1. ZONING - 6151 RENAUD ROAD AND 6255 RENAUD ROAD

ZONAGE – 6151, CHEMIN RENAUD ET 6255, CHEMIN RENAUD

Committee recommendationS

(This matter is not subject to Bill 51)

That Council approve:

1. An amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of parts of 6151 Renaud Road and 6255 Renaud Road from DR Development Reserve to R3YY[x], Residential Third Density, Subzone YY, Exception [x] and Parks and Open Space [O1] as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

2. An amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of part of 6151 Renaud Road from DR Development Reserve to Residential Third Density, Subzone Z, Exception [x1], [x2], and [x3] Zones, R3Z[x1], R3Z[x2] and R3Z[x3] and Parks and Open Space [O1] as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

RecommandationS DU Comité

(Cette question n’est pas assujettie au Règlement 51)

Que le Conseil approuve:

1. une modification au Règlement municipal 2008-250, visant à modifier le zonage de parties du 6151, chemin Renaud et du 6255, chemin Renaud de DR (Zone d'aménagement futur) à R3YY[x] (Zone résidentielle de densité 3, sous-zone YY, assortie d’une exception [x]) et à O1 (Zone de parc et d'espace vert), comme il est indiqué dans le document 1 et expliqué en détail dans le document 2;

2. une modification au Règlement municipal 2008-250, visant à modifier le zonage d’une partie du 6151, chemin Renaud de DR (Zone d'aménagement futur) à R3Z[x1], R3Z[x2] et R3Z[x3] (Zone résidentielle de densité 3, sous-zone Z, assortie d’exceptions [x1], [x2] et [x3]) et à O1 (Zone de parc et d'espace vert), comme il est indiqué dans le document 1 et expliqué en détail dans le document 2.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 17 March 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0052).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 13 April 2010.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

17 March 2010/le 17 mars 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 : Michael Wildman, Manager/Gestionnaire,

Development Review-Suburban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services suburbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 27811 Mike.Wildman@ottawa.ca

Innes (2)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0052

SUBJECT:	zoning - 6151 renaud road (file no. D02-02-03-0072) and 6255 Renaud Road (File no. d02-02-03-0073)

OBJET :	zonage – 6151, chemin renaud et 6255, chemin renaud

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver :

BACKGROUND

The subject property is bounded to the north generally by the Hydro Corridor, to the south by Navan Road/Renaud Road, to the west by residential development and by vacant development land to the east. This site is the western portion of the future TrailsEdge Subdivision.

The subject land is characterized as an undeveloped area. The western portion, under the ownership of Richcraft, encompasses approximately 6.45 hectares with approximately 20 metres frontage along Page Road, 37 metres along Navan Road and 31 metres of broken frontage along Renaud Road. The second portion immediately located to the east and owned by Minto, encompasses an area of approximately 14.3 hectares with 20 metres frontage along Renaud Road. Primary access to the site will be provided from Page Road and Renaud Road with a number of local roads to be created to provide access to individual lots. A future access to Navan Road will be provided once the intersection of Navan, Page and Renaud Roads is reconfigured.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The applicants are proposing to amend the Zoning By-law to implement residential zones which will permit detached and multiple attached dwellings. The new zoning would conform to the lot and road pattern outlined in the Draft Plans of Subdivision filed by Richcraft approved on April 29, 2009 and Minto approved January 13, 2010.

The Richcraft proposal consists of 64 lots for detached dwellings and three blocks for 36 multiple attached dwellings. The plan also proposes 11 partial lots for detached dwellings and one partial block for 22 multiple attached dwellings. These partial lots and blocks will be subject to an inhibiting order through the subdivision which will delay development on these lands until such time as they are consolidated with the appropriate lot and block on lands to the east currently owned by Minto. The Minto portion consists of 10 blocks for multiple attached dwellings and one for detached dwellings.

The subdivisions also include lands to be dedicated to the City for the Transitway Corridor, Blackburn Hamlet Bypass, stormwater management pond 1, walkways and streets.

Existing Zoning

The Zoning By-law zones the lands DR (Development Reserve), which recognizes lands intended for future urban development in areas designated as General Urban Area.

Proposed Zoning

The purpose of the Zoning By-law amendment is to permit the construction of detached dwellings and multiple attached dwellings in accordance with the Draft Plans of Subdivision. The proposed zoning amends development requirements in relation to front and rear yard setbacks in order to ensure the adequate provision for trees in the front yard and a reduction in the corner side yard setback.

DISCUSSION

The Official Plan designates the area as Developing Community and General Urban Area. The Developing Community designation identifies parts of the city that are underdeveloped or substantially underdeveloped and are intended to offer a full range of housing choice, commercial, institutional and leisure activities with a development pattern which places priority on walking, cycling and transit over automobiles. In this regard, the East Urban Community Design Plan (CDP) identifies lands for medium-low density residential development. The CDP also requires an Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study for the subject lands.

The General Urban Area designation permits a full range of types and densities of housing to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances, including low, medium and high density housing and seniors’ apartments, in combination with well located employment, shopping, service, cultural, leisure, park, natural areas and institutional uses to facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities. The proposed detached and multiple attached dwellings are residential uses permitted within this designation.

The Development Reserve Zone of the Zoning By-law recognizes that the subject lands are intended for future development. The proposed subdivision is adjacent to established residential development along Page Road and will form part of a larger community as the lands to the east are developed. The street layout services the proposed development and provides for the logical expansion into abutting lands for future development.

The proposed zoning for these subdivisions conforms to the proposed development as shown on the draft plans of subdivision. The zoning makes use of the existing Residential Third Density zone within the Zoning By-law, indicating that the general form of development has been previously contemplated and considered appropriate. Modifications are proposed to amend specific front and rear yard setbacks and to decrease corner side yard setbacks for a portion of the subdivision as it relates to detached, linked detached, semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings. These modifications are appropriate to the form and function of the development and should not raise concerns with respect to the impact on abutting properties.

The increase in front yard setback will permit the planting of street trees with an adequate setback, given the presence of sensitive marine clay on the site. The normal separation distance between a tree and structure is 7.5 metres, with an additional 1.5-metre separation distance required from the curb. Given the 16.5-metre road width of one of the proposed streets, it is not possible to plant a street tree which meets the setback constraints. In discussion with Forestry staff, in order to accommodate trees without increasing the required front yard setback and thereby reducing the rear yard setback, root barriers will be utilized. These barriers, once installed between the building and tree root, are intended to direct the roots away from building foundations and will decrease the required separation distance to a building to 5.0 metres. The site specific setback requirements reflect the minimum front yard and resulting rear yard required in order to accommodate this situation. These setbacks continue to provide adequate amenity area in the rear yard.

The reduction in the corner side yard setback has been used in other areas of the city and is appropriate for urban development. A reduction does not impact on the daylighting triangle or the functioning of the intersection. The reduction creates a street environment as envisioned by the CDP by bringing the house and porch closer to the property line.

The zoning proposed on the partial blocks and lots correspond across the property lines. Inhibiting orders will be placed on their development until such time as the partial lots are merged to form developable lots.

The lands to be conveyed from the Owner to the City through the subdivision agreement for stormwater management and Transitway purposes will be zoned Parks and Open Space, [O1]. This continues the zoning of lands for similar uses to the west. These lands are located to the north of the proposed residential development.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

This area has been identified in the East Urban Community Design Plan as an area requiring an Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. To this end, the following is a condition of both draft plans of subdivision that will be required to be satisfied prior to the registration of the Subdivision Agreements:

The Owner agrees to prepare and implement an "Integrated Environmental Review Statement" as set out in the Official Plan prior to registration demonstrating how all the studies in support of the application influence the design of the development with respect to the effects on the environment.

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 any public comments related to this application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

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

In accordance with the City Strategic Plan, this development respects the existing urban fabric and the infrastructure required for the growth is available or will be available to serve the development.

TECHNICAL 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 the concurrent review of the subdivision application.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning

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 Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.

Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-laws to City Council.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2

A. Zoning By-law 2008-250

1. The zoning map of the Comprehensive City of Ottawa Zoning By-law will be amended by changing the zoning for the subject properties from Development Reserve (DR) to R3YY[x], R3Z[x1], R3Z[x2], R3Z[x3] and O1 as shown on Document 1.

2. A new exception will be added to Section 239-Urban Exceptions, and the following special provision will apply to land zoned R3YY[x]:

Despite Table 160A:

i) minimum corner side yard setback for detached, linked detached, semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings 3 metres

3. A new exception will be added to Section 239-Urban Exceptions, and the following special provision will apply to land zoned R3Z[x1]:

Despite Table 160A:

i) minimum front yard setback 5.25 metres

ii) minimum rear yard setback 6 metres

4. A new exception will be added to Section 239-Urban Exceptions, and the following special provision will apply to land zoned R3Z[x2]:

Despite Table 160A:

i) minimum front yard setback 4.5 metres

ii) minimum rear yard setback 5.5 metres

5. A new exception will be added to Section 239-Urban Exceptions, and the following special provision will apply to land zoned R3Z[x3]:

Despite Table 160A:

i) minimum front yard setback 6.9 metres

ii) minimum rear yard setback 6 metres

It is requested that two separate by-laws be prepared: One for the zone amendments from DR to R3Z[x1], R3Z[x2] and R3Z[x3] and a second by-law for the amendments from DR to R3YY[x] and O1.

ZONING - 6151 RENAUD ROAD AND 6255 RENAUD ROAD

ZONAGE – 6151, CHEMIN RENAUD ET 6255, CHEMIN RENAUD

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0052 innes (2)

(This matter is not subject to Bill 51)

An e-mail dated 8 April 2010 was received from Derek Grant with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor Doucet expressed concerns about the environmental implications of the tree planting associated with this application and asked for a staff presentation focusing on that aspect.

Wendy Tse, Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the application, a copy of which is held on file. She was accompanied by Karin Smadella, Program Manager, Development Review Process (Suburban East.) In response to Councillor Doucet’s concerns, Ms. Tse remarked that the area in question contains sensitive marine clay, and given the development requirements for servicing and the setback requirements, it is not possible in some cases to plant a tree. She advised that, in discussion with the developer and with Forestry Services, staff approved the use of root barriers in some cases to allow for trees to be planted in the front yard, adding that the requested Zoning amendments reflect this.

Councillor Doucet commented that problems can arise when developments are approved that do not meet normal City requirements and residents sign on for their own services, such as snow removal or garbage disposal, when subsequent owners realizes they must pay taxes for services not received in that area. He suggested this practice created a separate standard for those who build houses in areas that conform to normal zoning requirements and those who do not. With respect to this specific application, the Councillor expressed particular concern that there would be no shade trees on the street, suggesting this could lead to future complaints against the City.

Ms. Smadella indicated that, as City standard roadway cross sections are being used throughout the subdivision, there would be no impact in terms of snow removal or garbage collection. With respect to front yard setbacks, she noted that even with the 7.5-metre setback, only four small species of trees were permitted due to the sensitive marine clays. .

Mike Wildman, Manager, Suburban Development Review added that existing Council policies restricted the types of trees allowed, particularly where marine clays are present. Acknowledging that there have been some issues in this regard, he indicated staff would be undertaking a review of the types of trees and mitigation measures, which could see a reintroduction of better trees to address concerns such those raised by Councillor Doucet.

Councillor Doucet expressed his concern with streets lacking significant trees, noting his definition of a significant tree was one that stands four to five storeys high and provides shade. Mr. Wildman clarified that staff is reviewing the Council policy that calls for those types of trees to be used and they hope to make recommendations to enforce an even greater tree presence.

The Councillor reiterated his concern with approving this particular zoning application, given the treescape it would have. Ms. Tse indicated that without changes to the front yard setback, in some cases they would not accommodate any trees at all. With the use of root barriers, some accommodation can be made from the list of approved trees. Mr. Wildman emphasized that staff is limited by the policy in this instance.

Nathalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants, spoke on behalf of Minto. She was accompanied by Doug Smeathers of Minto Communities. She explained that Minto also wants street trees and fully supports staff’s efforts to review the Council policy. She noted that in the Minto section of the subject property, six-metre front yard setbacks are being proposed, noting that most urban settings range from three to six metres. This setback means that if staff comes up with a solution to allow larger street trees in the future, the setbacks will be sufficient to accommodate them. She suggested the zoning was safe, as it could accommodate larger trees later, and was sensitive to the marine clay issue. She further noted the staff-approved Draft Plan of Subdivision.

In response to further question from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Wildman confirmed that the problem in this case was the clay in the soil. He explained that Council approved the policy as a result of concerns raised in one particular area where the soils were extremely bad, and it was thought the policy would provide measures to mitigate moisture depletion in the soils. He added the existing policy took a very safe and conservative approach, and staff feels further investigation is warranted and could allow for greater flexibility with regards to tree planting.

Councillor Holmes suggested that, since there would be basements in the new development, there could be excavation of the yard sufficient to put in a large tree and appropriate soil. Ms. Smadella suggested that this would not necessarily eliminate the moisture depletion concerns caused by a tree, and was not certain how much excavation would be required and its associated cost.

Councillor Holmes pointed out that residents who have clay soils are instructed they have to water their surrounding trees in a drought. She questioned whether that requirement could be written into the purchase agreements for the homes in question, in order to solve the problem. Mr. Wildman confirmed such a statement could potentially form part of the purchase agreements and could form part of the deeds in future, but he reiterated that staff is subject to the current Council policy. Mr. Smeathers added that Minto would provide a homeowner’s package that addressed the issue. In response to further questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Smeathers confirmed there would be trees both on the right-of-way and on private property. The Councillor suggested the City would have some liability unless the aforementioned conditions were written on the deed or in the legal agreement.

Responding to Councillor Doucet’s previous questions, Mr. Smeathers stated that, while Ottawa historically has 250 feet of Leda clay, this area has sensitive marine clay. He noted these sites are the most difficult to develop, and they are the only sites left for development within the urban boundary. He indicated that the local society of landscape architects had been consulted and had provided recommendations on what could be planted safely in sensitive marine clays, and reiterated that the issue was being revisited by staff. With respect to the difference between Leda clay and sensitive marine clay, he expressed his understanding that it was a matter of bearing pressure.

Lisa Dalla Rosa, Richcraft, indicated that Richcraft had also been working with staff on the issue, adding they had designed the plan around the Council policy. She suggested that the front yards would need to be 10 to 11 metres long to accommodate large shade trees, adding that it would be difficult to achieve density targets with lot depths of that magnitude, given the requirement for a three-metre back yard. She suggested what was proposed plan represented what was possible at the present time. She assured Committee the developer wanted trees, but at the same time wanted to avoid creating future problems with roots. She noted the root barriers were being put in, at a cost to the developers, in order to ensure every lot will have a tree, noting the Community Design Plan calls for two trees per lot. She explained that Richcraft also distributes pamphlets that explain the type of trees permitted, but it does not advise that watering is necessary in drought periods.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Dalla Rosa explained that the policy requires a 7.5-metre setback from a tree root to a house foundation in areas with sensitive marine clay; therefore, if the houses were permitted to be closer to the street, they would not be far enough away from the street tree.

Ms. Hughes added large trees have very large root structures, which affect the entire soil area under it; in sensitive clay soils, those roots deplete the water and this can cause uneven settlement. Providing a minimum six-metre front yard ensures that, even with a small tree in front, the house remains protected from any effects of the tree roots. Mr. Smeethers commented that during droughts, tree root systems are under stress and seek out water sources, such as the weeping tile, which impacts the house foundations.

Councillor Doucet noted that, barring periods of drought, the roots should actually stabilize the soil. He felt the policy was too risk-averse and suggested conditions have not warranted it to date. He noted that, while the permitted trees (Amber Maple, Serviceberry, Japanese Lilac and Flowering Crab) were attractive, they do not grow tall enough to provide shade.

Councillor Bloess, the Ward Councillor, suggested this was a straightforward application, noting the plan of subdivision had been in the works for 15 years, and the application followed Council’s direction in terms of achieving the densities required by the Official Plan. He pointed out that staff is challenged by trying to put together plans that will provide intensification in these particular developments. He went on to explain that the site is abutted by over 30 acres of maple wood lot, acquired from the developers after considerable negotiations, with a 30-metre buffer along the creek, and two storm water ponds that will be re-landscaped. He agreed it was reasonable to be concerned about the impact of trees on front lawns, especially given previous problems the City had faced in this regard, but felt there had been adequate consideration of the issue in this case. He suggested there had been too much focus on the species of trees permitted, when Committee should be looking at the bigger picture of what the whole plan tries to achieve. He added that if the City did not wish to achieve the intensification and wanted to stay within the urban boundary, it would mean creating much bigger lots.

The committee approved the report recommendation as presented

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

3. An amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of parts of 6151 Renaud Road and 6255 Renaud Road from DR Development Reserve to R3YY[x], Residential Third Density, Subzone YY, Exception [x] and Parks and Open Space [O1] as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

4. An amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of part of 6151 Renaud Road from DR Development Reserve to Residential Third Density, Subzone Z, Exception [x1], [x2], and [x3] Zones, R3Z[x1], R3Z[x2] and R3Z[x3] and Parks and Open Space [O1] as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

CARRIED