1. ZONING – 260 MACLAREN STREET
ZONAGE – 260, RUE MACLAREN
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION
(This matter is
Subject to Bill 51)
That Council
approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 260
MacLaren Street, shown in Document 1, from R4T[479] Residential fourth density
exception 479 to a Residential Fifth Density exception zone (R5B[xxxx]H(22) as
detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ
(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil
approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer le
zonage du 260, rue MacLaren, indiqué dans le Document 1, de R4T[479] (Zone
résidentielle de densité quatre assortie de l’exception 479) à une Zone
résidentielle de densité cinq assortie d’une exception (R5B[xxxx]H(22)), comme
il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 14 June 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0146).
2. Extract of Draft Planning Committee
Minutes of 4 July 2011.
3. Extract of Planning Committee
Minutes of 28 June 2011.
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité
de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
June 14, 2011 / le 14 juin 2011
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,
Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services,
Inner Core/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Unité du Centre
intérieur
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the
Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 260 MacLaren Street, shown in
Document 1, from R4T[479] Residential fourth density exception 479 to a
Residential Fifth Density exception zone (R5B[xxxx]H(22) as detailed in
Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme
recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage
2008-250 afin de changer le zonage du 260, rue MacLaren, indiqué dans le
Document 1, de R4T[479] (Zone résidentielle de densité quatre assortie de
l’exception 479) à une Zone résidentielle de densité cinq assortie d’une
exception (R5B[xxxx]H(22)), comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in the Centretown Neighbourhood, on the south side of MacLaren Street, west of Metcalfe Street and east of O’Connor Street. The subject property is square in shape and is approximately 1190 square metres in area. The site has been vacant since 1971 and is being used as a parking lot. Abutting the subject property to the east is a seven storey apartment building known as the Mayfair.
Abutting the property to the west is a two-and-a-half storey residential building. To the south are a five-storey apartment building and another five storey mixed-use building. Across MacLaren Street to the north, opposite the Mayfair apartment building, is the J.R. Booth House, which is a building designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Also located across MacLaren Street are other residential uses, including a 12‑storey apartment building. The subject property and the surrounding properties are all part of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District.
The subject property is zoned R4T[479]. This zoning allows a variety of uses but does not permit an apartment dwelling, mid-high-rise. The applicant was proposing to amend the current zoning to allow a nine-storey apartment building having a height of 27.2 metres but has since revised their application to construct a seven-storey building having a height of 22 metres. They are also requesting changes to complementary performance standards to allow reductions in the side yard setbacks, permitted projections, driveway width and parking aisle width.
DISCUSSION
Official
Plan
The Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area. In addition, the subject property is also located within Centretown Neighbourhood and is part of the Secondary Plan for this area. The Centretown Neighbourhood Plan designates the subject property as Medium Profile Residential Area.
The General Urban Area Designation is intended to accommodate the housing and lifestyle needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances. The designation anticipates the development of a wide variety of uses, including residential developments of all densities. While the Official Plan identifies priority areas for intensification, such as along Mainstreets and in Mixed-use Centres, it also recognizes that intensification in areas with other Land Use Designations, such as General Urban Areas, will occur. Lands slated for intensification within General Urban Areas include properties currently used as parking lots, which is the case here.
In order to help ensure that intensification proposals fit well within the existing community character, Council is to consider the policies contained within Sections 2.5.1. and 4.11. of the Official Plan. Section 2.5.1. relates to Compatibility and Community Design and provides guidance on measures that will mitigate the differences between existing and proposed development, to help achieve compatibility between form and function. Compatible development is identified as development which although not necessarily the same as buildings existing in the surrounding neighbourhood, nonetheless enhances the community and coexists with existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. In relation to this, the proposed development will promote a quality development consistent with a major metropolis, in particular through innovative architectural and design features. As well, it will improve the MacLaren Street streetscape by eliminating a parking lot and providing a well-designed building at the street edge. It will also complement and enliven the surrounding area while achieving a more compact urban form over time.
Section 4.11 establishes a set of criteria, which are used by the City to evaluate the compatibility of a proposed development against the existing pattern of development in the area. Many of these are specific to the Site Plan Control process, such as the location of vehicular access, but others can be used to evaluate a rezoning proposal. In this regard, the proposed development is to have approximately 65 units. This number is below the minimum required for the completion of a traffic brief and as a result, the traffic generated is not expected to have a significant impact on the surrounding streets. Consideration should also be given to the fact that the subject property is located in the Centretown neighbourhood, which is close to the City’s downtown area and provides the opportunity for people to travel without the use of a private automobile. As well, the applicant is proposing to provide parking in accordance with the Zoning By-law requirements.
Another policy in Section 4.11 relating to zoning applications is the height and massing of the proposed building. As mentioned, the applicant is now proposing a building which will be seven storeys in height. This height is in keeping with the height of the Mayfair next door. Through the Site Plan Control process and with the aid of the City’s new Urban Design Review Panel, the materials used, such as glass, will help break up the massing of the building. As well, to pick up on the architecture of the Mayfair Apartment building, the applicant will be providing architectural definition to the proposed building, such as cornice lines.
As part of the Mayfair apartments, there is an open area on the west side of the building, which creates a “U” shape to the Mayfair Apartments. This open area lets in light to apartments and provides for air circulation. A sun shadow study completed by the applicant has indicated that the shadows of the proposed building will be cast primarily to the north of the property where a 12-storey apartment building is located but will also impact the adjacent easterly property, which contains the Mayfair Apartments.
The current zoning requires that next to the Mayfair, a building be setback 1.5 metres for the first 21 metres from the front lot line and then 6.0 metres for the rest of the distance to the rear property line. The applicant is proposing to set the building back 2.5 metres, then at a point 15.5 metres from the front property line (approximately where the courtyard starts), the setback would increase to 7.5 metres for the third to seventh floor. For the first and second floor, the setback would continue to be 2.5 metres.
When looking at the impact of the proposed zoning on the “U” shaped court yard, one has to look at the difference between what could be allowed and what is proposed. Both the Mayfair and the proposed building have a setback from MacLaren Street of three metres. The Mayfair is set back approximately one metre from its westerly lot line. The “U” shaped courtyard starts approximately 12.5 metres back from the northerly wall of the building and continues for just over another 11 metres before it returns to its original position of one metre from its westerly lot line. The current zoning would allow a building wall to be constructed 1.5 metres from the property line with the Mayfair, to approximately the mid-point of the court yard. After that, the setback would be required to be 6.0 metres. The applicant’s proposal is to increase the required yard measured from the front property line from 1.5 metres to 2.5 metres and will provide a greater separation distance for more light and circulation. Then, at approximately where the courtyard begins, the setback will increase to 7.5 metres for the third to seventh floors. This as well is greater than the six metres required under the current zoning.
The Department recognizes that the current zoning would only allow a building that is three storeys high, but it is the Department’s position that concerns that may arise by the extra height can be mitigated by the increased setback above the second floor and that the proposed zoning does not result in an increased adverse impact when compared to the what is allowed by the current zoning.
To the west of the subject property is a two-and-a-half storey residential apartment building. It is the Department’s position that the setback of 2.3 metres for the proposed building from the property line, as well as the existing setback of three metres for the building on the adjacent property, will provide an adequate separation between these two uses and mitigate against the impact of a seven-storey building. This is similar to the building at 275 MacLaren Street located opposite the subject property, which is situated between a 12-storey and nine-storey building.
Centretown Secondary Plan
The subject property is located within the Centretown Secondary Plan. The principal goals of the Centretown Plan are to enhance the character of Centretown as a primarily residential community, while accommodating a moderate increase in population. Centretown is also intended to accommodate persons of all age groups, income levels, cultural backgrounds, lifestyles and households in good quality and affordable housing. It is the Department’s position that the proposed apartment building would add approximately 65 dwelling units to Centretown and therefore contribute to the goal of keeping it a primarily a residential community. The provision of both one-and two-bedroom dwelling units serves to accommodate a range of different residents, while the condominium nature of the proposal would provide a tenure choice in an area that has been predominantly occupied by rental units.
The Centretown Plan also designates the site as Medium Profile Residential Area. Lands having this designation are intended to accommodate primarily residential buildings that are suitable for occupancy by one person, small and medium-sized family and non-family households, as well as land uses that are complementary and supportive of residential uses. While the Centretown Plan does not define the intended height limits relating to the Medium Profile Residential Designation, Official Plan Amendment 76 to the Official Plan states that medium profile is between five and nine storeys high. Accordingly, the proposed seven-storey apartment building is within the identified range for properties having this secondary designation. As well, the proposed height is compatible with other building in the immediate vicinity, which are as high as 12 storeys.
Section 3.4.6. of the Centretown Plan also contains site development policies for vacant sites. The intent of these policies is to ensure that all development enhances the physical environment of Centretown and will be compatible with adjacent existing uses. Many of these policies are appropriately addressed as part of the Site Plan application, however, in relation to the rezoning, there are adequate services to accommodate the increase in zoning potential and the form, proportion and spatial arrangement of the new development will cause minimal visual intrusion to existing development and will contribute to the physical environment of Centretown. As well, as provided in this report, the proposed new development is not expected to unreasonably obstruct natural light, views and air circulation.
Heritage Conservation District
The proposed development at 260 MacLaren Street will be subject to a future application for new construction in a heritage conservation district. This report will be reviewed by the City of Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC), Planning Committee and City Council.
The subject property is located in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, an area designated by the City of Ottawa under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1997 following a comprehensive two-year heritage study. The study was carried out in conformance with the City of Ottawa Official Plan and the neighbourhood-specific recommendations of the Centretown Neighbourhood Development Plan and Secondary Plan. This District was established in part, as a response to concerns raised regarding the nature of some of the mid-and high-rise infill developments occurring in Centretown. It was believed that the intensification occurring was out of character and unsympathetic to the heritage qualities of the area. To respond to this concern, the Heritage Conservation District Study contains guidelines to evaluate infill proposals. As part of these guidelines, infill should be of a contemporary design, distinguishable as being of its own time. However, it must be sympathetic to the heritage character of the area and designed to enhance existing developments, rather than calling attention to itself.
The proposed building will have a more modern architectural character and make use of materials, such as glass, to help distinguish it as being modern. The building will be asymmetrical, which unlike a symmetrical building, makes less of an impact statement to bring attention to itself. As well, to pick up on the heritage character of the Mayfair apartment next door, the building will only be seven storeys high and the applicant will be introducing characteristics to their building, such as cornice lines, which reflect those found on the Mayfair Apartments.
Proposed Changes to Performance Standards
In addition to requesting that a mid-to high-rise apartment building be allowed as a permitted use on the property and that it have a height of seven storeys (22 metres), the applicant is also requesting amendments to certain performance standards. These include changes to permitted projections, side yard reductions, driveway and drive aisle reductions.
The permitted projection reductions pertain to ornamental elements, such as a glass portal, cornices and the canopy on the front of the building. In these instances, the proposed permitted projections will not infringe upon the surrounding properties or public circulation on MacLaren Street and are for architectural reasons. As a result, the Department is recommending that the changes in permitted projections be permitted.
In relation to the driveways and aisles in the parking garage, the applicant is requesting reductions in the driveway from 6.7 to 4.45 metres and for the aisle behind a parking space from 6.7 metres to 6.0 metres. The proposed minimum driveway width is not for the entire driveway but at a specific location where a pillar imposes on the driveway. It is recognized that when meeting at this location, the drivers of opposing vehicles will have to decide who goes first, however, as mentioned, this width is not for the entire driveway. As with the aisle behind the parking space, the proposed 0.7-metre reduction is only for specific location and not the entire parking area.
As such, the proposed reduction is not expected to be a concern as the 6.0 metres to be provided will allow vehicles to enter and exit their parking spaces in a safe and functional manner.
Regarding the requested reduction in yards, as presented in this submission, the proposed setbacks are not intended to cause significant impact on the adjacent properties and in relation to the Mayfair Apartments, will still provide for light and air circulation into their internal courtyard.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Eighteen comments were received as a result of the public notification, 16 of the respondents stated concerns with the proposed nine-storey building. The other two wanted more information on the proposal.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
1.
At
its hearing on this proposal the Urban Design Peer Review Panel requested a
lower building height from the 9 stories that was proposed to a height matching
the adjacent building, the Mayfair Apartments at 260 Metcalfe Street. This application appears to respond to that
request, and is an improvement. There
appears to be a stepping back from the 5th floor along MacLaren Street.
2.
The
application is providing the full number of visitor parking spaces as per the
new zoning by-law for a total of 11 spaces.
3.
I
note that as of right the applicant could develop a somewhat lower building
with a minimal setback along the easterly side yard, to a depth of halfway
across the adjacent building’s light well. In order to retain access to light
for those interior units next door, the developer would be cutting back the
northeast corner of the building from the 2nd to the 7th
floors.
4.
I
support the addition of three new street trees for a total of six. However,
this should be a species more substantial that a honey locust, such as a
prospector/century elm or a maple. These must be in the ground, and not in
elevated planters.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a three-day hearing would result. If the recommended by-law is adopted, it is expected that this hearing could be conducted within staff resources. Should the by-law be refused, reasons must be provided. Upon an appeal of the refusal, an external planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Ensure that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
If recommendation of this by-law is refused, reasons must be provided. If the refusal is appealed, an external planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000. Funds are not budgeted for external planning consultants; the expense may impact Planning and Growth Management’s 2011 operating status.
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Consultation Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning 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.
LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT
1
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed
Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
- Rezone the subject land from R4T[479] to R5B[XXXX] H(22)
- Add a new exception, R5B[XXXX] H(22) to Section 239 with provisions similar in effect to the following:
Despite Table 65, ornamental elements may project up to 1.2 metre into a required yard.
Despite Table 65, a canopy may project to the property line.
The Minimum westerly interior side yard setback shall be 2.3 metres.
The Minimum easterly interior side yard setback for an apartment dwelling mid-high rise shall be:
(a) 2.5 metres for the first 15 metres from the front lot line
(b) After that the interior side yard setback is:
a. For the first two storeys above grade: 2.5 metres; and,
b. Above the second storey: 7.8 metres
Maximum permitted number of storeys: seven
The minimum width of a driveway providing access to an underground parking garage is 4.45 metres.
The minimum width of an aisle providing access to a parking space in an underground parking garage is 6.0 metres.
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. Eighteen comments were received as a result of the public notification, 16 of the respondents stated concerns with the proposed nine storey building. The other two wanted more information on the proposal.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
Concerns with Proposal
1. The proposal to allow a mid-rise building would cut off sun light and air circulation to the surrounding lower rise buildings and the Mayfair as well.
Response
As presented in this submission, it is the Department’s position that the proposed setbacks will not have an undue adverse impact on surrounding properties, including the Mayfair Apartments.
2. The proposal should have a green space in front of the building, like many of the other properties in the area.
Response
As part of the Site Plan, the applicant will be providing a landscaped strip in front of the proposed development, similar to those that exist in front of many of the properties on this portion of MacLaren Street.
3. The proposed development must have enough parking for the new tenants or there will be a negative impact on the on-street parking, which is already well used.
Response
The applicant will be providing parking in accordance with the Zoning By-law requirements.
4. The building setback on MacLaren should be the same as other buildings.
Response
There are variations to the setbacks of the existing buildings on this portion of MacLaren Street. The setback proposed will be in conformity with the existing zoning (3.0 metres) and complementary to existing front yard setbacks.
5. The property owner is just trying to break all the zoning rules. He should build within the current zoning.
Response
The proposed development is in keeping with the City’s policies related to residential intensification. As a result, the Department is recommending that the subject property be rezoned to allow the proposed building.
6. In accordance with the Heritage Conservation District Study, the development of this site should result in infill that reflects the character of existing buildings.
Response
As with the City’s Official Plan policies, the proposed development is in keeping with the Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study.
7. There is no outdoor amenity area. This is a direct result of the proposed size and mass of the building.
Response
The outdoor amenity area for the proposed development will be provided by way of balconies, which is typical for apartment buildings.
8. Does the proposed development provide for the needs of a range of people?
Response
The proposed development will contain units of varying size, which will provide for the housing needs of a variety of people.
9. The proposed building should not be higher than the Mayfair.
Response
The applicant has lowered the building to a height of seven storeys to be the same as the Mayfair Apartments.
10. The view will be ruined for residents of the Mayfair who face the parking lot.
Response
It is recognized that the proposed building will block the current view of the parking lot and surrounding buildings for residents of the Mayfair Apartments.
11. The increase in traffic will be detrimental to the area.
Response
The proposed development will only have about 65 units. This low number of units is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network.
12. Why is there no requirement for commercial uses in this building, to meet the City’s desire for mixed-use buildings?
Response
MacLaren Street is not known as a commercial street in the Centretown neighbourhood and commercial uses are located close to the subject property, on streets which have this as a characteristic.
13. We are concerned that the proposed excavation will cause damage to the foundation of our building.
Response
The Applicant will be responsible for any damage occurred to the foundation of surrounding properties. As part of the Site Plan Control approval and construction process, if blasting is to be done, the Applicant will be required to do pre and post blast surveys to see if they have caused damage to the surrounding buildings.
14. The proposed development does not meet the Provincial Policy Statement regarding intensification, the City’s Official Plan or the Centretown Secondary Plan.
Response
It is the Departments position that the proposed development satisfies applicable Provincial and Municipal Policies related to residential intensification.
RESPONSE TO COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
As part of the
Site Plan Control Process, the Department will ensure a different species from
Honey Locust is used along the MacLaren Street frontage, such as Century Elm or
a species of Maple.
For
clarification, the additional “cutting back” of the building starts at the top
of the second floor.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Urban Design Review Panel
General Comments
The Panel recognizes that this is a challenging site in a sensitive area.
Given the significance of the necessary changes, the Panel welcomes the applicant to return to the Panel for a second Formal Review. If the applicant does this, the Panel would like to see ground floor and typical floor plans, as well as a sound investigation of the design in relation to the entire street. Currently the proposal appears too self referential, rather than responsive to the scale and qualities of neighbouring buildings.
Context and Built Form
This part of Ottawa’s Centretown is highly significant in the Panel’s view. Despite the simplicity of the Mayfair Apartments, the building is a significant heritage asset and new adjacent development should respect it and retain its prominence.
The Panel notes that, by calling attention to itself, the proposed building does not address the first point of the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement. Rather than call attention to itself, the proposal should act as a background building. The applicant should aim to create an aesthetic that is reminiscent of the adjacent heritage buildings and focus on the recommendations outlined in the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement.
The Panel is of the opinion that the design does not acknowledge other buildings along the street. While the Panel does not advocate an imitation of the Mayfair building or Booth House, it suggests that taking cues from these buildings will help the proposal fit into the neighbourhood in a more respectful way.
The Panel recommends that the proposed form and materials be simplified. The adjacent buildings are detailed with few materials; while the proposal uses too many (stone, stucco, brick, glass, concrete, metal etc.) and is in direct conflict with the urban qualities of both adjacent properties. Therefore, the stone base should be lowered to reference the heritage buildings in the area, the brick should match the surroundings, the balconies’ design should be more delicate (taking cues from other heritage apartments in the area), the banding should reference the height and horizontal elements of the Mayfair, and the garage entrance should be moved away from the much smaller scale Booth House.
The Panel is of the opinion that the building is too tall and notes that the applicant has not successfully made a case for the proposed height. The Panel believes that the building should not be taller in height than the Mayfair apartments. The penthouse will have to be integrated so that it is not apparent from the street. The Panel encourages the applicant to restructure the building so that it goes up to a height that allows it to step back for the top 2 storeys before reaching the height of the Mayfair.
The Panel appreciates the effort to cut out part of the mass at the rear of the project to allow light into Mayfair Court, which is positive and respectful. The applicant could also explore the use of reflective surfaces on the west façade as a second way to provide light to the interior courtyard of Mayfair Court.
The proposed building, as seen from
the front, appears to be focused on creating a symmetrical composition. If
symmetry is the focus/overarching design principle, all elements should fall in line. An asymmetrical approach to the design of
this building may be more appropriate given the very different scales on either
side.
Landscape
/ Setbacks
The
Panel is concerned at the way the proposal projects forward in front of the
adjacent buildings, while giving almost nothing back to the public realm. The
Panel notes that three trees are a minimal contribution and that the frontage
landscape needs to be improved.
These
recommendations will be forwarded to the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee (OBHAC) for their review
Response
to Urban Design Review Panel
The applicant has incorporated many of the comments from the Urban Design Review Panel, in order to improve the character of their building and to respect the heritage nature of the area and surrounding structures. As mentioned, in order to make the building act more as a background building, its height will be reduced from nine to seven storeys; it will now be asymmetrical and simplified by reducing the different amounts of materials. While not imitating the Mayfair apartments, it will employ its subtle characteristics, such as cornice lines and the similar heights for changes in materials. Through the Site Plan Control process, the landscaping along the street edge will be maximized.