables said they were well-informed by the Rural Affairs Office and Council Committees, and that current initiatives are going well. They are aware that growth and change lie ahead and want to see the bigger picture, one that looks at the relationship between rural areas and nearby urban areas, the future of country houses and an aging population, and economic development.
Other roundtables found that places for very tall buildings can be found throughout the urban areas of Ottawa but only if these places are well designed and compatible with the larger area, with appropriate transitions to lower-scale development. Access to excellent transit is essential. While very tall buildings can create a more attractive streetscape and support more local businesses and everyday services, developers of tall buildings are also attracted to communities that are already good places to live. Success anywhere will depend on excellent design and communication with existing neighbourhoods.
Opinions on suburban development were diverse. Some said that new communities are working quite well and that newer communities outside the Greenbelt are denser than communities inside the Greenbelt. Others encouraged the City and developers to make these new areas more complete by including jobs in these communities. All participants agreed that mixed-use, complete and liveable communities are key and that different levels of intensification are possible, appropriate and acceptable, depending on the location.
All communities need to accept a share of intensification but the community should help plan what is most appropriate. Developers and residents need more clear policies, information and certainty about what is and is not permitted.
Many participants were optimistic about transit-oriented development in Ottawa. One of the Phase 1 light-rail stations, and stations such as South Keys and the Barrhaven Marketplace have been planned from the outset to accommodate future mixed-use development. Participants had a clear image of transit-oriented development, featuring green areas, a mix of jobs, affordable housing, and convenient services, and which are well-designed for pedestrians and cyclists. They supported various incentives to achieve this image, as well as zoning for future development.
The City should also plan now for the next phases of rapid transit after 2018, by participating in land assembly and partnerships around stations, changing the zoning for future development, reserving servicing capacity and clearly messaging about the expected form and function of these centres.
Community Design Plans (CDPs) have worked well in undeveloped greenfield communities, but a different approach to the process may be needed in established communities. Communities want more effective participation, as well as the tools and supports to help them. Expectations need to be better managed regarding:
·
The purpose of CDPs, which is to manage change and implement
the OP at a community scale;
·
The level of clarity that can be provided by a CDP and how
and why things might change;
·
The nature of the engagement, where the objective is
collaboration among all participants rather than control by any group.
CDPs could potentially inventory all of a community’s assets, including natural features, cultural facilities and the built environment. The City needs to make sure that available infrastructure and future requirements are properly examined.
The economic development roundtable was optimistic about the future. The 2012 federal and provincial budgets were considered to have little or no impact because Ottawa is resilient and has a highly-educated workforce. This is an opportunity to encourage new start-ups and growth in small business. The area around the MacDonald-Cartier Airport offers large parcels of land (which are difficult to find in the city) for a future LRT connection, and obvious advantages for aviation-related businesses.
The rural community will have the opportunity
to provide input into proposed changes dealing with the protection of
Agricultural and Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas country lot subdivisions and
residential severances.
The review of the IMP may provide guidance to the development of villages, particularly if communal or public water and wastewater services are to be considered.
A statement of work for the Official Plan and
the Infrastructure Master Plan, including an outline of proposed consultation,
will be provided in a separate report to Planning Committee and Council later
in June 2012.
A statement of work for the Transportation Master Plan, including an outline of proposed consultation, will be provided in a separate report to Transportation Committee on June 6, 2012 and then to Council.
Ward Councillors have not commented directly on
the content of this report, but Councillors did provide input in the comments
included in the summary of the proceedings of the Planning Summit.
There are no direct legal implications
associated with this report.
There are no risk management implications
associated with this report.
Initial
funding has been approved within the 2012 budget; funding requirements to
complete the updates have been identified in the capital forecast, and are
subject to Council approval through the budget process.
There are
no direct accessibility impacts associated with the recommendations of this
report.
There are
no direct implications for the environment from the recommendations of this
report
There are no technology implications associated with this report.
The recommendations and strategic
directions of this report have a direct impact on the achievement of the
following Term of Council priority: “GP3 – Make sustainable choices.”
Document 1 A summary of participant comments from discussion groups at the
Planning Summit, April 26, 2012
Document 1 Résumé
des commentaires des participants formulés dans le cadre de groupes de
discussion lors du sommet sur l’urbanisme du 26 avril 2012
A SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
FROM DISCUSSION GROUPS AT THE PLANNING
SUMMIT, APRIL 26, 2012 DOCUMENT
1
Note that this summary
reflects a multitude of opinions and ideas expressed by participants at the
Planning Summit on April 26 during discussions groups on six different
topics. The questions from the
discussion groups and feedback received for each topic are presented separately
below.
Growth in Rural Areas
What do you think is working well, in terms
of our plans and approaches to planning in the rural area?
Participant
comments included:
·
Our Rural
Affairs Office and Council committees are doing a good job keeping us informed.
The improved planning website has also helped.
·
Villages
have a strong sense of community and there is a lot of energy and interest in
participating in plans. The village plan updates and review of agriculture land
are going well.
What would you like to see changed or
improved, in terms of rural planning?
Participant comments included:
·
We need a
bigger picture of rural growth and change, one that includes transportation,
jobs, and the relationship between rural areas and the nearby urban area. What
is the future for large homes on country lots, when we have an aging population
and rising gasoline prices? What does the ecosystem look like at a regional
scale?
·
Clarify the
roles and responsibilities of the province, the city and the conservation
authority in such areas as well and septic systems, protection for endangered
species, and tree-cutting. Better consultation with all affected parties would
help avoid contentious issues when they arise in cross-jurisdictional areas.
·
A greater
variety of housing is needed in villages, especially condominiums for seniors
plus housing for young people. Some way is needed to keep monster homes from
locating next to small bungalows and to provide more guidance to housing in
country lots subdivisions, so they fit better in a rural area.
·
A challenge
is to make villages more self-sufficient in terms of jobs, shopping and
services. Growth could help support these, but may lead to a new way of life.
Very Tall Buildings
Do very tall buildings
contribute to Ottawa’s image now? What contribution could they make?
Participant comments included:
·
Most of the
older tall buildings in Ottawa are blocky and squat, and contribute little to
the City’s image.
·
We can meet
our intensification objectives without tall buildings. Buildings of four – six
storeys can achieve high densities and may be a more appropriate form given the
scale of many neighbourhoods.
·
Very tall
buildings potentially can add character and focal points if they are
well-designed—creative, dynamic buildings that also contribute to the
streetscape and activity at grade by incorporating non-residential uses on the
first floors. They can also potentially contribute to communities by:
o
creating a new housing option for young people or
retirees wishing to stay in their home community;
o
providing affordable housing as a community benefit
under the Planning Act;
o
creating the density
needed to support local business and services, rapid transit investment, and
public amenities for walking and cycling.
·
Well-designed,
iconic tall buildings can also contribute to the city’s image as a world-class,
capital city and as a leader in Canadian urban design.
Where would you permit very tall buildings?
What are the characteristics of areas where tall buildings are appropriate?
Participant comments included:
·
Most tall
buildings will be built outside the downtown because of the need to protect
views to the Peace Tower and Parliament Hill.
·
The quality
of the design and compatibility with the surroundings are the paramount
considerations in locating tall buildings. Height per se is not the issue,
except in relation to shadowing and solar access, view protection, and
wind. Increased traffic and demand for
on-street parking area also concerns, along with impaired access for emergency
vehicles.
·
The
important characteristics of areas suitable for very tall buildings include:
o
Location within five to seven minutes walk to rapid
transit or very good regular transit
o
At major intersections, to serve as gateway or
landmark
o
Next to major open space such as the Central
Experimental Farm, while still preserving views from the community
o
Selectively along or near the city’s waterways, to
enliven and complete areas around national institutions
o
At the edges of residential communities and employment
areas, not in the interior
o
On wide roads where height is less obtrusive
·
Potentially,
tall buildings could punctuate each of the city’s important and distinct areas,
reflecting the particular character of each.
These could include downtown; shopping centres such as Billings Bridge
or South Keys; and town centres in Kanata, Orleans and Barrhaven.
·
Tall
buildings should be located in places where people want to live, in liveable
communities with good views, good transit, and stores and services for everyday
needs. They should only be accommodated at the edges of established communities
where appropriate transitions to lower-scale development can be made.
·
Tall
buildings can also be clustered within a design plan that preserves views and
openings to the sky.
·
More
planning and design guidance is needed but not to the extent that it stifles
creativity. In established neighbourhoods, we need more detailed planning to
articulate the nature of future development.
·
We need to
provide amenities and services for people in the high-rise buildings.
Cash-in-lieu of parkland must be reinvested in the community. If there is no
daycare in the neighbourhood, only singles and couples will live there.
·
Do not
locate tall buildings:
o
In areas of national or historic importance
o
Within rural areas or low-rise residential areas
o
Alongside major roads or in other locations where
automobiles are the primary source of transportation
Suburban Development
What do you think have been the challenges
so far, with intensification and redevelopment of suburban areas inside the
Greenbelt? What does the City need to change, to make intensification work
better?
Although this question was intended to focus
on suburbs inside the Greenbelt, the participants discussed suburbs both inside
and outside the Greenbelt.
·
Resistance
to change is perhaps the greatest barrier to intensification. No one likes the
impact of change in their neighbourhood but it has to happen if we’re going to
increase density.
·
More
communication is needed between developers and communities, along with a more
effective process. Many community representatives feel like observers rather
than participants because they lacked information, knowledge, and skills to
engage. They said there is an apparent
lack of transparency in the process and they are not being engaged early
enough.
·
Participants
generally agreed that mixed-use, complete and liveable communities are pivotal
and that different levels of intensification are possible, appropriate and
acceptable depending on the location. We need to do more work at the community
level to develop a vision and select areas for intensification and types of
intensification that are compatible with that community. All communities need
to accept a share of intensification but they can help plan what
is most acceptable. Other ideas include:
o
Validate the Official Plan intensification targets
with communities;
o
Use neighbourhood
planning charettes to create intensification plans;
o
Look at successful approaches or projects and ask
if they could work in other neighbourhoods; and,
o
Look for untapped opportunities for redevelopment,
especially older or obsolete shopping centres that
can be redeveloped with little disruption to the community.
·
Developers
and residents need more clear policies, information and certainty about what is
permitted. The Official Plan allows more development than the zoning bylaw in
some areas because the zoning bylaw was not amended after the Official Plan was
approved. Developers look at the Official Plan, but communities look at the zoning
and are then surprised at the development being discussed. They feel there is
too much random, spot rezoning.
·
Once a good
plan is in place, everyone should stick to it and the planning department
should make sure they do.
·
Intensification
can be more attractive and functional but there are barriers within the
planning department. Lengthy timelines for processing applications discourage
creative proposals that may take more time to review. The planners may approve
a proposal but then the engineers will disagree and the applicant does not know
how it will turn out.
·
Green
infrastructure plans can help preserve a system of public greenspaces,
natural areas and walkable streets with tree canopy.
How well are our newest suburbs outside the
Greenbelt working, in terms of their planning, design and overall liveability?
What changes would you recommend in how we plan them?
·
Many
participants said that new communities are working quite well. Developers said
that it’s not well known that new communities outside the Greenbelt are more dense than communities inside the Greenbelt. Common
success factors included:
o
Having a plan to which everyone adhered;
o
Placing liveability as the
highest value;
o
Campuses for employment;
o
Building schools before instead of after
development;
o
Early installation of public landmarks installed;
o
Having parks that are well-designed and can accommodate
different ages;
o
Having nature and a mix of green spaces, ravines,
and human-made lakes; and,
o
Having a catalyst for development (e.g., in Kanata,
growth in high-tech employment was the catalyst for development of the town
centre).
·
Other
participants disagreed and said that the suburbs outside the Greenbelt are
bedroom communities instead of complete communities. Common concerns included:
o
Attracting employers and jobs other than retail to
business parks and employment lands has been challenging.
o
Residents have to drive to every location,
including the town centre and to all forms of retail. This puts more cars on
the road and makes walking even less attractive.
o
Congestion and slow public transit make it
difficult to get downtown.
o
Walkability is limited
because land uses are separated and isolated and walking is unpleasant because
of the narrow roads and lack of trees.
o
A lag in delivering services and a pressure on
infrastructure.
·
A few
consultants and architects noted that we are, unfortunately, losing community
character
Transit-Oriented
Development
What is the single most important take-away
idea for Ottawa that you heard today from guest speaker Jeffrey Tumlin?
Participant
comments included:
·
Ottawa
should be planning cities for increasingly smaller households and young urban
professionals who want an active lifestyle, where cycling and walking replace
car ownership.
·
More areas should be planned so that people
can park once and then complete several errands and activities on foot.
·
We need to re-evaluate congestion and see it
as a sign of economic vitality. Where the speaker proposed pricing parking so
that a few spaces are always available, several participants said the market
should decide.
·
Reconsider road standards so that streets
become narrower and neighbourhoods become more liveable.
How can the City encourage businesses and
retail to locate near the light rail stations opening in 2018, as part of a
transit-oriented development?
·
A few participants said no extra measures
were required since the stations would be a market draw.
·
Many participants said the city needs to
create station areas that are green, walkable and
cycling-oriented, with good connections into the surrounding area. They had a
clear picture of station areas with a mix of jobs and housing, shops providing
everyday needs, and other facilities. The housing including a mix of housing
suitable for all income groups.
·
More specifically, some participants said
that the City should:
o
Provide development incentives such as waiving
fees, assisting with brownfield cleanup, and accelerating
approval processes perhaps combined with building permitting;
o
Zone the sites now for a higher density and mix of
uses and allow for more flexibility;
o
Create air rights, so that development can occur
over the station and rail line;
o
Build on the opportunities now available at each
station, rather than pursue future uses, as each station area has different
issues and positive attributes; and,
o
Help businesses by increasing the time allowed on transfers
from the current 90 minutes, so people have more time to shop.
What should the City be planning now,
for stations in the next phases of rapid transit?
Participant comments included:
·
Plan now for these areas, consulting the
surrounding communities on policy and zoning for a mix of uses and making sure
there is sufficient transportation and servicing capacity for future
redevelopment.
·
Confirm the route and schedule as far in the
future as possible, to increase
certainty for developers.
·
Take lessons from Barrhaven’s
marketplace, where a grid-pattern of roads underlies the area in anticipation
of future development; or from South Keys, where retail preceded a larger
mixed-use development planned for the future.
·
Participate in land assemblies around the
station and partner with others in their development, including affordable
housing providers.
Community Design Plans
(CDP)
In your experience, what has worked well
with the CDP process? The CDP product?
·
Several in the development industry said CDPs
have worked well in undeveloped, greenfields areas.
They provide an overall vision for area landowners and coordinate servicing,
transportation, greenspace and other elements. Different approaches may be needed in
established areas to consider the impact of new development.
·
Some said CDPs provide a comprehensive
picture of a community and help manage community expectations of future
development.
What have been the shortfalls in the process
or product? What improvements would you make to provide greater certainty in
planning?
·
Communities
were clear that they wanted more real engagement and effective participation in
the process. Some said the process worked best when communities were in
control. Others felt disadvantaged compared with the City and developers in
what they felt was a “top down” process and wanted more tools and information.
They said community associations get caught in issues and need to know their
options.
·
Several
believed the City did not respect CDPs in its planning decisions, once the
plans were approved. Others said planning is difficult to understand and
communities can be surprised by results. A project proposed before a CDP is
approved, for example, would be considered under the plans in place at the time
of the proposal. Similarly, the Official Plan now allows greater heights in
some areas than are permitted in the zoning bylaw and communities are
unprepared for proposals that exceed the zoning.
·
Several said
the scope of the CDP should be expanded to include social infrastructure and
amenities to help meet the needs of a growing population. CDPs should consider
the community’s full suite of assets, including the natural environment,
infrastructure, cultural facilities and the built environment.
·
Many said
the process takes too long, in part because of the number of parties involved
in established areas and their different expectations and interests.
Nevertheless, there was a strong call that all stakeholders be included and
that more time be spent at the outset to engage participants.
·
Prioritizing
areas for CDPs is a problem. Some said all neighbourhoods should have them
regardless of cost. Others said CDPs should be reserved only for areas
experiencing change. CDPs in evolving areas should be reviewed every five to 10
years.
Other participant comments were:
·
The CDP
process should be continuously improving. There could be a more dynamic
exchange with communities and other participants, greater use of social media,
and alternatives to public meetings. The process should tap a broader range of
information sources, such as faith-based groups and community police.
·
The City
should do a comprehensive review of the zoning bylaw and bring it into
conformity with the Official Plan to provide for intensification, rather than
continue with CDPs. Others said they preferred the CDP process because it
recognizes individual communities.
·
The City
needs to meet the same standards for studies and analysis in CDPs that it
applies in the private sector. CDPs have been completed without servicing
analysis and some question whether there is sufficient capacity to support the
plans. Public infrastructure and investment should receive equal attention as
private development.
·
Zoning
should be amended when a CDP is approved rather than leaving it for later. The
developer knows what is allowed and may be happy with it. If the developer has
to rezone the land, he may ask for more height or density since a rezoning
process is required regardless.
Economic Development
What
effect do you think the 2012 federal and provincial budgets will have on
Ottawa’s economy?
Participant comments included:
·
The budgets
will have little or no impact because Ottawa is resilient with a
highly-educated and well-paid workforce.
The Ottawa economy will continue to move away from reliance on public
employment. This is an opportunity to
encourage new start ups and growth in small businesses, which are important to
diversity.
·
Caution was
raised in several areas.
·
Young people
are having difficulty finding good-paying jobs and are deferring home
purchases. Well-educated immigrants new
to Canada are continuing to have difficulty finding work in their field because
of lack of recognition of foreign credentials.
·
We need to
focus on innovation and ongoing education.
Does
land located near the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (OMCIA)
offer any advantages or disadvantages generally to business, industrial or
commercial and retail uses? What are
they?
Advantages mentioned included:
·
The airport
area offers large parcels, which are difficult to find in the city. Also, it is
close to the airport, Riverside South, Limebank Road
and the light-rail system, and access to Highway 416 will improve with
construction of the Strandherd‑Armstrong
Bridge.
Disadvantages mentioned included:
·
We need to
position the airport and the land around it as part of a larger vision of the
economy for the whole city.
·
There is
little demand for industrial land within the city.
·
There is no
direct access to a 400-series highway and connections to other parts of the
city are poor. Growth industries trying to locate in Ottawa will choose
better-connected areas.
·
The
surrounding environmental lands, Greenbelt and residential areas may constrain
future uses. Also, there is no servicing and the property is available for
lease, not purchase.
On the
whole, what do you think would be the best possible type of development that
could be attracted to land around the airport?
Participant comments included:
·
Aviation-related
uses are the most obvious land uses. These include private distribution centres, remote sensing, uses that require aircraft and
aircraft storage.
·
International
and travel-oriented businesses could also be interested in proximity to the
airport, along with convention facilities and services.
·
Plans and policies for the area should allow broad
land uses so that there are no impediments to growth.
·
The baby
boomers will continue to retire and fuel the demand for condominiums.
·
Planning
should revisit the concept of employment land in favour of mixed use and the
flexibility that provides.