|
3. ZONING - 3358 AND 3362 CARLING AVENUE ZONAGE - 3358
et 3362, promenade carling |
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 3358
and 3362 Carling Avenue shown on Document 1 from Residential First Density
Subzone, R1FF to Residential Second Density Subzone, R2L[****],
as detailed in Document 2.
Recommandation DU Comité
(Cette
question est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que
le Conseil approuve une modification au
Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 3358
et 3362, avenue Carling, indiqués dans le Document 1, de sous-zone
résidentielle de densité 1 (R1FF) à sous-zone résidentielle de densité 2 (R2L[****]),
comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 4 January 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0017).
2.
Extract of Draft Minutes, 9 February 2010.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme
et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
15
January 2010 / le 15 janvier 2010
Submitted by/Soumis
par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manage/
Directrice
municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services
d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services
urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866
John.Smit@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
ZONING
- 3358 and 3362 Carling avenue (FILE NO. D02-02-09-0072) |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the
Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue
shown on Document 1 from Residential First Density Subzone, R1FF to Residential
Second Density Subzone, R2L[****], as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au
Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de
changer la désignation de zonage des 3358 et 3362, avenue Carling, indiqués
dans le Document 1, de sous-zone résidentielle de densité 1 (R1FF) à sous-zone
résidentielle de densité 2 (R2L[****]), comme il est expliqué en détail dans le
Document 2.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located just east of the intersection of Carling Avenue and Bedale Drive on the south side of Carling Avenue as shown on Document 1. The subject property has a frontage of 48.81 metres along Carling Avenue and an area of 2200 square metres. There is an existing single detached dwelling and detached garage on the site. The site is located at the edge of the community along an arterial road that divides the residential area to the south from the public space (Dick Bell Park) to the north. A local commercial zone is located to the immediate west at the corner of Carling Avenue and Bedale Drive.
Details
of Requested Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal:
Purpose of Zoning Amendment
The purpose of the application is to permit a site-specific change in zoning to permit the development of a 10-unit planned unit development (PUD) on the subject lands. The existing structures on the site would be removed and replaced with five semi-detached buildings as shown on Document 3.
The subject property is currently zoned “Residential First Density Subzone” R1FF. The R1FF subzone permits uses such as a detached dwelling, group home and retirement home, converted. Semi-detached dwellings and PUDs are not permitted in the R1FF Zone. The R1FF Zone currently has a maximum permitted height of 9.5 metres and a minimum rear-yard setback of 7.5 metres.
The application proposes a site-specific amendment to have a “Residential Second Density Subzone” R2L apply to the property. Within the R2L subzone semi-detached dwellings are permitted however a PUD is not. The intent of the application would be to allow this form of development that exists nearby to the west along Carling Avenue by way of an exception to the proposed R2L zone. The introduction of a PUD as a permitted land use on this site is compatible with the abutting “Local Commercial” LC[1511] Zone which does permit a PUD.
The application also proposes site-specific performance standards to the PUD as conceptually shown on Document 3. The recommendation proposes a reduced front yard setback from Carling Avenue of 4.0 metres whereas the R2L subzone requires 4.5 metres. The recommendation also proposes to establish an increased minimum rear-yard setback beyond the current R2L and R1FF standards of 7.5 metres to 8.0 metres. As well, the recommendation proposes a prohibition on the projection of balconies into the rear-yard. Staff support an increased minimum rear-yard setback of 8.0 metres and projection restriction which were revisions agreed upon by the applicant from the initial proposal in an effort to mitigate any potential impacts.
Modifications to the performance standards applicable to all PUDs are also proposed due to the configuration of the proposal. There recommendations related to the minimum setback of a building and garage from a private way.
The application is not requesting an increase in permitted height of 9.5 meters. Should the zoning amendment be approved the applicant proposes to construct five semi-detached dwellings within the PUD. The development of a PUD would be subject to Site Plan Control and additional public consultation.
DISCUSSION
Official Plan
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 semi-detached dwellings within a PUD that provides a variety of housing forms for various incomes and life cycles is considered appropriate, consistent with and implements the policies of the Official Plan for General Urban Areas regarding intensification and supports the City-wide intensification target for urban areas as per the Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa 2006-2031.
Compatibility Considerations
Compatible development means development that, although is 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. The physical context fits well and works well among those functions that surround it. Development can be designed to fit and work well in a certain context without being “the same as” existing development.
The existing dwellings along Carling Avenue between Crystal Beach Drive and Winthrop Park are oriented towards the street and include both single and semi-detached dwellings with attached and detached garages. There are both single and looping private approaches servicing the various dwellings. The area has seen examples of intensification and redevelopment on existing parcels with a similar multi-dwelling project to the west and new/renovated homes along Carling Avenue. Further to the east along Carling Avenue there are townhome and apartment building developments. The subject property is located at the edge of the community fronting onto an arterial road across the street from a major open space area and abutting a local commercial zone to the immediate west. This context allows the subject property to support a moderate amount of intensification as it is distanced from the interior of the community thereby limiting any potential adverse impacts on the character and quality of the area.
To assist in ensuring compatibility, the Official Plan in Section 2.5.1, sets out broad design objectives and principles to be applied when evaluating an application for intensification and infill development. The design objectives and principles speak to a number of considerations directed to achieving compatibility in form and function between new developments and an established area while allowing for flexibility and variety that is complementary.
Design objectives speak to understanding and respecting the natural features on-site through the integration of existing vegetation. The proposed development of the site will retain significant mature trees along the southern limit of the site in an effort to create natural screening for the project and to protect well-established vegetation. Increased minimum rear-yard set backs will also provide room for the continued growth of these features along with additional plantings. This provides an opportunity for screening and buffering so as to provide for an appropriate integration of the proposed development that differs in form and function to co-exist with the predominantly lower intensity developments fronting onto Stillwater Drive.
Design objectives also speak to considering adaptability and diversity of a place over time by creating places that are characterized by variety and choice. The implementing principles include achieving a more compact urban form over time and accommodating the needs of a range of people of different incomes and lifestyles at various stages in the life cycle. Semi‑detached dwellings are building forms found in the area in both grouped and individual building forms. The further development of semi-detached dwellings within a PUD would further implement this principle as an established compatible land use.
The design objective of ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas is implemented by allowing the built form to compliment the massing patterns, rhythm, character and context. In this regard, the proposed height is consistent with the maximum permitted height in both the R1FF and R2L subzones. The massing of the buildings are designed to be central to the site with recommended performance standards that are complimentary with rear-yard and side-yard setbacks in the area. The reduced front-yard setback will not significantly disrupt the profile of the street and will continue to allow for a positive relationship with the building to the street. The rhythm of the built form along Carling Avenue is continued whereas previously a large portion of the interior side-yard was vacant and served only as a driveway and storage area. A physical separation between the two most northern buildings by the private approach creates an appropriate break in the front façade along the site thereby not overwhelming the site with a continuous built mass. The residential context of the neighbourhood is continued as the proposed development implements both design elements such as flat roofs and front-yard porches and building forms currently found in the community.
In addition to Section 2.5.1, the Official Plan requires that applications for development be assessed relative to the criteria set out in Section 4.11 which deal with compatibility considerations. While Section 2.5.1 is focused more on design and context matters to provide for ensuring compatibility, the criteria set out in Section 4.11 are more traditional planning considerations dealing with matters such as traffic, parking, and built form relationships. The Official Plan further clarifies that the criteria may not apply and/or may be evaluated and weighted on the basis of site circumstances.
Many of the issues raised by the community are focused on those matters addressed by Section 4.11. The following discussion highlights how the subject application responds to these criteria so as to ensure that the proposed development will not result in any undue adverse impacts and that it will co-exist with surrounding developments and uses.
Traffic
Traffic generated from the site is expected to be minimal as the proposed development is considered a low traffic generator as it relates to its impact on peak flows. Carling Avenue is appropriately sized to accommodate traffic to and from the site. Public transit and sidewalks are also located along Carling Avenue. One private vehicular access to the site will be provided from Carling Avenue. As a result, the proposed development is not expected to have any traffic impact on local residential streets.
Parking Requirements
The proposed development concept as shown on Document 3 is proposing four visitor parking spaces whereas the by-law requires zero. The provision of visitor parking spaces may reduce any potential for spill over parking into the surrounding area.
Building Massing and Height / Pattern of the Surrounding Community
The proposed height of the new buildings will comply with the maximum height currently permitted within the R1FF and R2L subzones, and will be less than the permitted height of 12.5 metres within the abutting LC[1511] zone. The mass on the site will be inherently larger due to the form of development, however the yard requirements have been increased in an effort to mitigate the potential impact and allow space for landscaping. The rooflines of the proposed buildings is consistent with the surrounding area which both includes low profile and flat roofs. As well, the design has also proposed front-yard balconies that are commonly found in the dwellings along Carling Avenue.
The orientation of the Planned Unit Development with an internal courtyard setting will allow for an improved built form along Carling Avenue as the site will have only one private approach and no additional garage doors or front-yard parking facing Carling Avenue. Currently along the immediate area of Carling Avenue there are significant paved areas due to commercial activities and looping driveways serving single detached dwellings and business that does not allow for soft landscaping elements. The three buildings at the rear of the site abutting the dwellings on Stillwater Drive will be aligned backyard to backyard, which is consistent with the building placement and lotting pattern of the area.
Outdoor Amenity Areas
The privacy of abutting residences has been respected through revisions to the design by increasing the minimum rear-yard setback from 7.5 to 8.0 metres along with including a prohibition of the projection of balconies into the rear-yard as originally proposed. The applicant has also committed to constructing a new privacy fence through the Site Plan Control process. Outdoor amenity space for the units abutting existing dwellings will be at grade, thereby shielded by landscaping and the fence.
Lighting
Any potential for lighting spill over onto abutting properties will be appropriately designed and implemented through the Site Plan Control process.
Noise and Air Quality
Staff is satisfied that the above criteria to be considered when evaluating compatibility have been achieved. The implementing Zoning By-law will establish the performance requirements with respect to height and yard setbacks to allow for a building that implements the Official Plan design objectives and compatibility criteria. The future application for Site Plan Control will establish appropriate landscaping and screening to mitigate any potential impacts.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in
accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Nine letters and one petition were received in opposition to
the proposal, along with one letter of support.
A summary of the concerns raised along with a staff response is found in
Document 4 of the report.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and
the staff recommendation.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The proposed recommendation supports the Planning and Growth Management objective of respect the existing urban fabric and form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities. The recommendation proposes performance standards that are compatible with the surrounding area to create a positive built form along Carling Avenue. The recommendation also supports the objective of becoming a leader in urban design through the Planned Unit Development form of residential development and by the meeting the housing needs of residents with an additional choice of dwelling unit.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to additional time requried to allow for revisions to the proposed development.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Concept Plan
Document 4 Consultation Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT
1
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed
Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
That the property known municipally as 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue be rezoned from “Residential First Density, Subzone FF” R1FF to a “Residential Second Density, Subzone L” R2L[****] exception zone.
The exception will set out provisions similar in effect to the following:
Column
III - Additional Land Uses Permitted
· PUD
Column V - Provisions
· Balconies, uncovered porches must not project into the required and/or provided rear yard
· Minimum rear-yard setback: 8.0 metres
· Minimum front-yard setback: 4.0 metres
· Despite Table 131, the minimum setback for any wall of a residential use building to a private way: 0.0m
· Minimum setback for any garage or carport: 0.0 metres
CONCEPT PLAN DOCUMENT
3
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
4
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. Nine letters and one petition were received in opposition to the development. One letter was received in support on the proposal.
1. Concerns were raised with respect to the loss of privacy due to the height of the proposed buildings and the second storey balconies facing Stillwater Drive.
Response:
The proposed
height of the buildings do not conflict with performance standard of either the
existing R1FF subzone or parent R2L subzone that both allow a maximum height of
9.5 metres. The application has not requested an increase in the maximum
permitted height. To address potential impacts on abutting properties, the applicant
has revised the application to establish an increased minimum rear-yard setback
of 8.0 metres. As well, the applicant
has removed the proposed balconies on the second storey rear three buildings. The implementing by-law will also prohibit
the projection of a balcony into a required or provided rear-yard whereas this
is currently a permitted projection.
2. Concerns were raised with respect to the impact on property values in the area.
Response:
Staff have
received no information to either support or refute this concern.
3. Concerns were raised with respect to an increase in traffic and noise resulting from the development.
Response:
The proposed
development is required to provide 10 parking spaces for the dwelling
units. Each unit has the ability to park
two vehicles within the individual garages, as well there are four visitor
parking spaces provided whereas the by-law requires zero. With respect to noise, the buildings abutting
the dwellings on Stillwater Drive are oriented backyard to backyard which is
consistent with the existing building and lotting fabric. Due to the placement
of the garages in an internal courtyard setting, the buildings themselves will
provide a buffer from any potential noise.
4. Concerns were raised with respect to the precedent this development would set within the community.
Response:
Each development
application is evaluated on its own merit in concert with the applicable
provincial and municipal land use planning policies and plans in place at that
time. The application is proposing a
site-specific amendment to which the proposed performance standards and uses
would apply. The site-specific
amendment, if approved, would not apply to any other properties.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
The Councillor is aware of the application. As well, the Councillor organized and attended a public meeting on September 14, 2009 at the Maki House. Staff was not present at the meeting.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBCLA)
A letter in opposition, along with a petition was submitted on behalf of the Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBCLA). Concerns raised in the letter related to the height of the proposed development, privacy impacts from the proposed rear second storey balconies, air movement and quality, and impacts on the future Carling Avenue right-of-way. The CBCLA proposed that the development be revised to permit only six units versus 10.
Response to Comments:
With respect to height, as noted above the proposal is not requesting to increase the maximum permitted height within both the current R1FF and R2L subzone of 9.5 metres. To reduce any potential impacts related to the proposed development the application has proposed a flat-roof style of architecture which is consistent with the lower profile rooflines of the area, as well an increased minimum rear-yard setback to 8.0 metres. Lastly, the implementing by-law will prohibit the projection of balconies into the rear-yard. The positioning and the separation of the individual buildings on site does not create a continuous built form across the site thereby allowing for light and air movement. The applicant has been advised of the CBCLA’s request to revise the proposal to six units versus 10. Their preference is to proceed with the proposal as submitted.