Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

04 December 2007 / 04 décembre 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager

Directrice municipale adjointe,

Planning, Transit and the Environment

Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement

Contact Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement

(613) 580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

Somerset (14)

Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-APR- 0194

SUBJECT:	Zoning - 330 Gilmour Street
OBJET :	ZONAGE - 330, rue Gilmour

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98, to change the CG F(2.0) General Commercial with a Heritage Overlay zoning of 330 Gilmour Street to increase the permitted density to a 4.1 Floor Space Index, to increase the permitted height to 27.5 metres, and to remove the Heritage Overlay for a proposed nine-storey mixed use development.

2. That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to change the zoning of 330 Gilmour Street from CG F(2.0) General Commercial with a Heritage Overlay to an R5(XX) SCH[XXX} Low Rise Apartment Zone with a Heritage Overlay and an exception, to permit a seven-storey residential or mixed use development as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 3.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

1. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de refuser une modification au Règlement de zonage 93‑98 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa visant à remplacer la désignation de zonage CG F(2.0) (Zone commerciale générale) du 330, rue Gilmour, un secteur désigné à valeur patrimoniale, pour accroître la densité permise et atteindre un rapport plancher-sol de 4.1, accroître la hauteur permise à 27,5 mètres et retirer la désignation à valeur patrimoniale pour permettre la construction d’un aménagement polyvalent de neuf étages.

2. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 93‑98 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa en vue de remplacer la désignation de zonage CG F(2.0) du 330, rue Gilmour, (Zone commerciale générale et secteur désigné à valeur patrimoniale) par une zone d’immeubles collectifs en bande R5(XX) SCH[XXX} avec une désignation à valeur patrimoniale et une exception permettant un aménagement résidentiel ou polyvalent de sept étages, comme il est précisé dans le document 2 et illustré dans le document 3.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

The owners of 330 Gilmour Street have requested a rezoning to facilitate development of a nine‑storey seniors residential complex. This application was originally submitted on December 5, 2001, with an Official Plan (OP) amendment application for a 20-storey building, but was put on hold in April 2002 and reactivated June 29, 2007 with revisions. The OP amendment application initially submitted in 2001 to allow a 20-storey building has been withdrawn, as it is not required to allow for a nine-storey building.

The site is located in the Centretown neighbourhood on the southeast corner of Gilmour and O’Connor Streets, with Lewis Street frontage, as shown on Document 1. The property is the former Ottawa Board of Education (OBE) offices, including the original building of 1922. There is a parking lot on the eastern end of the property beside the First Church of Christ, Scientist, at 288 Metcalfe Street. The entire property is within the Centretown Heritage Conservation District.

The property is now zoned CG F(2.0) General Commercial with a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.0, and is within a Heritage Overlay. The current zone permits a mix of residential and/or commercial uses, and allows for uses such as detached house, high-rise apartment building, retirement home, office, retail store, and recreation and athletic facility. The height limit for all of the property occupied by existing buildings is equal to the maximum height of the existing building as per the Heritage Overlay provisions, while the height limit for the vacant portion of the site varies with the use; with the limit for a mix of various senior's units and apartments being 10.7 metres, and for a retirement home being 13.0 metres with no height limit for a freestanding non-residential use building.

The seniors’ complex proposed by the applicant would involve reuse of the 1922 heritage building and the removal of later building additions. The applicant’s nine-storey building proposal would have the upper two floors set back from the Gilmour Street and Lewis Street edges, and include a range of seniors’ accommodations. The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow a height limit of 27.5 meters, an FSI of 4.1 and removal of the Heritage Overlay provision.

The Department recommends refusal of the applicant’s requested rezoning. The proposed scale and massing of the applicant’s proposal is not considered to be appropriate for the site. The Department is of the view that the proposed nine-storey seniors development would not constitute compatible intensification and has not fully responded to the heritage context, site conditions and the surrounding environment; it is not supported by the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC). The requested rezoning is not considered to uphold the overall intent of the Official Plan nor the Centretown Secondary Plan (CSP), and therefore is not recommended for approval.

The portion of the site occupied by the additions to the original 1922 OBE building is suited to residential development fostered by an R5 exception zone, and in keeping with the Residential Area - Medium Profile designation in the CSP. The current CG zoning, which allows for substantial office /commercial development on the property is considered to be inconsistent with the intent of OP and CSP policies. The recommended rezoning will establish a new R5 exception zone, with exception provisions including maximum height limit of 21.8 metres (seven storeys) for a building on the east side of the property, with the seventh storey required to be recessed back of the main façade, and allowing for limited commercial uses for the ground floor and basement of a residential use building. The exception would also allow the entire original building of 1922 to be used for commercial uses as now permitted under the CG zoning.

Public Consultation/Input:

There were a total of 30 responses from the public regarding the rezoning proposed by the applicant, including 26 opposed, three in support, and one with no comment. The primary concerns cited by the public pertained to the detrimental impacts of height and scale of the applicant’s nine-storey development proposal, incompatibility with the neighbourhood and its heritage character, and impact on traffic and parking. The applicant’s requested rezoning is recommended for refusal; the recommended rezoning is to permit a lower seven-storey development. There are no traffic volume issues attributable to the recommended rezoning and any on-site parking and circulation issues area considered under Site Plan Control.

There were also site-planning issues cited by the First Church of Christ, Scientist. The Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee in responding to the circulation of the rezoning application opposed to the applicant’s requested rezoning, and mentioned that six storeys, perhaps with a set back seventh storey may be acceptable. Subsequently, LACAC established its formal position which is reflected in the accompanying report dealing with the formal application submitted for demolition and new construction under the Ontario Heritage Act. Councillor Diane Holmes is opposed to the applicant’s requested rezoning, citing reasons similar to those given by the public. A detailed discussion of the public consultation and staff responses are provided in Document 4.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Les propriétaires du 330, rue Gilmour ont demandé un rezonage en vue de faciliter l’aménagement d’un ensemble d’habitations de neuf étages pour personnes âgées. Cette demande a été présentée à l’origine le 5 décembre 2001 avec une demande de modification du Plan directeur pour obtenir un immeuble de 20 étages, mais cette demande a été suspendue en avril 2002 et réactivée le 29 juin 2007 moyennant des révisions. La demande de modification du Plan directeur présentée à l’origine en 2001 pour permettre la construction d’un immeuble de 20 étages a été retirée puisqu’elle n’est pas requise pour permettre la construction d’un immeuble de neuf étages.

Le site se trouve dans le quartier Centre-ville à l’intersection sud-est des rues Gilmour et O’Connor, et sa façade donne sur la rue Lewis, comme il est illustré dans le document 1. La propriété est constituée des anciens bureaux du Conseil scolaire d’Ottawa et comprend l’édifice d’origine de 1922. Il y a un stationnement à l’extrémité est de la propriété à côté de l’église « First Church of Christ, Scientist » au 288, rue Metcalfe. Toute la propriété se trouve dans le district de conservation du patrimoine du centre-ville.

La propriété est maintenant désignée zone commerciale générale CG F(2.0), son rapport plancher-sol est de 2.0 et elle se trouve dans un secteur désigné à valeur patrimoniale. La zone actuelle permet une combinaison d’utilisations résidentielles et/ou commerciales et permet la construction de maisons isolées, de tours d’habitation, de maisons de retraite, de bureaux, de magasins de vente au détail et d’installations récréatives et sportives. La limite de hauteur pour toute la propriété occupée par les immeubles existants est égale à la hauteur maximale de l’immeuble existant conformément aux dispositions des secteurs désignés à valeur patrimoniale, tandis que la limite de hauteur pour la partie inoccupée du site varie selon l’utilisation; la hauteur maximale pour une combinaison de logements et d’appartements pour personnes âgées est de 10,7 mètres, et la hauteur maximale pour une maison de retraite est de 13,0 mètres; il n’y a aucune limite de hauteur pour les immeubles à utilisation non résidentielle autoportants.

L’ensemble d’immeubles pour personnes âgées proposé par le demandeur nécessiterait la réutilisation de l’édifice historique de 1922 et le retrait des additions plus récentes à l’édifice. La proposition d’un immeuble de neuf étages du demandeur exigerait que les deux étages supérieurs soient en retrait des limites des rues Gilmour et Lewis et comprendrait une variété de logements pour personnes âgées. Le demandeur demande une modification qui permettrait une limite de hauteur de 27,5 mètres, un rapport plancher-sol de 4.1 et le retrait de la disposition des secteurs désignés à valeur patrimoniale.

Le Service recommande de refuser la demande de rezonage du demandeur. On estime que l’échelle et la dimension demandées dans la proposition du demandeur ne sont pas appropriées pour le site. Le Service estime que l’aménagement de neuf étages proposé pour les personnes âgées ne serait pas une concentration résidentielle compatible et ne tiendrait pas pleinement compte du contexte historique, des conditions du site et du milieu environnant; le CCCAL n’appuie pas cette proposition. On estime que le rezonage demandé ne respecte pas le cadre général du Plan directeur ni celui du plan d’aménagement secondaire du quartier Centre-ville, et on ne recommande donc pas son approbation.

Le rezonage recommandé établira une nouvelle zone d’exception R5, avec des dispositions d’exception, notamment une hauteur limite maximale de 21,8 mètres (sept étages) pour un immeuble du côté est de la propriété, et le septième étage devra être en retrait de la façade principale, et permettant des utilisations commerciales limitées pour le premier étage et le sous-sol d’un immeuble à utilisation résidentielle. L’exception permettrait aussi l’utilisation commerciale de tout l’édifice historique de 1922 conformément à ce qui est présentement permis en vertu du zonage CG.

Consultation publique / commentaires :

On a reçu 30 réponses au total de la part du public à l’égard du rezonage proposé par le demandeur. Parmi ces réponses, 26 s’y opposaient, trois étaient en accord et une personne était sans commentaire. Les plus importantes préoccupations du public traitaient des répercussions néfastes de la hauteur et de l’échelle de l’aménagement à neuf étages proposé par le demandeur, de l’incompatibilité avec le quartier et son caractère patrimonial et des répercussions sur la circulation et le stationnement. On recommande de refuser la proposition de rezonage du demandeur; le rezonage recommandé doit permettre l’aménagement d’un immeuble plus bas que sept étages. Le rezonage recommandé n’entraîne pas de problèmes reliés au volume de la circulation et on estime que toutes les questions relatives au stationnement et à la circulation sur le site sont prises en compte dans la demande de contrôle de plan de site.

L’église « First Church of Christ, Scientist » a aussi fait part de quelques problèmes reliés à la planification du site. Le Comité consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale s’est opposé à la demande de rezonage du demandeur, mais a indiqué qu’un immeuble de six étages avec un septième étage en retrait pourrait être acceptable. La conseillère Diane Holmes s’oppose à la demande de rezonage du demandeur, indiquant des raisons semblables à celles données par le public. Une discussion détaillée sur la consultation publique et les réponses du personnel peut être consultée dans le document 4.

BACKGROUND

The site is located in the Centretown neighbourhood at 330 Gilmour Street, which is on the southeast corner of the Gilmour Street and O’Connor Street intersection, and also fronts on Lewis Street.

The property is the location of the former Ottawa Board of Education offices, which was sold by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board in 2001. The original three-storey brick office building was constructed in 1921-1922, and is included on the City’s Heritage Reference List. The entire property is within the Centretown Heritage Conservation District. The property includes approximately three-quarters of the entire block. The original building is located at the west end of the block abutting O’Connor Street. A three-storey brick addition was later constructed (1950 - 1960s) in two stages on the interior portion of the lot. There is a parking lot located at the eastern end of the property abutting the First Church of Christ, Scientist, at 288 Metcalfe Street. The original westerly portion of building is currently rented to Volunteer Canada, while the addition remains vacant.

The adjacent church and the original 1922 segment of the School Board office building are classified as Group 1 and 2 respectively under the buildings evaluation pursuant to the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, which would also render both buildings worthy of individual heritage designation if the District was not in place.

This application was originally submitted on December 5, 2001, with an OP amendment request to allow for a 20-storey building, but was put on hold in April 2002 and reactivated June 29, 2007 with revisions. The OP Amendment application associated with the original 2001 proposal has been withdrawn. The land to which the proposed Zoning Amendment applies is also the subject of an application for Site Plan Control, for a new free-standing, nine-storey, seniors-oriented residential building plus adaptive reuse of the 1922 structure for commercial/leisure uses.

Applicant’s Proposed Development

The seniors complex development proposed by the applicant will involve the removal of the 1950s and 1960s additions to the 1922 heritage building, located on the western end of the property, and integration of this heritage building with the new development. The new development, as noted, is proposed to have a building height of nine storeys with the upper two floors set back from the Gilmour Street and Lewis Street edges to provide for a seven-storey building profile adjacent to the street. The project will incorporate three forms of accommodation for seniors. The upper two floors of the project are to be developed with fully independent living quarters where residents would also have the option of utilizing the common dining facilities and other services proposed for the project, with supportive living accommodation in the form of rooming units being provided in the remainder of the building. Approximately half of the supportive living units will be made available to seniors requiring a high degree of care with full support services provided, including housekeeping, medical services and the provision of meals in the proposed common dining facility. The other supportive living units will accommodate seniors in a retirement home type environment where seniors would have their own rooming units with meals provided in the proposed common dining facility.

The ground floor and first level below grade, as well as the heritage building, will accommodate common amenity areas (lounges, leisure facilities), dining facilities and other support uses such as a central kitchen and medical facilities for the complex, so as to provide a full service and integrated seniors residential facility.

Existing Zoning

The property is zoned CG F(2.0) General Commercial with a Floor Space Index of 2.0 and is within a Heritage Overlay. The current zone is intended to permit a mix of residential and/or commercial uses that are compatible with one another; and allows for uses such as detached house, high-rise apartment building, retirement home, bank, office, retail store, and recreation and athletic facility. Maximum building heights applicable to the property vary with the proposed choice of uses and the positioning of the uses on the property in relation to the Heritage Overlay provisions. Within the area of the property occupied by the existing building, the height and mass of those existing building components sets the maximum building envelope, including the height.

Within the area of the existing surface parking lot, the maximum height of a freestanding building is use dependent. Thus, on the parking area a free standing building containing the mix of the residential uses proposed by the applicant, (various senior's units and apartments), has a height limit of 10.7 metres, a retirement home has a height limit of 13.5 metres, and a high-rise apartment building has no height limit in this location. Regardless of the proposed use, a building addition to the existing heritage building in the parking lot area has a height limit equal to the height of the existing heritage building. Any development on the property, including on the parking lot, is also governed by an existing maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.0 times the total lot area.

Applicant’s Requested Zoning

To allow for the proposed development, the applicant has requested through the revised rezoning application, that the current CG zoning for the property be changed so as to increase the permitted building height to allow for a nine-storey building, to increase the allowed density from a 2.0 floor space index to a 4.1, and to remove the Heritage Overlay. No modifications to permitted uses or to other performance standards such as parking and setbacks have been requested.

DISCUSSION

Recommendation One

The rezoning request submitted by the applicant is for the property at 330 Gilmour Street to be rezoned from CG F(2.0) with a heritage overlay to CG F(4.0) H(27.5) without a heritage overlay to permit a nine-storey seniors residence, while retaining the original building located on the site and renovating it to provide amenities for the residents. The proposed use is permitted and considered desirable for the property; and would be the first integrated seniors complex developed in Centertown, thus enhancing and adding to the diversity and mix of accommodations available in the area. The proposed use would allow for seniors within the Centertown neighbourhood who may not desire or be able to maintain a fully independent lifestyle to remain residents of the community, as well as providing an opportunity for seniors from across the City to locate within a downtown environment in proximity to services and amenities.

Also, the proposed development will provide for an appropriate adaptive re-use of a noteworthy heritage building considered as a valuable asset to the heritage fabric of the Centertown Heritage Conservation District.

While the proposed use and the proposed retention of the original OBE building are supported by staff, the proposed scale and massing of the proposed new construction is not considered to be appropriate for the site. The subject property and block wherein the property is located is unique in the Centertown neighbourhood. The property occupies approximately three quarters of the block bounded by Lewis, O’Connor, Gilmour and Metcalfe Streets, making it one of the largest development sites within the medium profile residential area of Centertown. However, the block is also one of the narrowest blocks in the neighbourhood having a width of approximately 30 metres as compared to the typical 60-metre block width characterizing most blocks in Centertown. These site conditions and the surrounding context present some unique opportunities and challenges to provide for a development that can be well integrated into the fabric of the area.

The Department is of the view that the massing and scale proposed for the seniors development has not fully responded to these opportunities and challenges for a number of reasons, which are discussed below.

Official Plan Considerations

The subject property is designated General Urban Area on Schedule A of the Official Plan and is located within an area designated Residential Area - Medium Profile by the Centertown Secondary Plan (CSP). Under the policies of both the OP and the CSP, the proposed use is clearly supported, as is the proposed retention of the original OBE building. The applicant’s proposed development, with respect to its mass and scale, does not fully respond to the policy objectives of the OP as they relate to compatibility and heritage resources.

While there is no specific definition provided in either the OP or the CSP for what constitutes “medium profile”, the Department has consistently interpreted medium profile to be buildings in the five to nine-storey range. Staff therefore considers the proposed development to be at the upper end of the profile of development that can be contemplated without requiring a formal Official Plan amendment to amend the CSP.

The issue of compatibility both with desired established patterns of development, and with the planned function for an area is a key theme of the OP. Section 2.5.1 of the OP supports intensification, which the proposed development represents, and recognizes that the introduction of new development into areas that have developed over a long period of time requires a sensitive approach to address differences between the new development and the established area. The OP provides guidance on measures that will mitigate differences so as to achieve developments that are compatible and complimentary to existing communities. The OP recognizes that compatible development does not necessarily mean the same as, or similar to existing developments, but supports development that co-exists with existing development without causing undue adverse impact. In essence, the plan calls for new development to fit well within its physical context. To assist in assessing compatibility, the plan sets out design objectives and principles as qualitative statements of how the City wants to influence the built environment, and sets out objective criteria in section 4.11 to evaluate compatibility.

Design Objectives and Principles

Six broad design objectives and associated principles are articulated in Section 2.5.1 of the OP. These are broadly stated so as to be applied as an assessment framework in a number of different contexts; and the Plan acknowledges that all the principles associated with the six objectives may not be achieved or be achievable in all cases.

The key thrusts of the design objectives and principles of relevance to the applicant’s proposal relate to enhancing the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identify and ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas. Associated with these are principles calling for: recognition and reflection of the history of the community, appreciating local identity in patterns of development, achieving sensitivity to place, context and setting, and complimenting massing patterns, rhythms, character and context.

Section 4.11

Section 4.11 sets out objective criteria to evaluate compatibility related to matters of height, bulk and mass, scale relationships, building lot relationships, and distances between buildings, amongst others. In addition to these, Section 4.11 also requires that regard be had for other policies in the OP related to land use designation, Secondary Plans and the design objectives and principles of Section 2.5.1. The criteria of greatest relevance in assessing the mass and scale of the proposed development deal with building height and massing, and the pattern of the surrounding community. In dealing with these compatibility criteria, the plan provides that new development should have regard to the area context with respect to the massing and height of adjacent buildings, as well as the planned function for an area. The plan provides for the application of design principles that can contribute to a sense of human scale and recognizes that where a development varies from the pattern of development in an area, that a proposal, through its design, may compensate for this variation through the inclusion of design treatment reflective of other characteristics that are common to the area.

Assessment of Proposal in the Context of Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11

The property is located in the Residential Area – Medium Profile segment of the CSP. This part of Centertown generally exhibits a small lot fabric where blocks generally comprise multiple lots that accommodate a diverse array of building styles and sizes. Many lots remain developed as single lots with older two to three-storey heritage residential structures, with other lots having been consolidated and redeveloped. Those lots developed as multiple lots in the early part of the 1900s typically accommodate five to six-storey apartments, with lots developed as multiple lots in the mid to later 1900s tending to accommodate a mix of more contemporary residential and non-residential uses ranging in height from three and four-storeys, and in some cases up to 12 and 13-storeys. These higher profile developments generally occurred prior to the adoption of the CSP in 1976 that formally established the Residential Area - Medium Profile designation and height limitations applicable to the subject property; and these larger buildings are generally not considered a development pattern meriting emulation in a medium profile area.

Given the site context and size, the Department considers the proposal to accommodate a single large nine-storey building extending the entire length of the block between the existing 1922 OBE building (to be retained) and the Church adjacent to the east of the block, to be inappropriate from a massing and contextual perspective in the context of OP Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11. The proposal would be one of the longest single buildings on a block face within the medium profile residential area, and, because of the narrowness of the site, would result in this type of building along two block faces. While the applicant is proposing to mitigate the impact of the length of the building on the street environment, in keeping with Section 4.11, through architectural detailing and through a ground floor treatment intended to provide for strong street animation, the Department feels that the mass and scale of the applicant’s proposed nine-storey development will overwhelm the street environment of both Gilmour and Lewis Streets. The mitagative techniques used include emphasizing strong vertical elements such as tiers of balconies and exterior columns across the entire façade, and applying a similar ground floor articulation for emphasis along the full length of the building, and using differing upper floor treatments. In combination these design measures only serve to emphasize the size of the structure, in the case of the repeated use of vertical emphases, and the building length in the case of the upper and lower level measures.

Lewis Street, which is unusually narrow having a right-of-way width of approximately 11 metres, is developed primarily with smaller two-storey residential buildings on single lots that collectively establish a very low profile heritage residential character for this street. A nine‑storey building extending for much of the mid-block length of this street, in the Department’s view, represents too much of a departure from the design objectives of Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 to ensure compatible relationships between new development and existing patterns of development. Along Gilmour Street, while there is limited significant heritage residential fabric remaining on the adjacent north side, the block is characterized by smaller developments with the highest building having a height of six-storeys (with the upper two recessed), and by parking lots, which have the potential for development that will maintain this fabric. As such, while the context along Gilmour Street differs from that along Lewis Street, the Department is of the view that a nine-storey single building along Gilmour Street, as proposed by the applicant, also departs from the compatibility objectives of the OP, by introducing a built form fabric that is not characteristic along Gilmour Street, and that would not be consistent with the planned function for the area.

Design Review Considerations

The subject property is located within the area covered by the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy 2020 (DOUDS), and therefore is subject to design review by the City’s Urban Design Review Panel. The role of the panel, where a rezoning application is submitted to allow for increased building height and or density, is to assess these changes in the context of the design objectives expressed in DOUDS in order to assist the Department in assessing the application and in bringing forward a recommendation to Committee and Council. The Panel comments are also intended to inform LACAC of considerations relevant under DOUDS where a proposed development is subject to heritage approval.

The proposed development was reviewed by the Design Review Panel, who did not express great concerns regarding the proposed nine-storey building height. The Panel did however, find the applicant’s proposed development to be massive and felt that greater breaking up of the mass would be necessary to allow for the proposed height.

The Panel also determined that a less prominent upper floor design and greater upper floor setbacks where required from the adjacent heritage buildings.

Staff have considered the comments of the Design Review Panel, and given the review of the application vis-à-vis the OP compatibility and design objectives, has concluded that a nine-storey development, as proposed, could not provide for a compatible relationship of the development, given the surrounding urban environment and the size of the property. A long building, as proposed by the applicant, having such a mass (combined length and proposed height) was determined to be uncharacteristic of the current development pattern and not in keeping with the planned function for the area. Therefore, the applicant’s requested rezoning is considered unacceptable.

Heritage Considerations

The property lies within the boundaries of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Ontario Heritage Act requires that all demolition and new construction in a heritage conservation district be approved by City Council, and a report under the Ontario Heritage Act has been prepared. The heritage report examines the proposed development in terms of its compliance with the City Council-approved "Heritage Conservation District Management Plan." Section VII.5.1 of the study addresses the issue of infill development in the area and states that "It is important to encourage infill development, and to promote design which is sympathetic to existing building types and which re-establishes streetscape continuity." Under the OP, where a new development is proposed within a heritage area or adjacent to heritage resources, a heritage impact statement must be prepared. Such a statement was prepared for the proposed development. In addition, Section 4.6.7 of the OP requires that new development adjacent to heritage buildings shall respect "... the massing, profile and character of adjacent heritage buildings." The planning intent is that new development fit within the development pattern that has been established and in particular, that new development integrates well with heritage resources that serve to define the heritage character of the area. The applicant’s proposed re-zoning is not considered to be in keeping with the intent of the heritage policies of the OP, whereas the recommended rezoning is intended to satisfy those OP policies.

Centertown Secondary Plan

The Centertown Secondary Plan (CSP) objectives include the call for provision of a variety of housing types for people of diverse characteristics and needs. The objectives also promote the protection, preservation, and sensitive rehabilitation of buildings and areas of historical or architectural significance. The policies of the Residential Area – Medium Profile Section promotes provision of a variety of dwelling types and buildings with maximum building height limits. The Heritage Areas policies of the CSP call for protection from incompatible land uses and ensuring that the designs of new buildings complement the character of the area. The rezoning requested by the applicant would foster a scale of development inconsistent with the intent of the policies of the CSP. The recommended rezoning is intended to promote development in keeping with the policies of the CSP.

Recommendation 2

Staff are recommending that a zoning change be approved that will establish a new R5 zone with various exception provisions. The subject property is appropriate for residential development. Functionally, the current office use does not contribute to improving the liveability of Centertown and detracts from the residential focus that is contemplated for areas designated residential under the CSP. The Department therefore, considers it appropriate to change the zoning of the property to establish an R5 zone with an exception, and to allow for redevelopment of that portion of the site currently accommodating the more recent additions to the original 1922 OBE building, so as to support a residential redevelopment project. Retaining the current commercial zoning could result in a 100 percent non-residential redevelopment of the property in the middle of what is intended to be a predominately residential area.

To ensure that any redevelopment will be sensitive to the site’s urban context and be responsive to the urban design objectives and compatibility directives provided in the OP, the Department is recommending that the new R5 zone be established with various exceptions. These will provide for limiting buildings to a height of six-storeys with a seventh floor permitted that is stepped back on all sides, as reflected in Document 3. The exception will also permit limited commercial uses. On the westerly portion of the property, containing the original building of 1922, the exception would allow for the commercial uses now permitted under the CG zoning to support retention of the 1922 building. For the portion of the site where redevelopment will be permitted, ground floor commercial uses will be allowed to provide the potential for ground floor street edge animation along Gilmour Street and to allow uses that will support and compliment an increase in residential population that would be provided for under the recommended zoning.

The recommended rezoning, with specific performance standards was derived to be responsive to site context, and is considered consistent with the set of Design Principles provided in the OP to promote realization of the Design Objectives of Section 2.5.1. The recommended zoning facilitates development that is considered sensitive to context and setting including the history of the community. It will allow a predominately residential development to enhance the residential function of the Centertown community. The built form will support achieving good integration and fit with the site’s urban context. In particular, the recommended height limit with a six storey street edge built form profile while allowing a seventh floor stepped back from the lower building facades respects the building scale directions that historically have been established for development within the area. This allows for appropriate scale relationships between newer buildings and the areas heritage building stock that is protected through the Heritage District designation. Limiting heights as recommended also allows for design techniques to be successfully employed that can assist in breaking up the horizontal mass of any development that may be contemplated. This will ensure that any development will be consistent with and integrate with the built patterns and character contemplated for the area under the policy directions of the Centertown Plan, DOUDS and the HCD plan. These design enhancements would be addressed through the design review and heritage approvals processes.

Achieving appropriate integration of any development of the subject lands, given the site conditions and the very low scale building profile conditions along Lewis street is seen as much more difficult to achieve with buildings greater than six or seven storeys in height. The length of development that can be accommodated on the site is a key reason why the applicant’s proposed nine story built form program was not able to be supported.

The recommended six storey height with a seventh floor stepped back on all four sides ensures that any new development will not overwhelm the existing heritage buildings that are to be retained and will provide for a compatible built form relationship between the new development and the existing heritage buildings. This is a key direction provided in Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan related to ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas. Staff have concluded that this direction can not be achieved with the applicant’s proposed building.

In addition to providing a positive response to the design objectives of the Official Plan as expressed in Section 2.5.1, the recommended zoning is also seen as responding to the various criteria set out in Section 4.11 that are focused on assessing compatibility. The provisions of Policy 1 of Section 4.11 instruct that compatibility assessment will have regard to all of Section 4, as well as the provisions of Secondary Plans

The recommended zoning is consistent with the intent of the Section 4 policies, and in particular with Section 4.6.1 pertaining to Heritage Buildings and Areas. It continues to protect the principle heritage resource on the property and establishes height limits in keeping with the surrounding built environment within the Centretown Heritage District. As compared to the existing CG zone, the recommended residential rezoning is also more consistent with the Residential Area – Medium profile designation of the CSP.

Policy 2 of Section 4.11 establishes criteria for measuring compatibility given varying uses and planning contexts. The criteria most pertinent to the recommended rezoning address issues of:

· Traffic: the rezoning will diminish the potential for certain commercial uses on the property, such as office space, which tend to generate higher numbers of vehicular trips; the existing road system has sufficient capacity to handle the traffic generation potential of development facilitated by the recommended rezoning as evidenced by the traffic assessment undertaken for the residential project proposed by the applicant.

· Parking: the reduced commercial use potential will reduce the need for the provision of parking to support the commercial uses that can now be established on the property under the current commercial zoning and in turn reduce the potential for increased non-resident traffic along Gilmour and Lewis Streets.

· Building Height and Mass: the height provisions of the recommended rezoning reduce the height limit on the easterly portion of the property, continue to protect the height limit associated with the original OSB heritage building, and require a transitional recessed seventh storey with the main building mass limited to six-storeys, which is considered to be compatible with the built environment in the surrounding portion of Centretown.

· Pattern of Surrounding Community: the recommended rezoning provides for predominately residential use to be made of the property through any redevelopment program and helps protect the prominent existing heritage building on the west end of the property. Such development is considered more conducive to providing for a compatible relationship between any new development and the existing community from both a functional and identity perspective that in turn provides for development that is more consistent with and more in keeping with the pattern of development in the area then what could be provided for under the current commercial zoning.

· Outdoor Amenity Areas: given the dual frontage of the property and the height restrictions established in the recommended rezoning, little impact on private amenity space is anticipated from development pursuant to the rezoning.

· Noise and Air Quality: the recommended zoning increases the probability of residential development and reduces the potential for commercial uses on the property and thus also reduces the propensity for traffic noise and fumes, while increasing the opportunity to have mechanical equipment on a higher level away from nearby residences.

· Sunlight: There will be minimal increase in shadowing on amenity areas and public spaces during under-heat periods, as a result of the rezoning.

· Supporting Neighbourhood Services: The recommended zoning permits a number of neighbourhood service uses, and is intended to facilitate a residential development which would strengthen the residential function and character of the Centretown community.

Establishing zoning that is more conducive to realizing residential development will increase the potential for the site to development that will be responsive to its urban context and better integrated into the fabric of the community.

While the recommended zoning can still accommodate a long building, it is felt the impact of having a long building located on the property will be mitigated by having its height limited to six storeys plus one-storey set back, to provide for a six-storey street edge condition. Further, more effective articulation to assist in breaking up the mass of any future building under the recommended zoning would be determined through the required heritage and design review approval processes.

Summary

The Department has determined that the rezoning requested by the applicant does not satisfy the intent of the Official Plan nor the CSP for compatible intensification that is sensitive to the heritage resources of the surrounding area. The recommended R5 exception zone is intended to satisfy the OP and CSP policies by fostering intensification with controls that clearly address the context of the surrounding neighbourhood.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

A Phase I ESA was submitted with the related Site Plan Control application indicating that there are environmental concerns with some of the materials within the existing building. There is no relationship between the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and the environmental concerns identified in the Phase I ESA, which will be addressed through conditions of any Site Plan application approved for the site.

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. A summary and discussion of the responses to the public notification is included in Document 4.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

The “On Time Decision Date” established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments was not met due to a decision by the applicant to reconsider and significantly revise the application.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3 Residential Building Height and Yard Schedule

Document 4 Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk’s Branch, Committee and Council Services to notify the owner, Ashcroft Homes, 18 Antares Drive, Nepean Ontario, K2E 1A9, applicant, Roderick Lahey Architect, 1501 Carling Avenue, Suite200, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Z 7M1, 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.

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

Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2

The lands shown on Document 1 are to be rezoned from CG F(2.0) with a Heritage Overlay to R5 (XX) Sch. XXX with a Heritage Overlay and will be subject to the following exception:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in By-law 93-98, for the lands zoned R5 (XX) Sch. XXX:

1. Within Area A of Document 3, the uses listed in Section 340 of By-law 93-98 are also permitted.

2. Within Area B of Document 3, the following provisions shall apply:

· Maximum building height is as shown on Document 3.

· The face of the seventh-storey walls to be set back from the façade of the sixth-storey as shown on Document 3.

· Minimum yards are as shown on Document 3.

· The following commercial uses are permitted on the ground floor and the first floor below the ground floor of a building accommodating residential uses:

o Artist studio

o Automated teller

o Community health and social services center

o Convenience store

o Day Care

o Personal service business

o Post office

o Restaurant (fast food and full service)

provided that:

(a) each occupancy on the ground floor is limited to:

(i) a maximum of 160.0 square metres, and

(ii) 16.0 metres of frontage,

with the total ground floor area of commercial uses not exceeding 35% of the gross floor area of the ground floor;

(b) each occupancy on the first floor below the ground floor of a building is limited to:

(i) a maximum of 275.0 square metres,

with the total cumulative area for these uses in the building not exceeding 2075.0 square metres, and not to exceed 12% of the total gross floor area of the building.

· No commercial uses are permitted on the ground floor within 13.0 metres of Lewis Street.

3. The minimum above-grade separation between the building located within Area A shown on Document 3 and any building located within Area B is 6.0 metres.

Residential Building Height and Yard Schedule DOCUMENT 3

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 4

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

There were a total of 30 responses from the public regarding the rezoning proposed by the applicant, including 26 opposed, three in support, and one with no comment.

Comments Opposed

A summary of comments of those opposed to the re-zoning application and the staff responses are as follows:

1. Comment: The applicant indicates that the Official Plan (OP) calls for intensification in the downtown, and support the call for smart growth throughout the city is strongly supported, including the downtown area. However, that call is for the whole of the General Urban area, not just downtown. It is important that the growth be smart, that is, responding to particular situations in different areas. It is not a justification for any project anywhere. This project in this place is not sensitive to the history or character of this part of Centretown.

Response: The Department has rejected the applicant’s zoning proposal, but in keeping with Official Plan policies is recommending zoning changes that would facilitate some increase in development potential for primarily residential use while ensuring a scale of development that is sensitive to the heritage context of the site and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

2. Comment: The applicant indicates that the project would give more residential choices for seniors at a time when their numbers are growing significantly. The use for the site is appropriate and positive; but this project is not appropriate for the site. Studies have shown that seniors prefer to live in lower buildings.

Response: The uses permitted on the property are not the subject of the rezoning application; the uses proposed are all currently permitted. The recommended rezoning does facilitate an increase in the level of residential development including those giving more choices to seniors.

3. Comment: The applicant indicates that the area is designated medium density of five to nine storeys, and that the proposal at nine storeys therefore, does not require an OP amendment and falls within the OP through the terms of the CSP. This contention is open to serious reservations. The definition of medium density does not appear anywhere in the OP or CSP and cannot therefore, be used as an important justification for changing the zoning by-law. At most, it leaves the height question open. The decision by the Planning Department to make the height for an OP amendment ten storeys is to a degree arbitrary and gives encouragement to the proponent to assume that nine storeys as a limit has a magic significance with respect to zoning. That assumption is unwarranted.

Response: The current OP does not prescribe a specific height limit for medium profile residential development, unlike the former City of Ottawa OP, which provided a definition indicating medium profile generally was considered to be a height of five to nine-storeys. To maintain consistency in interpretation, and given the absence of any direction in the current OP as to the meaning of medium profile, where this term continues to be used in a secondary plan within the area of the former City of Ottawa, staff continue to interpret the terms low, medium and high profile in the way these terms where interpreted in the context of the former Ottawa OP. The purpose for maintaining this consistency is to assist in determining when an OP Amendment (OPA) may be required where a proposal is submitted to allow for increased building height, such as with the application for 330 Gilmour Street. This interpretive approach is not for purposes of suggesting that an increased building height would be appropriate. Rather, any decision as to appropriate height would still require full assessment in the context of the current OP policy directives dealing with compatibility and integration, as set out in the current OP. It is further noted that the CSP does in fact support the need for an OPA where buildings greater than nine‑storeys are proposed in a medium profile residential area. In this regard, the Residential Area - Medium Profile policy of the CSP provides that consideration can be given to zoning amendments for higher profile buildings in a medium profile area where the site is located adjacent to an area designated Residential Area - High Profile, and where there is a concentration of buildings within that high profile area greater than nine-storeys. Thus, the CSP in its policy framework, supports the staff position that an OPA would be required where a proposal for a development greater than nine-storeys is proposed in a medium profile area, and where the site in question is not located adjacent to a high profile residential area accommodating buildings over nine-storeys.

4. Comment: The applicant indicates that in the Downtown Urban Design Plan (DUDP), as adopted by Council in 2005, Centretown East is a Precinct, which among many characteristics, is to take the intensification pressure from the Golden Triangle and the residential areas west of Kent. Granted the pilot project resulting from Council’s decision would see increased development in Centretown East, but it does not give the green light to just any project in this mixed neighbourhood, to the exclusion of many other factors. And the terms of the pilot project itself could very well be altered significantly in the forthcoming review.

Response: The Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS) was adopted by Council with much of the direction of this strategy having also been incorporated into the OP. The first initiative towards implementation of DOUDS was the City Council approval of a Design Review Pilot Project, whereby all development proposals within the DOUDS area would be reviewed and assessed by a review panel of peers from the design professions in the context of the urban design objectives of DOUDS. The design review is undertaken formally through the Site Plan Control approval process, and also is undertaken to assist in assessing rezoning applications where increased building heights and/or densities are requested. The proposal for 330 Gilmour Street was subject to review by a Design Review Panel as discussed in the main body of this report.

5. Comment: The applicant indicates that the area contains high-rise buildings, including the twelve-storey PSAC building, which is on Gilmour Street, across Metcalfe Street, as well as houses and everything in between, and that the proposal for 330 Gilmour Street is not out of character for the area. The CSP was brought into being in the 1970s precisely because of a fear of too high buildings. For this area of Centretown six storeys was chosen as the appropriate limit.

The CSP, and by extension, the goals and limits for Centretown East were incorporated into the OP and so continue to be in effect and relevant to the desired growth in this small sub-area of Centretown. The proposed height will block the views of Lewis Street residents. The proposal will cause a loss of privacy for existing residents nearby.

Response: The CSP is part of the Official Plan applicable to the subject property, but the implied height limit by the Residential Area – Medium Profile the CSP is considered to be nine-storeys, subject to other policies of the OP and CSP, such as those pertaining to heritage resources. The Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study, approved by City Council, points out that some of the buildings constructed in the recent past are out of character and unsympathetic to the heritage qualities of the area. These types of buildings are not seen as an aspect of the Centretown context worthy of emulation through zoning amendments and subsequent new development. The actual current height limit on the property is governed by the Heritage Overlay provisions which relates primarily to the existing buildings on the site but varies considerably by land use on the vacant portion of the property as described in the Existing Zoning description earlier in this report.

6. Comment: The applicant indicates that for the above referenced reasons, the by-law should be amended to accept nine storeys, a height of 27.5 meters and a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 4.1. However, the height limitation is a key instrument governing the nature of development in any area, and certainly here. The 18m limit was confirmed in 1998 and is about to be reconfirmed in the new by-law for the whole city. We would add that the 1998 decision was not automatic; it was the product of some reflection, as the OBE requested, and was granted at that time, a re-zoning to Commercial General from it previous non-conforming status. Where the height request would exceed the by-law by 50%, the FSI request would be even less acceptable by more than doubling the potential mass of the building. The combination of these two requests would lead to the construction of the longest building in Centretown East. The problem would be compounded by the fact that this unbroken length would face, not one, but two streets. The effect would be overpowering on both Lewis and Gilmour Streets. A further problem is the possible treatment of the roof. There would already by a substantial mechanical housing for the many elevators that a seniors establishment with over 300 people would require. Ashcroft is also talking about amenity facilities, all surrounded by a solid safety wall that would have its own shadow effect; in total, almost like another storey.

Response: The rezoning requested by the applicant for a height limit of 27.5 metres and an FSI of 4.1 across the entire property is recommended for refusal. The recommended R5 rezoning leaves the Heritage Overlay height limit for the primary heritage building intact and on the remaining portion of the property, allows for a six-storey height limit with a permitted seventh‑storey recessed three metres back of the floor below, rendering it much less visible from the adjacent streetscape and properties.

7. Comment: In response to the demands of the Downtown Urban Design Policy, the applicant goes to great lengths to explain how it would mitigate a number of problems of size, height, traffic, parking, servicing etc. We agree that there might be some mitigation, and the underground parking plan is to be commended, but the plan ultimately fails utterly to deal with the major issues that have been cited above.

The height, length and mass would not go away through the division of the building into three sections with different exterior treatments; cornices at the seventh floor, or the use of materials complementary to the heritage buildings on either side. Traffic, sunlight, servicing, landscaping, residents’ outdoor space and many other problems would remain.

Response: Rezoning for a building of the size proposed by the applicant is recommended for refusal. The design for any development proposed for the site will require approval through LACAC and the Site Plan Approval process, with input to both processes from a Design Review Panel under the Downtown Design Review Pilot Project. These processes will focus in part on achieving a compatible building design for any proposal on the property.

8. Comment: The applicant indicates that the shadow cast by the building would not be a big deal according to the quarterly shadow study reports included with the application. On the contrary, the effect on 295 Gilmour Street in the winter would be so severe that some residents have intimated that they would move for that reason alone. The proposed building especially in combination with a high building to the south will cause a wind tunnel down Lewis Street.

Response: The potential impact of shadows and wind under the recommended rezoning is reduced as compared to the effect of the applicant’s requested rezoning. Wind issues may be considered in more detail in any related site plan application as necessary.

9. Comment: The applicant’s traffic study suggests that in line with other seniors’ buildings, the increased traffic would not be a big deal on either Lewis or Gilmour Streets. To the contrary the combination of residents going to appointments in their own or other cars, staff coming and going, outside professionals making their rounds, deliveries (even down the alley) and customers for the spa, would be a potent mix that would mean much heavier traffic plus no parking on the street for visitors to 295 Gilmour Street. Lewis Street is very narrow and in the winter is barely passable. There are already traffic/parking problems associated with church activities.

Response: The recommended rezoning will have the effect of reducing the potential size and associated traffic volumes of the applicant’s development proposal by approximately 22.5 %. The transportation brief submitted by the applicant for the nine-storey development proposal has been reviewed by City engineering staff, resulting in recommendations for detailed circulation and other design improvements, which would be addressed through any related Site Plan Approval for the property, but the magnitude of traffic generated has not been cited as a problem.

class=Section2>

10. Comment: The applicant contends that the project was at the requested size because in order to provide the various specialized services in a seniors’ residence and retirement home, a certain scale was necessary, and that anything smaller would make the project unviable. This should not be a factor in the recommendations to be made by planners, or the decisions to be made by Council on the application for a zoning change. The proponent knew all the requirements when he purchased the site in 2001. The profit implications would, of course, be a factor for the proponent to consider in deciding whether or not to continue.

Response: Agreed; the recommended rezoning is considered to facilitate economically viable residential development on the property, including forms of accommodations oriented to seniors.

11. Comment: The applicant indicates that the 1922 OBE building would be preserved and in fact enhanced by having its eastern wall restored and divided from any other structure on the site, that the appearance of the building would be enhanced by the removal of the parking area to the west on O’Connor and its replacement by grass and trees, and that the two heritage buildings would become “capstones” to the block. The proposal to retain the 1922 building is welcomed and it is expected that any plan for 330 Gilmour Street would do so. The eastern wall proposal would depend on the fate of the other sections of the building. The idea for the property abutting O’Connor is so good that it should be implemented immediately, without waiting for the fate of the overall proposal to be decided. The idea that buildings half the height of the new tower would be capstones to the block is ludicrous.

Response: The recommended rezoning helps ensure the retention of the original 1922 OBE building, and prescribe a building envelope much more sensitive to the heritage buildings at the ends of the overall block by reducing the proposed height by two storeys and requiring 4.5 metre setbacks of the upper storey adjacent to the two heritage structures.

12. Comment: The applicant contends that the 1950s and 1960s sections of the building are of no heritage value, and so an exemption from the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act would be sought at the same time as the change in zoning in order to demolish them and construct the new tower. This request runs directly counter to the spirit and terms of the Heritage Act. No building can be demolished in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District unless and until the plan for replacement has been approved. No building should be built higher than the one to be demolished. The new building should enhance the heritage property around it and not draw attention to itself. The proposed building would not meet these criteria. These provisions are as important for the site as the issues surrounding the zoning changes, in part because the OMB approved the 1997 creation of the CHCD. If the proponent succeeds in ignoring the HCD in this case, it would be emptied of meaning elsewhere in the neighbourhood.

Response: Heritage focused issues are addressed in the related report on the application to demolish a portion of the building and allow for new construction in and area designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District. The original 1922 building is considered the most significant heritage component of the building on the property.

13. Comment: Property values on surrounding lands will go down if the applicant’s proposed rezoning is approved.

Response: Staff are unaware of any evidence that the recommended rezoning will have any detrimental impact on property values.

Comments In Support

A summary of comments of those in support of the re-zoning application and the staff responses are as follows:

Comments: The request for a nine-storey complex is not unreasonable in this area and it is requested that the Planning Department approve this application. The proposed use is supported and the fact that the heritage building on the west side will be maintained and not get enlarged is a bonus, it is a great looking building. This plan (and others) that would bring more people to live and shop in the downtown area is positive. This neighbourhood is safe and the people around here are friendly. We need more Condos and Town Homes in the area and need an expansion and overhaul similar to the one in Westboro. It is good that something will be built in the ugly parking lot and the new roof will not show elevator penthouses.

Response: The recommended rezoning is intended to facilitate a development that is sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhood, maintains the original heritage building and allows for development on the parking lot and helps fulfill the intensification objectives of the City’s official Plan.

COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

The comments of Councillor Diane Holmes and the staff responses are provided below:

“Centretown Secondary Area Policy Plan - Medium Profile

HEIGHT INCREASE from 18 to 27 metres

The current zoning implements the intentions of the Centretown Plan's 'medium profile' designation, which during the formulation stages set a height limit of 6 storeys (18 metres) for medium profile. This was intended to be a transition between the low profile further to the south, and the high profile in the north.

Comment: The existing building is appropriate and permits a significant redevelopment of the property. This is already a 100% increase in the height permitted within the 'Heritage Overlay' provisions - which would have allowed only the height of the existing buildings on the site.”

Staff Response: The current OP does not prescribe a specific height limit for medium profile residential development, unlike the former City of Ottawa OP, which provided a definition indicating medium profile generally was considered to be a height of five to nine-storeys. To maintain consistency in interpretation, and given the absence of any direction in the current OP as to the meaning of medium profile, where this term continues to be used in a secondary plan within the area of the former City of Ottawa, staff continue to interpret the terms low, medium and high profile in the way these terms where interpreted in the context of the former Ottawa OP. The purpose for maintaining this consistency is to assist in determining when an OP amendment (OPA) may be required where a proposal is submitted to allow for increased building height, such as with the application for 330 Gilmour Street. This interpretive approach is not for purposes of suggesting that an increased building height would be appropriate. Rather, any decision as to appropriate height would still require full assessment in the context of the current OP policy directives dealing with compatibility and integration, as set out in the current OP. It is further noted that the CSP does in fact support the need for an OPA where buildings greater than nine-storeys are proposed in a medium profile residential area.

In this regard, the Residential Area - Medium Profile policy of the CSP provides that consideration can be given to zoning amendments for higher profile buildings in a medium profile area where the site is located adjacent to an area designated Residential Area - High Profile, and where there is a concentration of buildings within that high profile area greater than nine-storeys. Thus, the CSP in its policy framework, supports the staff position that an OPA would be required where a proposal for a development greater than nine-storeys is proposed in a medium profile area, and where the site in question is not located adjacent to a high profile residential area accommodating buildings over nine-storeys.

“DENSITY INCREASE from 2.0 to 4.1 f.s.i.

The current zoning implements the medium profile's density of 2.0 f.s.i.. The proposed building would have a density of 4.1 f.s.i.

Comment: This density is an excessive overdevelopment of a small site - even when applied to the whole property which includes the older portion that is not being redeveloped. When applied to the lands actually being developed, the density is even higher - approaching Central Area densities.”

Staff Response: The zoning provisions that establish the building envelope and relationship to the heritage resources on, and adjacent to the property, have the primary effect on the qualitative relationship of development to the surrounding area in this situation. The main development intensity factors, which are addressed through FSI, are traffic volume and servicing capacities, which have been reviewed and are not issues of concern under the recommended R5 rezoning. Under the recommended rezoning there is no FSI provision; the yards, upper floor setback, and height provisions control the maximum development potential.

“Former City of Ottawa Official Plan) rescinded in 2003

APPLICATION of MEDIUM-PROFILE Nine-Storey Maximum Height

The former plan's definitions section stated that medium profile buildings could be within a range of five-nine storeys. This was rescinded in 2003 with the approval of the new Official Plan.

Comment: I am opposed to the concept of continuing to apply a development standard that has been officially withdrawn and rescinded. Furthermore, these former building profile definitions were contained within a general definition of profile: 'Profile (low, medium and high) is a relative term, which refers to the general height of a building compared to others in the immediate vicinity. While the policies normally ensure a transition in building profiles, the following general guidelines are also provided.' The 'policies' referred to were already contained within the Secondary Plan (the Centretown Plan) and did not contemplate nine-storey buildings in the medium profile zones.”

Staff Response: The policies of the Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa although no longer in effect, give some contextual background to the policies now in effect through the OP of the new City, which adds some insight given the reduced level of specificity offered by the current OP.

The current OP does not prescribe a specific height limit for medium profile residential development. Given the absence of clear direction as to the meaning of low, medium and high, staff, to remain consistent in interpretation, have continued to rely on the most recently ascribed indication of the meaning and application of these terms, which was prescribed in the Official Plan for the former City of Ottawa, as discussed earlier. Thus medium profile is generally considered to be five to nine-storeys. As well, the current CSP, in the discussion on Medium Profile Residential Areas that may be considered for rezoning, does refer to adjacent: “Residential Areas – High Profile where a concentration of development in excess of nine storeys exists”. The policies referred to in the former Ottawa OP where considered to be all the relative policies of the Primary and Secondary plans.

“Current City of Ottawa Official Plan approved 2003, 2006 (OMB)

The designations of the Centretown Secondary Policy Plan are reconfirmed by the most recent OP. In the principle plan, height limits are to be determined through the 'compatibility' test within the surrounding streetscape context

Comment: The massing, height and density of the proposed nine-storey slab is overwhelming to all of the heritage buildings nearby - particularly on Lewis Street.”

Staff Response: The applicant’s request for a rezoning to allow for nine storeys is recommended for refusal. The recommended rezoning allows for a maximum building height of seven storeys with the upper storey setback from the main façade and is allowed only on part of the property. The recommended rezoning is considered to be compatible with the surrounding area.

“City of Ottawa Official Plan Section 4.6.1 (Heritage Buildings and Areas) - Policy 7

States that new buildings shall:

- Respect the massing, profile and character of adjacent heritage buildings

- Approximate the width of nearby heritage buildings

- Minimize shadowing on adjacent heritage buildings

Comments: The proposed development at 330 Gilmour Street fails these standards.”

Staff Response: The Department agrees that the applicant’s proposal failed these standards. The recommended rezoning balances the need to fulfill the heritage policies, with the overall intent of the OP, including the objectives for intensification, while recognizing the development constraints inherent in the narrow lot width of the property.

“Downtown Urban Design Strategy - Centretown East/Bank Street Corridor - Precinct Strategies

COMPLIANCE with the 'DUDs' Strategies

‘Heritage assets need to be protected and new adjacent developments have to be sensitively integrated.’

Comment: Placing the blank nine storey end walls of the proposed development directly behind the Christian Science Church at the Metcalfe Street end and the OBE building at the O'Connor Street end contravenes this strategy.

‘Larger-scale, higher-density developments should be located in the northern portion of the precinct, north of Cooper. Smaller scale, lower density developments should dominate the southern portion of the precinct.’

Comment: In the massing of the proposed building the proponent has produced an unimaginative solid slab that is simply an extrusion of the development site. The superficial ornamentation does not mitigate this overwhelming mass and solid wall along both street frontages.”

Staff Response: Under the recommended rezoning the end walls beside the Church and OBE buildings will be a maximum of six storeys high with a minimum setback of 4.5 metres for a seventh-storey. The Downtown Urban Design Strategy 2020 states as one of the “key strategic directions for Centretown East: …Focus taller infill development north of Cooper, with small to medium neighbourhood scale residential infill developments directed toward the south.” The recommended rezoning decreases the scale of the building envelope by two storeys as compared to the applicant’s proposal. Any building proposed for the site will be subjected to review under the Design Review Pilot Project and approval through the LACAC heritage review process.

“Centretown Heritage Conservation District

COMPLIANCE with Centretown HCD Guidelines for New Construction in the Heritage District

"Ensure that new development is compatible with the low-scale high-density pattern that has marked the area over time."

"The form of new infill should reflect the character of existing buildings on adjoining or facing properties. The buildings should normally be three or four storeys in height, with massing and setbacks matching earlier patterns still evident in the immediate area."

Comment:

- The proposed building will have the longest unbroken footprint in Centretown. It overwhelms a block of outstanding two and one-half-storey houses on Lewis (a very narrow street) and the two important landmark heritage buildings at either end of the subject block.

- The superficial changes in brick colour and building finish do not mitigate the excessive bulk of this slab.”

Summary of comments:

Therefore, I am opposed to this zoning amendment, as it will result in an overdevelopment of this very confined site with a bulky and overwhelming slab-like tower that will dominate each of its street frontages, overpower the adjacent heritage buildings, and fail the urban design tests of the Official Plan and the Centretown Heritage Conservation District.”

Staff Response: The recommended rezoning balances the need to fulfill the heritage policies, with the overall intent of the OP, including the objectives for intensification, while recognizing the development constraints inherent in the narrow lot width. The recommended rezoning reduces the potential size of new development on the property as compared to the applicant’s request.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

Comments First Church of Christ, Scientist

The First Church of Christ, Scientist provided the following comments:

“We attended the presentation at the Jack Purcell Community Centre on June 8 sponsored by Dianne Holmes and found the revised proposal for 330 Gilmour Street a big improvement over the original. That said we still have the following concerns:

1. We are concerned about the possibility of damage to the church foundation from blasting. The building dates from 1913 and monitoring of the foundation before and after will be difficult and expensive because it is below ground – inaccessible on the outside and also on the inside unless the Sunday School walls are ripped opened. Who will pay for that monitoring and rehabilitation after the blasting is finished? What happens if there is significant damage?

2. The proposed entrance to the building garage will be off Lewis Street, immediately behind our property. The traffic flow along Lewis Street may therefore be significantly impacted by Paratranspo buses, which are already holding cars up during the Sunday morning and Wednesday evening services. The developer may wish to approach the city about parking prohibitions on Lewis Street across from our handicap entrance long enough to accommodate two Paratranspo buses. Has a traffic report been submitted along with the building construction proposal?

3. We are concerned lest there be any reduction of street parking spaces along both Lewis and Gilmour Streets between Metcalfe and O‘Connor Streets.

4. The requested exemptions for the height, FSI, and heritage aspects are not of particular concern to us, and may be necessary to have the developer proceed with what is, overall, a desirable neighbouring residence, in keeping with the City’s planning objectives.”

Response

The issues of potential effects from blasting, traffic circulation and parking will be addressed through any Site Plan approval and Building Permit issuance for development on the site. A transportation brief was submitted with the application and has been reviewed by City engineering staff.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS

Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Comments

The Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee provided the following comment in response to the circulation of the rezoning application:

“LACAC reviewed this project with the proponent in committee, found that the proposed height of nine storeys is not appropriate for the Centretown Heritage District, and strongly recommends that the height be limited to six storeys with a possible seventh storey if set back."

Response

The requested rezoning to permit nine storeys is recommended for refusal; the recommended R5 rezoning limits the building to six-storeys with a seventh storey set back which was consistent with LACAC’s initial comment provided when they considered the circulation of the rezoning application. Subsequently, LACAC in dealing with the formal application submitted under the Heritage Act for demolition and new construction formalized their position to refuse the Heritage Act application and indicated that building heights should respect the heritage overlay provisions of the current zoning.