4. ZONING – 346 GLOUCESTER STREET

ZONAGE – 346, RUE GLOUCESTER

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 346 Gloucester Street from a Residential Fifth Density exception zone R5B[482] H(37) to a new Residential Fifth Density exception zone R5B[xxxx]H(59.3) as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 1.

Recommandation DU Comité

(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 de la Ville d’Ottawa en vue de faire passer le zonage du 346, rue Gloucester de Zone résidentielle de densité 5 assortie d’une exception R5B[482] H(37) à Zone résidentielle de densité 5 assortie d’une exception R5B[xxxx]H(59.3), afin de permettre la construction d’une tour d’habitation, tel qu’expliqué en détail dans le document 2 et illustré dans le document 1.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 13 October 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0206).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 25 October 2011.

Report to/Rapport au:

Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme

and Council / et au Conseil

13 October 2011 / le 13 octobre 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

Somerset (14)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0206

SUBJECT:	ZONING – 346 Gloucester Street (FILE NO.D02-01-11-0056)

OBJET :	ZONAGE – 346, rue gloucester

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250, to change the zoning of 346 Gloucester Street from a Residential Fifth Density exception zone R5B[482] H(37) to a new Residential Fifth Density exception zone R5B[xxxx]H(59.3) as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 1.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 de la Ville d’Ottawa en vue de faire passer le zonage du 346, rue Gloucester de Zone résidentielle de densité 5 assortie d’une exception R5B[482] H(37) à Zone résidentielle de densité 5 assortie d’une exception R5B[xxxx]H(59.3), afin de permettre la construction d’une tour d’habitation, tel qu’expliqué en détail dans le document 2 et illustré dans le document 1.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located on the east side of Bay Street. It is “T” shaped and in addition to having frontage on Bay Street, it also has frontage on both Gloucester and Nepean Streets. The property can be seen in Document 1. In order to support the redevelopment of the site with different schemes, the applicant has proceeded to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances on numerous occasions (i.e. 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2011). In February 2009, the applicant received Site Plan Control Approval for a new 15 storey (45.3 metres high) apartment building having approximately 204 units. In March 2010, the applicant was issued a permit to construct that building. In 2011, the applicant decided to amend their development proposal and proceeded to the Committee of Adjustment to increase the height to 55.6 metres. They also requested other variances, for a reduction in lot width from 22 metres to 20 metres, and for the required side yard setback along the eastern portion of the property to zero metres. This was to recognize the portion of the parking garage that protrudes from the ground. The Committee of Adjustment refused their application. As part of their reasoning for refusal, the Committee of Adjustment indicated that the applicant’s proposal would better be addressed through a rezoning than an application to the Committee of Adjustment. The applicant has subsequently appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision, but has followed the Committee’s advice to have their proposal considered through a rezoning application.

As part of their rezoning, the applicant is requesting the lot width and setback modifications requested to the Committee of Adjustment but will also be requesting additional height. The additional height is a result of a change to the average grade of the building and the enclosure of the rooftop amenity area. The change in average grade will add 0.6 metres to the building height, while enclosing the rooftop amenity area, to make it floor area; will increase the height by an additional 3.1 metres. These changes added to the height increase sought at the committee of adjustment put the overall height of the building at 59.3 metres.

DISCUSSION

Official Plan

The Primary Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area. In addition to the policies of the Primary Official Plan, the subject property is also located within the Centretown Secondary Plan. The Centretown Plan designates the site as Residential High Profile.

Primary Official Plan

The General Urban Area designation is intended to permit development of a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances. Non‑residential uses are also permitted to meet the needs of residents, both locally and from other areas of the City, all with the goal of facilitating the development of complete and sustainable communities. While the General Urban Area designation permits this wide range of residential and commercial uses, this is not to say that all such uses are permitted in every location.

To help provide direction as to the appropriateness of a residential infill development, the General Urban Area has policies that the proposed development should be recognized in relation to the character of existing development and the community at large, so that it enhances and builds on established patters and built form. The policies also state that a proposal should be evaluated with respect to achieving a balance of housing types and tenures, to provide a full range of housing.

When considering the height of the proposed development, one must look at the height of building in the surrounding area. The subject property is located on the boundary of the Central Area, where taller buildings are located. The current zoning of this portion of the Central Area will permit buildings that are 64 metres in height. Indeed, just to the north, there are residential towers with a height of approximately 22 to 26 storeys. The proposed height of 18 storeys will allow for a building that is compatible with these existing buildings.

As there are also developments with lower scale and density in the surrounding area, approval of the proposed high-rise condominium development will also help fulfill the General Urban Area policy, whereby there is a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles.

In addition to the policies contained in Section 3.6.1., the Official Plan states that the appropriateness of a development proposal will also be evaluated in relation to the policies in Section 2.5.1. and 4.11., which deal with managing growth and compatibility.

Managing Growth

In order to minimize urban sprawl and its associated costs, the Official Plan identifies areas of the city as priority locations for intensification. These include Mixed-Use Centres, the Central Area, and Arterial and Traditional Mainstreets. While the Official Plan identifies areas where the greatest amount of intensification will occur, it also recognizes that intensification will occur outside of these target areas. Other areas of intensification include lands designated General Urban Area but within 600 metres of a rapid transit station. In this instance, the Transitway runs along Slater and Albert Streets to the north, with stations in the Central Area at Bay, Kent and Bank Streets, which are within 600 metres of the subject property. As a result, the proposed zoning satisfies these policies.

Compatibility

Both Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the Official Plan contain policies by which to evaluate the compatibility of a proposal. For instance, Section 2.5.1 states that new development should respect the character of the existing area. In this regard, design should integrate new development to complement and enliven the surroundings. Design should allow the built form to evolve through architectural style and innovation, as well as complement the massing, pattern, rhythm, character and context of the area. It is the Department’s position that in relation to the surrounding built form, which contains numerous high-rise buildings, the proposed 18-storey building will complement the existing surroundings, as well as the rhythm, character and context of this section of Centretown.

The proposed rezoning also satisfies the design policies of the Official Plan by achieving more compact urban design over time and accommodating the needs of a range of people of different incomes and lifestyles at various stages in their life cycle.

In addition to the policies contained within Section 2.5.1., Urban Design and Compatibility, policies are also contained in Section 4.11 of the Official Plan. Many of the considerations listed in this policy, such as lighting, loading and vehicular access, relate to Site Plan Control issues and will be dealt with through that planning process. However, other considerations, such as traffic generation, sun shadows and microclimate are considerations of a rezoning proposal.

In this instance, it must be noted that the issue is not whether a high-rise building is permitted on the property; the applicant currently has approval and a building permit to construct a 15-storey (45.3 metre) apartment building with approximately 200 units. It is the Department’s position that the issue for consideration is whether the proposal to permit 13 additional metres in height, (three residential storeys and one storey of amenity area), which would provide for approximately the same number of units, is appropriate. With approximately the same number of units, the traffic impact will be the same and the sun/shadow study prepared for the proposal has determined that the change in the impact is minimal. As such, it is the Department’s position that the applicant’s rezoning request is not expected to have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighbourhood, with respect to the criteria of traffic, sun/shadow and microclimate mentioned above.

Section 4.11 of the Official Plan also contains policies relating to building transition. Development proposals are to address issues of compatibility and integration with surrounding land uses, by ensuring that an effective transition in built form is provided between areas of different development profile. Transitions in built form are to serve as a link between proposed development, existing development and the planned function of an area. In this regard, consideration must be given to the Centretown Secondary Plan, which designates the subject property as High Profile Residential. Lands with this designation shall permit a variety of dwelling types and should provide accommodation suitable for one person, small family and non-family households. To the south of this subject property are lands designated Heritage Residential. Further south, lands are designated Low Profile Residential, all of which takes into consideration a desired transition in height. As mentioned, the property is adjacent to the Central Area, which currently has a zoning allowing buildings that can be 64 metres high. It is the Department’s position that the proposed height of approximately 59 metres on the subject property is appropriate as it represents the start of a transition down from the Central Area. One could also expect properties, such as the subject site, to be occupied by buildings having a height closer to that found in the Central Area, because they are adjacent to the Central Area. As a result, it is the Department’s position that the proposed increase in height is appropriate.

Centretown Secondary Plan

The Centretown Secondary Plan in Volume 2 of the Official Plan intends to conserve and enhance the residential character of Centretown as an inner-city community with several identifiable neighbourhoods focused around defined commercial corridors and public open spaces. Uses which are incompatible with the residential character are restricted through the Secondary Plan policies.

The Secondary Plan recognizes that the population of Centretown will increase over time and that this increase will support the residential character of the area, benefiting the retail and commercial enterprises within Centretown and the Central Area.

The Plan also recognizes that an increase in population in Centretown will be beneficial to the city-wide distribution of population and the use of existing public services and facilities. The Secondary Plan acknowledges that the neighbourhoods of Centretown will absorb some of the anticipated increase in population, however, the Plan also acknowledges that certain neighbourhoods, such as the area west of Kent Street, the area between Elgin and O’Connor Streets south of Somerset Street, and the area east of Elgin Street, as more suitable to family living. Other neighbourhoods adjacent to Bank Street and along the northern boundary of Centretown are recognized as areas less suitable to family living where medium and high profile residential uses are more appropriate. The land use schedule defines the land use designations which are reflective of the desired use and built form patterns for the area. These designations are intended to serve as a framework within which the objectives and policy directions of the Secondary Plan are to be achieved.

The subject lands are located immediately south of the Central Area and as such are designated as “High Profile Residential” on Schedule H of the Centretown Secondary Plan (the boundary between the Central Area and Centretown runs east-west along Gloucester Street). The High Profile Residential designation extends to the north to Gloucester Street, to the east to Metcalfe Street, to the south to Lisgar Street and to the west past O’Connor Street toward Bank Street. As mentioned above, the designation permits a variety of dwelling types with accommodation suitable for one person and small family or non-family households. Buildings and uses accessory to or compatible with these residential types will be considered. In general, residential areas identified in the Secondary Plan are intended to include dwelling uses and may also include public service, minor retail as well as office uses which serve primarily the local population but are not necessarily limited to only the geographic area of Centretown.

The proposed residential building is located on the northern portion of the boundary of Centretown and serves as a transition from the buildings located to the north in the Central Area, to the residential areas to the south in the interior of Centretown. The proposed zoning is only to amend certain performance standards and as such, will maintain the existing flexibility within the R5B zoning which permits limited commercial uses, further meeting the intent of the Secondary Plan by providing a residential use but with the ability, in the future, to also provide accessory uses which serve the local population. The proposed rezoning is in keeping with the intent of the policies of the Centretown Secondary Plan.

Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing

The Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing state that development should provide compatibility in context, coordinate parking, services, and transit into the site, mix uses and open spaces, contribute to urban living and pedestrian-friendly streets, and provide a response to the physical environment and microclimate through design. The guidelines promote high-rise buildings that contribute to views of the skyline and enhance image of the city.

It is the Department’s position that the proposed building supports the applicable guidelines. In particular, the proposal provides a transition to buildings further to the north, across Gloucester Street where a height of 64 metres is permitted. The architectural design of the building will complement the rhythm of the urban fabric along the surrounding street and include an at-grade highly transparent pedestrian entrance, contributing to way-finding and place-making.

The building includes distinctive and stylish design features, building forms and shapes to contribute to a sense of place. The Bay Street pedestrian access will help provide a more pleasant landscaped and interactive pedestrian environment while the parking garage entrance from Gloucester Street will be designed not detract from the streetscape.

Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines

The intent of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Guidelines is to provide an urban design standard for assessing, promoting and achieving appropriate TOD within Ottawa. The guidelines are applicable as the subject site is located less than 600 metres from the Slater Street and Albert Street rapid transit corridors.

The proposal supports the applicable guidelines in that document, including being a transit-supportive and high-density land use within walking distance of a rapid transit station, locating buildings close to each other, creating a transition in scale by stepping down building heights from those closer to transit to the north, providing architectural variety at grade to provide visual interest to pedestrians and highlight the building entrance, by means of a ground floor with highly transparent materials that appeals to pedestrians, providing underground parking, and including landscaping elements to help reduce urban heat and create a more comfortable microclimate.

Performance Standard Amendments

In addition to a proposed increase in height, the merits of which have been discussed in the above rationale, the applicant is also requesting a reduction in the required lot width from 22 metres to 20 metres and a reduction in the easterly side yard to zero metres. The zoning on the property requires that the interior lot line setback be 1.5 metres for the first 21 metres from the front lot line, then increase to six metres for the remainder of the property.

It is the Department’s position that these two requested modifications should be approved. The property has three street frontages, with the shortest (Gloucester Street) being the front yard for the determination of lot width. While the deficiency only represents a width of two metres, the functional front yard, having the entrance to the building, will be on Bay Street, which has a width of approximately 31.5 metres. In relation to the side yard setback of the building, the intent of the setback provision is to provide a separation distance between a building and the private rear yard amenity area of the adjacent property. It is noted that the variance to zero metres is only for the portion of the underground parking garage that protrudes slightly from under the property. The building proper is set back approximately three to six metres from the property line and where the subject property abuts the private amenity area of the adjacent property, the distance is the six metres required by the Zoning By-law.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The City did not receive comments on the application which are summarized in Document 3.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

Councillor Diane Holmes provided the following comments.

I do not concur with the request for additional height in this location. By way of several prior applications to the Committee of Adjustment, this developer was granted a height increase from 36 metres to 45.3 metres. This is sufficient height for redevelopment in this area. The applicant has stated that the planning rationale is for an improved design to the building. However, in my view it should be possible to revise plans to achieve a better design within the heights already granted.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Should the recommendation be adopted and the matter appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a one week hearing will be required. This hearing could be conducted within staff resources. If the recommendation is refused, reasons must be provided. Legal Services would need to retain an outside planner at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Potential costs are outlined in the Legal Implications section above. Should the services of an external planner be required, funds ($25,000 to $30,000) are not available within existing budget, and the expense may impact Planning and Growth Management’s operating budget status.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Manage growth and create sustainable communities by ensuring that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

The application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments.

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 Canada Signs, 1565 Chatelain Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Z 8B5, 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 lands shown on Document 1 from R5B[482] H(37) to R5B[XXXX] H(59.3).
Add a new exception, R5B[XXXX] H(59.3) to Section 239 – Urban Exceptions which includes provisions similar in effect to the following:

i) a minimum required interior side yard setback of 0 metres from the lot line abutting 340 Gloucester Street;

ii) a minimum required lot width of 20 metres; and,

iii) all of the additional permitted uses and provisions contained within Exception 482.

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. No public meetings were held in the community. Twenty-six comments were received as a result of the public notification process. Twenty-one of the respondents stated concerns while four wanted more information and one was in favour. A comment stating concerns was also received from the Centretown Citizens Community Association. A summary of the comments and a response to them is provided below.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

Concerns Raised with the Proposed Rezoning

1. The proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.

Response

As presented in this submission, the proposed development has a similar height and the character of existing buildings in the surrounding area and represents a transition in height from the Central Area to the north.

2. This proposal represents a further “creep” of a wall of high-rises further south into an area where there are single detached dwellings.

Response

The area where the subject property is located is designated as High Profile Residential by the Centretown Neighbourhood Plan. This designation is found along the boundary with the Central Area. Buildings with similar heights are expected in areas having this designation in the Centretown Secondary Plan.

3. The proposed development will cause noise and disruption to the neighbourhood.

Response

As with similar developments across the city, it is expected that during the construction phase there will be noise and vehicle disruption to the surrounding community, but this will be temporary.

4. The Planning and Growth Management Department represents developers at the expense of ordinary citizens and disregards their opinions.

Response

The Planning and Growth Management Department makes recommendations on development proposals to Planning Committee and City Council based on Official Plan policies and sound planning principles.

5. The proposed development will increase traffic on local streets when the streets already cannot handle it.

Response

The number of units proposed for the redesigned development is five less than was previously approved for the site. As a result, there is not expected to be an increase in traffic concerns as a result of this proposal.

6. Increased traffic will cause safety concerns for the adjacent school.

Response

As mentioned above, the amount of traffic from the previously approved development is expected to be the same as for the revised building design.

7. Snow removal will be a problem.

Response

Snow storage and removal is an issue for Site Plan Control and building operations.

8. The proposed building does not meet the Urban Design Guidelines for High Rise Housing.

Response

As stated in this submission, the proposed development satisfies the City’s guidelines relating to High Rise Housing.

9. The proposed building will reduce the value of my condo unit

Response

There is no evidence that the proposed development will reduce the property values of any other properties.

10. The proposed development will result in more parking on surrounding streets, when there already isn’t enough, especially now that the bike lanes have been introduced.

Response

The applicant is not proposing to reduce the amount of onsite parking required by the Zoning By-law.

11. How many requests for amendments are there going to be? This has to be at least the fifth.

Response

Under the Planning Act, the property owner can file as many development applications for their property as they wish.

12. The proposal will create too much density for the area.

Response

As mentioned, the number of units in the development is expected to drop by approximately five, which would represent a decrease in the density of units already approved for the property.

13. By having a zero lot line they are eliminating needed greenspace for the area.

Response

The request for a zero yard setback is only for a portion of the rear (easterly side) of the building, where the parking garage is above the ground surface. There are other areas on the property which will remain as greenspace.

14. The proposed development will block my sunshine.

Response

It is expected that there will be a minimal difference in the amount of shadowing between the proposed building and the building that is currently approved.

15. The building is too high for fire engine requirements.

Response

The building will meet the Ontario Building and Fire Codes.

16. There is not enough infrastructure capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

Response

Reports prepared for and approved as part of the Site Plan Control Approval process have indicated that there are no infrastructure capacity issues for the proposed development.

17. The Property Owner has not earned the trust or goodwill of the immediate community; they left derelict buildings on the property for many years, despite neighbourhood objections.

Response

The buildings on the property have been removed in accordance with City regulations.

Reasons in Favour of the Proposed Development

I think that the proposed building will be a welcome addition to the community. I have no concerns with or objections to the zoning amendment request.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

The Centretown Citizens Community Association provided the following comments:

We previously commented on the applicant's minor zoning application at the Committee of Adjustment, asking that the application be rejected in favour of a rezoning application, which has led to the current application.

The applicant had previously sought various minor variances for increases in height from the original 12-storey height limit, the most recent successful one allowing approximately 16 storeys. We have also previously expressed concerns about the condition of the houses that were on the site that posed a hazard to the adjacent buildings.

We appreciate the improvements to the design of the building, including the features at the top of the building and the interaction with the street. We continue to dislike and oppose the increase in height from the 12-storey limit placed in the zoning by-law and in the Centretown Plan, but we recognize that a 17-storey building was approved on this block and thus this objection is not likely to be sustained. We would like to note that the adjacent 13-storey Ottawa Community Housing building, May Nickson Place, is only as tall as the 11th floor of the building proposed for 346 Gloucester in the current application. Therefore, when considering the impact of this proposal on the neighbourhood, it should be thought as being seven storeys taller than the adjacent high-rise, not five.

We also note that in the application for the building proposed at 224 Lyon on the opposite end of the block, the City has placed a holding provision on the zoning that requires the negotiation of community benefits for the increase in height, similar to Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act. The CCCA feels that it is only fair that such benefits also be required for this rezoning, counting from the zoning that existed prior to the Minor Variance applications.

We ask that the community be consulted on the benefits that would be negotiated for this site. The CCCA has a generic list of our preferred Section 37 benefits for Centretown, which are copied below for your reference and which we hope will be useful to propel these discussions.

i. Conservation of heritage resources.

ii. Conservation/replacement of rental housing.

iii. Provision of new affordable housing units, land or a minimum of 25% of the uplift value as cash-in-lieu which would go into the Housing Reserve Fund and earmarked for Centretown.

iv. Child care facilities.

v. Transportation related items – transit supportive infrastructure, car (or bike?) sharing facilities, public bicycle parking.

vi. Greenspace – streetscape improvements including trees, community gardens, park improvements.

vii. Public recreation facilities – upgrades to community centres (interior and exterior facilities), new facilities

viii. Other specific facilities which have broad local community support.

Response to Concerns from the Centretown Citizens Community Association

The City currently does not have Council approved implementation guidelines to address Section 37 of the Planning Act. In the context of the development at 224 Lyon Street, the Department recommended the use of a holding provision to secure monies for community benefits through the Site Plan Control process. The holding provision will be lifted once the requirements of the Site Plan Control are met and the monies for community benefits are secured.

With respect to the current proposal at 346 Gloucester Street, a Site Plan Control application has already been approved for the proposed 15 storey building and as the proposed higher building will have virtually the same foot print as well as the entire site having virtually the same built form, a new Site Plan Control application will not be required.