|
4. ZONING
– 1507 AND 1519 MANOTICK STATION ROAD (D02-02-07-0023) ZONAGE – 1507 ET 1519, CHEMIN
MANOTICK STATION
|
COMMITTEE recommendation
That Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1507 and 1519 Manotick Station Road from RU - Rural to RU('X') - Rural Exception 'X' as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
Recommandation du Comité
Que le Conseil approuve une modification au
Règlement municipal de l'ancien Canton d'Osgoode afin de changer le zonage du
1507 et du 1519, chemin Manotick Station, de Zone rurale (RU) à Zone
rurale d'exception 'X' [RU('X')], comme il est
illustré dans le document 1 et expliqué dans le document 2.
DocumentatioN
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 26 October 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-APR-0202).
2.
Extract
of draft Minutes, 22 November 2007.
Report to/Rapport au :
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité d'agriculture et des questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
October 26, 2007 / le 26 octobre 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 : Karen Currie, Manager / Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement
(613)
580-2424, 28310 Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
ZONING - 1507 and 1519 Manotick
Station Road (D02-02-07-0023) |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1507 and 1519 Manotick Station Road from RU - Rural to RU('X') - Rural Exception 'X' as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d'approuver une modification au
Règlement municipal de l'ancien Canton d'Osgoode afin de changer le zonage du
1507 et du 1519, chemin Manotick Station, de Zone rurale (RU) à Zone
rurale d'exception 'X' [RU('X')], comme il est
illustré dans le document 1 et expliqué dans le document 2.
BACKGROUND
The subject lands front on the east side of Manotick Station Road between Elkwood Drive and Deermeadow Drive. The site is approximately 1.3 hectares in size and currently has two older homes on it. There are some trees and hedges on the existing property. The site is on a hill about a metre above the street dropping towards the back by about five metres. Immediately to the east is Orchard View Living Centre, a residential care home, with some daily living assistance. The proposed development is surrounded by single detached estate residential development. On the west side of Manotick Station Road are a few single family homes - some on larger properties.
Purpose of
Zoning Amendment
The purpose of this amendment is to permit a 39-unit retirement residence.
The existing zone is RU - Rural which does not contemplate the proposed use.
The applicant has requested a RU('X') - Rural Exception 'X' zone to specifically permit a retirement residence or apartment, consisting of 39 dwelling units as well as a common shared kitchen and eating area.
DISCUSSION
The Official Plan Designation is General Rural. The permitted uses within the Official Plan contemplate a retirement residence within the General Rural designation. The scale contemplated would be smaller than what is requested in this case. The General Rural designation directs new institutional uses towards the Villages but does consider the possibility of expanding existing uses. In this case there is an existing residential care home adjacent to the subject site and the proposal contemplates sharing some facilities with the retirement apartment. The expansion of the site to include the subject lands requires a Zoning By-law amendment.
Although the proposed use might be ideally located in a Village, in this case Greely, or the urban area, the existence of the residential care home along with the retirement residence would create a campus feel to the development and provide an opportunity for those who are living independently to stay in the same community when it comes time that they require some additional assistance with their daily living.
The Official Plan also speaks to the potential impacts on adjacent landowners needing to be minimized. As proposed, there is adequate room to buffer the site from the residences opposite on Manotick Station. The existing Orchard View Living Centre screens the proposed building from the adjacent subdivision to the east. There are no nearby agricultural uses that would be impacted. With the entrance shared with the existing retirement residence there is additional opportunity to buffer the building itself and landscape the road side of the building. The parking area is proposed to be to the south of the building, and although adjacent to the road allows existing trees to be preserved and new ones planted to enhance the buffering and maintain the rural character and the streetscape. The specifics for minimizing the visual and noise impacts will be addressed through the site plan process.
Details
of Proposed Zoning and Discussion of Issues
The proposed zone is a Rural exception zone, limiting the permitted use to a retirement residence. The Zoning By-law amendment will create a new definition for the retirement residence. It will specify that the building is operated as a residence for those persons in need of minimal supervision and assistance with daily living including medical care and meals. Each unit would also have its own bathroom and kitchen.
The maximum building height will be established at four storeys. The four storeys are proposed to be on the east side of the building, while the elevation facing Manotick Station Road is three storeys, as a result of grade changes.
The maximum unit count will be set at 39 units, which is a density of about 37 units per hectare.
Imposition of a minimum landscape buffer along Manotick Station Road will assist in the reduction of the impacts of the development. Existing trees are to be retained and additional planting will be required through the site plan approval process. This will ensure that the size and look of the development is more in keeping with its rural setting.
The
proposed building setback from the street as shown on the site plan is over 15
metres. A setback of 10 metres to
Manotick Station Road (as widened) is recommended to allow for some flexibility
with the building location while ensuring that an adequate treed buffer can be
accommodated.
Parking
spaces are proposed at one per unit with a reduced parking space size. Both are
in keeping with what is contemplated in the draft of the new Zoning
By-law. It is also recommended that
there be additional allocated visitor parking.
Based
on the nature of the use there is expected to be no impact from the proposed
development on the level of service of Manotick Station Road, an existing
collector road. A road widening to 15
metres from the centreline of the road will be required as part of the site
plan approval. The development will
need to share the existing entrance with Orchard View Living Centre to ensure
compliance with the Private Approach By-law.
The
proposed servicing is on private services with one septic system and one well
to service the building. A
hydrogeologic investigation was required as a part of the zoning application
submission. The study demonstrated
that, in principle, the proposed well service can support the use
requested. Details of the well,
including a wellhead protection study and a municipal responsibility agreement
with the City will be required prior to site plan approval. The Ministry of the
Environment approval of the septic system will also be required as part of the
site plan approval.
There is a site plan application filed which reflects the requested zoning. The site plan submitted is attached as Document 4.
Conclusion
The
proposed development of a retirement residence will add an alternative housing
option with a minimal level of care provided for its residents. It will create a campus environment for
those who prefer rural living and wish to remain there through the later stages
of their life. Buffering the proposed
development with vegetation will assist in maintaining the rural character of
the area and minimize the impacts on the neighbouring residences. Staff
recommend support of the zoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Any environmental issues are associated with site servicing on private services and will be reviewed and approved prior to site plan approval.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
The subject site is within the rural area and will provide additional housing options to enable people to remain in their community through their life phases.
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. Attached in Document 3 are some consultation details.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The
approval of this report will result in the need for the City to administer and
approve a wellhead protection study funded primarily by the Owner. The City's share of the completion of that
report is funded through the City Planning Studies account. The City is managing the Wellhead Protection
Study.
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
This
application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established
for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Details
of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Consultation
Details
Document 4 Site Plan
DISPOSITION
City Clerk’s Branch, Committee and Council
Services to notify the owner, Orchard
View Manor Inc. 1491 Manotick Station Road, Greely ON K4P 1P6, applicant, William
Holzman Holzman Consulting Inc. 1076 Castle Hill Crescent Ottawa, Ontario K2C
2A8, 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 subject lands known as 1507 and 1519 Manotick Station Road and identified on the attached plan shall be rezoned from RU - Rural to a RU('X') - Rural Exception 'X' zone.
(a) The lands zoned RU('X') are subject to the following provisions:
1. A retirement residence shall be the only main permitted use.
2. Regulations
minimum lot area - 1 hectare
minimum lot frontage - 150 metres
minimum setback to a street lot line - 10 metres
minimum depth or width; all other yards - 10 metres
maximum lot coverage - 10%
maximum building height - 15 metres
maximum density is 37 units per hectare
A landscaped area of at least 10.0 metres wide is required along the entire lot line front, however, a driveway providing ingress and egress may cross this area.
Minimum parking requirement - 1 space per unit plus an additional 0.15 spaces per unit for visitor parking
Minimum setback for parking areas and spaces - 10 metres from the street line
Minimum parking space size - 14.3 square metres, measuring 2.6 by 5.5 metres
Minimum accessible parking spaces size - 3.9 by 5.5 metres
Minimum Loading space size - 3.5 by 12 metres
(b) Add a definition to section 4 as follows:
"retirement residence" means a building or part of a building, not including the multiple residential type development or a residential care home, that is privately owned and operated as a residence for those persons who require minimal assistance with daily living and containing dwelling units that contain separate kitchen and bathroom facilities and which building contains shared common facilities such as a kitchen and dining room or meeting room for the sole use of the residents.
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. At
the time of this report, a Community Information and Comment Session was
scheduled to be held on November 12 2007.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The comments that have been received from the public to date can be summarized as follows:
1) Noise and Traffic
The proposed development will generate additional traffic on an already busy road (Manotick Station Road) and increase noise and cause safety issues.
2) Greely Village Development and Official Plan policies
This type of development should be in Greely as indicated in the Village of Greely Community Design Plan and the Official Plan
3) Rural Character
The type of building, its height, use does not fit in with surrounding area, being predominantly single family homes on at least 2 acres (0.8 hectare) lots.
4) Septic Issues
The proximity of the proposed septic system to the widened Manotick Station Road is a source of concern as well as the potential for frequent pumping and the associated noise and odour concerns.
5) Aquifer Issues
Concern has been expressed on the ability of the existing ground water supply to handle the additional water usage and on the impact on adjacent wells.
6) Light Pollution - The height of the building and its location on a hill will result in light spillage and nuisance for the neighbours.
7) Inconsistent with a Previous O.M.B. Ruling
The Ontario Municipal Board decision relates to a Board decision based on a mediated agreement for the rezoning and ultimately the site plan for the existing Orchard View Living Centre. The decision from the O.M.B. limited, through zoning, the number of residents in the existing facility or in the development to 150 and set parameters for the zoning and site plan.
8) Property Values -
Concern was expressed on the impact of the proposed development on local
property values.
Many of the concerns can be addressed through the site plan control approval process, which is also a public process.
1) The traffic generated by this type of use is minimal. As well, the development shares the entrance with the adjacent Orchard View Living Centre resulting in no change in the traffic pattern from what currently exists. There are no anticipated impacts on the level of service for Manotick Station Road.
2) The Greely Community Design Plan and the Official Plan look for institutional and higher density forms of residential development to locate within Villages and the urban area. In this case the proposed use compliments the existing care home to create a campus type setting and a continuum of care. This is as contemplated within the Official Plan.
3) The proposed 10 metre minimum setbacks can allow for full size trees and some under storey plantings to ensure screening of the proposed three storey building as it fronts onto Manotick Station Road.
4) The septic system will need to meet the requirements and obtain a permit from the Ministry of Environment before site plan approval can occur.
5) The Hydrogeologic Investigation has identified that the proposed use can be developed on a private well and not impact or be impacted with respect to the ground water supply. Prior to any site plan approval for this development, a wellhead protection study will be required to be finalized in order to verify those findings and identify any potential areas of concern for future development.
6) Compliance with the City lighting policy will be required to be certified prior to site plan approval.
7) The O.M.B. decision and the attached Memorandum of Agreement relates only to the development of the Orchard View Living Centre property and development.
8) Demonstrating loss of property value as a result of any development has not been substantiated.
SITE PLAN DOCUMENT
4
ZONING – 1507 AND 1519 manotick station road
ZONAGE – 1507 et 1519,
chemin manotick station
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0202 osgoode (20)
Cheryl McWilliams, Planner, Planning Branch, spoke to a PowerPoint
presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of
the staff report. A copy of this
presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. S. McGowan, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. A copy of her written concerns are held on file. She voiced a number of concerns:
· The water supply and quality: will there be enough considering such a large project with many more residents. Will nearby residents’ wells be affected.
· That the rural character of the community will be affected. She stated that the project seems inconsistent with the Official Plan and directives. A four-storey building does not really conform to the rural nature of the area.
· She stated that the project is in violation of the Ontario Municipal Board ruling of 1997 where it restricted the number of units to be built.
· The septic bed will be close to the road allowance.
· The property values in the area will be impacted negatively.
· There is no public transportation in the area for the seniors and therefore more car traffic.
· There are no local amenities for the seniors.
· She voiced concerns with regards to light pollution from light standards and noise pollution from increased traffic and number of residents.
In response to Councillor Harder’s question on whether there has been an effect on quality of life since Orchard View had been built Ms. McGowan responded stating that she did not have a problem with the present development of Orchard View but was very concerned with the increasing traffic and demands on the area with the new project.
Councillor Harder responded to earlier questions by Ms. McGowan stating that there is no public transportation in the area but that local residents are not taxed for this service either and that the seniors of the new project could avail themselves of the Orchard View bus to bring them to Greely for shopping, errands and appointments.
Councillor Harder inquired if there was an age limit for admittance to the project as a senior’s residence. Ms. McWilliams stated that there was no age restriction as this would be a violation of rights but that there were controls on what types of use the facility would have.
Councillor Harder also stated that many seniors’ residences all over the City of Ottawa are built on very busy roads such as Carleton Lodge but this has not negatively impacted the residents or those living nearby.
Ms. J. Ozinga, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. A copy of her written concerns are held on file. She voiced a number of concerns very similar to those of Ms. McGowan and added:
· There are a number of working farms nearby and odours may negatively impact the residents of the home.
In response to Chair Jellett’s question regarding odours from the working farms Ms. McWilliams stated that this is taken into consideration in the site plan process and that other issues are addressed in this process as well.
Ms. G. Toll, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. A copy of her written concerns are held on file. As well as the concerns voiced by previous delegations she added the following:
· She never received a notice from the City of Ottawa advising of the project since she lives beyond the 120-metre limit set to notify residents and feels that this is unfair.
· The present development of Orchard View was built on a mediated settlement with the Ontario Municipal Board and the new application should be based on the original OMB statement.
· This size of project would be best suited for the village of Greely and not in the rural area.
Councillor Thompson referred the question on the OMB issue back to Legal for a comment. Mr. T. Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, stated that the OMB decision of 1997 has no bearing on the present application.
Chair Jellett inquired from staff if the limit of 120 metres is set by the City of Ottawa or if it can be changed particularly in regards to rural areas. Mr. T. Marc stated that City Council could direct to increase the limit as it sees fit.
Mr. W. Ney, President, Greely Community Association, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. A copy of the Association’s written concerns are held on file. As well as the concerns voiced by previous delegations he added the following:
· He stated that according to the Official Plan, residential intensification should be directed within the existing village boundaries.
· He felt that the traffic study done for this project was not adequate enough since it only reviewed the impact within 30 metres in either direction on Manotick Station Road.
· There are little or no services for the elderly residents that will be living in this development and none within walking distance.
· The anticipated demands on an already limited health care and ambulance service in the rural area are disproportionate.
Mr. W. Parisi, nearby resident on Reindeer Way, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. A copy of his written concerns are held on file. As well as the concerns voiced by previous delegations he added the following:
· He stated that the need for senior’s housing in Ottawa or Greely was not the issue here but whether the location was appropriate, and according to his interpretation of the Official Plan and Rural Discussion Papers on Rural and Village Development there is a blatant violation.
· He commented that the community itself was in opposition to this particular project and the voice of the community should be taken into consideration.
· The height and density of the project is not suitable for a rural area such as this one.
Councillor Brooks also voiced his concerns regarding the height of the project citing the aesthetics of tall towers in rural areas.
Mr. J. Kluver, nearby resident on Black Stallion Way, spoke in favour to staff’s recommendations. A copy of his written comments are held on file.
He stated that the applicant has done his research and that the present facility, Orchard View Living Centre, is an excellent facility which is aesthetically pleasing and extremely well managed. He feels that the applicant has always strived for quality and not quantity and as a retiree himself would be more than willing to move into this facility in the future. Furthermore, he feels that the applicant has met the concerns of local residents and has gone beyond the necessary measures to ensure that local concerns have not been jeopardized.
Mr. W. Ney, spoke once more, this time as a resident of the area, neither in favour or opposed to the project but to bring to the Committee’s attention the need for traffic lights at Mitch Owens Drive and Manotick Station Road should this project be approved. He also noted that the 120-metre notification limit was not appropriate especially for the rural area.
Mr. Joe Princiotta, the applicant and Mr. Bill Holzman, on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the proposal. Mr. Princiotta stated that he endeavoured to provide a high quality facility. At present he has 130 residents at Orchard View and the majority are from the Osgoode area. The average age of the present residents is 82 with the youngest being 64 and the oldest being 97 years young. He stated that the reason for the present application is the need for such a facility in the community. He commented that the advantage to this project was that it offers independent living but close to the full care facility for future possibilities. He also noted that he has been a resident of the Greely area since 1975 and knows the area and the needs of the community well.
Mr. Holzman stated that although some delegations had stated that such a facility would be best suited to the village of Greely, there is no one presently interested in undertaking such a project in the village. In response to concerns regarding the height of the proposal, he stated that the maximum height allowed in the area was 10.7 metres and the proposed project would only be 10 metres in height and would be the same height as the present Orchard View Living Centre.
With regards to the 1997 OMB decision, Mr. Holzman commented that the present project was in fact permitted and this project is on a different piece of land. In addition, he stated that the well being dug to service the facility is 94 metres deep to reach the Nepean Aquifer which services many local villages.
Ms. D. Parisi, nearby resident on Reindeer Way, spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendations. A copy of her written concerns are held on file. She added to her husband’s concerns stating that the location was not suitable and was concerned that this would lead to other developments in the area such as commercial ventures.
In response to Councillor Thompson’s question on whether Ms. Parisi was in favour of a seniors’ facility in Osgoode Ward she responded that she was in favour but that it should be situated in the village.
Councillor Thompson stated that this was a win win situation since a great facility was being proposed and no public moneys were being used.
Councillor Harder commented that a healthy discussion had taken place on the issue but that she could not understand the opposition to such a project and no valid reasons were brought forth for her to oppose this venture. She stated that Orchard View was a good facility and more care facilities such as this are needed and that this was a perfect fit.
Councillor Brooks indicated that he was torn on this issue since he realizes the need for such a facility and knows that the applicant provides quality care but that he has always stressed the needs and wishes of the local community, which in this instance were opposed to the application.
Councillor El-Chantiry cautioned to be wary of the “not in my back yard” syndrome. He remarked that the applicant had a very well run business and saw no legitimate reason to oppose the application.
Councillor Thompson thanked all the delegations for their comments and their time in coming to speak to the Committee. He stated that he is a great supporter of the Greely Community Association but that instance he could not support their opposition to the application and knew of many people in the area who support this project. He commented that he was opposed to the original application of Orchard View but now realizes that he was wrong since it has been a great addition to the community. He reported that staff have done exhaustive research into this application and asks the Committee for their support.
(This application is subject
to Bill 51)
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Osgoode Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1507 and 1519 Manotick Station Road from Ru - Rural to Ru('X') - Rural Exception 'X' as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
YEAS
(6): Councillors B. Monette, J.
Harder, E. El-Chantiry, G. Hunter, D. Thompson, R. Jellett
NAYS (1): Councillor G. Brooks
The following correspondence was received:
1.
Ms.
Lila Smiley letter via email dated 15 October 2007
2.
Tim
and Sylvia McGowan letter via email dated 15 October 2007
3.
Albert
and June Ozinga letter via email dated October 15, 2007
4.
Michael
and Gillian Toll letter via email dated 20 November 2007
5.
Greely
Community Association letter via email dated 20 November 2007
6.
William
and Deanna Parisi letter dated 21 November 2007