Planning report for December 2024 meeting

The planning committee did not have a monthly meeting in December but was involved in 3 initiatives:

185 Hawthorne

Council has now approved selling this large lot – long considered a park by Hawthorne area neighbours – for a 10-unit, affordable development of a “non-profit.” Residents capably rallied to prevent the loss of the green space and an amendment, introduced by Councillor Menard, was approved to:

• retain as many trees as possible and replant where retention is not possible;
• request that the not-for profit developer provide “publicly accessible greenspace on the site”; and,
• maintain the existing curbside parking capacity.

Draft 1 of new Zoning By-Law

The OOE planning committee / Bob Gordon submitted a number of comments to City staff seeking:

• protection of the OOE secondary plan; creation of a height-limitation schedule within the secondary plan;
• more space for trees;
• sharing the targeted increased density across the City rather than disproportionately in the core areas; and,
• greater respect for existing communities and their neighbourhoods.

Lansdowne North Side Stands (NSS)

The OOE planning committee submitted comments on the initial plans for the new north side stands at Lansdowne noting:

• How the traffic analysis failed to account for existing conditions, projected growth, and the likelihood of both the stadium and new event centre being used simultaneously
• Increase of vehicular traffic into the centre of the park
• Reduced seating capacity
• Roofless new structure
• Few improvements to accessibility of the new structure
• Lack of architectural merit in the new design

15-17 Oblats

Approval has been granted to proceed with 15-17 Oblats. Per the description on DevApps:

The proposed development is a 1,019 square metre addition to the existing building and the conversion of the existing building to rental units. A total of 284 residential units are proposed, with 20 vehicular parking spaces, 291 bicycle parking spaces, and 2,834 square metres of amenity space (indoor and outdoor).

Councillor Menard’s office highlighted the following improvements thanks to community and OOECA feedback:

• 2 dedicated car-sharing spaces on Oblats
• Up to 5 of the 27 visitor parking spaces can be used for car-share
• Notice to tenants that vehicle parking is not provided  and is not a viable option on the local streets
• A bike parking rate that is aligned with 1 bicycle parking space per bedroom
• Pre-loaded Presto cards for the first occupants
• 10 bikes provided on-site for rent
• A concierge to monitor visitor parking spaces and provide information to residents on how to get around city using transit or active modes.

DevApps supporting documents, undertaking letter re: statue of Mary

Visit the Forum website for renderings of 15-17 Oblats, and consult DevApps.Ottawa.ca – Application D07-12-22-0124 for full application details and supporting documents, including an undertaking letter from Forum committing to moving the Statue of Mary to Immaculata High School. Excerpt and photo:

“Forum acknowledges the significance of the Virgin Mary statue to the Old Ottawa East community and recognizes the importance of preserving its proximity to the current location.

Following careful deliberation and collaboration with the Ottawa Catholic District School Board, Forum has identified a suitable location for the statue at Immaculata High School. Specifically, the statue will be installed within the high school’s courtyard facing Main Street.

Forum is committed to working closely with the school board to ensure the safe transport and
placement of the statue in its new home.”

Planning committee detailed correspondence

1. OOECA letter to City on 185 Hawthorne dated October 22, 2024

Attention: Councillor Shawn Menard, Wendy Tse, Development Review Planner, City of Ottawa

Subject: 185 Hawthorne proposed ZBLA – D02-02-24-0050  

The Old Ottawa East Community Association applauds the City’s goal to support the creation of deeply affordable housing in our community. However, the particular modest proposal pertaining to 185 Hawthorne Avenue fails to respect the Old Ottawa East Secondary Plan (OOESP) and ignores the long-standing neighbourhood use and contributions to the lot that the City proposes to dispose of.

During a meeting convened by Councillor Shawn Menard on October 21, 2024, City staff said that the OOESP supports the proposed intensification that would result from approval of the proposed ZBLA. We take issue with that and, indeed, if a private developer proposed the same rezoning provisions they would meet strong opposition from the community. We particularly take exception to the proposed increased height of four storeys (14.5m) when the “existing zoning” allows three storeys (11m), as per a key neighbourhood provision within OOESP, and specifically OOESP Policies 23 and 25.

Secondly, this large, odd-shaped lot bordering Highway 417 and the Lees Avenue “118” exit ramp has long been considered, albeit not formally designated, “Hawthorne Avenue Parkland”, as displayed in this Google Maps screenshot taken on October 22, 2024.

Neighbours have assisted with its maintenance over the years and have used it for a variety of recreational purposes such as dog-walking, Hallowe’en parties, and simply as a green buffer to Highway 417. In the past, the City specifically asked the community to adopt this lot as a park and, during discussions of where an OOE dog park might be located, this lot was one of the suggested locations.

It remains puzzling why the City is proposing this lot for deeply affordable housing when there are other OOE lots and ones across the river in the Hurdman area that have potential for thousands of new units, as outlined in the approved TOD plans for Lees and Hurdman. 

The city is proposing 10 affordable units on this property. However, there is sufficient area to subdivide the property into five 12 m wide parcels on Hawthorne and one on Concord. Within an 11 m height limit, there could be 4 units per building. That would result in a total of 24 units. Why is the city shortchanging the value of the land?

In the event that Council approves the disposal of the Hawthorne lot, we would ask, in addition to respecting the existing height limitation, that public greenspace – ideally a parkette – be created around the new development. This greenspace could, for instance, include the portion of the lot that extends to Concord and it could make sense for this corridor to continue all along the northern and eastern portions of the lot to provide an area where trees could thrive and provide a buffer for the new and existing Hawthorne residents. We strongly recommend that City staff engage Hawthorne residents to discuss creation of permanent greenspace / parkland as part of development’s site plan.  We also are of the view that some parking is required, given how the elimination of parking on much of Lees and uOttawa (Lees) student demands have resulted in far more street parking than before.

---

2. OOECA feedback on draft 1 of new Zoning By-law (ZBL) dated November 7, 2024

(Via email to New Zoning By-law Team, at newzoning@ottawa.ca)

General comments

The need for affordable housing in Ottawa is undisputable. Managing growth in a responsible, creative way to address this need is imperative. Given that the proposed new Zoning By-Law will fundamentally change neighborhoods over the course of the next 10 years, the voice of neighborhoods must not be lost or marginalized in the service of efforts to address the housing crisis. Communities such as Old Ottawa East (OOE) must have an ongoing say in how our neighborhoods are shaped and how they evolve over time. 

As you are aware, the Old Ottawa East Secondary Plan (OOESP) establishes more detailed policies to guide the growth and change in Old Ottawa East. The OOESP intent is to provide the City with policy direction for the redevelopment of OOE properties designated as mainstreets, as well as to preserve and enhance the liveability of the current 15-minute Old Ottawa East neighbourhoods. 

At a meeting on September 3rd with Councillor Menard, Planning Department staff and OOECA representatives, Carol Ruddy assured us that, while the New Zoning By-law Draft 1 did not implement the OOESP policies, Draft 2 of the New Zoning By-law would do so. Further, staff indicated that the OOESP policies for our low-rise neighbourhoods are clear and that the maximum building heights and minimum setbacks will be changed in Draft 2 so as to maintain the general character of these neighbourhoods as expressed by the existing zoning permissions.  

Based on these assurances, the OOECA is expecting that, for OOE, Draft 2 of the New Zoning By-law will:

• implement existing maximum building heights in accordance with the OOECA’s draft Schedule C – Maximum Building Heights dated October 6, 2021 (see attached) (note that we expect height will be measured from existing average grade);
• implement setbacks in accordance with the existing zoning provisions (note that the recent change to the existing ZBL, which amended the front-yard setback averaging provision from a maximum six metres to the underlying zone requirement (typically three metres in OOE), does not allow for front-yard soil area sufficient to support canopy trees or even small trees); 
• implement provisions which maintain the traditional pattern of pedestrian priority along our residential streets, with any garages relegated to the side yard or rear yard; and,
• provide amended illustrations, indicating “to scale” depictions of expected maximum building footprints and massing on what are typically, in OOE, 10-metre to 12-metre-wide lots. 

Notwithstanding these expectations, we want to raise certain issues with respect to Draft 1 that we feel transcend the specific concerns of OOE.

As we have stated before, the City’s efforts to modernize the ZBL must be guided by three fundamental principles. The first and second of these principles are: 1) balancing the need for densification with sensitivity to community and neighbourhood character and “fit”; and 2) acknowledging that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach results in homogenization across the city, which dulls community/neighbourhood vitality and renders the city less interesting. Draft 1 and the recent provincial government legislation and regulations fail to recognize the fundamental value of communities and the neighbourhoods that give them life. Neighbourhoods are more than their proximity to a hub or a mainstreet. They have unique historical and geographical contexts that define part of their fabric. Secondary Plans are an excellent step towards strengthening communities and neighbourhoods, but these seem to be diminished by the ZBL Draft 1. In addition, aside from the 15-minute community notion, the proposed new zoning fails to strengthen key public attributes of communities and neighbourhoods—i.e., parks, greenspaces, pathways, community buildings, and so on.

The third principle guiding City efforts to modernize the ZBL should be maximizing livability—recognizing the importance of a healthy tree canopy and natural light to citizens’ wellbeing. See the Specific Comments table below that pertain to the Part 2 – General Provisions section.

We also take issue with application of the City’s principle of equity. Despite equity being identified as a priority, the current draft’s treatment of the downtown and inner urban transects fails to address the key principle of “equity.” There is no longer any justification for zoning that encourages much more intensification in the central areas which have, generally, much smaller lots than elsewhere in the city. The outer urban transects and the suburbs should bear an equal portion of the burden of densification, especially in areas with lot sizes larger than those typically found in downtown and inner urban transects such as OOE. Not only would equal application of density guidelines be more equitable, but it would result in more affordable residential units, all built on existing infrastructure. 

The City should also have an effective mechanism to ensure that density targets are not exceeded in each community. While each development proposal is assessed on its merits, there should also be consideration of the impact that additional units have on a community’s targeted density. By the City’s own admission, there is currently no mechanism to assess the cumulative impact of successive developments within a community and the progress towards reaching density targets. This type of analysis is critical, to safeguard against overdevelopment. Furthermore, while there is mention of density targets for transect areas, there is no mention whatsoever of current transect densities, making it impossible to know what additional intensification is needed to meet targets. It is important to note the current OOE neighbourhood densities are very close to the Official Plan targets, and recent developments on former institutional lands will far exceed OOESP target densities.

Finally, it should be noted that, currently, By-Laws are not always enforced (especially with respect to on-street parking, front-yard parking, and prescribed protection of trees on properties under development). Zoning By-Law objectives cannot be achieved if there is inadequate investment in enforcement. 

Specific Comments, by ZBL Draft 1 Section

Section	Content, Considerations	Feedback
Part 2 – General Provisions	New provisions for stormwater management, high rises, buildings/ structures, setbacks, alternative setbacks for tree retention, parks, heritage provisions.   Expanded requirements for soft landscaping and requirements to support tree retention and make room for trees to support regeneration of the urban forest tree canopy   Provisions for high rises would be applied to all urban areas. Secondary Plans that are currently excluded from these provisions would now be subject to them.	New zoning must be clear how it will actually and significantly increase the tree canopy in the downtown and inner urban transects. The overall goal of a 40 percent canopy is good in theory but the current extent of the canopy in each transect must be explicit with related goals of how each transect’s canopy will be increased. If this means less intensification in the downtown and inner urban transects then the new zoning must change.   Soft landscaping provisions in draft 1 need reasonable and expert tree analysis.  Proposed provisions will not foster the kind of tree canopy envisioned for the City.   For example:   Provisions indicate the minimum soft landscaping area in a front or exterior side yard is dependent on the front yard setback. If a front-yard setback is required to be only 3 m and the lot width is less than 8.5 m, then the minimum required soft landscape area is 30% of the front yard.  So, if our typical 12.2 m frontage lots is severed into (2) 6.1 m wide lots, then the minimum aggregated soft landscaping area for that lot need only be 3 m X 6.1 m X .30 = 5.5 sq. m.  That area does not provide sufficient critical root zone area for even a small tree, let alone a medium to large canopy tree.     If the City wants to achieve its stated overall goals, it must implement front-yard setback averaging (of adjacent properties) to a maximum setback of 6 m. proposal speaks to a requirement for a 25% contiguous area of soft landscaping space.  So, if our typical 12.2 m width lots are severed in half and the required rear yard setback is 7.5 m, then the required rear yard area for soft landscaping is 6 m X 7.5 m X .25 = 11.25 sq. m.  That area does not provide sufficient critical root zone area for a medium to large canopy tree.   It also seems misguided to have a goal of a 40% tree canopy without also having plans for buried hydro wires.
Part 6 – Parking and Loading	Elimination of minimum parking space requirements, provisions for EV-charging stations and new requirements for EV-ready parking spaces	City rationale for elimination of minimum parking space requirements is premised on having a reliable public transit system, which is an erroneous assumption.   Parking enforcement has been identified as an ongoing issue in OOE.
Part 7 – Housing Provisions	Four or more dwelling units are proposed to be permitted on serviced residential lots throughout the city.   New provisions for vertically attached dwelling units/Planned Unit Development (PUDs), reduced restrictions for group homes, residences, shelters, retirement homes   Focus on physical build characteristics and density targets — Less focus on building type (semi-detached, townhouse, etc.)	OOECA does not support removal of the Streetscape Character Analysis as a tool for residential development.   OOECA strongly supports low-rise zoning provisions that are consistent with Draft OOESP Schedule C dated Oct 6 2021 and the OOESP policies 23, 24, 25 and 26.   It would be useful to know what the definition of “lot” is. Is a lot always divisible without a formal severance?
Part 8 – Neighbourhood Zones	Greater densities are being encouraged through 6 new primary Neighbourhood zones (N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6), which will regulate density using a maximum “units per hectare” (UPH) calculation. Six new subzones are also proposed to regulate minimum widths, yard setbacks, etc.   OOE is designated as an “Evolving Neighbourhood”, meaning it is targeted for greater densification.	OOE geography is unique in that it consists of narrow strips on either side of Main Street, between the Rideau Canal and the Rideau River. Given this geography, “evolving neighbourhood” designation means that a greater overall percentage of OOE is targeted for accelerated intensification.  This is not consistent with the OOESP and certainly does not respect the principle of equity.
Part 9 – Mixed-Use Zones	List of permitted uses has been increased on Mainstreet corridors.	Restrictions on residential, office and research use on ground floors for mainstreets have been dropped, which may have implications for the OOE Secondary Plan.   Apparently, assignment of new mixed-use zones is derived from land-use designations in Secondary Plans. The OOESP restricts certain permitted uses.
Part 12 – Special Districts Zones	Provisions for Byward market, Parliamentary Precinct, Lansdowne Market, Ottawa River Islands, Rideau Canal, Ottawa International Airport	OOE properties adjacent to the Rideau Canal Special District have been removed from the OOESP. The OOECA would appreciate providing comments when the OP and new zoning is proposed.

3. OOECA Lansdowne and Planning Committees comments on draft site plan for Lansdowne North Side Stands (NSS)

We appreciated the opportunity to be part of the pre-app consultation and that the non-disclosure requirement was waived.

We endorse OSCA’s Laura Urrechaga’s comments and add the following:

Context

The consideration of NSS as a separate project and not in the context of the whole of Lansdowne 2.0 is difficult and not satisfactory. While the City may be trying to rush approvals so that work can begin as soon as possible, without seeing the NSS site in relation to how the residential towers are proposed makes it difficult to fully understand and comment how the new stands will work. Similarly, the transportation analysis both within the park and on the roadways serving the park should be done in the context of all of the new elements of L2.0, i.e., the event centre, the NSS, the added commercial and, the two towers, one of which may be partially a hotel. Time really should have been spent on an overarching master plan, then the components should have been considered.

Accessibility

Despite repeated City and OSEG claims of vastly improved accessibility with L2.0, there is little evidence that this will really be the case. Aside from possible improvements to accessibility to field-level accommodation, attendees will have to use elevators to get to the rest of the stadium. There appears to be no significant additional accessible ramps. The notional grand staircase to be built later might end up being grand for those who can climb a lot of stairs but for anybody with mobility challenges they will just be the flaunting of a flawed vision.  If the City wants to have a grand staircase for rather unimposing stands, it should also have a grand ramp that provides accessibility. Further, as we argued in discussion of the event centre, accessibility getting to Lansdowne Park will not be improved. Indeed, by virtue of more vehicles going to the towers and event centre in the middle of the park, the streets (especially QED and Bank) will become more clogged than they already are.

Architectural Merit

The new stands have no architecturally redeeming features, quite unlike the existing NSS. Indeed, the east and west elevations are routine, basic, and boring – totally inappropriate in comparison to the heritage-protected Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building. As for the north elevation, it sounds as though the goal is to hide it with the towers and the podium – hardly a sound design. The “new” southside stands were wrapped in wood and actually have some visual appeal. Similar treatment should be used with the NSS.

Transportation and Parking

The only thing that is clear is that more vehicles will be penetrating the site making it less safe and comfortable for pedestrians and cyclists. Until we know how the towers residents’ (and hotel visitors’?) and delivery vehicles are going to access the towers and how residents’ and visitors’ parking needs will be resolved, it is premature to discuss how the NSS vehicular access will work. And as has been said: 60 parking spaces for cyclists seriously underserves active transportation objectives. As we noted in our comments on the event centre, the location of the main loading dock for both the event centre and the stands means many more large vehicles must use Exhibition Way or Marché Way, thus conflicting with pedestrian and cyclist use of Lansdowne Park.  The loading dock should be near Bank Street and the underground parking space should allow vehicular access to the event centre.

Capacity / Features

It’s been said before but bears repeating: no roof makes no sense. Secondly, reduced capacity seems to fly in the face of the objective to better host major events. Not only will there be less seating in NSS but, with the construction of the event centre, the one of the two areas where temporary seating was built for large events will be mostly gone.