|
1. ZONING – 27 AND 29 BALSAM STREET,
AND 245 TO 267 ROCHESTER STREET ZONAGE - 27 ET 29, RUE BALSAM, ET 245 À 267, RUE
ROCHESTER |
Committee recommendationS as
amended
(This matter is
Subject to Bill 51)
That Council
approve an amendment to Zoning By law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 245,
247, 2471/2, 249, 261, 263 and 267 Rochester Street and 29 Balsam Street from
R4T [497] to R4T[xxx] Sxxx H(12.5) and to change the zoning of 27 Balsam Street
from R4H to R4T[xxx] Sxxx H(12.5) to permit infill development as shown in
Document 1 and as detailed in Documents 2 and 3, and that Document 2 of Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0210 be amended to read as follows:
Proposed
Changes to the Comprehensive By-law
1.
Change
the zoning of the property from R4T[497] and R4H to R4T[xxxx] Sxxx H(12.5) as
shown on Document 1.
2.
Section
239 - Urban Exceptions will be amended by adding a new exception with
provisions similar in effect to the following:
- Include all of the existing provisions
of exception 497
- minimum and maximum yard setbacks are
as per schedule xxx
- convenience store is permitted in a
mixed use development
- no visitor parking is required
- no parking is required for permitted
non-residential uses
- a minimum of 35.0 metres of the
frontage along Rochester Street, measured at the building setback, must be
occupied by a combination of building face and projecting building features, of
which a minimum of 30.0 metres must be occupied by a building face
- 7% of
the lot area must be provided as landscaped area for any development
- all non-residential uses must have the
main customer entrance facing either Rochester or Balsam Street and must be
located within 10 metres of Rochester Street
- despite Table 137 a minimum of 5.0 sq. m. of amenity area is required
per dwelling unit,
- total maximum accumulated width of all
driveways connecting directly to a Rochester Street is 7.5 m.
- maximum of two driveway connections to Rochester Street are
allowed
- all outdoor amenity areas must be a
minimum of 1.0 metres from a property line other than a property line adjacent
to a street unless screened by a translucent or opaque screen having a minimum
height of 1.5 metres
- In either a PUD or a mixed use
development the following also applies:
- width of a driveway or private way: 3.0
m
- setback of wall to a private way,
driveway or aisle: 0.0 m
- setback of garage or carport to
a private way, driveway or aisle: 0.0 m
- minimum width of 2.2 m. for driveway
or aisle providing direct access to a garage or carport
- separation distance between buildings:
1.2 m
131 (1)(c) also applies to the severance
of a development parcel in a mixed use development
3.
Part 17 -
Schedules will be amended by adding Document 3 as a new schedule.
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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
de la Ville d’Ottawa en vue de faire passer le zonage des 245, 247, 2471/2,
249, 261, 263 et 267, rue Rochester et du 29, rue Balsam de R4T [497] à R4T
[xxx] Sxxx H(12.5) et de faire passer le zonage du 27, rue Balsam de R4H à R4T
[xxx] Sxxx H(12.5), afin de permettre l’aménagement intercalaire illustré en détail dans le
document no 1 et exposé dans les documents no 2 et no 3, et
que le document no 2 du rapport ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0210
soit modifié comme suit :
Modifications proposées au Règlement de zonage général
1.
Modification en vue de faire passer
le zonage de la propriété de R4T[497] et R4H à R4T[xxxx] Sxxx H(12.5) tel
qu’indiqué dans le document no 1.
2.
La Section 239 – exceptions
urbaines - sera modifiée en ajoutant une nouvelle exception comportant des
dispositions ayant des effets semblables à ce qui suit :
- inclure toutes les dispositions actuelles de l’exception 497;
- les retraits minimaux et maximaux de cour arrière sont conformes à
l’annexe xxx;
- les dépanneurs sont permis dans un aménagement polyvalent;
- aucun stationnement de visiteurs requis;
- aucun stationnement requis pour utilisations non résidentielles
autorisées;
- au minimum, un espace de 35 mètres de la façade sur la rue Rochester,
mesuré à partir du retrait de l’immeuble, sera occupé par la combinaison de la
façade de l’immeuble et des caractéristiques en saillie de l’immeuble, dont au
moins 30 mètres sera composé de la façade de l’immeuble;
- 7 % de la superficie du lot doit être réservée comme zone
paysagée pour tout aménagement;
- tous les utilisations non résidentielles doivent avoir leur entrée
principale réservée aux clients qui fait face à la rue Rochester ou à la rue
Balsam et doivent être situées à au plus 10 mètres de la rue Rochester;
- malgré le tableau 137, il faut prévoir un minimum de 5 m2
d’espace d’agrément par unité d’habitation;
- la largeur maximale totale accumulée pour toutes les voies d’accès
pour véhicules reliées directement à la rue Rochester est de 7,5 m.
- un maximum de deux voies d’accès pour véhicules à la rue Rochester est
permis;
- toutes les zones d’agrément extérieures doivent être à au moins 1
mètre de distance de la limite de la propriété autre que la limite de propriété
adjacente à une rue, sauf si la zone est cachée par un écran translucide ou
opaque d’une hauteur minimale de 1,5 m;
- dans un complexe immobilier ou un aménagement polyvalent, les critères
suivants s’appliquent également :
- largeur de la voie d’accès pour véhicules ou de la voie privée :
3 m;
- retrait du mur bornant une voie privée, une voie d’accès pour véhicules
ou une allée : 0,0 m;
- retrait du garage ou de l’abri pour voitures de la voie privée, de la
voie d’accès pour véhicules ou de l’allée : 0,0 m;
- largeur minimale de 2,2 m pour les voies d’accès pour véhicules
ou les allées donnant accès direct à un garage ou à un abri pour voitures;
- distance de séparation entre les immeubles : 1,2 m;
Le paragraphe 131 (1)(c) s’applique aussi à la disjonction d’un lot
dans un aménagement polyvalent.
3. Partie 17
– les annexes seront modifiées en ajoutant le document no 3 comme nouvelle
annexe.
Par conséquent, il
est résolu que conformément au paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire,
aucun autre avis ne sera donné.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, dated 25 October 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0210).
2.
Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting
of 8 November 2011.
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité
de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
25 October 2011 / le 25 Octobre 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 : Richard Kilstrom,
Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services,
Inner Core/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Unité du Centre
intérieur
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
ZONING
– 27 and 29 Balsam street, and 245 to 267 Rochester STREET (FILE NO. D07-12-11-0093) |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the
zoning of 245, 247, 2471/2, 249, 261, 263 and 267 Rochester Street and 29
Balsam Street from R4T [497] to R4T[xxx] Sxxx H(12.5) and to change the zoning
of 27 Balsam Street from R4H to R4T[xxx] Sxxx H(12.5) to permit infill
development as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande ce qui
suit au Conseil approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 de la
Ville d’Ottawa en vue de faire passer le zonage des 245, 247, 2471/2, 249, 261,
263 et 267, rue Rochester et du 29, rue Balsam de R4T [497] à R4T [xxx] Sxxx
H(12.5) et de faire passer le zonage du 27, rue Balsam de R4H à R4T [xxx] Sxxx
H(12.5), afin de
permettre l’aménagement intercalaire illustré en détail dans le document no 1 et exposé dans les documents
no 2 et no 3.
BACKGROUND
The property is located at the northeast corner of Rochester Street and Balsam Street, one block north of Gladstone Avenue and one block east of Preston Street. The site has an approximate area of 1833 square metres and currently contains four, two-storey buildings and a one-storey building facing Rochester Street, and a two-storey residential building facing Balsam Street. Three of the buildings facing Rochester Street are, or have been, used commercially at ground level. The building frontage along the Rochester Street side of the property is continuous except for two small breaks of approximately 2.5 metres each.
Directly across Balsam Street to the south is a one to two-storey residential development, while at the southwest corner of Booth Street and Balsam Street is St. Anthony's Children's Centre and a church. Adjacent to the north along the east and west sides of Rochester Street is a mix of two‑storey buildings containing residential and various commercial uses. To the northeast are low profile residential buildings plus a seven-storey apartment building. Adjacent to the east along Balsam Street are two-storey dwellings and at the northwest corner of Booth Street and Balsam Street is a recently constructed four-storey apartment building with ground-floor commercial space. To the west along the north side of Balsam Street are two‑storey dwellings. Across the intersection of Balsam and Rochester Streets to the southwest is a large seniors housing development including five, seven and 21-storey building segments.
Purpose of Zoning Amendment
The applicant was originally proposing a seven-storey mixed-use building with a small commercial space on the ground floor, approximately 60 apartment units above, commercial parking at grade (under the building), and residential parking underground. The original proposal, which has been abandoned, required Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law amendments. The current proposal is for 21 townhouse units arranged around a “U-shaped” private roadway accessed from Rochester Street and one semi-detached dwelling facing Balsam Street, giving a total of 23 proposed units. In order to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting that all the property be under one new R4 sub-zone, with reductions and amendments to a number of zoning performance standards, primarily pertaining to yard setbacks and vehicular circulation.
Existing Zoning
Under Zoning By-law 2008-250, the portion of the property facing Rochester Street is currently zoned R4T[497], while the Balsam Street oriented property is zoned R4H. The base R4 zone permits a variety of residential uses including: apartment dwelling low-rise, bed and breakfast, retirement home and three-unit dwelling. The R4H and the R4T sub-zones establish specific performance standards related to lot sizes and building setbacks, while the [497] exception allows for limited additional commercial uses, under specific conditions, and prohibits drive through facilities for food ordering and pick-up.
Proposed Zoning
The applicant’s proposal is for 21 townhouse units arranged around a “U-shaped” private roadway accessed from Rochester Street and one semi-detached dwelling facing Balsam Street for a total of 23 dwelling units. There is a single car garage proposed within each of the 23 units. In order to facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting that all the property be under one new R4 sub-zone, with changes to performance standards including the following:
·
reduction to the required minimum
front yard from 3.0 metres to 0.8 metres;
·
corner side yards reduced from
3.0 metres to 0.6 metres;
·
rear yard reduced to 1.2 metres;
·
an increase in the maximum height
to 12.5 metres from 11.0 metres;
·
minimum width of a private way
reduced from 6.0 metres to 3.6 metres;
·
minimum setback of a wall from a
private way reduced from 1.8 metres to
0.0 metres;
·
minimum separation between buildings
reduced to 1.2 metres; and
·
reduced driveway to a garage or
carport from 2.6 to 2.2 metres.
As discussed below, the
Department is recommending one new R4 subzone that allows for the intensity and
type of development requested. The recommended performance standard amendments
are provided in detail in Document 2. In
addition to the applicant’s requested by‑law changes, the recommended revisions
by staff also refine provisions for potential commercial uses, and establish
minimum amenity space requirements in this intense inner-city neighbourhood.
DISCUSSION
Provincial Policy Statement
The recommended re-zoning is intended to facilitate development that promotes the efficient use of land and infrastructure in a pattern consistent with achieving viable liveable communities, which is in keeping with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS also promotes redevelopment to satisfy a demand for a range of housing types. The recommended zoning amendment is in keeping with the PPS.
Official
Plan
Strategic Directions
Section 2.2.2 – Managing Growth Within the Urban Area, Strategic Directions
of the OP indicates that “within
lands designated General Urban Area,
opportunities for intensification exist and will be supported” at a smaller
scale, depending upon factors such as the existing built context and proximity
to major roads and transit. The Strategic Directions go on to say that “the
quality of the built environment is a significant cornerstone of
intensification.” The OP “requires that
intensification proposals have full regard for the existing built context and a
full understanding of the impacts the proposal will have on both the immediate
and wider surroundings”.
The policies of the Strategic Directions support
intensification on lands within 600 metres of future or existing rapid-transit
stations provided that all other policies in the OP are met and that “the
interior portions of stable, low-rise residential neighbourhoods will continue
to be characterized by low-rise buildings” (as defined in Section 4.11, policy
8). The City supports intensification in
the General Urban Area where it will “enhance and complement its desirable
characteristics and long term renewal” and “will be designed to complement the
area's pattern of built form and open spaces.”
The proposed redevelopment is within 600 metres of the proposed Gladstone Avenue rapid
transit station. The recommended zoning
provisions facilitate development that reinforces some of the desirable
characteristics of Rochester Street.
The Strategic Directions stress compatibility
indicating that development in existing areas “requires a sensitive approach and a
respect for a communities established characteristics”, while “allowing for
some flexibility and variation that complements the character of existing
communities” to achieve successful intensification. The form and style of the related
redevelopment proposal is not the same as the surrounding community but does
respect the lower built form of surrounding buildings and community. Compatibility and design are addressed
further below under Ottawa by Design.
General Urban Area
The subject property is designated General Urban
Area in the OP. The OP indicates that “the
General Urban Area designation permits the development of a full range and
choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances,
in combination with conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural,
leisure, entertainment and institutional uses.” The OP directs that “the City supports infill
development and other intensification within the General Urban Area in a manner
that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the
long-term vitality of the many existing communities that make up the city.” The recommended re-zoning provides for
town-house style housing in a compact
form, in keeping with the OP intent for a range of housing choices, and with
the “tightly knit”, but predominantly low profile character of the
neighbourhood. The added housing will
help promote the long term vitality of the community.
Policy 3. indicates that, “when considering a proposal for
residential intensification through infill or redevelopment in the General
Urban Area, the City will recognize the importance of new development relating
to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable
established patterns and built form.”
The recommended re-zoning recognizes the low‑profile built form
along the edge that constitutes the east side of the block of Rochester Street
containing the proposed development, and prescribes a continuation of these “desirable
established patterns and built form.”
Official Plan
Part 4. Review of Development Applications
The OP policies of Subsection 4.4 Water and Wastewater Servicing require adequate services for new development. The property is adequately served by water, and storm and sanitary sewer lines to facilitate the potential development afforded by the recommended rezoning.
Ottawa By Design
Design that is compatible through
its conceptual quality and contextual sensitivity is a fundamental precept of
the OP for successful residential intensification. This is part of the OP theme of “Ottawa by
Design”. The Strategic Directions of Section
2 establish a set of Design Objectives and pursuant Principles, a number of
which are germane to the subject application, as cited and discussed below.
1. To enhance the sense of
community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity.
Principles
Design should create
distinctive places and appreciate local identity in patterns of development,
landscape and culture and reflect a thorough and sensitive understanding of
place, context and setting.
The recommended re-zoning provides the opportunity for
development that is distinctive while prescribing standards to maintain local
identity and context in terms of low scale and street orientation.
2. To define quality public and
private spaces through development
Principles
Design should:
Clearly define and connect public and private spaces by:
Defining and enclosing spaces using buildings, structures and
landscaping.
Enhance and enliven the quality, character and spatial
delineation of public spaces.
Consider streets as public spaces.
Encourage a continuity of street frontages. Where continuous
building facades are not a dominant feature of the streetscape, the gradual in-filling
of empty spaces between buildings and between the building and the street edge
is to occur over time. Depending on the
stage of evolution of the street, it may be appropriate to achieve this
principle in a number of ways e.g., building form, landscape treatment,
architectural ornamentation.
Address the relationship between buildings and between
buildings and the street.
Meet the needs of pedestrians as a priority.
The recommended re-zoning includes performance standards
requiring some segments of building facades adjacent to, and oriented to, the
street to help define and enhance the street as a public space. The standards also limit driveways to help foster
an improved pedestrian realm along Balsam Street.
4. To ensure that new development
respects the character of existing areas.
Principles
Design should:
Integrate new development to complement and enliven the
surroundings.
Allow the built form to evolve through architectural style
and innovation.
Complement the massing patterns, rhythm, character, and
context.
The recommended re-zoning will facilitate innovative
residential intensification that is complementary to the low profile character
of the existing neighbourhood.
5. To consider adaptability and
diversity by creating places that can adapt and evolve easily over time and
that are characterized by variety and choice. [OMB decision #2649, September
21, 2006]
Principles
Design should:
Achieve a more compact urban form over time.
Provide flexibility for buildings and spaces to adapt to a
variety of possible uses in response to changing social, economic and
technological conditions.
Allow for varying stages of maturity in different areas of
the city, and recognize that buildings and site development will exhibit
different characteristics as they evolve over time.
Accommodate the needs of a range of people of different
incomes and lifestyles at various stages in the life cycle.
The development fostered by the recommended re-zoning will be
compact and provide for a range of housing choices through designs promoting the
evolution of the area’s built form.
7. To maximize energy-efficiency
and promote sustainable design to reduce the resource consumption, energy use,
and carbon footprint of the built environment.
Principles
Design
should:
Orient development to maximize opportunities for passive
solar gain, natural ventilation, and use energy efficient development forms and
building measures.
The recommended re-zoning facilitates a development form that
promotes opportunities for passive solar gain, the use of natural ventilation
and efficient built form.
Section 4.11 of the OP provides policies for “Urban Design and Compatibility” in the review of development applications. Section 4.11 indicates that, “because land use designations such as General Urban Area, contain broad use permissions, it will be necessary for the zoning by‑law to establish more specific permitted use lists and development regulations within areas and on individual sites in a manner that achieves compatibility among proximate uses and built forms.”
The Urban
Design and Compatibility section establishes a set of policies which relate to
the subject application, as cited and discussed below.
Policy 1 of Section 4.11 indicates that compatibility
analysis for development proposals should have regard to the policies of the
site’s land use designation, and all applicable Secondary Plans,
Council-approved design guidelines, and the Design Objectives and Principles in
Section 2.5.1, and the policies in
Sections 4.1 through 4.10 of the OP. These
OP sections are all discussed in this report, and the applicable design
guidelines will be applied through the related Site Plan Control application. Policy 2 goes on to indicate that “in any
given situation individual criteria may not apply and/or may be evaluated and
weighted on the basis of site circumstances.”
The most relevant criteria to the subject application are addressed below:
“b. Vehicular Access: The location and orientation of vehicle
access and egress should address matters such as the impact of noise, headlight
glare and loss of privacy on development adjacent or immediately opposite.
Vehicular access and egress for development that has the potential to generate
a significant amount of vehicular traffic should be oriented on streets other
than local streets, wherever the opportunity exists”, and policy “c” dealing
with parking goes on to say that “The development should have adequate on-site
parking to minimize the potential for spillover parking on adjacent areas”. Parking and traffic volumes per se are not an
issue with this proposal. Two units of
the proposed development will have direct access to Balsam Street in keeping
with the pattern of the street. The
applicant’s development proposal also includes two internal access connections onto
Rochester Street, which is a local street but has a “Residential (Employment)
Low Profile” designation in the Preston Champagne Secondary plan as discussed
further on in this report.
“d. Outdoor Amenity Areas: The development should respect the
privacy of outdoor amenity areas of adjacent residential units and minimize any
undesirable impacts through the siting and design of the buildings and the use
of screening, lighting, landscaping or other mitigative design measures.” The recommended re-zoning provisions
facilitate a design approach that is sensitive to the specific amenity space
arrangements on surrounding properties and is intended to require the provision
of a minimum amount of amenity area for the benefit of future residents.
The applicant’s development proposal relies on communal
amenity areas that provide limited functional opportunity, and offer a limited
opportunity to establish a vegetated landscape.
“h. Sunlight: The development should minimize shadowing on
adjacent properties, to the extent practicable, particularly on outdoor amenity
areas, through the siting of buildings or other design measures.” The low-profile development proposal will
have some shadow impacts on adjacent properties.
“i. Microclimate: The development should be designed to
minimize adverse effects related to wind, snow drifting, and temperature on
adjacent properties.” The changes
inherent in development opportunities pursuant to the recommended rezoning will
have minimal impact on the surrounding micro-climate;
“j. Supporting Neighbourhood Services: The development should
contribute to or be adequately served by existing or proposed services and
amenities such as health facilities, schools, parks and leisure areas. Where
the proposed development itself is to contribute such services and amenities,
they should be of a scale appropriate to the needs and character of the area.” The recommended zoning maintains the list of
community serving non-residential uses of the existing zoning. The area is also served by nearby schools,
places of worship, and nearby commercial facilities along Rochester Street and
along Preston Street.
Policy 4 of section 4.11 states that: “Buildings, structures and landscaping will
be used to clearly define public spaces, such as streets and parks. In density
target areas identified in S.2.2.2 of this Plan, development will be in the
form of continuous building frontages that frame the street edge and support a
more pedestrian-friendly environment. In some parts of the city, this will mean
that new development consolidates an existing building fabric through infill or
redevelopment opportunities. In other cases, where there is no established
building fabric along the street, new buildings will occupy gaps in the
streetscape caused by parking and/or deep building setbacks. New buildings must
either be properly integrated into their existing building fabric, or help
create a new building fabric.” This
development concept will contribute to the continuity of the built form along Balsam
Street. The provisions of the
recommended re-zoning pertaining to driveway limitations, front door
orientation to the street, and provision of
some continuity of building facades along Rochester Street and Balsam
Street are intended to help partially achieve the intent of defining the public
streetscape, and of supporting a “more pedestrian-friendly environment”.
Policy 14 deals with “intensification
inside stable, low-rise neighbourhoods” and indicates in part that: “Where
development is proposed that requires an amendment or variance to the zoning
by-law with respect to lot area, yards and/or building setback, or building
height, and which varies from the established area’s pattern of built form and
open spaces, the appropriateness of the proposal will be considered in light of
the following measures:
a. Building height, massing and scale
permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the
prevailing patterns established in the immediate area;
b. Prevailing patterns of rear and side
yard setbacks and landscaped open space permitted by the zoning of adjacent
residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the
immediate area;
c. The need to provide a transition between
areas of different development intensity and scale as set out in policy 12 of
this Section;”
The subject property is situated within an established
low-rise neighbourhood. The recommended
re-zoning does include significant compromises to the provisions controlling
building mass, rear and side yards, the prevailing pattern of rear landscaped
areas and intensity transition. The
compromises are considered appropriate given evaluation of the unusual
conditions found on the immediate properties to the east with a building set
well back from the street along Balsam Street, a large parking lot adjacent to
the northeast, and the definition of the northerly yard as a rear yard rather
than the traditional side yard function it fulfils. The recommended set of
performance standards also facilitate an opportunity for functional residential
infill design that can contribute to intensification.
Preston Champagne Secondary Plan
The subject property
is located within the area of the
Preston Champagne Secondary Plan (PCSP).
The PCSP vision for
the Northeast Quadrant states that Rochester Street will retain a more residential character with some
at-grade, locally-oriented commercial uses. The Objective to “Protect Residential Areas/Sensitive Infill looks to “protect and
enhance existing residential areas”. The
recommended re-zoning facilitates retention of the residential character of the
area while retaining the currently permitted, but limited, commercial and
neighbourhood oriented uses. The PCSP policy
for Residential
Areas states that “City Council shall impose maximum height limits in
all residential areas. The subject property is designated Residential
(Employment) Low Profile in the PCSP. The policy for Residential (Employment) Low
Profile is that “City Council shall permit low profile residential uses
on Rochester Street, along with ground floor, locally-oriented commercial uses
in residential buildings.” The recommended re-zoning allows for low-profile residential uses with a
compatible building height limit of 12.5 metres and allows for limited locally-oriented
commercial uses along Rochester Street.
Summary
The recommended re-zoning fosters residential intensification in keeping with the policies of the OP, including the Preston Champagne Secondary Plan, while satisfying the intent of a number of the policies focusing on the Ottawa by Design strategy.
The details and draft schedule of the recommended zoning amendment, as set out in Documents 1, 2 and 3, implement the changes required to allow for a pursuant development concept to proceed in conjunction with the required Site Plan Control and Building Permit applications.
Concurrent Application
A concurrent application for Site Plan Control approval has been submitted (File D07-12-11-0093) and will be processed subsequent to the finalization of the subject re-zoning 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 City did not receive comments or opposition to this application from the general public. The Dalhousie Community Association expressed support for the low-rise nature of this development but had concerns about specific details of the plan. These concerns, and responses to them from staff, are contained in Document 4.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR
Councillor Diane Holmes provided the following comment on the subject zoning application:
“This revised proposal for a planned unit development of 23-units is much more appropriate to the scale of the existing neighbourhood than the 7-storey condominium tower originally proposed. I would encourage this type of ground-oriented development because it is likely to be more attractive to families, and bring more children into the community. I have some concerns about the high density of this development and the number of units per hectare, and the resulting reduced internal yards setbacks that are needed.”
Councillor Diane Holmes provided the following comments on the Site Plan Control application for the development proposal related to this report:
“I am pleased to see a great deal more in-ground shrubbery, trees, and some planters in the courtyard areas than the original concept, which had a continuous surface of pavers from building wall to building wall. The contrasting surface treatment of internal roadway and pavers will differentiate this space.
I support the addition of sodded yards and soft landscaping in the Balsam and Rochester Street boulevards. The columnar crab apples and Japanese Tree Lilacs are not sufficient as street trees. These should be a species that would at least provide some shade and canopy – such as a locust-type tree.
In less heavily trafficked areas, where there will be no vehicular circulation such as the internal ‘front yards’ of the townhouses, there is a need for more water permeable pavers, such as turfstone.”
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal implications associated with this report.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLICATIONS
N/A
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The recommended rezoning is in keeping with the City Strategic Plan, Service Priorities. The potential future intensification and zoning provision revisions support Service Priorities for Transportation, Transit, for a Sustainable, Healthy and Active City, and for Planning and Growth Management. Any related re-development would facilitate efficient use of existing transportation and transit services, and infrastructure through land use planning. The zoning changes are in keeping with the policy of being proactive in requiring walking, transit and cycling oriented communities. The recommended zoning provisions will manage growth to help create a sustainable community.
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to the complexity of issues associated with compatible design and submission of significant concept revisions by the applicant.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Proposed Schedule of Yards
Document 4 Consultation Details
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
Details of
Recommended Zoning
4.
Change
the zoning of the property from R4T[497] and R4H to R4T[xxxx] Sxxx H(12.5) as
shown on Document 1.
5.
Section
239 - Urban Exceptions will be amended by adding a new exception with
provisions similar in effect to the following:
- Include all of the existing provisions of exception 497
- minimum and maximum yard setbacks are as per schedule xxx
- convenience store is permitted in a mixed use development
- no visitor parking is required
- no parking is required for permitted non-residential uses
- a minimum of 37.6 metres of the frontage along Rochester Street,
measured at the building setback, must be occupied by a combination of building
face and projecting building features, of which a minimum of 32.4 metres must
be occupied by a building face
- 7% of the lot area must be provided as landscaped area for any
development
- all
non-residential uses must have the main customer entrance facing either
Rochester or Balsam Street and must be located within 10 metres of Rochester
Street
- despite Table 137 a minimum of 5.0 sq. m. of amenity area is required per dwelling unit, and a
minimum of at least one aggregated area of 50.0 sq. m. must be communal amenity
area
- total maximum accumulated width of all driveways connecting directly
to a public street, other than driveways leading from Balsam Street directly to
a parking space in a semi-detached dwelling is 7.2 m.
- maximum of two driveway
connections to Rochester Street are allowed
- all outdoor amenity areas must be a minimum of 1.0 metres from a
property line other than a property line adjacent to a street unless screened
by a translucent or opaque screen having a minimum height of 1.5 metres
- In either a PUD or a mixed use development the following also
applies:
- width of a driveway or private way: 3.0 m
- setback of wall to a private way, driveway or aisle: 0.0 m
- setback of garage or carport to a private way, driveway or
aisle: 0.0 m
- minimum width of 2.2 m. for driveway or aisle providing direct access
to a garage or carport
- separation distance between buildings: 1.2 m
131 (1)(c) also
applies to the severance of a development parcel in a mixed use
development
6.
Part 17
- Schedules will be amended by adding Document 3 as a new schedule.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF YARDS 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.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the general public.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Dalhousie Community Association Comments
“Re: Zoning By-Law Amendment Proposal: Balsam and Rochester Streets.
Dear Sir,
We strongly support
the concept of low-rise townhouses on this site.
However there are
some fundamental problems with the layout presented. Perhaps this is why the developer and the architect
have not returned our calls and we have been able to acquire only a vague documentation from the Planning Dept. The dev/apps web page
still contains the four year old apartment tower plans, and not the current ones. Our comments
are therefore based only on a site and landscape plans dated Feb/Mar 2011 and
an undated partial perspective sketch.
·
With only nominal
property line setbacks proposed at the rear northeast corners of the site, the
usual mutual open space in the centre of residential blocks is missing. This
creates an adverse impact on the abutting properties present and potential
enjoyment of light, air and hopefully green space. This is uncharacteristic of
the neighbourhood. Units 5, 6 12 and 13
compromise the usual 7.5m rear yard
setback. They should be eliminated in favour of green space.
·
The 4 storey units
(Block D) shown in the sketch seem incompatible with the lower rise adjacent
properties. 4 stories would be more
appropriate along Rochester and at the corner of Balsam, leaving lower
units for where they are adjacent to existing 2 storey buildings. The height
variance would not required if the 4 storey units were kept within the present
“Rochester” zoning area.
·
There is an
inappropriate lack of trees and green
landscaping. Only 7 dwarf trees are proposed and none on Rochester. There ought to be 8 trees along Rochester,
one more on Balsam and many more internally. The huge wasteland of impermeable
asphalt, all presumably directing rainwater to sewers, is a poor environmental
solution.
·
Most of the units are
extraordinarily close to the adjacent lot lines, which will impair the use and
privacy of those properties and may severely restrict those owners ability to
redevelop their properties
·
The units on Rochester, despite the slender entries,
do not address the street. As per the
Urban Design Guidelines, these units should provide “eyes on the street”.
·
We do appreciate that
practically all the garages are off the internal street.
We hope that the
proposal can be modified to reflect these concerns and that revised plans will
be forthcoming. We are prepared to meet anyone, any time to review this
proposal further.
Eric Darwin,
President
Dalhousie Community Association”
Response to Comments
The Dalhousie Community Association’s “bullet” comments are addressed
in order as follows:
1.
The
areas to the north on properties adjacent to units 5 and 6 are traditional side
yard situations on the adjacent properties and will constitute a rear yard
condition with the proposed development.
No external activity or amenity areas are proposed for units along this
edge condition, minimizing opportunities for overlook. As well any roof-top
amenity space close to the property line must be screened as per the
recommended zoning provisions. The
building on the adjoining property adjacent to units 12 and 13 is set back
almost to the rear of the property and the relationship of units 12 and 13 to
this building will be similar to a typical side-yard to side-yard condition and
is not considered problematic.
2.
Four-storey
semi-detached units along Balsam Street are in keeping with the recent four-storey development at the nearby corner
of Balsam and Booth Streets and within the definition of low-rise
development. The proposed flat-roofed
four-storey building is also estimated to have an overall height equivalent to
the top of the nearby peaked roof house just to the east and is considered to
be a compatible scale of development.
3.
The
landscape design concept for development of the property will be finalized
through the related site plan application, and will include optimizing
opportunities for trees, including along Rochester Street, to the extent
practicable. As well, the recommended
zoning provisions add new minimum amenity area requirements to the property.
4.
The
subject site abuts other properties to the east and to the north. As indicated in “1” above, the areas on
properties to the north are traditional side yard situations and will likely be
unused rear yards with the proposed development. No external activity or amenity areas are
proposed for units along this edge condition, minimizing opportunities for
overlook and reducing the potential impact on possible future development of
the adjacent lands. The building on the adjoining property adjacent to the east
is set back almost to the rear of the property, thus the relationship this
building will be similar to a typical side-yard to side-yard condition and is
not considered problematic.
5.
The
recommended zoning provisions are based on facilitating a more continuous
building frontage along Rochester Street along with more entrances oriented to
the street. The development proposal has
been revised to add one more unit oriented to Rochester Street.
6.
The recommended
zoning contains performance provisions directing most garage entrances away
from the street.