2. ZONING - 1080 BANK STREET ZONAGE - 1080 RUE
BANK |
Committee recommendations
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
That Council:
1. Approve
an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1080 Bank
Street, as shown in Document 1, from Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 H (15) and
Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 [98] H(14) to TM2 [98] H(15) as detailed in
Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to change the zoning provisions for part of 1080 Bank Street, as shown in Document 1, to reduce the separation for a parking lot from a public street, as detailed in Document 2.
Recommandations du Comité
(Cette demande
est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve une modification au Règlement
de zonage 2008-250 visant à faire passer la désignation de zonage de la
propriété située au 1080, rue Bank et illustrée dans le document 1, de Rue
principale traditionnelle - TM2 H (15) et Rue principale traditionnelle - TM2
[98] H(14) à TM2 [98] H(15), comme le précise le Document 2.
2. approuve une modification au Règlement
de zonage 93-98 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin de changer les dispositions
de zonage relatives à une partie de la propriété située au 1080, rue Bank et
illustrée dans le document 1, afin de réduire la distance séparant un terrain
de stationnement d’une rue publique, comme le précise le Document 2.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 24 December 2008 (ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0010).
2. Extract
of Draft Minute, 13 January 2009.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
24 December 2008 / le 24 décembre 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability
Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne-ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals/Approbation des demandes d'aménagement, Planning and
Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613)
580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
OBJET: |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve an amendment
to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1080 Bank Street, as
shown in Document 1, from Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 H (15) and Traditional
Mainstreet - TM2 [98] H(14) to TM2 [98] H(15) as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to change the zoning provisions for part of 1080 Bank Street, as shown in Document 1, to reduce the separation for a parking lot from a public street, as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil :
1. d’approuver
une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à faire passer la
désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 1080, rue Bank et illustrée
dans le document 1, de Rue principale traditionnelle - TM2 H (15) et Rue
principale traditionnelle - TM2 [98] H(14) à TM2 [98] H(15), comme le précise
le Document 2.
2. d’approuver
une modification au Règlement de zonage 93-98 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin
de changer les dispositions de zonage relatives à une partie de la propriété
située au 1080, rue Bank et illustrée dans le document 1, afin de réduire la
distance séparant un terrain de stationnement d’une rue publique, comme le
précise le Document 2.
BACKGROUND
The subject property, 1080 Bank Street, is located at the north west
corner of Bank Street and Sunnyside Avenue, with 27 metres of frontage on the
west side of Bank Street and 74 metres of frontage along the north side of
Sunnyside Avenue. The subject property has a total area of 2030 square
metres. The Mayfair Theatre is located
adjacent to the north side of the site with a low profile residential
neighbourhood located to the west. Across
Bank Street, on the north east corner is a parking lot and chip wagon; a Second
Cup restaurant is on the southeast corner; and a restaurant with rental units
above and Hopewell Public School exists directly across Sunnyside Avenue to the
south. A parking lot, a two-storey
residential building (converted to an office building) and a single detached
dwelling, both of which are proposed to be demolished, currently occupy the
site. The Bank Street portion of the site
previously accommodated a gas station.
The purpose of the amendment is
to permit the development of a two-storey commercial building with retail at grade and office on the second
floor. The proposed building would have
a total gross floor area of
approximately 1970 square metres (retail 1105 and office 865 square
metres) with a height of 10.76
metres. Twelve surface parking spaces
are proposed in the rear yard with access from Sunnyside Avenue.
The zoning as
per the recently adopted Comprehensive Zoning By-law (By-law 2008-250) is
Traditional Mainstreet, subzone 2 with a maximum height of 15 metres (TM2
H(15)) for the Bank Street portion of the property and Traditional Mainstreet,
subzone 2 with a maximum height of 14 metres and an exception (TM2 [98] H(14))
that limits commercial uses and permits various residential uses on the rear
portion of the property. The exceptions
that apply to the rear of the property
were put in place as site specific exceptions for a previous development
proposal that was never pursued.
As the new By-law is within the appeal period, the zoning from the
previous by-law must also be considered and the strictest provisions of the two
by-laws are to prevail. The zoning of
the subject property, as per Zoning By-law 93-98 is Neighbourhood Linear
Commercial, subzone 10 with a maximum height of 13.8 metres (CN10
H(13.8)). A portion of the property
where the residential unit is located has an exception that limits commercial
uses and permits various residential uses (CN10 [560] H(13.8)).
The proposed rezoning would create one TM2 zone designation with an exception and a consistent height limit (15 metres) for the entire property. The current exception, which relates to the rear of the property has provisions regarding what uses are permitted and specific provisions for parking. These exception provisions would be deleted in their entirety. The number 98 would be reused for the new exception, which would be for the entire property. Exception provisions would be established to require only 12 parking spaces rather than the 48 spaces as required under the general provisions. In addition, performance standards would be included regarding side yards, minimum landscaping buffers, maximum gross floor area for a single use, and bicycle aisle and space provisions. Finally, the exception would limit use of the rear of the site, within 20.3 metres of the rear lot line to only parking and/or open space.
Section 110 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law has been appealed which relates to Landscaping Provisions for Parking Lots. Therefore it is also required to vary one of the performance standards of the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to reflect the reduction in the required landscaping buffer for a parking lot abutting a street, similar to the request for a change in the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
DISCUSSION
Official Plan Considerations
Strategic Directions
One
strategic direction of the Official Plan is to manage growth by accommodating
approximately 90 per cent of the growth in population, jobs and housing within
areas designated within the urban boundary in the Official Plan. These are
areas where services are already available or can be readily provided through
the logical extension of existing services.
Concentrating growth within the designated urban area also allows for a
pattern and density of development that supports transit, cycling and walking
as viable and attractive alternatives to the private automobile.
Within
the designated urban area, growth will be directed to locations with
significant development potential, specifically those designated as Central
Area, Mixed-Use Centres, Employment Areas, Enterprise Areas, Developing
Communities and Mainstreets. These areas include locations that are centred on
the rapid-transit network, major roads, busy commercial streets, and large
tracts of vacant land. In addition, the
City supports intensification and infill development throughout the urban area
and promotes opportunities for intensification and infill for lands used as
parking lots and lands where records indicate existing contamination due to
previous uses, but which can be made suitable for development if cleaned up,
provided that all other policies in the Plan are met. Also to promote compact, mixed-use development, the direction is
provided to consider opportunities to reduce the amount of land used for
parking, such as reductions in parking standards and the creation of municipal
parking structures.
Introducing
new development in existing areas that have developed over a long period of
time requires a sensitive approach to differences between the new development
and the established area. The Official Plan provides guidance on measures that
will mitigate these differences and help achieve compatibility of form and
function. Allowing for some flexibility and variation that complements the
character of existing communities is central to successful intensification. In general terms, compatible development
means development that, although it is not necessarily the same as or similar
to existing buildings in the vicinity, nonetheless enhances an established
community and coexists with existing development without causing undue adverse impact
on surrounding properties. It ‘fits well’ within its physical context and
‘works well’ among those functions that surround it. Generally speaking, the
more a new development can incorporate the common characteristics of its
setting in its design, the more compatible it will be. Nevertheless, a
development can be designed to fit and work well in a certain existing context
without being ‘the same as’ the existing development.
The Official Plan recognizes that the zoning in many areas of the city,
including along Traditional Mainstreets, may require an amendment to the Zoning
By-law to achieve the objective of new development to provide for a mix of
uses, in a manner that enhances an established community and coexists with
existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding
properties. In these circumstances, the
compatibility of the proposed development must be considered. An assessment of the compatibility of new
development involves consideration of built form, context and fit relative to
design principles and objectives set out in Section 2.5.1– Compatibility and
Community Design.
In
reviewing the proposal relative to the policies and considerations set out in
Section 2.5.1, it is considered appropriate.
The height and massing of the building satisfies the minimum number of
storeys of two, as set out in the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law while
keeping a similar profile to buildings in the area. The façade, articulation of the two storeys, the use of brick and
glass all contribute to a building that not only maintains the character of the
area but enhances it, filling an existing void along the street at a key
location. The store frontage along Bank
Street is similar to the frontages of some of the proximate businesses in the
area. Further, in addition to filling a
void, the continuity of buildings along Bank Street will be enhanced, with a
minimal front yard setback, minimal space between the building and the adjacent
commercial property (The Mayfair).
Locating parking in the rear with access from Sunnyside Avenue also
ensures that the built form continuity along Bank Street will be
maintained.
Traditional Mainstreet
The
subject property is designated ‘Traditional Mainstreet’ in the Official
Plan. Mainstreets are identified as
areas 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. Mixed-use
development combines housing, employment, shopping, recreation or other uses
within the same building or within walking distance of each other. A mix of
land uses permits people who live and work in the area to satisfy many of their
daily needs locally instead of having to travel to other parts of the
city. Over time, it is the City’s
intent that Mainstreets achieve more compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented
development patterns. A broad range of
uses is permitted within the “Traditional Mainstreet” designation including
retail and service commercial uses, offices, residential and institutional
uses.
As
noted, the zoning modifications requested are to accommodate a proposed
two-storey commercial building with an at-grade retail use and a second storey
office space. The proposed uses would
contribute to the existing mix of uses along Bank Street and with the proposed
two‑storey building, fits with the surrounding pattern of development.
The Zoning By‑law permits the proposed uses that will occupy the
development but limits the area on the ground floor that can be occupied by a
single retail tenancey. The requested
modification to the zoning to allow for the proposed use to occupy a greater
area is not precluded under the Official Plan.
Rather, the uses as proposed are permitted and staff is of the view that
allowing an increased area for a retail use, will not adversly impact the small
scale retail character that is to be retained along Bank Street, given the
depth of the subject property. In this
regard, the frontage of the retail use typifies the retail frontages
characterizing the area. The proposed
drug store use is also a use that is serves the neighbourhood.
The
introduction of a new neighbourhood serving use will further enhance the
relationship between the Bank Street commercial corridor and adajcent
residential uses as contemplated under the Official Plan policies for
Traditional Mainstreets. Being a use
that will largely serve the adjacent community, it is expected that it will
attract a significant number of patrons who will walk, cycle or take
transit. This allows the number of
parking spaces provided on site to be minimized so as to contribute to
achieving the built form objectives for areas designated Traditional Mainstreet
including the promotion of pedestrian activity and animation.
Staff
are satisfied that the proposed development responds to the Official Plan
policy objectives as it relates to Traditional Mainstreets and will contribute
to strengtheining the small scale commercial fabric and pedestrian focus along
Bank Street in Old Ottawa South.
Review of
Development Applications and Compatibility
In
addition to the policies set out in Section 2.5.1 dealing with built form,
context and fit, Section 4.11 of the Official Plan sets out more tangible
criteria for assessing compatibility of
proposed developments. The matters of
relevance to the review of the rezoning application relates to some of the
operational characteristics of the proposal including traffic, vehicular
access, outdoor amenity area, loading, service and outdoor storage areas.
To
address concerns related to traffic, the applicant undertook a traffic
assessment to determine if there would be any adverse operational impacts
resulting from the proposed development on the area road system or on pedestrian
activity in the area. The study
concluded that no issues of concern related to either the ability of the roads
to accommodate any traffic generated or on pedestrian activity would result. Staff have reviewed the report and concur
with the findings.
As
noted, it is proposed to limit the amount of parking provided for the
development in recognition of the use being a neighborhood serving use. Given the site’s location in Old Ottawa
South which is known as a very walkable community, it is expected that many
patrons to the drug store will walk or use modes of travel other than an
automobile. Staff concur with the
assumptions being made by the applicant and agree that it is more desireable to
support and encourage non-auto travel modes by limiting parking and that the
benefit this represents to achieving the built form objectives of the official
Plan for Tradtional Mainstreets will further contribute to improving the
pedestrian focus of the area. In addition, the office use is also intended to
serve the local community. The limited
parking is a disincentive for any office use where parking is integral to their
business. Tenants using the office
space would have opportunities for their employees and clients to access the
office via other modes of transportation such as walking, transit and
bicycle.
Vehicular
access to the property is proposed at the rear of the property off Sunnyside
Avenue. This location is considered
appropriate in that it does not impact the pedestrian traffic along Bank Street
and will serve to provide for a transition area between the proposed commercial
building and residential buildings to the west. Additional landscaping will also be provided at the entrance of
the parking lot, as well as along Sunnyside Avenue to soften the overall look
of the development.
Loading
provisions are consistent with the Zoning By-law. Concerns regarding outdoor storage areas, lighting and noise are
being mitigated with the construction of an opaque fence adjacent to the
residential properties. These details will be addressed through the related
site plan application
In
summary, staff are satisified that the proposed development, that would be
accommodated through the rezoning, responds well to the relevant compatibility
critieria set out in Section 4.11.
Zoning By-law Details
The
site currently has two zone designations.
The front of the property is zoned Traditional Mainstreet with a maximum
height of 15 metres (TM2 H (15)) and the rear of the property is zoned
Traditional Mainstreet with a maximum height of 14 metres and exceptions
regarding the permitted uses and parking provisions (TM2 H (14) [98]). This exception was put in place for a
previous development proposal that has never been pursued.
It
is recommended that the entire site be placed under one TM2 zone designation
with a 15‑metre height limit and new exceptions to modify various
standards required to accommodate the proposed development. Under the
recommended TM zone, a uniform 15‑metre height limit would be established
over the property even though the proposed development is to be
10.76 metres. This reflects the
intent of the TM2 zone consistent with the policy objectives of the Official
Plan to support and encourage an appropriate level of intensification along
Traditional Mainstreets. Finally, in
addition to modifying various yard and landscaping requirements, the
recommended exceptions also include the following:
·
Allowing the ground
floor retail to occupy an area greater then what is allowed under the current
TM zone
·
Allowing for reduced
parking of 12 spaces to serve the proposed development, and
·
Limiting the use of
the rear of the site for open space or surface parking to serve the proposed
development
The proposed modifications, as discussed in preceding sections are considered reasonable and appropriate for the development proposed and will result in the proposed development advancing and achieving the objectives and policies of the Official Plan for this site under its Traditional Mainstreet designation. The development will be compatible with development along Bank Street and will be compatible with the adjacent residential community.
Although the site has been decommissioned for a number of years, the past use of this property was a gas station. The developer has commissioned a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment as well as a remediation strategy. Site clean up will take place at the development stage.
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.
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to time to review significant public comments and also due to the application being reviewed concurrently with the Site Plan application for the project, which was submitted several weeks later.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Consultation
Details
City Clerk and Solicitor, Legislative Services to notify the owner, Robert McConkey, 9 Coupal Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1L 6A2, applicant, David Taras, Box 100, 340 Sheppard Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M2N 3B4, agent, Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants Inc., 223 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.
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
The lands known municipally as 1080 Bank Street be rezoned from TM2 H(15) and TM2[98] H(14) to TM2[98] H(15).
Exception 98 of Section 239 be amended by deleting it in its entirety and adding the following:
Applicable Zone
-
TM2[98]
H(15)
Provisions
- Minimum interior side yard for a mixed-use building abutting a residential zone: 1.18 metres
- Minimum corner side yard: 0.5 metres
- The provisions of subclause 197(3)(i)(i) do not apply.
- A landscaped area with a minimum width of 0.6 metres must be provided along the rear lot line abutting a residential zone for a minimum 8.1 metres as measured from the interior side lot line.
- An opaque fence with a minimum height of 1.5 metres must be provided along the rear lot line abutting a residential zone for a minimum 26.9 metres as measured from the interior side lot line.
- An opaque fence with a minimum height of 2.4 metres must be provided along the interior side lot line abutting a residential zone.
- A minimum 1.8 metre landscaped buffer must be provided where a parking lot abuts a street
- Despite clause 198(2)(b) the permitted gross leasable area of a retail store is 1150 square metres
- A minimum of 12 parking spaces for the retail use and office use must be provided.
- The provisions of subsections 111(5) through (13) do not apply
- Only parking and/or open space is permitted within 20.3 metres from the rear lot line.
"That Table XV - Exception [560] of the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law No. 93-98 is amended by adding the following provision:
- for the property known municipally as 1080 Bank the following provision also applies: Despite subsection 75(4) a parking lot must be at least 1.8 metres from a lot line abutting a public street and the resulting area must only be used as a landscaped area."
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. One public meeting was also held in the community.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM OCTOBER 7, 2008 PUBLIC MEETING AND IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
1. Proposed development is preferred for the site as it is currently unappealing and largely unused.
2. Area requires a mix of some anchor stores and small independent stores that will draw shoppers to the street regularly. Currently there are lots of independent boutiques but few "daily needs" sorts of stores.
3. Need a pharmacy in the community. Will add pedestrians to visit neighbouring stores.
4. Parking should be at the rear of the property.
5. Should not be a one-storey single use building.
6. Would prefer a five-storey residential building with commercial at grade but the current proposal is satisfactory.
7. Appreciate the efforts in the proposed architecture to make the building fit into Old Ottawa South.
8. Appreciate attempt to keep compatibility with the Mayfair.
9. Reduced parking will discourage vehicular traffic and encourage walk-in traffic.
10. The development will provide jobs for residents.
Comments against the developed can be grouped into the following three categories;
1.
Zoning
should not be changed. There are rules
for a reason.
Response: The Official Plan recognizes
that the zoning in many areas of the city may require an amendment to change
the permitted use of the land. In these
circumstances, the compatibility of the proposed development must be
considered. Introducing development in
existing areas that have developed over a long period of time requires a
sensitive approach to differences between the new development and the
established area. Allowing for some
flexibility and variation that complements the character of existing
communities is central to successful intensification.
For this particular site there are currently two
zone designations. The exceptions that
exist for the rear of the site were created in response to a previous proposed
development. It is preferred to have
one appropriate zone for the entire property rather than two separate zones.
2.
Proposed
variance to increase the size of the commercial space for a single use from
600 square metres to 1201 square metres is not minor.
Response: The width of the lot is
similar to the width of many lots in the area, however this site is unique in
that it is very deep. The unique nature
of the site requires a review of the Zoning By-law provisions and how they
relate to this property. As noted above,
the Official Plan contemplates the potential need to amend the zoning of properties
to create opportunities for appropriate development that may not fit precisely
with all the provisions of the zoning for a property. In this case the single use will not dominate a section of the
Traditional Mainstreet any more than a lot similar in width that is not as
deep.
3.
A
single retail use of 1200 square metres will create a building that is out of
scale and character.
Response: Whether or not there is a single use or if there a multiple uses, the building is not as large as it could be as of right. Significant effort has gone into the design of the building to ensure that it is not out of character with the neighbourhood.
4.
Proposal
not in keeping with the City’s intensification policies by not utilizing space
underneath for storage, auxiliary space, parking, increasing height of building
etc.
Response: For this property the Zoning By-law does not determine the level of intensity beyond requiring a minimum of two storeys, which the applicant has met. The development of the site does represent intensification in relation to what exists on the site now.
5.
There
is no residential component.
Response: The Traditional Mainstreet designation permits a variety of uses on the floors above grade, which “residential” is one and “office” is another. There is no requirement specified for a residential component.
6.
Oppose
increase in height at rear of site.
Suggest By-law amendment to put a height restriction to 11 metres for
the entire site since that is all that is required for the Shoppers Drug Mart
proposal.
Response: An 11‑metre restriction on the entire site would represent a down zoning for this property. In regards to not having an increase in height for the rear of the property that is currently limited to 14 metres, a provision is being recommended that would permit only parking and/or open space within 20.3 metres from the rear lot line which represents almost all of the area currently limited to 14 metres.
7.
Change
in uses
o Do not want to permit all uses permitted under the Traditional Mainstreet designation.
o Want to maintain the non-permitted uses except for permitting what is required for the Shoppers Drug Mart proposal (i.e. office buildings on the second floor, retail use, ATM and decreased number of parking spaces).
o Oppose one designation for entire property
Response: As noted above, the exceptions that exist for the rear of the site were created in response to a previous proposed development that did not move forward. It is preferred to have one appropriate zone for the entire property rather than two separate zonings. Also with the proposed provisions to only allow parking or open space in the rear 20.3 metres of the lot ensures that no building will be located abutting the residential lands to the west.
8.
Traffic
o Safety Issues with Hopewell School being across the street
o Problems with emergency vehicles getting through
o Errors with Traffic Brief
Response: A revised traffic brief has been done and reviewed by City staff. The City has reviewed the traffic brief and concurs with the conclusions.
It is noted in the report that 50 per cent of peak hour person trips are projected to be by foot, bicycle or transit, particularly since the amount of available parking will be limited to 12 spaces. Shoppers Drugmart has indicated that they have stores in other cities with less than 12 on-site parking spaces and some with no spaces and that they work well from both a sales and traffic operations perspective.
9.
Location
of Parking
o Parking should be located as far away as possible from the back yards of the Euclid Avenue homes to minimize the noise impact on residents.
Response: The Official Plan states that for Traditional Mainstreets: “surface parking will not be permitted between the building and the street. The location of surface parking will avoid interruption of building continuity along the Traditional Mainstreet frontage and will minimize impacts on pedestrians”. In light of this policy, the rear yard is the most appropriate location for parking. A 2.4‑metre opaque fence to the north and a 1.5‑metre fence to the west are proposed to mitigate the impacts of the parking lot on adjacent residential properties.
10.
Bicycle
Parking
o Is there a sufficient amount?
Response: The Zoning By-law requires 8 Bicycle Parking spaces. Nine spaces are to be provided. However, due to site constraints a revision is required to the zoning by-law regarding the aisle to the bicycle parking spaces and the size of the parking spaces. These adjustments are considered minor and appropriate.
11.
Vehicle
Parking
o Is there a sufficient amount for both the store and the office space?
Response: The Zoning By-law requires 48 parking spaces for the building. However, the reduced number of parking spaces is in keeping with the use of the property, which is meant to primarily serve the local community. By not making it convenient to park, the development discourages patrons who would use the retail as a vehicle destination point. The office use is also intended to serve the local community. The limited parking is a disincentive for any office use where parking is integral to their business.
12.
Remediation
of the Site
o The site was formerly a gas station. Are there remediation issues for the site that have not been addressed?
Response: The site will require remediation. The proponent has / is following all the requirements of the City and the Province regarding remediation including having a Phase I and II Environmental Assessment done. In addition for Site Plan Approval a Record of Site Condition, a Designated Substance Survey and Soil Management conditions will be included.
13.
Reduction
of permitted Side Yard abutting a residential zone from 7.5 metres to
1.18 metres for a portion of the building measuring 9.1 metres
o Not minor
Response: The required interior side yard is actually three metres not 7.5 metres and the distance of the building that is not in conformance is approximately 10 metres. The majority of the building is adjacent to a commercial use (the Mayfair Theatre) where it is in compliance with the Zoning By-law. It is only the rear portion of the building that requires the variance. It is important to note that if the proponent were to construct the building to the maximum allowable, that the impacts of shadowing and view would have a much greater impact. In this context the modification is appropriate.
14.
Adjustment
to permit the location of refuse collection areas being located less than the
required three metres from any lot line
o Not minor
o Do not want refuse containers adjacent to residential rear yards
Response: The Zoning By-law does not speak to the appropriate separation distance for refuse containers that are not located within a parking lot. However, the refuse for this use is mostly cardboard and packaging and not perishables. In addition the proponent is placing a 2.5‑metre fence to mitigate the impact.
15.
Precedent
o Allowing this proposal will set a precedent for more Mega stores in the area.
Response: As noted above, the shape of this property is unique for the area. The unique nature of the site requires a review of the Zoning By-law standards and how they relate to this property. As noted previously, the Official Plan contemplates the potential need to amend the zoning of properties to create an opportunity for appropriate development that may not fit precisely with all the provisions of the zoning for a property. In this case the single use will not dominate a section of the Traditional Mainstreet any more than a lot similar in width that is not as deep.
The following is a list of issues that were raised that are/will be dealt with through the site plan process. The comments have been noted and reviewed in light of the Site Plan Application. In summary they concerns/comments were:
1.
More
Windows on façade along Sunnyside Avenue
2.
No
Windows on Second Floor facing Residential rear yards
3.
Sidewalk
compatible with the wide ones Old Ottawa now have.
4.
Privacy
Fence adjacent to residential properties to be of appropriate height and
material.
5.
Security
Lighting impacts on residential properties
6.
Location
of garbage dumpsters
7.
Vegetation
on neighbouring lot to be protected during construction.
8.
Safety
– rear of site not to become a place of questionable and/or criminal activity.
9.
Bus
Stop location to be appropriate and loss landscaping to be mitigated in
relation to weather protection.
10.
More
Friendly design for kids
11.
Loading
space appropriately located.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
The Councillor is aware of the application.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Old Ottawa South Community Association has not yet taken a position on the application until they have an opportunity to meet with members of the community at another public meeting that will be scheduled sometime in early January 2009 and at that time will take a position.
ZONING -
1080 BANK STREET
ZONAGE - 1080 RUE
BANK
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0010 Capital/Capitale
(17)
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
Written
correspondence was received from the following and is held on file with the
City Clerk and Solicitor:
·
Email from Tim Bennett dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Sue Fay, owner of Soul Matters, dated
January 12, 2009
·
Email from Gabriela Gref-Innes dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Laura Rees dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Nancy Watters dated January 12, 2009
·
Email from Gordon Schwartz dated January 9, 2009
Lorraine
Stevens, Planner I, provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file
with the City Clerk and Solicitor. John
Smit, Program Manager of Development Review and Grant Lindsay, Manager of
Development Approvals Central/South accompanied her.
In
response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Ms. Stevens advised that most
buildings in the area are below the permitted 15 metres and an opaque fence is
solid and cannot be seen through. She
noted the building would be located on the corner, with parking and loading at
the rear. Fire access would be achieved
from the street on Sunnyside Avenue and Bank Street. The vehicular entrance to the parking lot is on Sunnyside Avenue.
Ted
Fobert, FoTenn spoke on behalf of the applicant and presented a
colour rendering of the proposed building façade. Katherine Grechuta, also from FoTenn and Ron Jack,
Delcan, accompanied him. Mr. Fobert
reviewed the context of the site and characteristics of the proposal. He touched on public consultation, which
occurred with the community association, including four pre-application
meetings in January, February, March and June 2008, as well as a public meeting
organized by the ward councillor in October 2008. He added that changes were made because of pre-consultation,
including adding an office use to the second floor and design changes (stepping
back the second storey on Sunnyside Avenue, changes to the entrance, full
brick, additional glazing and glass, and increased articulation.)
Mr. Fobert
stated that the proposal is in keeping with the Traditional Mainstreet (TM)
zone and the retail and office uses are permitted. Under the current zoning, a mixed use five-storey building could
be constructed on the entire site; however, the proposal is limited to two
storeys, leaving the back one third of the site for parking and allowing light
and air for abutting properties. He
noted the considerable depth of the property, which has remained vacant for
many years. He said that the
establishment would be a community-based store with 78 per cent of customers
expected from the neighbourhood. It is
thought that many customers will come to the store by foot.
In
response to questions from members, Mr. Fobert and his team provided the
following points of clarification:
·
The TM zone in this location limits single-use retail
to 600 square metres. The proposal
calls for 1200 square meters.
·
The building is configured in order to allow it to be
subdivided into two or three shops, if necessary, in the future. The proposed store is not “big box”.
·
The Shoppers Drugmart in the Glebe is approximately
6-7,000 square feet with seven to eight parking spaces. It works well and has no major issue with
parking.
·
The Glebe store did not require re-zoning as the TM
zone in the Glebe does not have a single retail-use size limit.
·
The four pre-application meetings were held with the
community association executive.
Changes were made to the design as a result of feedback received.
·
Approximately 80 to 100 people attended the full
public meeting.
·
Twelve parking spaces would be provided, whereas the
by-law requires 48 spaces for the general office use. It is hoped that the City will consider additional on-street
parking in the area.
·
It is anticipated that clients will be coming to the
store by foot and bicycle. The
requirement for parking is generally less in the TM zone. Parking is provided on site, well back from
the intersection and removed from the school.
·
The by-law does not restrict who can utilise on-site
parking but it will be reserved for store customers.
·
No objection was received from the operator of the
Mayfair Theatre, an adjacent property.
·
The applicant has entered a long-term lease with the
owner (over 20 years). Soil
contamination was mostly addressed when the gas station was removed. Additional remedial work is required due to
trace contamination before the issuance of a building permit.
·
Underground parking is cost prohibitive and not
feasible due to ownership issues. It is
not generally utilised in mainstreet settings.
Mr. Smit
indicated that additional parking would be required if a medical office use is
introduced on the second floor. Mr.
Fobert stated that possible tenants would be explored once the zoning is in
place. He added that an office use was
added after consultation with the community association. The applicant agreed to add the use as it
would be a benefit to the community but it is not a necessity for the
applicant. He confirmed a stairwell and
an elevator would provide access to the second floor.
Councillor
Holmes suggested supportive and community housing for the second floor. Mr. Fobert replied that they are permitted
uses in the existing zone. He also
confirmed that Ministry of Environment approval is required as part of the
remedial work to deal with the limited contamination.
Timothy
Bennett spoke in opposition to the proposal with two arguments: the existing zoning requirement on maximum
retail space should be preserved, and there was a lack of comprehensive public
consultation on the plans. He commented
that there was no pressing need to nearly double the allowed single commercial
use in a small community and the proposal has no place in Old Ottawa South. He noted the existing zoning was arrived at
through significant public input and study.
He stated that the effort put in to creating the existing zoning
involved long, hard work by members of the community and the ward councillor. He added that the present proposal has not
been given the same study and exposure to the community. The public meeting of October 2008 was the
first presentation of the proposal to the public with no follow up
opportunity.
Arthur
McGregor, Ottawa Folklore Centre, also indicated his opposition to the
proposal, noting the 2006 census showed 8,168 people living in Old Ottawa
South. Mr. McGregor countered the
argument put forth by the applicant that the majority of business will be from
walk-in traffic. He advised that a 2001
retail report showed that Shoppers Drugmart has to achieve $1000 per square
foot in sales per year. A family of
four in Old Ottawa South would be required to spend $360-400 a week at the
store for it to be viable and truly community-focussed. He explained that Shoppers Drugmart would
use contemporary shopping science and psychology to lure customers, noting this
type of store is a ‘category killer’.
It is a business concept that will take over the local market in general
products by dispensing drugs in the back.
He summarized a large piece of the trade to keep the store viable must
come from drive-in customers, which will have a negative effect. With regard to neighbourhood fit, he
countered staff’s position that the proposal would not adversely affect the
small-scale retail character that is to be retained along Bank Street given the
depth of the property. He also noted
that such controversy over a large 12,000 square foot box store in an urban
situation has also been seen in Toronto.
In sum, he requested that retail be limited to a decent size to help
create a true mainstreet with a human scale, neighbourhood supported and run by
local supporters.
Carolyn
Inch, a 20-year resident of the community, said that the majority of Old
Ottawa South residents would not support the amendment to the zoning by-law to
allow 12,000 square feet of commercial space.
She suggested the consultation process was faulty. She indicated that she heard of the proposal
in September 2008 although it had been before the community association
executive since January 2008. She noted
that the proposed store would be directly across from the elementary school,
raising safety and traffic concerns.
She suggested the proposal would be setting a precedent. She added that the store would be unsightly,
explaining that the street has gone through massive renovation with nice
streetlights and furniture; moreover, existing businesses went through hardship
during street re-construction. She
stated that the community association went beyond its mandate in dealing with
the developer for several months in the absence of a public meeting, which once
held lacked sufficient notice. She
suggested the current proposal is too big and would effectively put an end to
the traditional mainstreet, impacting small local businesses. She reiterated that the community has a
vision, which was developed deliberately and over time.
Lyne
Burton, Wag Pet Shop, who has owned a business in the area since
1994, was pleased with the implementation of the TM zone. Councillor Doucet, community members and
business owners all shared a common vision as volunteers worked with City staff
to limit development to small-medium sized businesses. Ms. Burton indicated that the current zoning
and size restrictions played a role in the decision to open a second business
in Old Ottawa South in 2005. She said
that mega stores swallow small independent shops and size restriction should
not be seen as arbitrary. Ms. Burton
advised that her business is situated directly across from the proposed
development and questioned why she and other adjacent businesses were not
notified of the public meeting. She
urged the City to protect the current zoning, which protects the area from the
large format trends.
In
response to questions from the Chair, Ms. Burton stated that parking would
become a huge issue, as Old Ottawa South is already challenged in this
regard.
Chair Hume
noted that if the proposed store were divided into three separate shops, the
impacts would be the same, including parking.
Ms. Burton reiterated her general opposition to large format stores as
they cater less to neighbourhood walking traffic. She indicated she would not have the same retail concerns if the
development was divided into three smaller stores but the parking problem would
remain.
Councillor
Feltmate wondered whether more drive-in traffic generated by the proposal would
help Ms. Burton’s business across the street.
Ms. Burton indicated she would benefit if sufficient parking were
available. She stated that a small
comparative study of on-street parking in a one-block radius showed 106 spaces
in the Glebe and 27 in Old Ottawa South.
Councillor
Feltmate reiterated that the zoning by-law requires for 48 parking spots for
the office use. Ms. Burton responded
that she does not support large format stores; however, she would be more
agreeable if more parking was accommodated.
Missy
Fraser, a resident of Belmont Avenue, opposed the application. As a member of the community association
committee, which examines development applications, she encouraged the holding
of a full community meeting as soon as possible, even before the submission of
a formal application. She noted that
only 150 of 8,000 residents were notified of the public meeting a week before it
took place. She opined that a majority
of those who attended the meeting and who wrote to the planner opposed the
proposal. She stated that the community
association is not fully supportive of the proposal, noting some members did
object. With respect to safety, she
indicated the store would be located directly across one of the largest public
schools in the city with over 900 kids.
Ms. Fraser said the proposed loading zone and parking entrance are
directly across the street from the kindergarten and primary entrance on
Sunnyside Avenue. She suggested the
school council was not consulted on the proposal and many other concerns were
raised at the community meeting that must be considered. Ms. Fraser reiterated the current zoning was
developed in a consultative process and cautioned the proposal could be viewed
as a precedent that would change the street character. In conclusion, she asked that the Committee
reject the application or find reasonable accommodation by reducing the size of
the development.
With
regard to shipping and receiving, Councillor Qadri noted that the majority of
Shoppers Drugmarts have a central warehouse and use large trucks for
shipping. He asked if sufficient space
was available for loading, especially with parking at the rear. Mr. Smit stated that the urban model for
Shoppers Drugmart is generally not serviced by 18-wheelers.
Chair Hume
advised that this issue would be addressed through the site plan process where
restrictions could be imposed if necessary.
Curtis
LeBond, a resident of Sunnyside Avenue, requested that the proposal be
rejected as it seeks to double the required floor space for the store. He said the request seems excessive. He urged that the existing rules be followed
rather than allowing development to occur by variance.
Janet
Desroches stated her opposition to the proposal, referencing
her experience with the Glebe store, as a resident of that neighbourhood. Her objection also touched on the effect of
mega stores on smaller businesses, as well as on the character of the
community. Touching on the Glebe store,
she noted a huge unsightly billboard is used to advertise the business, which
takes away from the community feeling.
Parking is also insufficient, causing some congestion on Bank Street.
Councillor
Feltmate asked how many parking spaces are provided at the Glebe store. Mr. Smit indicated eight spaces are
provided. Councillor Feltmate remarked
that an office use is not part of the Glebe building.
Diane
McIntyre, who also resides in the Glebe, expressed concern
with the development in terms of its scale and the extent to which the traffic
study has looked at safety issues. She
noted that office uses above drug stores tend to be medical, which require
additional parking. She also applauded
Councillor Holmes’ suggestion to introduce public housing on the second
floor. Ms. McIntyre conceded that some
development is advantageous at this site, but she questioned the scale of the
proposal. She expressed concerns about
truck entry and egress from the loading zone and remarked that parking access
is opposite the school, where children park their bicycles. Ms. McIntyre also outlined concerns with
water runoff, the flat roof and lack of greenspace due to the small set back. In closing, she noted the corner of Bank and
Sunnyside is important as many children cross there on their way to school and
it is a key access route to Carleton University.
In reply
to a question from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Smit clarified that additional
parking would be required if a medical office use was introduced on the second
floor. A public process (cash-in-lieu
of parking or minor variance) would be required to reduce the required parking.
Brian
Tansey opposed the application and countered the staff argument that the
proposed drug store use is one that serves the neighbourhood. The proposal is out of scale and defeats the
existing zoning developed with community involvement. He suggested the proposal is the first test and if allowed would
be precedent setting, leading others to assemble land. He also commented that a proper public
meeting should have been held earlier and debated the argument that if the
proposal is rejected no development would occur at this site. He touched on the opportunity costs of
allowing the current proposal, which would nullify what should go there, as
currently allowed by the existing zoning.
He suggested this proposal did not fit with the community and was a
‘gussied up big box store’.
Councillor
Doucet remarked that this proposal is smaller in height than what is
permissible under the existing by-law.
Mr. Smit agreed and outlined the changes to the zoning as outlined in
the report.
Mr.
Lindsay discussed intensification efforts around the city and agreed that the
proposal was relatively small and compatible with Official Plan objectives.
With
regard to impact to the retail fabric of the street, as raised by Chair Hume,
Mr. Lindsay suggested the impact was the same whether or not the building
was broken into one or three shops. He
noted that the market drives retail function and the building is
convertible. He stated that staff are
pleased the second floor would be used to benefit the community, ensuring
continued viability over time.
Mr. Smit
added that the property is unique on Bank Street in Old Ottawa South because of
its depth, as it extends some 90 metres down Sunnyside Avenue, while properties
typically have a depth of 30-50 metres.
He added that this proposal on a deep lot maintains the rhythm of the
streetscape by being street-oriented, pedestrian focussed, with articulation. He noted that the single retail size
provision is not found in other TM zones in the city.
In
response to further questions, Mr. Smit indicated that a store the size of
McQueen’s in the Glebe could probably not be replicated in Old Ottawa South
because of lot size. He added that the
600 square metre limit was probably arrived at by using the size of the fresh
food mart that once existed on the east side of Bank Street as a benchmark.
Councillor
Feltmate asked if staff considered rejecting the application in order to test
the validity of the 600 square metre provision. She indicated she was sympathetic to arguments supporting smaller
retail, particularly when independent retail is overwhelmed by larger chains.
Mr. Smit
responded that staff is comfortable with permitting a site specific exception
in this instance due to the uniqueness of the site, without compromising the
integrity of the zone provisions or undoing the ability to assess how effective
the limitation is generally.
Mr. Lindsay
reiterated that retail uses change overtime, are volatile, and influenced by
market demand. He emphasized the staff
position that the proposal is appropriate.
In
response to a further question from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Lindsay indicated
a zoning amendment would not be required if the proposal was developed as three
separate shops at the outset.
Councillor
Holmes spoke in support of the recommendation, noting the benefits outweigh the
negatives. She observed a five-storey
building could be built under the current zoning, which would negatively impact
adjacent property owners in terms of shadowing and light. She commended the community for their work
in influencing the design, which resulted in increased articulation and
glazing, as well as a useable second storey.
She also made comparisons with the grocery store at the corner of Bank
and Somerset where some concessions were made to achieve a sustainable
development with affordable housing above.
She suggested maximum retail square footage provisions might exist in
the TM zones on Preston and Somerset.
Councillor
Doucet spoke of the divisive nature of the proposal; however, he indicated he
would support the departmental recommendation.
He noted the design has evolved, resulting in a beautiful building. He added that 15 of 17 members of the
community association committee supported the proposal and many people want to
see additional shopping opportunities within walking distance. He addressed some of the concerns raised
with regard to public consultation, noting those who support the proposal are
not present. He stated he and his staff
hand-delivered flyers for the public meeting, which was also posted on his
website and locally advertised. He also
went door to door to inform adjacent residents of the proposal and spoke to the
school. Councillor Doucet said that
little development has occurred in Old Ottawa South in the last 30 years and
this site has remained vacant for seven.
He reported that he reviewed the Glebe example where no complaints have
been received. He consulted a small
storeowner in the Glebe who commented that the new Shoppers Drugmart has not
affected his business. He concluded
that a range of services is needed to keep people in the neighbourhood. He indicated that he could do the easy thing
and vote against it, but believed supporting it was the right thing to do.
Following
debate, Committee considered the departmental recommendation.
That the Planning and Environment Committee
recommend Council:
1. Approve
an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1080 Bank
Street, as shown in Document 1, from Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 H (15) and
Traditional Mainstreet - TM2 [98] H(14) to TM2 [98] H(15) as detailed in
Document 2.
2. Approve
an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 to change the
zoning provisions for part of 1080 Bank Street, as shown in Document 1, to
reduce the separation for a parking lot from a public street, as detailed in
Document 2.
CARRIED
Chair Hume
advised that he consulted with senior legal counsel and the motion below is
within the mandate of the Transportation Committee. A referral motion was then presented and carried.
Moved by
C. Doucet:
That the Planning and Environment Committee endorse and forward the following
motion to the Transportation Committee for consideration:
WHEREAS it is generally agreed that the amount of parking proposed for
the Shoppers Drugmart is appropriate given the community based nature of the
business;
AND WHEREAS a concern remains among some business owners that the
proposed Shoppers Drugmart will nevertheless increase the demand for on-street
parking, and that the businesses located along Bank Street would benefit from
additional parking spaces;
AND WHEREAS the proposed Shoppers Drugmart building, which will replace
a vacant parking lot, will result in a continuous building façade along Bank
Street which provides the opportunity for additional on-street parking;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that:
1. Staff implement, as a priority, the
installation of additional on-street parking spaces along the west side of Bank
Street and the along north side of Sunnyside Avenue, as appropriate, for the
length of the proposed Shoppers Drugmart project; and
2. That staff be directed to carry out a
comprehensive Parking Study to assess the need for, and the opportunity to
provide, additional public parking for the businesses along Bank Street,
between the Canal and the Rideau River, in Old Ottawa South.
CARRIED