2. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: APPEALS TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (OMB URBAN AREA APPEALS MAY 2010)

RÈGLEMENT GÉNÉRAL DE ZONAGE 2008-250 : APPELS À COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO (APPELS DE LA ZONE URBAINE À LA CAMO – MAI 2010)

Committee recommendationS as amended

(This matter is subject to Bill 51)

That Council approve:

1. The amendments recommended in Column 4 of Document 1, to resolve certain appeals to By‑law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board, as amended in the attached Revised Document 1, and as amended by the following:

2. That the parking requirement of two places per detached, semi-detached or multiple detached in row (a)(iii) in Table 101 be added to the staff report as a temporary zoning provision, with a proviso that it be permitted to be in tandem, and such that it will expire, subject to enactment of further zoning by-laws, on 25 June 2011;

3. That staff ensure that the question of parking standards in Stittsville is before Planning and Environment Committee, with the requisite consultation and public notice, no later than the first meeting of Committee in May, 2011 such that a new by-law, as Council deems appropriate, can be enacted prior to June 25, 2011

4. The amendments as described in Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 3, for lands shown in Document 4, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to City Council.

5. That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.

Recommandations modifÉes DU Comité

(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)

Que le Conseil approuve:

1. Les modifications recommandées dans la Colonne 4 du Document 1 afin de résoudre certains appels du Règlement 2008-250 et de transmettre un règlement incorporant les modifications requises à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario, tel que modifié dans le document 1 révisé en annexe et modifié également de la façon suivante

2. L’ajout au rapport du personnel, à titre de disposition de zonage temporaire, des exigences relatives au stationnement, soit deux places pour chaque maison individuelle, maison jumelée ou habitation multifamiliale en rangée ((a) (iii), tableau 101), avec une clause conditionnelle permettant le stationnement en tandem, sous réserve de l’adoption d’un autre règlement de zonage le 25 juin 2011;

3. L’obligation pour le personnel de veiller à ce que la question des normes de stationnement à Stittsville soit soumise au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement (avec la consultation et l’avis public requis) au plus tard à la première réunion du Comité en mai 2011, de façon qu’un nouveau règlement puisse être adopté avant le 25 juin 2011, si le Conseil le juge opportun;

4. Les modifications telles que décrites dans les Détails du zonage recommandé dans le Document 3, en ce qui concerne les terrains indiqués dans le Document 4, et de transmettre un règlement incorporant les recommandations requises au Conseil municipal.

5. Qu’aucun autre avis ne soit émis, conformément à l’article 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 14 April 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0080).

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

14 April 2010 / le 14 avril 2010

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 : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Policy Development and Urban Design/Élaboration de politiques et Esthétique urbaine

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

City-wide

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0080

SUBJECT:	COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250: APPEALS TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (OMB URBAN AREA Appeals May 2010)
OBJET :	RÈGLEMENT GÉNÉRAL DE ZONAGE 2008-250 : APPELS À COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO (APPELS DE LA ZONE URBAINE À LA CAMO – MAI 2010)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. The amendments recommended in Column 4 of Document 1, to resolve certain appeals to By‑law 2008-250, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board;

2. The amendments as described in Details of Recommended Zoning in Document 3, for lands shown in Document 4, and forward a by-law incorporating the required amendments to City Council.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver:

1. Les modifications recommandées dans la Colonne 4 du Document 1 afin de résoudre certains appels du Règlement 2008-250 et de transmettre un règlement incorporant les modifications requises à la Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario;

2. Les modifications telles que décrites dans les Détails du zonage recommandé dans le Document 3, en ce qui concerne les terrains indiqués dans le Document 4, et de transmettre un règlement incorporant les recommandations requises au Conseil municipal.

BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2008 City Council adopted the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250 that affects all properties within the City of Ottawa. A total of 76 appeals were received, however 16 were disqualified, as the appellants had not made any submissions on the Comprehensive Zoning By-law prior to its adoption.

DISCUSSION

Recommendation 1

Following negotiations with appellants, modifications to By-law 2008-250 that are consistent with the approaches used through the harmonization process have been identified. These modifications are outlined in Document 1, with the recommended changes indicated in Column 4.

Approval of the recommendations in this report would permit a By-law to be brought forward to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval at a pre-hearing to be held on May 10, 2010.

Recommendation 2

In the review of a number of appeals noted above, two anomalies were identified that are recommended for correction.

During review of Appeal #6, it was determined that the R1I zone in former Rockcliffe, located east of Acacia, north to Corona Avenue, did not have the floor space index and density regulations of former Rockcliffe carried over. While exception 1262 was created for this purpose, the exception was not placed on the zoning map and therefore is not applicable. Since these lands have recently been created with a new exception, exception 1739 which will impose driveway regulations, it is recommended that the zoning be modified so that both the driveway and the floor space index and density provisions apply to these lands, shown on Document 4.

As well, with respect to Appeal #36, for 1111 Ogilvie Road, there is an incorrect reference to the LC5[1420] zone in the exception table, it refers to an LC5 rather than an LC6 zone. The exception table should be consistent with the zoning map.

CONSULTATION

The appellants affected have been notified of the date of the public meeting.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

The Ward Councillors are aware of the recommendations in this report.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

This recommendation, if carried, will facilitate the resolution of appeals currently before the Ontario Municipal Board.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 List of Changes to Zoning By-law 2008-250 for consideration by Planning and Environment Committee (to Resolve Appeals)

Document 2 Location Maps

Document 3 Details of Recommended Zoning (to Resolve Anomalies)

Document 4 Location Map – Acacia Avenue and Corona Avenue

DISPOSITION

Regarding Recommendation 1, Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to City Manager’s Office, Legal Services.

Legal Services to bring forward report and by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board at the May 10, 2010 pre-hearing.

Regarding Recommendation 2, Planning and Growth Management 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.

LIST OF CHANGES TO ZONING BY-LAW 2008-250 FOR CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REVISED DOCUMENT 1

1 Name of Appellant/ Appealed Provision/ Lands	2 Reason for Appeal	3 Staff Position/Conformance with Official Plan	4 Proposed Amendment
Appeal #5 - Loblaw Properties Limited, Appeal # 55 - Emparrado Corporation, Appeal #58 - Riotrin Properties, Appeal # 27 - Urbandale Corporation Appeal # 54 College Square City-wide	Definition of Shopping Centre The appellants have stated that the definition of shopping centre should be revised to confirm that a shopping centre is to be considered one lot for zoning purposes. One-lot for zoning purposes provision The appellants have indicated that inclusion of a “one lot for zoning purposes” provision in the Zoning By-law is necessary to avoid the need for minor variance applications that are a result of yards being redefined for zoning purposes upon severance.	Staff has agreed that clarification is needed to confirm that shopping centres will be considered as one lot for zoning purposes. Staff has agreed to add a new Section to the Zoning By-law to treat certain types of development as one lot for zoning purposes in order to avoid zoning compliance issues that are triggered upon application for a severance. The recommended amendments will address technical issues associated with changes in ownership of land and will not affect issues related to objectives for land use designations in the Official Plan. As a result, the recommended amendments will not affect conformity with Official Plan policies.	In Section 54 – Definitions, delete the words “may, but shall not be required to,” from the definition of Shopping Centres and insert the word, “shall” in their place. Add a new Section to the Zoning By-law, wording as follows, Section 93 – One Lot For Zoning Purposes A group of occupancies located in an AM – Arterial Mainstreet Zone, GM – General Mixed-Use Zone, LC – Local Commercial Zone, MC – Mixed-Use Centre Zone, MD – Mixed-Use Downtown Centre Zone, IG – General Industrial Zone, IH – Heavy Industrial Zone, IL – Light Industrial Zone, IP – Business Park Industrial Zone that; (a) are designed, developed and managed (including site access and infrastructure servicing) as a unit whether by a single owner or a group of owners or tenants acting in collaboration; (b) are made up entirely of uses permitted or lawful non-conforming on the site, and has either: (c) have a minimum size greater than a cumulative total of 2,000 square metres of gross leasable floor area; and has either: (i) a common parking lot or parking garage or a combination thereof; or (ii) a group of parking lots or parking garages or a combination thereof which are managed as a unit by the same owner, owners or tenants of the occupancies required in subparagraph (a) above, and are on the same lot or lots as the occupancies required in subparagraph (a) above; shall be considered as one lot for the purposes of applying zoning provisions and regulations.
Appeal # 6 - Rockcliffe Park Residents Association Ward 13	The appeal requests that the former definitions for gross floor area and floor space index be incorporated into the new Zoning By-law to calculate in the same manner as under the former Rockcliffe Zoning By-law 2000-8, maximum floor space index that applies to the detached residential zones in Rockcliffe Park. It is felt that the definitions for gross floor area and floor space index that are in By-law 2008-250 do not pertain to detached dwellings and that it is necessary for the proper calculation be applied to control the sizes of the houses in Rockcliffe Park.	The general definition for “gross floor area” under By-law 2008-250 is different than the definition under the former Rockcliffe Zoning By-law. Both definitions have different inclusions and exclusions as to the floor area that forms part of the gross floor area calculation, principally due to the fact that the By-law 2008-250 definition is intended for larger-scaled developments, whereas the Rockcliffe Park definition is intended solely for controlling the size of detached dwellings. Given that Rockcliffe Park is the only area of the City that has floor space index applicable in its low rise residential zones, it is agreed that creating a separate definition for gross floor area, that is very similar to the former Rockcliffe Park definition, and that applies only to those R1 exception zones in Rockcliffe Park where there is an FSI that applies, is appropriate. With respect to the floor space index definition, the main difference is that in By-law 2008-250 the definition refers to a ratio, whereas in former Rockcliffe Park By-law 2000-8, it refers to a percentage. However, in the creation of the new exception zones for Rockcliffe Park, the percentages were changed to a ratio, to reflect the new definition under By-law 2008-250. For example in one former Rockcliffe zone, the floor space index was restricted to 40%, those same lands under the new Zoning By-law are an exception zone with a maximum FSI of 0.4, which results in the identical regulation. Therefore there is no need to make a change to the floor space index definition. The issue of the definition of “grade” also was discussed as it is related to the gross floor area definition. Under former Rockcliffe Park By-law 2000-8, the definition of grade was the average grade of a lot prior to development. Under By-law 2008-250, grade is the average elevation near the building walls after development. To ensure that the calculations for building permits in former Rockcliffe are consistent to the way they were previously undertaken, it is recommended that the definition of “grade” be related to the existing grades, as compared to the post-development grades. However, it is recommended though that the definition calculate the grade at the adjoining walls of a proposed building, as is the case in By-law 2008-250, rather than at the edges of the lot.	Amend the following exceptions under Section 239, Urban Exceptions, that affect the residential lands within Rockcliffe Park zoned R1A[1256], R1A[1257], R1BB[1258], R1B [1259], R1C [1260], R1I [1261] and R1I1739], by adding the following text to Column V above the existing text in each exception: Grade means the average elevation of the level of the adjoining ground prior to the development of all the walls of a building on the lot. Gross floor area, means the total area of each floor, measured from the exterior of outside walls, excluding a cellar, and including: i) accessory buildings; ii) potential floor area that is the area of a floor that is projected from an actual floor of a storey that is above the floor area of another storey, cellar or basement; and iii) attic, where the height above the floor area of the attic is a minimum of 2.3 m over at least 75% of the floor area with a clear height of 2.1 m of any point over the floor area.
Appeal #9 - Urbandale Corporation, Appeal #10 - Greater Ottawa Homebuilders Association City-wide Ward 6	Visitor parking requirement for multiple attached or stacked dwelling should not apply when units already have a driveway leading to a carport or garage. Allow parking in the right of way in order to meet the minimum 2 parking space requirement for detached, semi-detached and multiple attached dwelling, where the required front yard setback or corner side yard setback is 3 metres or less in Stittsville	The appellants have appealed requirements relating to visitor parking requirements for planned unit developments. Amendments were requested to eliminate the requirement for visitor parking for dwelling units that have a driveway that provides access to a garage or carport for that dwelling unit, because there is space in front of the required parking space, in the driveway to provide additional parking for visitors. This provision only applies to Stittsville, whereas in other suburbs, only one parking space is required for a detached, semi-detached or multiple attached dwelling. While only one space is required by zoning, additional parking spaces can and are usually provided in the driveway, leading to the required parking space (located typically in carport or garage). These extra parking spaces can be located in the right of way, provided that they are set back about 1 metre from the edge of the sidewalk or curb. It is recommended that for purposes of consistently applying parking standards in the suburbs, that this provision requiring two spaces be deleted. While the Official Plan contains objectives regarding parking including strategic objectives to generally minimize the area of land used for parking in Section 2.3.1.42, and, reduced parking requirements for uses within 600 metres of rapid-transit stations in Section 4.3, there is no specific direction in the Plan regarding parking requirements for residential uses. Consequently, the proposed amendment will not be out of conformity with the Official Plan.	Delete Section 102 (1) and replace it with the following text, “(1) In the case of a multiple attached dwelling or stacked dwelling, where each dwelling unit has a driveway accessing a garage or carport located on the same lot as that dwelling unit; and in the case of a planned unit development, where a dwelling unit has a driveway accessing its own garage or carport; no visitor parking is required for that dwelling unit.” Delete row (a)(iii) in Table 101
Appeal #27 - Urbandale Corporation, KNL Developments City-wide	Parking diagrams in Section 109 appear to require building to be setback. Section 63 – Part Lot Control - the appellants are requesting that multiple attached dwellings be included to be considered as one lot for zoning purposes where part lot control application has been made. The appellant is suggesting that a reduced interior side yard setback of 6 m should apply in the case of mid-high rise apartment buildings in the R5A zone.	The diagrams in Section 109 are for illustration purposes only and are not intended to require garages to be offset from the front wall. These diagrams are not utilized in any by-law requirement. Given that all the residential zones where multiple attached dwellings are permitted contain provisions (ie. Section 159(4), (8) and (9) for the R3 zones) which have the effect of dealing with the consideration of each unit of a multiple attached independently, therefore no modification is required. In harmonizing the various interior side yard setbacks for mid-high-rise apartments, the range was between 6 m and 12 metres, including 9.1 m and 7.5m. In addition, some of the interior side yard setbacks in the former zoning by-laws were based on maximum 50% of the height of the apartment, with heights ranging from the minimum 15 m to over 40 metres in height. Fifty percent of the lowest allowable height of 15 m equals 7.5m. The minimum 7.5m interior side yard setback is considered the most appropriate for the R5A zone.	No amendment required No amendment required No amendment recommended
Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp. Appeal # 54 College Square City-wide Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp Ward 11 Ward 2 Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp Ward 19	Table 191 (2) (g) – minimum building height of 6.7 metres within 400 metres of a rapid transit station in a MC, Mixed Use Centre zone. Section 189 (3)(c) and (3)(e) with respect to 1111 Ogilvie Road and 3869 Innes Road The appellant states that the performance standards for front, corner side and rear yards setbacks are more restrictive than the provision under the former Gloucester Zoning Section 239 with respect to [1175] for property located at 4454 Innes Road The appellants have indicated that upon severance, it will not be possible to provide the 12-metre side and rear yard setbacks required by the Zoning By-law. This non-compliance occurs as a result of yards being redefined for zoning purposes upon severance.	No settlement – to Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Policy 3.6.2 of the Official Plan for Mixed-Use Centres support a zoning, such as minimum building height, that provides for highest density development within 400 metres of a rapid transit station. 1111 Ogilvie Road and 3869 Innes Road – By-law 333 of 1999. The former By-law required a front and corner side yard of 0 metres, while the requirement in By-law 2008-250 is 3.0 metres. The rear yard setback in the former By-law was 6 metres while the requirement in By-law 2008-250 is 7.5 metres. As a maximum building height of 12.5 metres is permitted in By-law 2008-250 (the maximum building height permitted in the former By-law was 10.7 metres), a larger rear yard setback is required in By-law 2008-250. Staff has agreed to reinstate the former front, corner side and rear yards and maximum height from the former Gloucester By-law. A building in excess of 10.7 metres, to a maximum 12.5 metres, would be permitted if a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is provided. In an attempt to resolve other appeals relating to shopping centres, staff is proposing a provision to consider shopping centres as one lot for zoning purposes. The addition of this provision will address TDL’s concerns regarding non-compliance associated with the redefinition of yards upon severance.	No amendment recommended Prepare new exceptions for these properties, including the following provisions: -front and corner side yard setback is 0 metres -rear and interior side yard setback is 6 metres -maximum building height is 10.7 metres -a building height in excess of 10.7 metres is permitted, to a maximum height of 12.5 metres, subject to the provisions in Section 189(3), (4) and (5). Dealt with through another amendment
Appeal #36 – The TDL Group Corp Appeal #54 – College Square	Section 59 (1) and (5) regarding frontage and access Section 54 regarding definitions of frontage and private way The appellants have indicated that upon severance, it is not possible to meet the requirements for frontage and access in Section 59 for a common form of retail development.	Staffs have agreed to amend Section 59 to provide clarity regarding requirements for frontage and access for lots within a shopping centre.	Amend Section 59 (1) by adding a new clause (c) as follows, “for lands on which a shopping centre is located the requirements in clauses 59(1)(a) and (b) may be satisfied through an easement or other legal means.”
Appeal #58 - Riotrin Properties City-wide Ward 19	The appeal relates to an objection with subsection 101(9) which does not allow a shopping centre to utilize the shopping centre parking rate where a restaurant, bar, place of assembly, place of worship or recreational and athletic facility comprises more than 30% of the gross leasable area of the shopping centre. Regarding the property at 4232 Innes Road, the appellants are seeking the deletion of a provision in exception [213] that limits the gross leasable floor area to 15,000 m2, and, the deletion of a further provision regarding the maximum gross leasable floor area of 35,000 square metres that applies to the entire shopping centre that includes the lands zoned AM[210]H(18.5), GM1[210]H(18.5) and AM[213]H21, located at 4232, 4270, 4290 and 4300 Innes Road and 2010, 2020, 2026 and 2030 Lanthier Drive	Subsection 101 (9) is intended to distinguish between smaller and larger shopping centres. Smaller shopping centres, less than 7,500 m^2, would be required to provide the parking required for each specific use, and not at the shopping centre rate. Establishing a maximum size of 7,500 m^2 is between the maximum size of 3,000 m^2 for a local shopping centre, and the maximum size of 10,000 m^2 in the case of typical neighbourhood shopping centres. Under the former Cumberland Zoning By-law, the CC-Commercial Community zone limited the gross leasable floor area to 35,000 square metres. In 2005, two site-specific zoning by-law amendments were approved concerning this shopping centre site, and in each case the maximum 35,000 square metre gross floor area was applied and implemented, on a one lot for zoning purposes basis, along with the permissions that were approved for additional permitted uses. The maximum 15,000 square metre gross leasable floor area requirement was also included in the former Zoning By-law for the property at 4232 Innes Road. The provisions in By-law 2008-250 are consistent with the former Cumberland Zoning By-law. Requirements regarding maximum gross leasable floor area for former CC zones were carried over on a consistent basis in By-law 2008-250. As such, maximum gross leasable floor area requirements for other former CC zones continue to apply. However, the portion of the shopping centre that is zoned GM1 [210] H(18.5) (for the addresses on Lanthier Drive) does not share a common access or a common parking area with the remainder of the shopping centre. As the definition of shopping centre in By-law 2008-250 states that this form of development has a group of parking lots or parking garages that are managed as a unit by the same owner or group of owners or tenants, the commercial buildings in this GM subzone are by definition not part of the larger shopping centre development. Staff have agreed to amend exceptions [210] and [213] to delete reference to the GM1[210]H(18.5) subzone in the one lot for zoning purposes provision in these exceptions. A new exception for the GM1 subzone would be applied that would include provisions in exception [210] that are relevant to this property, while deleting the one lot for zoning purposes provision. Staff note that there are no changes proposed to exception [213] regarding the maximum 15,000 gross leasable floor area for this portion of the shopping centre site. This maximum is from the former Zoning By-law and should continue to apply. The elimination of the gross leasable area caps would be more appropriately dealt with through a site-specific zoning amendment.	Amend Subsection 101 (9) to add the phrase “that is less than 7, 500 m^2 gross leasable floor area”, so that the provision would read: 101 (9) Despite subsection (1), where a restaurant, bar, place of assembly, place of worship or recreational and athletic facility is located within a shopping centre that is less than 7,500 m^2 gross leasable floor area, and one or more occupancies of that same use comprise more than 30% of the gross leasable area of the shopping centre, then the minimum required parking for that use will be calculated at the parking rate specified for that use, and not at the shopping centre rate. Amend exceptions [210] and [213] to delete references to the GM1[210]H(18.5). Create and apply a new exception to replace exception [210] for the GM1[210]H(18.5), to read as follows, Column II – Additional Land Uses Permitted - amusement centre - automobile service station - cinema - theatre - light industrial uses Column V – Provisions - minimum front yard, corner side and interior side yard setbacks: 5 m - minimum rear yard setback - 12 metres - loading may be located in any yard - automobile service station permitted provided it is structurally integrated into, clearly associated with and secondary to a retail store limited to the sales of automobile parts and accessories
Appeal #59 Campanale Homes Ward 17	The appellants have objected to the parking standards as they apply to 1159-1189 Bank Street on the basis they will have a detrimental impact on the property.	The lands are designated Traditional Mainstreet under the Official Plan. The site is developed as two separate buildings with a variety of land uses. Parking is located along Belmont, between the two buildings and in a garage, comprising a total of 64 parking spaces. There were also 20 parking spaces provided in a lot across the street at 1176 Bank Street. Through the Old Ottawa South Urban Design and Zoning Study approved in 2003, zoning exception [147] was applied to 1159-1189 Bank Street, which allows parking to be reduced by 20 spaces if a mixed use building with a minimum three storeys is built across the street at 1176 Bank Street. This building is now constructed. In order to implement the objectives of the Official Plan to encourage compact, pedestrian oriented development on Traditional Mainstreets, and as a result of an Ontario Municipal Board order regarding parking standards in the TM zone; parking standards have generally been reduced in this zone. If the development at 1189-1159 Bank Street were built today with the new parking provisions, there would be a requirement for 96 spaces to be provided, with 64 provided, and the reduction of 20 spaces provided by exception [147], the shortfall in parking would be 12 spaces. However, the property enjoys non-complying rights because the building at 1159-79b was built before parking requirements were in place. During the implementation of zoning provisions for the lands along Bank Street in 2003, the zoning boundary for the lands inadvertently included part of 1201 Bank Street, where the provision contained in exception [147] was not relevant. It is recommended that exception [147] be removed from 1201 Bank Street. While the new TM zone parking standards provide more flexibility for changes of use along Traditional Mainstreets, the property owner has requested that a parking requirement reflecting the existing parking provided should be established for the existing development to allow more flexibility in changes of use. Staff agree that given the size of this property, and its development form, that establishing the maximum parking requirement to what is currently available, but placing limits in floor area that can be established for uses such as restaurants and place of assembly which typically have higher parking requirements, is appropriate. Should uses be expanded beyond these size limits, they would be required to provide the standard parking requirements for lands in Area B (inner city), rather than the reduced requirements for the TM zone. As well, a correction to the location of the zoning line is to be made so that it is aligned with the actual property line at the rear of 1159-1189 and part of 1201 Bank Street.	Amend Section 239, Exception 147 to replace the text in Column V – Provisions with the following: 64 parking spaces are required for the non-residential uses up to a maximum of 3,683 square meters of floor area provided: i) there is a maximum cumulative total of 1,105 m^2 floor area for restaurant uses; ii) there is a maximum cumulative total of 1,105 m^2of floor area for medical facility, recreational and athletic facility, place of worship and place of assembly; iii) for purposes of i) and ii) above, floor area means the total area of each floor whether located above, at or below grade, measured from the exterior of the outside walls, but excluding stairwells and bicycle and motor vehicle parking; and iv) additional required parking spaces for non-residential uses are to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Table 101, Column III but excluding the provisions of Table 101(a)(ii). Amend the Zoning Map as shown on Document 2.
Appeal # 65 595799 Ontario/ Brian Karam Ward 14	The appeal contained a number of objections to the zoning for the lands at 301 Elgin Street and 172 MacLaren. Objections that staff did not agree to modify through the appeals process on By-law 2008-250 included a request to change the zoning at 172 MacLaren from residential to commercial, allowing restaurants above the ground floor, permitting residential care facilities and reflecting the existing 33 metre height of the building in the zoning designation. The appeal regarding the parking requirements in the TM zone was dealt with through an OMB hearing and decision. The appellant had requested complete elimination of parking requirements in the TM zone, the Ontario Municipal Board did not agree and did impose parking requirements in the TM zone. A settlement is proposed however with respect to the objections regarding: - the prohibition of office uses on part of the ground floor - the removal of the retirement home use - restriction on permitted projections above the height limit which does not include enclosed amenity areas.	The Official Plan 2003, Volume 1, designates the lands as Traditional Mainstreet for 301 Elgin Street and General Urban at 172 MacLaren. Volume 2A – Secondary Plans of the Official Plan, further designates 301 Elgin Street as “Elgin Street Commercial” and 172 MacLaren as “Medium Profile Residential”. On January 12, 2005, City Council approved an Official Plan amendment and zoning amendments, creating a new CN12 zone under former Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98, as a result of the Elgin Street Strategic Plan. The “Elgin Street Commercial” designation is under appeal and new zoning provisions were appealed by the same appellant and have not yet been dealt with. Under Official Plan Policy 3.1 – Generally Permitted Uses in Volume 1, retirement homes are permitted on designated Mainstreets; while residential care facilities are not specifically dealt with under this Policy. Since both uses were permitted under the former Ottawa CN zone, these two uses were carried over in the corresponding TM zone in By-law 2008-250. Following the adoption of the zoning changes for Elgin Street in 2005, a new CN12 zone was created which permitted a variety of residential uses, including retirement home and residential care facility. However, in the translation of the CN12 zone to the new TM1 subzone for Elgin Street, a few anomalies occurred including a number of residential uses were not carried over to the TM1 zone including: group home, residential care facility, retirement home, retirement home, converted, rooming house, and rooming house converted. The previously permitted shelter use in the CN12 zone was not carried over to the TM1 zone as Policy 3.1.4 does not permit this use in the Mainstreet designation. With the approval of OPA#76, residential care facilities were specifically excluded from the Mainstreets designation and therefore should not be carried over for the TM1 zone. Under the TM zone, office uses must not be located within a depth of 6 metres of the front wall of the building abutting the street. The intent is to encourage pedestrian-oriented uses to directly relate to the Mainstreet, in line with Official Plan policy. However By-law 2005-221 which implemented the zoning changes approved as a result of the Elgin Street Strategic Plan, permitted offices on the ground floor in the CN12 subzone for Elgin Street, whereas offices were not permitted on the ground floor in the CN zone. By-law 2008-250 allowed ground floor office uses along Traditional Mainstreets, but limited their location to the rear of buildings on the ground floor. Because of the design of the building at 301 Elgin Street which has limited pedestrian access due to the grade of the ground floor, it is agreed that office uses could occupy space up to the front wall of the building. These uses would still be subject to the size limitations of 20 metres along the street and no more than 600m2 of gross floor area provisions contained in the TM1 zone. The maximum height permitted on Elgin Street is 15 metres however the existing structure is close to 30 metres in height. It is recommended that additional height be permitted solely to accommodate an enclosed amenity area on the top roof level of the building. The setbacks for that structure have been established to minimize the shadowing impacts of the addition and its visibility.	Amend the TM1 subzone to add the following uses in Section 198(1)(a): - group home - retirement home - retirement home, converted - rooming house - rooming house, converted Amend Section 239, Urban Exceptions to create an exception zone for 301 Elgin Street which in Column V – Provisions, would permit: - office use without the restriction imposed in Section 197(1)(b); - the carrying over the provisions of the existing exception number 1531; - the construction of an enclosed structure on the top roof level for the sole purpose of providing amenity area to occupants of the building at 301 Elgin Street that: i) has a maximum height of 3.66 metres ii) has a maximum allowable floor area of 265 m2; iii) must be setback 5 metres from the east and west facing building line of the roof level at the highest level of the building; and iv) must be setback 10 metres from the north and south facing building line of the roof level at the highest level of the building. Amend the zoning map as shown in Document 2.

Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp., City-wide Appeal #70 - Timburwal Developments Ward 13 Appeal #27 – Ubandale Corporation and KNL Developments Ward 4

Section 58 - Flood Plain Hazard Overlay Appeal #36 states that the floodplain regulations contained in the By-law 2008-250 should be deleted as it is the appellants’ position that this is a duplication of the jurisdiction of the Conservation Authorities and is an unnecessary set of regulations. Appeal #70 deals with lands located in a block bounded by Thomas Street, Stanley Avenue, John Street and Charles Street. The lands are subject to a floodplain overlay and the appeal relates to the restrictions placed on future development of these lands as a result of Section 58, which would restrict development of a vacant lot and limit additions to 20% of the gross floor area and 20m^2. They request that Area Specific provisions which apply to certain areas of the City also apply to these lands, thus allowing development in the floodplain. A request has been made to remove the flood plain overlay on the existing Shirley’s Brook area north of Kizell pond.

No settlement – to Ontario Municipal Board mediation. The Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan contain policies regarding floodplains that would support the City’s responsibility to apply municipal land use controls under the Planning Act to regulate land use and development in the floodplain. The Conservation Authorities are responsible for the implementation of regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act which primarily deals with construction in the floodplain and alteration of the floodplain; in evaluating its permits, the Conservation Authorities consider the degree to which a development might exacerbate erosion, pollution, flooding, the conservation of the land, and safe access. The appellant indicates that the lands are affected by a floodplain overlay which restricts future development of the lands, and these lands cannot be considered as an area specific floodplain overlay without studies or flood control works are undertaken, which is beyond the mandate of the Zoning By-law. The provision for the limitation on the size of permitted additions or accessory structures is based on the Official Plan policy that restricts development to “minor” additions and accessory structures. The appellant indicates that the flood plain overlay should not be applied over the existing Shirley’s Brook area, north of Kizell pond, as realignment of Shirley’s Brook was a condition of approval of a draft plan of subdivision. The appellant requests that the flood plain overlay be removed as these lands will not be affected by the flood plain following realignment of the watercourse. With regard to this issue, Urbandale can participate as a party in the formal mediation regarding resolution of appeals to Section 58.

No amendment recommended No amendment recommended No amendment recommended

LIST OF SITE-SPECIFIC ZONING LANDS AFFECTED MAPS DOCUMENT 2

Location Maps (attached)

3869 Innes Road

1111 Ogilvie Road

2026, 2030 Lanthier Drive

1201 and 1159-1189 Bank Street

301 Elgin Street

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 3

1. Amend the Zoning Map as shown on Document 4 to change R1I[1739] zone to R1I[1262].

2. Amend Section 239, Urban Exception [1739] to delete reference to R1I in Column II

5. Amend Section 239, Urban Exception [1262] to replicate the driveway requirements noted in Column V of exception [1739] immediately following the floor space index requirement.

4. Amend Section 239, Urban Exception [1420] to delete the reference to LC5 in Column II and replace it with LC6.

LOCATION MAP – ACACIA AVENUE AND CORONA AVENUE DOCUMENT 4