COMMENTS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL MUST BE RECEIVED BY MAY 2.
The site plan proposes to construct a gasoline service centre with an associated convenience store, drive through coffee shop and second storey apartment. The building would be 370 square metre with 4 gas pump islands and canopy, and 13 parking spaces. The site is proposed to have two accesses off the east side of the future extension of Barnett Drive.
See all the documents filed for this proposal. http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf;jsessionid=E858292BD7BE6E1BFAD0BB21DCC26A1C?lang=en&appId=__92X9NO
Comments sent to City Planning by:
From: Dominique Ouellette <email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>>
To: "Garbos, Justyna"
<Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca<mailto:Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca>>; Clive Horne <email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 10:55:57 AM
Subject: Re: DEVAPPS ONLINE: D07-12-14-0008 April 8, 2014 Ward 19
Here is my feedback regarding the application D07-12-14-0008
The proposal is contingent on the applicant building a new roadway through the subject property linking Old Montreal Rd and RR174. There are no Project Plans referencing to this road, the intersection at RR174, signal lights, sidewalks etc... This should be included in the site proposal since the proposal is contingent on this road
In regards to the roadway (Barnett) extension, there is already an existing road allowance between lot 12 & 13 (Subject lot) approx 200m east of the proposed Barnett Extension. The city should consider this option since it is already in the plan. The site plan for the service station would have to be modified to suit the new roadway
In the Planning Rationale document, the Transportation Study, prepared by David Halpenny Engineering is referenced as submitted as part of this package, but it is not in the Application Details. Based on the original submission filed in 2013 to propose the closing of Peter Harkness Lane, the results of this study was flawed and inaccurate. An updated Traffic Study should be undertaken with specific reference to potential traffic impacts of both the Barnett Road Extension and also the impact of the gas bar and coffee shop & drive through as proposed on this application.
In order to minimize drive-through speaker noise to local homes, a more suitable location would be for drive through ordering board speakers to be located on the back side of the building (facing east) and not on the side (facing south towards homes)
Please note the following corrections that should be brought to the Planning Rationale document
"Regional Road 174 is a two lane rural Arterial road under the jurisdiction of the City of Ottawa, with posted speed limits of 80 km/hr."
Should read: "Regional Road 174 is a two lane rural Arterial road under the jurisdiction of the City of Ottawa, with posted speed limits of 70 km/hr.
"The City is in the process of beginning an Environmental Assessment of
RR174 which will widen the road to four (4) lanes."
That statement is incorrect, it should read: "The EA study is reviewing three options that are being considered for the section of the 174 from Trim to Rockland.
1. Widen the existing 174/17 to 4 lanes
2. Widen Innes Road to Baseline Road
3. New route south of Wilhaven Road to Baseline Road
** There is no guarantee that the EA will recommend widening 174 to 4
Thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me should you have anu questions about my comments
1220 Barnett Drive
Further Comments received May 14, 2014
I noticed your comments about the proposed development on the Cumberland Village website. I share your concerns about this ill-conceived proposal. In addition to the concerns you raise, there are broader, city planning reasons why this project should not be approved.
As part of our community visioning exercise with David Atkinson (2009-2012) the CCA prepared guiding principles for the future development of our community. A vision statement and a series of objectives outlining these values is included in a city-wide review of zoning and bylaws for all of Ottawa's rural villages in the latest Official Plan, called the Consolidated Villages Secondary Plan.
This comprehensive review of rural village zoning was needed since it had not been done since amalgamation. At a public meeting in January 2012, city planning staff and Councillor Blais presented highlights of this planning update. One of the major changes was to add a prohibition banning drive-through facilities in rural villages. The argument was that they are not appropriate and do not suit the character of rural, historic villages.
I raised this concern with the planner on this file and it took three emails before she answered my question. Here is her response:
The property at 2725 Old Montreal Road is designated Village in the Official Plan (OP). Section 3.7.1 of the OP provides policy direction for development in Villages. Policy 13 states "Consistent with village rural character, drive-through facilities and principal use parking lots will not generally be permitted in Village Core areas" (page 136 of http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/annotatedOP_en.pdf). Cumberland's Village Core is defined on the land use schedule of the Consolidated Villages Secondary Plan:http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/cap293205.pdf. The subject property is located just east and north of the Village Core and is designated Village Commercial. As a result, policy 13 does not limit a drive-through facility from locating on the property and the use conforms with the RC12 zoning.
So, how did the city get from a prohibition against drive through facilities to "generally not permitted" to "it's okay in certain parts of villages"?
I also note that the developer's planning rationale states that during the Secondary Plan review for rural villages acknowledges:
"a drive through is not currently a permitted use listed in Rural Commercial Subzone 12. However, it has been confirmed by City Staff that the intent of the RC12 zone is for this use to be permitted."
The rationale adds; "the City's omission of 'drive-through(s) as a permitted use was an oversight" adding that
"an omnibus by-law amendment will be presented at the next rural affairs committee on April 3, 2014."
My question is, how can an official plan amendment be done without any public consultation?
These questions should be brought forward by the CCA and I intend to raise them at the AGM tonight. I welcome your support.
all the best,