|
10. 60 SWEETNAM DRIVE - ZONING AND SITE PLAN - ONTARIO
MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING 60,
BOULEVARD SWEETNAM - ZONAGE ET PLAN D’IMPLANTATION - AUDIENCE DE LA
COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO |
That Council approve a zoning that would permit a new
residential development subject to the following conditions:
1.
That the property be zoned to Dwelling, Stacked
Townhouse, limited to a maximum height of two and one half storeys; and
2.
That the maximum number of units permitted is 24;
and
3.
That Legal Services consult with an external
Planning expert to determine such other performance standards that may be
deemed necessary to establish the aforementioned use.
Que le Conseil approuve une désignation de zonage qui
permettrait un nouvel aménagement résidentiel, moyennant les conditions
suivantes :
1.
que la désignation de zonage prévoie des maisons en rangée superposées
ayant deux étages et demi au maximum;
2.
que le nombre maximum de logements permis soit de 24;
3.
que les Services juridiques consultent un spécialiste de l’urbanisme de
l’extérieur afin de déterminer les autres normes fonctionnelles pouvant être
jugées nécessaires pour établir l’utilisation susmentionnée.
Documentation
1.
City
Solicitor’s report dated 11 December 2007 (ACS2007-CMO-LEG-0008).
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes, 18 December 2007. (To be distributed separately prior to
Council).
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
11 December 2007 / le 11 décembre 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : M. Rick O'Connor, City Solicitor/Procureur de la ville
Conseiller juridique principal, Legal Services/Services juridiques
(613)
580-2424 x21444, timothy.marc@ottawa.ca
That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement prenne connaissance du présent rapport.
At
its meeting of 23 May 2007, Council rejected a rezoning request in respect of
the above property. The applicant
sought to rezone the property from a commercial zoning to residential to permit
approximately 32 stacked townhomes which would be three and one-half stories in
height.
The
applicant subsequently appealed the refusal to rezone the property to the
Ontario Municipal Board. The applicant
has also referred the site plan for the proposed development to the Board.
A pre-hearing was held on 7 December 2007. A further pre-hearing for the determination of issues is scheduled for 25 January 2008 with the hearing being scheduled for five days commencing 12 May 2008.
Council
did not provide any direction in refusing the rezoning request. Therefore to confirm the direction that
Council wishes to take, it is now appropriate for Legal Services to seek
instructions from Committee and Council.
There are two options that may be taken.
Continue
Existing Zoning
The
first option is for Council to seek to continue the current CL (Local Commercial)
zoning. This zoning permits a range of
uses such as a florists shop, a bakery shop, a professional office and a
restaurant. If it is desired to permit
this zoning to continue, no motion is necessary as the existing zoning by-law
combined with the refusal by Council provide the required direction.
Amend
Zoning To Other Than That Sought By Applicant
Based upon the submissions received by the City with respect to the zoning application it may be that Committee and Council are of the view that a zoning other than CL is appropriate for this site, albeit not the zoning sought by the applicant. The minutes of the public hearing are attached to this report. Should Committee wish to proceed in this fashion, it would in order to introduce a motion providing for the desired zoning. If adopted by Committee, this would then proceed to Council on 9 January 2008 for its consideration.
Consultation took place on the zoning application when it was originally considered by Committee and Council. As part of the notice for the pre-hearing, the applicant was required to provide notice to all landowners within 120 metres of the property. The solicitor for the applicant has been advised that this matter will be before Committee on 18 December 2007.
As Planning staff’s recommendation was not adopted by Council, it will be necessary for Legal Services to retain a planning consultant to provide evidence in support of the City’s position. The estimated cost is $15,000 to $25,000. Funds are available within the envelope of the Planning Branch.
An extract of the minutes from the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 8 May 2007 is attached as Document 1.
Legal
Services will proceed to retain a planner and make submissions with respect to
the Issues List for the upcoming hearing in accordance with the decision of
Committee and/or Council.
Extract of Planning and Environment Committee Meeting DOCUMENT
1
PLANNING, TRANSIT AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
URBANISME, TRANSPORT EN
COMMUN ET ENVIRONNEMENT
APPROBATION DES DEMANDES D’URBANISME
ET D’INFRASTRUCTURE
3. ZONING - 60 SWEETNAM ROAD
ZONAGE - 60, CHEMIN SWEETNAM
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0011 STITTSVILLE-KANATA
WEST (6)
(This application is not subject to Bill 51)
Ms. Jennifer Shepherd, Planner, highlighted the details of the report by means of a PowerPoint presentation on file with the City Clerk. Her presentation covered the site location, local transit services in the vicinity of the subject site, information on the current zoning, the development and zoning proposals, the zoning schedule and the conceptual site plan. Ms. Shepherds also noted a number of public comments in opposition to the proposal, and provided a brief response to these comments.
The Committee then heard from the following persons opposed to the proposal:
· Ms. Lesley Thomas, 17 Azurite Crescent;
· Mrs. Zori Geurts, 31 Amethyst Crescent;
· Ms. Stephanie Christink (no address
provided)
· Mr. Tony Faranda, 27 Quartz Crescent;
· Mr. John Willins, Granite Ridge Community
Association;
· Mr. Mike Hoganson, 20 Harry Douglas;
· Mr. Grant Penstone, 19 Azurite Crescent.
The speakers gave the following as reasons for their opposition to the proposal:
· The loss of privacy to the adjacent,
single-family homes, from stacked townhouses facing sideways;
· The safety of children being compromised by
additional traffic;
· The value of neighbouring homes being
diminished;
· The stacked townhomes “completely change
the community”; they are not compatible with what is actually built there;
· With a maximum height of 9 metres, the
proposed building would tower over the surrounding buildings;
· The proposal does not meet the intent of
the 20/20 Plan;
· The property was formerly zoned local
commercial and most adjacent owners accepted this designation: Cavanagh
Construction advised this would be changed to low-density residential ;
· Thirty-two units on a small parcel will
generate noise;
· There will be loss of sunlight on the
adjoining properties;
· With parking for two cars per unit, visitor
parking will spill over-to the adjoining streets;
· Residents anticipate a 25 to 450% increase
in traffic on Harry Douglas Road;
· While not opposed to future development, the residents believe there is a difference between pre-planning and building around something that’s already in place.
In addition to the presentations listed above, the Committee received a petition signed by thirty-eight (38) neighbours “opposed to plans for stacked townhomes at 60 Sweetnam Drive”. The Committee Coordinator circulated a memorandum dated 7 May 2007, containing correspondence from one individual in favour of the proposal, and twenty-two opposed. All this material is held on file with the City Clerk.
The Committee then heard from Mr. Doug Smeathers, representing Cavanagh Construction, and Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants on the proposal. Mr. Fobert provided historical information about the development of this area: it consisted of 100 acres of land rezoned from industrial to residential, a process that took four years. In 1995-96, the parcel in question was zoned local commercial. Mr. Fobert pointed out that it is difficult for businesses to survive in areas where there are no people to support them.
Mr. Fobert refuted many of the allegations made by the previous speakers, noting for example that the balconies of the proposed stacked townhouses would face Sweetnam Drive. There is an 80-foot setback at the shortest distance between this parcel and the adjacent properties. Mr. Fobert cited policies in the City’s Official Plan that speak to compatibility with the existing community character, and the need to provide a range of housing types. He posited that the proposed development would have no undue adverse impact in this respect.
Speaking to the issue of increased traffic, Mr. Fobert indicated that the site is at the corner of two collector roads and at the entrance to a neighbourhood. He stated that the issues of increased noise and lighting would be addressed at the site plan level. Parking is generous at 1.5 spaces per household. Residents will be well-served by the three schools within the area. Mr. Fobert concluded that the proposed development would not negatively impact the community.
Chair Peter Hume then declared closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Responding to questions from the Ward Councillor, Shad Qadri, Ms. Shepherd confirmed that a maximum building height of 15 metres is permitted to allow for more creative uses. Mr. Smeathers indicated that servicing would be provided through internal private roads from Harry Douglas Drive.
Councillor Qadri asked that the Committee not support the report recommendation, noting that area residents have clearly expressed their opposition to the proposal. The Councillor advised that these units would generate twenty-four hour operation and impact negatively on school safety and neighbours’ privacy. Councillor Qadri reiterated that residents had anticipated a more friendly development and were disappointed when this proposal came forward. He said he understood that more development is needed, but he emphasized the importance of developing something that is more compatible with the existing surroundings.
The Committee then considered the report recommendation.
Moved by J. Harder
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 60 Sweetnam Drive from Local Commercial (CL) to Special Residential Type 4 as shown in Document 1, and detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): J. Harder, D. Holmes, G. Hunter, B.
Monette, P Hume
NAYS
(4): M. Bellemare, S. Desroches, C. Doucet, S. Qadri