|
4.
ZONING - 287 LISGAR STREET ZONAGE
- 287, RUE LISGAR |
Committee recommendation
That Council refuse an amendment
to the Zoning By law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 287 Lisgar Street to
permit modifications to the existing Residential Fifth Density (R5B) zone for a
proposed high rise condominium building.
Recommandation DU Comité
Que
le Conseil refuse une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à
changer le zonage du 287, rue Lisgar afin de permettre un changement de la
désignation zone résidentielle de densité cinq (R5B) pour une tour d’habitation
en copropriété qui est proposée.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
dated 11 June 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108).
2. Extract
of Draft Minute, 23 June 2009.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
11 June 2009 / le 11 juin 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability
Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development
Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council refuse an
amendment to the Zoning By‑law 2008‑250 to change the zoning
of 287 Lisgar Street to permit modifications to the existing Residential Fifth
Density (R5B) zone for a proposed high rise condominium building.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil de refuser
une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à changer le zonage du
287, rue Lisgar afin de permettre un changement de la désignation zone résidentielle
de densité cinq (R5B) pour une tour d’habitation en copropriété qui est
proposée.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the north side of Lisgar Street, between O'Connor Street to the east and Bank Street to the west. The site is currently used as a surface parking lot having approximately 28 spaces. The applicant had anticipated including the abutting property to the west, (293 Lisgar Street), however, for economic reasons this property is no longer part of the proposal. Abutting the property to the north is a single detached dwelling and two low-rise apartment buildings. To the northeast is an 11-storey office building while to the east is a low-rise apartment building. A three-storey apartment building is located to the west while to the south is a place of worship (Dominion-Chalmers United Church). Also located in the vicinity of the subject property is another larger surface parking area and further to the west, commercial uses at the corner of Lisgar and Bank Streets.
The zoning currently applying to the property is a Residential Fifth Density (R5B) exception zone with a floor space index of (3.0). This zoning allows a range of residential uses, including high-rise apartment buildings, as well as limited commercial uses, including restaurants. There is no height limit that applies to the property. The applicant is proposing to amend the performance standards applying to the current zoning, to allow residential intensification by way of an 18-storey condominium building with no floor space index. The effective FSI for the proposed development is approximately 6.5.
DISCUSSION
The Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area. The property is also located within the Centretown neighbourhood, which has a Secondary Plan that designates the property as High-Profile Residential Area.
Volume 1 - Primary Plan
Lands with a General Urban Area designation are to contain a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all people. Appropriate non-residential uses are also permitted to help facilitate the development of sustainable communities. Among the policies for the General Urban Area designation, is direction specifically related to residential intensification. These include allowing intensified development that relates to the existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns of built form. Direction is provided in Section 2.5.1 and under the policies dealing with the General Urban Area that development responds to and advances the City's design objectives for development. Finally, all new development is subject to review in the context of compatibility criteria set out in Section 4.11. The applicant has designed the project to be responsive to the policy directives associated with areas designated General Urban Area.
Volume 2 - Secondary Plans
The Centretown Secondary Plan was adopted in 1976 as part of the City's Official Plan at that time, following an extensive neighbourhood planning study that resulted in the Centretown Neighbourhood Development Plan. The Secondary Plan provides generalized policy direction flowing from the Neighbourhood Plan but does not contain the more specific directions that were set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. For areas designated High Profile Residential, the Secondary Plan intends that these areas serve to provide a transition in height and density between the high density high profile commercial core located generally north of Gloucester Street and the Medium Profile Residential areas of Centretown that generally surround the Low Profile neighbourhoods that are focused east of Elgin Street and west of Kent Street. The Secondary Plan provides for the High Profile Residential areas to be developed predominately with high profile residential development to accommodate dwellings suited to small family and non-family households and indicates that building heights may be limited. The Secondary Plan however does not specifically set out either building height limits or density limits. These were set out in the Neighbourhood Plan and where carried into the zoning established in 1976 to implement the Centretown Secondary Plan. The Centretown Secondary Plan also sets out site development standards that deal with design and site plan considerations.
Current Planning Policy and Regulatory Framework
While the Centretown Secondary Plan was carried forward into the former City of Ottawa Official Plan in 1994 and into the current Official Plan in 2003, the planning policy framework set out in these plans has modified the overall framework in which the Centretown Secondary Plan must be interpreted. Prior to Regional adoption of the former Ottawa Official Plan in 1994, the Centretown Neighbourhood Development Plan was the primary document that provided assistance and direction in the interpretation of the Secondary Plan. The City's Official Plan prior to 1994 provided limited direction in assessing development proposals. The Neighbourhood Plan however, as a Council approved document, has no official status but rather is now an historical planning document. The Centretown Plan must now be interpreted in the context of the underlying policy thrust and direction of the current Official Plan.
The current Official Plan is consistent with directions established through the Provincial Policy Statement, as it directs that lands within urban areas, which are vacant or underdeveloped, be intensified through infill development. This is a strong underlying policy direction of the Plan, along with ensuring that new development fits into its surrounding existing and planned urban context. In advancing this policy direction and the strong urban design emphasis of the Official Plan, Council in 2004 approved the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS), which set out broad based design direction for the downtown area and the central portion of the Centretown neighbourhood. DOUDS acknowledges that development within Centretown needs to be sensitively undertaken given the very mixed urban fabric of the area and the designation of a large part of the neighbourhood as a heritage conservation district. It also recognizes the considerable potential that exists with vacant and underdeveloped sites, both within the Heritage Conservation District that flanks Bank Street and within the northern part of the neighbourhood. This development potential can achieve a truly humane and liveable downtown community that contributes to defining a strong image and identity for this inner urban area. DOUDS indicates that new high profile residential development should be concentrated north of Somerset Street and to the south of the Downtown where there already exists a concentration of high profile development and where there is great potential to fill in the urban fabric with new quality development that adds architectural character and contributes to public realm enhancements
Finally, while not of direct relevance to the application for 287 Lisgar, Council in 1997 designated a large portion of that area of Centretown designated for medium profile residential development as a heritage district and modified the zoning to put in place a heritage overlay and cap buildings to a height of 10.7 metres. While new construction is permitted within a heritage district and in many cases would be encouraged, the zoning changes introduced when the heritage district was established resulted in a down zoning for much of the area of Centretown. Under the Medium Profile Residential Area Designation put in place through the Centretown Secondary Plan, this area was intended to be developed with medium profile residential development to strengthen the residential fabric of this area, direct redevelopment away from the more stable areas designated low profile residential and to provide an increase in population adjacent to the two commercial corridors serving Centretown to support their economic vitality.
Current Zoning - High Profile Residential Area
The current zoning applying to lands within the area designated High Profile Residential was approved in 1998 and resulted in some key changes to the zoning that was put in place in 1976 to implement the Centretown Plan. These modifications relate to the height and density limits that were associated with the 1976 zoning. The basis for these modifications extended from a key underlying principle established for the 1998 Zoning By-law that followed the policy direction established in the 1994 Official Plan to place greater emphasis on built form and design. As such, development was considered to be best controlled through setback, height and landscaped open space standards, which are matters that could be quantified to reflect neighbourhood character, while allowing for more intense development. Generally, there was a move away from controlling development through a density limit expressed as a Floor Space Index. In moving in this direction, the 1998 Zoning By-law in many cases removed density limits where the zoning also had a height limit. Where the zoning had no height limits the Floor Space Index was retained.
Within the high profile area in Centretown, the zoning prior to the 1998 Zoning By-law carried both a 3.0 Floor Space Index and a 36.6 metre height limit. However, through the 1998 By-law, a situation was created where some properties in the High Profile Residential Area retained their Floor Space Index with no building height, while others retained a height limit with no Floor Space Index. The resulting effect is that an owner of a site with a height limit could develop a building with a significantly higher density (in some cases over twice as much) than that which would have previously been permitted. In turn, they would cover much of the site with the provision of only required setbacks. Opposite to this, the owner of a property where the Floor Space Index had been retained but with no height limit could develop as high a building on the property as practical, until the Floor Space Index of 3.0 was utilized. The end result could be a much higher building than permitted previously, with the majority of the site potentially remaining as vacant land. This is made even more peculiar as these two properties could be next to one another. This has resulted in a very inconsistent zoning condition that has given rise to applications requesting increased heights where height limits apply, recognizing that properties exist in the area with no height limits and applications for increased Floor Space Index where no height limits apply, to allow levels of development that can be achieved with properties that do not have a Floor Space Index.
Mid Centretown Community Design Plan
As reflected in the foregoing, there currently exists an inconsistent or contradictory planning policy and regulatory environment for much of the Centretown neighbourhod. The inconsistent framework applies to much of the area designated High Profile Residential as a result of the varying zone regulations dealing with height and density and therefore does not provide clarity with respect to ensuring development will achieve broader planning and design objectives, as expressed in Volume I of the Official Plan and in a way that responds to community objectives.
The contradictory framework applies to much of the area designated Medium Profile Residential, where the Primary Plan supports sensitive intensification and infilll, with the Secondary Plan supporting medium profile development but with the zoning only allowing low profile development.
To address issues realted to appropriate development in the high profile residntial area, Planning and Environment Committee, in April 2008, passed a motion which was approved by City Council in June 2008, whereby staff were directed to undertake a study of the area zoned Residential Fifth Density (R5B[482] F(3.0)) to determine appropriate building envelopes that will be consistent with the policies of the Secondary Policy Area, the Heritage Conservation District generally to the south and DOUDS. Given the need to provide greater clairty for areas designated Medium Profile Residential and that this area is also included in the area coverd by DOUDS with much of the area also being located with the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, staff have extended the study to look at both the High and Medium Profile Residential Areas. That study has been included in the Departmental Work Program for 2009 and is currently getting underway. The study will look not only at zoning matters but also make determinations related to planning policy directions dealing with the nature and mix of uses, the built form, urban design, transportation, infrastrucutre capacities, etc. that are typically dealt with as part of Community Design Plans. At this point is is expected that the Mid Centretown Community Design Plan to be prepared will provide a frame of reference for updating the Centretown Secondary Plan and the zoning in the area to provide a planning policy and regulatory framework that responds to the broad policy direction of the Official Plan while also addressing local planning design and development objectives. In this context, the Community Design Plan to be prepared will give the required direction for development in this part of Centretown that is currently lacking.
Assessment of proposed development
The development proposed for 287 Lisgar has been conceived by the applicant to respond to the broad policy direction set out in the Official Plan, both with respect to intensity of development and design. The project will result in a high profile residential tower with an effective FSI of approximately 6.5 within an 18-storey building containing approximately 101 units. Architecturally, the building has been designed as a point tower that is animated on all sides with extensive scultping of the upper floors and with a clearly defined street related podium. To permit the development, the applicant has requested that the FSI limit applicable to the site be removed. As there is no height limit, no modifications to allow for the proposed 18-storey height is required.
Staff have reviewed the proposal and while an argument can be made that it is responsive to many of the City's planning and design objectives, particulary as set out in Volume 1 of the Official Plan, the development does represent a very intense development on a relatively small property raising questions related to whether such an intense development is appropriate for the site. Other recent development in Centretown on larger sites have provided extensive open space to contribute positivley to the urban quality and liveablity of the area. The proposed development maximizes the building footprint on the site providing minumum setbacks and landscaped open space. In this contenxt, the increase in FSI required from the current 3.0 to approximately 6.5 can be seen as potentially excessive.
The conflicting and inconsistent planning policy and regulatory envirnoment in this part of Centretown makes it difficult to come to a definitive conclusion on the appropriateness of this proposal. There is no clear framework or direction for how sites are best developped to achieve area specific planning and design objectives related to supporting the development of the northern part of Centretown that makes a postive contribution to creating a quality and liveable high density residential neighbourhood. Staff therefore considers it important to have this framework established prior to dealing with the subject application.
The Community Design Plan to be prepared will help determine if the applicant’s proposal is appropriate for the development of the lands by establishing a basis for a more coherent policy and regulatory framework for areas designated High and Medium Profile Residential. As a result, the Department views this application as premature and at this time can not recommend approval of the requested increase in development potential.
Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy
In addition to this rezoning application, the applicant has started the Design Review process associated with the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Review Pilot project. The applicant provided development and architectural information to the review panel and has received preliminary comments. Issues raised to date relate to:
- The requested increase in density.
- The design of the podium and its relation to pedestrians.
- The bulk of the building.
- The need for more information on the design of the building and its context with existing development.
- The landscaping of the proposal.
The Development now proposed, as reflected in Document 2, is a modification to the proposal reviewed by the Design Review Panel. However, the general massing and height are similar.
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. Twenty-five comments were received with 15 being opposed, five in favour and five requesting more information. Issues raised were related to height, density, design, conformity to Official Plan policies, shadowing and traffic.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
Should this item be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a one-week hearing would result. The applicable policies will be those in place at this time rather than those that may result from the Community Design Plan study presently underway.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to the applicant refining the design of the building, attempting to address issues over compatibility and pursuing purchase of an adjacent property to create a larger development site.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Development
Proposal
Document 3 Consultation
Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Legal Services Branch, Legislative Services to notify the owner, Claridge Homes (287 Lisgar) Inc. 2001-210 Gladstone Avenue K2P 0Y6, Attention: Neil Malhotra, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
LOCATION
MAP DOCUMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL DOCUMENT 2
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
3
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Twenty-five comments were received as a result of the City's Public Notification and Public Consultation procedures for rezoning applications. Fifteen of those who provided comments were in opposition to the proposal while five were in favour. Another five wanted more information on the proposal. A summary of the public comments are provided below.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
Reasons in Opposition to the Proposed Rezoning
1. I am opposed to a proposed height of 18 storeys as the maximum height of buildings in the area is predominantly 12 storeys. The proposed height is excessive in this area of Centretown.
2. Granting additional height and density should only be done if there is a substantial benefit to the community, such as affordable housing on the site itself.
3. Buildings of the height proposed tend to make the area less liveable.
4. This proposal goes against the Centretown Plan and if approved will result in more applications for the same thing.
5. If approved, the proposed building would adversely affect my view.
6. The proposed development will cause an increase in the amount of traffic on our street.
7. The parking proposed does nothing to promote public transit.
8. The building proposed has a lack of articulation and interaction with the street.
9. If this building is approved it will negatively effect my day lighting and sun exposure.
Reasons in Favour of the Proposal
1. The site is ripe for redevelopment.
2. The extra people who will live in the area will support the local businesses.
3. There is no loss of heritage buildings.
4. This proposal will give the opportunity for people to live downtown and not need the use of an automobile to get around.
5. This is an excellent opportunity to achieve the City's intensification goals in the downtown.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
Councillor Holmes provided the following questions and comments.
Building Height
Is this property subject to the Motion carried by PEC on April 8, 2008, and subsequently approved by City Council on June 25, 2008 as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law? It was my understanding that as of 1998 maximum building heights were not established for the R5B[482] F(3.0) zone.
Building Density
What is the new FSI produced by this building?
This block was included in the 'Special Study Area' approved by City Council at the time of the passage of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law - prior to the submission date of this application. Why is the study not proceeding before any rezonings applications are being considered?
Comments
Any additional height and density should not be granted to this site without a calculation of the net benefit being bestowed on the developer - and an agreement to return a portion of that increase in the form of a public benefit.
Response to the Councillor's Questions
1. Yes, this property is in the area that is subject to the April 8, 2008 motion approved by Council and forms part of the Community Design Study being undertaken by staff. As well, it was the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (1998-93) that removed the height limits on this property.
2. The new FSI proposed by the applicant is approximately 6.5.
3. This rezoning application is being recommended for refusal because it is considered premature in light of the need to have a more comprehensive and consistent policy and regulatory environment established through the Community Design Plan to be prepared.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Centretown Citizens Community Association
As President of the Centretown Citizens Community Association (CCCA) I am writing to advise you of our opposition to the proposed development for a 16-story condominium building at 287 Lisgar Street, Ottawa.
Specifically, we note that the general height permitted in this zone is twelve stories, and that the applicant in question is seeking a 33% increase in height and a corresponding density increase over the current zoning provisions. The Association believes strongly that the existing height limits should be respected in all but exceptional circumstances and we are alarmed by the continuing erosion of the Official Plan (OP) with each unjustified height and density increase. Given that this proposal will contravene the OP and in the absence of a clear city policy setting out how one decides whether to grant height increases, the CCCA believes that the subject application for 287 Lisgar Street should be refused.
We also note that the City of Ottawa is planning an open house on urban design on September 24, 2008, which will deal with "Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings that 'Fit In". It is not yet clear whether the subject of this event would have a bearing on the application for a height increase at 287 Lisgar Street. However, should there be a link; the Association feels strongly that it would be premature to come to any conclusion on the specific application for 287 Lisgar Street before such design guidelines were developed. The Association believes that any such guidelines would likely yield the best overall outcome when an increase in height limits would only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and that there would have to be both a clear public benefit and that benefit would enjoy strong community support.
Finally, and as a general point regarding applications for height increases above established limits, we are concerned that allowing for height increases could result in windfall gains for property owners, and that any such windfall must be shared with the City through clearly identifiable public benefits. This necessarily means that the City should have the capacity to properly assess whether an increase in height beyond established limits could result in a windfall gain. Conversely, and again as a general point, should a developer argue that increasing height would be the only way to make its investment in a development project economically viable, we are strongly concerned that the City, in granting such a height increase, could be perceived as compensating developers for bad investment decisions.
Response to Centretown Citizens Community Association
It should be noted that there is presently no height limit on the property. The height of a development of the site would be governed by the floor space index. In this instance the area of a building could be three times the area of the lot. This application is submitted to remove the 3.0 Floor Space Index and to establish a height limit to accommodate the proposed 18-storey apartment building, which has an effective Floor Space Index of approximately 6.5.
Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation
Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) owns many apartment buildings in the vicinity of the proposed site, including two residential high-rises at the southeast corner of Lisgar and O’Connor (258 and 264 Lisgar).
We wish to note our strong objection to the application for an 18-storey building. The zoning for the area calls for a maximum height of 12 storeys. This is in keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood and provides a stepping down from the Central Area. Granting this variance would negatively impact neighbours of the site, as the height would overwhelm the street
CCOC has been developing new housing in the Centretown area for over 30 years and we have built a number of apartment buildings, including the one at 264 Lisgar. None of these have exceeded the 12-storey height.
If the City is seriously considering additional density, it should only do it if there is a concomitant benefit to the community, particularly in the form of affordable housing on the site itself. Granting additional height/density to developers without requiring something in return is only providing benefit to the developer. The City should not be in the business of lining the pockets of well off developers; it should be concerned with having a range of housing to meet the needs of all its citizens, including low and modest income households.
Response to Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation
As mentioned above, there is no height limit for the subject property and surrounding properties. Height is controlled indirectly through the allowable floor space index for the property.