1.         ZONING - 2781, 2791, 2797 BASELINE ROAD
AND 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734 DRAPER AVENUE

 

ZONAGE – 2781, 2791 ET 2797, CHEMIN BASELINE
ET 2704, 2706, 2724 ET 2734, AVENUE DRAPER

 

 

 

Committee recommendationS AS AMENDED

 

That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning  of 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper Avenue from R5A[1700] S247 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedule 247 Zone) to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedules 247 and 282 Holding Zone) as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Documents 1, 3 and 4, as amended by the following:

 

1.         That the residential unit count limit be subject to 3% flexibility (ie 400 units + or - 3%; ie 388 - 412 units) upon review by Planning staff and subject to the concurrence of the local Councillor;

 

2.         That any proposed unit count beyond the 3% range of flexibility or within the 3% but which fails to gain concurrence of the Councillor will require a new Hearing;

 

3.         That parking for any commercial use is required at the rate of 1 space for each 92.9m of gross floor area, and;

 

4.         That parking for commercial uses is permitted on in Area B on Schedule 247.

 

 

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité

 

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement sur le zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 2781, 2791 et 2797, chemin Baseline ainsi que des 2704, 2706, 2724 et 2734, avenue Draper de R5A[1700] S247 (Zone résidentielle de densité cinq, sous-zone A, exception 1700, annexe 247) à  R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Zone résidentielle de densité cinq, sous-zone A, exception 1700, annexes 247 et 282, aménagement différé), comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 2 et indiqué dans les documents 1, 3 et 4, telle que modifiée par ce qui suit :

 

 

 

 

1.         Que le nombre maximal d’unités de logements comprendra une marge de 3 %, soit 400 logements + ou – 3 %, donc entre 388 et 412 unités), après examen par le personnel d’Urbanisme et avec l’accord du conseiller du quartier;

 

2.         Que si le nombre d’unités se trouve en dehors de la marge de 3 %, ou se trouve bien dans la marge de 3 %, mais ne reçoit pas l’accord du conseiller, une nouvelle audience devra avoir lieu.

 

3.         Que le stationnement pour usage commercial doit être de une place par 92,9 m de surface de plancher brute,

 

4.         Que le stationnement pour usage commercial est autorisé dans la zone B de l’annexe 247.

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.            Deputy City Manager's report, Planning and Infrastructure, dated 30 April 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0125).

 

2.            Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 8 May 2012.

 


 

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

30 April 2012 / le 30 avril 2012

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Planning and Infrastructure/Urbanisme et Infrastructure

 

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review/Examen des projets d'aménagement, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 13866  John.Smit@ottawa.ca

 

 

College / Collège (8)

Ref N°: ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0125

 

 

SUBJECT:

ZONING - 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road
and 2704, 2706, 2724, 2734 Draper Avenue

 

 

OBJET :

ZONAGE – 2781, 2791 et 2797, chemin Baseline
et 2704, 2706, 2724 et 2734, avenue draper

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning  of 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper Avenue from R5A[1700] S247 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedule 247 Zone) to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedules 247 and 282 Holding Zone) as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Document 1, 3 and 4.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de  recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement sur le zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 2781, 2791 et 2797, chemin Baseline ainsi que des 2704, 2706, 2724 et 2734, avenue Draper de R5A[1700] S247 (Zone résidentielle de densité cinq, sous-zone A, exception 1700, annexe 247) à  R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Zone résidentielle de densité cinq, sous-zone A, exception 1700, annexes 247 et 282, aménagement différé), comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 2 et indiqué dans les documents 1, 3 et 4.

BACKGROUND

The following supplement report has been prepared in response to a direction to staff at the April 10, 2012 Planning Committee meeting.  The Committee provided direction to staff with respect to performance standards that were to be included within a Zoning By‑law amendment for the subject lands that captures a revised development concept. In compliance with this direction, this report recommends appropriate zoning amendments to ensure the orderly development of the site in a manner consistent with the revised development concept.  The revised development concept produced is the result of consultation and discussion with staff, the Ward Councillor and the public to address concerns which were raised from recent applications for Site Plan Control and a City-initiated Zoning By-law amendment.

 

The revised development concept proposes six buildings on the site as shown on Document 4.  The new buildings are orientated around the perimeter of the site to create a continuous built form along the Baseline Road, Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue frontages which is consistent with the existing built form in the area.  The buildings range in height from 17 metres (4.5 storeys) on the northern portion to 18 metres (5 storeys) on the southern portion abutting Baseline Road.  On the northern portion of the site, the internal area is programmed with passive uses such as a large courtyard and pedestrian walkways while the interior area of the southern portion of the site is proposed as a surface parking area.  Limited commercial uses would be permitted for the two buildings fronting along Baseline Road with the recommend zoning also permiting outdoor commercial patios within a specified area.  The majority of the required parking for the site will be provided through one level of underground parking that would be accessible from Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue.  One access is proposed from Baseline Road that would service visitor and commercial parking.

 

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

 

The recommended zoning will implement a revised development concept for the subject property.  This new development proposal represents a departure from the original concept plan approved on September 17, 2010.  The recommended by-law would amend the existing zoning by adding additional site-specific performance standards and schedules that will capture and regulate the revised development concept as shown on Document 4. 

 

Existing Zoning

 

The site is zoned Residential Fifth Density Exception Zone - R5A[1700] S247. The current zoning permits a range of residential uses such as multiple attached dwellings and low and high-rise apartments.  Schedule 247 sets out the maximum permitted height over the site, and areas where no principle building is permitted above grade.  The exception also sets out site-specific provisions with respect to minimum landscaping requirements and the size and location for additional permitted uses which include uses such as office, retail, restaurant, personal service and convenience store.  The existing zoning does not have a performance standard that regulates the amount of development permitted on site through either a unit cap or maximum gross floor area.

 

Proposed Zoning

 

The proposed zoning, as shown on Document 2, will modify the existing exception by adding additional site-specific performance standards that will limit the maximum number of residential units permitted to 400 units with a maximum permitted Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 34,000m2.  These limits are consistent with unit count and GFA represented in the initial development scheme as assessed through staff report ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0129.  The proposed zoning will also replace the schedule 247 which regulates the maximum permitted height, minimum yard set-backs and locations where an outdoor patio is permitted. The permitted heights are being significantly reduced from a maximum of 39 metres (12 storeys) that was permitted under the previously approved zoning to 18 metres (5 storeys).  Required parking for the site has been reduced from 1.2 spaces to 1.0.  The required rate for visitor parking remains unchanged at 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit.  The amendment will also introduce a holding provision that will prohibit development on the site until such time as an application for Site Plan Control has been approved.  The holding provision will also require that any phase of development be consistent with the revised development concept as shown on Document 4.

 

 

DISCUSSION

Official Plan

 

Strategic Directions

 

To meet the challenge of managing growth, the City will direct development to locations within the urban area where services already exist or where they can be provided efficiently. Within the lands designated General Urban Area, opportunities for intensification exist and will be supported.

 

The subject property is designated as General Urban Area in the Official Plan.  The General Urban Area permits the development of a full range and choice of housing types in combination with conveniently located employment, service and uses to facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities.  The City promotes infill development and other intensification within the General Urban Area in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the long-term viability of a community.

 

The introduction of a low-rise apartment buildings provides for a variety of housing forms for various incomes and life cycles, and is considered appropriate and consistent with the policies of the Official Plan.

 

Compatibility Considerations

 

Compatible development means development that, although not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings, nonetheless enhances an established community and co-exists without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties.  Section 2.5.1 sets out broad design objectives as qualitative statements on how the City will influence the evolution of the built environment.  These objectives are focused on enhancing the sense of community and maintaining places with their own distinct identity, providing quality public and private spaces through development, creating places that are safe, accessible and are easy to get to and move through, and ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas. Design principles further describe how each of the design objectives may be achieved.

 

The proposed development achieves the design principle of considering the street as a public space with a well-designed streetscape which includes landscaping and a continuous built edge facing the street that is void of surface parking and multiple private driveways.  The limited access points to the site and underground garage is consistent with the existing built form along Morrision Drive.  The proposed development also achieves the design principles of ensuring that development respects the character of existing areas by transitioning the building height to be consistent with existing built forms.  To this end, the proposed building heights schedule as shown on Document 3 which provides for height transitions downwards to the north, with the taller building elements located on the southern portion of the site with heights up to five stories permitted.

 

Section 4.11 of the Official Plan, as well as the City’s Urban Design Guidelines, provide further direction on design and compatible development.  Objective criteria that can be used to evaluate compatibility include: height, bulk or mass, scale relationship, and building/lot relationships, such as the distance or setback from the street, and the distance between buildings. An assessment of the compatibility of new development will involve not only consideration of built form, but also of operational characteristics, such as traffic, access, and parking.  The following is an analysis of the applicable criteria in Section 4.11 of the Official Plan.

 

Transportation and Access

 

An updated traffic impact study will be required through the Site Plan Control process to determine any potential roadway modifications which may be required to support the interim and end state development program.  A traffic study was submitted in support of the previous Site Plan Control applications which proposed over 590 units.  Through the review of the study, staff concluded that the existing network was able to accommodate such a level of development with only minor roadway modifications.  With the reduced level of development, as recommended, it is reasonable to assume that any potential modification will be minimal.  Nonetheless, the traffic impacts of the revised development will be fully assessed through the Site Plan Control process.

 

Parking

 

Required parking for the site will largely be provided underground with minimal surface parking which is only accessible form Baseline Road.  An entrance to the underground garage will be provided along Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue.  Owing to the orientation of the proposed buildings, a limited amount of surface parking will be visible from Baseline Road.

 

Sunlight

 

A sun-shadow study was prepared for the revised submission which modelled the expected shadows to be cast throughout the year.  The proposed shadows are expected to have minimal impacts on the abutting properties.  The revised building heights have reduced the shadowing impacts.

 

Building Profile and Compatibility

 

Integrating taller buildings within an area characterized by a lower built form is an important urban design element when considering an application for intensification. Development proposals will address the issues of compatibility and integration by ensuring that an effective transition in built form is provided between areas with different development profiles.  Transitions in built form will serve to link proposed development with both planned, as well as existing uses, thereby acknowledging the planned function of an area.

 

The community surrounding the site is characterized as a stable low-profile community along Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue and the abutting streets.  The existing built form along Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue consists of two-storey multiple attached dwellings and single-storey detached dwellings.  Multiple attached dwellings are arranged as both street townhouses as found along Morrison Drive, and within clustered developments as found to the east of the site.  Permitted heights within the area range from 8 metres to north, 9.5 metres to the west, and 11 metres to the east.

 

In a response to providing an appropriate transition to create a compatible form of development, the tallest building elements have been located on the southern portion of the site abutting Baseline Road transitioning downward to the north. The overall massing of the program for the site has been significantly revised from the original proposal with a reorganization of the tallest built elements from the centre of the site towards Baseline Road.  The original buildings proposed at the southwest and southeast corner of the site have been reduced from eight (27 metres) and six storeys (21 metres) respectively to five storeys (18 metres).

 

With respect to privacy impacts, the units abutting the surrounding streets are designed to address the street, with private amenity space located within the interior of the site which is thereby effectively screened by the building.  This built form is consistent with dwellings in the area which have their primary amenity space in the rear of their lots, buffered by the dwelling.  The condition along the eastern interior side yard is unique to the site as it abuts the rear-yard of the neighbouring townhouse development, but again as these units are designed with the principle amenity space within the interior of the site, any potential impacts of privacy would be minimal as it is reasonable to expect a patio or porch may be designed into the elevations abutting the streets or eastern property limit.  Such a feature would create a minimal if any undue adverse impact.

 

 

Concurrent Application

 

An application for Site Plan Control (File D07-12-11-0167) is currently on hold as requested by the applicant.

 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no rural implications associated with this report.

 

 

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Details of the consultation can be found in Document 5.

 

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLORS

The Councillor is aware of the staff report.

 

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Should this recommendation be adopted and the resulting by-law be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that such hearing could be conducted within staff resources.

 

 

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications. In the event of an appeal, staff resources would be utilized to defend Council’s decision.

 

ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT

Design considerations will be explored and reviewed during the completion of the Site Plan Control process.

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no environment implications associated with this report.

 

 

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

There are no technology implications associated with this report.

 

 

TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES

The application is consistent with the Planning and Growth Management priority which encourages the infill and intensification of lands designated General Urban Area.

 

 

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  Revised Schedule 247

Document 4  Revised Concept Plan

Document 5  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

Baseline 2781 

 

 



DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                      DOCUMENT 2

 

1.         The subject property as shown on Document 1 is rezoned from R5A[1700] S247 to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h

 

2.         Section 239 - Urban Exceptions will be amended by replacing exception 1700 with a new exception 1700 with provisions similar to the following:

 

Additional Land Uses Permitted

 

bank machine

convenience store

instructional facility

office

personal service business

recreational and athletic facility

restaurant

retail food store

retail store

 

 Provisions

 

- maximum number of dwelling units: 400

- maximum gross floor area: 34 000 m2

- yard setbacks are as per Schedule 247

- maximum building heights as per Schedule 247

- a floor or storey of a building that accommodates amenity space such as a gym and party room but does not include dwelling units may project above the height limit to a maximum of 4.0 metres

- minimum required parking for residential use: 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit

Despite Table 164B Endnote 1 the additional land uses permitted subject to:

i)    the maximum gross leasable floor area for each individual tenancy is 325.15 m2

ii)   the total maximum gross leasable floor area is 1115 m2

iii)  the uses are only permitted on the ground floor of buildings that are consistent with Buildings E and F as shown on the concept plan noted as Schedule 282

iv)  - despite clause 85(3)(a) an outdoor commercial patio is permitted anywhere within the shaded area shown on Schedule 247

 

Holding Provisions

 

Land Uses Prohibited

- all uses until such time as the holding provision is removed, except those uses in place on the date of the enactment of the by-law.


 

Provisions

- a Site Plan for the overall development that reflects the development concept shown on Schedule 282 has been approved and where phased development is proposed, the details for the Phase to be developed has received approval through a formal site plan approval process either as part of the initial site plan for the entire development or through a revised site plan application where each phase reflects a development program that is consistent with and will provide for implementation of the development concept shown on schedule 282. 

 

- details related to all required site accesses have been confirmed and approved by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management for both interim, where phased development is proposed,  and end state conditions.  These details will identify any roadway modifications that may be required as part of the overall development program and for interim/phased developments. 

 

3.         Part 17 - Schedules is amended by:

 

            (a)       replacing Schedule 247 with a new Schedule 247 as shown on                                          Document X

            (b)       adding a new schedule as shown on Document X as Schedule 282.

 

REVSIED SCHEDULE 247                                                                                 DOCUMENT 3

Baseline 2781_schedule
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


REVISED CONCEPT PLAN                                                                             DOCUMENT 4

 

Baseline 2781_schedule2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                             DOCUMENT 5

 

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Upon the deferral of the original City-initiated rezoning, the applicant began consulting with staff and the Ward Councillor with respect to a revised development concept for the site.  During this time, the Councillors office had organized and attended meetings with members of the community regarding the revised development concept it an effort to respond to concerns raised through the recent applications for Site Plan Control. 

 


ZONING - 2781, 2791, 2797 BASELINE ROAD AND
2704, 2706, 2724, 2734 DRAPER AVENUE - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

ZONAGE - 2781, 2791, 2797, CHEMIN BASELINE ET
2704, 2706, 2724, 2734, AVENUE DRAPER -rapport supplÉmentaire

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0125                                        COLLEGE / COLLÈGe (8)

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper Avenue from R5A[1700] S247 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedule 247 Zone) to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedules 247 and 282 Holding Zone) as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Document 1, 3 and 4.

 

The Committee heard from Mr. Simon Deiaco, Planner, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, Planning and Growth Management Department, who spoke to a brief PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) which served to provide an overview of the reports.

 

Chair Hume noted that Councillor Chiarelli had been working with the community and the developer to arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise on this file, and that the Councillor would be introducing a Motion on the matter.  Further noting that Committee was dealing with introducing a unit count with respect to the maximum number of units, the Chair asked Mr. Deiaco for possible options, should the developer return with other than agreed-upon numbers.  Mr. Deiaco explained that the developer could either apply for a variance to deal with changing performance standards, or consult with staff to work on a zoning By-law amendment for the 21,000 square metre property.

 

The Committee then heard from the following delegations:

 

Mr. Art Stothart, an area resident, spoke about his four-year involvement with the project, originally slated for 334 units, which he said the community had originally found acceptable.  He also lauded Councillor Chiarelli for intervening when the developer had tried, and failed, through the Committee of Adjustment, to alter this to 598 units, and to lower the parking variance from 1.2 to 1.0 spaces per unit, which had raised concerns regarding safety and above-ground neighbourhood and visitor parking. 

 

Mr. Stothart did admit, however, that the community had found the developer’s compromise of lowering the original height of the buildings from 12 storeys to four and a half, much more acceptable.  Regarding what the community would accept as a maximum allowable number of units, the speaker suggested 400 as a maximum, and noted that the developer’s request for plus-or-minus three per-cent unit count flexibility (with a range from 387 to 413) would likely result in 413 units being built, as this would represent approximately $4 million in revenue, based on a cost of $300,000 per unit.  He expressed the opinion that it was prudent to properly work out details in advance when dealing with developers.

 

Mr. Deiaco clarified that the By-law currently recommends a required rate of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit, representing 80 spaces for the 400 units proposed.  He also noted that the concept plan currently indicated an over-dedication of 84 spaces. 

 

Messrs. Lloyd Phillips, Planning Consultant, and Rod Lahey, Architect, on behalf of Greatwise Development Corp.  Mr. Phillips said the developer supported the proposed staff recommendations and he thanked Councillor Chiarelli and the community for the work they had undertaken to date.  Mr. Lahey explained that Greatwise was attempting to create an innovative development with larger, well-priced units incorporating a range of types, but that there was a concern as to whether there would be a market for townhouses with larger footprints.  Per the current design, build-out would be at around 400 units, but should the townhouse concept not prove successful, a greater number of traditional one-storey units could be built, increasing the number of units within the same envelope.  Mr. Lahey explained this concern was the reason for the developer’s request for flexibility, as a fallback position.

 

Mr. Phillips added that the proposed zoning would permit limited commercial uses on the ground floor of the buildings facing Baseline Road, and that while the intention was to strike a balance in providing a certain amount of required parking, the overall desire was to create a neighbourhood destination for people to access by walking.


 

 

Councillor Chiarelli then introduced the following Motion:

 

            MOTION NO. PLC 34/1

 

Moved by Councillor Rick Chiarelli:

 

Whereas it is Committee's intention to keep the proposed development to the form and community impact described to residents and Committee prior to approval;

 

And Whereas it is Committee's intention to permit very minor adjustments in order to appropriately address site attributes and requirements, construction eventualities and community concerns;

 

And Whereas it is Committee’s intention to include in the project commercial elements as described in the plan with appropriate parking availability;

 

Therefore Be It Resolved That the residential unit count limit be subject to 3% flexibility (i.e. 400 units + or - 3%; i.e. 388 - 412 units) upon review by Planning staff and subject to the concurrence of the local Councillor;

 

And That any proposed unit count beyond the 3% range of flexibility or within the 3% but which fails to gain concurrence of the Councillor will require a new Hearing;

 

And Be It Further Resolved That parking for any commercial use is required at the rate of 1 space for each 92.9m of gross floor area; and,

 

And That parking for commercial uses is permitted on in Area B on Schedule 247.

 

Speaking to the above, Councillor Chiarelli explained that the community had two primary concerns dating back to 2008; the first had been with the height of the then-proposed project at 12 storeys, with the second being the traffic that it was believed the development would generate, particularly at Baseline and Greenbank Roads.  He added that a great number of meetings attended by all participants had led to revisions and redesigns, the end result of which was the current compromise. 

 

Speaking to the issue of parking, the Councillor explained that allotting 1.2 spaces per unit could raise an expectation in purchasers that they would be given a second parking space.  He pointed out that at 1.0 spaces per unit, it would be clear that no additional spaces would be available, which would help to achieve the goals of reduced vehicular use and the resulting traffic.  As for the three per-cent flexibility, Councillor Chiarelli pointed out that a drop in unit count to below 388 could signal a significant redesign, at which point the community would want to have input.  The request for the Ward Councillor’s concurrence for variances above 400 units would serve to address both the community’s and the Committee’s concerns over a specific unit count which, if exceeded, could require variances on the basis of geology, etc., with the intent being not to require the matter’s return to Committee if a solution could be more easily achieved with the Ward Councillor’s involvement.

 

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Corporate Development and Environmental Law Branch, noted that while unusual, the desired outcome could be achieved by enacting a By-law that would permit 400 units.  If a request were received to add more, a subsequent By-law could be enacted with the Ward Councillor’s concurrence, for between one and 12 units.  Both By-laws would be subject to routine appeal processes.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Harder congratulated Councillor Chiarelli and Messrs. Phillips and Lahey for their efforts in helping to bring the community together.  She expressed that the current proposal was a good use for the five-acre school property, and suggested that this was an example that other school boards could follow for similar surplus lands, in order to both create a good community and as a way of generating income.

 

That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning  of 2781, 2791, 2797 Baseline Road 2704, 2706, 2724 and 2734 Draper Avenue from R5A[1700] S247 (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedule 247 Zone) to R5A[1700] S247, 282-h (Residential Fifth Density Subzone A, Exception 1700, Schedules 247 and 282 Holding Zone) as detailed in Document 2 and shown on Documents 1, 3 and 4, as amended by the following:

 

1.         That the residential unit count limit be subject to 3% flexibility (i.e. 400 units + or - 3%; i.e. 388 - 412 units) upon review by Planning staff and subject to the concurrence of the local Councillor;

 

2.         That any proposed unit count beyond the 3% range of flexibility or within the 3% but which fails to gain concurrence of the Councillor will require a new Hearing;

 

3.         That parking for any commercial use is required at the rate of 1 space for each 92.9m of gross floor area, and;

 

4.         That parking for commercial uses is permitted on in Area B on Schedule 247.

 

The report recommendations, as amended by Motion No. PLC 34/1 were then put to Committee and CARRIED.