2. ZONING - 1445 MERIVALE ROAD

ZONAGE - 1445, CHEMIN MERIVALE

Committee recommendationS AS AMENDED

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

1. That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1445 Merivale Road from CO – Commercial Office Block 8 to a MMU – Merivale Mixed Use Exception Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 4.

2. Whereas access and egress for 1445 Merivale Road via Burris Lane is a major concern for the surrounding community.

THEREFORE Be it resolved that should the application for rezoning be approved staff be directed to consider a Site Plan with access and egress on Merivale Road.

AND THAT if such access is considered not desirable that it be subject to a report to the Transportation Committee.

RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité

(Cette demande est assujettie au Règlement 51)

1. Que le Conseil approuve une modification du Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean afin de changer le zonage du 1445, chemin Merivale de Zone de bureaux commerciaux (CO) – bloc 8 à Zone à usages mixtes de Merivale avec exception, comme le présente le document 1 et l’explique le document 4.

2. Atttendu que l’entrée et la sortie du 1445, chemin Merivale qui donnent sur la ruelle Burris sont une préoccupation importante pour la communauté des environs.

Il est par conséquent résolu que si la demande de rezonage est approuvé, le personnel devra examiner un plan d’aménagement doté d’une entrée et d’une sortie qui donnent sur le chemin Merivale.

ET QUE si l’on détermine qu’une telle entrée n’est pas appropriée, un rapport sera déposé à cet effet auprès du Comité des transports.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 20 December 2007 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0009).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 8 January 2008.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

20 December 2007 / le 20 Decembre 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

Knoxdale-Merivale (9)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0009

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 1445 Merivale road (fILE NO. d02-02-07-0077)

OBJET :	ZONAGE - 1445, chemin Merivale

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 1445 Merivale Road from CO – Commercial Office Block 8 to a MMU – Merivale Mixed Use Exception Zone as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 4.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification du Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville de Nepean afin de changer le zonage du 1445, chemin Merivale de Zone de bureaux commerciaux (CO) – bloc 8 à Zone à usages mixtes de Merivale avec exception, comme le présente le document 1 et l’explique le document 4.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located on the east side of Merivale Road immediately south of Burris Lane (see Document 1). The site is approximately 55 metres wide and 49 metres deep.

The area of the site is approximately 3210 square metres. The surrounding properties contain a mix of uses including low density residential to the east, and commercial to the north, south, and west.

A motorcycle retailer and large format grocery store are located on the west side of Merivale Road, while a three-storey office building occupies the north side of Burris Lane. Approximately 100 metres to the south is a shopping outlet, which contains a number of retailers including a grocery store, drug store, restaurant, etc. In general, the area is dominated by asphalt parking lots that flank Merivale Road. Buildings are typically setback away from the street. For the most part landscaping is sparse along this segment of Merivale Road. Behind this site exists an established residential neighbourhood.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The purpose of this application is to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 450-square metre fast food restaurant and parking lot. The revised concept plan provided in support of the application sites a one-storey building at the corner of Merivale Road and Burris Lane, with parking facilities to the rear and side of the building (see Document 4). Vehicular access is proposed to be from Burris Lane. The owner has established that it wishes to maintain some zoning flexibility to accommodate potential market demands. If the proposed fast food restaurant proves unviable the owner would also like to be able to market the site for retail uses.

Existing and Proposed Zoning

The property is zoned Commercial Office (CO) Block 8. This zone permits a number of uses including business office, bank, day nursery and private club. The Block 8 provision restricts development from occurring until all of the lands delineated in Schedule B7 of the Zoning By‑law are assembled under single ownership (see Document 2). At present the CO Block 8 Zone does not support restaurant or retail uses.

According to the applicant, the property owner has attempted to acquire the entirety of Block 8 for several decades. Although the owner has not been able to attain the full block, it recently increased its landholdings. This most recent acquisition has prompted the proposed Zoning By‑law amendment, as the owner now believes that it maintains sufficient property within Block 8 to accommodate a fast food restaurant. To facilitate the proposed use it is recommended that the site’s zoning be amended from ‘CO Block 8’ to a Merivale Mixed Use (MMU) Exception Zone. The MMU Zone permits a wide variety of uses including residential.

DISCUSSION

Official Plan

The Official Plan provides a vision of the future growth of the city and a policy framework to guide its physical development. The Plan is not a tool to limit growth but rather to anticipate change, manage it and maintain options. According to Schedule B of the Official Plan, the subject property is designated ‘Arterial Mainstreet’.

Specific policies related to this designation are outlined in Section 3.6.3 of the Plan. Larger lots, varied setbacks, and lower densities are characteristic of Arterial Mainstreets. Streets carrying this designation often contain four or more traffic lanes, and do not typically support on-street parking. Parking is usually provided in lots located between buildings and the street. At present, Arterial Mainstreets typically house single-purpose commercial buildings.

Overtime, Arterial Mainstreets are expected to evolve into more compact places that provide a mix of pedestrian friendly uses. Arterial Mainstreets are also envisioned to support high-quality public transit and cycling routes.

Merivale Road Secondary Plan

The property is also subject to the provisions of the Merivale Secondary Plan. This Plan was first prepared in 1982 and updated in 1998. The 1998 version acknowledges that the former vision outlined for the area never was fully realized; Merivale Road has not become a competitive location for office buildings. Today’s Plan further recognizes that automobile-oriented retail uses will likely continue to dominate the area for some time. Unlike the original Plan, today’s version introduces an alternative land use approach that focuses on enhancing urban design rather than controlling land uses. The Plan continues to support a broad range of retail uses, but has also been expanded to include additional varied uses such as residential. The intent of the most recent Plan is to improve the area as a place to shop, work, and live by enhancing the relationship between retail, employment, and residential uses. The Plan also strives to improve Merivale Road’s ability to efficiently provide access to all modes of travel including trips made by pedestrians and cyclists, as well as by automobiles and buses.

Analysis

Generally speaking, the Zoning By-law regulates the type, scale and location of land uses within a property. With respect to type, ‘fast food restaurant’ and ‘retail’ uses are permitted in areas designated Arterial Mainstreet within the Official Plan. They are also in accordance with the Merivale Secondary Plan. In support of the Merivale Secondary Plan, the Department recommends that a MMU Exception Zone be applied to the site because of its extensive list of permitted uses. It should be noted that the applicant’s original request detailed a fast food restaurant with drive-though use. In response to concerns raised by the Department and community the owner has agreed to remove the drive-through component from its proposal.

In terms of scale, the proposed one-storey building has a smaller footprint than many of the area’s retail and commercial buildings. According to the concept plan, the building is expected to occupy approximately 13 per cent of the site. The scaling of the building’s Mainstreet façade is encouraging from an urban design perspective because it covers more than 50 per cent of the lot within three metres of the front lot line. With respect to height, the building is not expected to greatly exceed that of neighbouring dwellings. In contrast, the CO Block 8 Zone permits a building that occupies up to 40 per cent of the site (1284 square metres on ground floor), with a potential height of 18.3 metres. This uniformity in scale is desirable, since the proposed restaurant and existing dwellings will occupy the same block. The proposed MMU Zone permits a floor area ratio of 0.33 (total of 1059 square metres of development).

With respect to parking a total of 45 spaces (one per 10 square metres) have been proposed, whereas the current requirement is 73 spaces (one per 6.2 square metres). The chosen rate corresponds with the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law. While the new by-law has not been formally established, the Department is satisfied that the amount of parking supplied is sufficient to accommodate a fast food restaurant. In addition, the area is served by frequent and multiple public transit opportunities.

Although additional parking can be accommodated on site, the Department believes that the need for landscaping supersedes the requirement for extra parking. Permitting a decrease in the number of required surface parking spaces also helps to achieve the Official Plan’s policies in support of compact urban environments.

The owner has requested permission to reduce parking stall lengths to 5.2 metres, instead of the required 6.0 metres. This standard reflects the New Comprehensive Zoning By Law and is presently the standard applied in other parts of the city. With this, aisle widths have been increased from the required 6.0 metres to 6.7 metres. When combined, the stall length and aisle width total 11.9 metres, resulting in a 0.1-metre deviation from the Nepean Zoning By-law.

In terms of the location of land uses, the proposal incorporates a zoning envelope that respects adjacent residents and corresponds to the City’s broader policy objectives. The current proposal includes a three-metre buffer around the entire parking lot, to ensure that adequate space is available for vegetation along the edges of the site and fencing along the rear property line. This application has allowed the Department to significantly increase the amount of buffer space required between the proposed parking lot and rear property. The current zone requires between 0 and 1.5 metres of landscaped area, whereas the proposed zoning establishes a 3.0-metre setback.

Unlike other Merivale Road developments the parking lot has been located 3.0 metres beyond the building’s Mainstreet façade. It is important to note that the City is acquiring a 4.75 metre strip of land adjacent to Merivale Road to accommodate a possible future road widening. Effectively, the amount of buffer space available along Merivale Road increases accordingly until the roadway is widened. Presently there are no future plans to widen this segment of Merivale Road. Therefore the total amount of buffer space between the proposed parking lot and existing sidewalk is over 7.0 metres, which is greater than surrounding commercial properties. Similar to the privately owned portions of the site, the City will be exploring opportunities to landscape these public portions of the property through its Site Plan Control Review process.

In terms of building location, the Department is in support of the proposed 0 metre setback along the Mainstreet. The current zoning requires a three-metre front yard setback, while the Applicant’s original request detailed a four-metre setback. Situating the building adjacent to the front property line not only provides added space for landscaping at the rear of the site, but also supports numerous Official Plan and Secondary Plan policies. A 0-metre setback also permits a greater separation between the proposed building and neighbouring residential uses. A generous setback between the building and rear lot line will ensure that neighbours maintain sun exposure and unobstructed sight lines.

Conclusion

In light of the above, the Department is recommending that the Planning and Environment Committee approve this request to amend the Zoning By-law.

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. Numerous comments were received from the public and are provided in Document 5.

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 due to a public meeting held on October 15, 2007, and subsequent updates to the proposed concept plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Schedule B7

Document 3 Site Concept

Document 4 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 5 Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the Owner, J. Michael Casey, 1801 Woodward Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K2C 0R3, Applicant, Brian Casagrande, 233 McLeod Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Z8, 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

SCHEDULE B7 DOCUMENT 2

SITE CONCEPT (November 14, 2007) DOCUMENT 3

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 4

1445 Merivale Road

A new MMU Exception zone will be added to 7:10:3 and will include the following special permitted uses and provisions:

Fast food restaurant excluding drive-through
A 0-metre building setback along the front lot line abutting Merivale Road
A 3.0-metre minimum setback for a parking lot and any parking space from any lot line
A 2.5-metre front lot line setback abutting Burris Lane
Reduction to parking stall length to 5.2 metres
Ingress and egress directly and from every parking space must be by means of a driveway, land or aisle having a width of at least 6.7 metres
Parking rate reduction to one per 10 square metres of gross floor area

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 5

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 October 15, 2007.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Planning, Transit and Environment Department has not received any commentary in support of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment. Dozens of formal complaints have been submitted in response to the proposal, in addition to a petition signed by approximately 80 area residents.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

A number of issues were raised in response to the circulation of this application. Citizens have voiced concerns over the establishment of a fast food restaurant. Many believe that there are too many restaurants in the area and that another restaurant will worsen traffic. In addition to traffic concerns, some residents believe that a fast food restaurant contravenes policies in support of the diversification of Merivale Road. Residents have indicated that they would rather the site be developed with one of the uses permitted under the current CO Block 8 Zone. Citizens were also concerned at the prospect of a potential drive-through facility because of its impact on traffic levels, pedestrian safety, and human health.

Many residents are opposed to the location of the proposed site access (via Burris Lane). Most residents would prefer to replace the proposed access with a right in/right out access via Merivale Road. Many believe that a fast food restaurant will generate more traffic than can be safely accommodated on Burris Lane. There is concern that providing access from Burris Lane will increase the amount of cut-though traffic into the adjacent residential neighbourhood. Residents also believe that the proposed access will jeopardize the safety of the many pedestrians whom utilize Burris Lane to gain access to Merivale Road. A number of secondary concerns related to noise, pollution, odour, and sewage were also raised. An in depth summary of concerns follows.

Concern: Area traffic has been cited as a major problem, particularly along Merivale Road and throughout the residential community. There is concern that the proposal will worsen area traffic, particularly along Burris Lane. It has also been suggested that the applicant’s traffic study is flawed because it does not consider added traffic impacts created by the Merivale Market development (shopping outlet containing Food Basics).

Response: Merivale Road is classified as an ‘Arterial Road’ within the City’s Official Plan. Arterial roads are designed to carry heavy volumes of traffic over long distances. They function as the City’s major public corridors and therefore accommodate traffic generated by all forms of travel (trucks, cars, bikes, pedestrians, buses, etc.).

As communities grow, incremental traffic increases can be expected on all roadways, particularly major thoroughfares such as Merivale Road. With respect to the proposal, steps have been taken to ensure that traffic impacts have been minimized.

For example, the drive-through component of the proposal has been removed, and the building has been oriented to encourage arrival by alternative modes of travel (walking, cycling, transit).

Staff have reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted in support of this application. No concerns have been raised with respect to its methodology or contents. The TIS correctly indicates that Merivale Road is able to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use. It also confirms that the area’s local roadways are capable of handling resulting traffic. Area infrastructure is similarly equipped to support traffic generated by the Merivale Market. According to the City’s Traffic and Parking Operations Branch (TPO), the volume of traffic on Burris Lane has actually decreased by 20 per cent in the past 10 years. TPO has suggested that additional traffic increases are not expected to occur along Burris Lane because the surrounding community is relatively static.

Concern: Many residents suggest that the proposal will increase the flow of non-local traffic through the community. Local residents have indicated that cut-through traffic is presently problematic and that this proposal will aggravate matters.

Response: The Department does not expect cut-through traffic to increase on account of the proposal. To arrive at Meadowlands Drive from Burris Lane one must travel at least four streets, none of which are arranged in a grid pattern. Also, the five-kilometre segment of Meadowlands Drive between Woodroffe Avenue and Prince of Wales Drive is entirely occupied by residential uses (with the exception of the Merivale Road intersection). Therefore, the main generators of cut-though traffic are likely to live or work nearby. It is perceivable that only those familiar with the area will be able to navigate through the circuitous residential community with ease. TPO has stated that it has not previously received any formal complaints from the community or Councillor regarding the incidence of cut-through traffic in the area.

Concern: Most residents believe that the proposal would be better served if access to the site were supplied via Merivale Road as opposed to Burris Lane.

Response: With respect to site access, Burris Lane is the City’s preferred location. A number of safety concerns have been raised by staff in response to a potential Merivale Road access. Merivale Road is considered unsuitable for site access because of the heavy traffic volumes and high speeds accommodated along this thoroughfare. Access from Merivale Road is also discouraged because of its potential to interfere with the functioning of the existing roadway. Providing access from the Mainstreet is also undesirable from an urban design perspective; a Merivale Road access will result in the loss of area available for landscaping, drawing attention to the parking lot rather than the public realm.

Concern: Many believe that pedestrian safety will be jeopardized if access to the site is provided via Burris Lane. Pedestrians frequently use local streets to access nearby shopping.

Response: In relation to pedestrian safety, a number of residents have suggested that a Burris Lane access poses risks for persons travelling to nearby shopping centres. This concern seems unfounded, as a Merivale Road access should be subject to the same risks, since it has been identified as a final destination for pedestrians. The potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles is perceivably greater along Merivale Road; vehicles often exit onto arterials at higher speeds to keep up with fast moving traffic.

Those pedestrians concerned with potential conflicts may prefer to travel on the sidewalk located to the north side of Burris Lane, which is void of accesses.

Concern: Pollution has been raised as a potential impact. Residents are primarily concerned with noise, smell, garbage, and sewage pollution caused as a result of the proposed.

Response: Matters related to pollution are typically dealt with through the City’s Site Plan Application review process. With respect to noise attenuation, fencing and vegetation will be required along the site’s rear property line. To help mitigate potential noises generated by mechanical equipment site zoning has been amended to permit a building along the front lot line, away from residential uses. In terms of a garbage receptacle, an enclosed facility will be required as part of the City’s site planning process.

ZONING - 1445 MERIVALE ROAD

ZONAGE - 1445, CHEMIN MERIVALE

ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0009 Knoxdale-Merivale (9)

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

The following written correspondence was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Documents prepared by the Fisher Heights Skyline Orchard Park Community Working Group (Summary of Public Meeting, Concerns and Objections, Transportation Issues, and Community Views and Concerns)

· Letter dated November 12, 2007 signed by the owners of 15 single addresses from the local community

Geraldine Johnston, Planner II, provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Karen Currie, Manager of Development Approvals East/South accompanied her and Mike Wildman, Manager of Infrastructure Approvals was present to respond to questions.

Councillor Hunter pointed out this area is designated Arterial Mainstreet and covered by the Merivale Secondary Plan (MSP), which calls for a seven metre street side zone for snow storage (two metres), a walkway (two metres) and landscaping (three metres).

Ms. Currie specified that the submitted Site Plan showed a 2.5 metre set back along Burris Lane in addition to the area provided in the road allowance from the curb. She added this matter would be examined during Site Plan review. Ms. Johnston explained that an access point would be provided from that roadway and the abutting wall would not be blank.

Councillor Hunter emphasized the MSP speaks to landowners working together to provide internal linkages between separate parking and service facilities. As an example, he cited the reduction of 16 access points to 8 on the west side of Merivale Road at Clyde Avenue. The MSP also states that changes to the transportation system resulting from development should minimise the potential for cut-through traffic in adjacent neighbourhoods. Further, opportunities to reduce the number of site driveway connections and improve pedestrian and vehicular interconnection should be investigated.

Mr. Wildman confirmed a traffic study was undertaken for the area. Planning staff conferred with Traffic and Parking Operations (TPO) and determined there has been a steady decline in cut-through traffic in the area, which has been monitored over the past 10 years, dropping by 20 per cent. He observed this drop is attributable to the circuitous road network, which is not a straight grid pattern.

The existing traffic numbers are indicative of neighbourhood traffic. The traffic analysis indicates cut-through traffic would not increase significantly, but local residents would utilise the new facility. He confirmed the analysis is part anecdotal based on empirical numbers from traffic counts rationalised by TPO and the applicant’s consultant. Mr. Wildman confirmed the City’s Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines require that the applicant submit a Community Traffic Study, which looks at the functionality of the local road network and its ability to accommodate traffic generated by this type of development. Detailed design issues are dealt with at Site Plan and the proponent has gone beyond what is normally required for zoning. The existing zoning would generate three times more traffic, as compared to the zoning proposed.

Responding to a question from Councillor Desroches, Ms. Johnston confirmed the proposed building height is less than what is currently permitted under the by-law.

Councillor Feltmate occupied the Chair.

Cathleen Schmidt, a local resident and mother of two daughters, voiced opposition to the proposal, noting the negative impacts of the proposed use. She specified traffic and pedestrian safety concerns due to the lack of sidewalks on neighbouring streets. Ms. Schmidt pointed out many young families are choosing to locate in this area.

Terrence Bell, past president of the Skyline-Orchard Park Community Association, commented that the Community would be adversely impacted and affected should the application be approved. He touched on sole access and egress to the site on Burris Lane, urging instead that it be given from Merivale Road, as called for in the MSP. Mr. Bell also spoke of shared access with adjacent businesses and increased cut-through traffic. He noted that for many years City and Regional Councillors have relied heavily on staff recommendations before taking into consideration the views and concerns of all stakeholders.

In response to a question from Councillor Bellemare, Mr. Bell did not support dual access, as it would be detrimental to the residents due to the size and stacking potential on Burris Lane. The Community in recent years asked for restrictive turns, which exist currently on Meadowlands Drive, but there is no such restriction on Burris Lane to stop cut-through traffic.

Ken Cox, the first of five speakers from the Fisher Heights Skyline Orchard Park Community Working Group, addressed Community concerns with the application. He noted 250 individuals attended the October 15, 2007 public meeting and a working group was formed, composed of 16 members, to ensure the views of the Community were known.

Mr. Cox voiced the position that the present zoning serves both the interests of the applicant and the Community, suggesting the Planning department did not give due consideration to the views and concerns of the Community. Further, he said the main opposition related to access to the site via Burris Lane. Mr. Cox’s email dated January 6, 2008 to Ms. Johnston is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Monette asked whether a business office would be a more appropriate use. Mr. Cox responded the Community does not object to the current zoning, as the traffic studies show the number of cars would be approximately the same. The main concern centres around access and egress on Burris Lane. Building height is not a concern due to set back requirements.

Responding to a question from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Johnston clarified the set back provision aims to protect adjacent residential areas by setting back the building 1.4 times the height.

Bob McCaw focused his remarks on traffic/transportation issues, notably the grave concern of residents regarding the entrance and exit on Burris Lane, rather than Merivale Road. No other business in the vicinity funnels traffic onto adjacent streets. It also ignores the Merivale Secondary Plan, which mandates commercial properties to utilize singular or shared access points onto Merivale Road. Mr. McCaw noted Burris Lane is only 70 metres in length and leads to the community of low-rise and medium-rise apartments, townhouses, semi-detached and single homes. He suggested if a safety concern exists currently, it should be addresses accordingly. He also referenced Delcan’s study, questioning assertions that residents would only represent a small portion of the clientele and only local residents would use Burris Lane to enter the residential area. He stated through-traffic is an existing problem, which will be compounded, noting four recent traffic measures that were instituted to address it. He also mentioned current traffic volumes on Burris Lane and stacking at the intersection at peak times.

Councillor Hume resumed the Chair.

In reply to a question from Councillor Holmes with regard to controlling in and out traffic, Mr. Wildman explained detailed discussion with regard to access would be conducted at Site Plan and the zoning application focuses on whether the road network could tolerate the proposed use. He confirmed right-in and right-out options were given consideration; however, the staff consensus was to move the entrance to Burris Lane due to the proximity to the intersection and Official Plan policies, which seek to minimise accesses on arterial roads.

Sheila Granger outlined five problems with regard to the zoning:

· The application disregards existing policies that promote consolidation of small lots.

· The final use of the property is not determined. She characterised the rezoning application as speculative.

· The application, if approved, would add to the reliance on the automobile.

· With respect to the residential lots on Eleanor Drive, abutting this site, the proposal encroaches on the established residential neighbourhood. The current zoning takes into consideration the current mixed-use designation in the Merivale Secondary Plan.

· The developer has not worked with other landholders to develop the property as a harmonious mix of residential housing, business offices and retail stores.

Terrence Lonergan commented on the process as it relates to Community input and participation. He noted a petition signed by 80 residents was submitted in August 2007 and more than 250 individuals attended a public meeting on October 15, 2007. The working group has contributed more than 100 volunteer hours, prepared three technical briefs and a summary of the public meeting, wrote to councillors and met with five of them. He suggested community concerns and actions were not properly or adequately reflected in the departmental report, which does not critique or scrutinise the work of FoTenn or Delcan on behalf of the applicant. He detailed three misrepresentations in the report dealing with an independent study to verify the assumptions made by Delcan, concerns related to through-traffic, and increased traffic on Burris Lane over the last 10 years.

L. Paul Dumbrille, who also submitted written comments (held on file with the City Clerk), pointed out that the Community is not hostile to business or local enterprise. It is hoped Merivale Road will experience rapid and sustainable development. He called on Committee to reject the application in order that Merivale Road can develop into the functional and pleasant mid-town axis that Ottawa needs and deserves. He reiterated points raised by previous speakers, notably the most detestable feature of this application is that all traffic to the site would enter and exit on Burris Lane. He also looked forward to the establishment of a Business Improvement Association for Merivale that can plan and work with the Community.

Written submissions from all five speakers representing the working group are held on file with the City Clerk.

Iris Lonergan suggested the working group’s submissions have not been given due consideration. She commented that the owner purchased the property aware that it was zoned for office uses, noting she researched the area prior to purchasing her home two years ago. She stated zoning requirements must be respected. Mrs. Lonergan added that trough-traffic has increased incrementally and noted the absence of sidewalks on adjacent local streets. She urged Committee and Council to take into account the concerns and safety of nearby residents, by not allowing residential streets to be a dumping ground for cars in an effort to spare Merivale Road. She emphasized cut-through traffic will be a major issue.

Councillor Hunter congratulated the working group for their excellent briefs and presentations.

In reply to a question from Councillor Hunter, Mrs. Lonergan confirmed access on Burris Lane is a major concern and would be compacted by a fast food or convenience store use. Ms. Johnston confirmed the permitted uses under the new zone and the drive thru restriction.

Mr. Lonergan once again came forward explaining that a technical document was prepared addressing the future Arterial Mainstreet designation for Merivale Road, noting strict regulations apply. With respect to height, an 11-meter building could be constructed. The Community would be comfortable with sub zone 4 or 5, which restrict the uses that are acceptable to the adjacent residential neighbourhood. In all cases, the entrance and exit of a business that serves Merivale Road should remain on that street.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Lonergan reiterated the concern related more to the flow of cars, rather than the type of use. The Delcan report showed very little difference between a convenience store and fast-food operation in terms of generated traffic. Mrs. Lonergan added some residents abutting the site do not support a restaurant use due to food smells. She also discussed possible impact on sewers. Councillor Hunter noted many emails were received on the food smell issue, noting the large number of restaurants in the area.

Michael Casey, Arnon, was present to address the application and was accompanied by Brian Casagrande, FoTenn Consultants, and Ms. Newgard, Delcan. He put forward the following arguments:

· A drive thru was removed in response to community feedback at the public meeting and subsequent to discussions with the ward councillor.

· Arnon owns 83 per cent of street frontage on Burris Lane and he questioned the assertions presented by previous delegations with respect to cut-through traffic.

· With regard to land assembly, Arnon owned the land for 20 years and attempted to purchase additional parcels held by a particular individual with expectations as to the value of the property. He addressed recent acquisitions, noting there is no opportunity for assembly.

· Joint accesses only work if property lines are at 90 degrees to the street, as opposed to the 45-degree angle in the current situation. The MSP does not obligate joint access, stating instead that it is preferable. In this case, joint access is not possible given the configuration of the land holdings.

· City staff clearly indicated access should not be on Merivale Road, due to the close proximity to the traffic signals that control the intersection at Merivale Road/Burris Lane. The entrance is much safer on Burris Lane.

· The proposed uses would be permitted in the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law designation for this area and is less than what be permitted.

Mr. Casagrande focused on the Official Plan and Secondary Plan, which are the most critical evaluative tools for a zoning amendment. The proposal is consistent with the Arterial Mainstreet designation, which is a reflection of what currently exists on Merivale Road. The concept plan as proposed shows a number of aspects that also support Official Plan policies and vision with respect to buffering, articulation to the street, and so on. With respect to the MSP, the proposal conforms to the permitted uses. He opined policies with regard to joint access are misrepresented, as the objective is to protect major roads, such as Merivale Road. He suggested an entrance on Merivale Road would encourage cut-through traffic, rather than alleviate it.

In response to a question from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Casey advised that if the zoning is approved he could begin marketing the site for a potential occupant, including retail, restaurant and other permitted uses. He confirmed he would not construct an office building, because the site is too small. Ms. Johnston confirmed the permitted uses in the proposed zone, as compared to the current zone, which is more permissive. With respect to access on Merivale Road, Mr. Casey suggested the MSP seeks to minimise access points on Merivale Road and both staff and the applicant believe the entrance should be located on Burris Lane.

Councillor Monette asked the applicant if he would accept locating the entrance on Merivale Road. Mr. Casey reiterated his earlier comments, but noted he would respect what is imposed. Councillor Hunter announced he would address the entrance.

Ms. Newgard explained the entrance, if located on Merivale Road, would be 50 metres from the intersection, which is unsafe in terms of stacking and visibility for turning.

Councillor Holmes suggested Toronto’s guidelines for greening parking lots should be utilised at this location. She noted it would not reduce the number of parking spots. Chair Hume explained that through an inquiry at this Committee, staff is looking at the guidelines in terms of implementation.

Councillor Holmes commented on the application, noting it is a down zone, which she usually does not support. She compared this proposal with some in her ward with respect to community compatibility and concern. She remarked intensification must not only occur downtown.

Councillor Monette congratulated the community for their efforts, commenting that the local community must be respected.

Councillor Hunter addressed his motion, in rebuttal to Councillor Holmes’ assertion that this proposal represented down zoning. He noted a greater number of uses would be permitted and building height is constrained by set back requirements.

CARRIED, with G. Hunter dissenting.

Moved by G. Hunter:

Whereas access and egress for 1445 Merivale Road via Burris Lane is a major concern for the surrounding community.

THEREFORE Be it resolved that should the application for rezoning be approved staff be directed to consider a site plan with access and egress on Merivale Road.

AND THAT if such access is considered not desirable that it be subject to a report to the Transportation Committee.

CARRIED