Draft Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw

[waterloowarrior]

latest version (http://ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw/full_bylaw/index_en.html)

staff report on some of the latest changes (http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2008/04-08/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0074.htm)

interesting stuff... for some of us at least ;)

[waterloowarrior]

a lot of the minimum and maximum parking rates were increased since the last version, however they are much lower than the previous bylaw is most cases


Another interesting one was SmartCentres trying to get a rezoning through this process by asking to redesignate Laurentian as Arterial Mainstreet ;)

there's something about the Rideau Centre and wanting to eliminate the requirement for ground floor retail...

[citizen j]

^Viking Rideau needs a good smack in the head (and possibly a public shaming) for being bad corporate citizens. Perhaps while they dither for another 3 or 5 years over what to do with the open wound on Rideau Street between the Rideau Ctr. and the old Ogilvie building, we can set up some stocks on the surface lot and lock senior management into them for the summer? -- feel free to hurl abuse and rotten vegetables.

[waterloowarrior]

Bylaw bashing
Plan to fold several old bylaws into single set of rules for Ottawa under harsh attack
Jake RupertOttawa Citizen
Tuesday, April 08, 2008


New city-wide zoning rules are taking a beating today at city hall, and there's a move to send them back for more public consultation and changes.

The new recommendations before councillors on the city's planning committee call for zoning regulations from 11 former municipalities boiled into one bylaw. But by noon Tuesday, six of 26 public delegations had voiced objections to the effects of the new rules on specific buildings, properties and locations and concerns about general rules across the city on what can be built and where.

Michael Polowin, a municipal and commercial real-estate lawyer who represents several businesses, including Tim Hortons, as well as individuals with complaints about the rules, said if the city passes the new rules as written by planning staff, the municipality will be tied up in court for years fighting expensive cases brought by landowners.

He said particularly dumb is a proposal to require 15-per-cent more parking space per building than the old bylaw. He said it's obvious this goes against the city's official plan goals of intensifying development in urban areas.

He and others also objected to new requirements for small businesses on main streets to have on-site parking, a ban on drive-ins on main streets, and a host of other changes ranging from restrictions on the size and locations of a group homes, back-yard sizes, and grandfathering of minor variances.

Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder said she is not prepared to pass the bylaw with so many potential problems and she is going to ask the committee to send it back for changes and more public consultation. She said this would prolong an already delayed process of unifying zoning rules in the city, but that the extra time would be worth it, if only to save the city money on legal fees in the future.

"We're already two years late on this, so what's wrong with taking more time to get things right?" she said.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b305dee0-f680-40b2-b0d9-5b06978f3232&k=78759

[Cre47]

I have to agree with Mr. Polowin that the proposal of increased parking space is dumb, I should say extremely dumb. What a way to encourage transit usage. Stop acting like the 50s, city. We have too many eyesores judging notably by the big-box stores. Generally, I would that the future Transitway/light-rail extensions eats up as much as possible some of the big box/shopping centers areas at the Centrum, Bayshore and Marketplace.

[waterloowarrior]

Shopping for solutions

Plan to restrict mall parking spots to boost public transit shot down by suburban councillors (http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Fonts/swiss.swf)

By (http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Fonts/swiss.swf)SUSAN SHERRING (susan.sherring@sunmedia.ca)
http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeGlobalnav/invisible.gif

It turns out just building it doesn't make them come after all.
Such is the case in suburbia, where the almighty car still rules the road.

And the shopping centres.

And simply building a transit station near a mall won't see suburbanites take the bus for grocery shopping.

"We're not taking (groceries) home on the bus. We need our cars. It's specific to the way we live," said Barrhaven Coun. Jan Harder.

Harder was speaking to a motion at council yesterday that would have seen the number of allowable parking spots at shopping malls located near transit stations reduced.

"We don't have the luxury of time. We're involved in a lot of different things. We are car-dependent, and that's our right. I thank those people who take the bus every day of the week," Harder said.

The debate was divided between downtown residents and most everyone else.

"This flies in the face of the life we've living. Look at Carlingwood, Bayshore, Rideau Centre, they're hubs. And in all of those malls, there are parking problems. And people aren't going to stop taking their SUV and start to take the bus to pick up their $300 worth of groceries or their big screen TVs. They're going to take their vehicles," said Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Gord Hunter.

Gloucester-South Nepean Coun. Steve Desroches attempted to sway rural councillors onside.

"I want to appeal to my rural colleagues. We really are on the frontier of the city, we are fortunate to have clients visiting but when they come to the suburbs, they are taking a car, not taking buses from the rural area," Desroches said.

Bay Coun. Alex Cullen led the charge from the other side.

"For my colleagues who support public transit, this is a no-brainer," Cullen said.

'NO-BRAINER'

(Feel free to run for cover when you hear the words "no-brainer" by a city councillor. No-brainer is a little too close to the truth for comfort.)

Cullen pointed out the city is about to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to public transit, and suggested it made sense to support that system by limiting parking spaces at malls where there's a transit station.

"Therefore, it makes sense, when you have a shopping mall, to take away some car appeal. Don't undermine our transit system," he said.

That didn't sit well with the suburban councillors.

Kanata North Coun. Marianne Wilkinson said limiting parking would hurt businesses.

"At the Centrum, for example, there's already a problem with parking. I don't think the city should be working towards having businesses fail. I always thought we wanted to encourage economic development -- to put in restrictions of this nature is counter productive, we'll lose those businesses," she said.

Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Jacques Legendre wasn't buying the argument.
"The examples are loopy. There's a better word but it's not coming to me, but the example of buying $300 worth of groceries," he said.

(Just what is loopy about buying a week's worth of groceries, Legendre didn't explain.)

He did tell his colleagues that the city simply couldn't continue to plan around the car.

"This is 1950s planning, you're looking in the rearview mirror," he said.

The suburbs won out on this one, in a 17-7 vote in favour of omitting several suburban malls from the motion further restricting parking spaces.

For some reason, east-end Coun. Michel Bellmare voted against it, then in the next motion, voted in favour of taking the Gloucester Shopping Mall off the restricted list.

A little shameful.
- - -
SILLIEST COMPARISON: Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Gord Hunter is usually one of council's most effective speakers around the table. But yesterday, his oratory skills fell somewhat short.

"The idea of saying you can't have parking spots, it's like telling kids who want to play basketball to go play hockey on the rink. They don't play hockey, they become street kids. You don't make something stronger by making another component weaker."
If you say so councillor.
Not to worry, everyone has their off days.

Ottawa politicians are so behind the times.... it also seems like many of them think that transit is only used to get downtown for work, and that they can only imagine people driving to shop rather than walking or biking. We don't need to allow parking lots so huge so there are enough spaces to meet demand for one day (like the saturday before Christmas) in the entire year... the other 364 days it becomes a wasteland that is bad for the environment, hostile to pedestrians and cyclists, and encourages a suburban form of development.
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/OttawaAndRegion/2008/05/15/pf-5569851.html

[AuxTown]

My dad has been working on this bylaw for the past 19 years and it has been a constant battle with backwards councillors and angry developers (with expensive lawyers) who will fight tooth & nail to keep as many parking spots as possible. It's sad that the planners and engineers, who obviously know exponentially more about this topic than city councillors, often have to answer to council and have their proposals essentially ignored.

[waterloowarrior]

Yeah, as if their opinion about parking is somehow better than the months and years of work that has gone into coming up with these numbers. And if I'm reading this correctly they don't want to apply these parking standards to areas that are under construction or will be developed soon, despite the fact that it will likely be the only time (in the next couple of decades) there will be an opportunity to design things right, prepare for rapid transit, and minimize the parking lot sizes.


here's the motions from the city council meeting.... Whereas councillors think they know more than staff about parking rates .... :rolleyes:



Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate
Seconded by Councillor M. Wilkinson
WHEREAS the draft comprehensive zoning by-law proposes a standard minimum parking rate for shopping centres of 3.4 spaces per 100m2 of gross leasable floor area for lands in Area C (suburban) and D (rural) outside of the 600m radius of rapid transit stations;
AND WHEREAS this rate does not sufficiently account for uses in shopping centres that may generate a higher parking demand than the standard shopping centre parking rate;

AND WHEREAS there is justification to increase the shopping centre parking rate to better acknowledge the potential for these high traffic-generating uses;

AND WHEREAS the proposed reduced minimum parking rate for shopping centres can also result in parking shortages when a high traffic-generating use such as a restaurant, bar, place of assembly, place of worship and recreational and athletic facility occupies a large portion of the floor area of a shopping center;

AND WHEREAS the predominance of a higher parking-generating use in a shopping centre can justify applying the higher parking rate for that use;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 101 be revised to:
Increase the shopping centre parking rate in Area C (suburban) and D (rural) outside of the 600m radius of rapid transit stations from the proposed 3.4 spaces/100m2 of gross leasable area to 3.6 spaces/100m2 of gross leasable area, and
Where a restaurant, bar, place of assembly, place of worship or recreational and athletic facility is located within a shopping centre, and one or more occupancies of that same use comprise more than 30% of the gross leasable area of the shopping centre, then required parking for that use will be calculated at the parking rate specified for that use, and not at the shopping centre rate. THAT pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

CARRIED


MOTION 35/9 (as amended)


Moved by Councillor J. Harder
Seconded by Councillor S. Desroches

WHEREAS a motion was presented to Planning and Environment Committee on April 8, 2008 which stated “that options regarding updating of parking rules of certain non-residential uses not apply to Areas C and D”;

AND WHEREAS the actual intention of this motion was to revise Schedule 2A (Map of Rapid Transit Stations) to remove six proposed rapid transit stations that have not yet been constructed and completed;

AND WHEREAS it is the objective of this motion to ensure that the specific minimum and maximum parking rates for properties in proximity to rapid transit stations do not apply to lands in the vicinity of these future stations as it is premature at this time;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Schedule 2A of the Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law be revised to delete reference to the proposed Market Place, Barrhaven Centre, Woodroffe, River, Spratt, Limebank, Terry Fox, Teron, Kanata Town Centre, Place d’Orléans, South Keys and Gloucester Centre transit stations.

THAT pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

CARRIED

[c_speed3108]

Ottawa politicians are so behind the times.... it also seems like many of them think that transit is only used to get downtown for work, and that they can only imagine people driving to shop rather than walking or biking. We don't need to allow parking lots so huge so there are enough spaces to meet demand for one day (like the saturday before Christmas) in the entire year... the other 364 days it becomes a wasteland that is bad for the environment, hostile to pedestrians and cyclists, and encourages a suburban form of development.
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/OttawaAndRegion/2008/05/15/pf-5569851.html

I am going to have to disagree you here. The commuting trips are the important ones to get on public transit. Trips to buy food for building supplies are really short trips (the car isn't even warm yet) and typically require a vehicle to haul the goods home. The other advantage of large mall lots is that they provide park and ride spaces (for example Orleans) which mitigate the "crappy local bus service" barrier to transit use.

I don't really understand why the city REQUIRES parking...but if a business wants to build and maintain a parking lot at their own expense why should we stop them. Really it is a welcome change from business that do not spend any money on that type of thing and them complain endlessly about the city's parking meter rates and policies.

Another nice policy would be for the city to REQUIRE malls and such located beside transitway stations to donate some parking on weekdays (as Place D'Orleans does) as park and ride space. This would further help the problem of park and rides being a barrier to growing ridership. This requirement could be part of the approvals for new developments.

Car usage IN the suburbs is not the problem...it is car usage FROM the suburbs. The suburbs have no traffic congestion to speak of, the roads work great and are very well design with left turn cues (less idling) and all the rest. The city should focus its attention on the eight zillion vehicles stuck in traffic on highway in the morning.

[Bucolic Urbanity]

My dad has been working on this bylaw for the past 19 years and it has been a constant battle with backwards councillors and angry developers (with expensive lawyers) who will fight tooth & nail to keep as many parking spots as possible. It's sad that the planners and engineers, who obviously know exponentially more about this topic than city councillors, often have to answer to council and have their proposals essentially ignored.

Unfortunately, the way things are run is that the City Planners toil often in isolation from the feedback that the Councillors receive from constituants (many of whom can't see past their own nose) and at the end of the day, a new ZBL is a council approval document.

Many developers would prefer to have less parking than the current ZBL's require and would prefer more flexible informal shared arrangements with other parking lots nearby that are not used as much or have the ability to park on the street. I know many churches would love to provide their required parking on side streets.

[waterloowarrior]

approved
http://ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/a_z/zoning/index_en.html

[waterloowarrior]

Appeal holding up new city rules on home-based businesses
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Wed, Apr 1, 2009 2:00 PM EST
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/294150088755182.php

Zoning bylaw too restrictive, resident says

A south-end councillor is asking that an appeal of Ottawa's new home-based business regulations be accelerated so that the new rules, which the city says offers more flexibility to entrepreneurs, can take effect.

Council last June passed the city's comprehensive zoning bylaw, which includes home-based business provisions, to replace the previous patchwork of pre-amalgamation rules.

But an appeal filed by Carp resident Gary Marshall, scheduled to be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board this fall, has delayed implementation of the new regulations, which change the types of residential dwellings that can host a business, as well as rules around non-resident employees.

Gloucester-South Nepean Coun. Steve Desroches says he has asked municipal staff if it's possible to move up the appeal date, so the city can have consistent rules for residents wanting to establish a home-based business.

"Right now, the current patchwork has restrictions that are hindrances to someone starting a small- or medium-sized business," says Mr. Desroches, who is also vice-chair of the city's corporate services and economic development committee.

"It is very important that, given the economic downturn, we support ... people who have lost their job (because) it might be a viable option for them to become an entrepreneur," he adds, explaining the city is holding off on releasing a guide to help residents start a home-based business in case the OMB subsequently alters the municipal rules.

Bylaw changes receiving the most attention include provisions dealing with the number of non-resident employees and clients permitted at a home-based business.

In some pre-amalgamation municipalities, the number of permitted non-resident employees was zero; in others, such as Gloucester, they were prohibited for service businesses. The new citywide rules permit only one non-resident employee to work on site, but allows business owners to employ off-site employees, explains city planner Beth Desmarais.

"There is no problem with that, because they are not coming to the property or, if they are coming to the property, they are not coming every day," she says.

However, these provisions are still deemed too restrictive by those fighting the bylaw.

Mr. Marshall refused to discuss his appeal when contacted by OBJ, but in documents filed with the city and the OMB, he cites correspondence from Greely resident Dan Perley, who argues allowing up to five non-resident employees at a home business is more reasonable.

"Ottawa council should be focusing on how to make Ottawa the most home workplace-friendly city in Canada ... We're the high-tech Silicon Valley North, supposedly, and we don't get this stuff," adds Mr. Perley, who co-owns two companies involved in strategic technology planning, Marchhurst Tech Corp. in Canada and California-based Workplace Technologies Corp.

(While his American firm is involved in home workplace solutions, Mr. Perley says neither of his companies market any such services or products to the City of Ottawa.)

But Mr. Desroches says the new bylaw not only strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of home-based business owners and neighbours, but is also much more permissive than many of the former rules.

In some former municipalities, he says, home-based businesses were banned in all residential buildings except for detached dwellings. Under the new bylaw, there are different permitted uses and rules for different types of buildings.

"We're on the right track to having an overall city framework aimed at encouraging home-based businesses, but that has a philosophy of good neighbours so there are not parking impacts or noise implications on the surrounding residents," he says.

---

HOME SWEET HOME?

Selected provisions from section 127 of the city's zoning bylaw (under appeal)

(3) Despite the unlimited number of businesses permitted, a maximum of only one, on-site, non-resident employee is permitted per principal dwelling unit.

(4) On-site non-resident employees are prohibited in association with any home-based business located within a secondary dwelling unit, rooming unit, or dwelling unit within an apartment dwelling, lowrise or an apartment dwelling, mid-highrise.

(5) No more than one client or customer may be attended or served on site in the case of any home-based business within a principal dwelling unit.

(6) No client or customer may be attended or served on site in the case of any home-based business located within a secondary dwelling unit, rooming unit, or dwelling unit within an apartment dwelling, lowrise or an apartment dwelling, mid-highrise.

(13) Where a home-based business sells on the premises, it sells only those items that are made on the premises. Despite the foregoing, telemarketing and mail-order sales are permitted provided that any merchandise purchased is delivered or mailed directly to the customer.

Source: City of Ottawa