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
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
OBJET : |
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.
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.
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
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
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
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