1.             ZONING – 149, 151 AND 153 GREENBANK ROAD

 

ZONAGE – 149, 151 ET 153, CHEMIN GREENBANK

 

 

 

Committee recommendations as amended

 

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

 

That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 149, 151 and 153 Greenbank Road from a General Mixed-Use Zone (GM9 H(10)) to a General Mixed-use Exception Zone with a Schedule (GM9 [XXX] Sch XXX), as shown on Document 1 and, as detailed in Documents 2 and 3, and as amended by the following:

 

1.                  That Document 2 of Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 be amended to read as follows:

 

Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law

 

1.         The Zoning Map will be amended to rezone the subject property as shown on Document 1 from GM9 H(10) to GM9[xxxx] Sxxx.

 

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

 

a)                  Despite Section 64, the following applies:

i)                    mechanical and service equipment or penthouse, elevator or stairway penthouses may not project above 17.12 m

ii)                  a parapet may not project above 15.75 m

iii)                rooftop terraces are only permitted within Area B on Schedule xxx provided they are set back 1.8 m from the easterly edge of the building.  The most easterly limit of the roof top terrace must have a 1.5 m high opaque or translucent barrier

 

b)                  Despite Section 110, the minimum width of a landscape buffer between a parking lot and the north lot line may be reduced from 1.5 metres to 0 metres when there is a solid screen provided having a minimum height of 1.8 metres along the northerly property line.

 

c)                  The minimum yard setbacks and maximum building heights for a mid-high rise apartment dwelling are as per Schedule xxx

 

3.         Part 17 - Schedules will be amended by adding Document 3 as a new schedule.

 

2.                  That Document 3 of Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 be replaced with the attached Document 3;

 

3.         That a driveway or an aisle leading to a parking lot or parking garage may have a minimum width of 6.0 metres; and that Document 3 be amended to reduce the westerly minimum yard from 4.9m to 4.5m;

 

and that, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

 

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité

 

(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)

 

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer le zonage des 149, 151 et 153, chemin Greenbank de la catégorie de zone d’utilisations polyvalentes générale (GM9 H(10)) à celle de zone d’utilisations polyvalentes générale dotée d’une exception, avec annexe (GM9 [XXX], annexe XXX), comme le montre le document 1 et l’expliquent les documents 2 et 3, et tel que modifié comme suit :

 

1.         Que le document 2 du rapport ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 soit modifié comme suit :

 

Modifications proposées pour le Règlement de zonage général

 

1.         La carte de zonage sera modifiée de façon à procéder au rezonage de la propriété en question de GM9 H(10) à GM9[xxxx] Sxxx, comme l’indique le document 1.

 

2.         Article 239 – les exceptions urbaines sont modifiées par l’ajout d’une nouvelle exception dont les dispositions ont un effet analogue à celles qui suivent :

 

a)                  Nonobstant l’article 64, les restrictions suivantes s’appliquent :

i)                    un appentis de bâtiment ou un édicule en terrasse pour les éléments mécaniques ou de service, les ascenseurs ou les escaliers ne peut dépasser 17,12 m;

ii)                  un parapet ne peut dépasser 15,75 m;

iii)                les terrasses sur le toit ne sont permises qu’à l’intérieur de la zone B de l’annexe xxx pourvu qu’elles soient en retrait de 1,8 m de la bordure est de la propriété du bâtiment. La bordure est de la terrasse sur le toit doit avoir une barrière opaque ou translucide d’une hauteur de 1,5 m.

 

b)                  Nonobstant l’article 110, la largeur minimale d’une zone tampon paysagée entre un parc de stationnement et la limite nord du terrain peut être réduite de 1,5 m à 0 m en présence d’un écran solide d’une hauteur minimale de 1,8 m le long de la limite de propriété nord.

 

c)                  Le retrait minimal de la cour et la hauteur maximale de bâtiment pour les immeubles d’appartements de hauteur moyenne sont celles de l’annexe xxx.

 

3.         Partie 17 – Les annexes sont modifiées par l’ajout du document 3 comme nouvelle annexe.

 

2.         Que le document 3 du rapport ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 sera remplacé par le document 3 ci-joint;

 

3.         Qu’une entrée ou allée menant à un parc de stationnement ou à un garage de stationnement puisse avoir une largeur minimale de 6 mètres;

Que le document 3 soit modifié afin de réduire de 4,9 m à 4,5 m la cour minimale du côté ouest;

 

et que, conformément au paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire, aucun autre avis ne soit donné.

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.      Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 29 September 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149).

 

2.      Extract of Draft Minutes 21, Planning Committee meeting of 11 October 2011.

 

3.      Revised Document 3.

 


 

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

29 September 2011 / le 29 septembre 2011

 

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, Manager/Gestionnaire,

Development Review/Examen des projets d'aménagement

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

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

 

 

Knoxdale-Merivale (9)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149

 

 

SUBJECT:

ZONING – 149, 151 and 153 Greenbank Road (FILE NO. D02-02-11-0004)

 

 

OBJET :

ZONAGE – 149, 151 et 153, chemin greenbank

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That  recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 149, 151 and 153 Greenbank Road from a General Mixed-Use Zone (GM9 H(10)) to a General Mixed-use Exception Zone with a Schedule (GM9 [XXX] Sch XXX), as shown on Document 1 and, as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de  recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer le zonage des 149, 151 et 153, chemin Greenbank de la catégorie de zone d’utilisations polyvalentes générale (GM9 H(10)) à celle de zone d’utilisations polyvalentes générale dotée d’une exception, avec annexe (GM9 [XXX], annexe XXX), comme le montre le document 1 et l’expliquent les documents 2 et 3.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The subject lands are an assembly of three individual properties located on the northeast corner of Craig Henry Drive and Greenbank Road (see Document 1).

The assembled lands have a frontage of 42.89 metres (Craig Henry Drive) and depth of 61.05 metres.  The current site development consists of three typical one-storey, single-detached dwellings.  Surrounding development consists of a two‑storey, medical facility to the north, detached dwellings to the east, a two-storey office building on the south side of Craig Henry Drive, and a place of worship on the west side of Greenbank Road.

Development along Greenbank Road

Along Greenbank Road, to the north and south of the site, there is a mix of religious, retail, daycare facilities, professional offices and residential dwellings, all having a maximum building height of two-storeys.  The exception is a four-storey administrative office for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, which is setback from Greenbank Road.  The applicable zone designations along Greenbank Road consists of General Mixed-Use Zones permitting maximum building heights of between 10 to 18.5 metres, Minor Institutional Zones and one Residential First Density Zone, whose lot is orientated towards Canfield Road.  There are a total of seven detached residential dwellings fronting on Greenbank Road of which three are the assembly of detaching dwellings under consideration for this zoning amendment.  Of the remaining four detached dwellings, two of the dwellings have been converted into daycare facilities.

Surrounding Community

The residential community on the east of Greenbank Road consists of a fairly even mix of two‑storey, semi-detached and detached dwelling units.  The community on the west side of Greenbank Road has a predominately large cluster of detached residential dwellings central to the area, with passive and active recreational lands to the north and a mix of townhouses and four storey residential apartment buildings to the south.

Purpose of Zoning Amendment

The original zoning application was for a minor zoning amendment to the current General Mixed-Use Zone (GM9[10]) to allow for an increase in the allowable building height from 10 to 18.5 metres.  The increase in the allowable building height is similar to what is permitted on the abutting GM9 zoned property to the north and the facing property located on the south side of Craig Henry Drive.  The applicant originally purposed a six-storey, 72-unit, L-shaped apartment building with its building façade directly fronting onto Greenbank Road and extending easterly along the northerly property line.  In addition, the applicant was requesting a reduction in the zoning by-law’s parking requirements from 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.0, as well as, a reduction in the visitor parking requirement from 14 to six.

 

In response to feedback from staff, the building was flipped to have a street presence on both Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive.  The building remained as six storey structure with the sixth storey being recessed back from the building footprint.  This was done in order to reduce the building’s visibility and impact onto Greenbank Road.  The building was stepped back from six, to five and then three storeys as it approached the rear yards of the detached dwellings located on Wade Court.  The number of the proposed dwellings was reduced to 69 units and the request to reduce the number of required visitor parking spaces was withdrawn.  The changes to the original application were then presented to the community at a public information meeting held by the Trend-Arlington Community Association on May 16, 2011.

 

The revised development proposal was the subject to a Peer Review initiated by Councillor Egli and agreed to be carried out by the Department.  The purpose of the Peer Review was to examine the merits of the development proposal in terms of context to the neighbourhood, the site plan design, the pedestrian realm, the building form and articulation and a landscaping strategy.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Provincial Policy Statement

 

The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of Provincial Interest related to land-use planning and development by promoting efficient land use patterns that support development of viable liveable communities.  Contained within the policy statement is an explicit policy objective to promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where there is the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate projected needs for intensification. The policy statement promotes all forms of residential buildings to meet a range of housing demands.

 

In this circumstance there exists an opportunity to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel of land where the applicant is proposing the demolition of an three older one-storey bungalows and construct a mid-rise apartment building.  This proposal for intensification is consistent with the Province’s policy objectives for intensification where it has been established that surplus infrastructure capacity exists.

 

Official Plan

 

The Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area on Schedule “B”.  This designation permits a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances.  It also permits conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses with the goal to attain complete and sustainable communities. 

 

In terms of this proposal, the introduction of mid-rise apartment dwellings provides more choices in housing types along the peripheral edge of two communities that are primarily dominated by detached and semi-detached dwelling unit.  The application itself is categorized as minor zoning amendment as it is to permit increase the allowable building height, a height that is marginally less than what is currently permitted by adjacent properties to the north and south of the site.  As mentioned, the request for a reduction in the minimum required residential and visitor parking spaces was later abandoned as a result of amendments to the development proposal.

 

In addition to the foregoing, the Official Plan also contains the following Official Plan policies to guide in determining the appropriateness of intensification proposals.

 

Managing Growth

 

The majority of growth in housing is to be accommodated within areas designated within the Urban Boundary, where there exists land that is serviced with major roads, transit and piped sewer and water services. 

In this circumstance the property is appropriately located on the corner of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive which are respectively arterial and local collector roadways, both being serviced by public transit, and having adequate water and sewer services.

 

Compatibility

 

The introduction of new development within an established area, some of which have not see changes to their communities over a 30 year period, requires  a degree of sensitivity in how new development is integrated with the old.  In order to achieve this, some flexibility and variation that complements the character of existing communities is central to successful intensification.

It is generally recognized that infill intensification may not be similar in use and size with adjacent uses.  However, in order to achieve the Official Plan’s strategic directions for managing growth, other considerations may apply, such as intensification occurring with proximity of major roads or on the periphery of established neighbourhoods.  The development proposal, prior to the Peer Review analysis, met or exceeded all the minimum yard setbacks required by General Mixed-Use Zone for those portions of the building having building heights of 10 to 18 metres.  After the Peer Review the proposed building height was appropriately stepped by going from a three-storey structure backing onto the detached dwellings located on Wade Court and transitioning to five then six storey building as you approached Greenbank Road.

 

Shadow Study

 

A second shadow study was submitted with revised development proposal for 67 dwelling units.  There are noticeable impacts to the residential back yards to the east, particularly, the September 21st /March 21st afternoon time periods.  The shadow study demonstrates that the six-storey building casts a full shadow onto the rear yards of the Wade Court residents, whereas, the existing two-storey commercial office building to the north shadows two-thirds of the adjacent rear yard.  For the June 21st afternoon time period, the shadowing of the building only impacts the very rear corners of two pie shaped lots.

 

Design and Planning Guidelines

 

The purpose of Design and Planning Guidelines is to translate the Official Plan’s vision of the future of the City by providing a detailed framework by which development is to occur in its physical form.  Of the completed design guidelines, guidelines for high-rise developments, 10 storeys or greater, would be the most applicable.  Guidelines for mid-rise developments, five to nine stories, have yet to be prepared.  Within the purpose statement, the overall objective is to achieve compatibility with the existing or planned neighbourhood context through setting standards for the building massing, setbacks, transitions.

 

When transitioning between high-rise development and existing or lower profile developments, guideline 4 recommends that the building height be incrementally stepped back. 

 

The incremental change to the building height should be measured at a 45 degree angled plane taken from the adjacent property line.  The revised stepped back from six, to five, then to a three storey building proposal was found to project above the 45 degree plane by about a half to nearly a storey.  Another design consideration includes setbacks and buffers separating adjacent development.  Although an adequate building setback of 8.5 metres has been proposed, any potential buffering between the adjacent properties was largely taken up by a ramp leading to underground parking.  Finally, the design and character of the building plays an important role in the contribution of the building’s human scale.  This can include the use of differing building materials at various levels, in particular, at the lower component which establishes a pedestrian focus and provides relief from the upper portion of the building mass. This was achieved through the use of a stone building material at the first to levels, then transitioning into brick for the next two levels and the fifth level incorporated a mansard roof like design in an effort to minimize the impact of the building mass.  The sixth floor was sufficiently setback from the building footprint so as not to have a visual impact onto the streetscape.

 

Traffic and Safety

 

The applicant submitted an accompanying traffic brief with the zoning and site plan application submission required by the City’s Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines.  Although not required for a development of this size, staff subsequently requested a traffic study be conducted to examine “level of service” at the Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive intersection.  The “level of service” is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of a roadway based on factors such as speed, travel time, manoeuvrability, delay, and safety.  The level of service for all traffic movements at this intersection ranged from, A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst.  As a result, it has been recommended that a road modification be required as a condition of site plan approval to allow an east bound left hand turn lane from Craig Henry Drive into the driveway leading to the development’s underground parking garage.  The recommended road modification will also be accommodated.  It is anticipated that stacking for three vehicles making on east bound left hand turn.

 

Peer Review

 

The focus of the design review was to take into consideration the context of the existing surrounding community, in understanding the physical context in which the proposed development will be located.  As previously mentioned, the key areas of assessment focused on the development’s response to the area, site plan design, the pedestrian realm, building form and articulation and landscape strategy.  With respect to context, the peer review recognized a mix of religious, retail, daycare facilities, professional offices and residential buildings having a maximum height of two storeys within the Greenbank Road corridor.  Established, mature low density neighbourhoods of detached and semi-detached residential dwellings exist to the west and east side of Greenbank Road with pockets of higher density townhouse and four-storey apartment buildings within the surrounding area.  The general conclusion was that the development, as proposed, needs to further address its surrounding area context and concluded that the site needed more of a transition along the easterly property edge in the form of open space and the introduction of a transitional area to the northeast of the site. 

 

This could be achieved in the following manner:

  • ensuring a clear view to and from sidewalks and provide a well landscaped pedestrian environment;
  • cutting back the building’s east wing to accommodate a westerly shift to the parking ramp (leading to underground parking) and allowing for wider landscape area at the easterly property edge;
  • shifting or reducing the number of surface parking spaces to accommodate a transitional area at the northeast area of the site; and
  • establishing a pedestrian-friendly environment leading to the transitional area identified at the northeast area of the site.

 

Finally, the peer review suggested that the development’s appropriate building height should be limited to five storeys.  The Peer Review produced an overlay of the building envelope showing the six-storey building, superimposed with a recommended five-storey structure including the cutting back of the building’s east wing.  In addition, the peer review suggested that the mansard roof of the revised 67 residential unit proposal be replaced with a sloped roof, which would be more in keeping with the residential character of the neighbourhood.  On July 7, 2011 the findings of the peer review were presented to the community at the Trend-Arlington Community Building.

 

Response to the Peer Review

 

In response to the Peer Review, for the most part the applicant revised the development proposal to accommodate the suggested changes to the building envelope.  The building proposal was reduced to five storeys and, generally speaking, the easterly wing was scaled back and in the number of proposed dwelling units was reduced from 67 to 61 units.  Although the east wing of the building did deviate outside the building envelope recommended by the Peer Review, it is beneath the 45 degree angular plane recommended by the Design and Planning Guidelines for high-rise developments.  The use of a 45 degree angle is the typical “yard stick” standard used by the design industry based on accomplishing the following:

 

1)      The protection of light reaching neighbouring residential properties;

2)      The insurance that the overall building mass achieves a human scale quality; and

3)      The establishment of an appropriate scale next to adjacent residential properties transitioning from low to higher scale building forms.

 

The development proposal, to place the three story structure further towards the rear property lines, has a building setback of over 11.5 metres.  This is entirely appropriate when considering this is a building setback for a three-storey structure adjacent to two-storey, detached dwelling units.  The fifth storey of the development proposal is well beneath the established 45 degree rendering as no longer contributing to the overall perceived building mass.

 

The main departure from the recommended building envelope was the retention of the mansard roof.  The rationale for retaining the mansard roof was that it is a common style of roofing used throughout the neighbourhood on the east side of Greenbank Road.  Further, while the usage of a sloped roof is the prevalent character of the residential development on Wade Court, it was not exclusive. 

 

With respect to establishing a landscape area and a reduction of surface parking, this area is felt to be within the private domain and would only offer amenity area for the residents of the building. An adequate green space buffer has been achieved by shifting the building footprint to the west.  This approximate 4.0 metre wide buffer will support the planting of trees that will grow in time to a significant stature, so as to screen the visibility of the building below the 45 degree angled plane described above.  The suggested green area at the northeast area of the lot would only serve as a private amenity area for the residents of the building, outside of the public realm. 

 

Instead, the private amenity area common to the residents of the apartment building will be provided on the third floor roof top area and the surface parking area remain as originally proposed.  This proposal eliminates the need for the establishment of a pedestrian environment connecting to the street.  Finally it should be noted that the revised five-storey structure was found to marginally improve shadowing impacts on the neighbouring Wade Court residents during the June 21st time period.

 

Proposed Zoning Details

 

Staff is recommending the approval of the applicant’s response to the peer review as detailed in Documents 2 and 3. Document 3 incorporates in a schedule, the general limits of the building envelope in terms building placement and building height recommended by the peer review.  Document 3 also addresses concerns of building shadowing effects from permitted building projects above the allowable building height, including parapet walls and building mechanical projects.  In addition, the roof top patio area will be setback and screened in order to avoid any overlook concerns onto the rear yards of the Wade Court residents.  Finally, a zoning detail has been added to allow a reduction in the minimum required landscape buffering of 1.5 metres for a parking area of 10 or more vehicles to zero metres abutting the northerly commercial office development.  This reduction has been recommended to be approved conditional on the parking being screened from the neighbouring property by a 1.8 metre high solid wooden fence.  This will be enforced a part of the Site Plan Control application.

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy.  The proposed zoning amendment was strongly opposed by the neighbouring residents.  The details of the consultation process can be seen in Documents 4 and 5.

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

 

Comments from Ward Councillor Egli have been incorporated in Document 4.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal implications associated with this report. However, in light of the neighbourhood opposition regarding this application, if approved by Council, the matter may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. It is anticipated that a hearing on these issues would take approximately three days in front of the Board, using internal Staff resources. If Council refuses the application, and an appeal is filed to the Ontario Municipal Board, Council will have to provide written reasons to support its decision, and an external planning consultant and an external traffic consultant will have to be retained. If that situation occurs, it is anticipated that a three day hearing in front of the OMB will incur an estimated expense of $55,000-$65,000.

 

 

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Potential costs are outlined in the Legal Implications section above. Should the services of an external planning consultant and an external traffic consultant be required, funds ($55,000 to $65,000) are not available within existing budget, and the expense may impact Planning and Growth Management’s operating budget status.

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Identify issues as applicable - Wetland Impact Statement, Environment Impact Statement, Site Contamination issues, Natural Environment area lands, etc. and detail mitigation, studies, input from Conservation authority, etc.

 

 

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.

 

 

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 a request for a Design Peer Review.


 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3    Zoning Schedule

Document 4    Consultation Details

Document 5    Community Organization Comments

 

DISPOSITION

 

City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene Canada Signs, 1565 Chatelain Avenue, Ottawa, ON  K1Z 8B5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code:  26-76) of City Council’s decision.

 

Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.

 

Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                DOCUMENT 1

 

 


DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                    DOCUMENT 2

 

Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law

 

Despite Section 64, the following applies:

d)   mechanical and service equipment or penthouse, elevator or stairway penthouses may not project above 17.12 m

e)    a parapet may not project above 15.75 m

f)    Rooftop Patios are only permitted within Area B on Schedule X provided they are set back 1.8 m from the easterly building’s edge.  The most easterly limit of the roof top patio is established by a 1.5 m high opaque or translucent barrier

 

Despite Table 187, the following applies for a mid-high rise apartment dwelling as set out in Schedule X: 

a)      minimum building setbacks; and

b)      maximum building heights

 

Despite Section 110, the minimum width of a landscape buffer of a parking lot maybe be reduced from 1.5 metres to 0 metres when there is a solid screen being provided having a minimum height of 1.8 metres along the northerly property line.


ZONING SCHEDULE                                                                                         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.  There were three public meetings were also held in the community.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Public Information Meeting

 

Below is a summarized comments received as a result of from initial the public consultation carried out by the City and from a public information meeting hosted by the Trend-Arlington Community Association on January 31, 2011held in the Trend-Arlington Community Building at 50 Bellman Drive.

 

Comment:    The six-storey, 72-unit development proposal is too intense/large for this site and is incompatible and out of character with surrounding area.  It was suggested that the development proposal represents the first step in the redevelopment of Greenbank Road into a canyon like corridor. 

 

Response:     The developer has since now reconfigured the development proposal providing a street presence on both Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive.  The building has been reduced to a five-storey structure with the three-storey easterly wing of the building being scaled back from the side property line.  The dwelling unit count has been reduced from 72 to 61 dwelling units. The building treatment has also been modified to introduce the use differing building materials at varying building levels, to mitigate the impact of the perceived building mass at the street level. 

 

Comment:    A comment was received suggesting that Section 3.2.2 of the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Infill Housing.  This guideline suggests that the infill development proposal should not project above a 45 degree angular plane taken from the neighbouring property line.

 

Response:     This is a similar standard applied with the Guidelines for high-rise developments as describe this report.  It was determined that revised five-storey development proposal did not project beyond that 45 degree plane.

 

Comment:    What is the density of the development proposal and does it exceed what is permitted?

 

Response:     The current GM zoning for this site does factor in density as a means to limit the extent a property can be developed.


 

Comment:    A traffic study should be required that takes in consideration when the neighbouring schools are in session, as well as, the operation of the daycare facilities.

 

Response:     A number of addendums to the traffic study we made to take account for pedestrian movements.  Observations were on pedestrian movements as the Greenbank Road/Craig Henry Drive intersection on February 15, 2011 between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m., and on May13, 2011during the morning peak hour (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) and the afternoon peak hour (3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.).  These additional observations did not result in any recommendations for any modifications being made to intersection.

 

Comment:    Vehicular access to the development proposal should be limited to a right-in and right-out on Greenbank Road.

 

Response:     The site plan has been revised that locates the surface parking area to the northeast area of the site, which will have a right-in and right-out access onto Greenbank Road.  The Craig Henry Drive access to the underground parking will remain.

 

Comment:    The proposed right-in and right-out vehicle access on Craig Henry Drive will only contribute to the number of unwanted u-turns being made further east along Craig Henry Drive and add to congestion being experienced on that street.

 

Response:     A Craig Henry Drive road modification is being proposed in the latest site plan proposal to permit an east bound left hand turn into the parking garage and will accommodate a vehicular queue for three vehicles waiting to make this traffic movement.  This should eliminate unwanted u-turns east-bound along Craig-Henry Drive.

 

Comment:    A suggestion was made to move the existing east bound Craig Henry bus stop further east.  This would allow for a longer queuing of cars behind buses which at times can positioned in such a way as impeding traffic from manoeuvring around it.  When such a scenario occurs, vehicles can become so backed up as to interfere with the traffic movements at the intersection of Craig Henry Drive and Greenbank Road.

 

Response:     Staff has taken this comment under consideration will be requiring through the site plan approval, that the bus stop be located 11 metres further to the east at the developer’s cost. 

 

Comment:    Safety concerns were expressed at the congested intersection of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive because of several schools within the area and the wide age range of students. The development of 72 unit apartment will only further contribute to the current unacceptable traffic congestion at Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive.


 

Response:     The traffic study reviewed and accepted by the City Transportation staff indicates that overall movements for Greenbank Road and Craig Henry intersection concurrently function at an acceptable level of service.  With the proposed Craig Henry Drive road modification mentioned above, it is anticipate that this development will not have significant impact on the functionality or safety of this intersection.

 

Comment:    The proposed reductions in the resident and visitor parking space requirements will result in the spill over of on-street parking demand onto on neighbouring streets already at limited capacity.

 

Response:     The latest development proposal complies with the current zoning provisions for parking and previous requests to reduce the required visitor and resident parking requirements have been withdrawn.

 

Comment:    Where will the loading and unloading for the building’s residents occur for this building, as well, where will the garbage be picked up?

 

Response:     This activity will occur in the relocated visitor and resident parking area located within the northeast quadrant.

 

Comment:    The six-storey apartment building will result in the loss of light and privacy in the backyards of those residents on Wade Court backing onto to the proposed development.  The development proposal should be redesigned in such a way as to minimize these impacts.

 

Response:     In the latest revised five-storey development proposal, during the March and September 21st afternoon time periods, the shadowing extends a similar amount on to the Wade Court rear yards as the two-storey medical building afternoon time periods.  During the June 21st afternoon time period, there is only a marginal shadow being casted at the rear corners of the lot for the two most southerly pie shaped lots.  The five-storey revised proposal orientates the buildings balconies of the three-storey easterly building extension in either a north or south direction and does not present an overlook issue onto the rear yards of the Wade Court residents.  Regarding the overlook concern expressed by representatives of the medical building to the north, the north facing wall of the development proposal closest to the medical building will be windowless.

 

Comment:    The development proposal should not affect the existing sun-shade patterns of the medical building to the north.

 

Response:     The medical property is only marginally impacted by the five-storey building proposal in varying degrees between the 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. time periods on December 21.  The building is most impact at the 2:00 p.m. time period.  This is viewed as being acceptable because commercial office or medical uses are not considered to be highly sensitive to shadowing effects. 

 

Comment:    The majority of the parking should be located below grade.

 

Response:     In the latest development plan, 71 parking spaces of the total 85 parking spaces on-site will be located below grade.

 

Comment:    The building should be located a minimum of 15.25 metres away from the medical building.

 

Response:     The estimated separation between buildings will be 17.5 metres.

 

Comment:    The dirt and noise for the building construction activity will disturb adjoining residents.

 

Response:     The disruptive construction activity will be temporary.  Construction activity is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday.

 

Comment:    Neighbouring property values will be negatively impacted if this development proposal.  In particular, for those Wade Court properties backing onto this development.

 

Response:     No evidence has yet to be presented that infill development, such as what is being proposed, has a negative impact on neighbouring property values.

 

Comment:    There is a risk of damage to neighbouring foundations due to construction excavation.

 

Response:     The soil analysis submitted with the zoning and site plan applications reveals at the on-site consist of a mix of layers of silty sand and then clay from the boreholes which were drilled.  The method of excavation will be open cut.  Blasting, which can potential cause foundation damage to neighbour property, will not form as part of the excavation process.

 

Greenbank Middle School Parent Council

 

Comment:    The Greenbank Middle School Parent Council, which is a non-registered association, expressed safety concerns for its student population, 300 of which was to school due to their ineligibility for school bus transportation and must walk, bike or take public transit to school.  Their path to school frequently takes them across the intersection of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive.  It is their belief that the construction of a 72-unit apartment building will only add to the danger to the students of what is already a perilous intersection.

 

Response:     Issue of congestion and safety regarding this intersection has been responded in the concerns expressed by the community.

 


Second Public Information Meeting

 

Comment:    A second public information meeting to discuss a modified 67-unit development proposal was held on May 16, 2011at the Trend-Arlington Community Building.  Comments similar to the original 72-unit development proposal were reiterated accompanied by a common thread of frustration with the development review process and taking issues with the City’s policies on intensification.  Some additional comments received included that the erection of a six-storey building would result in the loss of the view of the sky and disappointment that the former Nepean zoning provisions were no longer respected.  Another indicated that the revised development proposal was an improved but the building height should be limited to 15 metres.  Finally, any short fall in parking should be subject to “cash-in-lieu of parking” and make arrangements have access to the underutilize school parking lot during off-peak hours.

 

Response:     To mitigate the impact of intensification, the same design guidelines for high-rise and low to medium density infill development were applied.  These guidelines recommend that an angular plane of 45 degrees be established at the neighbouring property line where the height of the infill development should not project beyond.  With respect to current and past zoning by-laws, the Planning Act legislates that municipalities consider all requests for zoning amendments which are to be evaluate on their own individual merit.

 

Developer’s Response to Peer Review

 

The developer’s response to the Peer Review was five-storey, 61 unit apartment building was generally speaking in keeping with the recommendations.  The revised plans were posted on the City’s website and an e-mail notice of posting was sent out to the residents.  A couple of responses favoured the revisions, but the majority of the responses were either in opposition to the development proposal or in support of the Trend-Arlington Community’s position that the revised development plans should conform with the recommendations of the Peer Review in its entirety.

 

COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

 

Prior to putting these comments together, I had the opportunity to review the various written feedback from residents, speak to people in the community, communicate with the developer and consult City staff and fellow councillors.

 

By way of background, this proposed condominium development was quite contentious when announced. Through a series of public consultations and a subsequent peer review process which I pushed hard for, the development proposal has changed significantly.

 

The peer review process was very helpful in providing avenues of change to pursue, and suggesting options and ideas to propel the design process. The developer, after some initial hesitation came on board with the principles of the Peer Review in a significant way. The community also is supportive of the ideas and spirit of the Review.

 

The current proposal does not adopt all of the recommendations made in the Peer Review but it does accept and incorporate the bulk of the recommendations. Additionally, the recommendations it does accept are significant ones dealing with amongst other issues parking, building height, and the green buffer zone. The report responds to any lack of compliance, explaining why it diverges from the Peer Review, with clear and cogent arguments. As one resident wrote to me: “The project should proceed only if it respects the recommendations and principles of the Peer Review.” I believe that this proposal does respect the spirit and intent of the Peer Review.

 

There is considerable community interest in a building of this sort, as many residents wish to have the option to downsize but stay within the Craig Henry community. The current options to do this are extremely limited. This building provides an opportunity to allow older residents to stay and continue to enrich the community, while also opening the door to new residents and young families.

 

My position on this development has been consistent throughout the process. I could not and would not support a 6- storey condominium building on this site. This is why I worked very closely with city staff, the developer and community residents to come up with a design proposal that would represent a compromise which would give something to all parties. I believe this design achieves such a compromise. Like all compromises, not everyone will get everything that they want. In fact no single party will get everything that they want. Everyone has contributed something to get to this point. On balance I support the developer’s current proposal as being in the best interest of the overall community.

 

I acknowledge that certain members of the community will not be happy with my support of the current proposal. I also understand that a lot of the concern and frustration being expressed is as much a result of the development process in Ottawa as it is a reflection of this individual project. I concur that there is a disconnect between current zoning and the Official Plan, and that this can lead to conflict between communities, staff and developers. This is a point that I have made at several public meetings. It is also a concern that the Planning Committee and its Chair are well aware of. They deal with it at every meeting, and are doing their utmost to come to the best resolution for individual communities and the city at large as individual projects come forward. Chair Hume is also looking at the broader framework of the process. I commend the committee on the good work it is doing.

 

I do appreciate greatly the efforts made by concerned members of my ward to express their views on process. However I do not believe that their very legitimate process concerns should overshadow the good work that has happened on this particular project. Many hours have been put into this design process by the community, the developer, City staff and this office. The public has been consulted extensively and the developer continues in good faith to answer questions and respond to modification requests from the community.

 

To my mind the Peer Review process did what it was intended to in a very real and positive way. It generated discussion, ideas and significant change. One can argue that the change proposed in the current design is not sufficient, but that argument should not obscure the broader issues.


These issues include, but are not limited to, the Official Plan, the community’s concerns (both for and against the project), ward concerns, City vision, Greenbelt preservation and intensification. In short, the project is not just about the corner of Craig Henry and Greenbank, and the decision- making process must consider all the listed issues and more.

 

I could have drafted comments critiquing the current design but in my opinion that would disregard all the effort and resources put towards this project. I have made it clear that I will work with any of my ward’s communities and developers, in innovative ways if necessary, to make proposed developments as attractive as is reasonable and practical.

 

I commit to continuing my current practice of participating fully with the community in any proposed development plans for Ward 9.

 

Finally, I would like to thank City staff, community residents and DCR Phoenix staff for working collectively and cooperatively to come to this resolution. I believe this community has provided a very commendable example of dialogue, cooperation and constructive hard work in this instance, which bodes well for the future of development and change in our ward. I deeply appreciate the efforts made by all those who have contributed to this process.

 

 


COMMUNIT ORGANIZATION COMMENTS                                              DOCUMENT 5

 


Response

 

Set Building Envelop by Peer Review

 

For reasons set out in the body of the report, the proposed building falls within the 45 degree angular plane which has become typical “yard stick” standard used by those design field as a means to gauge an appropriate scale for infill development.  As such, the proposal’s deviation from the Peer Review’s suggested building envelope is considered to be acceptable.

 

Architectural Style

 

The mansard roof design of the development proposal was retained as an architectural component of the building as opposed to the Peer Review’s suggestion to incorporate a sloped roof primarily because of the prevalence of mansard roofing throughout the neighbourhood.  This formed the rationale for the developer to retain a mansard roof design versus the suggestion that a sloped roof would be more in keeping with the residential character of the neighbourhood.  The community is actually a mix of both architectural styles of roofing.  The use of stone on the first and second floor is viewed as a rich durable material used in residential, commercial and institutional buildings of varying colours and is seen to provide a pedestrian focus to those two levels of the building, notwithstanding the Peer Review’s suggestion that the building should transition from a darker material to lighter coloured material as the building rises up.  The building does transition from brick, a darker building material for the third and forth level of the building to a lighter greenish copper coloured material for the mansard roof level of the building.  All of these building materials are used for residential construction.  It should be noted that along Greenbank Road there are residential, institutional and commercial buildings so it can be argued that the development proposal provides an appropriate interface between the commercial and institutional land uses along Greenbank Road and the residential neighbourhood to the east.

 


1.         ZONING - 149, 151 AND 153 GREENBANK ROAD

ZONAGE – 149, 151 ET 153, CHEMIN GREENBANK

ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149                                                 KNOXDALE-MERIVALE (9)

 

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That  recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 149, 151 and 153 Greenbank Road from a General Mixed-Use Zone (GM9 H(10)) to a General Mixed-use Exception Zone with a Schedule (GM9 [XXX] Sch XXX), as shown on Document 1 and, as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.

Committee received the following written submissions, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:

·         Planning Statement dated 11 October 2011 prepared by members of the Communities of Craig Henry, Trend-Arlington and Manordale-Woodvale.

·         Letter dated 10 October 2011 from Larry Widdifield, President, Manordale-Woodvale Community Association

·         Letter dated 10 October 2011 from Graeme Roderick, President, Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton

·         Comments dated 27 September 2011 from the Trend-Arlington Community Association

 

Douglas Bridgewater, Planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Committee heard the following public delegations:

 

James O’Grady, Vice-President, Trend-Arlington Community Association (TACA)* was opposed to the report recommendation as presented.  He indicated that he was supported by members of the extended community, including the communities of Trend-Arlington, Manordale-Woodvale, Craig Henry, Leslie Park, Briar Green, Qualicum-Graham Park, Valleystream and Redwoods.  He provided an overview of the nature of the existing community, noting area had not yet been intensified, and that no development in the area was more than two stories, despite being zoned for between 18.5 and 10 metres.  He emphasized that the proposed development was particularly important due to the area being a school zone, and the fact that it could be precedent-setting for intensification in the area.  He noted that downsizing seniors in the community were interested in the proposed condominium, but was concerned that the project seemed to be marketed more to young people.

 

Mr. O’Grady indicated that the recommendations of the Peer Review were as far as the community was prepared to compromise.  He outlined four remaining concerns, areas where the proposed development did not meet the recommendations of the Peer Review.  They are as follows and outlined in detail in t the TACA planning statement:

·         Footprint

·         Building form and articulation

·         Green space/ landscaping

·         Pedestrian realm

 

Caroline Crowe, 27 Wade Court, was opposed to the report recommendation as presented.  She argued that the current proposal did not suit the corner lot, would create dangerous traffic patterns in a school zone, reduce privacy for the homes on Wade Court and dominate the community. She expressed concern that the application of intensification policy was resulting in piecemeal, opportunistic development without an overall plan for the community. She expressed concern and confusion that the area was not eligible for a Community Design Plan on the basis of Greenbank Road not being slated for major development or intensification. 

 

She requested that the developer fully adhere to the Peer Review Recommendations for the site.  She further requested that, before more intensification occurred, Ottawa establish a clearer, sustainable intensification policy and process that engages the community earlier in the process.

 

Stephen Rothman, was opposed to the report recommendation as presented. He reviewed the changes recommended with the peer reviewer and how they aligned with the current proposal.  He requested that the developer to come closer to the Peer Review with respect to the footprint, massing, building articulation, building form and green space.

 

He also expressed concern with traffic flow on the site, noting access would be off Craig Henry Drive, and would require moving the bus zones to provide for a left turn lane into the development.  As the community had not seen the complete plans, he was unsure of how the issues of garbage, moving vehicles and emergency personnel access would be dealt with. 

 

Marjorie Dickson, 35 Wade Court, was opposed to the report recommendation as presented. She noted that her home backed onto the subject property and the development would be a big change for her. She noted the community had come a long way to compromise, and made the following comments and requests:

·         With respect to footprint, she expressed concern that the current proposal was six feet closer to her property than recommended by the peer review. 

·         With respect to the roof, she suggested a sloping roof would be more attractive than the proposed mansard roof.

·         With respect to landscaping, she sought clarification on the landscape treatment abutting her property, and expressed a preference for mature trees that would provide privacy along the Wade Court properties.  She also sought assurances that that the mature trees located in the proposed setback would not be removed.

 

Richard McCarthy, 37 Wade Court,* was opposed to the report recommendation as presented. He acknowledged the community’s agreement with the Peer Review compromise, but questioned whether it was much better than the six stories originally proposed.  He suggested the community had been betrayed because all the Peer Review recommendations were not followed.  He referenced the nearby Larco development, which provided intensification while remaining at three stories, and wondered why this developer could not do the same. Given the area was built up to only 10 metres, he wondered how the current proposal could be justified.  He further expressed concern about traffic, privacy, and the safety of children in the school zone.

 

Stewart Kronberg, President, TACA was opposed the report recommendations as presented.  He suggested that the Peer Review represented a considerable but acceptable compromise from both sides, and TACA was prepared to accept it.  However, they wanted see the developer adhere to the recommendations of that review.  He raised the following additional points:

·         On the issue of traffic, while acknowledging there could be restaurant or commercial uses under the existing zoning, he was concerned the peak hour traffic generation of a residential development would coincide with school traffic.  

·         He noted building articulation and form were particularly important in order to assure the relatively massive development blended into the community as much as possible.  He suggested the proposed mansard roofs made the building more imposing. 

·         He suggested this development would set a precedent, noting more intensification in the area was likely.  He hoped for community involvement when merging the area’s Zoning and Official Plan as part of the next review, and suggested that just because properties in the area currently had 18.5 metre zoning did not mean they would stay that way. 

·         He suggested intensification levels needed to be more clearly set out, and suggested the level of intensification of the proposal to be excessive.  He expressed concern that developers were assuming maximum intensification and paying high prices for infill lots, putting upward pressure on the prices of those lots and the price of housing in Ottawa.

 

Hân Tu, 33 Wade Court, was opposed the report recommendation as presented.  She noted that her home, which she shared with her mother and brother, backed onto the subject site.  She noted that they had rebuilt their home after a house fire two years previous and would not have done so if they had been aware that a condo development would be built behind them. 

 

She expressed concern that the height and massing of the building, combined with her shallow back yard, would result in the complete obstruction of her family’s view of the blue sky from their window.  She spoke to the adverse impact this would have on her family’s well being, especially given her brother was Schizophrenic and her mother was home all day caring for him. She asked for increased setback and decreased height to allow for the ability to see the sky, noting every inch made a difference.

 

Paul Skvor, Vice President at DCR Phoenix, spoke as the applicant in support of the application. He noted that the developer had wanted to be as cooperative as possible through through three waves of design adjustments and the Peer Review, and indicated that they had compromised to the extent possible. He noted they had worked hard for community acceptance in anticipation that many of the developments units would be taken up by downsizing members of the community.

 

He raised some additional points in response to some of the concerns raised by other presenters. With respect to green space and pedestrian realm, he felt it would be problematic to have a public walkway through the private inner courtyard, suggesting a clear distinction between private and public was appropriate. He reviewed the footprint of the building in relation adjacent homes and how it had been modified from the original proposal.  He indicated that reducing the footprint by an additional six metres would require a complete redesign.  He emphasized that the Peer Review was intended to provide guidelines and recommendations, not to lock in the developer. 

 

*Presentation and/or comments held on file with the City Clerk

 

Councillor Harder moved the following technical amendment from staff:

 

MOTION NO PLC 21/1

 

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

 

WHEREAS a more detailed analysis of the proposed building has shown that minor changes are required to the zoning schedule being proposed and attached as Document 3 in Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149,

 

AND WHEREAS Planning staff wish to amend the wording of Document 2 to clarify the authority for making this zoning change;

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Document 2 of Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 be amended to read as follows:

 

Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law

 

1.         The Zoning Map will be amended to rezone the subject property as shown on Document 1 from GM9 H(10) to GM9[xxxx] Sxxx.

 

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

 

g)                  Despite Section 64, the following applies:

iv)          mechanical and service equipment or penthouse, elevator or stairway penthouses may not project above 17.12 m

v)            a parapet may not project above 15.75 m

vi)          rooftop terraces are only permitted within Area B on Schedule xxx provided they are set back 1.8 m from the easterly edge of the building.  The most easterly limit of the roof top terrace must have a 1.5 m high opaque or translucent barrier

 

h)                 Despite Section 110, the minimum width of a landscape buffer between a parking lot and the north lot line may be reduced from 1.5 metres to 0 metres when there is a solid screen provided having a minimum height of 1.8 metres along the northerly property line.

 

i)                    The minimum yard setbacks and maximum building heights for a mid-high rise apartment dwelling are as per Schedule xxx

 

3.         Part 17 - Schedules will be amended by adding Document 3 as a new schedule.

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Document 3 of Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 be replaced with the attached Document 3;

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Councillor Egli asked Councillor Harder to move the following motion on his behalf. The intent of the motion was to provide a bigger buffer between the development and Wade Court.

 

 


MOTION NO PLC 21/2

 

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

 

BE IT RESOLVED That a driveway or an aisle leading to a parking lot or parking garage may have a minimum width of 6.0 metres; and that Document 3 be amended to reduce the westerly minimum yard from 4.9m to 4.5m.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be given.

 

The report recommendation was put to Committee and CARRIED, as amended.


 

REVISED DOCUMENT 3