6. ZONING – 934 AND 938 HUNT CLUB ROAD

ZONAGE – 934 ET 938, CHEMIN HUNT CLUB

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 934 and 938 Hunt Club Road, as shown in Document 1, from Residential First Density Subzone [R1MM] to Residential Fourth Density Subzone [R4V] with exceptions as detailed in Document 2.

RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250, visant à changer le zonage du 834 et du 938, chemin Hunt Club, comme le montre le document 1, de sous-zone résidentielle de densité 1 [R1MM] à sous-zone résidentielle de densité 4 [R4V] dotée d’exceptions, comme l’explique le document 2.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 23 December 2010 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0004).

2. Planning Committee Extract of Draft Minutes of 11 January 2011.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme

and Council / et au Conseil

23 December 2010 / le 23 décembre 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 : Derrick Moodie, Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services, Outer Core/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Unité du Centre extérieur

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 15134 Derrick.Moodie@ottawa.ca

River (16)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0004

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 934 and 938 Hunt Club Road (FILE NO. D02-02-10-0066)

OBJET :	ZONAGE - 934 et 938, chemin hunt club

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 934 and 938 Hunt Club Road, as shown in Document 1, from Residential First Density Subzone [R1MM] to Residential Fourth Density Subzone [R4V] with exceptions as detailed in Document 2.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250, visant à changer le zonage du 834 et du 938, chemin Hunt Club, comme le montre le document 1, de sous-zone résidentielle de densité 1 [R1MM] à sous-zone résidentielle de densité 4 [R4V] dotée d’exceptions, comme l’explique le document 2.

BACKGROUND

The site (934 and 938 Hunt Club Road) is located on the south side of Hunt Club Road, and just east of the intersection of Downpatrick Road. The vacant site has an area of 1861square metres with a frontage of 34.3 metres on Hunt Club Road and a lot depth of 54.6 metres. To the west of this site are townhouse units facing Downpatrick Road. To the north, across Hunt Club Road, are townhouse units facing McCarthy Road and the rear of single detached homes fronting onto Pattermead Crescent. The Hunt Club Road–Downpatrick Road intersection has townhouse projects located at all four corners of the intersection. To the east of the site along Hunt Club Road are four large single detached dwellings on large lots followed by a retirement home. To the south of the site, located adjacent to the rear lot line, are semi-detached residential units fronting onto Wyman Crescent.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The application has been submitted to facilitate the development of a new three-storey, 20-unit apartment building with 20 surface parking spaces. The land to which the proposed zoning amendment applies is also the subject of an application for Site Plan Control (file number D07-12-10-0180). The application for Site Plan Control seeks approval for the design of the proposed apartment building with its associated parking, landscaping, site servicing and lot grading.

Existing Zoning

The site is currently zoned R1MM - Residential First Density. This zone allows a variety of uses including detached dwellings, a bed and breakfast with up to three bedrooms, and a maximum of 10 residents in a group home or in a converted retirement home. A converted dwelling to rooming house is also permitted with a maximum of seven rooming units or a maximum of one dwelling unit and six rooming units.

Proposed Zoning

The application for Zoning By-law Amendment requests that the site be rezoned from a R1MM - Residential First Density Zone to an R4V - Residential Fourth Density Exception Zone. Included in the application is a request for reduction in the required parking from 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit to 0.7 spaces per dwelling unit. Relief from the Zoning By-law was originally requested for a refuse collection area contained within a parking lot which must be located at least three metres from a lot line that does not abut a public street. A 1.5-metre setback was proposed instead of the required 3.0 metres. On October 4, 2010, the applicant amended his application and indicated that an alternative location for a refuse collection area has been found and that its new location is in compliance with the Zoning By-law.

DISCUSSION

Official Plan

The Strategic Directions Section of the Official Plan advocates creating liveable communities by providing a full range and choice of housing types. The Strategic Directions also call for intensifying within existing development areas to accommodate the City’s projected population growth. Within the Greenbelt, it is expected that at least 40 per cent of new housing development will be in the form of townhouses or apartments.

The Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area. Lands with this designation are to contain a full range of housing types and tenures to meet the needs of the population, along with conveniently located commercial uses. The policies for the General Urban Area indicate that when considering a proposal for residential intensification, it is important to recognize the new development in relation to the existing built form and planned function for areas and to consider its contribution to the maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles throughout the General Urban Area.

The introduction of a low-rise apartment building use along an arterial road within an area that currently 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.

Compatibility Considerations

Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan recognizes that introducing new development in existing areas requires a sensitive approach and a respect for a community’s established characteristics. Allowing for some flexibility and variation that complements the character of existing communities is central to successful intensification. Section 2.5.1 further recognizes that compatible development does not necessarily mean the same or similar to existing development, but that compatible development can be achieved that enhances an established community and co-exists without causing undue adverse impact. The design objectives and criteria set out in Section 2.5.1 make reference to Annex 3, which while not part of the Plan, sets out a number of design considerations that support providing for development that fits and works well. Objective 4.0 is aimed at new development respecting the character of existing areas and encourages design to integrate new development to complement and enliven the surroundings and complement the massing patterns, rhythm, character and context.

Staff have reviewed the proposal in the context of the design objectives and principles set out in Section 2.5.1 and are satisfied that the proposal does fit and work well in its urban context. The proposed building is a relatively modest apartment building in terms of building height and massing. The style, material and elements of the proposed building are architecturally pleasing with articulated edges to reduce the visual impact related to mass. The three-storey building provides a compatible intensified form of development on the edge of an existing residential neighbourhood without any appreciable adverse impacts to the existing community. Extensive setbacks and landscape buffering is to be provided.

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 Plan further clarifies that the criteria may not apply and/or may be evaluated and weighed 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 within surrounding development and uses.

Traffic

The Traffic/Parking Brief submitted with this application concluded that the parking supply in this area is ample to accommodate the proposed development. Traffic generated from the site is expected to be minimal as a 20-unit apartment building with 20 surface parking spaces is considered a low traffic generator as it relates to its impact on peak flows.

Staff have reviewed the Traffic/Parking Brief and agree with its conclusions. Hunt Club Road is appropriately sized to accommodate traffic to and from the site. Public transit and sidewalks are also located along Hunt Club Road. Visitors will have easy access to the four parking spaces. As such the proposed development is not expected to have any traffic or parking impact on local residential streets.

Vehicular Access

The vehicular access point is located away from the adjacent townhouse units to the west of the site and away from the Downpatrick Road signalized intersection. The driveway, while located on the east side of the site, has an adequate setback from the eastern property line.

Parking Requirements

Included in the application is a request for reduction in the required parking from 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit to 0.7 spaces per dwelling unit. Although a reduction in parking standards is requested for the rental apartment units, a total of 20 surface parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the site. Included in the total parking are four visitor parking spaces and two spaces for the building manager office which meets the requirement of the Zoning By-law. The parking reduction is appropriate in this instance as the opportunity for walking, cycling and proximity to the South Keys transit station makes his site a good candidate for reduced parking standards. There is also very good bus service along Hunt Club Road with transit stops in proximity of the subject site.

Building Massing and Height / Pattern of the Surrounding Community

The proposed height of the new building will be no greater that the maximum height (11 metres) currently permitted within the surrounding neighbourhood. The massing of the building will be inherently larger due to the use however the rear yard requirements have been increased in an effort to mitigate the mass and allow for ample room for landscaping. As well, to mitigate this impact the design proposes to incorporate building materials such as brick, stone and stucco which are commonly found in the area.

Outdoor Amenity Areas

The design of this project respects the privacy of adjacent outdoor amenity areas. Some trees are to be protected and additional landscaping is to be provided to mitigate the impact on adjacent outdoor amenity areas.

Staff is satisfied that the above criteria to be considered when evaluating compatibility have been achieved. The Zoning By-law will establish the performance requirements with respect to parking, height and yard setbacks to allow for a building that implements the Official Plan design objectives and compatibility criteria. The application for Site Plan Control will establish and secure appropriate and safe access to the site and application of landscaping and screening to mitigate any potential impacts.

Hunt Club Secondary Plan

The subject property is located within an area designated Residential – Low Density within the Hunt Club Secondary Plan. This designation is intended to accommodate low profile residential uses. Related and complimentary accessory uses are also permitted. The proposed three-storey, 20-unit apartment building is to be accommodated within a low profile built form, consistent with the heights of buildings in the area and is therefore considered a related residential use that is to be in keeping with the land use designation.

Concurrent Application

An application for Site Plan Control (file D07-12-07-0194) has been submitted and reviewed concurrently with the above application. The Site Plan (see Document 3) proposes a logical and orderly development of the subject lands. The Site Plan Control application consists of detailed site development, landscaping, building design, engineering and servicing information.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

A Phase I Environmental Site Analysis and a Noise Impact Assessment report have been submitted in conjunction with the related Site Plan Control application. The conclusions of both reports indicate that there are no issues with the proposed development.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.

Numerous comments have been received from the public. The issues can be summarized as follows: building height, density, shadowing, traffic, parking reduction, refuse collection area, and tenure. Details of the notification and consultation process are highlighted in Document 5.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLORS

Councillor Maria McRae (River Ward 16) is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. Councillor McRae asked that a Traffic and Parking Study be submitted for review.

Councillor Diane Deans (Gloucester/Southgate Ward 10) of the neighbouring ward located immediately to the south of the subject site has provided the following comment:

"At the time of this report being published, I am consulting with the community on the re-zoning and site plan application. I will be asking to have this item removed from the Planning Committee Agenda on January 11th, 2011 should there be unresolved issues at that time."

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

If this matter is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is estimated that a three day hearing would be required. If the application is refused, reasons must be provided. In the event of a refusal, outside witnesses would need to be retained. The estimated cost for a planner would be $15,000 to $20,000. Were transportation reasons also identified as a basis for the refusal, a transportation witness would be required at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The recommended re-zoning is in keeping with the City Strategic Plan for priority of a Sustainable, Healthy and Active City.

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

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 Zoning By-law amendments due to workload volumes and scheduling of Committee meetings.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3 Site Plan

Document 4 Building Elevation

Document 5 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 By-law 2008-250

The properties known municipally as 934-938 Hunt Club Road shown on Document 1 will be rezoned from R1MM to R4V [XXX].

A new exception, R4V [XXX], will be added to Section 239 – Urban Exceptions and will include the following:

1. Despite Section 101 and Table 101(b)(ii), the minimum required number of parking spaces is 0.7 per dwelling unit.

SITE PLAN DOCUMENT 3

BUILDING ELEVATION DOCUMENT 4

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 5

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.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Twenty-four letters were received in opposition to the application from individual homeowners. A summary of the issues brought forward is outlined below along with a staff response.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT

1. Traffic

Concerns were raised with respect to an increase in traffic on Hunt Club Road and in the area as a result of the proposed development.

Response:

A traffic/parking study was prepared in support of the application. The study identifies that the proposed development would be a very low traffic generator as it relates to its impact on peak flows. No traffic concerns or issues were identified by the study. Staff have reviewed the study and concur with the conclusions of the report.

2. Parking

Concerns were raised with respect to overflow parking from the site spilling into the residential area to the south and the need for a parking study to be completed. Area residents believe that the requested change from 1.2 parking spaces required per dwelling unit to 0.7 parking spaces per dwelling unit is not realistic.

Response:

A traffic/parking study was prepared in support of the application. The study identifies that the proposed development is well served by conveniently located OC Tranpo bus stops and a convergence of many bus routes providing frequent access to the South Keys Transitway Station. The study also indicates that the anticipated occupation of the proposed development by seniors also supports the requested relief from the City’s Zoning By-law parking standard. Seniors typically exhibit lower auto ownership, and therefore, lower parking demand. This characteristic is reflected in the lower parking standards typically applied in the city and other parts of Ontario to housing geared to seniors.

The proposed parking supply will be sufficient given the characteristics of the site location, especially its proximity to a rapid transit station and the related convergence of many bus routes, and the anticipated low automobile ownership of its future tenants.

Staff have reviewed the study and concur with the conclusions of the report. In addition, although a reduction in parking standards is requested for the rental apartment units, a total of 20 surface parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the site. Included in the total parking are four visitor parking spaces and two spaces for the building manager office which meets the requirement of the Zoning By-law.

3. Natural Environment

Concerns were raised with respect to the preservation of mature vegetation on the site.

Response:

A tree conservation and landscape plan was prepared in support of the Site Plan Control application. Species that were considered as invasive and undesirable were recommended for removal. All existing vegetation is to be removed except a Black Walnut tree. New trees and shrubs will be planted along the periphery of the property. The details and implementation of tree removal and landscaping will be dealt with through the Site Plan Control process.

4. Noise

Concerns were raised with respect to an increase in noise from the site due to an increase in activities and vehicular movement at the property.

Response:

With respect to the increase in noise from tenant vehicular movement and parking on the subject site, staff is confident that the opaque fences and the substantial new landscaping proposed on the subject site will reduce the noise impact. The new building will also help reduce the traffic noise levels from Hunt Club Road.

5. Impacts to Property Values

Response:

Staff have received no data or evidence to support a potential impact to property values.

6. Shadowing

Concerns were raised with the shadows that the proposed building will create in relation to the surrounding rear yards.

Response:

The building is proposed to have a maximum height of 11.0 metres which is equal to the maximum permitted height of a detached dwelling in the existing R1MM Zone. The proposed building setbacks are also within the R1MM Zone requirements. The surrounding properties are presently impacted by the shadowing of the trees existing on the subject property. Staff is satisfied that the shadow impact on adjoining rear yards will be minimal.

8. Density

Concerns were raised that the proposal is too dense for the site and inconsistent with the densities in the surrounding area.

Response:

It is recognized that based on the proposed use, the building footprint and population will be larger than the surrounding dwellings. However, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law does not provide specific numerical values or criteria to consider the appropriate amount of density on a particular site. Concerns with respect to density are better evaluated through the examination of potential impacts such as traffic, parking, noise and shadowing and the performance standards proposed for the site such as height, parking requirements and yard setbacks. These issues have been discussed above individually in the report.

9. Garbage

Concerns were raised as to the proposed location of garbage storage (refuse collection area) being near residential at 1.5 metres away from a rear yard.

Response:

The applicant originally asked for relief from the Zoning By-law requirement that a refuse collection area contained within a parking lot must be located at least three metres from a lot line that does not abut a public street. A 1.5m setback was proposed, but the applicant has since amended the application to exclude this relief. The applicant is now proposing a garbage room within the proposed building.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

Hunt Club Community Organization (HCCO)

The Hunt Club Community Organization has provided the following comment: “HCCO is opposed to the rezoning of 834 and 838 Hunt Club Road from a R1MM - Residential First Density Zone to a R4V - Residential Fourth Density Exception Zone and the construction of a 20 unit apartment building on the site. This opposition is based on traffic problems on Hunt Club Road, on street parking problems and non-compatibility with neighbours. The HCCO is also opposed to the reduction in parking spaces from 1.2 spaces per unit to 0.7 spaces if the lot is rezoned R4V as this would add to the problems. The HCCO questions the reduction of the distance that the refuse collection area would be from the lot line.”

Response: As indicated above in the Summary of Public Input section, the applicant is now proposing a garbage room within the proposed building. Also, a traffic/parking study was prepared in support of the application. The study identifies that the proposed development would be a very low traffic generator as it relates to its impact on peak flows. No traffic concerns or issues were identified by the study.

6. ZONING - 934 AND 938 HUNT CLUB ROAD
ZONAGE - 934 ET 938, CHEMIN HUNT CLUB

ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0004 RIVER/RIVIÈRE (16)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

Committee received the following written submissions with respect to this item, which are held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 2 January 2011 from Rob Green and Kim Doupagne

· Letter and petition dated 9 January 2011 from Sean Najmi, on behalf of 19 neighbours in opposition to the proposal.

Denis Charron, Planner, provided an overview of the re-zoning application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. A copy of the staff PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Following the staff presentation, Committee heard from the following public delegations:

Michael Nihmey, resident of McCarthy Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning by-law amendment. He raised the following points:

· He noted that 20 homes were replacing two, which is significant intensification

· He expressed concern that those 20 homes would result in traffic at various times of the day, exacerbating existing traffic concerns on surrounding roads.

· He explained that he and others in the community had tried since 1997 to get action from City Council that would reduce traffic volumes on the streets in the area, but suggested any possible solutions were nixed by council.

· He expressed concerns with respect to noise and air pollution caused by the proposed development.

· Expressed concerns with traffic and parking. He noted that on-street parking is necessary for surrounding residents of garden homes without garages, suggesting it also inhibits traffic. However, he noted his car had been hit.

· He noted that the Ward Councillor, Councillor McRae, was the Chair of the Environment Committee. He suggested she should start by doing something about this major problem in her own ward, namely the problem of McCarthy Road between Hunt Club Road and the shopping centre.

In conclusion, he asked Committee to reject the proposed rezoning, as it would exacerbate major problems in the neighbourhood.

In response to questions from Councillor McRae, Derrick Moodie, Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services, provided the following additional information: He explained that a traffic study is not required for a development of this size, which is under 75 unit; the applicant did, however, provide a traffic brief and that brief did not identify any traffic impacts for McCarthy Road. With respect to the impacts on Hunt Club Road, he stated that the development was projected to generate about 11 trips during the peak hour in the morning and about 20 trips during the peak hour in the afternoon, which equated to approximately 0.0005 per cent of the total volume on Hunt Club Road. He noted that the traffic into the development would be right in, right out only.

Councillor Deans noted that residents had raised the issue of the plethora of U-turns taking place at this intersection, and the possibility that they would further increase with this new development. Arun Singh, Program Manager or Infrastructure Approvals, indicated that the traffic brief did not reference the number of U-turns; however, he expected that the number of U-turns would be marginal given the expected traffic generation of the new development.

Robert Green, Resident of 3448 Wyman Crescent, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He raised the following concerns:

· He expressed concern that the property is not to be residential, and questioned how this would respect the character of the area.

· He expressed concern with the setbacks and lack of landscape buffering, and the potential for vehicle headlights impacting his home.

· He objected to having the parking in the rear of the development, suggesting it would be better at the front or underground such as at the nearby Windsor Park Manor.

· He expressed concerns about safety and the potential for crime in the rear of the development.

· He was concerned about potential noise and the impact on his home, noting ti would be very expensive to soundproof.

· He wondered if the tenants of the proposed development would be eligible to lease out their parking spaces, which he objected to.

· He emphasized that, notwithstanding the Official Plan (OP) provisions to have parking in the rear, he felt the parking and associated noise should be on the Hunt Club side, as should the service elements such as fire hydrants.

· He objected to having air conditioning units on the east side units, rather than on the north side.

· He was also concerned about the potential for storm sewers to drain uncontrollably to the South, where his home was located.

In response to follow-up questions from Councillor Deans, Mr. Moodie suggested the delegation had raised some valid concerns that would be addressed during the Site Plan process, such as storm water, landscaping and the screening of the parking area adjacent to existing homes. He also confirmed that the drainage plan calls for drainage towards Hunt Club road rather than to the rear of the property, and should therefore not affect the properties on Wyman Crescent.

Councillor McRae pointed out that is was still possible for Committee to approve the zoning and still have the community’s concerns dealt with through Site Plan.

Sean Najmi, resident of 3446 Wyman Crescent, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. The following is a summary of the points raised in his presentation:

· He expressed concern with the impacts of the significant increase in density of the site, and associated increase in cars and traffic.

· He objected to the traffic brief provided by the applicant, as it was not the full traffic study that the community had asked for.

· He noted that, as an engineer, he had never seen a study that entirely favours one side of a situation, and this brief completely favoured the applicant’s position.

· He further objected to the fact that the traffic brief was based on the assumption that the development was being marketed to seniors, but there was no requirement that this would be the case.

· He also took issue with the compatibility considerations. He noted that the OP requires a sensitive approach to new development in existing areas, and suggested this development did not respect or complement the established characteristics of the community.

· He was concerned about the impacts on fresh air, sunlight and increased noise and pollution, and the potential negative impact on the neighbours.

· He argued that the drastic change proposed for the site would affect the safety of traffic along Hunt Club Road and its neighbouring communities. He disagreed with the staff assessment that the development would not have traffic or parking impacts on local residential streets.

· He emphasized that the community was already experiencing significant traffic and parking issues, and this development would exacerbate it.

· He objected to the lack of notice, stating that the public notice had been sent out on 30 December, suggesting this put residents at an unfair disadvantage. He suggested there would have been more residents in attendance had they been given more notice.

· He noted that, at a meeting organized by Councillor Deans the previous evening, there had been 20-25 residents present, including seven seniors.

· He stated that the seniors at the public meeting had indicated the proposed development was not of the type of housing conducive to seniors, as it would not have underground parking. He reiterated, therefore, that it was misleading to be basing the traffic brief on a senior’s development in order to confirm the sufficiency of proposed parking supply.

· He expressed concern that no shadow studies had been required for the development.

· In conclusion, he urged Committee to pay more consideration to the OP, which calls for a sensitive approach to new development in existing areas.

In response to questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Moodie confirmed that staff would have approved the development even if the developer had not provided a traffic brief or study.

Councillor Deans raised the issue of cumulative impact of smaller developments on traffic in the area. She noted that, while smaller developments such as this did not require traffic studies, they were not taking into consideration the incremental impacts on the whole area, and wondered how that issue was to be addressed. Mr. Moodie indicated that, as part of its OP Review and Transportation Master Plan processes, various studies are done to look at the bigger picture traffic issues. He noted that for developments of this size, staff has standards they apply to get an idea of the trips that would be generated by a proposal. In this case, the development would have a very slight incremental impact on Hunt Club Road, including the section immediately adjacent to the site.

Kim Doupagne, resident of 3448 Wyman Crescent, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She asked Committee to reconsider the size of the development, as it was too large and would have a negative impact on her. She raised the following points of concern:

· She suggested that the proposed setbacks and additional landscaping buffers would not be adequate to reduce noise to her property. She noted she could not afford to install soundproofing to mitigate this.

· She maintained that the efforts to preserve established backyards were not adequate.

· She expressed concern with potential noise from cars, snowplows and other service vehicles at the entrance to the proposed development, and from the parking lot adjacent to her backyard. She pointed to the nearby retirement home as a better example of respectful development, with underground parking and access from the front where noise and traffic already exists.

· She expressed concerns with potential flooding given the subject lands are sloped downwards at the back.

· She predicted that property lights and vehicle headlights would be a disturbance.

· She expressed concern with service elements that would be noisy and visually unappealing.

· She expressed concern with security of the parking lot, and the potential for break-ins, loitering and other crime behind her property.

In conclusion, she asked the Committee to reject the rezoning application.

In response to questions from Councillor Hubley with respect to her noise concerns, Ms. Doupagne suggested that the activity associated with 20 units would add to the existing noise on her property.

Jerry Beausoleil, resident of Waxwing Drive and member of the board of the Hunt Club Community, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. He noted that they had discussed the proposal the previous evening and were recommending the Committee reject the rezoning and the proposal to reduce the parking requirement from 1.2 to 0.7. He circulated written comments to all members. He raised the following specific concerns:

· He noted that Hunt Club Road represents an essential transportation corridor through the community, and a number of initiatives over the year had impacted that corridor.

· He argued that the proposed re-zoning would have a negative safety and transportation impact on the community.

· He expressed concern that this approval, and approval of other developments proposed for the area, would exacerbate existing problems in the area.

· He expressed that the community was not opposed to intensification or economic development in the area, citing a number of proposals that had gone ahead in recent years, as long as the traffic is addressed properly

· He cited the example of the installation of a traffic signal at the TNT supermarket development at Hunt Club Road and Riverside Drive as an example of poor traffic impact. The resulting daily backup on those major roads has seen people cutting through the residential community.

· He expressed that the community is opposed to decisions that would exacerbate traffic problems on Hunt Club Road.

· and continuing that approach would create chaos and erode the purpose of Hunt Club Road as an arterial.

· He highlighted the importance of Hunt Club Road as a transportation corridor in the Transportation Master Plan, whose principal function is to serve travel between points, not access the directly from the road itself. He noted the road is used as a truck route and has a major transit component, with 10-15 different buses along the corridor every day. .

· He referenced the safety concerns associated with U turns. He expressed concern that the proposed Site Plan does not provide for vehicles to turn around within the parking.

· He echoed the concerns of previous delegations with respect to the traffic brief and the fact that it is based on the site being seniors residence even though there will be no requirement for that.

· He suggested there was a conflict between the Transportation Master Plan policy to encourage arterial roads and the City’s intensification policy. Although he indicated that they were in support of both policies, in this case they were conflicting.

Councillor Monette wondered how much consultation had been done by the community association in coming to their decision on this proposal. Mr. Beausoleil indicated that each of the members of the association had spoken to a number of people through their personal networks, which he suggested would be more than 50 people. In response to further questions from the Councillor, he indicated that the community association was always involve in local development issues, and they had supported the Windsor Park Seniors residence, and the nearby church. As to why they had supported those projects and not this one, Mr. Beausoleil indicated that this development, by the nature of its use, would have more ebb and flow of cars and traffic.

Councillor McRae inquired as to why the delegation did not believe the traffic brief and the City’s professional staff with respect to the impact of the development. Mr. Beausoleil indicated one concern with the brief was that it only supported one side, the developers. The other concern is the cumulative impact on the transportation corridor of developments going into the area, including potentially the site next door, which is for sale.

Councillor McRae, while she appreciated these concerns, emphasized that in this case they were dealing with a particular application, and noted that the applicant had the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) due to the delay in dealing with the application.

In response to questions from Councillor Hobbs with respect to the reduction in parking spaces, Mr. Beausoleil noted that the proposal called for only 20 spots, 14 of which would be for the units and the rest for the management office and visitors. He suggested this was inadequate. He also challenged the justification of the proposal being close to South Keys, indicating that their own measurements showed it to be 1.2 kilometres to reach it.

Peggy Warren, resident of Wyman Place, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She raised the following points of concern:

· She noted that there were already significant problems with traffic on Hunt Club Road, including congestion at rush hour, people making U-turns and accidents.

· She suggested that this development would be one more thing to slow traffic down and cause more dangerous traffic conditions.

· She suggested the need to look at this area carefully from a traffic safety perspective.

· She expressed concern about the proposed amount of parking on the site and potential overflow parking on local streets.

· She expressed concern with the entrance to the site, suggesting it could be changed so that it can be accessed more easily.

· She agreed with the points raised by previous delegations, emphasizing the need for a full, independent traffic study.

Pamela Dumais, 36-year resident of Wyaman Place, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She expressed concern with respect to traffic, noting that traffic was already very bad on Hunt Club Road and suggesting the proposal would increase the problem with U-Turns.

She also raised an issue with respect to the marketing of the development to seniors. She indicated that, as a 79-year-old senior, she would never consider living in the units proposed for this development due to the outside parking. She suggested it was not desirable or feasible to move into a location without underground parking. She recommended that Committee reject the rezoning.

Councillor Hubley wondered if staff had any recommendations to address the issue of U-turns in relation to the site. Moodie noted that the development would have right in right out only access, and acknowledged that some people may choose to do a U-turn. She suggested that if it were to become significant issue, the City’s traffic operations group could follow a process to eliminate the option for U turns at that site. The Chair suggested this type of operation issue could be dealt with during the Site Plan.

David Krajefski, Stantec Consulting, was present on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He was accompanied by site owner Dimitri Zeidan, VIP Construction and Engineering, and architect David Blakely. He raised the following points in support of the rezoning:

· He noted that the OP encourages higher density housing adjacent to major arterial roads, on the periphery of neighbourhoods and on sites that are well served by transit, and felt this site was the ideal candidate for the type of development proposed.

· He stated that the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City’s OP policies, and suggested it represents good land use planning.

· He explained that they were asking for a reduction in the parking requirements with respect to the apartment unit component, from 1.2 spaces per unit to .7 spaces per unit due to the proximity to transit. They would meet the parking standard requirements for visitor parking and the office component.

· He noted the site’s proximity to South Keys station and the number of transit routes going directly by the site. He suggested this was exactly the sort of location where the City was supporting less parking as appropriate, due to the ready access to non-car transportation.

· He also emphasized that this would be a rental project, not a condominium project, noting the owner operates and effectively manages another project closer to South Keys. As a rental project, the owner would have responsibility and control to ensure a match between tenants and parking available.

· He suggested that some of the issues raised by nearby residents, such as sound attenuation and buffering, could and would be addressed during the Site Plan process.

· He respectfully requested Committee recommend approval of the rezoning, and allow those other issues to be addressed during Site Plan.

In response to questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Zeidan confirmed that if he had maximized the parking spots on the property he would not lease parking to other people in the apartment. He further noted that his management office would be on the subject site, and they would be managing the property and would have control over who he would rent to. He gave his word to the Committee that he would control the parking on the site.

In response to further questions from Councillor McRae with respect to the potential for underground parking, Mr. Zeidan suggested that to provide underground parking would cost will cost 25 per cent of the construction cost of this building, and to do that for so few spots would not be feasible. She suggested that if he were permitted to do underground parking, the proposed building would be much larger. He also noted that if he had been 600 metres from the transit station (instead of 800 metres) the parking requirement would have been 0.5 spaces per unit, less than what is currently proposed.

Councillor Deans noted that the adjacent property was for sale, and wondered if the owner had approached that seller to purchase that property. Mr. Zeidan indicated that he had made an offer on the adjacent property, but they were asking twice the price he had paid for his own property, which is only 20 feet narrower. He indicated that he had offered $800 thousand but the seller was asking $1.2 million.

Councillor Deans asked Mr. Zeidan what he would do with his development if Council did not grant relief from the parking requirements. Mr. Zeidan indicated that he did not yet have a “Plan B.” He noted that when he purchased the property he had met with City planning staff, who had indicated this proposal would fit with the overall plans for the City. He noted that they had met with Councillor Deans and had solicited comments from all the neighbours, suggesting they had addressed each concern.

The Chair then closed the public hearing portion of the item and turned the recommendations over to Committee.

Councillor Deans referenced the opposition to the application that had been demonstrated by the community for a reasonably small development. She expressed regret that staff had not supported her request to have a public meeting because the application was not technically in her ward. She noted that, while the site itself was in River ward, the impacts were in both. She that when more than one ward is affected by an application, there should be support for both Councillors to address the concerns of their residents.

Councillor Deans noted all the outstanding community concerns with respect to buffering, light, noise, safety, parking and traffic. She noted they had not received a requested sun shadow study. She felt that the application was prematurely before Committee, given the outstanding issues. Therefore, she asked Councillor Chiarelli to move a motion on her behalf to defer the item and give the opportunity to have a public meeting before Committee makes a decision.

Councillor Chiarelli then introduced the following motion:

BE IT RESOLVED that the public hearing on this item be closed, and that debate be deferred to the 25 January meeting of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Chiarelli, who moved the item on behalf of Councillor Deans, suggested it made sense to have a community meeting to allow for freer discussion between the community and the applicant, explore the outstanding issues and perhaps have a more pleasant and consistent debate at Committee on 25 January.

Councillor Hume noted that there would be a very heavy agenda on 25 January.

Councillor Harder indicated that she would not support deferral, as she felt the concerns raised by the delegations, such as the traffic issues, would not be addressed by the public meeting. She suggested they could have a public meeting on the issues related to Site Plan, as this was most of the issue.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Mr. Moodie confirmed that the application met the Hunt Club Secondary Plan guidelines and OP guidelines, and the City had met all requirements for due process and public consultation. He also confirmed that the applicant already had the right to appeal to the OMB as the 180 day time period had been exceeded. Councillor Monette indicated that he would not support deferral.

Councillor Deans stated that there were other zoning-related concerns aside from traffic, including the parking exemption and parking in the rear. With respect to due process, she suggested that, while the City had met the minimum requirements, there had not been meaningful public consultation or a community meeting. She asked Committee to support deferral to give the community some voice and to allow them to believe that their concerns have been fully listened to. She suggested that, given the Site Plan was not even complete, they were not delaying the applicant and he would not be likely to go to the OMB.

Committee then voted on the motion to defer.

Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli:

BE IT RESOLVED that the public hearing on this item be closed, and that debate be deferred to the 25 January meeting of the Planning Committee.

LOST

YEAS (1): R. Chiarelli

NAYS (8): S. Blais, J. Harder, K. Hobbs, A. Hubley, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Tayor,

P. Hume.

Councillor McRae acknowledged the information that had been raised by the community. She indicated that, as the ward Councillor she would work with Councillor Deans, the developer and staff and host a public meeting with respect to Site Plan. She indicated there was no desire among Committee to delay the zoning.

Councillor Deans indicated that she shared similar concerns with the community on the issue of the reduced parking requirement. She indicated that, in the suburban context, many people have cars and she felt the proposed amount of parking would be insufficient. She expressed concern with the potential spill over effect on neighbouring streets.

The Councillor expressed further concerns with respect to the parking brief provided by the applicant, which was based on projections for a seniors’ residence even though there is nothing in the zoning requiring the site to be a seniors’ residence. With respect to the Site Plan issues, she appreciated Councillor McRae’s offer of a public meeting. However, she felt it was premature to grant the Zoning. She encouraged Committee to consider not reducing the parking requirement.

Councillor Hubley felt that there would be a control on the parking given that the owner would not want to rent to tenants with a car if they did not have the space for it, nor would a tenant want to rent somewhere that had no space for their car. He suggested that the number of spots would control the parking, and on-street parking issues are prescribed in the City’s by-laws. Councillor Deans rebutted, with respect to parking, that there is a reason for the minimum parking requirements in the parking by-law, as people find interesting ways of circumventing lack of parking.

Councillor Hume noted that there were design guidelines for arterial roads, which would be shared with Committee members shortly.

Committee then considered the report recommendations, as presented:

CARRIED