Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[waterloowarrior]

I hope you aren't banned permanently highdensitysprawl, that would be a loss for this forum....

[Richard Eade]

I hear on the radio that the PEC & ARAC joint meeting approved the Urban Boundary expension.

[waterloowarrior]

Now onto council.... lots of comments on the Citizen's website

Councillors vote to let Ottawa sprawl further
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...757/story.html

BY JAKE RUPERT, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMAY 26, 2009 2:17 PMCOMMENTS (15)


OTTAWA — Three attempts to freeze or limit expansion of the suburban boundary were rejected by elected officials on the city’s planning and rural affairs committees Tuesday when majority of councillors supported an 842-hectare expansion of the city.

The matter will now go to city council for final debate in June.

The city’s suburban boundary is a line on city maps beyond which no major development is supposed to occur. It runs around the outer edges of Orléans, south Gloucester, south Nepean and Stittsville, with rural villages in their own encirclements beyond it.

Developers and other landowners have lobbied hard to have lands they own included in an expansion, which would allow them to build more subdivisions. Other groups argue a continued expansion of the suburbs is bad for the environment and the city’s finances. They point to studies showing it costs the city more to provide roads, sewers, water and other services than it collects from new development and the costs rise as development gets further from downtown.

Developers want roughly 2,000 hectares approved for development, city staff recommended 842 hectares, and others pushed for zero expansion.

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes moved a motion to freeze the suburban boundary entirely, which was defeated soundly on a 9-2 vote.

A motion from Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume for a small expansion was defeated 7-4.

A motion by Councillor Rob Jellett to limit expansion to 300 hectares was also defeated 7-4.

By a 6-5 vote, councillors approved including several large chunks of land in the expansion, including a large tract of land on the east side of Orléans.

The moves came after Tim Marc, the city’s main lawyer on planning issues, told councillors the city could reject any expansion of the suburban boundary, or accept a small one, without opening itself up to a legal challenge, a city lawyer says.

Marc told councillors that changes to the Municipal Act preclude appeals from those whose lands aren’t included in an expansion, as long as the city freezes the boundary or limits an expansion to a very small tract of land between Stittsville and Kanata.

The boundary review is the biggest issue in the provincially mandated five-year review of the city’s official land-use plan, which guides what can be built where. The plan is designed to work hand-in-hand with the city’s new transportation master plan.

It calls for increasing density throughout the city, especially around new transit stations that are part of the city’s new mass-transit project.

HOW THEY VOTED


Freeze the suburban boundary?

Yes

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes

Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett

No

Orleans Councillor Bob Monette

Gloucester-South Nepean Steve Desroches

Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder

Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate

Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume

Rideau-Goulbourn Councillor Glenn Brooks

Knoxdale-Merivale Gord Hunter

West-Carleton March Councillor Eli El-Chantiry

Expand the suburban boundary a little?

Yes

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes

Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate

Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume

No

Orleans Councillor Bob Monette

Gloucester-South Nepean Steve Desroches

Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder

Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson

Rideau-Goulbourn Councillor Glenn Brooks

Knoxdale-Merivale Gord Hunter

West-Carleton March Councillor Eli El-Chantiry


Approve an 842-hectare expansion?

Yes

Orleans Councillor Bob Monette

Gloucester-South Nepean Steve Desroches

Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder

Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson

Knoxdale-Merivale Gord Hunter

West-Carleton March Councillor Eli El-Chantiry

No

Rideau-Goulbourn Councillor Glenn Brooks

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes

Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett

Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate

Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[p_xavier]

With these comments, I lost all faith I had in Ottawa, even if it was incredibly small to begin with.

Orléans Councillor Bob Monette said he voted to expand the suburban boundary to give the city and developers more time to plan new areas of the city, resulting in better new development. He also said new Canadians, who are increasingly moving to the suburbs, are doing so because they want to live the Canadian dream of owning their own detached homes.

Monette said he had heard from people during the past few months about how we should be more like European cities, more dense.

This is Ottawa, though, and Monette, for one, doesn't want to live in Europe.

"On paper, we might have enough (suburban land), but why would we turn our backs on smart, long-term planning?" he said.

Of course, being like Europe would involve walking, and god knows he doesn't have one extra once of fat to spare. They go to the suburbs because it's cheaper, because it's subsidised.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

With these comments, I lost all faith I had in Ottawa, even if it was incredibly small to begin with.

Of course, being like Europe would involve walking, and god knows he doesn't have one extra once of fat to spare. They go to the suburbs because it's cheaper, because it's subsidised.

If I read you correctly, I don't think you were looking for any signs that would increase your faith in Ottawa one way or the other. To me, a knuckle-dragging baboon like that one serves a purpose. It helps shine a bright light on the stupidity of North American planning values. It unmasks exactly what needs to be unmasked. Now, if you really honestly believe that Bob Monette speaks for all of us Ottawans, then I really can't figure out why you're even spending this much time debating Ottawa urban planning issues.

[eternallyme]

I would have voted no on all the amendments.

The Diane Holmes amendment freezing the boundary would be a huge boon for neighbouring municipalities, since no new development would be permitted in Ottawa. All that would happen is sprawl would "leapfrog" across the city boundary into towns 30, 40, 50 km away.

The other amendments I would have voted down so that piecemeal discussion could begin, one tract at a time, rather than "all or nothing".

[Dado]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I would have voted no on all the amendments.

The Diane Holmes amendment freezing the boundary would be a huge boon for neighbouring municipalities, since no new development would be permitted in Ottawa. All that would happen is sprawl would "leapfrog" across the city boundary into towns 30, 40, 50 km away.

Please buy a copy of Jeffrey Rubin's new book, Why Your World is about to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, as to why this really isn't going to be much of an issue a decade hence. Also bear in mind that as it stands we've got something like a 15 year land supply within the current boundary so it really isn't an issue if the boundary is frozen for one round of Official Plan updating. This isn't a case of no new development being permitted. If growth is higher than expected and there's a risk of running out of land, the boundary can always be extended in 5 years at the next update.

The other amendments I would have voted down so that piecemeal discussion could begin, one tract at a time, rather than "all or nothing".

Isn't that sort of what the 'expand a little' amendment was about? At any rate, what would piecemeal discussion look like? I'm wondering if you're aware of how the tracts that were recommended were chosen?

[waterloowarrior]

"Europe" isn't all the same either. there is quite a lot of variety between the different countries


(source: http://www.eukn.org/binaries/eukn/ne...union-2004.pdf )



Here are the statistics for Denmark housing stock. As you can see, the percent of SF is quite similar to what we have right now, in fact Denmark has a greater share of single family housing (detached and farmhouses) than we have right now (although I'm comparing a country with a municipality)

In the UK over half the population lives in detached or semi-detached.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

The Diane Holmes amendment freezing the boundary would be a huge boon for neighbouring municipalities, since no new development would be permitted in Ottawa. All that would happen is sprawl would "leapfrog" across the city boundary into towns 30, 40, 50 km away.

I don't buy that. Urban boundaries have existed for decades. They have been frozen, expanded, unfrozen and refrozen. The share of metropolitan growth that goes to neighbouring municipalities doesn't seem to change much over the years and decades. Some people will always go further out of town because they either (a) really need to be in a small town environment, which is respectable; or (b) believe that it's the only place where they can afford a house, or own the type of house they want.

That's fine, in both cases, but that doesn't mean Ottawa has to be all things to all people. We are not a small town so we'll never truly satisfy those who seek a genuine small town. We'll never be Kemptville. And, we are more expensive, simply because we're a bigger city with more services and more jobs and everything's closer.

That's a fair tradeoff for people to make, but it's not up to Ottawa to (a) bend over backward to accommodate every wish and whim, nor (b) provide the roads at our expense for those who want that type of lifestyle to leech off our teat.

Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head here. You want to live in Rockland, or Carleton Place or Arnprior, you go right ahead. But pay your fair share. Park'n'rides should be priced for non-Ottawans. Ideally, so should roads.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

If I read you correctly, I don't think you were looking for any signs that would increase your faith in Ottawa one way or the other. To me, a knuckle-dragging baboon like that one serves a purpose. It helps shine a bright light on the stupidity of North American planning values. It unmasks exactly what needs to be unmasked. Now, if you really honestly believe that Bob Monette speaks for all of us Ottawans, then I really can't figure out why you're even spending this much time debating Ottawa urban planning issues.

Cause it's a fun forum. But looking at the votes, he sure isn't the only one. You want to get elected?

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head here. You want to live in Rockland, or Carleton Place or Arnprior, you go right ahead. But pay your fair share. Park'n'rides should be priced for non-Ottawans. Ideally, so should roads.

That is my subsidised comment. I'm all for freedom or choice, except it always comes with a price to pay, which isn't the case in most canadian cities.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

"Europe" isn't all the same either. there is quite a lot of variety between the different countries

Here are the statistics for Denmark housing stock. As you can see, the percent of SF is quite similar to what we have right now, in fact Denmark has a greater share of singles than what we have right now.

In the UK over half the population lives in detached or semi-detached.

Of course. A detached house in the Glebe sure isn't the same as one in Barrhaven. One has at least some sense of good urban planning.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

But pay your fair share. Park'n'rides should be priced for non-Ottawans. Ideally, so should roads.

Hey don't get all poetic on us here, Mille What next, selling City tap water to the residents.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

"Europe" isn't all the same either. there is quite a lot of variety between the different countries



In the UK over half the population lives in detached or semi-detached.

Great stats...I'm surprised by the difference in SFR's etc between the UK and Italy or Spain.....quite a difference. Lumping all of Europe in together is a big problem...the differences in so many facets of life between a person in Iceland and a person in southern Portugal or Greece or Cyprus are immense.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Hey don't get all poetic on us here, Mille What next, selling City tap water to the residents.

Not to mention tourists and other through traffic would be forced to head around the city...

[waterloowarrior]

here's examples of a [low density] neighbourhood in the Netherlands... single detached homes and duplexes, nice looking yards, etc

http://www.google.nl/maps?ie=UTF8&t=...,0.036049&z=16

http://www.google.nl/maps?ie=UTF8&t=...,0.013947&z=17

but explore the neighbourhood look at the huge differences between things like the street standards/widths, the lack of signage everywhere, setbacks, size of lighting...

Yet they still have room for service vehicles to park, they have garbage pickup at their door, room for parked cars in the driveway etc

Not saying this is the ideal neighbourhood, I found the link on a different site and don't know anything about it, exactly how dense it is, and how it relates to the rest of the city. It's just interesting to look at how other countries do things, and can have higher greenfield densities yet maintain the low density feel many people are looking for

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

here's examples of a neighbourhood in the Netherlands... single detached homes and duplexes, nice looking yards, etc

http://www.google.nl/maps?ie=UTF8&t=...,0.036049&z=16

http://www.google.nl/maps?ie=UTF8&t=...,0.013947&z=17

but explore the neighbourhood look at the huge differences between things like the street standards/widths, the lack of signage everywhere, setbacks, size of lighting...

Yet they still have room for service vehicles to park, they have garbage pickup at their door, room for parked cars in the driveway etc

Not saying this is the ideal neighbourhood, I found the link on a different site and don't know anything about it, exactly how dense it is, and how it relates to the rest of the city. It's just interesting to look at how other countries do things, and can have higher greenfield densities yet maintain the low density feel many people are looking for

Apart from the street layout (and even the collector road there is designed similarly to over here), there is virtually no difference between that and a typical North American suburb.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Apart from the street layout (and even the collector road there is designed similarly to over here), there is virtually no difference between that and a typical North American suburb.

Perhaps it wasn't the best example (it was from a site talking about English vs. Dutch suburban parking provisions).. I wasn't trying to say it was the ideal suburb, just that we have plenty of room to rethink how we design our s.f. suburbs and use different elements from European greenfield developments to enhance them and use space more efficiently (e.g. reduced roadway widths, home zones, different lot configurations, setbacks, parking provisions etc). I'll try and make a more detailed post sometime with better examples.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Apart from the street layout (and even the collector road there is designed similarly to over here), there is virtually no difference between that and a typical North American suburb.

Not true.

All their walls are brick, instead of just the facade.

[waterloowarrior]

Chamber surveys land-hungry developers
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Busines...243/story.html
Results to be passed on to council before final urban boundary debate next week

By Tim Shufelt, The Ottawa CitizenJune 6, 2009 12:01 AM

OTTAWA — While city council prepares for its final debate over the urban boundary next week, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce intends to inform the decision with its own survey results — which the chamber is making sure includes the suburban homebuilders and contractors who most want the development boundary expanded.


Although the survey was sent out to Ottawa’s homebuilders and contractors even if they aren’t members of the business group, that was done only to compare their views with others who answered the questions, said Chamber of Commerce president Erin Kelly.


“We’ll be able to separate out how the developers and contractors answered compared to how others answered,” Kelly said.


The survey results will be included in a study on the urban boundary and presented to council some time before June 10.


That’s the date council is scheduled to vote on whether to push out the boundary beyond which no major development is supposed to occur.


Developers have been pushing for an additional 2,000 hectares of land to be approved for development. Others have called for the boundary to be frozen where it is, while city planners recommended an expansion of 842 hectares, including a large tract of land on the east side of Orléans.


The decision, which is part of the city’s mandated five-year planning process, will have far-reaching implications for the immediate future of Ottawa’s outskirts.


The survey also asks whether builders and their customers should pay the full direct costs to extend city services into new areas, or whether those costs should be shared by existing property taxpayers.


The Chamber of Commerce said it will use its survey results to make “informed recommendations” to council.


In doing so, it sought the assistance of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association.


Kelly said the survey was sent to association executive director John Herbert to distribute to his members.


In an internal memo, Herbert explained that a significant expansion of the boundary is essential to the construction of new homes.


“We also need this to happen in order to continue providing the high quality of life enjoyed by all Ottawa residents,” he wrote.


“Unfortunately there are some well intentioned but naïve individuals and organizations that are attempting to stop any new lands being brought into Ottawa’s urban boundary … They believe that they have the right to dictate a high-density lifestyle to all Ottawa residents and are lobbying members of council accordingly.”


Kelly noted a question on the survey asking respondents to identify themselves as developers or homebuilders.


She said she expects the survey results will be available by Monday

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

p&e committee report with all the amendments is online

here's the minutes from the public meetings...

what's with the Wilkinson 'social cohesion' motion?

Motion 21 – Wilkinson/Hume – Social Cohesion

Councillor Wilkinson introduced her motion, which seeks to ensure large developments are planned with social cohesion in mind to avoid that it be solely geared exclusively to a particular group. She noted the Morgan’s Grant Briarbrook Community Association was particularly concerned with this issue. She added that this motion speaks to the pre-consultation process.

In response to a question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Marc responded that there are prohibited grounds of discrimination within the Ontario Human Rights Code. The City cannot prohibit someone from living in one area because of one of those grounds. By the same token, if there are two to three dozen individuals who have in common one of the characteristics and they wish to buy up all of the houses on a particular street or work together and establish a plan of a subdivision, the City could not prohibit them from doing so under the Ontario Human Rights Code. He opined that it would be inappropriate to add such a provision to the OP.

Based on this advice, Councillor Cullen voiced his opposition to the motion, expressing concerns with its applicability and appropriateness.

Councillor Harder also spoke in opposition, stating that developing communities should not be restricted in this way. She pointed out that the existence of the South Nepean Muslim Corporation and 5000 Muslims live in South Nepean.

Moved by P. Hume, on behalf of M. Wilkinson:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Official Plan be amended by adding “social cohesion” to the list of planning factors to be considered in the pre-application consultation process for development projects.

LOST

YEAS (0):
NAYS (11): S. Desroches, C. Doucet, E. El-Chantiry, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, D. Holmes, P. Hume, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, D. Thompson

the Feltmate motion about Country lot estates is interesting... hopefully we'll have a good debate at the council table tomorrow.