November 7, 2013 Christopher Zwierzchowski Planning Committee Coordinator City of Ottawa 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1 RE: Loblaw Properties Limited – City of Ottawa OP Review 2013 Dear Mr. Zwierzchowski and Members of Planning Committee, As part of the City of Ottawa Official Plan 5-Year Review process, FOTENN Consultants Inc. has been retained by Loblaw Properties Limited to represent their interests in relation to their land holdings listed as follows:

# Property Address 1 Carlingwood Plaza 2085 Carling Avenue 2 Baseline/Merivale 1460 Merivale Road 3 Westboro (RCS) 190 Richmond Road 4 South Keys 2210 Bank Street 5 Isabella 64 Isabella Street 6 Rideau/Nelson 363 Rideau Street 7 Vanier/McArthur 100 McArthur Road 8 Elmvale Shopping Centre 1910 St. Laurent Boulevard 9 Trim/Queen 1301 Trim Road 10 Barrhaven 3201 Greenbank 11 College Square 1980 Baseline Road 12 Gloucester City Centre 1980 Ogilvie Road 13 Place D’Orléans (No Frills) 1226 Place D’Orléans 14 Kanata West 325 Didsbury 15 Eagleson/Cope (RCSS) 760 Eagleson Road & 25 Cope Drive 16 Bells Corners 59 Robertson Road 17 Walkley/Conroy 2510 St. Laurent Boulevard 18 Innes/Lanthier (RCSS) 4300 Innes Road YIG1 Stittsville – Existing Store 1217 Main Street YIG2 McDaniel’s YIG 200 Grant Carmen Drive YIG3 Riverside South 671 River Road YIG4 Hartman’s YIG 296 Bank Street YIG5 Montreal Square 596 Montreal Road YIG6 Orléans Garden 1619 Orléans Boulevard YIG7 Ross’s YIG 3777 Strandherd Drive YIG8 Billings Bridge 2241 Riverside Drive YIG9 Manotick Mews Shopping Centre 1160 John Street YIG10 Richmond Shopping Plaza 5911 Perth Street

Further to our review of the Draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) tabled at Planning Committee on June 25, 2013, and the revised OPA released on November 1, 2013, we find that many of the issues raised on behalf of our clients over the review period have been addressed in the latest document, and that the changes provide for a positive shift toward a more flexible and user friendly policy document.

Loblaw Properties Limited | November 2013 | 2 

We are still concerned, however, with a number of key policy directions in the proposed November OPA, as follows:

1. Interim Building Heights

Section 2.2.2 of the Plan, entitled Managing Intensification within the Urban Area establishes the concept of ‘interim height limits’ until more detailed secondary planning is completed for all areas of the City. Interim building heights are established in each of the land use designations as follows:

Land Use Designation Heights Proposed

1. Mixed Use Centres A maximum of 12 storeys or as permitted in a secondary plan.

A minimum of 4 storeys for residential and office development or as permitted in a secondary plan.

2. Arterial Mainstreets

Generally 9 storeys, with the highest buildings located at transit-related nodes where compatible with surroundings.

High-rise up to 12 storeys permitted through a Zoning By-law amendment near rapid transit, major intersections or a Major Community Facility.

3. Traditional Mainstreets

Generally mid-rise up to 6 storeys or as permitted in a secondary plan.

4. Employment Areas

Generally low-rise, up to 4 storeys

Mid-rise up to 9 storeys permitted through a Zoning By-law amendment within 800 m walking distance of a rapid transit station or 400 m walking distance from transit priority corridor

High-rise 10 to 30 storeys permitted through a Zoning By-law amendment generally within 400 m walking distance of a rapid transit station.

5. General Urban Area

Generally low-rise, up to 4 storeys

Mid-rise up to 6 storeys fronting an arterial road:

i. that is within 800m walking distance of a transit station or

ii. that is also a Priority Transit corridor

Heights above 4 storeys may be permitted within walking distance of rapid transit through a Zoning

Loblaw Properties Limited | November 2013 | 3 

By-law Amendment, provided the height

While there has been more flexibility added into the November draft OPA in setting appropriate building heights, two (2) primary concerns arise:

Ability to Assess Development Applications in the Absence of a Secondary Plan There is no clear mechanism or direction for staff and/or City Council to evaluate an application for increased height beyond the ‘interim building heights’, in communities where a Secondary Plan has not been completed or where a Secondary Plan needs updating. Normally, the request to increase building height would be addressed through an official plan amendment or rezoning application; and be judged on its merits taking into account the policy framework in the Official Plan.

It is uncertain how an application to increase height beyond the ‘interim building heights’ will be addressed or if an application will simply be rejected as premature because a Secondary Plan has not been either completed or kept current?

While Policy 2.2.2.16 (below) identifies that an OPA is the process to increase building height, 2.2.2.16.b. refers back to Policy 2.2.2.10. Policy 2.2.2.10 implies that a secondary planning process must be undertaken for a specific area to establish different building heights. Similarly, 2.2.2.16.c. requires the completion of a secondary planning process for any high-rise proposal.

2.2.2.16. For Official Plan amendments to increase building heights that are established in Section 3 of this Plan, or in a secondary plan, the proponent must demonstrate that the following criteria are met:

a) the impacts on the surrounding area (e.g. the community design plan study area) have been assessed comprehensively;

b) the criteria in policy 10 above; c) the requirements of Section 2.5.6 where the proposal involves a High-

Rise 10-30 or High-Rise 30+ building; and an identified community amenity is provided.

It is recommended that the Official Plan include a policy to allow for the assessment of applications to increase building heights greater than the ‘interim building heights’ established in this Plan as follows:

Applications to permit building heights greater than the ‘interim building heights’ established in this Plan, in areas where a Secondary Plan has not been completed or where it is recognized that a Secondary Plan needs updating or where a Secondary Plan is not deemed to be required, will be evaluated against the policies of this Plan to demonstrate appropriateness. including:

i. The Strategic Directions in Section 2.0, and

ii. The Design Objectives set out in Section 2.5.1 and the policies in Section 4.11- Urban Design and Compatible Development.

Loblaw Properties Limited | November 2013 | 4 

It is also recommended that a rezoning application be required to assess requests to increase building heights beyond the ‘interim building heights’, rather than both an OPA and rezoning applications which together are unnecessarily time consuming and expensive; and will not add further to the public process of review.

Capacity to Implement Secondary Plans in Advance of Development The draft OPA establishes interim height limits across all land use designations from General Urban Areas to Mixed Use Centres. There are many examples where building height beyond the ‘interim heights’ will be appropriate and desirable within all land use designations, in keeping with the policy direction of the Plan. For example, the maximum interim height limit in Mixed Use Centres or an Arterial Mainstreet in proximity of a transit station is 12 storeys, where in many locations greater building height is called for in keeping with the intensification direction of Plan. There is uncertainty as to whether staff resources will be able to keep pace with development pressures throughout the City in order to complete Secondary Plans and accommodate appropriate growth and development. While staff has indicated their intention to address priority areas expeditiously, this is an ambitious and resource consuming initiative.

It is recommended that the City:

a) Establish a comprehensive annual work program, in consultation the community and industry stakeholders, to ensure that priority locations for Secondary Planning are identified and initiated.

b) Prepare concise guidelines for the completion of secondary planning exercises with an established ‘on time’ decision framework to provide certainty as to the completion date and not to exceed 12 months.

c) Accept the recommendation noted above to allow independent zoning applications to be considered on their merit within the policy framework of the Plan, in areas where secondary planning is not completed.

2. Traditional Mainstreet Height Limits. Policy 3.6.3.12 states:

“This plan supports mid-rise building heights up to six storeys on Traditional Mainstreets, unless a secondary plan states otherwise. Building heights greater than that specified in this Section will only be permitted through a Secondary Plan. The Zoning By-law may establish building heights lower than six storeys based on site condition, existing character and compatibility. The Zoning By-Law will establish a minimum building height equivalent to a two-storey building, except for those existing gas bars, service stations, automobile sales and drive-through facilities identified in policy 8 above.”

This policy establishes the height of buildings on Traditional Mainstreets at six (6) storeys with no flexibility to consider greater heights, except through a secondary planning process. While the desire to establish comprehensive secondary plans for Mainstreets is appreciated and supported, there are many examples of appropriate development within

Loblaw Properties Limited | November 2013 | 5 

the mid-rise range (i.e. 5-9 storeys) that have been approved through independent applications and are fully compliant with the City’s vision for Mainstreets. The industry is concerned, as set out previously, with the City’s capacity to complete secondary plans for Traditional Mainstreets, including necessary revisions to plans that are currently out of date, in advance of on-going development pressures.

It appears from the language of the policy that, as also stated previously, any application that is greater than six (6) storeys on a Traditional Mainstreet will be judged to be premature or inappropriate where a Secondary Plan has not been completed. There is ample evidence of exemplary recent developments on Traditional Mainstreets that are greater than six (6) storeys, for example, The Currents (GCTC - 11 storeys), Westboro Station (10 storeys), The Cavanaugh (9 storeys), Central I,II, III (9 storeys), Minto Beechwood (9 storeys). The Plan needs more flexible language to allow for the independent assessment of building heights on Traditional Mainstreets that are within the mid-rise range (5-9 storeys), and greater than six (6) storeys, without the requirement for a Secondary Plan if one is not completed or simply out-of-date.

It is recommended that the above noted policy 3.6.3.12 be replaced with the following:

“This Plan supports mid-rise buildings in the range of six to nine storeys on Traditional Mainstreets. It is expected that building heights will vary along the street, although the prevailing height is anticipated at six storeys on Traditional Mainstreets.

Unless otherwise directed by an approved Secondary Plan, building heights up to six (6) storeys will predominate. Subject to a zoning amendment, greater building heights to a maximum of nine (9) storeys may be considered where:

i. The site is assessed to be appropriate for a taller building, in accordance with the Design Objectives of Section 2.5.1 and the Urban Design and Compatible Development policies of Section 4.11; and

ii. The additional height provides a net benefit to the community (e.g., the provision of: art, a community gathering place, a cultural or community facility; heritage retention or integration, or dynamic architecture).

Building height greater than nine (9) storeys, may be permitted where a property is:

i. Within 400 metres walking distance of a Rapid Transit Station on Schedule D of this Plan, or

ii. In a location characterized by higher buildings, and

iii. Can also meet Policies 3.6.3.12 a. and b. above.

3. Arterial and Traditional Mainstreet – lot depth One of the draft policies 3.6.3 (3) establishes a maximum lot depth for defining Arterial and Traditional Mainstreet designations.

It is recommended that the policy be modified so that other criteria noted in the Offical Plan (eg. Proximity to transit stations) are considered in determining the depth of the

Loblaw Properties Limited | November 2013 | 6 

Mainstreet designation.

4. Employment Lands Strategy. The Staff Report to Planning Committee establishes the intention to study where best to locate employment and how this could affect the current supply and future requirements, and to examine the development readiness of Ottawa’s employment lands.

BOMA, GOHBA, and a variety of land owners support the need for this study and appreciate Staff’s commitment to this initiative. While the commitment is outlined in the staff report, it is recommended that the timing and completion of this initiative be set out in a recommendation approved by Planning Committee and Council. It is important to the industry that this comprehensive study be carried out as a priority; and that the directions resulting from the study be implemented upon its completion in order to inform land use designation and policy changes.

That the following new recommendation #5 be added to the Staff report:

5. Direct staff in the Planning and Growth Management Department to complete the Phase 2 Study, in cooperation with the City’s Economic Development and Innovation Department, to examine the development readiness of Ottawa’s employment lands as a priority in the 2014 work program; and upon completion of this City-initiated comprehensive study, report back to Planning Committee on the appropriate employment land use changes in advance of the next 5-year review of the Official Plan.

In the interest of continued dialogue on these matters, we have also submitted this letter to Planning and Growth Management staff for their consideration prior to the Committee meeting on November 8th, 2013. We ask that you please include this letter as part of the record of submission on the draft Official Plan Amendment, June 2013 and further revised November, 2013. Thank you for your consideration. Nadia De Santi, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Manager Business Development cc. Bruce Finlay, City of Ottawa

Lee Ann Snedden, City of Ottawa Ian Cross, City of Ottawa John Moser, City of Ottawa Mario Fatica, Loblaw Properties Limited