4.       zONING - 104 MASON TERRACE AND 388 MAIN STREEt

 

zONAGE - 104, TERRASSE MASON ET 388, RUE MAIn

 

 

 

Committee recommendation as amended

 

That Council refuse an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 104 Mason Terrace from R1L (Detached House Subzone) to R2F [Exception] (Semi-Detached House Subzone with an exception) and to change the zoning of 388 Main Street, currently zoned R5[167]F(1.0) (Low-rise Apartment subzone), to a new R5 exception zone as detailed in Document 2.

 

 

Recommandation modifiée du Comité

 

Que le Conseil refuse une modification au Règlement de zonage de l'ancienne Ville d'Ottawa de manière à faire passer la désignation du 104, terrasse Mason, de R1L (sous-zone de maisons unifamiliales) à R2F [Exception] (sous-zone de maisons jumelées assortie d'une exception) et de changer la désignation actuelle du 388, rue Main, correspondant au zonage R5[167]F(1.0) (sous-zone d'immeubles à appartements de faible hauteur), à une nouvelle zone d'exception R5, comme le précise le document 2.

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.         A/Deputy City Manager's report (Planning and Growth Management) report dated 12 October 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-APR-0180).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minute, 28 November 2006.

 

 

 

 


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

12 October 2006 / le 12 octobre 2006

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : John L. Moser, Acting Deputy City Manager/

Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

 

Contact Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement (613) 580 2424 x13242  Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

 

Capital (17)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PGM-APR-0180

 

 

SUBJECT:

ZONING - 104 Mason Terrace and 388 Main STreet

 

 

OBJET :

ZONAGE - 104, terrasse mason et 388, rue main

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 104 Mason Terrace from R1L (Detached House Subzone) to R2F [Exception] (Semi-Detached House Subzone with an exception) and to change the zoning of 388 Main Street, currently zoned R5[167]F(1.0) (Low-rise Apartment subzone), to a new R5 exception zone as detailed in Document 2.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement recommande au Conseil d'approuver une  modification au Règlement de zonage de l'ancienne Ville d'Ottawa de manière à faire passer la désignation du 104, terrasse Mason, de R1L (sous-zone de maisons unifamiliales) à R2F [Exception] (sous-zone de maisons jumelées assortie d'une exception) et de changer la désignation actuelle du 388, rue Main, correspondant au zonage R5[167]F(1.0) (sous-zone d'immeubles à appartements de faible hauteur), à une nouvelle zone d'exception R5, comme le précise le document 2.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The property at 104 Mason Terrace is zoned R1L – a Detached House Subzone - and is located at the northeast corner of Mason Terrace and Mutchmor Road.  The property is an irregular shape, with 12.19 m of frontage on Mason Terrace (the front yard for By-law purposes), 24.53 m of frontage along Mutchmor Road, and a lot area of approximately 79 m2.  The property is surrounded by single-detached houses, with the exception of the Cuban Embassy located at the rear of the property, with its address as 388 Main Street.  The Cuban Embassy is zoned R5A[167] F(1.0). The remainder of the properties on Main Street, and those on Riverdale Avenue, are zoned to permit multiple unit dwellings, with zones ranging from R2A to R3J.    

 

The purpose of the requested Zoning By-law amendment is to permit the conversion of the existing single-detached house at 104 Mason Terrace to a linked-detached house, to be occupied by members of the staff of the Cuban Embassy and their families.  The second unit will be accessed from Mutchmor Road.  Parking for the proposed additional unit will be accommodated on the main Cuban Embassy site at 388 Main Street.  The plans submitted with the application do not include any on-site parking for the additional unit.

 

The proposed Zoning By-law amendment application will amend the zoning of 104 Mason Terrace from R1L to R2F[***], a Semi-detached subzone with an exception.  The R2 zone permits all of the uses permitted in the R1 zone, with the addition of a duplex house, a linked-detached house, and a semi-detached house.  The purpose of the exception is to accommodate the unique features of the development relating to its position on a corner lot, and its relationship to the Cuban Embassy.  The front yard for the new unit, for the purposes of the Zoning By-law amendment, will be Mutchmor Road, with the rear yard being the northerly side yard of the original unit.  This will have the effect of reducing the rear yard of the original unit to zero.  The exception will also allow parking for the new unit to be located off-site on the Cuban Embassy property.  This will require that an exception also be added to the R5A[167]F(1.0) zone applying to the Embassy lands to permit non-accessory parking.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Official Plan

 

The Official Plan has designated 104 Mason Terrace and 388 Main Street as General Urban Area.  Lands having this designation are expected to develop with a wide range of residential uses as well as employment, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses.  A semi-detached, or linked-detached, house conforms to this designation as it represents a form of ground-oriented housing that represents a reasonable transition between the low-density housing permitted on Mason Terrace and Mutchmor Road and the medium-density residential uses permitted on the adjacent property at 188 Main Street, and the other properties on Main Street. 

 

The proposal meets the Official Plan’s goal of intensification as it represents an opportunity to add a housing unit to a serviced, central location.  The City supports intensification and infill development throughout the urban area, including areas designated General Urban Area.  The Official Plan requires that the City will promote opportunities for infill on lands where the present use is maintained and the addition of residential uses or other uses can be accomplished in a complementary manner. 

 

The policies in the Compatibility of Development Section of the Official Plan require that the City ensure, when reviewing development applications for intensification, that there is compatibility with the pattern of the surrounding area in terms of height, setback from the street and distance between buildings.  Where the height, building mass, proportion, street setback and distance between buildings varies from the norm in the area, the proposed design may compensate for this variation through its treatment of other characteristics common to the surrounding area, including the materials, textures and colours used in wall treatments; the articulation of facades; the size, shape and location of doors and windows; the treatment of parking facilities and the location of garages; the form of the roof shape; landscape treatments; and other architectural or design features where appropriate.  It is the Department's position, based on the elevations that have been provided, that the expansion of the existing detached house to include an additional unit conforms to this policy and will be a suitable fit within the community. 

 

The original design proposed by the Applicant has been modified, through consultation with the community and with the Department, to be more sensitive to the abutting property at 118 Mason Terrace, and to be more compatible with the streetscape.  The height of the addition has been lowered, the wall facing the abutting property has been further articulated, and relocated to provide greater separation between the two uses, and the front and side facades have been altered to greater reflect the design of the existing unit, as well as the other houses in the area.  The design modifications required the removal of the parking space for the additional unit, and resulted in the proposal to accommodate the required parking on the Embassy lands.  In order for this parking to be permitted on the Embassy lands, it is necessary to amend the exception currently applying to those lands to permit non-accessory parking, associated with the uses at 104 Mason Terrace.

 

Zoning By-law

 

The 104 Mason Terrace property is part of a neighbourhood that is zoned R1, and that contains single-detached dwellings.  The property is located adjacent to the Cuban Embassy, which is zoned R5A[167] F(1.0), and which is adjacent to properties, on Main Street and Riverdale Avenue, that are zoned to permit multiple unit dwellings, with zones ranging from R2A to R3J.

 

The proposed rezoning, to an R2 subzone, will include an exception to accommodate the unique orientation of the proposed linked-detached house, as well as the lot size for one of the units, which will be slightly smaller than that required by the proposed subzone.  The exception will also permit the parking for the additional unit to be located on the adjacent property, and will, in effect, tie the two properties (104 Mason Terrace and 188 Main Street) together.  The height limit of 10.7 metres will be maintained, and will not form part of the exception.

 

The purpose of the R1 zone is to permit low density dwellings on lands, to restrict dwelling types to detached houses, and to regulate development in a manner that adopts existing land use patterns so that the detached-house character of a neighbourhood is maintained. 

 

Similarly, the purpose of the R2 zone is to permit low density dwellings with a slightly higher density than in the R1 zone, to restrict dwelling types to detached houses, semi-detached houses, linked-detached houses and duplex houses, and to regulate development in a manner that adopts existing land use patterns so that the low density character of a neighbourhood is maintained.

 

Rezoning 104 Mason Terrace from R1 to R2 will maintain the low density character of the neighbourhood, and will permit an additional housing unit to be located in a central, serviced location.  It will allow a development that will compliment the associated use at 188 Main Street, and will result in the revitalization of the property.  While the proposed construction will have an impact on the rear yard of the properties located at 118 and 120 Mason Terrace, this impact has been reduced by amendments to the proposed plans.  The plans provide for an increase in the distance between the lot line and the proposed addition over that of the existing one-storey additions, and draw the building closer to Mutchmor Road. 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The proposed construction will require the removal of a mature oak tree on private property, and the possible relocation of City trees located on the right-of-way.  The Applicant is aware of the concerns of the neighbourhood respecting the potential damage to trees, both on-site and on adjacent properties.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  A community meeting was held on August 30, 2006 and the Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.  Full details of the comments received are included in Document 3 Consultation Details.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications because of the determined need to hold a community meeting, and as a result of negotiations to amend the design based on the concerns expressed by the community and the Department.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1      Location Map

Document 2      Details of Recommended zoning

Document 3      Consultation Details

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Corporate Services Department, City Clerk’s Branch, Secretariat Services to notify the owner, (Cuban Embassy, 388 Main Street, Ottawa ON  K1S 1E3), applicant, (Steve Barkhouse, Box 129, Stittsville ON  K2S 1A2), Signs.ca, 866 Campbell Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K2A 2C5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code:  26‑76) of City Council’s decision.

 

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

 

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


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                  DOCUMENT 1

 


DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                       DOCUMENT 2

 

1.        The R1L [87] zone applying to the property known municipally as 104 Mason Terrace, and shown as Area A on Document 1, is rezoned to a new R2F[***] exception zone, and the following provisions apply for a linked-detached house or a semi-detached house:

 

Provisions –

 

For the property fronting on Mutchmor Road:                                                              

-         the minimum lot area is reduced to 130 m2,

-         the minimum required rear yard depth is reduced to 2.7m,

-         the minimum required front yard is reduced to 0.89m,

-         the minimum required side yard is reduced to 0.32m, and

-         parking for the linked-detached house may be provided on the adjacent property at 388 Main Street.

 

For the property known as 104 Mason Terrace:

-         the minimum corner side yard is reduced to 0.89m,

-         the minimum required rear yard is reduced to 0 m, and

-         Parking for the linked-detached house may be provided on the property at 388 Main Street.

 

2.        The R5A[167] F(1.0) zone applying to the property known municipally as 388 Main Street, and shown as Area B on Document 1, is rezoned to a new R5A[***] F(1.0) exception zone, and the following provision is added to the exception provisions of exception 167:

 

Non-accessory parking, to serve the linked-detached houses in the R2F[**] zone may be provided.

 

 


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.  A public meeting was also held in the community on August 30, 2006.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

 

Response to comments:  The application has been submitted showing an addition to the existing unit, and the construction of one additional unit.  The application was processed on that basis, and it is on that basis that the recommendation was formed.  The Applicant has advised that each of the two units will have only one kitchen.  If the Owner attempts to build three units in the future, this would be in violation of the proposed zoning. 

 

 

Response to comment:  Each zoning application that is submitted is considered by the Department, and by the Planning and Environment Committee, on its own merits.  The present application is unique because of its location adjacent to the Cuban Embassy, and the fact that the proposed parking arrangement, as detailed in the exception provisions, ties the two uses together.

 

 

Response to comment:  Staff of the Cuban Embassy has advised that the reason the current building has fallen into disrepair is as a result of their development plans.  They did not want to invest significantly in the repair of the current structures only to demolish them at a later date.  The construction materials that will be used will be of high quality, and the site will be revitalised.

 

 

Response to comment:  The addition of an additional housing unit is within the policies of the Official Plan.  The proposed structure has been designed to address the existing house, and to be as compatible as possible with surrounding properties.

 

 

 

Response to comments:  It is the intent of the City’s intensification policies to create and maintain liveable, well-functioning neighbourhoods.  The proposed rezoning to permit the addition of one unit will not result in a significant increase in traffic on the neighbourhood streets, particularly because the parking for the unit will be located at 388 Main Street, and will be accessed from Main Street.  An increase in noise and crime is not anticipated.

 

 

Response to comment:  The existing house has a gross floor area of 144 m2, and has a height of 7.8 metres.  The proposed addition to the existing house, taking into account the removal of the existing single storey additions, will result in a gross floor area of 173 m2 (addition of 29 m2), and will maintain the height of the existing house.  The proposed second unit has a gross floor area of 114.5 m2, and a proposed height of 7.9 metres.  The height limit in this area of the City (Area A) is 10.7 metres.  While the proposed addition will increase the gross floor area of the building from 102.1 m2 to 287.5 m2, the proposal is well within the height limit.  The proposal has been amended to provide more open space in the rear, in an attempt to limit the impact on adjacent properties.

 

 

Response to comment: The Department is not in possession of evidence to suggest that a change in zoning of this nature has a negative effect on the property values in the surrounding neighbourhood.  Property values are based on many factors, which include, but are not limited to, zoning and development potential.

 

 

Response to comment:  The policies of the Official Plan encourage a mix and range of housing types in residential neighbourhoods.  The addition of this linked-detached house will introduce an additional family and additional pedestrian activity within the neighbourhood.  While it is true that no housing of this nature exists at this time, it is the position of the Department that the introduction of the linked-detached housing form is appropriate for the subject property.

 

 

Response to comment:  If the R1 zoning of the property were to be maintained, with no variances or exceptions granted, the property could be developed to a height of 10.7 metres.  The development would be required to be 3.0 metres from Mason Terrace, 4.5 metres from Mutchmor Road, 1.2 metres from the property line abutting 118 Mason Terrace, and would be required to maintain 25% of lot depth and 25% of lot area (to a maximum requirement of 7.5 metres) as the rear yard setback.  The lot is irregularly shaped, which somewhat complicates the calculation of the rear yard.  The appreciable increase that would be permitted without relief from the provisions of the Zoning By-law is the height of 10.7 metres.

 

 

Response to comment:  The R2 and R3 zones are intended to accommodate low density residential development.  These zones are present throughout the former City of Ottawa, and are not restricted to arterial or collector roads.  The plans for the proposed linked-detached house have been amended to reduce the impact of the construction on the immediate neighbours.

 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

In addition to the comments outlined above, a petition was received by Councillor Doucet with over 80 signatures.  The text of this petition stated that the signers:

 

"... strongly object to the rezoning of 104 Mason Terrace from R1 to R2 and to the size and height of the structure being planned for that property. The zoning and size are entirely out of character with the single family neighbourhood in which the property is situated: from Main Street to Echo Drive and to Clegg Street.  We are also concerned about the precedent this rezoning may set for the properties in the area."

 

Response to petition:  The petition reflects the comments that have been submitted by individuals, as noted above.  The Department’s responses are also noted above.

 

COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

Councillor Doucet is aware of the proposal and of the staff recommendation.  Councillor Doucet is supportive of the community position.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

 

Ottawa East Community Association (OECA)

On Sept. 12th, homeowners from the immediate vicinity of 104 Mason Terrace, including the immediately adjacent property owner, attended our OECA meeting. They outlined the rezoning application submitted for this property with proposed drawings and explained their numerous and significant objections.

 

Further they presented a petition signed by some 50 nearby residents. The text of this petition stated that the signers:

 

"... strongly object to the rezoning of 104 Mason Terrace from R1 to R2 and to the size and height of the structure being planned for that property. The zoning and size are entirely out of character with the single family neighbourhood in which the property is situated: from Main Street to Echo Drive and to Clegg Street.  We are also concerned about the precedent this rezoning may set for the properties in the area."

 

The OECA agrees with the general neighbourhood objection. The current zoning should be respected. This proposed rezoning is not compatible and should not be recommended for approval.

Response to comments:  It is the opinion of the Department that the proposed rezoning is in keeping with the policies of the Official Plan for the General Urban Area, and that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses.  It is for these reasons that the Department has recommended approval.



            zONING - 104 MASON TERRACE AND 388 MAIN STREEt      

zONAGE - 104, TERRASSE MASON ET 388, RUE MAIn

ACS2006-PGM-apr-0180                                                                     capital (17)

 

Ms. Krista Burgess, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch (PIA), provided an overview of the staff report by means of a PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk).

 

The Committee heard from the following members of the public:

 

Mr. Don Fugler, residing on Mason Terrace and member of the Ottawa East Community Association (OECA) said the OECA supports his comments.  He stated that the entire neighbourhood is opposed to the proposed zoning amendment.  There are concerns about the fact that the housing for embassy staff could be sold once completed.  Mr. Fugler submitted a 140-name petition in opposition to the project and he indicated that several hundred hours of work had gone into preparing for the presentations to the Committee, as well as a review of a number of the City’s documents, such as the 20/20 Vision and the Official Plan.

 

Diane Breton, residing on Bower Street, raised the following points in opposition to the rezoning:

·        The community in Ottawa East is one of Ottawa’s first architecturally-designed communities and has a specific residential quality;

·        The neighbourhood is composed of single-detached brick houses and has many trees: one large, mature oak will have to be removed and one 50-foot pine will be impacted.  Other trees will need to be relocated;

·        The criteria used to approve the project has not been made clear to the community;

·        The pattern of the surrounding community does not fit the footpath of this building;

·        This is an extreme change that could form the basis for future requests and destroy the soul of the neighbourhood;

·        The community accepts the need for infilling, but objects to massing that is greater than what is currently allowed.

Ms. Breton stated that, for these reasons, the proposal should be rejected.

 

Tom McMahon, residing at 64 Mason Street, is opposed because of density and intensification.  He posited that the Cuban Embassy should not be over-developed.  The proposed zoning amendment would change the density from 30 dwelling units per hectare to 62 dwelling units per hectare, which is considered into the high benchmark: this is contrary to the objectives of the Official Plan.  Mr. McMahon felt that the current zoning should be maintained.  With regard to intensification, the intent is to create liveable, well-functioning neighbourhoods.  The 2004 document “Where Will We Live?” says there is a potential within the existing urban area to accommodate all the growth projected to 2011 and enough capacity for another twelve years.  The property at Mason Terrace does not qualify for intensification under the O.P.

 

Paul Goodkey, a resident of 61 Mason Terrace, submitted written documentation in support of not approving the requested zoning change.  Mr. Goodkey’s conclusions are as follows:

·        The proposed intensification of this property is not compatible, nor complementary to the high-density, single-detached neighbourhood and does not fulfil the objectives of the Official Plan;

·        The proposed extreme exception provisions for lot size, parking requirements, building setbacks and building heights mock the zoning by-law;

·        Approving the zoning by-law amendment would have an extraordinary negative impact on the adjacent properties and any R2 zoning in this R1 zoned neighbourhood is questionable;

·        Under an R2 zoning, the property could be developed for miscellaneous uses such as a duplex, a bed and breakfast, a retirement home, a semi-detached house or a special needs house for a maximum of 8 residents;

·        One hundred and forty neighbours have signed a petition strongly objecting to the rezoning of 104 Mason Terrace.

 

Mr. Goodkey illustrated, by means of two charts, the “footprints” of the R2F subzone exception and the R1L subzone setbacks, in support of his position.  He made reference to the “Where Will We Live?” report, which he said points out that a small-scale infill on a parcel of land with frontage such as exists at 104 Mason Terrace is assumed to develop as a single-detached house.  He stated that, for this reason, the existing zoning should be maintained.  The complete text of Mr. Goodkey’s submissions is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Edward Moore, residing at 119 Mason Terrace, said this massive project does not match any other in the area.  He expressed the view that attempts at mitigating measures have been inadequate since the resulting building still looks “boxy” and inappropriate and resembles a series of row housing units.  The adjacent property owner would have no view to the south and to the west.  Mr. Moore requested that the rezoning not be approved.

 

George Haydu, residing at 120 Mason Terrace, spoke about parking and the linkage of the Mason Terrace and Main Street properties.  He pointed out that the Notice of Zoning By-law Amendment sign made no mention of the rezoning to accommodate additional parking.  He expressed the view that access to the embassy parking lot is only available through Mutchmor Street.  Under the current by-law, the Cuban Embassy, an office building of 1500 square metres, needs 30 parking spaces: only 8 spaces are marked, which means parking is already inadequate.  Mr. Haydu said that cars would end up parking on Mutchmor Street.  He also pointed out 104 Mason is not a secured, gated property, as is the Cuban Embassy, hence the linkage of the two properties is inappropriate.

 

Greg Giokas, of 118 Mason Terrace, commenting on the development review process, reiterated that the local residents had not been adequately consulted.  He chronicled the community’s efforts at getting information from the City about property owners’ rights, and finding out that the applicant could build an even bigger project on the lot.  There were no attempts to consult with residents before a public meeting held on August 30th.  Mr. Giokas stated that, sometime in 2005, the applicant had submitted a proposal for a three-unit row house and was advised to pre-consult with neighbours and the ward Councillor prior to submitting any new proposals.  Efforts to communicate with the Cuban Embassy met with no response.  Mr. Giokas indicated that all the information presented today was as a result of independent research by concerned residents.  He expressed the view that this is not a transparent process and the community would like to register its dissatisfaction in this regard.

 

Robert Dennis, residing at 42 Mount Pleasant Street, has been a member of the Real Estate Board for 24 years, as President and as a salesperson and broker/owner.  He spoke of having seen developments in the past that have been disastrous for existing neighbourhoods.  He posited that allowing this development will open the door to future applications and many corner lots could be rezoned for higher density development.  This could lead to more rentals and accessory apartments.  What would happen if the Embassy sold the lot; what would be the impact on the safety of residents.  Mr. Dennis also alluded to parking on the street and the impact this could have on snow removal in the area.

 

Bess Fraser, a resident of Mason Terrace, circulated a document comparing the rezoning of 104 Mason Terrace with other properties rezoned from R1 to R2 post-amalgamation (document held on file with the City Clerk).  She pointed out that none of the other properties listed needed parking exceptions or setbacks.  Ms. Fraser provided some historical background on the development of Mason Terrace and the surrounding streets, noting the area was first developed in 1944 as the first architecturally designed suburb in Ottawa.  She stated that this development and the destruction of mature trees would have a huge impact on the neighbourhood.  Ms. Fraser pointed out that, in 1998, a zoning change for same property was disallowed and she wanted to know why this was being revisited now.

 

Claire Pérusse, owner of the property immediately adjacent to 104 Mason Terrace, expressed her strong opposition to a high-density development next door.  She described her lot a pie-shaped and non-standard and called the proposal unsympathetic in terms of massing and height.  She spoke about the impact it would have on her privacy and on access to sunlight and other outdoor amenities.  Ms. Pérusse said the mass created by the height and width of the structure would create a wall across her property.  She also made reference to the visual intrusion of the structure’s numerous windows on her privacy.  She alluded to the adverse impact on neighbourhood trees, averring that, without a tree preservation plan, many other trees could be lost through root damage.  Ms. Pérusse concluded by saying that, for all these reasons, the proposed rezoning should not be approved.

 

Brian Jarvis, a resident of Mutchmor Street, spoke about the neighbours being fortunate in having many large, mature trees in the area.  On several streets, the trees form a canopy over the middle of the street.  Mr. Jarvis pointed out that the City’s website states that trees are important both from an aesthetic and health point of view.  He said he had built his own house while keeping an existing tree, thereby setting a precedent.  He reiterated the previous speaker’s comment about the possibility of several other trees being lost due to root problems and he wondered how successful the removal of mature trees would be.  Mr. Jarvis asked whether this project was so desirable that mature, healthy trees needed to be sacrificed and whether this issue had been thoroughly explored in the staff report.

 

Karen-Anne Reid, residing at 55 Merritt Street, stated that approving the zoning by-law amendment represents over-intensification.  She said it was feasible that uses such as a Bed and Breakfast, a retirement home, an embassy residence would be permitted through the R2 zoning, and the height restriction could be 10 metres.  Ms. Reid indicated that, as of last night, there were over 140 names on a petition strongly objecting to the rezoning of the property.  She pointed out that many area residents are able to walk to work, and that there are not many parking problems in the area.  She asked that the rezoning not be approved.

 

Zbigniew Jan Czaban, P. Eng., and a neighbourhood resident, reviewed many of the points covered by the previous speakers.  He added that there are concerns regarding the safety and security of the Cuban Embassy.  He stated that the Cuban mission in Montréal was recently bombed and staff needs to conduct a risk assessment for residents of Mason Terrace.  Mr. Czaban suggested that the Cuban Embassy should further study whether to buy or lease additional properties or build onto the embassy building itself.  He wanted to know why staff were supporting such an inadequate solution as that being proposed.  He called the parking solution not credible and stated there is likely no realistic solution to the linkage and locked gates issues.  Mr. Czaban summarized by saying that the projects has many disconnects and according to him, should be given a failing grade.  The complete text of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Joanna Gualtieri, a resident of Mason Terrace, summarized the issues that were raised by the previous speakers and added the following points:

·        The proposal to create a semi-detached dwelling is not in compliance with the existing neighbourhood;

·        It is wrong to give greater rights to the applicant than to other neighbours;

·        The Cuban Embassy staff residence at 104 Mason Terrace and the Embassy at 388 Main are separate and distinct parcels with different addresses, orientation, zoning and uses: the argument for linking them together is specious;

·        The City will be obligated to approve other similar applications should this one be successful;

·        The proposal was not clearly stated to the adjoining neighbours, whereas they are entitled to be duly and fully apprised of the changes sought, particularly when these could have such a detrimental impact.

 

Ms. Gualtieri concluded her presentation by stating that Council is the guardian of the public trust.  She posited that approving this project will open the door to developers coming in and doing land assemblies, and she asked whether, as the owner of multiple properties, she would receive special concessions to develop her holdings.  The complete text of her presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Steve Barkhouse, Armsted Construction, expressed the view that many of the points raised did not relate to the application.  He felt that the proposal meets the goals of the Official Plan with respect to intensification and infill development in the General Urban Area.  Mr. Barkhouse pointed out this was a quality of life issue for the Cuban Embassy who insisted that Canadian guidelines be followed in the development of the project.  Representations were made to City staff and in turn staff recommended modifications that were acceptable to and approved by the Cuban government.  Mr. Barkhouse stated that the public meeting held on 30 August came about due to effort on the part of the developer and the Cuban Embassy.  At that meeting, the public raised a number of concerns and Armsted undertook to make changes to address them.  He pointed out that over 500 people live in this area, in comparison to only 140 who signed the petition.

 

Mr. Barkhouse went on to refute a number of points made during the previous presentations:

·        This is not a 3-unit project: it is for a single new unit attached to an existing unit, creating two separate units;

·        The developer is prepared to remove the kitchen in the existing home;

·        It is not up to individuals to direct the aesthetic aspects of the building design: no precedence is being set: the Cuban Embassy has owned the building since 1974 and a rezoning occurred at that time;

·        Maintenance of the current property was poor, since the Embassy was considering altering the property and therefore reduced maintenance on the existing building;

·        There are other properties in the vicinity that back onto one-another, and form the exact same situation that will arise from the one at 104 Mason/388 Main;

·        The oak tree alluded to is too old to be maintained: the pine tree roots are not likely to come close to the property and excavation is not likely to impact on the trees.

 

Mr. Barkhouse circulated a number of photographs to support his presentation, and these are held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Gomez Fernandez, from the Cuban Embassy said that embassy officials fully understand the concerns of their neighbours, and has tried to address these concerns.  He pointed out that the embassy needs to grow a little bit, and does not want this to clash with the needs of others.  He assured those present that parking is not a problem and that a future sale is not embassy policy: the focus is on the long-term.  Mr. Fernandez spoke about the privacy issue being two way, adding the Embassy does not intend to affect anybody’s privacy and hopes to reach a point where nobody feels diminished or affected.

 

Committee Discussion

 

The Ward Councillor, Clive Doucet, spoke in support of the position taken by the citizens of Ottawa East.  He noted that his ward has shown itself aggressive in pursuit of infill and intensification, and has encouraged many developers in this regard.  Speaking to the proposed development, Councillor Doucet stated that it did not have the support of anyone in the neighbourhood, because it doesn’t enhance the quality of life in the area.  He called it a giant house set in someone’s back yard and he also felt it would have an impact on parking in the area.  He asked the Committee not to support the application.

 

Councillor Alex Cullen wanted to know when measures would be put in place to determine when too much is too much by way of intensification.  He questioned the claim that the project represents a small change to the neighbourhood and that it will have no detrimental impacts.  The Councillor alluded to the adjoining properties, noting that there will be reduced setbacks, and loss of privacy, as well as damage to trees in the area.  He stated that he was not convinced about the compatibility of the project with the neighbourhood around it.

 

On the advice of Legal counsel Tim Marc, Councillor Cullen moved the following amended recommendation:

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 104 Mason Terrace from R1L (Detached House Subzone) to R2F [Exception] (Semi-Detached House Subzone with an exception) and to change the zoning of 388 Main Street, currently zoned R5[167]F(1.0) (Low-rise Apartment subzone), to a new R5 exception zone as detailed in Document 2.

                                                                                                            CARRIED as amended

 

YEAS (5):        A. Cullen, M. Bellemare, G. Bédard, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate

NAYS (3):       J. Harder, G. Hunter, P. Hume