Report to Rapport au: Planning Committee / Comité de l'urbanisme February 28, 2017 / 28 février PDF

1 Report to Rapport au: Planning Committee / Comité de l'urbanisme February 28, 2017 / 28 février 2017 Submitted on February 15, 2017 Soumis le 15 février 2017 Submitted by Soumis par: Lee Ann Snedden,

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Publish on:

Views: 23 | Pages: 14

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

1 Report to Rapport au: Planning Committee / Comité de l'urbanisme February 28, 2017 / 28 février 2017 Submitted on February 15, 2017 Soumis le 15 février 2017 Submitted by Soumis par: Lee Ann Snedden, Acting Director of Planning Services / Directeur intérimaire des services de planification, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department / Services de la planification, de l'infrastructure et du développement économique Contact Person Personne ressource: Charmaine Forgie, Manager, Business Support Services / Gestionnaire, Services de soutien aux activités, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department / Services de la planification, de l'infrastructure et du développement économique (613) , 24075, Ward: CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE File Number: ACS2017-PIE-PS-0025 SUBJECT: Planning Services 2016 Year-End Report and Work Program OBJET: Rapport de fin d exercice de 2016 des Services de planification et programme de travail de REPORT RECOMMENDATION That Planning Committee receive this report for information. 2 RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT Que le Comité de l urbanisme prenne connaissance du présent rapport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides Planning Committee with an update on key activities for Planning Services (formerly Planning and Growth Management) in This report also outlines the Work Program for Planning Services. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications. RÉSUMÉ Le présent rapport fait le point au Comité de l urbanisme sur les activités clés réalisées en 2016 par le Services de planification (l ancien Service de l urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance). Ce rapport décrit aussi les grandes lignes du programme de travail de des Services. Répercussions financières Puisqu il s'agit d'un rapport d'information, il n'y a aucune répercussion financière. BACKGROUND In 2015, after consultation with members of Planning Committee, the former Planning and Growth Management Department developed a work program that guided its business planning for the Term of Council. In light of the recent organizational alignment, this work program is now being fulfilled by Planning Services under the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department. The purpose of this report is two- fold: 1. To provide Planning Committee with a list of achievements and information on key activities for Planning Services in 2016, including applications reviewed under delegation of authority. This report is intended to provide accountable performance measurement to Planning Committee, the public, and the development industry. 2. To provide Planning Committee with an overview of the work program for Planning Services, aligning with the remaining Term of Council. 3 DISCUSSION Highlights of Planning Services Activities in 2016 Key Work Program accomplishments: In 2015, Planning Committee approved the former Planning and Growth Management Department s work program for the Term of Council. Below are select accomplishments from 2016: Riverside South Community Design Plan Update, Official Plan and Zoning Amendments: A more efficient community core, more shared public facilities and better connections for pedestrians and cyclists were included in an update of the Riverside South Community Design Plan that is also providing direction for advancing BBSS Principles through the continued development of the Riverside South community. Zoning By-law Amendment: Minimum Parking Requirements: In support of the City's planning goals (i.e. encouraging public transit, walking and cycling; promoting affordable housing and quality urban design; encouraging compatible infill and intensification), the City moved to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements near rapid transit stations (particularly LRT), as well as along mainstreets and transit-priority corridors, in the inner urban area. Kanata North Urban Expansion Study Area Integrated Official Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment: The Kanata North Community Design Plan was approved to guide the development of 447 acres along March Road, where 3,000 houses and apartments will be built and an estimated 8,300 residents will live, work and play. Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law Review: The new by-law strikes a balance between the need to identify places and businesses and help wayfinding against the goal of reducing sign clutter, avoiding distracted driving and respecting the landscape of heritage and natural areas. Official Plan, Zoning and related By-law Amendments: Second Dwelling Units in Accessory Buildings (Coach Houses): Detached secondary dwelling units, known in Ottawa as coach houses, allow discreet intensification and more affordable housing in established neighbourhoods, but with rules that ensure these secondary units are not too large. 4 Official Plan Amendment 180: Two major studies the Employment Land Review and the Land Evaluation and Area Review for Agriculture update were completed, using the new planning horizon of 2036, to inform the growth projections, policies, land-use designations and mapping in this Official Plan Amendment to respond to direction provided by the OMB in its interim decision dealing with various appeals to OPA 150. Official Plan Amendment Significant Woodlands Policies: This Official Plan Amendment ensures the City meets the provincial requirements aimed at a consistent approach to identifying significant woodlands across Ontario. Planning Applications In 2016, a total of 1002 planning applications were received by Planning Services, excluding policy applications and City initiated applications. For reference, examples of applications under delegated authority would include plans of condominium, plans of subdivision and site plan control, while examples of non-delegated authority applications would include community improvement plan grants, demolition control and Zoning By-law amendments. The total received is a 26 per cent increase over 2014 (795 received) and an 18 per cent increase over 2015 (848 received). Of the 1002 applications received in 2016, 850 applications were under delegated authority to various levels of staff. Within the Development Review Areas, the Central area received the greatest number of delegated authority applications (336 applications). The South and West areas received over 277 delegated authority applications combined, while the Rural and East development review area received 121 and 103 applications, respectively. Thirteen delegated authority applications pertained to multiple development review areas. 5 Figure 1: Total Planning Applications Received in 2016 As illustrated in Figure 1, both the number of delegated authority applications and non-delegated authority applications received in 2016 increased from previous years. Non-delegated planning applications, as required by the Planning Act, are reviewed by Planning Committee and/or Council. In total, 152 non-delegated authority applications were received; 43 applications were received by the Central development review area, 37 in the Rural area, 27 in the South development review area, 25 in the West area and 13 in the East area. An additional seven non-delegated authority applications were received that involved multiple development review areas. Site Plan Control Applications Processing Timelines A total of 191 Site Plan Control applications were received in 2016, which accounts for 30 percent of all delegated authority applications. The amount of applications have remained consistent over the past three years with 192 applications received in 2015 and 186 received in 2014, accounting for a 2.6 per cent increase over three years. Figure 2 provides the timelines for processing Manager Delegated Site Plan Control applications with public consultation. Timelines are measured from the date the application is deemed complete for review until a decision has been rendered. 6 Figure 2: Site Plan Control Manager Delegated with Public Consultation (Processing Time Target: 74 days - excluding incomplete and file pending) Thirty-eight per cent of Manager Delegated Site Plan Control applications requiring public consultation obtained a final decision within Council-approved target timelines for This is a 5 per cent increase over In 2016, 56 per cent of applications were dealt with on time or within 30 days of the target. Site Plan Control applications requiring public consultation are relatively complex and have a high level of vested interest by the community. As such, additional time is needed to resolve issues identified through community consultation. This has an impact on meeting Council-approved timelines. Emphasis is placed on resolving issues and encouraging positive outcomes for both the community and the applicant. Manager Delegated Site Plan Control Applications not requiring public consultation have a Council-approved timeline of 49 days from the time the application is deemed complete for review until a decision has been rendered. As detailed in Figure 3, 56 per cent of the applications met the Council-approved timeline in Seventy-one per cent were dealt with on time or within 30 days of the target. Figure 3: Site Plan Control Manager Delegated without Public Consultation (Processing Time Target: 49 days - excluding incomplete and file pending) As demonstrated in Figure 4, 62 per cent of Staff Delegated Site Plan Control applications not requiring public consultation were processed on time in A total of 84 per cent were dealt with on time or within 30 days of the target. 7 Figure 4: Site Plan Control Staff Delegated without Public Consultation (Processing Time Target: 42 days excluding incomplete and file pending) Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Processing Timelines Zoning By-law amendment applications consist of 63 per cent of all non-delegated planning applications received in Figure 5 reflects the timelines for processing Zoning By-law amendment applications, from the time they are deemed complete until consideration by Council (Planning Act target of 120 days). Figure 5: Zoning By-law Amendments (Processing Time Target: 120 days - excluding incomplete and file pending) In 2016, 61 per cent of Zoning By-law amendment applications were processed on time. Eighty-four per cent of applications met the target or were processed within 30 days of the target. Meeting Overall Timelines During 2016, position vacancies were not filled due to a City-wide hiring freeze, which was not lifted until late in the fourth quarter. In addition to the hiring freeze, Planning Services experienced an 18 per cent increase in applications received, with double the amount of Plans of Subdivision as compared to the previous year, and a record number of Front-Ending Agreements. This capacity pressure ultimately led to applications not meeting the prescribed timelines. 8 A full process review of the City s Plans of Subdivision and Site Plan Control processes, their timelines and fees has been initiated. Process changes already have been implemented for the Plans of Subdivision review to increase efficiency in processing these applications. The Site Plan Control review was initiated in Q4 2016, and will be finalized with a report coming to Planning Committee in Q Heritage Activities A total of 26 heritage reports were prepared by Heritage Services for consideration by the Built Heritage Sub-Committee, Planning Committee and City Council in These reports included 16 alterations or demolitions to buildings designated under either Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and eight heritage designations of individual properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition, reports recommending adoption of plans for the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Plan and the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan were approved by Council. A technical report dealing with the Delegation of Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act was passed in Consequently, 67 heritage permits were issued through delegated authority in Staff working on Strategic Initiative 42: Heritage Inventory Project (Term of Council Priority ), evaluated over 5,700 heritage resources to determine applicable heritage value. Of these, 680 buildings were recommended for addition to the Heritage Register. A report entitled Update on Strategic Initiative 42: Heritage Inventory Project, Phase One (inside the Greenbelt), was presented to the Built Heritage Sub-Committee and Planning Committee in June 2016, detailing the progress of the strategic initiative. In addition, 32 matching heritage grants for building restoration were approved with a value of $146,250. Requests to Release or Reduce Securities The City receives securities from developers that are associated with work being undertaken through early servicing or development agreements as well as letters of undertaking in relation to approvals produced by Planning Services. These securities ensure that the work is undertaken in accordance with the conditions of approval. Once part or all of the work has been completed, the developer can request partial or full release of the securities that the City is holding. The release or reduction of securities is carried out in conjunction with the Development Inspections Unit. During 2016, 555 requests were made to reduce or release the securities that the City is holding, as compared to 448 in This resulted in a release of $136,329, in securities to applicants. 9 Right of Way Permits and Approvals A large component of branch activities include the review and issuance of various permits and approvals related to private approaches, road cut permits, utility circulations road modifications and encroachments, as described in the tables below. Property owners wishing to construct or alter an access onto their property, usually a driveway, are required to obtain a Private Approach Permit. The review of the proposal, as part of the permit application process, ensures that the approach meets all municipal safety and construction standards. Figure 6 identifies the Private Approach Permits issued by Right of Way for the past three years. Figure 6: Private Approach Permits Issued Property owners are required to obtain a permit prior to initiating a road cut. A road cut is defined as a surface or subsurface cut in any part of a City owned highway made by any means, including excavation, reconstruction, cutting, overlaying, crack sealing, braking, boring, jacking or tunneling operation. Figure 7 identifies the number of Road Cut Permits issued by Right of Way from 2014 to Figure 7: Road Cut Permits Issued The Right of Way unit undertakes approximately 1,000 utility/city/development circulations per year. Most are for routine subsurface works (i.e. minimal or no noticeable visual changes to the streetscape after works are completed), but some result in changes that could have impacts on the community. Coordination of work to reduce community impacts and avoid traffic disruptions is undertaken as part of the circulation process. Councillors are consulted by staff prior to the commencement of work within their respective ward. Figure 8 details the count of utility circulations completed for the past three years. 10 Figure 8: Utility Circulations Non-Building Code Related Applications Information on the cost of servicing building permits and enforcing the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code are reported separately in a report to Council every year, as required by the Building Code Act. The branch also deals with Sign Variances, Naming or Renaming Private Roadways and other Non-Building Code related permits as described below. Figure 9 summarizes all non-building Code related permit applications received by Building Code Services in the past three years. Figure 9: Non-Building Code Related Permit Applications Delegation of Authority for Non-Building Code Related Activity Permanent Signs on Private Property Minor Variances: Applications are evaluated under the delegated authority of the Chief Building Official. Naming or Renaming of Private Roadways: 11 The Chief Building Official may authorize the naming or renaming of a private roadway under By-law If objections are received to the naming or renaming, a report is forwarded to Planning Committee and Council for a decision. Highway Name Changes: The Chief Building Official may authorize the naming of a highway, the change in the name of a highway, the assignment of civic numbers and changes to civic numbers under the Municipal Addressing By-law Under the Municipal Addressing By-law, delegation of authority is permitted to approve street name changes primarily where public safety and wayfinding is involved. Figure 10: Non-Building Code Staff Initiated Highway Name Changes Municipal Addressing Anomalies: The Municipal Addressing Anomalies project began in November 2014 to resolve confusing street names and duplicate civic numbers on a ward by ward basis. Since initiation, 87 of the approximately 150 street name and civic number changes have been approved or are in progress. The remainder of streets to be rectified by the Municipal Addressing Anomalies project will be initiated by the end of Q Street Name Verification Project: In 2016, the Street Name Verification Project had18 street names approved for correction under delegated authority for incorrect French and/or English spelling and missing articles or hyphens Planning Services Work Program With the recent organizational alignment a review of the key priorities for Planning Services was undertaken. The Work Program reflects policy development to achieve Ottawa s city building agenda, a client-centric focus, and the need to modernize business processes. Items have been identified by Council, community associations, or the development industry. Many of these initiatives are well underway and planned completion is 2017 or However, there may be carry over into the next term of Council. 12 The Planning Services work program is as follows: Affordable Housing / Inclusionary Zoning; Airport Noise Contours OPA to implement up-dated noise contours developed by the Airport Authority; Barrhaven South Community Design Plan and Environmental Management Plan; Bill 73 Implementation; Building Better Revitalized Neighbourhoods (BBRN) Heatherington and Vanier South Neighbourhoods; Building Better Revitalized Neighbourhoods (BBRN) Merivale Road (North) Community Design Plan; Building Better Smarter Suburbs (BBSS); East Urban Community Mixed Use Centre Community Design Plan; Engagement Community Association Liasons; Engineering Review; Farmer's Market Study (Response to Planning Committee Motion); Flewellen Special Study Area and Goulbourn Wetland Re-evaluation; Land Management System; Landcover Mapping; Light Rail Transit Phase 2 Station Area Community Design Plan, Cleary and New Orchard Planning Studies and Gladstone Station CDP; Mer Bleue Community Design Plan; Mineral Aggregate mapping review; Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and Environment Compliance Approvals Transfer of Review; Municipal Addressing Anomalies; Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments: Drinking Water Source Protection Policies; 13 Official Plan Amendment: Policy Review on the Protection of Surface Water Features; Official Plan Amendment 150 Appeals and OPA 180 Ministerial Approvals; Official Plan Amendment 150: Urban Expansion Criteria (Motion 36/7 Dec 14 Council Meeting); Beyond 2036; R4 Zone Review; Review and up-date to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law; Section 37 Five Year Review; Significant Woodlands; Site Alteration By-law; Site Plan Control Process Review (timelines, processes, conditions, fees); Sub-watershed Studies (Becketts Creek, Jock River Phase 2); Zoning: Creative and Performance Venues Study; Zoning: High Rise Buildings; Zoning: Local Commercial Study 2: Outer Urban and Suburban Neighbourhoods; Zoning: Monitor Infill 1 and 2 (Mature Neighbourh
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks