|
5. ZONING
- 2992 RICHMOND ROAD ZONAGE
- 2992, CHEMIN RICHMOND |
Committee
recommendation
(This application is subject to
Bill 51)
That Council approve an
amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
2992 Richmond Road from R1G (Detached House subzone) to R2C (Semi-Detached
House subzone), as detailed in Document 2.
Recommandation du Comité
(Cette demande est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil approuve une
modification au Règlement municipal de zonage de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin
de changer le zonage du 2992, chemin Richmond, de R1G (sous-zone de maisons
unifamiliales) à R2C (sous-zone de maisons jumelées), tel qu’il est expliqué en
détail dans le document 2.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 4 March 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0056).
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
04 March 2008 / le 04 mars 2008
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 : Grant Lindsay, Manager /
Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement
(613)
580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 2992 Richmond Road from R1G (Detached House subzone) to R2C (Semi-Detached House subzone), as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver
une modification au Règlement municipal de zonage de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa
afin de changer le zonage du 2992, chemin Richmond, de R1G (sous-zone de maisons unifamiliales) à R2C
(sous-zone de maisons jumelées), tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le
document 2.
BACKGROUND
The subject lands, 2992 Richmond Road, are located on the south side of Richmond Road, east of Lovitt Road. With 30.48 metres of frontage and an average depth of 52.42 metres, the property has a lot area of 1623 square metres.
The lands are zoned R1G (Detached
House subzone), and are occupied by a one-storey detached house with an
attached garage. The existing house,
which was built in the 1960s, has a circular driveway that provides two points
of access to Richmond Road.
Properties in the immediate area
of the subject lands are developed at a variety of densities, reflecting the
range of residential zones that apply.
On Richmond Road to the east of the subject property is a Planned Unit
Development containing four 2.5 storey multi-unit residential buildings. These lands are zoned R3A[207] U(20), which
is a Converted House / Townhouse subzone.
The irregularly shaped vacant side yard of 943 Lovitt Road abuts the
property to the west. This property is
zoned R1G (Detached House Zone) and is developed with a one-storey detached
house. Beyond this side yard, the
properties on the west side of Lovitt Road are zoned R3A U(41.0) and are developed with a series of 2.5-storey
townhouses and semi-detached houses. The
properties to the north, across Richmond Road, also zoned R3A, are developed
with townhomes. In contrast, the
properties to the rear of the subject lands, on Highfield Crescent, are zoned
R1G, and are developed with a mix of one and two-storey detached houses.
Purpose of
Zoning Amendment
The purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject lands from a Detached House subzone (R1G) to a Semi-Detached House subzone (R2C) to allow the property to be redeveloped at a higher density. The Applicants propose to build two semi-detached houses, for a total of four units. As the existing detached dwelling will be either demolished or relocated, there will be a net increase of three dwelling units on the property.
The property is currently zoned R1G (Detached House subzone). This zone permits low-density dwellings, restricted to detached houses. Subzone “G” requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres, and a minimum lot area of 464 square metres. The property far exceeds these requirements, with a lot width of 30.48 metres, and a lot area of 1623 square metres. The property could be severed to create two lots, each to be developed with a detached house, without the need for minor variances or a rezoning application.
The proposed zoning for the property is R2C, a Semi-Detached House subzone. It is the Applicants’ stated intention to subdivide the property into four lots, and to build two semi‑detached buildings, for a total of four units. Subzone “C” requires a minimum lot width of 7.5 metres, and minimum lot area of 232 square metres, for each semi-detached or linked‑detached unit. Each of the proposed units would exceed these requirements. The proposed lots would each have a lot width of 7.62 metres, and a lot area of 405 square metres.
The subject lands are in “Area B” (as shown on Schedule 1 of the Zoning By-law) for the purposes of maximum height and minimum yard calculations. The Zoning By-law provides that the maximum height for a detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or linked-detached dwelling in “Area B” is 8.0 metres. The minimum required front yard is six metres.
Each semi-detached house requires one side yard, which must be a minimum of 1.2 metres. The minimum required rear yard in “Area B” must be equal to 25 per cent of lot depth and 25 per cent of lot area, to a maximum requirement of 7.5 metres.
In this case, the minimum required rear yard is 7.5 metres. The Applicants propose to build within the maximum height and minimum yard requirements required by the Zoning By-law.
Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law
The proposed zoning for the property in the draft comprehensive Zoning
By-law is R1O. This is the Residential
First Density zone, which limits development to detached dwellings, and
requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres, and minimum lot area of 450 square
metres.
The proposal would meet the provisions of the R2G Subzone. The purpose of the Residential Second
Density Zone is to restrict the building form to detached and two principal
unit buildings. Subzone “G” requires a
minimum lot width of 7.5 metres, minimum lot area of 225 square metres, maximum
building height of 8.0 metres, a 6.0-metre front yard, 7.5-metre rear yard, and
1.2-metre side yards.
DISCUSSION
The subject lands are designated “Arterial Mainstreet” in the Official Plan. The Mainstreet designation in the Official Plan identifies streets that offer some of the most significant opportunities in the city for intensification through more compact forms of development, a lively mix of uses and a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Redevelopment and infill are encouraged on Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets in order to optimize the use of land through increased building height and density. The proposal addresses the Official Plan’s goal of intensification as it represents an opportunity to add three housing units to a serviced, central location. The current proposal will maintain the residential use that has existed on the property since the 1960s, and the new units will help to accommodate the growth of the city, and will make use of existing facilities and services in an efficient manner.
The Official Plan provides guidance on measures
to mitigate the differences between new development and the existing
development in an established area. The
Plan defines compatible development, in general terms, as development that is
not necessarily the same or similar to existing buildings, but nonetheless
enhances an established community and coexists with existing development
without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties.
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. The Applicants propose to build within the
height and yard requirements established by the Zoning By-law.
The proposed development will be compatible
with that which exists in the area: building height will be consistent with the
zoning; parking will be provided in garages, a manner consistent with many of
the existing homes in the area; the buildings will address the street with
access to the homes from the ground level at individual front doors and as much
of the existing landscape space at the rear of the lot as possible will be
maintained. The Applicants also have
stated an intention to incorporate other characteristics common to the
surrounding area into their design.
The purpose of the R2 Zone is to permit low-density dwellings, in the form of detached houses, semi-detached houses, linked-detached houses and duplex houses. The zone aims to regulate development in a manner that adopts the existing land use patterns of the community so that the low-density character of a neighbourhood is maintained.
In addition to the private residential uses listed above, the R2 zone also permits a diplomatic mission (official or other residence), as well as a converted retirement home and a special needs house, both limited to a maximum of eight residents.
The proposed development will conform to the
provisions of the Zoning By-law for Area B and for the R2C zone. No exceptions are required.
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. Details of the comments received, and the staff responses, are included in Document 3: Consultation Details.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
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
DISPOSITION
City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee
Services to notify the owner, Bruno Giammaria, 1769 Prince of Wales Drive,
Ottawa, ON K2C 1P2, applicant, Luigi
and Paolo Giammaria, 1769 Prince of Wales Drive, Ottawa, ON K2C 1P2, 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
property known municipally as 2992 Richmond Road, and shown on Document 1, is
rezoned from R1G (Detached House subzone) to R2C (Semi-Detached House subzone).
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.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
- Mailing the “Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal” to surrounding property owners during the Christmas holidays (December 27, 2007), when mail service is irregular and people are distracted was manipulative.
Response to Comment: The Planning Act requires that a decision be rendered on an application for rezoning within 120 days of the complete application being submitted (ss. 34(11)). In order to satisfy the requirements of the Planning Act requires that a Zoning By-law Amendment application be circulated within two weeks of an application being deemed complete. This application was submitted on December 13, 2007 and circulated on December 27, 2007. The circulation period is 28 days, and all comments – including those received after the circulation period ends – will be considered. Notice of the application will also be given through an advertisement in The Citizen and Le Droit the Friday before the Planning and Environment Committee meeting.
- Other properties on Highfield Crescent are for sale. If this proposal is approved, it will set a precedent for the rest of the street, and the character of the street will be destroyed one property at a time. The City has a responsibility to ensure that neighbourhood character is maintained.
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 subject property is on Richmond Road, not on Highfield Crescent. As such, the property is on the edge of the detached house area, and is directly adjacent to, and across the street from, lands that are zoned R3A and developed with multiple-unit dwellings. A variety of zoning designations exist on Richmond Road, ranging from R1 to R6. The development on Richmond Road is significantly more varied that that on Highfield Crescent. As such, the considerations for an amendment to the zoning on Richmond Road are different that those that would apply on Highfield Crescent.
All of the properties on Highfield Crescent are zoned R1G. This has restricted the development on Highfield to detached houses and has contributed to character of the neighbourhood that currently exists. The bungalow house form, which is not required by the zoning (the height limit is 8.0 metres), adds significantly to the character of the area.
The Official Plan contains policies relating to the retention of neighbourhood character as well as policies that support intensification, where appropriate. Semi-detached houses at this location are compatible with the character of Richmond Road.
- I have no comments or concerns with this proposal, as long as construction vehicles do not block Lovitt Road.
Response to Comment: The Applicant has been made aware of this concern.
- Although we have not seen the final architectural plans, we agree in principle that the new buildings will contribute to the beautification of the area.
- I support the re-zoning of the property at 2992 Richmond Rd. I am a true believer in the intensification approach in the City of Ottawa, which directs more new development within areas of existing infrastructure. I support the fact that an influx of new residents will strengthen this existing community and support greater availability of services.
Response to Comment: None required.
- I am concerned that the owner will destroy the 50-foot tall pine trees on their property. The City should protect these trees, which provide natural beauty, shade and privacy to surrounding properties.
- Loss of trees: currently there are a dozen mature pine trees (well over 50 years old and some as high as 60+ feet tall) on the east side of the property border that act as a natural sound barrier from the high traffic on Richmond Road and provide privacy from other neighbours. Although the trees are all situated within the 1.20 m. border that is required between adjoining lots, the construction of the 4 units will likely cause their removal. The new buildings should consider a design strategy that will minimize the loss of trees.
Response to Comment: The City does not have a by-law respecting the cutting of trees on private property, and is therefore not able to control the removal of trees on private property. The Applicants recognise the value of these mature trees for their property as well as for neighbouring properties. The Applicants have advised that they intend to retain as many trees as the construction will allow, and to re-plant new trees to replace those that are lost. The existing trees will benefit future owners of the proposed new houses and will add beauty and value to the site.
- 2986 and 2988 Richmond Rd are adjacent to the mature trees with a deep root system; there is a high risk that these backyards will be damaged (i.e. cedar hedges, patios, pavers) when the roots are dug out. As well, the land is on a grade so there is risk of the earth sliding. Will the new construction take provisions to ensure that the adjacent earth remains structurally sound (i.e. the use of retaining walls) and will the 2992 owners be responsible for repairing any damaged neighbouring property at their cost?
- The digging of the new foundations on lot 2292 Richmond may displace, crack or otherwise damage the foundations of the adjacent 2986 and 2988 homes. What recourse will these citizens have in the unfortunate case the neighbours experience foundation problems as a result of the new construction?
Response to Comment: The developer’s contractors must be bonded and insured. It would be the responsibility of the developer and his insurers to compensate for any damage that may be done to neighbouring trees or foundations as a direct result of construction. The contractors must comply with all applicable codes and law during construction. If you have any specific concerns, we will bring this to the attention of appropriate staff.
- I am concerned that the Applicant has also purchased
2918 Highfield Crescent, and that he will seek to develop it with
semi-detached houses as well.
Response to Comment: The Applicants have advised the Department that they do not own any other properties in the area.
- We purchased our property on Highfield Crescent because of its location amongst other single-family homes. We want to keep living in a single-family neighbourhood. Multi-family homes, especially if they are rented out, will decrease the value of our property, and will disrupt the integrity of our neighbourhood.
- This application will destroy the single detached house environment of the block, and will definitely depreciate the value of other properties in the block. Therefore, I strongly oppose the application.
Response to Comment: The property that is the subject of this application is on Richmond Road. Multiple-unit dwellings already exist on Richmond Road, and contribute to the established character of the area. 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.
- Parking on Highfield Crescent is already an issue. The single width driveways at the proposed houses will not provide enough parking, and since the residents and visitors to the 4 new homes will not be able to park on Richmond Road, they will park on our street. The street is already congested, especially when the snow banks are large.
Response to Comment: The Zoning By-law requires one parking space to be provided for each semi-detached house. No visitor parking is required by the Zoning By-law. The Applicants have indicated an intention to provide single-car garages for each house as well as driveways that will accommodate at least one additional vehicle. This exceeds the parking required by the Zoning By-law. Any increase in traffic and parking from the additional three units will be minimal.
- The infrastructure is inadequate to support four
houses on one property.
Response to Comment: Engineering staff has confirmed that the infrastructure in the area is adequate to support the proposed development.
- I do not want the Zoning By-law Amended. It would cut off my view and close in my feeling of a good neighbourhood. Our neighbourhood is friendly and open, and we can rely on our neighbours.
Response to Comment: The proposed houses will be built in accordance with the setback and height requirements of the Zoning By-law. A minimum of 2.4 metres (7.8 feet) of open space will be maintained between the two buildings, which will increase the view to Richmond Road when compared to the existing house.
- We are opposed to the rezoning from R1G to R2. It would be more appropriate to build two single homes with frontage on Richmond Road. These single homes should be privately owned and not rented out.
Response to Comment: While two detached homes could be built on this property without amending the current zoning, the Applicants have chosen to pursue the option of two semi-detached houses (4 units). The proposed houses will each have frontage on Richmond Road. It is the intention of the Applicants to sever the properties at a future date, which will allow each of the units to be separately owned. Zoning is not permitted to regulate the ownership or tenure of buildings.
- We would like to know the exact layout/plan for these houses. How many levels are proposed in this housing development? What will the houses look like?
Response to Comment: The proposed lots will conform to the provisions of the proposed R2C zone. R2C requires each semi-detached house to have a minimum lot width of 7.5 metres, and a minimum lot area of 232 m2. The proposed lots exceed these requirements.
The minimum front yard in this area (Area B) is 6.0 metres, the minimum rear yard is 7.5 metres, and each semi-detached house will be required to have one side yard that is a minimum of 1.2 metres. The maximum building height in this area is 8.0 metres. The Applicant proposes to build within the height and setback requirements of the area. As such, no exceptions are required and the zoning will not be tied to a specific set of plans. 8.0 metres will generally allow a two-storey dwelling.
- The existing house at 2992 Richmond Road is in good condition, and does not need to be torn down.
Response to Comment: While it is desirable to retain existing buildings or to reuse construction materials where possible from an environmental perspective, the City does not currently have a policy that requires this. The City is not able to control the demolition of residential buildings when a replacement building is proposed. In the present case the house to be demolished (or relocated) will be replaced with four units, and Demolition Control will not apply.
- I am concerned about traffic from four new houses exiting onto Richmond Road.
Response to Comment: 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 three units will not result in a significant increase in traffic on the neighbourhood streets, particularly because access to the properties is on Richmond Road. Richmond Road is an Arterial Road. Arterial roads serve through travel between points that are not directly served by the road itself.
A circular driveway that provides two points of access to Richmond Road currently serves the property. It is proposed that access for the proposed new buildings will be provided in a similar manner.
- From an aesthetic point of view, the new buildings should not be higher than the neighbouring buildings. Although the final construction plans have not been completed, the architect should carefully consider the placement of windows to minimize the visual impact on the neighbouring buildings while maintaining privacy.
Response to Comment: The proposed buildings will be built within the maximum height limit established by the Zoning By-law. This height is 8.0 metres. The Applicant has been advised of the concern regarding the placement of windows.
- According to Section 4.6.1 of the Official Plan, a proposal must show its compatibility by “respecting the massing, profile and character of adjacent heritage buildings”. The height, size, mass, general appearance, and close proximity of the proposed structure at 2992 Richmond Road simply would not. The planned development is not in keeping with Section 4.6.1 of the Official Plan.
Response to Comment: Policy 7 of section 4.6.1 refers to properties that are adjacent to a designated heritage resource. The proposed buildings are separated from the Mosgrove Schoolhouse by a building, and are therefore not adjacent, although the lots are adjacent. This policy does not apply. The height and yards required by the Zoning By-law will be respected by the proposed new development.
- We note that the properties to the east and west of 2992 Richmond Road are mostly one storey single-family dwellings. The current property at 2992 Richmond Road itself is a single storey single-family dwelling. So we ask ourselves why the proposed new structure at 2992 Richmond Road building, near the heritage schoolhouse, should be such a large two-storey structure.
Response to Comment: While bungalows are the predominant house form on Highfield Crescent, the subject property is located between two multiple-unit 2.5 storey developments to the east and west along Richmond Road. The maximum height limit for detached and semi-detached houses in this area (Area B) is 8.0 metres. No exception to this provision has been requested. The minimum yards required by Area B will be provided.
- This proposal will have an adverse effect given the close proximity to important City heritage sites. It will compete with and denigrate from the historic character of the schoolhouse site and Bell Farm. This effect will be even more pronounced due to the size, mass, and height of the proposed new structures. The proposed structures are close to, and incompatible with, the heritage sites. It diminishes the schoolhouse.
Response to Comment: Although no building plans have been submitted to the Department, the proposed buildings will meet the height and yard requirements of the Zoning By-law. No exception is proposed. The property is separated from the schoolhouse by a 2.5 storey development, and is located approximately 350 metres away from the Bell Farm.
- This proposal will create a precedent for an increased housing density on the south side of Richmond Road between Bayshore and Grenon Avenue. Between Bayshore and Grenon Avenue on the south side of Richmond Road, all houses are well spaced single family homes. While an argument can be made that housing is dense on the north side of Richmond Road, this application will create a precedent for a higher housing density in our immediate area on the south side of Richmond Road. This detracts from the area’s appearance, character and balance.
Response to Comment: A mix of densities exists on the south side of Richmond Road. The proposed development is located between Carleton Condominium Corporation #338 (multiple-unit 2.5 storey buildings) and a 2.5 storey townhouse development on Lovitt Road. These two developments contribute to the appearance and character of the community.
- I do not see how the proposed structure at 2992 Richmond Road meets either the letter or the spirit of Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Response to Comment: Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement refers to development on lands adjacent to protected heritage properties. Although the lots are adjacent, the proposed development is separated from the Schoolhouse by the buildings that form Carleton Condominium Corporation #338. Section 2.6.3 is not applicable to this proposed development.
The Provincial Policy Statement encourages intensification and redevelopment as well as efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable and healthy communities, protect the environment and public health and safety, and facilitate economic growth.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
Councillor Alex Cullen is aware of the application, and of the recommendation of staff.