Report to/Rapport
au :
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et
de l'environnement
24 September 2010/le 24 septembre 2010
Submitted by/Soumis
par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, Services
d'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom,
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: |
SITE
PLAN CONTROL - 71 HOpewell Avenue (FILE NO. D07-12-10-0011) |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning and Environment Committee approve,
on the basis of zoning conformity, the Site Plan Control application for 71
Hopewell Avenue as shown on the following plans:
1. "Site Plan, A-200, 71 Hopewell Avenue" prepared by Douglas Hardie Architect Inc., dated January 11, 2010;
2.
"Front and Rear Elevation, A-201, 71 Hopewell
Avenue" prepared by Douglas Hardie Architect Inc., dated April 28, 2010;
and
3.
"Side Elevation, A-202, 71 Hopewell Avenue"
prepared by Douglas Hardie Architect Inc., dated April 28, 2010.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement approuve, en fonction de la conformité au
zonage, la demande de réglementation du plan d’implantation pour le
71, avenue Hopewell, comme indiqué sur les plans suivants :
1.
« Plan d’implantation, A-200,
71, avenue Hopewell » préparé par Douglas Hardie Architect Inc., en date
du 11 janvier 2010;
2.
« Élévations avant et arrière,
A-201, 71, avenue Hopewell » préparé par Douglas Hardie Architect Inc.,
en date du 28 avril 2010;
3.
« Élévation latérale, A-202,
71, avenue Hopewell » préparé par Douglas Hardie Architect Inc., en date du 28
avril 2010.
BACKGROUND
The subject property, 71Hopewell Avenue, is located on the north side of Hopewell Avenue, on the block between Leonard and Grosvenor Avenues.
The subject site is 465.12 square metres in
area, with frontage on Hopewell Avenue of 15.24 metres, and a depth of
30.54 metres. The site is currently occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling.
The subject site is zoned R3Q [1475], a
residential third density zone that permits a multiple-attached building with a
permitted building height of 11 metres. Exception 1475 prohibits Planned Unit
Developments and includes a minimum front yard setback of 1.5 metres and a
maximum front yard setback of 3.0 metres.
The immediate area is predominantly residential with a variety of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The building located to the west at 73/75 Hopewell Avenue is a three-storey semi-detached red brick building and the building located to the east at 67 Hopewell Avenue is a two-storey single-detached building. Parking in the immediate area is mainly accommodated through driveways leading to parking in the side or rear yards. Front porches and dominant front entrances are common features of Hopewell Avenue. The site is in proximity to a school, place of worship, and a variety of commercial, retail and personal services businesses along Bank Street.
The purpose of the application is to facilitate
the demolition of the existing detached dwelling to be replaced with a new
three-unit multiple attached dwelling (townhouse). The proposed building would
be three storeys with a total gross floor area of 809.6 square metres. Each
unit would have a garage providing parking for one vehicle with driveways
accessing Hopewell Avenue.
DISCUSSION
The proposed three-unit multiple attached dwelling is a permitted land use in the R3Q subzone of Zoning By-law 2008-250. The required minimum lot width is 4.5 metres and the minimum lot area is 110 square metres. The minimum rear yard setback requirement is 7.5 metres, front yard setbacks is a minimum of 1.5 metres and a maximum of 3.0 metres. Side yard setback requirement is 1.2 metres and the maximum height limit in the R3Q subzone is 11 metres, which is generally three-storeys. The proposed three-unit multiple attached dwelling conforms to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2008-250.
The Zoning By-law is one applicable policy document during the review of applications for Site Plan Control. However, it is not the only tool to determine whether a proposed development is appropriate. Section 41(4) of the Planning Act as amended through Bill 51 now permits municipalities to consider through the Site Plan Control process matters relating to exterior design, including without limitation the character, scale, appearance and design features of buildings, and their sustainable design.
Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan speaks to Compatibility and Community Design. Although compatible design is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings in the vicinity, it must fit and work well in its existing context. The more a development can incorporate the common characteristics of its setting in its design, the more compatible it will be.
Section 4.11 of
the Official Plan addresses Compatibility in reference to the review of Development
Applications. At the scale of neighbourhoods or individual properties, issues
such as noise, spillover of light, accommodation of parking and access,
shadowing, and micro-climatic conditions are prominent considerations when
assessing the relationships between new and existing development. Often, to
arrive at compatibility of scale and use will demand a careful design response,
one that appropriately addresses the impact generated by infill or
intensification. Consequently, the issue of ‘context’ is a dominant theme of
this Plan where it speaks to compatibility and design. 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.
Section 1.2 of the Official Plan includes Design Objectives, including ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas, and Complementing the massing patterns, rhythm, character, and context of existing areas. The Official Plan states the City will use its available tools to pursue community design that achieves the Design Objectives and Principles including Development Application Review. Council has also approved Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing and these Guidelines are applied through the review of Site Plan Control Applications. Relevant Guidelines to the subject proposal are included below:
Section 2.0 Public Streetscape
2.2: Provide
a streetscape that is inviting, safe, and accessible, emphasizing the ground
floor and street façade of the buildings with principal entries, windows,
porches, balconies and key internal uses at street level.
2.3 Landscape
the front yard to blend with surrounding front yards’ landscaping patterns. The
landscaping should complement and enhance the continuity of uses along the
street and create a significant green presence.
Section 3.0 Building Design (Built Form)
3.1.1: Ensure
new development faces and animates the street
3.3.2: Allow
the front door (the public entrance) to dominate the front façade as opposed to
the garage being dominant. The use of quality materials and an eye-catching
entrance is preferable over recessed and shadowed entrances.
3.3.7: Create
building faces that are detailed with inviting entrances and living spaces
close to the ground that offer ‘eyes on the street’ and contribute to the
amenity of the public realm.
3.3.9: Provide primary building entrances that are inviting and visible
from the street by:
- Adding architectural elements such as
porches which promote street-oriented interaction
- Keeping the front doors prominent and
match the pattern of the doors on the street and/or by placing doors close
to grade to minimize exterior stairs for accessibility and ease of
year-round maintenance.
Section 4.0 Parking and Garages
If a house presents only a garage door as its primary face on the
public street, the result is a loss of a quality environment for the neighbourhood.
A pedestrian’s enjoyment of these city spaces diminishes if the pattern of
blank garage faces repeats itself down the length of a city street. A garage
should not dominate any façade facing a street.
4.2: Make
driveway locations and car storage as discrete as possible to allow for greater
amounts of landscaped open space.
4.5: In
order to maximize the area of green front yards and emphasize the dwelling
façade, where possible provide driveways to detached rear garages or parking
areas. Consider the use of permeable pavers for all or portions of the
driveway.
4.6: Share driveways where
feasible.
4.7 If
access to a garage is at the front, limit the garage width to occupy no more
than 50 per cent of the width of the lot to preserve soft landscaped areas for
the environmental value, streetscape aesthetic and space for snow storage.
The proposed development accommodates the required parking through garages at the front of the building. However, this is not traditionally how parking has been accommodated in the neighbourhood, nor does it meet the intent of the Urban Design Guidelines outlined above. By providing parking through garages, the ability to provide principle entries and windows at the ground floor level is eliminated as well as the ability to landscape and animate the front yard.
The applicant has had discussions with staff regarding an alternative design that would accommodate three units, but would locate parking in the rear yard accessed from a carriage-way feature in the centre of the building. This shared access would allow for greater living space at the front of the building on the ground floor, increase the prominence of the landscaped space, and allow for the entrances to all three units to be located on the front of the building, providing for greater opportunity of interaction with the surrounding community. By replacing the garage at the front of the building with living space and locating parking in the rear yard, it is possible to increase the rear yard setback of the building, which results in closer compliance with the following two Urban Design Guidelines:
3.1.9: Locate
rear elevations and rear yards in line with their context so that rear yard
amenity space is generally consistent with the pattern of the neighbours.
3.1.10: Respect
the privacy of outdoor amenity areas of adjacent residences and minimize any
undesirable impacts through the siting and design of buildings and through the
use of screening, lighting, landscaping and other mitigative design measures.
Conclusion
The Department feels that the best way to ensure that proposed infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood context is to provide parking in the rear of the property accessed through a shared driveway, prominent front entrances, and increased soft landscaping in the front yard. Following discussions with staff, the Councillor and the community, the applicant has not revised their original submission to accommodate an alternative parking solution.
Rejection of this site plan proposal was considered because the proposed design has garages directly accessing onto Hopewell Avenue, which is a built form not compatible with its context. As such, the proposal does not meet the intent of Sections 4.11 and 2.5.1 of the Official Plan or the Council Approved Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. However, the Department also notes that the proposal is in complete conformity with the Zoning By-law and has received legal opinion that the as-of-right permission as conferred by the Zoning By-law would ultimately carry more weight than the Design Guidelines before the Ontario Municipal Board.
As such, the Department is submitting the site plan for approval and recognizes that revisions to the Zoning By-law that are being contemplated as part of the implementation of OPA 76, are being specifically directed to include the revision of provisions regulating the location of parking and garages with the goal of ensuring that compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines can be more readily achieved, and that significant detractions therefrom will require a planning rationale instead of being permissible as-of-right.
The above mentioned revisions to the Zoning By-law and the Urban Design Guidelines were submitted in an information report to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of September 28, 2010, in report number ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0185, entitled, “Status of Urban Infill Development: Design Guidelines and Zoning By-law.”
CONSULTATION
Notice of this applicaton was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Concerns expressed through public consultation include the proposed front garages, lack of ground level front doors, front porches, street facing windows at ground level and greenspace in the front yard. Further concerns were expressed regarding the proposed scale of the building, rear yard setback, drainage, snow removal, facilities for storing garbage and privacy of adjacent neighbours from proposed second and third storey balconies. Finally there were concerns regarding the demolition of the existing building.
Detailed responses to the notification/circulation are provided in Document 6.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
The Ward Councillor is not in support of the site plan as proposed.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
It is noted that only an applicant may refer a site plan application to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Should site plan approval not be granted and the matter referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is expected that a one to two day hearing result. An outside planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $15,000 to $20,000.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The proposed development and site plan control application does not align with F2 of the City Strategic Plan because it does not respect the existing urban fabric and neighbourhood form so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Site Plan Control applications.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 3 – Front and Rear Elevations
Document 4 – Side Elevations
Document 5 – Photos of Context surrounding 71 Hopewell Avenue
Document 6 - Consultation Details
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management to notify the owner, applicant, architect, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, and all interested parties of Planning and Environment Committee’s decision.
LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT
1
SITE PLAN DOCUMENT
2
FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT
3
SIDE ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 4
Photos of Context Surrounding 71 Hopewell DOCUMENT 5
Photo of 71 Hopewell Avenue, May 27th, 2010,
9:00 am.
Photo of 61 Hopewell Avenue, May 27th, 2010,
9:00 am
Photo of 78 Hopewell Avenue, May 27th, 2010,
9:00am
Photo of 62 Hopewell Avenue, May 27th, 2010,
9:00 am
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 6
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 Site Plan amendments. One public meeting was also held in the community.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A public meeting was organized through the Councillor’s office and held in the community April 19, 2010. At the meeting there was discussion regarding an alternative concept to the original proposal, and presentation of both the original and alternative design from the applicant. The alternative proposal included a carriage-way or shared driveway and parking in the rear, which allowed for prominent front doors and windows at grade level and increased landscaping in the front yard. Staff, the Councillor, and the applicant were in attendance.
The public meeting included a detailed discussion regarding the proposed use, and design. There were questions to the applicant, staff and Councillor and the meeting concluded with an informal vote on whether the original or alternative proposal were better supported by those in attendance. The vast majority of those in attendance from the public concluded that the alternative proposal with parking accommodated in the rear was a better and more compatible design response.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
Numerous comments were received from the public and local community association as a result of the circulation. A summary of the comments and responses are included below.
- Garages proposed at the front of the building dominate the building. Ground level front doors, windows and front porches are common features of the area, what provide eyes on the street, and what gives the overall neighbourhood its character and charm. Not including these features in new development is not compatible. There is a lack of greenspace in the front yard.
The Department shares this concern and
concurs that the garage front design is not compatible with the area or in
keeping with the intent of the Urban Design Guidelines. While new development
does not necessarily have to mimic existing buildings, design that encourages
interaction at the street level and includes greenspace in the front yard is
desirable.
- The immediate area consists of single-detached and semi-detached dwellings and so a townhome is not compatible.
The Department agrees that the area consists
of mainly single and semi-detached dwellings, however multiple-attached
dwellings are a permitted land use in the area. The Official Plan has a number
of policies regarding intensification that are supported through the provision
of a multiple-attached dwelling. The issue with the proposal is design based,
not the proposed number of units.
- Scale of the building is greater than existing buildings in the area and so the proposal is not compatible.
The Department feels that while the scale is
greater than existing building in the area, it can be designed to be compatible
through integration of common features such as ground floor porches. Articulation
of building elevations through a variety of building materials can help to
mitigate differences in scale and ensure compatibility.
- Rear yard setback is not consistent with neighbours
The Department feels that by introducing living space at the front of
the ground floor and relocating parking to the rear yard, the building can be
shifted forwards to increase the rear yard setback to be more in keeping with
adjacent neighbours.
- Concern with drainage and grading.
Drainage and grading are reviewed through site plan to ensure that
there are no impacts on adjacent properties.
- Concern that there is little room for snow storage with the front yard mainly paved with hard surface.
The Department agrees with the comment. Although the alternative design
creates greater hard surface area, it is possible to create multiple areas for
snow storage. If snow cannot be stored on-site, the owners would be required to
remove it off-site.
- Concern with lack of location to store waste and green bins.
Waste would have to be stored on-site.
- 71 Hopewell should be preserved.
71 Hopewell is not a designated heritage
property and there is no legislation that would prohibit its demolition, if an
appropriate replacement building was proposed.
- Privacy issues for second and third storey balconies.
The Department suggests that second and third storey balconies could be relocated to the front elevation to mitigate privacy concerns of rear yard neighbours.
APRIL 19, 2010 - PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
Discussion at the public meeting surrounded the merits and issues with both the original and alternative proposed design for the multiple-attached dwelling. Although there was a general consensus that the alternative design was preferable, concerns were also expressed regarding hard surface versus landscaping space in the rear yard, increased height of the alternative proposal and privacy concerns regarding placement of second and third storey balconies at the rear.
Staff Response
Staff supports an alternative design to garages located at the front, however detailed drawings have not been submitted in this respect to allow for a thorough examination of issues. It is recognized that there are alternative paving materials to asphalt that can increase permeability in the rear yard space used for parking. A review of proposed landscaping, fencing and rear elevations would be completed, however revised plans were not submitted and the Departmental recommendation is based on the original plans submitted.
PETITION
A petition was received by staff April 29, 2010. The petition indicated as follows: “We, the residents of Old Ottawa South, petition to the City of Ottawa to ensure that property developers adhere to the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. We petition the City to ensure that our public streetscapes are preserved and that building design is harmonious with existing homes. We are concerned by an increasing number of infill building projects in our neighbourhoods in which builders are not complying with the City’s urban design standards.”
403 people signed the above petition as it was provided to staff.
COMMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLIC MEETING
Comments were received following the public meeting supporting the alternative design over the original proposal. Comments recognized that the alternative design would provide street-front entrance at each unit, several ground floor windows and more potential for front yard green space.
Comments were received as well indicating concerns that the alternative design would eliminate green space in the rear yard and negatively impact rear yard neighbours.
Staff Response
The Department recognizes that rear yard parking may result in increased hard surface at the rear. Alternatives to hard surface such as pavers and turfblock as well as buffering through fencing and landscaping would help to mitigate any impact from parking in the rear yard. The Department feels that the impacts of parking in the rear yard can be better mitigated than should it be provided in the front yard, which directly impacts the streetscape.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Circulation of the site plan control application resulted in the following comment:
OSWATCH, the Planning and Design Committee of the Old Ottawa South Community Association (OSCA) is opposed to this development as proposed. The design is clearly contrary to the City of Ottawa's Design Guidelines. The frontage is dominated by garage doors, with no windows at ground level and only one unit having a front door on to the street. It deadens the street and is unsympathetic to its neighbours.
The public meeting of April 19, 2010 resulted in the following comment:
OSWATCH is the planning and development committee of the Old Ottawa South Community Association, OSCA. We support infill development in our community; we think it is beneficial when it is done in a way that respects the scale and character of the existing homes. We expressed our opposition to the site plan for the proposed three unit development at 71 Hopewell based on the fact that with garages occupying most of the first floor frontage, the proposed three units clearly contravened the City’s own infill guidelines. Not only were garages prominent, but there was only one front door visible from the street. It was destructive to the streetscape of this porch lined street.
At the meeting called on April 19 by Councillor Doucet for neighbors of the proposed development there was clear opposition to the garage fronted design. The design proposed by staff, with a carriage way and rear yard parking was a better, more attractive design. With a façade composed of doors and windows and front and rear yard more in-line with neighboring houses this is a better proposal. While many details remain to be worked out we support City staff in pressing for this option. In response to this development at its last Board meeting the OSCA Board unanimously passed a resolution that “OSCA supports alternatives to garage fronted infill design”. The developer in this project needs to be challenged by the City to find a way to make a sympathetic and attractive design fit this site’s existing zoning.
Staff Response
The Department agrees with both the preliminary and revised comments from OSWATCH.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Comment from Ottawa Built
Heritage Advisory Committee
After reviewing the site plan for 71 Hopewell Avenue, which proposes to replace the existing detached dwelling (a two-storey, 1890s wooden-clapboard clad dwelling that is congruous with its neighbours from a heritage streetscape perspective) with a three-storey, three-unit multiple attached dwelling with three single-garage bays (composing virtually the entirety of the ground level facade) and driveways fronting on Hopewell Avenue, OBHAC strongly recommends that any proposed new development for 71 Hopewell conform more adequately with the City of Ottawa's 'Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Infill Housing Update 2009'.
The 'Guidelines' direct that:
"Buildings define the edges and
richness of a public space. If a house presents only a garage door as its
primary face on the public street, the result is a loss of a quality
environment for the neighbourhood. A pedestrian’s enjoyment of these city
spaces diminishes if the pattern of blank garage faces repeats itself down the
length of a city street. A garage should not dominate any façade facing a
street, public space or other residential dwelling."
Based on a visual survey, this entire block of Hopewell Avenue is composed mainly of dwellings with traditional front porches, with just three structures having garages (all of which are single-bayed, offset to the side, and subservient to the massing and proportions of the main facades). The demolition of the existing dwelling at 71 Hopewell (which is compatible with the existing streetscape) for replacement by a new structure dominated by garage bays along the ground-level of the facade and driveways giving onto Hopewell would set a negative precedent for infill development along this block of Hopewell Avenue.
OBHAC recommends that the proposed site plan be rejected and that any future proposed development for the site be compatible with the 'Guidelines' direction cited above.
Staff Response
The Department agrees with comments from OBHAC but finds itself constrained by the as-of-right zoning permission to develop the site as proposed, and therefore recommends that changes to relevant Zoning provisions be expedited to ensure that such significant detractions from the Urban Design Guidelines as those evidenced in this proposal are no longer achievable as-of-right.