3. ZONING - 495 RICHMOND rOAD
ZONAGE - 495, CHEMIN RICHMOND
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law (1998) to change the zoning of 495 Richmond Road from "CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60" to "CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263" as detailed in Document 7.
And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage de 1998 de l'ancienne Ville d'Ottawa afin de faire passer la désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 495, chemin Richmond de « CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60 » à « CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263 », ainsi que le précise le document 7.
Qu’aucun autre avis ne soit donné conformément à l’article 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.
1. Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 8 November 2004 (ACS2004-DEV-APR-0228).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes will be distributed prior to Council.
1. That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law (1998) to change the zoning of 495 Richmond Road from "CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60" to "CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263" as detailed in Document 7.
2. That the By-law to implement Recommendation 1 not be forwarded to City Council for enactment until the applicant has obtained Site Plan Control approval for the proposed 24-storey apartment and that incorporates an on-site pedestrian system that will allow for a direct pedestrian connection to the Dominion Transitway Station through the Ottawa River Parkway lands.
3. That the requirements set out in Recommendation 2 be satisfied within two years of approval of Recommendation 1, failing which this approval will lapse.
1. 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 faire passer la désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 495, chemin Richmond de « CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60 » à « CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263 », ainsi que le précise le document 7.
2. Que le règlement municipal visant à mettre en œuvre la recommandation 1 ne soit pas transmis au Conseil municipal pour adoption tant que le requérant n'aura pas obtenu l'approbation du plan d'implantation de l'immeuble d'habitation projeté, qui doit compter 24 étages; ce plan d'implantation devra prévoir un réseau piétonnier comportant un lien direct avec la station Dominion du Transitway, à travers les terrains de la promenade de l'Outaouais.
3. Que les exigences énoncées à la recommandation 2 soient satisfaites dans les deux ans suivant l'approbation de la recommandation 1, à défaut de quoi cette approbation sera caduque.
Assumptions and Analysis:
Recommendation 1 is to approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 24-storey apartment building in the northeast corner of 495 Richmond Road. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment supports a number of Official Plan objectives and policies including the following: encouraging intensification and mixed-use development along Mainstreets; promoting higher density development within 600 m of a rapid transit station; achieving and maintaining a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles; supporting the ability to live, work, play, attend school and shop within the neighbourhood; locating high profile residential development where there is minimal to no impact on low profile residential areas; providing an appropriate transition between high profile and low profile buildings, and ensuring the compatibility of proposed development with a designated heritage resource.
The Council Approved Official Plan, the former Regional Official Plan and the former City of Ottawa Official Plan all provide specific policy direction that supports higher intensity development in proximity to Transitway Stations and call for the provision of well-defined, safe, accessible and convenient pedestrian circulation systems that integrate and connect such developments with the Transitway Stations. Recommendation 2 has been provided to ensure that the site plan developed for the 24-storey apartment building will be developed in a way that will ensure that this policy directive of all three plans will be satisfied. It allows for adjustments to be made to the Zoning By-law with respect to yards that may be required once a determination on the most appropriate on-site pedestrian circulation system that will provide for the most appropriate connection to the Dominion Transitway Station.
Recommendation 3 has been included to set a time limit of two years for the applicant to obtain site plan approval for the proposed 24-storey apartment building and for City Council to enact the implementing Zoning By-law amendment. Staff believe that it is appropriate to set a deadline to enact the implementing By-law to ensure that the Zoning By-law amendment process is concluded within a reasonable period of time. In the event that site plan approval has not been granted within the set timeframe, the approval of the zoning change will be voided requiring the submission of a new application should future development be proposed that is beyond that allowed by the existing zoning.
One community information and comment session was held for the application on September 14, 2004. The general public submitted over 200 written comments on the application. The concerns expressed by the public included the following: traffic impact; height and density of the proposed development; compatibility of the proposed development with low profile residential areas and the Maplelawn Estate; public access to the Ottawa River Parkway and the Dominion Transitway Station; and impact on views to the Ottawa River Parkway and the Gatineau Hills. The McKellar Park Community Association and the Highland Park Ratepayers Association submitted a petition signed by approximately 675 members objecting to the application.
Hypothèses et analyse :
La recommandation 1 vise à faire approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage de l'ancienne Ville d'Ottawa afin de permettre la construction d'un immeuble d'habitation de 24 étages dans l'angle nord-est de la propriété située au 495, chemin Richmond. La modification projetée au Règlement de zonage va dans le sens de plusieurs des objectifs et politiques du Plan officiel, dont les suivants : favoriser le développement polyvalent le long des rues principales; promouvoir des aménagements de plus forte densité dans un rayon de 600 mètres des stations de transport en commun rapide; assurer et maintenir un équilibre entre les différentes formes de logements et les différents types d'occupation du sol, afin d'offrir une gamme complète d'habitations pour différents profils démographiques; soutenir la capacité de vivre, travailler et jouer ainsi que d'aller à l'école et de magasiner dans le quartier; construire les immeubles de grande hauteur à des endroits où ils auront peu ou point d'incidence sur les secteurs résidentiels de faible hauteur; assurer une transition appropriée entre les immeubles de grande hauteur et les immeubles de faible hauteur et assurer la compatibilité des aménagements projetés avec les ressources patrimoniales désignées.
Le Plan officiel approuvé par le Conseil, l'ancien Plan directeur régional ainsi que le Plan officiel de l'ancienne Ville d'Ottawa renferment tous des orientations précises allant dans le sens d'une densification des aménagements à proximité des stations du Transitway. Ils prévoient également l'établissement de réseaux de circulation piétonnière bien définis, sécuritaires, accessibles et pratiques permettant d'intégrer et de relier ces aménagements aux stations du Transitway. La recommandation 2 vise à donner l'assurance que le plan d'implantation de l'immeuble d'habitation de 24 étages donnera suite à cette orientation. Elle permet que des correctifs soient apportés au Règlement de zonage en ce qui concerne le nombre de cours qui pourrait être requis une fois que l'on aura déterminé le réseau de circulation piétonnière le plus approprié, qui offrira le meilleur lien avec la station Dominion du Transitway.
La recommandation 3 fixe un délai de deux ans durant lequel le requérant devra obtenir l'approbation du plan d'implantation de l'immeuble d'habitation de 24 étages projeté, tandis que le Conseil municipal devra adopter la modification au Règlement municipal habilitant. Le personnel estime opportun de fixer un tel délai afin d'avoir l'assurance que la modification du règlement de zonage s'effectuera à l'intérieur d'une période raisonnable. Si, au terme du délai fixé, le plan d'implantation n'a pas été approuvé, le changement de zonage sera caduc, ce qui nécessitera la présentation d'une nouvelle demande si l'on projetle un nouvel aménagement non permis par la désignation de zonage actuelle.
Répercussions financières :
Consultation publique / commentaires :
Une réunion destinée à informer la population sur le projet et à recueillir ses commentaires a eu lieu le 14 septembre 2004. Elle a soumis plus de 200 observations écrites sur la demande. Les préoccupations qui y sont exprimées portent notamment sur les aspects suivants : répercussions sur la circulation; hauteur et densité de l'ensemble projeté; compatibilité de l'ensemble projeté avec les secteurs résidentiels de faible hauteur et le domaine Maplelawn; accès public à la promenade de l'Outaouais et à la station Dominion du Transitway; impact sur les vues de la promenade de l'Outaouais et des collines de la Gatineau. L'association communautaire de McKellar Park et l'association des contribuables de Highland Park ont soumis une pétition signée par environ 675 de leurs membres opposés au projet.
495 Richmond Road is a 1.4 ha property located on the north side of Richmond Road and east of Broadview Avenue as shown on the location map in Document 1. The site has 89 m of frontage on Richmond Road and a lot depth of approximately 118 m.
A seven-storey office building, known as the Denis Coolican building, is located in the northwest corner of the site facing Richmond Road. The building has a gross floor area of 7576 sq. m and a building height of approximately 35 m. Vehicular access to Richmond Road is currently provided by one full-movement driveway along the west side of the site. The site contains approximately 359 parking spaces including 183 underground spaces and 176 surface spaces.
In terms of the site context, the Ottawa River Parkway and associated open space corridor is located to the north of the site. To the northeast are two high-rise apartments with heights of 20 and 13 storeys, with lower profile residential uses beyond. To the east along Richmond Road is a one-storey commercial building occupied by Rogers Television, with a 17-storey apartment building further to the east. Richmond Road forms the southern boundary of the site. An east-west open space corridor is located between Richmond Road and Byron Avenue, and a residential area consisting of a mix of low profile residential uses is located south of Byron Avenue.
Immediately to the west of the site is open space and the Maplelawn Estate, which includes Rochester House and the Maplelawn walled garden. Built in 1831-1834, Maplelawn Estate is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for its architectural and historical significance. Rochester House is also designated as "Classified" by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, and the house and garden are designated as a National Historic Site. Rochester House is one of the best examples of Georgian domestic architecture in Canada, and the walled garden is considered to be the finest example and best preserved landscape of its type in Central Canada.
Initial Development Proposal
The applicant's initial Zoning By-law amendment submission was based on a three-phase development with a floor space index of 3.5 for the entire site. Phase 1 was proposed to include a six-storey mixed use building adjacent to Richmond Road with 34 dwelling units and ground floor retail. Phase 2 consisted of a 24-storey, 148-unit apartment building in the northeast corner of the site. In Phase 3, the applicant proposed to redevelop the Denis Coolican building with a 20-storey apartment building on the west side of the building. The applicant was also proposing to demolish the upper three storeys on the east side of the existing building, and retrofit the remaining four storeys for residential use. Phase 3 was proposed to contain 152 dwelling units. In total, 348 dwellings were proposed for the three phases. The applicant had also applied to reduce the side yard and rear yard setbacks to accommodate the Phase 2 and 3 buildings.
Revised Development Proposal
While the application was being processed, the applicant secured a long-term lease with a major office tenant for the Denis Coolican building. Following consultation with the Ward Councillor and the area Community Associations, the applicant amended the Zoning By-law amendment application on October 14, 2004, to remove the proposed Phase 3 development. The Phase 1 development was also modified to a 48-unit apartment building without any ground floor commercial uses. The Phase 1 building, called the Manor House, is proposed to have a gross floor area of 5710 sq. m. Phase 2 will consist of a 24-storey apartment building with 148-dwelling units and a gross floor area of 19 000 sq. m. In total, 196 dwelling units are proposed for the Phase 1 and 2 developments. The existing and proposed Phase 1 and 2 developments will have a floor space index of 2.3.
One new driveway is proposed on Richmond Road on the eastern side of the site as part of the Phase 1 development. Underground parking will be provided for both the Phase 1 and 2 apartment buildings. To accommodate the Phase 2 building, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the access to the existing underground parking garage for the Denis Coolican building and to relocate the loading spaces currently situated on the east side of the building.
A Conceptual Site Plan of the proposed development is illustrated in Document 2. Document 3 shows the elevations of the proposed Phase 1 and 2 buildings looking north from Richmond Road, and looking east from both the Maplelawn Garden and from the National Capital Commission lands located west of the Maplelawn Estate. A bird's eye view of the proposed development is shown in Document 4.
Purpose of Zoning By-law Amendment Application
The site is currently zoned "CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60", which is a site-specific General Commercial Subzone with a maximum floor space index of 1.0. The existing zoning permits a range of residential uses including high-rise apartment buildings, and a range of non-residential uses including offices, retail stores and restaurants. The exception zone allows a broadcasting station as an additional permitted use. The exception zone also requires special yards for the commercial site to the east, and a landscape area of 35% of the lot area. The Phase 1 development (Manor House proposed along Richmond Road) is permitted under the existing zoning as the maximum floor space index will not be exceeded.
The purpose of the Zoning By-law amendment application is to amend the zoning to allow the Phase 2 development as follows:
1) to increase the maximum floor space index from 1.0 to 2.3,
2) to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 m to 6.0 m, and
3) to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 4.0 m.
The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Control application for the Phase 1 development. The application is being processed concurrently with the subject Zoning By-law amendment application.
Council Approved Official Plan
The Council Approved Official Plan designates the site as General Urban Area. In addition, the property is subject to the Mainstreet designation in the Official Plan that applies along Richmond Road.
Managing Growth Within the Urban Area
The Council Approved Official Plan sets out a policy framework for managing growth within the urban area that supports intensification and infill inside the urban boundaries. The growth management policies provide specific direction for Mainstreets to be developed with more urban and more dense development that sensitively builds on existing communities and is pedestrian supportive. For the General Urban Area, the growth management policies provide specific support for more intense development through infilling for lands within 600 metres of future or existing rapid-transit stations where potential exists to develop compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly cores; for lands where the present use is maintained, but the addition of residential uses or other uses can be accomplished in a complementary manner; and for lands currently used as parking lots or other extensive storage purposes.
The Growth Management Policies of the Council Approved Official Plan support intensification and infill on the subject property. The site is subject to the Mainstreet policies which given the site's proximity to the Dominion Transitway Station (which is within 300 m walking distance of the site) and its current development comprising a single office building and extensive surface parking, the site exhibits great potential to be further developed to create a compact, mixed-use node. The proposed zoning change will allow the site to be developed in this manner. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing office use and add residential uses in the form of a six-storey apartment building along Richmond Road to create a more dense and pedestrian oriented Mainstreet edge with a 24-storey apartment building located to the rear of the site within walking distance of the Dominion Transitway Station. Both apartment buildings will replace existing surface parking areas.
The Mainstreet designation identifies areas that are characterized as uninterrupted networks of active, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented uses. Permitted uses within this designation include retail stores, service establishments, offices, community-oriented facilities and residential apartments.
The Official Plan policies encourage intensification along Mainstreets, particularly where it will replace surface parking areas that interrupt the continuity of the building facades along the street and specifically encourages intensification and mixed use developments along arterial roads such as Richmond Road. Change and renewal along Mainstreets is intended to be carried out in accordance with the principle of creating an environment that is architecturally pleasing, lively in its mix of uses, oriented to the street, friendly to pedestrians and that presents a strong, continuous building edge along the sidewalk. The six-storey Manor House building proposed adjacent to Richmond Road will replace an existing surface parking area and advances the general intent of the Mainstreet policies.
General Urban Area
The General Urban Area designation permits all types and densities of housing, as well as employment, shopping, service, industrial, cultural, leisure, park and natural areas, entertainment and institutional uses. The policies associated with the General Urban Area designation supports residential intensification through infill or redevelopment that relates to existing community character; provides direction for infill and redevelopment to enhance and build on desirable established patterns of built form; and provides direction that infill and redevelopment contribute to achieving and maintaining a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles.
The subject site is located along the edge of the existing Westboro and Highland Park neighbourhoods. The existing pattern of development and the site's context allows for the site to be intensified as part of the existing node with a high profile residential building. The 24-storey apartment proposed in combination with the proposed Manor House and the retention of the existing office building relates to and builds on the existing pattern of development that has been established in the node and serves to provide for an increased concentration of development and population in proximity to community services located along Richmond Road and in proximity to transit without adversely impacting the urban qualities of existing and established lower profile residential areas.
Further, as noted, there currently exists a range of housing types within the neighbourhood including single detached dwellings, townhouses, rental apartments and condominium apartments. The two new apartments proposed for the site (the Manor House and the 24-storey apartment) will both be held in condominium ownership increasing the supply of this form of housing in the community. This serves to broaden the range of housing types in the neighbourhood consistent with the policy objectives for the General Urban Area to provide a balance of housing types and tenures that will provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles and allows existing residents in the community choice in accommodation between low profile ground oriented dwellings and non-ground oriented dwellings. Providing such choices in the context of the aging population allows existing residents to remain in their communities to coincide with lifestyle changes.
Compatibility of Development
The Official Plan contains criteria to review development applications for intensification and infill, to ensure that new development is compatible with its surroundings, while allowing for a gradual evolution of architectural style and innovation in built form.
Compatibility is based upon the impact of the proposal on the character of the environment, both built and natural, with due regard for how that character is likely to evolve in the foreseeable future. Compatible design does not necessarily mean being the same as the surrounding area. Being compatible means being mutually tolerant and capable of coexisting in harmony in the same area.
The proposed 24-storey apartment to be permitted under the proposed zoning is located in the northeast corner of the site. As noted previously, there are three high rise apartments located in immediate proximity to the northeast and east of the site. Of these, the largest and closest is a 20 storey apartment located at 465 Richmond Road. This building is approximately 110 m northeast of the proposed 24-storey apartment.
The existing built form and open space context of the site and the provision of a six-storey building along the Richmond Road portion of the site provides for a compatible built form relationship between the proposed 24-storey apartment and the lower profile developments in the area. The existing higher profile developments to the east and northeast establish a high profile node that also provides a transition in building height between the proposed development and low profile areas further to the east; the six-storey Manor House provides a building height transition to the south; and the existing office building to be retained on site retains the current built form relationship between the site and open space lands to the west and provides a transition to the lower profile areas further west beyond the open space areas. Finally, the proposed development defines an urban edge for the open space corridor along the Ottawa River Parkway consistent with the edge defined by the existing 20-storey apartment to the northeast and the existing office building on the site.
The Official Plan also requires that consideration be given to shadow impacts, and impacts of higher development on private amenity areas for existing developments. In this regard, the greatest shadowing impact of the proposed tower will occur on the Ottawa River Parkway lands located to the north of the site. The lands to the north include several woodlots, meadows, footpaths and an asphalt pathway located near the Ottawa River Parkway. The shadowing will extend to the Ottawa River Parkway during part of the day from approximately September to March. The shadowing impact will be less during the summer months. The Ottawa River Parkway lands are designated as Major Open Space in the Official Plan. This designation is intended to protect the larger open spaces in Ottawa that are in or intended to be in public ownership, and are to be generally available for public use and enjoyment. While there will be a shadowing impact from the proposed development, the shadowing will not adversely impact the use of the corridor lands for recreational purposes or for its use as a transportation corridor.
While there will be some shadowing for the one-storey commercial building located to the east of the site, this impact does not affect the usability of the site as a commercial property. Should the site be redeveloped for a residential use as would be permitted under the current zoning, the shadow impacts of the proposed 24-storey apartment would be a consideration in locating and orienting outdoor amenity areas for any future development on the Rogers site. In this regard, locating the proposed 24-storey apartment along the north edge of the subject site, will maximize opportunities for locating any new development on the adjacent site.
There will be no shadow casting impacts from the proposed 24-storey apartment for any of the low profile areas in the area nor will there be any impacts on private amenity areas for existing developments. Also, there will not be any shadow impacts on the Maplelawn Garden from the proposed 24-storey apartment. The Department is satisfied that the built form proposed under the proposed zoning is compatible and fits into its urban context and will not result in any unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding residential area due to the relatively large distance separation, the building height transition and the absence of any shadowing.
The site is located adjacent to the Maplelawn Estate, which is a designated heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act and a recognized Federal Heritage Resource. The Council Approved Official Plan contains policies to be assessed when reviewing a Zoning By-law amendment application adjacent to a designated heritage resource to ensure the proposal is compatible with it. To facilitate undertaking this assessment, proponents of development adjacent to heritage resources must undertake and submit for review by the City a Heritage Impact Assessment. Such an assessment was undertaken by the applicant for the development of the 495 Richmond Road property, addressing both the six-storey Manor House development that is currently permitted and the proposed 24-storey apartment. The assessment submitted has been reviewed and staff are satisfied that it appropriately assesses the proposed development in the context of the City's heritage polices and that the assessment has demonstrated that the site can be developed as proposed without significantly detracting from the heritage attributes of the Maplelawn Estate. A summary of the assessment undertaken to demonstrate compatibility between the proposed development of the subject site with the Maplelawn Estate is provided in Document 5.
Scenic-Entry Route Policies
The Ottawa River Parkway is located to the north of the site and is designated in the Official Plan as a Scenic-Entry Route. The Plan indicates that Scenic-Entry Routes form a network that links major tourist, recreation, heritage and natural environment destinations in and beyond Ottawa. The policies are intended to promote matters such as the creation of a safe and attractive environment and streetscape for travellers, protection of views to natural and cultural heritage features, and coordination of landscaping and pathways within the rights-of-way with the creation of such features on adjacent lands.
The proposed 24-storey apartment will be located approximately 135 m south of the eastbound lanes of the Ottawa River Parkway and 175 m south of the westbound lanes. As mentioned earlier, the building will serve to define an urban edge for the open space corridor along with other existing high profile buildings in the area and the existing office building on the site. The existing woodlots and stands of trees located between the Parkway and the proposed tower and other developments results in the urban edge being seen as a backdrop to the open space and natural features of the Ottawa River Parkway corridor. It is important that such developments exhibit architectural expressions that provide identity and context for the urban area adjacent to the Parkway so as to enhance and not detract from the entry sequence along the route to the Central Area. The design of the building and landscape treatment will be reviewed as part of the Site Plan Control application for the 24-storey apartment to ensure that the development will respond appropriately to its location adjacent to the Ottawa River Parkway scenic route.
Former Regional Official Plan
The subject property is designated as General Urban Area in the former Regional Official Plan. The General Urban Area is intended to be used primarily for residential purposes and the shopping, services and community facilities required to meet day-to-day needs. High-rise apartments are permitted within this designation.
Regional Development Strategy
The former Regional Official Plan sets out an overall Regional Development Strategy as a framework for the plan's policy thrust. The Regional Development Strategy encourages new residential development to locate in and beside existing communities to maximize access to services, many of which already exist in established areas. The Strategy also encourages additional residential development to locate within the existing urban area inside the Greenbelt with more intense development around the Transitway, so as to promote communities in which car ownership is not required and that offer a range of housing choices.
The proposed rezoning to allow more intense use of the subject site for residential purposes is consistent with the policies of the Regional Development Strategy.
Development Inside the Greenbelt
The former Regional Plan details policies for development inside the Greenbelt. These policies are directed to ensuring that an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses will be located on mainstreets and Regional roads with transit routes. Higher density residential uses will be supported at appropriate locations throughout the urban area and in particular around rapid transit stations, and that the characteristics of established communities will be respected with significant impacts of proposed development on adjacent residential development minimized.
Richmond Road is designated as an arterial road in the Regional Official Plan and is serviced by transit. The proposed development provides for a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The policies clearly support higher-density residential uses for the subject site, which is located within 300 m of the Dominion Transitway Station. The built form of the proposed 24-storey apartment will not create an adverse impact on adjacent residential development. The proposed rezoning is therefore in keeping with the specific policies of the Regional Official Plan for development inside the Greenbelt.
Policies for Urban Communities
Section 3.2 of the Regional Official Plan contains policies for urban communities. The policies are intended to achieve a mix of uses in communities including, for example, commercial, open space, institutional and residential uses.
The urban community policies promote development at rapid transit stations, which have the potential to develop over time as compact, mixed-use, pedestrian, cyclist and transit-friendly cores. The Regional Official Plan provides direction that easy access to and from transit stations be provided through the layout of streets and buildings; that employment-related development and higher density development be located close to transit stations, and that direct pedestrian access to the station and between complementary uses be provided.
The proposed rezoning to allow for a more intense and mixed use development providing employment and residential uses within 300 m of the Dominion Transitway Station which advances the policies of the Regional Official Plan for urban communities. Through the site plan process, the provision of a safe, comfortable and accessible pedestrian connection from the site to the Transitway Station will be secured.
Former City of Ottawa Official Plan
The subject site is designated Residential Area. Lands to the east located along Richmond Road are designated Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Area and lands to the north and west are designated Waterway Corridor within the Greenway System.
The Residential Area designation that applies to the site permits a full range of dwelling types, from single detached dwellings to apartment dwellings and also permits neighbourhood serving uses and limited non-residential uses subject to the relevant policies that apply to these uses.
The former City of Ottawa Official Plan establishes strategic directions that serve as the foundation for the plan's policies and objectives. The Plan's strategic approach to housing development and residential areas is focused on accommodating the present and future demand for housing in Ottawa, primarily through the efficient use of vacant residentially-designated land, underutilized parcels and existing housing stock in all neighbourhoods. The strategic approaches provide direction for facilitating a choice of housing type, tenure, cost and location that meets the changing needs of all types of households. This is accomplished by providing for a variety and mix of housing in each neighbourhood, ensuring that new housing is sensitive to and improves the physical character of the area, and reducing the pressure experienced within established residential areas by orienting a substantial portion of the demand for new housing, particularly smaller unit, higher profile housing to suitable locations away from the interior of low profile residential areas such as along arterial roads and in proximity to transitway stations, and to ensure that the built form, massing and profile of new housing is well integrated and compatible in design, with existing housing and that a compatible transition between existing and new residential buildings is established
The proposed 24-storey apartment in the context of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan would be classified as Major Residential Development, which refers to the addition of a large number of new housing units on vacant or underutilized sites. The Plan allows for Major Residential Development in proximity to transitway stations and along arterial roadways, where sites are relatively isolated from existing low profile, ground-oriented housing areas, and on vacant or underutilized sites adjacent to or between concentrations of medium and high profile, non-ground-oriented housing developments.
The proposed location of the 24-storey apartment building complies with the locational requirements for Major Residential Development. It is close to the Dominion Transitway Station and along an arterial road. As discussed earlier, the proposed tower is separated from the low profile residential housing to the south by an 80 m building setback, Richmond Road, an east-west linear open space corridor and Byron Avenue. The site is also near an existing grouping of three high-rise apartment buildings. The Phase 1 and 2 buildings also provide a blend of medium profile and high profile buildings on the site as called for by the former City of Ottawa Official Plan for major residential developments located in proximity to transit.
The Plan further sets out the factors to be used to determine the acceptability of Major Residential Development proposals. Many of these are site plan considerations that will be addressed through the site plan approval process. Those that are of particular relevance with respect to assessing the appropriateness of requests for zoning changes to accommodate more intense residential development are focused on ensuring adequate transportation capacity, providing for transitions in building heights between low profile and high profiles residential buildings, ensuring adequate hard servicing capacity, and ensuring that services and amenities such as day care, schools, health facilities and parks to serve the new development are available or can be made available.
The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed development that also includes an analysis of the traffic impact on the streets in the residential area to the south of the proposed development. The findings of the study indicate that the existing transportation system can accommodate the demands that will result from the proposed development. These findings are discussed in greater detail in this submission.
Finally, with respect to infrastructure servicing and services, the applicant has confirmed with the City that hard service capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development and because the site is located within an established community, there are existing shops, schools, recreation areas and community facilities that will be available to satisfy the needs of the new residents.
Westboro Area Neighbourhood Plan (Key Principles)
Volume II of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan includes Key Principles for the Westboro Area Neighbourhood Plan. The purpose of the key principles is to guide future growth and change in the Westboro and Highland Park neighbourhoods. The key principles include policies for residential and commercial land use, site development, heritage, transportation and public participation.
The Key Principles of the Westboro Plan provides for residential development and redevelopment occurring to maintain the existing variety of housing types and densities to ensure that people of many age groups, lifestyles and incomes can live in the area and to encourage residential development that will be compatible in scale and structure with existing development with high rise developments located where there will be minimal impact on existing low rise residential areas. The proposed zoning will provide for development of the site in a way that meets the key principles that have been established for development within the community. The development will increase a form of accommodation that is less prevalent in the Westboro community than other communities and will increase the diversity of housing choices for existing residents who may wish to relocate within the neighbourhood into another form of accommodation to respond to changing lifestyles and life circumstances.
In summary, the strategic directives and the specific objectives and policies of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan and Key Principles of the Westboro Area Neighbourhood Plan all support the proposed zoning change. Staff have concluded that that the proposed rezoning will advance the objectives of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan for more compact concentrated development in proximity to transit and where services and infrastructure capacity is available and that is integrated into the urban fabric without detracting from the established lower profile areas of the Westboro and Highland Park communities.
Traffic Impact Study
A key issue with respect to the proposed zoning is the increased density that it will allow and the associated traffic impacts that can result from increasing development density. To assess these impacts and determine whether the traffic that would be generated by the overall site development can be appropriately accommodated on the area road system, the applicant submitted as part of the rezoning application a traffic impact study. This study was undertaken in accordance with accepted transportation engineering standards and practices and has been accepted by the City (see Document 9).
Details of Proposed Zoning
The proposed Zoning By-law amendment changes the zoning designation of the subject lands from a "CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60" Zone to a new "CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263" Zone. The details of the recommended zoning are contained in Document 7.
1. Floor Space Index
The proposed 24-storey apartment building complies with the intent of the applicable land use designations and policies in the Council approved Official Plan, the former Regional Official Plan and the former City of Ottawa Official Plan. Therefore, staff recommend that the applicant's request to increase the floor space index from 1.0 to 2.3 be approved to permit the development of the proposed building.
The applicant's Traffic Impact Study is based on the assumption that the build-out of the site will include approximately 8000 sq. m of office space and 196 dwelling units. However, the request to increase the maximum floor space index could allow the development of the site entirely with non-residential uses with higher trip generation rates than residential apartments. For example, the requested zoning could allow over 32 000 sq. m of office uses on the site based on a maximum floor space index of 2.3. This scenario could result in significantly more traffic than was analyzed in the study. Staff are recommending that the maximum gross floor area of non-residential uses be restricted to 9000 sq. m. This would allow the applicant flexibility to add approximately 1000 sq. m of non-residential uses to the site beyond what was studied in the Traffic Impact Study and specifically would allow the opportunity for future conversion of the ground floor of the Manor House from residential to commercial uses consistent with the Mainstreet policies of the new Official Plan that applies to the Richmond Road frontage of the site.
The applicant has applied to reduce the side yard setback for the tower from 7.5 m to 6.0 m, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 4.0 m. Staff have reviewed this request and while staff agree that there may be some merit to allowing for some adjustments to the current required setbacks, it is felt that consideration of the reduced setbacks should be deferred until a Site Plan Control application has been submitted for the Phase 2 development. One of the issues to be determined through the site plan approval process for the 24-storey apartment is the location for on-site pedestrian paths to connect the site and its uses to the Dominion Transitway Station. Recommendation 2 provides for these determinations to be made prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-law, which will allow any adjustments to be made to the recommended zoning dealing with yards within the By-law that will be brought forward without having to make such determinations at this time. There is a need to plan the development of the site for the Phase 2 around the provision of a safe, convenient and accessible on-site pedestrian circulation system that will provide direct, safe and convenient access from the site to the Dominion Transitway Station prior to determining any potential adjustments to the required setbacks for the proposed 24-storey apartment. In this regard, if the pathway is located in the vicinity of this building, there may in fact be a need to ensure that specific minimum yards be retained.
3. Building Height Schedule
The current zoning of the site allows an unlimited building height for a high-rise apartment building, and a maximum building height of 18 m for non-residential and mixed uses. Staff recommend that a building height schedule be established to restrict the height and location of the proposed 24-storey apartment building and any other buildings that could be established on the site under the proposed zoning. The recommended building height schedule is shown in Document 7.
A maximum building height of 18 m is proposed for most of the site, with the exception of the existing Denis Coolican building and the proposed Phase 1 and 2 buildings. This maximum 18 m building height corresponds with the maximum height currently permitted for non-residential and mixed uses. A maximum height of 19.3 m is proposed for Area B, which reflects the height proposed for the Phase 1 Manor House building in the concurrent Site Plan Control application. A maximum height of 35 m is proposed for Area C, to reflect the existing height of the Denis Coolican building. A maximum height of 77 m is proposed for Area D to accommodate the proposed 24-storey apartment building.
Recommendation 2 has been provided to ensure that the site plan developed for the 24-storey apartment building will be developed in a way that will ensure that this policy directive of all relevant Official Plans will be satisfied. This will allow for adjustments to be made to the Zoning By-law with respect to yards that may be required once determinations on the most appropriate on-site pedestrian circulation system has been determined.
A key component of the rationale in support of the proposed zoning is that the site is close to the Dominion Transitway Station. Currently an informal path connection exists from the north side of the property in the area that the proposed 24-storey apartment is proposed. At this point, staff consider this routing to be most desirable requiring that the on-site pedestrian system be designed to provide for integration with the current informal path. Staff have also on a preliminary basis discussed with the National Capital Commission, who own the lands where the current informal path is located, the potential to have the existing informal path over their lands formalized. The National Capital Commission was receptive to this and staff will therefore be pursuing this further.
Recommendation 3 has been included to set a time limit of two years for the applicant to obtain site plan approval for the proposed 24-storey apartment building and for City Council to enact the implementing Zoning By-law amendment. Staff believe that it is appropriate to set a deadline to enact the implementing By-law to ensure that the Zoning By-law amendment process is concluded within a reasonable period of time. In the event that site plan approval has not been granted within the set timeframe, the approval of the zoning change will be voided requiring the submission of a new application should future development be proposed that is beyond that allowed by the existing zoning.
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.
The application was not processed within the timeframe established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments. After the application was deemed complete, staff requested additional studies and information from the applicant to address the planning issues involved with the application. The studies included a traffic impact study, a sun/shadow study, a qualitative wind assessment, a planning report, a heritage impact assessment, a view study and site section drawings. Additional time was required to prepare and review these studies. The community information and comment session held by the Ward Councillor was deferred from June 29 to September 14, 2004, and contributed in part to the delay in processing the application. In addition, the applicant amended the application on October 14, 2004, to modify the floor space index requested to reflect the removal of the Phase 3 development. A revised traffic impact study was later submitted on October 21, 2004, to reflect the revised development proposal, which required additional time for review.
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Conceptual Site Plan
Document 3 Phase 2 Elevations
Document 4 Perspective View Looking North
Document 5 Heritage Impact Assessment
Document 6 Explanatory Note
Document 7 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 8 Consultation Details
Document 9 Traffic Study Findings and Recommendations
Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the owner (City of Ottawa, Attention: Les Nalezinski, Program Manager, Real Estate Services, Corporate Services Department, Mail Code 01-86), the applicant (Rosaline Hill, Barry J. Hobin & Associates Architects Incorporated, 711 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 3V1), All Signs (8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1) and the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services of City Council’s decision.
Planning and Growth Management 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.
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Document 5
The site is located adjacent to the Maplelawn Estate, which is a designated heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act and a recognized Federal Heritage Resource. The Council Approved Official Plan contains policies for reviewing Zoning By-law amendment applications adjacent to a designated heritage resource to ensure the proposal is compatible with it. To respond to these policies, the applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development. The following highlights how the proposed development addresses the heritage policies in the Plan.
a) Respect the massing, profile and character of adjacent heritage properties, and approximate the established setback pattern on the street
The Rochester House is setback approximately 40 m from Richmond Road within a landscaped 1.2 ha site. The walled Maplelawn Garden is located immediately adjacent to the Richmond Road sidewalk and has a greater exposure as a result. The Rochester House is located approximately 95 m west of the proposed Manor House building, while the garden is located approximately 20 m west of the proposed building and immediately adjacent to the side lot line of the subject property. Due to the proximity to the garden, the Manor House relates more to the garden than to the Rochester House.
The Manor House building is to be setback 5 m from Richmond Road. The project design includes an architectural wall along the frontage of the site that has been deliberately designed to complement the stone wall of the Maplelawn Garden without replicating it. The architectural wall is proposed to have a setback of 0.35 m for most of the Richmond Road frontage of the site. At the west side of the site, the setback of the wall is increased to 6 m from Richmond Road so as to not impact the exposure of the southeast corner of the garden wall. The architectural wall will not connect to the heritage wall, but will be setback by a minimum of 0.6 m.
The proposed Manor House building and architectural wall along Richmond Road approximate the setback of the Maplelawn Garden's stone wall. This will create an appropriate sense of balance along the Richmond Road frontage of the property and complement the Maplelawn Estate.
The profile of the six-storey Manor House building steps down to the garden moving from east to west to provide an appropriate transition in building height. The reduction in building height on the west side of the Manor House combined with the distance separation between the building and the garden will be sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed development on the garden. Brick is proposed for the exterior material to establish a more traditional, residential character for the development that will complement the Maplelawn Estate.
The 24-storey tower is proposed approximately 140 m from the Rochester House building with the seven-storey Denis Coolican building situated in between. The 24-storey tower will be setback approximately 80 m from Richmond Road and about 75 m northeast of the nearest corner of the walled garden. Given the separation distance and the intervening building between Phase 2 and the Maplelawn Estate, the proposed profile of the Phase 2 tower will not have an adverse impact on Rochester House or the walled garden.
b) Minimize shadowing on adjacent heritage properties, particularly on landscaped open spaces and outdoor amenity areas
A sun study was prepared for March 21/September 21 and for June 21 to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the Maplelawn Estate. The study demonstrated that the proposed Phase 1 Manor House building and the Phase 2 tower will have no impact on either Rochester House or the Maplelawn Garden in terms of shadowing.
c) Minimize impact on the heritage qualities of the street as a public place in heritage areas
The streetscape of the property is currently characterized by a surface parking area and landscape strip adjacent to Richmond Road. The proposed Phase 1 Manor House development will create a more pleasing landscaped pedestrian environment along Richmond Road that will complement, enhance and provide better context for the neighbouring Maplelawn Garden.
d) Minimize the loss of landscaped open space
The applicant's heritage analysis notes that the National Capital Commission has described the landscaped area and the maple trees surrounding the Maplelawn Estate as character-defining elements of the site. The proposed development will not affect any of the existing landscaping associated with the Maplelawn Estate. The proposed development will replace the existing surface parking area with two buildings and increase both the landscaped area and the quantity of plant material within the site. In addition, enhanced landscaping along the entryway to the site from Richmond Road will provide a more compatible environment for the Maplelawn Garden and partially screen the view of the new building from the garden's interior.
e) Ensure that parking facilities are compatibly integrated into heritage areas
The proposed development will infill an
existing surface parking lot that does not provide an appropriate context for
the Maplelawn Estate. The proposed
development replaces the surface parking area with a more compatible use and
accommodates all of the required parking for the Phase 1 and 2 buildings
underground, which will improve the context for the heritage property.
EXPLANATORY NOTE Document 6
By-law Number 2004- amends Zoning By-law No. 93-98 of the former City of Ottawa. The amendment affects the property at 495 Richmond Road, which is located on the north side of Richmond Road and east of Broadview Avenue, as shown on the attached Location Map.
The application is to rezone the subject property from "CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60" to "CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263". The current zoning is a site-specific subzone of the General Commercial zone. The existing zoning permits a range of residential uses including high-rise apartment buildings, and a range of non-residential uses including offices, retail stores and restaurants. The current zoning permits a maximum floor space index of 1.0. The proposed zoning will increase the maximum floor space index to 2.3, and will permit the development of a 24-storey high-rise apartment building on the site. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment also establishes a maximum building height schedule for the subject property.
For further information, please contact Burl Walker at 580-2424 ext. 27891.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING Document 7
Notwithstanding the standard provisions of the CG1 Zone, the following provisions shall apply to the lands zoned "CG1":
-the cumulative total gross floor area of non-residential uses must not exceed 9000 sq. m
-all of the lands within the "CG1" Zone are considered to be one lot for zoning purposes
-the maximum building heights shall be as shown on Schedule 263
-landscaped area of 35% required
CONSULTATION DETAILS Document 8
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. One community information and comment session was also held in the community on September 14, 2004.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
The general public submitted over 200 written comment on the application. The comments submitted in opposition to the application are summarized below:
1. Comment: We need to ensure that traffic doesn't travel through the neighbourhood. There are three schools on Broadview Avenue with students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 12. With the schools on Broadview Avenue the added traffic will be a danger to our children.
Response: The need for an Area Traffic Management Plan has been identified to address cut-through traffic and safety issues. The Ward Councillor is seeking budget approval for the study.
2. Comment: The Traffic Impact Study must be done during school months, as this is the real view of the neighbourhood.
Response: The Traffic Impact Study was updated with traffic counts on Broadview Avenue and other streets in September 2004 to confirm traffic volumes when area schools are in session.
3. Comment: Traffic calming measures were implemented in the adjacent residential area specifically because of AM traffic to this site. Car-oriented residential use of this site will generate AM southbound traffic towards the Queensway that is not subject to the present turn restrictions.
Response: The applicant's Traffic Impact Study adjusts the traffic distribution of the site-generated traffic to account for the proposed residential use. Mitigation measures such as turn restrictions should be investigated through a comprehensive Area Traffic Management Plan.
4. Comment: Broadview Avenue is NOT a collector road - it is designated as a residential street, and must be maintained as such.
Response: Broadview Avenue is designated as a Collector Road in the Council Approved Official Plan and in the former City of Ottawa Official Plan.
5. Comment: The Traffic Impact Study should take into account the cumulative traffic impact from the proposed developments at 495 Richmond Road, 396 Berkley Avenue and 793 Richmond Road.
Response: The Traffic Impact Study was updated to add the site traffic generated from 396 Berkley Avenue and 793 Richmond Road to the background traffic growth. The site traffic generation at 396 Berkley Avenue (located at the Berkley / Golden / Richmond intersection) was based on 93 residential units and 740 sq. m of ground floor retail space. The study assumed that 84 residential units would be developed at 793 Richmond Road (located at the Cleary / Richmond intersection). The site traffic generated from 495 Richmond Road was added to the background traffic to calculate the total traffic for the 2010 horizon year.
Height, Density and Compatibility
1. Comment: I'm opposed to the height of the tower. It will be approximately 2-1/2 times the height of the current building and the highest tower around. If it would be 10-12 storeys, that would be so much less obtrusive.
Response: As discussed in the report, the existing built form and open space context of the site and the provision for the six-storey Manor House building along the Richmond Road portion of the site provides for a compatible built form relationship between the proposed 24-storey apartment and the lower profile developments in the area.
2. Comment: I am opposed to the increase in density proposed by the developer. The buildings proposed are not consistent with the single family dwellings in the Highland Park, Westboro and McKellar Park neighbourhoods. These proposed buildings will form a wall separating the neighbourhoods from the Ottawa River. The notion of intensifying density here will draw people who would otherwise buy single family dwellings at City boundaries is highly doubtful. If you want to stop the outward sprawl of single family dwellings, encourage developers to build single family dwellings in areas such as 495 Richmond Road.
Response: The development of single detached dwellings on the site would be contrary to the Official Plan policies that permit apartments as the only form of residential development within the Mainstreet designation. Single detached dwellings would also not comply with the policies that encourage higher density development near transitway stations. The proposed development complies with the applicable Official Plan designations and policies and is appropriate for this location.
Comment: I am concerned about the proposed and potential future building impacts on the immediately adjacent heritage designated Georgian manor house and walled garden.
Response: As discussed in the report, the applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment that addresses the heritage policies in the Council Approved Official Plan. The Heritage Impact Assessment is summarized in Document 5.
Public Access to the Ottawa River Parkway and the Dominion Transitway Station
Comment: I am concerned about the provision of proper pedestrian access from the site to the Dominion Transitway Station (not just a herd path through the bushes).
Response: Recommendation 2 has been added to ensure that the Phase 2 development incorporates a well-defined, safe and accessible on-site pedestrian circulation system that will allow for a safe, direct and convenient pedestrian connection to the Dominion Transitway Station. The lands between the site and the transit station are owned by the National Capital Commission. Staff have had preliminary discussions with the National Capital Commission to provide an asphalt pathway from the site to the transit station. The National Capital Commission was receptive to this and staff will be pursuing this matter further during the site plan process for the proposed Phase 2 development.
Views to the Ottawa River Parkway and the Gatineau Hills
Comment: The proposed tower will obstruct the view of the Ottawa River and the Gatineau Hills for residents of the Westboro community.
Response: It is acknowledged that the proposed tower will have a limited impact on the views of the Ottawa River Parkway and the Gatineau Hills from Richmond Road and the area to the south. The proposed orientation and siting of the building will mitigate the impact on the views to some extent. The building is proposed to have a footprint with a length of approximately 32 m and a width of 26 m. During the application process, the applicant revised the orientation of the long axis of the building from an east-west direction to a north-south direction. This will reduce the width of the obstruction to the views when looking north. In terms of building siting, the tower is offset from the north-south visual axes of Broadview Avenue and Highland Avenue. As such, the building will not terminate the views when looking north along these corridors. The pedestrian circulation system to be implemented as part of the Phase 2 development will also provide a physical and visual connection to the Ottawa River Parkway open space corridor.
Conflict of Interest
Comment: The City is in a conflict of interest allowing this zoning change when it is selling the property.
Response: The applicant has an agreement of purchase and sale to acquire the property from the City of Ottawa. The closing date for the transaction is at the end of December 2004. The agreement is not conditional upon the applicant obtaining approval of the subject application.
Environmental Impact Statement
Comment: An Environmental Impact Statement should be submitted to assess the impact of the proposed development on the open space corridor along the Ottawa River.
Response: The open space corridor is designated as Major Open Space in the Council Approved Official Plan, while the subject property is designated as General Urban Area and Mainstreet. The Plan's Environmental Protection policies do not require an applicant to submit an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed development adjacent to a Major Open Space designation.
Comment: I am pleased that Canderel has amended and updated both their original plan and traffic study in response to residents' concerns. The study, in addition to development pressures in the area, does indicate the immediate need for a Greater Westboro / Highland Park / McKellar Park Traffic Management Plan. I am hopeful that the Department will respond in the affirmative to the formal request I have made in this regard. The fact that there are two other applications that have been submitted to the City in the immediate area also highlights the need for a secondary planning study for the Richmond Road corridor as pressure for development in the area continues to increase. I have also made this request formally to staff.
The need for a pedestrian pathway linking the site to the Transitway was also identified by residents as a priority. I fully support this item and would like to see this included as a specific site plan condition.
Response: The timing for the preparation of an Area Traffic Management Plan and a Community Design Plan will depend on budget approval from City Council. Recommendation 2 of the Report addresses the issue of a pathway connection to the Dominion Transitway Station.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
The McKellar Park Community Association and the Highland Park Ratepayers Association submitted a petition signed by approximately 675 members objecting to the application. The main body of the petition is as follows:
We, the undersigned, object to the proposed zoning changes sought by Canderel for the 495 Richmond Road project. Canderel's request to increase the Floor Space Index would create a density of residential development which:
-is out-of-scale with the neighbouring communities of single family homes;
-would cause a significant increase in cut-through traffic on our residential streets
-would not be appropriate to locate between our communities of low-density single-family homes and the Ottawa River greenspace, bike paths, and walking paths
To ensure responsible development which will maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood, the City of Ottawa must undertake a "Community Planning Study" for the Richmond Road corridor encompassing Woodroffe to Island Park Drive. Such a study would assess the impact of proposed and future developments on the neighbourhoods north and south of that section of Richmond Road. The impacts to be assessed would include impacts on traffic, community safety, the environment and consistency with the existing neighbourhood character. Any rezoning applications within the study area, including the subject rezoning application, for 495 Richmond Road, must not be approved unless the proposed development is consistent with the conclusions of such a Community Planning Study.
We are not opposed to development of this or other properties in our community; however, any redevelopment of this and other sites must comply with existing approved area wide zoning plans. We are concerned by the current approval process, which results in granting of piecemeal zoning changes, without a holistic study of the impact that all development proposals will have on our mature communities.
Response: The compatibility of the proposed development with the adjacent residential areas is discussed in the main body of the report. The findings of the Traffic Impact Study are also summarized in the report.
According to the Council Approved Official Plan, Mainstreets such as Richmond Road represent important areas for the preparation of Community Design Plans. Mainstreets are intended to be divided into manageable segments for Community Design Plan purposes, based upon characteristics such as physical, natural or neighbourhood boundaries or identifiable common characteristics. Section 188.8.131.52 of the Plan describes the scope of work for each Community Design Plan.
A Community Design Plan has not been prepared for Richmond Road to date. Section 184.108.40.206 of the Plan describes the issues to be considered when processing a Zoning By-law amendment application in a situation where a Community Design Plan has not been approved. Accordingly, the application was reviewed on the basis of this policy framework.
As previously noted, the Ward Councillor is seeking budget approval for a Community Design Plan and an Area Traffic Management Plan.
NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION (NCC) COMMENTS
The revised rezoning proposal provides for the removal of the 20-storey residential building (NW tower) originally proposed for Phase 3. The overall site, once developed, will have an FSI of 2.3, a reduction of 1.2 FSI from the originally proposed FSI of 3.5. The variances sought for both the rear and side yard setbacks have been modified.
1. The NCC supports the removal of the proposed 20-storey residential building at the northwest corner of the property.
2. After a review of the 'Qualitative Wind Assessment' Study and the Sun/Shadow plans, the NCC is satisfied that the potential microclimatic impacts on Maplelawn Garden are not expected to be significant.
3. The NCC supports an FSI of 2.3 for the entire site.
4. The NCC does not support locating a pathway along the east and north sides of the Maplelawn wall for several reasons. The drainage constraints already existing on the site would further be exacerbated by building an asphalt pathway beside the wall. The proximity of the pathway to the wall, particularly on the north side, would impair the historical (and possibly its structural) integrity. The NCC's intent to highlight the visitor experience has always been to have visitors view the Maplelawn Garden by entering the site from the front off Richmond Road, rather than using the back parking lot area. Finally, the proposed pathway along the garden wall leads to a parking area, and represents an indirect, circuitous route to reach the Dominion transit stop.
5. The NCC recommends that a pathway be located on the east side of the site, adjacent to the front entrance of the Manor House, eventually serving the future residents of the northeast tower, and leading directly to the Dominion transit stop. This location for the pathway would represent more direct access to transit and better serve the residents of the development site.
6. The side yard setback requested should be able to accommodate a pathway along the eastern side of the development site, as described in Point 5 above.
Response: The recommended zoning will increase the maximum floor space index from 1.0 to 2.3. The location of the pathway through the site will be determined through a Site Plan Control application for the Phase 2 development. Staff believe that it would be premature to reduce the side yard setback until the Phase 2 Site Plan Control application has been submitted and the applicant has demonstrated how the pathway can be satisfactorily accommodated through the site.
TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Document 9
· The site’s current office use generates a two-way peak hour total of 160 vph (vehicles per hour) and 180 vph in the morning and afternoon peak hours respectively. Full development of the site as proposed is projected to generate a new two way peak total of 100 vph in the AM peak and 140 vph in the PM peak. The resultant total of 260 vph in the AM peak and the 320 vph total in the PM peak has been identified as comparable to the increased traffic that could be expected by doubling the commercial office development as would be permitted under the currently allowed floor space index.
· The traffic impact study has determined that total traffic volume increases through the key area intersections would be in the order of 4% to 6% and that this increased traffic in combination with background traffic growth (which also accounted for traffic expected as a result of two other apartments proposed in the area along Richmond at Cleary and at Berkeley) will have minimal impact of the Level of Service (LoS) currently provided. In this regard, the intersections analyzed all operate at LoS D or better and this LoS would not change as a result of the development.
· The study in assessing the proposed site accesses determined that the existing unsignalized site driveway operates with relatively high delay due to its short offset from Broadview Avenue and the high volumes of through traffic along Richmond Road. The proposed concept plan has two full-movement driveway connections to Richmond Road. Analysis indicates that even with only a single site driveway, traffic control signals are not projected to be technically warranted in the horizon year of 2010. However, left-turn delays are projected to be high for vehicles at the Broadview / Site / Richmond intersection. These delays, coupled with the substandard offset between the site driveway and Broadview Avenue suggest some form of traffic signal control is desirable to improve safety and reduce delay. It is possible that a single signal installation could be provided to serve both driveways without physically realigning them. Such a signalization is recommended by the study and will be assessed in greater detail through the Site Plan Approval process. Signalization of the site driveway will also serve existing latent pedestrian crossing demand, as well as, facilitate safe access for residents and employees of the subject site.
· The Traffic Impact Study assessed the expected traffic impact on neighbourhood streets resulting from the cumulative effect of area developments. Fraser Street was identified as likely experiencing the greatest increase in percentage terms (over 30% north of Dovercourt). Given its direct linkage and relatively low travel times, site traffic will also be attracted to Broadview Avenue. Of the total new traffic impact, the subject 495 Richmond redevelopment can contribute up to one-third of the new traffic added to Fraser Street and up to two-thirds of the new traffic added to Broadview Avenue which currently carries traffic at the high end of volumes that can be expected along a collector road.
· With regards to possible mitigation measures for those streets that may experience traffic increases and that in many cases also carry volumes at or in excess of their guidelines, the study determined that numerous solutions may be possible, from operational changes to the streets, turn restrictions, traffic calming and by-law enforcement. However, the study identified that such solutions must be investigated as part of a comprehensive Area Traffic Management Study to objectively quantify the contribution of local and non-local traffic volumes, gather a broader range of data and to engage area stakeholders in a transparent process that allows for both a technical and a politically viable list of solutions. Such an area wide study is beyond the scope of what can realistically be requested from a proponent of a proposed development and is an initiative that should be pursued by the city. As any traffic management measure will benefit some stakeholders at the expense of others, the traffic impact study has not provided any specific recommendations to address a current traffic problem within the existing community to the south. The study does however acknowledge that there will likely be traffic increases within the existing community but also concluded that the impact would be less as a result of the proposed development as compared to full office development which tends to have a more concentrated peak than traffic related to residential development. Also, with residential development, the additional traffic would be community traffic whereas commercial office development would result in a higher percentage of commercial traffic from outside the community.
ZONING - 495 RICHMOND rOAD
ZONAGE - 495, CHEMIN RICHMOND
John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure, Planning and Growth Management (PWG), Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, Larry Morrison, Manager, Infrastructure Approvals, John Smit, Program Manager, Development Review, Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Development Law, and Burl Walker, Planner, appeared before the Committee with respect to departmental report dated 8 November 2004. Following a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation by J. Smit related to both Item 4 (Zoning) and 5 (Site Plan Approval), staff responded to questions posed by Councillor Cullen, with the main points summarized below. A copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Smit advised there was a technical Motion that was tabled with the Committee relative to recommendations 2 and 3. Originally, staff included these recommendations in response to the request to reduce yards. Staff had a concern with respect to reducing the yards prior to being in a position to define the most appropriate on-site pedestrian circulation system to ensure an appropriate linkage to the Dominion Transitway Station. The applicant has agreed to defer consideration of the modification to the yards until the City has dealt with determining the on-site pedestrian circulation system through the Phase 2 Site Plan. If the yards are to be modified, these would need to proceed through a Committee of Adjustment (COA) application process. Given that the Committee will no longer be dealing with the request for the reduction in yards, it negates the need for recommendations 2 and 3, hence the Motion to remove those 2 recommendations.
The technical amendment is noted below:
That the rezoning for the property at 495 Richmond Road be amended as follows:
That recommendations 2 and 3 be deleted.
And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act.
· Staff does acknowledge there is an existing traffic concern within the community and it is important those traffic concerns be addressed. It is outside the scope of a re-zoning to require the traffic consultant to undertake an overall area traffic study. There are a number of options that could potentially be reviewed, but that would have to be determined through a very consultative community process. The Ward Councillor is moving to initiate an undertaking for this area to deal with the current problem. The development will add some traffic to local streets; but, from a staff perspective, it is more appropriate to have local traffic using a local road than to intensify and have non-local traffic moving through the community.
· There was an addendum that took into consideration the cumulative impact of adding in 2 other sites in the area, plus the background traffic till the year 2010. When all of that is factored in, there is no doubt there will be increased traffic, particularly on Fraser and Broadview. Discussions that have taken place with Traffic Parking Operations (TPO) have indicated this area is at the top of the list to be studied as far as a wider study of traffic impacts in the future. The recommendations that arose from the traffic study for this site did allude to traffic calming, perhaps looking at some other opportunities to improve traffic flow, but the main one is that the City itself needs to undertake an overall study and that is what TPO are prepared to undertake and will be coming forward with at the 2005 Budget. There was no reference to the widening of Richmond.
· On the matter of the sidewalk connection, staff asserted the Committee must refer to the Site Plan report, which includes a special condition requiring that an on-site pedestrian circulation system be defined and developed as part of the Phase 2 Site Plan (development of the 24-storey tower).
· Sanitary Sewer Charge on additional sanitary flow – that condition is an old condition from the former City of Ottawa where that City collected a fee to correct problems that existed in the sanitary (partially separated system). There is no capacity issue at the site; as a matter of fact, this site essentially sits on top of the West Nepean Collector Sewer. The flow removal program is referring to the fact that many of the sewer sheds are deemed to be partially separated. In some instances there are no storms sewers in the area, so there may be weeping tiles connected to the sanitary sewer; and, given the age of the system, there is probably infiltration and there are extraneous flows getting into the sanitary system that should not be there. The funds collected are applied to improve the system by either a) removing that extraneous flow or b) where possible, introduce a separation of the system. As a result of the September 9th rain event, PWS did not indicate this was a problem area.
· In response to Chair Hume on the issue of traffic, Mr. Smit averred that if the site were to develop as 100% commercial under the 1.0 FSI, which is permitted, there would be a traffic generation comparable to the traffic generated as a result of the rezoning before PEC today; the difference being that it would be commercial vs. residential.
The Committee adjourned from 12:00 till 12:30.
Chair Hume recognized Councillor Little, who presented a Motion, that would be moved by Councillor Harder on his behalf.
Moved by Councillor J. Harder:
be it resolved THAT the applicant (Canderel) be required to pay to the City the sum of $7,500 to go towards a planning study for the Richmond Road Corridor (Churchill to Sherbourne) that will examine future land uses and potential sites for redevelopment as a condition of Site Plan Approval.
AND FURTHER THAT the scope and nature of this study will be determined by the terms of reference to be set at a later date.
AND FURTHER THAT this contribution is made on the understanding that the other two applicants that currently have applications before the City will be asked to contribute a similar amount in order that there are sufficient funds to undertake such an exercise sometime during 2005.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
Lisa Burke provided a written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Burke addressed the traffic issue and believed a comprehensive traffic management study is imperative should the City permit the rezoning. She provided options such as ‘do not enter’ signs on streets like Golden at Byron, thus prohibiting through traffic; and, to downgrade Broadview from a collector to a residential. By doing this, Ms. Burke explained the Committee would be living up to a number of principles set out in the OP. Ms. Burke stressed the need to implement traffic mitigation measures prior to construction and before there is a child fatality.
As a result of the presentation, Ms. Burke responded to questions from Councillor Cullen, with the following clarification:
· The possible widening of Richmond due to additional traffic and the danger posed to the Byron strip was a concern.
· There has already been increased traffic due to development, specifically the commercial development along Richmond
· If traffic mitigation measures are put in place, personally she was not opposed to development.
As a result of the delegation, staff responded to questions from Councillors Little and Cullen relative to the impact of the widening of Richmond as follows:
· Staff could not comment on the Byron strip for widening purposes, but always looked to the north side of Richmond as properties arose for development. Unless properties come forward for redevelopment, it is a lengthy and time-consuming process to acquire properties required to widen roads. The City would not be looking to expropriate.
· Impossible to firmly state it will happen in the next 5 years, as noted in the OP.
Rosalind Tosh provided a comprehensive written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Some of Ms. Tosh’ main points are summarized below:
· The possible widening of Richmond can be found in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Annex A. If land was not taken from the Byron strip, it would have to be taken from the North (495 Richmond), which means the architectural wall planned to front this new development would disappear.
· If it is ensured through legislation today that side yard remain as required under zoning it will not be an issue now or later.
· The closest building is not 17 stories, rather to the east is one storey and to the west is the 2½ storey heritage house.
· The FSI should not be increased by the requested 230%. The 24-storey building may appear to echo buildings to the north and east, but appearance alone is not sufficient grounds for claiming compatibility. Must weigh density not just height to determine compatibility within the surrounding node. The existing high rise buildings to the north and east co-exist within this node due to their low density. The 20, 17 and 13 storey high-rise buildings have an FSI of 1.2. Doubling the density relative to other properties within the node cannot be claimed to be minor or comparable. In fact, there is a steady decreasing of density along Richmond from Tweedsmuir to this property and beyond.
· Neighbouring 1.2 FSI properties prove OP residential intensification and infill goals can be achieved in a manner that respects existing densities and provides a variety of housing types, including high-rises, without creating an urban presence that totally overwhelms.
· Although staff has indicated sewer capacity is adequate, the area has experienced basement flooding problems within the last 3 months (September).
· With regard to building height, the staff report recommends a height limit of 19.3m be imposed on Section B, which is the 6-storey Manor House. While it is purported to meet the zoning, she advocated it contravenes the OP in several important areas:
· Declared by NCC to be of a “very different scale” to the adjacent Maplelawn Estate. It violates the OP, which requires the City, when reviewing rezoning applications adjacent to heritage resources, to ensure the proposal is compatible by respecting the massing and profile of adjacent heritage buildings.
· Does not respect massing and profile, nor the Heritage Resource Management Policy that requires new housing development be “compatible with the scale” of heritage resources and areas.
· City policy requires that “The City shall ensure that City-owned property which is sold adjacent to a heritage resource, shall be developed in a manner which enhances the heritage resource.”
In closing, Ms. Tosh asked that a height limit be established substantially lower than 19.3m; and, that the site density be maintained at 1.0.
With respect to the Site Plan application, Ms. Tosh provided the following (a copy was circulated and is held on file).
· The NCC is required to ensure Maplelawn is protected and has asked for 2 rows of trees to screen view the Manor House. The applicant claims only one row, the western row, is possible, due to the presence of a watermain; and, has agreed to plant trees of low to medium height because of the proximity to the heritage wall. This negates the City’s ability to approve the site plan.
· Another heritage policy requires a new residential development to be compatible with the scale and character of nearby heritage resources. OP requires the City to ensure the development respects the massing, profile and character of adjacent heritage buildings; and approximates the width of same when constructing new buildings facing the street.
In closing, Ms. Tosh asked PEC to reject the Site Plan Application on the grounds that it fails to meet federal (NCC) or City requirements that it be developed in a manner which enhances or at the least adequately protects and better reflects the adjacent heritage resource.
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Tosh provided clarification on the following:
· Traffic has always been an issue in McKellar and Highland Park as result of Carling and Richmond being North and South boarders. There is significant cut-through traffic with mitigating measures having far less than perfect results.
· The widening of Richmond Road should not interfere with the heritage garden at Maplelawn. The community did not want to see the amenity space along the Byron strip diminished.
In response to questions raised by Councillors Cullen and Little, staff provided the following clarification:
· A shadow study was conducted for the entire project and the project architect would have some graphic material that identifies the conclusions of that study.
· As a result of changes made to the original proposal, the NCC did provide comments based on the revised applications. A representative of the NCC is present.
· The concerns raised by Ms. Tosh, shared by many in the community, were met and the NCC is in agreement with approval.
· Councillor Little posited that at the time Council approved the TMP, he was assured by staff that not only would the Byron Strip not be touched, but it would be possible to conduct the required minor widening based on what is already available in the City’s right-of-way (ROW).
Lorne Tosh provided a written submission, in opposition, which was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Tosh’ main comments centred on the following:
· Traffic and heritage issues surrounding the proposed development.
· Not against appropriate and tasteful infill development on the site, which can happen with the current FSI.
· Traffic study claims the existing transportation system can accommodate projected increase – may be true in theory, but not when taking into consideration the essential human factor: 3 schools, 1 street, 3,000+ young students, 4 times/day. The street has already been identified in the traffic study as carrying traffic at the high end for a collector.
· Opportunity to redress the negative impact perpetrated on Maplelawn 20 years ago when the office building was constructed.
· Manor House should not be built any closer than 20m to the sidewalk and 4 storeys high. That would maintain the existing height of adjacent properties and further reduce the negative impact on Maplelawn.
· Profit can be derived by building only the Manor House and leasing revenues from the Coolican Building. Any further profit would be at the community’s expense and that of Canada’s cultural heritage.
· Do NOT approve an increase in density for 495 Richmond.
As a result of the presentation, the delegation responded to questions from Councillor Cullen, with the following clarification:
· There will be a substantial negative impact on the Village of Westboro as a result of the development.
· Most are enthused with the present tasteful development, but are discouraged when there is a potential for overdevelopment especially when taking into consideration the number of sites coming forward for (future) development.
· Does not see Richmond (in Westoboro Village) further widened.
Ann Ransom, member, McKellar Park Community Association, agreed with the views to be presented by Ian Glasgow and Victor Benoit on behalf of that Association.
Ian Glasgow and Victor Benoit, McKellar Park Community Association, provided a comprehensive written presentation, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The Committee also received a petition filed on behalf of the McKellar Park and Highland Park Communities by Bruce Bergen. Maps of the area were provided, which depicted areas of concern, the principal being traffic. The proposal should not occur in advance of area traffic and planning studies. The main points are outlined below:
· Recognize individual proposals cannot be deferred, but the Association asked that this proposal be denied until there is evidence the infrastructure can support it.
· The main path highlighted on the map is Fraser; the map illustrates the traffic counts (today and 2010). Area traffic is already over capacity. The highest counts are along Broadview, which is carrying twice that recommended.
· The next map illustrated the potential future development. It is the slippery slope of approving one development today adding strain to the infrastructure (Richmond). Sites are in yellow (mid-size sites); the NCC land is also a potential site since it was offered for sale sometime ago, which may still occur and there is the Rogers Cable site.
· Development will add residential units that need to access the Queensway. The most direct path is through the neighbourhood, which is the cut-through traffic highlighted.
· 495 Richmond developed in the future becomes part of the community (local), but today it is outside of the community and thus cut-through. The turn restriction highlighted on Fraser exists today to attempt to solve the problem and is ineffective. The community has asked for enforcement. Police were on site over a 3 day period and issued 75 tickets. During the Delcan study additional violations were observed.
· The other issue related to local (residential) traffic is that it creates traffic origination/destination throughout the day. Business development is typically a.m and p.m. Traffic accessing the Queensway from the north side of Richmond would be cutting through the community. The future solution is some form of traffic management.
· The report mentions that the impact on the adjacent community does not exist, whereas the Association submits it does exist on the traffic level.
· The report states there is no City cost. In fact, there is both for the traffic management and ensuing changes, but as well for the site. The pedestrian walkway is a cost in that the linkage over the NCC lands is not necessarily going to be assumed by the NCC.
· The Association would like to maintain the FSI gradient. The 24-storey building is higher than neighbouring buildings and out of character. A lower density (1.0) would create a lesser impact on the neighbourhood.
· The traffic report states the east/west corridor is Richmond Road and is of sufficient capacity to cope with the traffic. With the development of the business community in Westboro and narrowing to a single lane in each direction, creating additional capacity on either side it, will create a bottle neck, with the flow going elsewhere, which is undesirable.
The delegation and staff responded to questions posed by the Committee with the following points clarified:
· NHA – Nepean High School; BES – Broadview Elementary School; NDHS – Notre Dame High School.
· The Max guidelines referred to in the documents were TAC Guidelines used across the country and the City. The traffic impacts are above what the City considers to be the maximum guideline in the City’s own planning. All of the land along Richmond is built up with the exception of the NCC site although there are parking lots. The sites depicted on the second map were posited to be potential sites.
· This proposal generates cut-through on the weekend as well as during the week. Residential traffic is preferred based on the existing density.
· On a local street, 100 vehicles/hour both direction is used as a guideline. Broadview is shown as a collector in the OP at 300 vehicles/hour. Sherbourne immediately north of Carling would have a capacity of 1,200 vehicles/hour and is not meeting the 1,200 at this point. In actual fact, when looking 10 years in the future, that is a cumulative impact; the map figures take into consideration this development, 2 other developments, plus the background growth in traffic as well. Looking at each project individually, 10 years out, they are not significantly adding to the road system, particularly the background growth. The background growth does not include these developments.
· Developments in the inner parts of City are eyed with a view to their proximity to the transitway, with this site within 300m walking distance. These are the areas that all 3 OPs identify as ideal and where the City should be encouraging more intense development to provide support to the investment made in the transit system. The site is in close proximity to the Ottawa River recreational pathway system, which provides direct access for cyclists to the downtown.
Matthew Smith provided a handwritten submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are copied below:
· Contrary to what is claimed, the 24-storey does not qualify as mixed use. As far as the concession to intensification, it is unnecessary since there are already 3 immediately to the east. The height is particularly excessive and will dominate the skyline and infringe on residents’ privacy.
· The close proximity to Maplelawn Estate (heritage) is also disturbing.
· Greatest consequence is the increase in vehicles and adverse traffic impact. Canderel’s study dismissed the problem stating the increased traffic will disperse through existing streets. A proper study should have been conducted during the school year.
· Golden is the first street east of the site; it is one of the streets that connects Richmond and Byron; and, proceeds almost to Carling at the south. There are 20 children who will be placed at added risk. There are hundreds more on adjoining streets.
· Golden is only 7m (22 feet) wide, with no curbs or sidewalks. If cars are parked on the street, 2-way traffic is impossible. In the winter, snowbanks reduce the width further. Golden is also a favoured route for those walking to Westboro Village, Richmond, buses, transitway, the river pathways and the Highland Park Lawnbowling Club. This community attempts to reduce its dependency on the automobile.
· Recent changes to local streets and businesses have forced traffic around the Richmond and Churchill intersection. First, the proliferation of outdoor clothing and gear stores has made a ”Mecca” of the area. Most drivers know to avoid the area by cutting through side streets (like Golden) to access Churchill, Carling and the Queensway.
· Secondly, there were permanent changes to the eastbound Richmond that specifically encouraged traffic to detour onto Golden; this includes the removal of the right-turn lane at Churchill and a new dedicated right-turn lane from Richmond onto Golden. The proposed entrance from the east end of 495 Richmond will create a problem that will result in Golden being the only release valve. If the City wants to discourage vehicles from using Richmond, why create a second entrance?
As a result of the presentation, Committee members posed questions to staff with the following clarification:
· The Traffic Management Study for the area will be conducted by PWS and it is anticipated every effort is being expended to ensure it will be approved in the 2005 Budget. It is unknown if funding has been set aside for future implementation. That would need to be discussed with TPO, which would conduct the overall study before deciding on what would be implemented.
Keith Carlson, Director for Traffic, McKellar Park Community Association, provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Carlson was unable to address the Committee.
Wanda Manning addressed PEC in opposition. The main points of her presentation are noted below:
· Grave neighbourhood traffic concerns and the proposed development will exacerbate an already treacherous situation. At least two studies were conducted; July and September, on the traffic flows; pedestrian traffic has not been addressed.
· As a small community, it is easy to walk from point A to point B, and it is already dangerous to do so at certain times of the day or year.
· Most of the side streets do not have sidewalks and are very narrow. Highland, between Dovercourt and Avondale, barely allows cars to travel, let alone a fire truck, if cars are parked on the street. Any traffic increase is not acceptable.
· Studies assume vehicles obey traffic laws, which is not the case with impatient drivers.
· School parking on Broadview is limited, with U-turns on side streets, turning around in driveways and using side streets. Traffic is already a problem.
· 2 children have been struck in the vicinity of the school, one at a crosswalk and another riding a bike near a cross walk. These are locations with safety measures in place. It is a matter of time till someone is seriously hurt.
As a result of the presentation, questions were posed by Committee members and the following clarification was provided by staff:
· Golden, Briarwood, Highland etc., are rural cross-section streets and not the typical urban standard streets; the majority of streets in Westboro are without curbs and open ditches along the sides. The pavement width of the majority are less than the typical 9m standard for a local road.
Dr. Doron Nussbaum provided a comprehensive written presentation, in opposition, but had to leave. The submission was circulated and a copy is held on file with the City Clerk.
Steven and Dora Mozes indicated support, but did not wish to speak.
Christine Kelly provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Kelly’s main points are noted below:
· Broadview is a local collector road, meant to filter traffic into and out of the neighbourhood for a destination within the neighbourhood. Residents of the future tower accessing the Queensway cannot be considered local traffic. It is not a Major Collector Road similar to Carling or Richmond.
· The Delcan study issued on April 30th states that Broadview, given its collector function and design, as well as its location immediately opposite the site driveway will carry the majority of the traffic to/from the south. It also states non-local traffic is projected to rise approximately 29-46% (unacceptable); that is thru-traffic driving from point A to point B, not stopping within the neighbourhood. These drivers can be characterized as less careful perhaps than residents.
· Delcan recommended the Comprehensive Area Management Traffic Study be completed to objectively quantify the contribution of local and non-local traffic volumes. She did not see the rush in approving the rezoning when traffic experts have identified a need for the study.
· In closing, insufficient planning has taken place in the Westboro area to justify more than doubling the density and rezoning before PEC. It is inappropriate and irresponsible to approve the recommendation without the requisite planning.
Chris Jalkotzy provided a written submission that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points of his submission are noted below:
· The issue of the pathway is being reasonably addressed. Somewhat concerned the City is not attempting to arrive at the neighbourhood use for such a pathway and to that extent he suggested PEC adopt an amendment requesting the developer to conduct a survey of the community, illustrating the various paths, conducting a demographically representative sample to arrive at potential use of the pathway; and, therefore decide whether it is most important for this development specifically or to the community. He also suggested negotiating with the NCC to ensure the path is plowed.
· Commercial – somewhat satisfied in the discussion with the planners that there is commercial potential for the property abutting Richmond. He provided 3 reasons why that is desperately important. As the planner on the project or the development authority, he would have insisted and not have approved development of this site without the commercial component. He understood the community’s concerns, but in creating the streetscape, commercial is a critical component and actually makes for a safer street.
· The notion that the properties can be used and designed to be accessible from the street is important. He would like to see the Condominium Association by-laws required to incorporate some sort of notification there is an opportunity for the owners to use their property for commercial purposes, which sends a clear message on the City’s part that application for commercial use of those properties would be welcome.
· Traffic – what makes streets function and viable alternatives is density of use. What discourages drivers from using other neighbourhood streets is an area-wide traffic calming approach not that which has taken place in these neighbourhoods; i. e. stop signs, bump-outs but a much more comprehensive approach. PEC is listening to experts and the community and looking for advice on who can advise on the effects on the neighbourhood. From research conducted as an Urban Planner, community concerns for the most part are almost invariably borne out and the factual and scientific approach used (traffic experts and planners) are abysmal at predicting how things will develop in communities. The community tends to be much more knowledgeable. This is the perennial debate between traditional and scientific knowledge. An Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) needs to be completed.
Don Sproule provided a written submission, in opposition, that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are noted below:
· Proposal is taking the community from underdevelopment to hyperdevelopment. To ask for an FSI increase of 230%, is uncalled for. The proponent should live within the constraints of the current zoning. The Manor House lives within the constraints, and although he does not like everything about it, he supported it.
· He objected to the development on traffic grounds.
· This developer is asking for an increase and the next developer will ask for an increase.
· On the question of residential vs. commercial, a commercial building would be capped at 7-8 storeys and not 24 storeys. The development must be looked at in its totality.
· In conclusion, the proposal is not infill, but overkill and will destroy the community.
Henri Glouchkow addressed PEC, in opposition. The main points are noted below:
· Lived in the neighbourhood for 35 years and seen the downtown area sprout up with high-rises to the point where there is barely any greenspace.
· Due to the fact there are buildings in the vicinity of 24 storeys is not the standard that should be set for Westboro Village. The developer states 6 storeys is on a human scale. Is 24 storeys on human scale? Human scale to him is 2 or 3 storeys.
· When looking at the development being squeezed onto this site, it begged the question of parking and appeared to be overkill. Should try to respect the river view.
· Traffic is a City issue. There should not be such increase in development and traffic without solutions in place. Where will all the vehicles park?
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Glouchkow agreed with previous presenters that most streets do not have sidewalks; residents must be very careful in winter. Mr. Glouchkow did not understand the potential in the OP to have 2 lanes on Richmond; will there be 2 lanes through Westboro with no parking on either side? Does that make sense in a village? There is already a huge bottleneck in Westboro during rush hour to turn onto Woodroffe. Where will vehicles go?
Responding to a question from Councillor Cullen relative to the parking to accommodate on site, Mr. Walker advised that both the Manor House and Phase 2 (24 storey tower) will have underground parking; the existing Dennis Coolican building also has underground parking. In total, there will be 370 spots on site, which exceed zoning by-law requirements.
Gary Ludington addressed PEC, in opposition. The main points are summarized below:
· Live southeast of the site on Tweedsmuir. There are a number of catch phrases used in the report such as main street designation, transit station, intensification, general urban area, compatibility, OP, etc. According to the report, being compatible means being mutually tolerant and capable of coexisting in harmony in the same area. Another part refers to more intense development around the transitway so as to promote communities in which car ownership is not required. The OP ensures new housing is sensitive to and improves the physical character of the neighbourhood.
· Outlined the number of developments in the area since 1999, all of which are compatible and comply with the OP. However, they all required rezoning.
· In 2000, there was a Secondary Review Plan for Westboro. In 2001 PEC cancelled it, without good planning reason. If the Secondary Plan had gone forward in 2001 there would probably have a been a few residents attending this rezoning application, but not the number present today.
· The City is tearing the very fabric that makes the community unique; he supports change, but also supports good planning, which is not taking place. The community is being spot-rezoned.
· The infrastructure is old and not built for such intensification. Can PEC be sure the rezoning is really the correct course of action without the proper study of the infrastructure and a community design plan? The challenge is to focus on the need for a comprehensive study that will address traffic issues for the neighbourhood as whole.
· Allow the Manor House to proceed, but refuse the rezoning.
Heather Glouchkow addressed PEC in opposition. The main points are outlined below:
· Agreed with the presentations by previous speakers.
· It is easy to look at things theoretically and not listen to the community. When looking at map, the logical way to travel through the neighbourhood is Fraser or Broadview. Although, she does not live on Fraser, she has seen an incredible increase in traffic. Area streets are too dangerous and not built for that level of traffic.
· It is important to use the Transitway, but there is a problem with the transitway in that it is east/west, but traffic flows are not solely east/west.
Bruce Patrick, Traffic Committee, McKellar Park Community Association, addressed PEC in opposition. The main points are noted below:
· 25 year-resident of Fraser. Addressed the safe passage to the Dominion Transit Station; the City places great emphasis on public transit, yet there is no safe lighted access to the station especially in light of last year’s tragedy on the Eastern Parkway. He urged quick action on behalf of the safety of the City’s commuters, which should happen regardless of development at 495 Richmond.
· There will be a significant increase in cut-through traffic, due to the residential element of the project, particularly on weekends.
· Since the summer he has been working with the Traffic Division, Ottawa Police. 2 peak hour enforcements of the restricted turn onto Fraser were coordinated and the officers were overwhelmed. 75 motorists were ticketed inside of 2 hours. Enforcement has been unable to curtail the illegal traffic flow.
· Delcan study does state peak volumes are double the respective guidelines for both Fraser and Broadview.
· In summary, both police and residents acknowledge an existing problem particularly on Fraser and Broadview. There appears to be no compelling reason to approve the rezoning application prior to an overall City-sponsored traffic study.
Jean H. Kroes, Past President, Highland Park Ratepayers Association, provided comprehensive written comments that were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk. The main points are noted below. Mr. Kroes also submitted a letter on behalf of the Association dated 10 November 2004 specific to the Site Plan application and copied a letter addressed to Burl Walker that attached a petition signed by 150 of its members with a covering letter to PEC specifically outlining comments in objection to the rezoning.
· Provided a photograph of the site and its environs from the Quebec side, which dispute claims the proposal will fit within the neighbourhood character.
· The proposal blends into 25% or less of the neighbourhood. 75% of the neighbourhood surrounding the Coolican building is 3 storeys in height.
· With regard to traffic, he doubted purchasers of $300-850,000 apartments would utilize the transitway since their employment will not be within the transitway destinations.
· Re-emphasized the issues raised by Mrs. Manning.
· Council completed the OP and established guidelines for the City. Those guidelines should be adhered to and the 1.0 FSI maintained for the subject site.
· Reiterated the request that until a community study is completed for the area, do not rezone the site.
Barry Hobin, B. J. Hobin and Associates, Bev Jensen, FoTenn Consultants, Wayne Jennings, Canderel, and Ron Jack, Delcan.
Ron Jack presented the following information on traffic issues.
· The information from transportation impact studies has been utilized by many delegations, some correctly, some not and staff has used the information in its recommendations.
· Disagreed with a previous speaker that stated these studies do not hit the mark too often. Delcan has conducted a wide range of transportation studies and all have been quite helpful and accurate to address problems and monitoring after the fact.
· Richmond, adjacent to the site, is 4 lanes. The proposal does not trigger any widening of Richmond. The traffic patterns from the proposed residential development are quite different from those related to the current office building. There is a reasonable amount of thru traffic related to the current office building. Residential traffic will travel to jobs around the City in a different manner. There will be much more use of Richmond, east/west, than there is from the current office building. There will certainly be some movement to and from the South as well. The traffic patterns are significantly different approaching and leaving the site. As mentioned, office is primarily a weekday event and residential does have weekend traffic, whereas office does not.
· The total traffic from the new project in the a.m. peak is estimated at 100 vehicles/hour and in the p.m. 140 vehicles/hour; that is split in three directions – east/west on Richmond, south towards the Queensway and beyond. That equates to an additional 50 vehicles/hour each east and west, approximately one more per minute and 40 +/- vehicles/hour to/from the South using various routes. The estimated impact on Broadview in the peak hours is 20 more vehicles/hour and 10 +/- vehicles on Fraser.
· There is certainly an increase on community streets; if Fraser has 100 vehicles/hour now, 10 more vehicles is 10% increase, Broadview has 600 vehicles/hour, 20 additional vehicles would equal 5%.
· There was reference to guidelines as capacities on roads. Capacity is the wrong term; capacity is how much traffic a road can carry and these roads can carry more volume than existing. That is not the point, you do not want them to carry their capacity.
· Guidelines were identified in the former Ottawa OP as to what the different types of roads should carry. Small local residential streets should be 100 +/- vehicles/hour. Most local streets in this community carry that or less; Fraser carries approximately 100/hour. That is compatible with adjacent land uses and not the capacity of the road.
· Collector roads, from a land use/compatibility perspective range from 300–1,200 vehicles/hour due to the wide range of collector road types. Some are residential streets that collect traffic from local streets and connect to an arterial and would tend to be at the low end (300). Other collector streets like Broadview with 3 or 4 schools (not solely residential), but functioning with institutional use, tend to have a higher volume for obvious reasons. Broadview carries 400-600/hour, depending on the section. Other collectors that are less residential in nature carry up to 1,200/hour. These are guidelines to match acceptable volume with adjacent land use.
Ms. Jenson provided a PowerPoint presentation that addressed the planning principles and objectives.
· Reiterated the history and size of the development that led to the recommendation before Committee, including the public meetings and discussions leading thereto, as contained in the departmental report.
· Confirmed the commitment to provide a pathway and connection to the Dominion Transitway Station on behalf of the developer and required under site plan condition. That will be dealt with in its completeness in the Site Plan process for Phase 2.
· In terms of the next layer and the neighbourhood considerations, there is focus and support for Main Streets. Main Streets in the OP and the most recent ‘Where Will We Live report’ have been specifically identified as where intensification should occur. This site was identified in that report. It would be totally inappropriate to propose this on the south side of Richmond in the lower density communities. It is on the north side of an arterial, close to the transitway, well removed from any impact on a lower density portion of the community.
· The proposed apartment is not out of character with the 3 other apartments in the immediate vicinity of this site and can be accommodated on Richmond.
· As required and suggested in terms of compatibility of development, there is a transition of height between the phases, with the lower profile building at Richmond, with improved streetscaping and a more pedestrian experience.
· In terms of sensitivity to Maplelawn, the removal of the 20-storey tower in proximity to Maplelawn, the distance and separation between that development and the proposed development are sufficient, as well as the design of the first phase in terms of character.
· In terms of the principles and additional studies, it is unfortunate that some of the studies were not completed earlier to make this an easier process for everyone.
· Fully support that a community development plan should be completed to integrate and deal with changes this community is experiencing. With respect to the development plan, those would refine broader policies the OP already establishes.
· From a traffic prospective, Candarel has been supportive of undertaking broader traffic study by the City and is willing to participate in further studies, but the existing zoning on the site would generate slightly more traffic than the proposal rezoning.
· Encouraged PEC to recognize that Candarel has undergone a consultation process and been very responsive in terms of amending the application and addressing issues raised.
Mr. Hobin provided details of the application.
· The next pressure for this neighbourhood is for residents to remain in the global neighbourhood because there are housing options. There is a huge demand for residents who want to remain in Westboro but have no options. Looking at condominiums in Ottawa where the predominant market is plus 55, there are not many condominium projects that encourage walking. The notion of making this friendly to the community is important. Housing diversity is a major part of this.
· In developing the site plan, there are some significant constraints on site. There is a major trunk sewer that goes to the west end of the Manor House, which guarantees the site will separate from Maplelawn.
· In the central area there is a parking garage that accommodates 200, which eliminates the possibility of developing other house types. It was important to create a building along Richmond that had a sense of scale and reinforced the streetscape. Then to concentrate the remainder of the development in the north east corner, which has absolutely the least impact possible.
· There are shadowing studies available through entire year.
· The tower has the smallest footprint for any building in this neighbourhood (8,000 square feet).
· The building on Richmond is a significant element since it sets up the rest of the site. The site plan introduces an additional entrance; both entrances have the same character with the stone gates that pick up on detailing from the Maplelawn garden. Mitigated access and egress issues with respect to Richmond by introducing a separate entrance. The building that has formed part of the site plan application is stepped. This mitigates the height of the building and creates a strong 4 level limit. The units on the upper floors will have enlarged balconies which allow views over Maplelawn and the Ottawa River. The character of the building is a combination of stone and masonry with large windows facing towards the village and the river. The stone wall that forms the edge is territorial to set up the edge of the building.
· There is no road widening required. In fact the dimensions mentioned at 7.5m have already been provided. The position of the stone wall lines up with the Maplelawn garden stone wall and both would be preserved.
· The issue of parking was questioned; a significant initiative was to green the centre of the site which is currently a vacant parking lot; all parking will be underground. The minimum requirement in the zoning by-law is substantially less and there is the potential to provide less but the proponent is listening to purchasers on the number of parking spaces desired. The minimum would be one per one ratio.
As a result of the presentation, the delegations and staff responded to questions posed by the Committee with the following clarification summarized below:
· P. 76, Special Condition 10 – The centreline of Richmond is approximately 7.5m from the existing property line. This is standard condition. If there is a need for a few more inches, then that will have to be conveyed.
· There are unequal widenings along Richmond and a functional plan was completed that illustrated certain jogs to avoid the impediments. Staff did not have specifics on how that will occur. It falls more appropriately into a capital project, which is a PWS initiative and is subject to an EA.
· The graphs presented by delegations were not taken from Delcan’s material. Numbers may have been extracted from the report. The max guideline reflected the OP and numbers did illustrate Broadview and Fraser are above recommended TAC guidelines.
· P. 62 – traffic study findings and recommendations - suggest some form of traffic signal control is desirable to improve safety and reduce delay although the warrants would not be met for the City to install a traffic signal. The Broadview intersection and this site intersection would benefit from traffic signalization and it would benefit the north south pedestrian crossings across Richmond to the pathway to the transit station.
· Shadowing impact of the Manor House on the Maplelawn garden – Mr. Hobin explained that the building was extensively modeled through the critical periods of time. Slides of shadowing were demonstrated that verified there is virtually no impact.
· The landscaping proposed has been vetted by the NCC. It has been the subject of extensive conversation since it is a heritage wall, and on one hand someone is saying I want a tree, but on other hand, do not want it to undermine the wall. The material chosen has been vetted by Douglas and Associates, the landscape architects
The Committee also received the following correspondence that was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.
· Communication dated 23 November 2004, from John Blatherwick, President, Woodpark Community Association Inc., in opposition.
· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from Wendy Pell, in opposition.
· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa, stating concerns with the proposal.
· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from Robin Goodrich, in opposition.
· E-mail dated 22 November 2004, from Bruce Elliott, in opposition.
· Submission from Pat Barnhouse, in opposition.
· E-mail dated 19 November 2004, from Don Paskovich, in opposition.
· Submission dated 19 November 2004, from Bruce Littlejohn, in opposition.
· Letter dated 18 October 2004, from Kathy Lawrence, Chairperson, Broadview School Council, in opposition.
Chair Hume closed the Public Meeting and the matter returned to Committee.
Staff responded to questions posed by the Committee and Councillor Little with the main points summarized below:
· There have been informal discussions and the NCC indicated acceptance to the idea of formalizing the path from the site to the Dominion Transitway Station. There is an informal path presently used and residents have indicated it is not well maintained in the winter and not lit, with issues of security. This is contemplated to be pursued through the Phase 2 site plan and there will need to be discussions with Canderel to determine who will assume the responsibility for the cost associated with the formalization of that path. Those negotiations have not commenced. The NCC currently runs recreational paths that are in close proximity to the site. The focus is the onsite system, but clearly there is an opportunity it might serve the larger community.
· The planning study referred to was revisited by PEC (PDC) in 2001 and the decision was taken that it would not be part of the departmental work program. This area was studied as part of the neighbourhood planning studies undertaken by the City a number of years ago and the key principles of the Westboro Neighbourhood Plan have been included in the former City of Ottawa Plan. The Plan foregone in 2001 was related more specifically to Richmond.
· The other developers were Domocile and Charlesford. Councillor Little indicated he did not have an opportunity to discuss the Motion with those developers.
· When applications are received, there is an obligation to bring them forward to Committee and Council for decision. If a study is underway, applications would be dealt with differently. When there is no study, staff will bring forward applications and these are dealt with similarly as today.
· Whether $22,000 is sufficient to conduct this study would depend upon its scope. Councillor Little had indicated his interest was in completing some background work and involving the community in one or two-day design charrettes, looking at opportunities along the street and follow up with a report back. It might be possible with this funding, based on the availability of resources to accomplish same.
Councillor Hunter raised a point of order relative to withdrawing Recommendations 2 and 3 and asked if these were before PEC or were they already withdrawn. Mr. Marc advised there is no formal process in the Procedure By-Law that addresses the withdrawal of recommendations or the withdrawal of a report. It is typically dealt with by the consent of the Committee. Given that normally happens as a matter of course, it would be his inclination, subject to the Chair’s ruling, that if a Councillor wanted recommendations 2 and 3 properly before the Committee, given that staff has asked they be withdrawn, the Councillor would simply Move recommendations 2 and 3 be approved. Councillor Cullen posited since the report has been circulated and published, is there not an obligation to amend the report. Mr. Marc reiterated the Procedure By-Law is silent on this issue and he was going forward on what he has observed to be the practice at Committee where if staff withdraws an item, it is simply withdrawn.
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
That recommendation 2 and 3 be approved; and, that the requirements set out in Recommendation 3 be satisfied within three years of approval of Recommendation 1, failing which this approval will lapse.
Councillor Cullen understood from the staff perspective that the genesis of the original recommendations before Committee related to side yards etc. and staff is satisfied that is not required. He did believe the community has a clear interest in ensuring a pedestrian network is put in place to accommodate, not only residents who will be living on this site, but also existing residents. It only makes sense that if staff is saying one of the rationales for permitting intensification on this site is to take advantage of the transitway station, then it is imperative to ensure there are ‘belts and suspenders’ in place. The applicant had indicated there was no problem with the concept. The issue of the time has been dealt with by increasing the consideration from 2 to 3 years.
On the Motion.
YEAS (3): Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): Councillors J. Harder, H. Kreling, M. Bellemare, G. Hunter, P. Hume
Councillor Cullen presented a Motion that dealt with the tower and the change in FSI. The site does cry out for intensification and there was acknowledgement from the community that there should be intensification. But, such development and intensification occurs within a context and there is no denying from the evidence presented that Broadview, Fraser, etc, are overloaded in terms of existing traffic. There will be impacts on streets already beyond what is contained in the TMP as maximums under the guidelines. The traffic study should be undertaken before the development, but he was aware of the practicality that if PEC refuses this application, it will be appealed to the OMB before there is a traffic study. His second best position is to mitigate the intensification requested.
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:
WHEREAS intensification should occur in a manner compatible with the surrounding community;
WHEREAS the tallest adjacent to the east is 20 storeys high;
THEREFORE document 7, Schedule 263, Item D (area heights - 495 Richmond Road) be amended from 77m high (24 storeys) to 65m (20 storeys).
The Motion does not go as far as the community wishes in terms of reigning in the scope of intensification on this site, but he was attempting to find a middle ground that would accommodate not only the Manor House, but the tower. There is an argument to be made to balance the tower with the existing high-rises in the community. The community is quite correct to say that this is occurring in the context of more development taking place on other sites. The Ward Councillor has asked for a recommendation for a study that will accommodate all those additional items. The communities wanted to maintain their quality of life and not expand the street width. There will be a traffic study that will look at buffering that community and PEC can mitigate to some extent; the mitigation at 20 storeys makes this tower compatible with the tower next door although it does not solve the community’s traffic issues.
In response to Councillor Harder, Mr. Morrison affirmed the reduction from 24 to 20 will have a negligible impact.
Councillor Little thanked residents who attended the meeting. There was a concern by many, that by including retail at grade in the Manor House would move the Westboro commercial strip further west on Richmond. That was addressed through the site plan by making the main floor at grade residential. It also incorporated small gardens similar to the Maplelawn garden. Traffic is obviously an issue and it was clear that residents were not against development, but are concerned with traffic and future development in the neighbourhood. He was pleased to learn that staff fully supports a traffic management plan for the area and will include that as part of the 2005 Work Plan and it was certainly his understanding it was at the top of the list. It is not only important for this development, but the significant success factor in both commercial and residential development the Westboro area has seen over the last couple of years. By requiring developers to contribute towards the study will allow it to proceed this year since funding is not available within the departmental work plan. The most significant aspect in this process is that Canderel agreed to scale back the intensity of what was originally proposed by removing the second tower, thereby not only reducing the intensity on the site, but also addressing the concerns related to shadowing, etc. Infrastructure was also addressed and he reminded PEC there was a recent major rehabilitation on Richmond, including new sanitary sewers, storm sewers, watermains and the resurfacing of the street. Those services immediately adjacent to the site are new services replacing others that in some cases were 90 years old. Overall the applicant has worked with the community to address concerns to reduce the overall plan for development significantly. Arguments such as the OP, proximity to transit are good arguments and he believed this is an appropriate site for intensification and there have been compromises on both sides. He urged PEC to support the staff recommendation.
On Councillor Cullen’s Motion.
YEAS (2): Councillors A. Cullen, D. Holmes
NAYS (6): Councillors J. Harder, H Kreling, M. Bellemare, G. Hunter, P.
The departmental recommendation as amended (technical) was approved.
1. That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law (1998) to change the zoning of 495 Richmond Road from "CG1 F(1.0) SCH.60" to "CG1 F(2.3) SCH.263" as detailed in Document 7.
the By-law to implement Recommendation 1 not be forwarded to City Council for
enactment until the applicant has obtained Site Plan Control approval for the
proposed 24-storey apartment and that incorporates an on-site pedestrian system
that will allow for a direct pedestrian connection to the Dominion Transitway
Station through the Ottawa River Parkway lands. 3. That
the requirements set out in Recommendation 2 be satisfied within two years of
approval of Recommendation 1, failing which this approval will lapse.
And that no further notice be provided pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.
CARRIED as amended with Councillors A. Cullen and D. Holmes dissenting.