2.            ZONING - 446 EDGEWORTH ROAD

 

ZONAGE - 446, AVENUE EDGEWORTH

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED

 

That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, from an R2A to R4F-exception zone as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 3, subject to the following amendments:

 

That the Details of Recommended Zoning, Document 4, be amended as follows:

 

a)                  In point 1. the term “interior side yard” shall be replaced by the term “corner side yard”

 

b)                  A new point 3. shall be added as follows:  “the minimum width for an aisle for a parking space having an  angle of  75 to 90 degrees is 6.0 metres”

 

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

 

 
RECOMMANDATION MODIFIé DU COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage de 1998 de l’ancienne ville d’Ottawa afin de changer la désignation de zonage de R2A à R4F-exception, comme il est expliqué dans le Document 2 et indiqué dans le Document 3, sous réserve des modifications suivantes :

 

Que les détails du zonage recommandé, Document 4, soient modifiés comme suit :

 

a)                  au point 1, remplacer les termes « cour latérale intérieure » par « cour latérale extérieure » ;

 

b)                  au point  3, ajouter l’énoncé suivant : « la largeur minimale de l’allée d’un espace de stationnement ayant un angle de 75 à 90 degrés est de 6 mètres. »

 

Documentation

 

1.         Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 24 September 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-APR-0219).

 

2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes, 26 October 2004.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

24 September 2004 / le 24 septembre 2004

 

Submitted by/Soumis par :  Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance  

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire

Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424 x13242, Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

 

 

Bay/Baie (7)

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-APR-0219

 

 

SUBJECT:

ZONING -  446 EDGEWORTH AVENUE

 

 

OBJET :

ZONAGE - 446, AVENUE EDGEWORTH

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, from an R2A to R4F-exception zone as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 3. 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement recommande au Conseil d'approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage de 1998 de l'ancienne ville d'Ottawa afin de changer la désignation de zonage de R2A à R4F-exception, comme il est expliqué dans le Document 2 et indiqué dans le Document 3.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The subject property, 446 Edgeworth Avenue, is located between Richmond Road and Lawn Avenue adjacent to the Ottawa River Parkway. Primary access to the site is provided off Edgeworth Avenue with additional pedestrian access off Lawn Avenue. A residential building and garage are currently located on the subject property.

 

The current zoning for the site is R2A (semi-detached house subzone). To the north, south and east are single and semi-detached residential dwelling units. Immediately to the south of the subject property is a 13-unit two storey townhouse development that is located within a R5A zone. Several high-rise apartment towers (zoned R6A) are also in the area, to the north and south ends of Edgeworth Avenue. Four freehold row houses are located on the east side of Wentworth Avenue in an R4A zone. To the west of the subject site is an open space area containing the Ottawa River Parkway. The western portion of Lawn Avenue (immediately south of the site) is an unopened road right-of-way that accommodates a public path leading to the Ottawa River Parkway area. 

 

The purpose of this Zoning By-law amendment proposal is to permit the rezoning of the subject property, from R2A to R4F (with exceptions), to permit an infill residential development of 22 units. The applicant is proposing to construct a mix of two semi-detached dwellings, four townhouses, and 16 stacked townhouses on the site. The preliminary development proposal requires 32 parking spaces to be provided on site.

 

The exceptions that will be required relate to the interior side yard requirements of the R4F Planned Unit Development provisions. The applicant has noted the following as non-compliant:

Interior side yard (south) - 3.1m

Interior side yard (part of north) - 1.28m

 

DISCUSSION

 

The proposal to change the zoning from R2A to R4F is consistent with the policies of the former and new Official Plans. The proposal intensifies an underutilized site and provides a mix of housing types at medium densities.

 

City of Ottawa Council Approved Official Plan

 

The subject property and surrounding area is designated General Urban Area on Schedule B of the City of Ottawa Official Plan.  This designation permits all types and densities of housing, as well as employment, shopping, service, industrial, cultural, leisure, park and natural areas (not otherwise identified in the Plan), entertainment and institutional uses. The policies associated with this designation support infill development and other intensification within the General Urban Area in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the long-term vitality of the many existing communities that make up the City.  Specifically, the Plan encourages ground-oriented multiple housing forms, such as duplex, triplex and fourplex, as one means of intensifying within established low-rise residential communities.

 

The proposed re-zoning is compatible with the policies and guidelines of the Official Plan. The proposed development will allow for a modest infill that is compatible with the built form of the surrounding neighbourhood.  This transition from the primarily existing single detached homes to the proposed stacked town houses and semi-detached units illustrate a variety of housing types and densities that intensify land use and maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood.

 

 Former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan

 

The Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton designates the subject property as General Urban Area.  Lands designated General Urban Area are intended to be used primarily for residential purposes, and for supportive shopping, service and community facilities.   The proposal to change the zoning from R2A to R4F conforms to the General Urban Area designation and Regional Development Strategy of the Plan, particularly with regard to residential development inside the Greenbelt.

 

The former Region of Ottawa-Carleton Official Plan further states that the share of residential development inside the Greenbelt has increased significantly and as the population ages that the demand for multiple-unit housing closer to services and amenities will continue to grow. The subject property is located within a network of local streets near bus facilities, the parkway, and the commercial and institutional areas along Richmond Road.  The conversion of this property to an expanded residential use will maximize access to the various services offered in the community, make use of existing infrastructure in the area and enhance access to public transit services.  Overall, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Plan for development in the General Urban Area.

 

City of Ottawa Official Plan

 

The Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa designates the property and neighbourhood Residential Area. Lands designated Residential Area are intended to be used predominantly for residential purposes with provision of a full range of dwelling types.  Section 3.0, Housing Development and Residential Areas includes the benefits outlined by the ROP within the policy framework of the Plan.  

 

The proposal to rezone 446 Edgeworth Avenue from R2A to R4F (with exceptions) meets the objectives set forth in the Strategic Approach of the Plan.  At present, there is a need to address the high demand for housing in Ottawa. The proposal will provide a choice of housing type and tenure in the neighbourhood by increasing the availability of housing stock and choice in the market.  The proposed rezoning will allow for minor residential intensification consistent with the policy objectives assigned in Policy 3.6.1 of the Plan.  These provide direction for the efficient use of residential lands to provide a variety and mix of housing types, provision of housing suitable for children and seniors, and for compatible integration of residential intensification with the community.

 

Policy 3.6.2 of the Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa sets out various factors for consideration in the evaluation of proposals for minor residential intensification. The proposed rezoning responds to those factors that relate to compatibility, setbacks and provision of parking. 

Other factors such as landscaping, location of parking and provision of outdoor amenity space will be implemented through the Site Pan Control process. Document 3 depicts the proposed development concept and demonstrates how the proposed re-zoning will accommodate a development that will fit into the neighbourhood. 

 

 Zoning Details

 

The purpose of this Zoning By-law amendment proposal is to permit a rezoning of the subject property, from R2A to R4F (with exceptions), to permit an infill residential development of 22 units. The purpose of the R4 zone is to permit a mix of residential uses to encourage medium density development. It also regulates development in a manner that adopts existing land use patterns and provides an even transition between low and high-density residential areas. The applicant is proposing to construct two semi-detached dwellings, four townhouses, and 16 stacked townhouses on the site (Document 3). The preliminary development proposal calls for 32 parking spaces to be provided on site.

 

The proposed zoning from R2A to R4F will ensure long-term compatibility and building heights relative to the neighbouring residential area. The Department is also recommending a number of exceptions to the proposed zoning for yards and setbacks.  These exceptions maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and provide for a compatible development with the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

In conclusion, the Department supports the application to amend the Zoning By-law as it advances residential and other key policies in the both the new and former Official Plans and provides for a compatible residential infill development in a strategic location.  

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Information signs were posted on-site indicating the nature of the application.  The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.

 

Detailed responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 4.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

The application was not processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Zoning By-Law amendments.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Explanatory Note

Document 3      Development Concept

Document 4      Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 5      Consultation Details

 


DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (Albert Wiskowski, 446 Edgeworth Ave, Ottawa, ON K2B 5L1), agent (The Regional Group, 200 Catherine Street, Ottawa, ON K2P 2K9), and the Manager of Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council's decision.

 

Development Services Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

 

Department of Corporate Services, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                         Document 1

 

 


EXPLANATORY NOTE                                                                                               Document 2

 

By-law Number 2004 - X amends Zoning By-law, 1998 of the former City of Ottawa.  This amendment affects the property at 446 Edgeworth Avenue. The current zoning for the property is R2A, semi-detached house.  To the north, east and south are residentially zoned lands that are primarily occupied by single and semi-detached residential dwelling units. The lands to the west are zoned L2 and included the Ottawa River Parkway.  Several high-rise apartment towers (zoned R6A) are also in the area, to the north and south ends of Edgeworth Avenue. Four freehold row houses are located on the east side of Wentworth Avenue in an R4A zone. The western portion of Lawn Avenue (immediately south of the site) is an unopened road right-of-way.

 

 

Current Zoning

 

The current zoning for the site is R2A (semi-detached house subzone). The purpose of the R2 zone is to permit low density dwellings with a slightly higher density than in the R1 Zone on lands designated Residential Area in the former City of Ottawa Official Plan. It also regulates development in a manner that adopts existing land use patterns so that the low density character of a neighbourhood is maintained.

 

 

Proposed Zoning

 

The purpose of this zoning by-law amendment proposal is to permit a rezoning of the subject property, from R2A to R4F (with exceptions), to permit an infill residential development of 22 units. The purpose of the R4 zone is to permit a mix of residential uses to encourage medium density development. It also regulates development in a manner that adopts existing land use patterns and provides an even transition between low and high-density residential areas. The applicant would like to construct two semi-detached dwellings, four townhouses, and sixteen stacked townhouses on the site. The preliminary development proposal calls for 32 parking spaces to be provided on site.

 

Should you have any questions regarding the amendment please contact Doug Bridgewater at 580-2424 ext. 13387.

 


DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT                                                                                      Document 3

 

 

 

 

 


DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                              Document 4

 

The proposed zoning is R4F– exception

 

The following exceptions are proposed:

 

1.      Minimum interior side yard (south) – 3.1m

 

2.      Minimum interior side yard (part of north) – 1.28m

 

 

 


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                       Document 5

 

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law Amendments.  The Ward Councilor, Alex Cullen, is aware of the application.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

Staff received eight written responses from the public regarding this application. The concerns raised by the public are highlighted in the points listed below:

 

 

 

 

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

In a letter dated March 31, 2004, the Woodpark Community Association indicated the following concerns with the proposed development:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Staff are satisfied that the proposed re-zoning from R2A to R4F is appropriate for the subject site and will not have an adverse effect of the community.  The resulting intensification of the site is in line with the policy directives of the new City of Ottawa Official Plan. Site-specific matters, such as the protection of existing vegetation and the provision of amenity space will be dealt with through Site Plan Control.

 

 


ZONING - 446 EDGEWORTH ROAD

ZONAGE - 446, AVENUE EDGEWORTH

ACS2004-DEV-APR-0219

Deferred from 12 october 2004 meeting                                  Bay/Baie (7)

 

Chair Hume began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council. Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

 

John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure, Planning and Growth Management (PWG), Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, T. Marc and Doug Bridgewater, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 24 September 2004.  Following a presentation by Mr. Bridgewater, staff responded to questions posed by Committee members, with the main points summarized below.  Mr. Bridgewater pointed out there was a technical amendment before Committee whereat staff referred to an interior as opposed to a corner side yard, which the Motion will correct; and, will also deal with the reduction of the aisle from 6.7m to 6m.

·        Under the former City of Ottawa OP there are three terms used to refer to residential development – minor, moderate and major; these are meant to be relative terms.  This application, being relative, would be a moderate intensification, but in some ways, due to the number of units, some might call it minor.  Major would be something similar to the development of the entire Greenboro; minor could be a single to a semi for example.

·        Comments from the Woodpark Community Association and the staff responses thereto:

·        Why is staff recommending R4F as opposed to the existing R2A, when dealing with an application for intensification – staff will review what is actually proposed and find the best matching zone as opposed to recommending an apparent zone that is not intended to address that type of development.

·        The second bullet states this particular application represents excessive residential intensification; does not complement low density/low rise residential nature of the Woodpark community – the context of the site is what generates the compatibility and appropriateness.  Within proximity there is an 8-storey apartment building, plus a semi as a group building project and townhouses and open space in the area, which make this a compatible development.

·        Increased on street traffic and the demand on existing sanitary sewers, which arose at the public meeting– the applicant supplied staff with a parking overview statement; the number of vehicles generated by the development is quite minor; in the magnitude of 12-15 vehicles/hour, bringing the street level up to 1/3 capacity.

·        Impact on sanitary – to be dealt with in detail through the site plan.  (Mr. Morrison indicated there was no problem.)

 

The committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Ruth Smith addressed the Committee in opposition, the main points of which are listed below.  A copy of Ms. Smith’s written comments are on file with the City Clerk.

·        Lives diagonally across from the proposed development (40 years).  The area is quiet, safe, secure and with light traffic, which has begun to change.

·        Curtail size of development since the number of units would dramatically change the streetscape.  There are health, safety and social concerns, as well as property values.

·        Safety – the development would erode the residential nature of the Woodpark community and jeopardize the safety of residents and pedestrians who walk/ride.

·        Health – removal of many trees and grassed areas.  Air pollution from vehicles.  Potential of water back up, since the system was not intended for such a large development.  There are also the potential health hazards from mould, etc.  Noise pollution, even now windows need to be closed to keep out heavy traffic sounds.

·        She applauded the developer for his plans, having attended 2 meetings and visited an area developed.

·        In her March letter to Mr. Bridgewater she addressed the lack of sidewalks; seniors walk on Edgeworth from retirement and nursing homes; many mature homeowners walk to the NCC pathway and transit area since many are unable to drive; there are special needs individuals who travel in wheelchairs on Lawn from Regina to Carlingwood; many school buses turn at the corner of Lawn and Edgeworth.  An increase in traffic is unacceptable and certainly a concern.

·        In an article in News West, Councillor Cullen mentioned he had established a Bay Ward Task Force earlier this year on social issues; four concerns were addressed, two of which were security and safety; and, seniors’ services.  She appealed to the Committee to consider that.  Seniors’ Services are an important component of the Task Force study, as Bay Ward has the highest concentration of seniors in Ottawa, making up nearly 20% of its population compared to 11% city wide.

 

Donald Clyne lives directly across from the proposed site and strongly objected to the plan for 22 homes replacing the current home.  This type of development is too dense for the neighbourhood; it is in addition to another dense development around the corner at 1142 Richmond; together they will add 45 additional homes within a few blocks of each other.  He recognized the City wished to increase density, but there seems to be no limit and little recognition of the impact to existing neighbourhoods.  The Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) should reject the proposed plan and work towards a compromise.  In his view, 12-14 units would be more than adequate density for the existing neighbourhood.

 

Robert Carisse was present, in opposition, but did not address the Committee.

Alan Crawford provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Crawford echoed the sentiments of previous speakers and added the following:

·        Density is the main issue.  It is excessive and will fundamentally alter the neighbourhood character.  He has lived in the area for 20 years and noticed increased traffic.  The developer has been made aware of the community’s concern since the first public meeting.

·        Edgeworth is the main access to the Woodpark community from the west.  It is used by fire trucks and the corner of Lawn and Edgeworth can become quite congested, especially in the winter.  There is a potential risk, especially if the parking restrictions are not enforced as quite often happens overnight.

·        The development is not minor, but major residential intensification.

·        Finally, the entire issue of residential intensification/infill can bring the current zoning regulations into disrepute.  If approved, others will follow, leaving the community open to significant re-development from a current low rise nature to high density with all the inherent problems that entails.

 

Councillor Hunter referred to Mr. Crawford’s written presentation dated 21 October 2004, specifically point #5 “the use of the City’s OP to justify density intensification apparently without providing clear standards or limits allows for excessively subjective interpretations and represents a grave potential for abuse.”  Staff made some reference to proximity to transit as a justification, but may want to comment further.  PEC members should keep that in mind as the decision goes beyond implications solely for this site.

 

John Blatherwick, President and Chair, Zoning and Development Committee, Woodpark Community Association, provided a copy of his letter dated 31 March 2004 to staff along with maps, in opposition.  The following points were raised.

·        The large map was provided to bring the project into better context with the neighbourhood.  This was a zoning map before Z2-K was revised by the former City of Ottawa.  The vast majority of land area in Woodpark was R4-x; it is now R2A, which is a single and semi zone.  Along the southern border there is a commercial zone as well as some high density residential and along the western border there is an R3 zone.

·        The overall land use pattern is street oriented with fairly large back yards.  There are some triplexes and row units.  The subject property is illustrated in blue and other areas are outlined in yellow.  The balance of Edgeworth from the Lawn ROW to the northern property line of 2385 Carling, has lots 184.5 feet deep.

·        The southwest quadrant, which encompasses Richardson, Midway and the back property line of properties on Ancaster illustrates the huge lots between Richardson and Woodlawn (414 feet).  The orange section reveals a development (Halldon Place) that took place in the 60’s when Woodland and Ancaster residents sold off the back halves of their properties.  This clearly demonstrates the neighbourhood could be subject to significant residential intensification.  The community wants to ensure residential intensification in the neighbourhood is appropriate.  The application is inappropriate.

·        The map does not illustrate development since the mid-90’s.  Mr. Blatherwick referred to a number of area developments reduced either by appeal to the OMB or negotiated with the respective developer and compromises on both sides.  1142 Richmond, which replaced the former gas bar and car repair facility is currently under construction.

·        Mr. Blatherwick provided pictures of various homes and recent developments in the area.  There is a large urban forest (both public and private).

·        There were 4 meetings with Regional.  The Board met with Regional twice and as a result of the first Board meeting, there was a public meeting in March.  That preceded the letter to staff.  There was a 4th meeting last week, attended by Councillor Cullen and Mr. Bridgewater.  The issues have remained the same:  traffic, parking and density.

·        The 31 March letter states we “accept that residential development will take place at 446 Edgeworth and that the redevelopment of the site will probably be at a higher density than Woodpark’s current overall build out of approximately 11 units/ha.  There were no complaints with the design or the apparent quality of the proposal.  Nor were there any objections to redeveloping the site for residential use.  Above all, the residents of this community support residential infill that compliments our neighbourhood – the right scale, the right location, appropriate density, good design, etc.”  The community wants an appropriately dense redevelopment.

·        In summary, the development approvals process is flawed since the Committee is not dealing with the Site Plan and Rezoning, but only the rezoning, he could only make 2 comments, but had 3 site plan recommendations.  First – maintain the R2 zone; it can be made an R2 exception zone and maintain the integrity of the community.  Secondly, he asked PEC to make a planning decision and reduce the number of units to 16.  That is a 100% increase in density in the R2A zone, which is a reasonable compromise.

 

As a result of the presentation, Councillor Cullen pointed out the access from Edgeworth onto Richmond Road is closed, to prevent cut-through in the community.  The Councillor emphasized Mr. Blatherwick was involved in this application since it was filed in February; the letter to Mr. Bridgewater was dated 31 March and until last week there were at least 3 meetings with the developer.  Mr. Blatherwick reiterated the process and meetings that took place with the developer bringing the Councillor and Mr. Bridgewater on board in last week for a final analysis to reach a reasonable compromise.  Councillor Cullen questioned why the community did not involve the City planner and the Councillor earlier in the process when there would have been an opportunity to negotiate a compromise before a site plan was submitted.  A site plan has been submitted and he has not as yet been asked to lift delegated authority by the community.  In response to the Chair, Mr. Blatherwick clarified that the Association was not doing anything different than what has taken place over the last 25 years; sit down with the developer first to see if there can be a resolution.  The Association brought the Councillor in at the appropriate time.

 

In response to Councillor Bellemare on the type of units the community is looking to,
Mr. Blatherwick maintained that residents are happy with the townhouses and the semi and looking to a reduction in the number of condos to the rear of the site.  The community is not complaining about the 4 units along the south property line or the 2 facing.  16 units is a reasonable compromise for a community and meets the City’s intensification provisions.

 

Steve Cunliffe and Doug Hardie, Architect, on behalf of Regional Group.  Mr. Cunniliffe advised that Regional has been involved in this development for almost one year and met with the community a number of times.  The issues being discussed are fundamental to intensification and the OP.  The site was purchased after very carefully reviewing the neighbourhood situation in the context of the OP and the development surrounding it.  Regional has not compromised since it is not in the habit of coming forward with over-densified development, to back off to something reasonable.  The proposed development is reasonable, in accordance with the OP; and, in terms of density, it is not overly dense. 
Mr. Hardie provided the following presentation:

·        The site is on the edge of the community; other developments on the edge of the community are an 8-storey, 12-storey, 11-storey, one-storey strip-commercial; and more commercial along Carling.  There is a 23-unit townhouse complex being constructed on Richmond.  The subject site is internal and therefore one has to travel through the community to access same.  That has been recognized by reducing the numbers and thereby reducing traffic to manageable levels.

·        Density is not solely numbers.  First, the density is supported by policies laid down in the OP.  Regional is proposing 22 units (34.4 units/acre), which is medium density.  All the units are ground-oriented:  16 stacked townhouses, 4 townhouses and 2 semi-detached units.  All of which are similar to that present on the street.  On coverage, the buildings occupy 31.6% of the site; parking and driveways occupy 29.6%; and, landscaping occupies 38.9%.  The landscaping requirement is 30%.

·        All units have private amenity.  The stacked units are at the rear, with their amenity space facing the parkway.  The lower units have ground-level patios; the upper units have 2 balconies.  These balconies do not overlook neighbourhood rear yards, but face the parkway.  The semi-detached units on Edgeworth have large patios to the rear and balconies on the front, above the garage door, facing the street.  The townhouse units have ground level patios to the rear and balconies at the second floor level facing the Lawn ROW.  Unit 3, which is the unit at the street, has an additional balcony at second floor level over the garage.

·           Regional is proposing 3 and 3½-storey buildings, but the architectural expression is basically 2 and 2½-storey because the upper level has been designed into the roof space.  The lower buildings have been located towards the street, with those higher to the rear of the property, relating directly to the parkway space.  The permitted height for this development is 10.7m. and the proposed heights are 10.5m for the stacked towns and 8.5m for the 3-storey townhouses.

·        The traffic study indicates additional traffic in the peak one hour periods would be 12 cars in the a.m. and 11 in the p.m.; an average of one every 5 minutes.  A rapid transit station is a 5 minute walk through the park, which is an important element.

·        Parking required is 21 cars; they are providing 31; 3 visitor spaces for the 16 stacked units, which represent a 19% parking ratio for visitors.

·        Building mass – there was a conscious decision to split the project into smaller blocks with the smallest placed closest to the street to provide an appropriate, sensitive and widely spaced with the driveway and parking between to provide a sensitive rhythm to the streetscape.  The larger block is placed to the rear where there is a comfortable scale relationship with the large open space.

·        With careful consideration and matching design, the proposal demonstrates the density is comfortably handled and will have a sympathetic relationship with the neighbourhood and that it fulfils the OP objectives with regard to intensification.

 

As a result of the presentation, staff responded to questions posited by the Committee and the main points are summarized below:

·        Regional looked at variations of the Association’s request for 16 units.  That would change the form of the development to fundamentally all townhouses, resulting in increased area coverage.  The feel and density would be heightened, in his opinion.

·        If the 16 stacked townhouse were reduced to 8, the proposed coverage of 31.6%, which is equal to or less than a single family house; it would increase the coverage.  There would in actual fact be less open and amenity space resulting in a denser development.

·        Regional engineers prepared detailed engineering plans in relation to the Site Plan Application submitted and met with staff a number of times; it is currently under review, but all the information to date, both from the City and their own engineers, indicates there is adequate capacity in the existing sanitary sewer system.  In terms of storm water, this is a stormwater surface runoff area and not a combined sewer; there is no outlet of stormwater into the sanitary sewers.  The development will drain into a ditch in front and to the swale in the unopened Lawn road allowance.

·        There was discussion with Public Works and Services (PWS) to ensure there was no history and sufficient sewer capacity for this development.

·        As a result of intensification, sewer capacity is being researched by staff.  PGM has asked PWS to identify the trouble areas known to have capacity issues.  That is being examined across the City.  As it stands now, each project is looked at on an individual basis to confirm system capacity.

 

Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.

 


Councillor Cullen averred two issues concerned him.  Ordinarily when a development application is brought to his attention, he provides the developer with the coordinates of the community association to allow for discussion and provide for interaction and that he was prepared to host a public meeting, with the City planner in attendance to assess the issues, if there were any problems.  In this instance, the developer approached him, presented concept plans and the proposed density in February, he provided similar information, the sign went up and aside from a letter from the Association in March, and he heard nothing until last week.  It is quite frustrating to have very legitimate community concerns relative to density brought forward too late in the process to arrive at a compromise that will alleviate the community’s concerns and the developer’s interest for a return on its investment.  The Site Plan has been submitted with a staff recommendation to proceed.  The City would only find itself before the OMB.  Having said that, Mr. Crawford did present a valid issue relative to accumulating intensification.  There was a similar situation with Queensway Terrace North last year.  Where do you draw the line?  When do you say too much is too much?  Staff continues to spout OP policies.  There is a recognition, but it is dealt with on a case by case basis, which gives little comfort to the community.  The developer conducted a traffic study resulting in 12 more cars on the street and there is the notion of the need to halt urban sprawl, which is supported, but the community is seeing a significant change on the street.  During the Zoning By-Law review anticipated to engage next year, performance standards will be set to match OP policies and limits put in place relative to intensification, streetscape, massing, the amount of change that goes into the community, etc.  The proposal put forward lies somewhere between what staff considers minor and moderate; and, he was at a loss to find the level of comfort that can allow for negotiation with the community.  He found this troublesome and it would have been more acceptable with 14 or 16 units, as recently presented by the community.  Having said that, his role is to represent a community that is concerned about the extend of density and he would dissent on the report.

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

 

That Report dealing with a rezoning application for the property at 446 Edgeworth Avenue be amended as follows:

 

That the Details of Recommended Zoning, Document 4, be amended as follows:

 

a)                  In point 1. the term “interior side yard” shall be replaced by the term “corner side yard”

 

b)                  A new point 3. shall be added as follows:  “the minimum width for an aisle for a parking space having an angle of 75 to 90 degrees is 6.0 metres”

 


And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The Committee approved the recommendation as amended.

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998, from an R2A to R4F-exception zone as detailed in Document 2 and shown in Document 3, subject to the following amendments:

 

That the Details of Recommended Zoning, Document 4, be amended as follows:

 

a)                  In point 1. the term “interior side yard” shall be replaced by the term “corner side yard”

 

b)                  A new point 3. shall be added as follows:  “the minimum width for an aisle for a parking space having an  angle of  75 to 90 degrees is 6.0 metres”

 

And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.

 

CARRIED as amended with Councillor A. Cullen dissenting.