6.         ZONING - 560 RIDEAU STREET

 

ZONAGE - 560, RUE RIDEAU

 

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998, to change the zoning of 560 Rideau Street from a CN7 F(2.0) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial  Zone to a CN7 F(4.25) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone with an exception, as detailed in Document 3 and shown in Document 4.

 

 
RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ

 

Que le Conseil municipal approuve la demande de modification du règlement municipal de zonage de 1998 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa en vue de modifier le zonage du 560, rue Rideau de Zone de rue commerçante de quartier CN7 F(2.0) à Zone de rue commerçante de quartier CN7 F(4.25) à exception, comme le précise le Document 3 et l’illustre le Document 4.

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.         Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 16 July 2003 (ACS2003-DEV-APR-0149).

 

2.         Extract of Draft Minutes, 24 July 2003.

 


Report to/Rapport au:

 

Planning and Development Committee /

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

 

and Council/et au Conseil

 

16 July 2003 / le 16 juillet 2003

 

Submitted by/Soumis par:  Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

 

Contact/Personne-ressource:  Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals /

Gestionnaire, Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

580-2424 ext. 13242, grant.lindsay@ottawa.ca

 

 

Ref N°:   ACS2003-DEV-APR-0149

 

 

SUBJECT:     ZONING - 560 RIDEAU STREET

 

OBJET:          ZONAGE - 560, RUE RIDEAU

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998, to change the zoning of 560 Rideau Street from a CN7 F(2.0) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial  Zone to a CN7 F(4.25) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone with an exception, as detailed in Document 3 and shown in Document 4.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver la demande de modification du règlement municipal de zonage de 1998 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa en vue de modifier le zonage du 560, rue Rideau de Zone de rue commerçante de quartier CN7 F(2.0) à Zone de rue commerçante de quartier CN7 F(4.25) à exception, comme le précise le Document 3 et l’illustre le Document 4.

 

 


BACKGROUND

 

The subject property is located on the south side of Rideau Street between Cobourg Street to the west and Charlotte Street to the east, and is currently used as a parking lot.  The property has an area of 2608.0 square metres and includes a small “pan-handle” extension providing an additional frontage on Cobourg Street.  Immediately to the east is a five-storey medical office and laboratory building occupying the southwest corner of Rideau Street and Cobourg Street, while to the west are two mixed commercial residential buildings of three-storeys.  Adjacent to the south, with frontage along Besserer Street and Cobourg Street, is a mixture of vacant properties used as parking lots, and two to three-storey residential structures, including two walk-up apartment buildings.  Of the six adjacent residential structures, four are on the City’s Heritage Reference List.  Across Rideau Street to the northeast is a 14-storey apartment building, the surface parking lot serving the apartments, a vacant lot, and to the northwest, a three-storey mixed commercial and residential building, which is on the City’s Heritage Reference List.

 

The property is currently zoned CN7 F(2.0) – Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone, which permits a range of commercial uses as well as some residential uses, including dwelling units under certain conditions.  The abutting properties to the east and west are also zoned CN7 F(2.0).  The property across the street is zoned CN F(2.5).  The existing CN zone is intended to encourage commercial uses in a visually continuous, street level building form promoting a pedestrian-oriented retail environment, while ensuring the commercial uses do not infringe on adjacent uses.  The current zoning facilitates a building at grade and apartment dwelling units on the upper floors.  The adjacent area to the south is zoned R5D[87], Low-Rise Apartment Zone with an exception, and is intended to accommodate medium density residential uses, with a mix of ground oriented dwelling types regulated to adopt existing land use patterns, while providing a transition between low and high density residential areas.

 

The Zoning By-law amendment requested is to create a CN7 F(4.25) zone with an exception in order to increase the existing floor space index of 2.0 to 4.25 and to increase the building height limit from 18.0 metres to 21.2 metres and to 27.0 metres for parts of the property set back further from the lot lines as shown on Document 4.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Official Plan Policies  - CITY COUNCIL APPROVED OFFICIAL PLAN

 

Compatibility with Strategic Approach

 

The Strategic Directions Section of the City Council Approved Official Plan (CCAOP) advocates creating livable communities, by increasing affordable housing throughout the urban area and providing a balance of facilities, including a variety of housing types.  The requested re-zoning will foster development of a nine-storey apartment building at the edge of the Sandy Hill community, which will add more variety of housing to this predominantly low profile neighbourhood in a building format that is more conducive to affordable options.  The Strategic Directions call for intensifying within existing development areas to accommodate the City’s projected population growth, with the growth being directed to designated Mainstreets, and along major roads and the rapid transit network.  Rideau Street is designated as Mainstreet, is an Arterial road and has been identified as a Transit Priority Corridor and the route for a Future Rapid Transit Corridor.

 

Lands designated Mainstreets are intended to become linear mixed-use focal areas allowing for a more dense and urban form of development, while building sensitively on existing neighbourhoods and supporting pedestrian activity.  The proposed increase in height and allowable floor space will facilitate a more dense and urban form of development for the subject property, and retain and enhance the opportunity for a successful mixed-use development, by accommodating more people living and shopping in the same area.  Being on the northerly edge of the Sandy Hill community, the increased height and floor area requested will not diminish the ability to create a project design that is sensitive to the adjacent neighbourhood.

 

The Compatibility of Development sub-section of the Strategic Directions Section of the CCAOP recognizes that zoning changes may be necessary to achieve levels of intensification that are greater than what has been achieved in the past, particularly adjacent to major roadways.  This subsection also indicates that lands along neighbourhood boundaries or on major transportation arteries are excellent locations for compact mixed-use development and that zoning changes may be needed to allow height or density increases.  The location of the subject property matches the major roadway situation prescribed by the policy for intensification as a condition possibly requiring a zoning amendment, and the height and density increases requested are in keeping with the approach anticipated by the Compatibility of Development sub-section.  This sub-section points out that, while compatibility is important in all cases, some flexibility and variation is central to successful intensification.

 

The Compatibility of Development sub-section also sets out policies for the review of intensification and infill development applications, which include compensatory physical design techniques to deal with variations from the existing architectural and built form relationships and characteristics found in the area.  The proposed amendment will allow for a built form that is different from that found on the abutting low-profile residential properties to the south, from the medium profile box form of the office building to the east and from the much higher 14-storey apartment building across Rideau Street to the north.  The policies for more detailed development proposal review will be applied through the Site Plan Control and Building Permit applications for the subject site.

 

The proposed rezoning must have regard to policies that include providing for building height transitions relative to the profile of adjacent buildings, setting back upper storeys from the front façade, creating transitions in building widths, minimizing impacts such as loss of light or privacy in outdoor amenity areas to the extent practical, respecting lot area and yard requirements, locating along roadways with sufficient traffic capacity, contributing to land use and activity diversity, and considering the extent of the provisions for community serving uses.

 

The proposed zoning provisions do prescribe building height transitions and upper storey set backs from the front façade.  Design measures to address transitions in building widths will be dealt with at the site plan application stage.  There are no outdoor amenity areas adjacent to the north of the property where loss of light would occur and a limited number of existing amenity areas adjacent to the south and there is no request for a change in lot area or yard requirements.   The re-zoning will foster development of a project adding commercial and residential diversity to the area, while maintaining the potential to provide community serving uses.  The recommended zoning amendment is considered to be in keeping with the intent of the Strategic Directions Section of the CCAOP.

 

Compatibility with Policy Directives

 

The CCAOP indicates that for areas designated Mainstreets, projects will be supported that achieve a more urban and densely developed form, with sensitivity to existing neighbourhoods and less orientation to the use of automobiles.  The intent of the policies for Mainstreets is to achieve an uninterrupted network of active, pedestrian oriented, mixed-use development including apartments.   The policies call for development that is of compatible form and considers the context of the street.  The policy supports intensification along Mainstreets, particularly along arterial roads and transit-priority corridors; it recognizes site-specific redevelopment opportunities, especially parking lots, and that development may be generally small to medium in scale.   The proposed re-zoning will facilitate intensification through a medium scale development on an existing parking lot along an arterial road and transit priority corridor in keeping with the policies for Mainstreets.

 

The Policies for Mainstreets specifically addresses the factors to be considered in reviewing a Zoning By-law amendment in the absence of a Council approved “community design plan”, which is the case in this area.   The factors for consideration include evaluation vis-à-vis the Compatibility of Development sub-section of the Strategic Directions Section discussed previously.  New developments are to support optimized redevelopment of underutilized land, and considering the extent to which the proposal will increase housing and land use diversity, and housing affordability.   The proposed Zoning By-law amendment will foster development of underutilized land providing housing and land use diversity, and provide an opportunity for housing that may be more affordable than the low profile residential section of Sandy Hill to the south.

 

A draft of a community design plan, entitled “Uptown Rideau Design Plan”, has been prepared by the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group, which included City staff, to reflect the views of community representatives as to appropriate design guidelines for Rideau Street between King Edward Avenue and the Rideau River.   The draft design plan engages the opinions of the adjoining communities to the north and south, and existing businesses in the area.   Many of the issues summarized and addressed in the Consultation Details section of this report are consistent with aspects of the draft design plan.  The planning analysis presented in this report acknowledges the views of the local community and is intended to convey the overall policy intent of the Council approved Official Plan documents applicable to the property.   

 

The proposed rezoning supports the commitment to development within Mainstreets, as priority locations for increased height and density provisions where appropriate.  The subject property along Rideau Street within about six blocks of the Central Area, is viewed to be an appropriate location for employing increased height and density provisions.  The recommended zoning amendment is considered to be in keeping with the intent of the Designations and Land Use section of the CCAOP.

 

The transportation oriented policies of the CCAOP require the provision of good pedestrian access to sidewalks and transit stops, and locating high density residential development close to the approved primary transit network.  The transportation policies recognize the benefit of transportation impact studies to determine roadway capacity and impacts of potential developments on the neighbourhood.  Rideau Street is part of the designated primary transit network in the CCAOP and development on the site will have good pedestrian access to sidewalks and existing and future transit stops.

 

A transportation impact study has been submitted and demonstrates that the traffic generated by the requested increase in development potential will have minimal impact on roadway capacity and the surrounding neighbourhood.  The study has been reviewed by staff and staff concur with the study findings and conclusions.

 

The polices for water and wastewater servicing require that there is a reliable water supply and safe wastewater disposal available to all development.  There is adequate piped water and sewer services available at the subject location.

 

New development proposals must be compatible with adjacent heritage resources.  There are five buildings adjacent to the property that are on the City’s Heritage Reference List, three are listed as Category 2 and two as Category 3.  Development of the property will create a standard backyard-to-backyard relationship between the heritage buildings and a new building, will benefit from the required yard set back provisions of the zoning bylaw, and will not share a common streetscape.   Construction of a project on the site in keeping with the recommended rezoning therefore is anticipated to be compatible with the adjacent heritage resources.

 

FORMER REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES

 

The Official Plan of the former Region of Ottawa Carleton (ROP) designates the subject land as General Urban Area.  Lands designated General Urban Area are to be used primarily for residential purposes, and for supportive shopping, service and community facilities.

 

The proposed amendment is considered to be consistent with the objectives of Section 2.3 of the Regional Development Strategy of the ROP.   The objectives call for taking advantage of existing infrastructure capacities, encouraging denser more compact and balanced development on lands designated for urban purposes, and increasing the proportion of new dwellings built inside the Greenbelt.  The subject land, which is situated inside the Greenbelt, is totally serviced and would facilitate a more compact form of development at a moderate density.

 

The ROP policies of Section 2.5 deal with development inside the Greenbelt and support zoning changes that ensure a mix of residential and non-residential development on Regional roads with transit routes and support zoning by-laws for higher density throughout the urban area, particularly in the Central Area.  The policies of Section 2.5 call for development that respects the characteristics of existing communities and minimizes significant impacts on adjacent established residential areas. The proposed re-zoning will:

·        continue to ensure a mix of residential and non-residential development along Rideau Street, which is a Regional road served by numerous transit routes;

·        facilitate higher density in the urban area and is only six blocks from the Central Area;

·        provide for a built form similar to that of numerous buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood; and

·        have minimal impact on the adjacent existing residential area.

 

The proposed re-zoning is therefore considered to be in keeping with the intent of the General Urban Area designation and satisfies the intent of the policies of the ROP pertaining to residential development in the urban area.

 

FORMER CITY OF OTTAWA OFFICIAL PLAN

 

Volume I, Primary Plan of the Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa (OPCO) designates the property, and all the adjacent lands fronting Rideau Street, as Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Area.  The OPCO objectives for Linear Commercial Areas include reducing the negative impacts of expanded uses on adjacent neighbourhoods, and to facilitate pedestrian interest and community interaction through uses that are compatible with adjacent residential areas. The proposed re-zoning will have minimal impact on the adjacent neighbourhood, with any new building being located to the north of adjacent residential properties, thus minimizing potential shadowing, with all access directed toward Rideau Street, and a minimal increase in traffic volumes.  The added residential capacity and potential for grade level retail development that is compatible with the adjacent residential area, will promote increased pedestrian interest and community interaction.

 

Policies for Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Areas in the OPCO support Main Street store-front-type commercial development with a mix of uses and a pedestrian oriented character found in older parts of the City.  The re-zoning will allow for mixed uses and store-front-type development with pedestrian oriented character.  The Linear Commercial Area policies promoting the infilling of existing areas, including development with housing units above grade level.  The zoning changes will foster the infilling of a substantial vacant area of the Rideau Street linear commercial area with development having housing above grade.

 

The OPCO development guidelines for linear commercial areas require that the policies of the Environmental Management Chapter, which includes promotion of housing in locations to reduce the distance and number of vehicle trips for energy conservation purposes.  The proposed re-zoning will increase the potential for housing in a highly accessible area with good transit and pedestrian access, thus facilitating reduced vehicle trips.

The development guidelines promote uses that minimize the effects of noise, fumes and traffic generation on adjoining neighbourhoods.  Development of building mass pursuant to the proposed zoning would reduce the penetration of noise from Rideau Street traffic into the adjacent neighbourhood to the south, generate few fumes and cause little increase in traffic.  The guidelines support development with a human scale, with heights similar to other buildings in the linear commercial area or, where medium or high profile buildings are desirable, employing techniques such as setting back the upper stories of the building.  The proposed zoning provisions limit the building height to approximately nine storeys, which is within the range established by other existing buildings in the Rideau Street linear commercial area.  The recommended zoning provisions also address the need to set back the upper storeys of a medium profile building. The proposed increase in density renders the provision of underground parking more economically feasible and will thus help foster development of a continuous commercial building façade at street level.

 

Based on the review of the policies discussed above, the proposed rezoning satisfies the intent of the objectives, policies and guidelines set out in Volume I, Primary Plan of the OPCO dealing with Linear Commercial Areas.

 

SANDY HILL SECONDARY PLAN

 

The Sandy Hill Secondary Plan (SHSP) included as part of the former City of Ottawa Official Plan and reconfirmed as part of the City Council Approved Official Plan includes the subject property as part of a Major Commercial Area that includes most of the south side of Rideau Street within Sandy Hill.  The intent of the designation is to provide a location for shops to serve a wider market at accessible locations that will have the least affect on the residential environment.  The proposed rezoning will not alter the commercial use provisions and will continue to facilitate the desired form of commercial use cited in the Secondary Plan.

 

The SHSP policies call for preserving and enhancing Sandy Hill as an attractive residential neighbourhood, providing for a broad range of socio-economic groups, and accepting a modest increase in population to provide housing to support growth of the Central Area labour force.  The proposed rezoning will add to the residential component of Sandy Hill, without causing a loss of any of the existing residential fabric of the area, while providing further diversity in the types of dwelling units available, which may facilitate corresponding socio-economic diversity and provide a housing alternative for people working in and around the Central Area.  The proposed rezoning is considered to maintain the intent of the SHSP.

 

In summary, the recommended rezoning has been reviewed with regard to the objectives and policies of the City Council Approved Official Plan for the City of Ottawa, the former City of Ottawa Official Plan and the former ROC Official Plan and the Department has determined that the proposal satisfies the intent of all three plans.

 

 


CONSULTATION

 

This application was subject to Notification and Consultation, which required the posting of an on-site sign and circulation to concerned community groups.  Seven responses in opposition to the proposed rezoning were received as a result of the posting of the on-site sign.  All those in opposition believed that the proposed rezoning would have a negative impact on the quality of Rideau Street the surrounding neighbourhood.  A detailed summary of the concerns received and the staff responses are contained in Document 7.  The Ward Councillor, Madeleine Meilleur, is aware of the application.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was not processed within the time frame established for Zoning Amendment Reports due to related building design considerations.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Document 1 - Explanatory Note

Document 2 - Location Map

Document 3 - Zoning Details

Document 4 - Building Height Schedule

Document 5 – Building Perspective North Side

Document 6 – Building Perspective Rideau Street East

Document 7 - Consultation Details

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the agent (Roderick Lahey, Suite 200 - 1501 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1Z 7M1) and owner (Richcraft Homes, 2280 St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4K1) of Council’s Decision.

 

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

 

Department of Development Services to write and circulate the implementing by-law.


EXPLANATORY NOTE                                                                                                Document 1

 

 

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXPLANATORY NOTE TO BY-LAW NUMBER

 

By-law Number ………  amends the former City of Ottawa’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law.  This amendment affects the lands located at 560 Rideau Street, being on the south side of the street between Charlotte Street to the east and Cobourg Street to the west. This property is presently vacant.   It is proposed to rezone the property to permit an increase in the building height limit to 21 metres and 27 metres on parts of the property and an increase in the allowed floor space index to 4.25 times the lot area.  The extent of the lands can be seen in Document 2.

 

Current Zoning

 

The property is currently zoned CN7 F(2.0) – Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone, which permits a range of commercial uses as well as some residential uses under certain conditions.  The F(2.0) is a floor space index that allows the gross floor area of a building to be equal to but not greater than two times the lot area.  A height limit of 18.0 m applies to the CN7 F(2.0) zone. 

 

Recommended Zoning

 

The recommended zoning is a CN7 F(4.25) zone with an exception in order to increase the existing floor space index of 2.0 to 4.25 times the lot area, and to increase the building height limit from 18.0 metres to 21.2 metres, and to 27.0 metres for parts of a building that will be set back specified distances from the property lines.


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                           Document 2

 


DETAILS OF PROPOSED ZONING                                                                           Document 3

 

 

1.                  The building height limit on the property is increased as shown in Document 4.

 

2.                  The allowable Floor Space Index is 4.25.

 


BUILDING HEIGHT SCHEDULE                                                                               Document 4

 


BUILDING PERSPECTIVE NORTH SIDE                                                                Document 5

 


BUILDING PERSPECTIVE RIDEAU STREET EAST                                              Document 6

 


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                                        Document 7

 

NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Notification and public consultation procedures were carried out in accordance with the Notification and Consultation Procedures approved by City Council for Zoning Amendments.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

This application was subject to Notification and Consultation, which required the posting of an on-site information sign and circulation to concerned community groups.  Five responses in opposition were received from the general public and two from community groups.  A summary of the comments and staff responses are presented below.

 

Action Sandy Hill Comments

 

Action Sandy Hill provided the following comments:

 

Regarding the above-mentioned zoning amendment proposal, which concerns a projected apartment building on the south side of Rideau Street at Cobourg, the Board of Action Sandy Hill (ASH) wishes to record its view that the present 18-metre height limit for buildings, as set out in the City's zoning code, is entirely appropriate for this site.  Accordingly, ASH will oppose any revision or amendment of that zoning provision.  In addition, a working guideline has been approved in principle, at meetings of the Rideau Street Redevelopment Group, in which members of the City's planning staff have participated, calling far 'a minimum height of four storeys and a maximum height of six storeys' for buildings along this arterial thoroughfare.  In addition, we have received indications that ASH's opposition to the proposed zoning change has the support of many of the site's neighbours.” (January 22, 2003 Comment)

 

We find this proposed zoning change particularly important because it involves the CN7 F(2.0) zoning, a virtually unbroken kilometre-long zone along Rideau Street.  Any request for changes must be examined carefully since this zoning is crucial to the development of Rideau Street and has been reconfirmed as appropriate several times in the past decade.

 

Rideau Street is a main street and a linear commercial zone, with many community resources and mixed residential-commercial uses.  The streets around it are almost entirely residential and generally low to medium density.  The CN and in particular the CN7 subzone attempts to bridge this not only by allowing but in many cases by requiring residential use. 

 

It is useful to quote from the bylaw that one of the purposes of this zone is to "impose site regulations and development standards that will ensure that the commercial uses do not impinge on adjacent uses, or upon local residential uses."

 

While having consistent zoning is desirable, in a case like this one it must also be interpreted in light of the intention of the zoning.  This is why ASH has consistently objected to zoning changes in this zone, to avoid spot zoning in an otherwise consistently zoned area.

Unfortunately, any change away from CN7 F(2.0) even were it on a location where it is less appropriate, will open the floodgates to requests for spot rezoning by other landowners, feeding the "unrealistic expectations" identified as an obstacle to development by the Rideau Street Design Charrette, and only delay redevelopment on Rideau.  It is a Pandora's box. If we open up the CN7 F2.0 zoning anywhere in the area designated in the Official Plan, then all semblance of urban planning is lost - the courts and the OMB will not let it stop there.

 

The idea of an increase in height along the south side of Rideau is unnecessary and not in keeping with the work of the RSRWG so far as well as the Rideau Street Design Charrette, on which no effort was spared to bring the best expertise to bear on what is best for the street.  The process so far has independently come up with height guidelines that are consistent with current zoning. 

 

The expectation that zoning might increase is what has held up development on the south side of Rideau Street. Many landowners have held off on development in expectation that the City will eventually remove limits on height and density.  This current application is a watershed.  If it is granted, any landowner would be foolish to plan to develop anything on Rideau Street within the zoning.  Turning it down will be a clear signal that there is nothing to be gained by waiting for urban planning to go away.

 

It would also be terribly inequitable to those developers that have gone ahead with projects that are within the zoning or required only minor variances, if the rules that were applied to them were to be waived for others.

 

One need only look at the Wallis House example, among other recent redevelopments in that area, to see that successful development does not require rezoning to greater height, quite the contrary, and earlier instances of higher zoning on Rideau have only led to the Bell bunker and other pedestrian traffic quenchers. By that reasoning, a scheduled downzoning would have a positive effect on development.

 

That being said, we wouldn't support significant downzoning despite any evidence that may demonstrate its positive effect on development, again since it is at odds with the conclusions of the Working Group, to which we must defer.

 

Once we open up height restrictions on a longstanding and very consistent zoning that is in conformity with the detailed intentions of the Appendix J land use map of the Official Plan, as well as Annex 8 of Volume 3 (I am quoting from memory I may have the citations wrong), then we open up the entire process to haggling.  If 6,  why not 8; if 8 why not 10?  Imperfect though it may be to some, the CN7 F2.0 zoning is close enough and consistent and there is no compelling evidence of any net benefit were it to be changed.  It is politically and legally very difficult to start making changes to zoning and not expect these changes to propagate.  It is a Pandora's box best left closed.  ASH has on several occasions reiterated its support for this zoning as an appropriate planning tool, and the re-planning process so far has not presented us with any reason to change this longstanding policy.

 

ASH finds it unfortunate that despite the waiver of development fees, the developer finds it appropriate to seek out other benefits for this project.  The waiver of  fees is part of the incentive package that the city is paying to ensure that development is done in this area in accordance with the City’s plan.  This is in accordance with the conclusions of the Charrette, particularly team five.  Instead, this money is being used to subsidize an attempt to change the bylaw under which the City has developed its Plan.  The City has determined, after years of planning, that it is appropriate to have buildings of 18 metres or less all along the street.  All landowners wishing to build residential or partly-residential buildings within the zoning limit are receiving this subsidy.  It acknowledges that short-term economic reasoning alone may not be sufficient to convince landowners to build now for the long term.  Using this subsidy to help obtain short-term benefits , those very benefits that the subsidy attempts to compensate for, is contrary to the public interest.

 

The specific site in question is towards the eastern edge of a large area zoned for 18 metre limits.  Further east, the limit drops to 10.7 metres.  The south side of Rideau street west of King Edward, which is explicitly treated differently from the north side in both zoning and the Official Plan, does not have a single building remotely approaching the height or density being proposed in this application.

 

The back side of the same block on Besserer street is designated “low-profile residential” in the Official Plan.  The actual land use on Besserer is mostly 2-storey single and attached homes, while the zoning permits approximately 4 storeys depending on the type of residential use.

 

A specific application for spot zoning is not the best place to argue the merits of the planning policy that has led to a very consistent zoning regime.  We have presented the social, economic, and architectural arguments at the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group, a process in which the current and previous property owners have also been participants.  The consensus position of the Working Group, after several years of study, differs somewhat from Action Sandy Hill’s own position, and we are willing to stand by the position of the Working Group.  Our original position was that height should be limited to 4 storeys on the south side of Rideau and 6 storeys on the North side.  The consensus that emerged, to which we now subscribe, is that there should be a range of 4 to 6 storeys.  This position is not the starting point of a possible compromise on this issue, it is the end point.

 

In February 2000, the Rideau Street Design Charrette, an initiative of the Downtown Rideau BIA endorsed by the Ottawa Regional Society of Architects,  assembled a group of experts and residents into 5 teams, and came up with 5 distinct yet similar visions of  Rideau Street.  Participants included the best available experts from the City of Ottawa, the National Capital Commission, the Region of Ottawa-Carleton, Action Sandy Hill, and the King Edward Avenue Task Force, as well as well-known independent architects and developers.  This initiative dealt with both the street east of King Edward and west of it.  Given that the area west of King Edward is already represented by the Downtown Rideau BIA, the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group was formed to turn the visions for the eastern part of Rideau, as illustrated in the Charrette, into a consistent urban design plan.

 


Some of the challenges identified in the introduction to the document that was published include:

·      Development of several over scaled, anti-pedestrian blocks

·      Unrealistic expectation on the part of some property owners regarding development potential

·      Lack of a coherent vision

·      Loss of “Main Street” character of diversity

 

We repeat here all of the published recommendations of all five teams that are relevant to this rezoning application, including those that are at odds with our own vision.

 

Team One

·      The street edges are continuously built, the buildings are of similar size and scale and form, but not too tall to entirely block sunlight, or create a “canyon”

·      No explicit height recommended, but the sketches show two and three storeys

 

Team Two

·      Maximum 5-storey development

·      Individual proprietors

·      Small frontages

·      Provide incentives for development proposed in accordance with the Vision (i.e. - limited floor space and frontage, 5 storeys, rear-lot development, courtyards, etc)

 

Team Three

No height or density recommendations, concentrates on the rehabilitation of older buildings

 

Team Four

·      Sketches show 3, 4, 5 storey buildings

·      Human scale for living

·      Fine grain development along south side of Rideau Street.

·      Some lots are marked “develop and intensify”  This one is marked “conserve and enhance”

 

Team Five

·      Modest urban density

·      Sketches for this part of the street show 3-4 storeys

·      Sketches for “high level of density” (west of Dalhousie) show 5-6 storeys

·      New developments on the North side of Rideau should be limited in height to perhaps 4 to 6 storeys

·      Site development potential can be seen as typified by the block bounded on the east by Charlotte street, the south by Besserer, the west by Cobourg, and the north by Rideau street. Appropriate development should include three and four storey loft apartment style buildings designed to allow for ground floor Rideau frontage commercial retail uses.

 

This remarkable consistency in the conclusions reached by all the teams of developers, architects, planners, and community representatives is very clear.  What can be concluded is that there is no need to adjust the current 6-storey zoning upward to be able to implement the policies agreed to in this planning exercise.  Rather than downzoning to 4 storeys to fulfill this documented vision, it was realized that working within the existing zoning and Official Plan was a reasonable compromise to expedite the process.  However, if maintaining the current zoning were to not be an issue, then the appropriate public policy, in accordance with the planning process that came out of this exercise, would be to reduce the height to 12 metres.

 

The results of this long planning process have been debated and are reflected in the new unpromulgated Official Plan.  Although this application is done under the old plan and not the new one, it is worth noting that as a result of this long planning exercise several things were changed in the new Official Plan to reflect the compromises reached regarding Rideau Street, while many things that the application is advocating could have been changed but weren’t.  For instance, the concept of a minimum height as well as a maximum height along main streets, among which Rideau Street is explicitly named, will allow the RSRWG consensus to be implemented, possibly as part of the site plan requirements rather than a change to zoning.  After some initial debate by councillors, the current Sandy Hill secondary plan and the land use map were entered into the new plan without change.  This includes a map that explicitly calls for consistent land use along the south side of Rideau street, including the lot in question, and a section that requires that the scale, form, proportion, and spatial arrangement of new development cause minimal intrusion on the sunlight, air, and aspect enjoyed by existing adjacent development.

 

As ASH has shown in its research surrounding the new Official Plan and the urban design framework, there is a real danger of social alienation associated with buildings over 4 storeys, and this would be counter to the intentions of the Official Plans, old and new, both to the "main street" atmosphere and to the explicit intentions in the Sandy Hill Secondary Plan.  There is a great deal of social research in this area.  The universal conclusion is that restrictions on height and density are desirable, and that social alienation begins when you can not comfortably talk to someone on the street from your window.  It is generally recognized from statistical data that social alienation starts at 4 storeys for children,  while both alienation and isolation starts with a slightly higher limit for adults and a lower one for the elderly.

 

The official plan is clear, there is a detailed land use map for Sandy Hill, that lot has the same treatment as every other lot on Rideau, the current zoning is thankfully uniform for exactly the same area as the official plan.  This is a clear defensible legal position.  We believe that a four-storey limit is more appropriate for this lot, and yet we defend the current 6-storey limit because it is one of the few explicit provisions of the Plan.

 

We must emphasize that this response is a somewhat abstract one explaining the reasons for the crucial importance of maintaining the current zoning.  We have not yet seen the site plan and are not yet commenting on its merits.  We know that the developer and architect have a high degree of skill, talent and creativity, and we are confident that they are up to the challenge of producing an attractive and appropriate building or set of buildings within the constraints required of them.”   (May 21, 2003 Comment)

 


Response:

 

The current built form along the south side of Rideau Street is consistent in its under-utilization of existing development potential and a lack of contribution to the Official Plan objectives for sensitive intensification, especially along main streets.   Rideau Street is an important main street and one of the few corridors linking the eastern sections of the City to the central area, which is situated merely six blocks from the subject property.  Rideau Street is an important corridor for existing transit, future rapid transit and an arterial roadway.

 

There is no aspect of the recommended rezoning that would cause any form of imposition by the commercial uses on the surrounding uses.    The combination of commercial and residential uses anticipated with development of the site pursuant to the recommended zoning is expected to add to the pedestrian activity along this section of Rideau Street.

 

For decades all landowners have had the same rights to pursue amendments to planning policies and zoning bylaw provisions through the planning and development applications process set out under the Planning Act.   All planning and development applications are judged on their own merits in the face of the applicable planning regulations and policies of the day, and are not automatically considered precedents for decisions on subsequent applications.

 

The fees imposed by City Council for planning and development applications is not relevant to a site specific land use planning issue.

 

There are numerous other buildings in the surrounding area that are of greater height and density than that recommended in this report, including a 14 storey apartment building directly across Rideau Street.  The R5D[87] zoning on the lands adjacent to the south in Sandy Hill fronting on Besserer Street, a local street, allows  four to five storey apartment buildings, and is occupied by a mix of half  parking lots and half two to three-storey residential structures, including apartment buildings.  This adjacent combination of zoning and underutilized parking lot land is highly conducive to other redevelopments emerging, with no need for a variation from the current zoning, and yielding four to five storey buildings; this form of adjacent development would provide a logical transition to a building of 21.2 to 27.0 metres (seven to nine storeys) in height proposed on the subject property, fronting on a major arterial roadway. The subject property is to the north of the residential portions of Sandy Hill and shadow studies have demonstrated that there will be minimal change in sun shadow patterns created by buildings limited by the proposed height limit verses those that would be created by the existing limit.

 

There is no Council approved Community Design Plan in place for the Rideau Street area to reflect the policies of the City Council Approved Official Plan, but the rezoning proposal is considered consistent with the intent of existing Official Plan policies.

 

The social disadvantages of higher residential buildings are recognized, as is the need for a variety of housing types in all neighbourhoods and a need for a diversity of living environments to address the demographic complexity of the inner city.

 

Brigadier’s Walk Homeowners’ Association Comments

 

The Brigadier’s Walk Homeowners’ Association provided the following comments:

 

I am writing to you as President of the Brigadiers Walk Homeowners Association to express concern about, and opposition to the proposed zoning changes respecting the property that is 560 Rideau Street East. The proposed changes would allow for an increase in the height of a structure on the site from the current 18 metres to 27 metres and double the density from 2.0 to 4.0. Our immediate conclusion is that, if the proposal were to be accepted, there would be a significant negative impact on the neighbourhoods on both the north and south sides of Rideau Street.

 

Our objections to the proposed changes are twofold and, we realize, inter-related. First, the proposal to extend the height of the structure(s) is entirely out of character with the neighbourhood on both sides of Rideau Street. Except for structures respecting subsidized housing wherein the City policy on mixed neighbourhoods has prevailed, there are very few buildings that are of the proposed height bordering on Rideau Street, east of King Edward Avenue. The proposed development will likely cast a shadow affecting existing structures on the north side of Rideau Street, such as the Wallace House and Brigadiers Walk developments as well as the Domicile development at Cobourg and Rideau. It also sets a precedent for future construction on the south side of Rideau Street east of Charlotte towards Wurtemburg where we understand there is already an interest in future development. We note that the proposed height change will also fundamentally change the neighbourhood on the south side of the 560 Rideau Street property, likely having a negative impact on property values on the south side of Besserer and the north and south sides of Daly between Cobourg and Charlotte.

 

Second, the proposed density change will likely affect parking availability in the area on both sides of Rideau Street, regardless of the parking that will be provided as part of the development. Parking in the area is already difficult. The addition of a structure reflecting the existing density

limits will add to that difficulty. Doubling the density will unnecessarily exacerbate these problems. 

 

Finally, and as a matter of general principle respecting the neighbourhoods on both sides of Rideau Street, we are, in principle, enthusiastic about the City's determination to "in-fill" and to allow for creative approaches to new development that will benefit existing neighbourhoods and give new economic vibrancy to Ottawa's core. We live in such a development. One of the reasons for its success is that it is in character with the existing neighbourhood.

 

On the other hand, the proposed changes to 560 Rideau Street are out of character with the neighbourhoods on both sides of Rideau Street. This is of concern to the owners of Brigadier's Walk and Wallace House. It is understood that there is a penchant on the part of those wishing to develop properties to do so, from the outset, on the basis of increases to the density and height of the proposed structures. Unfortunately, it is the neighbours who live with the consequences of acting on such proposals while the developers reap the economic benefits and walk away, without consequences, from what they have created. We would expect that the same care and consideration that went into the Domicile and Wallace House developments in the immediate area would be carried out with respect to 560 Rideau Street, successfully blending residential and commercial activity that is in character with Rideau Street. We would expect the City to proceed thoughtfully and with due consideration for the character and property values of the existing neighbourhoods.

 

I look forward to seeing a concept plan when it is available.”

 

Response

 

The existing buildings along this section of Rideau Street vary considerably in character. There are numerous other buildings in the surrounding area that are of greater height and density than that recommended in this report, including a 14 storey apartment building directly across Rideau Street to the north.   Shadow studies have demonstrated that there will be minimal change in shadow patterns generated by buildings limited by the proposed height limit verses shadows caused by the existing limit, except around the winter solstice when a moderate increase in shadowing impact would occur.   All planning and development applications are judged on their own merits in the face of the applicable planning regulations and policies of the day, and are not automatically considered precedents for decisions on subsequent applications.  There is no negative impact on property values anticipated due to the recommended zoning changes.   The application involves no request for a change to the parking requirements of the zoning by-law.  Although the City has no control over architectural design under the planning act, conceptual building designs have been provided and reviewed, and any development of the site will require more detailed information and approval through the site plan control approval process.

 

Summary of Public Comments

 

1.         We believe in smart growth and densification but this proposal, which should consider and respect the character of the neighbourhood like the Loblaws and the seniors residence, will result in a bunker in a residential area.  Why should the adjacent five or six-storey building be overshadowed by one so tall that fills up the space? The neighbouring buildings on Besserer Street will be dwarfed by the proposal. The predominant height of buildings along Rideau Street between King Edward Avenue and Charlotte Street is less than the current 18-metre height limit; there is no reason to increase the limit by nine metres, which would allow the tallest building on the south side of Rideau Street east of King Edward Avenue.  The development will have a major impact and leave a number of neighbouring residential and other properties, and Rideau Street in the shade.

 

Response

 

The proposed upper storey setback provisions recommended in this report will help provide for a building that respects the character of the neighbourhood, and any development of the site will require more detailed information and approval through the  site plan control approval process. There are numerous other buildings in the surrounding area that are of greater height and density than that recommended in this report, including a 14 storey apartment building directly across Rideau Street.  The R5D[87] zoning on the lands adjacent to the south in Sandy Hill fronting on Besserer Street, allows  four to five-storey apartment buildings, but is currently occupied by a mix of half  parking lots and half two to three storey residential buildings.  Redevelopment of four to five-storeys on the adjacent land to the south could provide a logical transition to a building of 21.2 to 27.0 metres (seven to nine storeys) in height proposed on the subject property. The current built form along the south side of Rideau Street is consistent in its under-utilization of existing development potential and a minimal contribution to the Official Plan objectives for intensification, especially along main streets.   The subject property is to the north of the residential portions of Sandy Hill and shadow studies have demonstrated that there will be minimal change in sun shadow patterns generated in the residential area nor along Rideau Street by buildings limited by the proposed height limit verses shadows that would be caused by the existing limit.

 

2.         A zoning that would double the density and increase the height by 50% would not respect the principles of the Sandy Hill Neighbourhood Plan nor the Official Plan.

 

Response

 

As presented above in the Discussion section of this report, the proposed rezoning is considered to be consistent with the applicable policies of the Official Plan of the former Region, the Official Plan of the former City of Ottawa, including the Sandy Hill Secondary Plan, and the new City Council Approved Official Plan.

 

3.         This project should be built to the standard of this beautiful downtown neighbourhood and is out of step with what is wanted in Sandy Hill.   The proposal will be a setback to the streetscape along Rideau Street.

 

Response

 

The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the policies of the Official Plan and will foster replacement of an open parking lot with a building adding commercial and residential activity to the area.

 

4.         The requested floor space index (FSI) increase is outrageous and would allow the doubling of the building mass.

 

Response

 

The increased FSI and resultant building mass will help satisfy the intensification policies of the Official Plan.

 

5.         The proposal will provide insufficient off-street parking and cause parking congestion on neighbouring  side streets. 

 


Response

 

The application involves no request for a change to the parking requirements of the zoning by-law, and no parking problems are anticipated due to the proposed development.

 

6.         The decision on this zoning change will provide a precedent for other applications and a public meeting should be held to better understand the issues and implications.

 

Response

 

All planning and development applications are judged on their own merits in the face of the applicable planning regulations and policies of the day, and are not automatically considered precedents for decisions on subsequent applications.   The Planning and Development Committee meeting will constitute a public meeting opportunity for discussing the application.

 


            ZONING - 560 RIDEAU STREET

ZONAGE - 560, RUE RIDEAU

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0149                                                           rideau-vanier (12)

 

Chair Hunter began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council.  Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal of the appeal by the OMB.

 

Mr. Lindsay advised that Doug Bridgewater would provide an abridged presentation on the proposed amendment contained in report dated 16 July 2003 and respond to any questions.

 

The Committee heard from the following delegations:

 

Judy Rinfret provided a written submission of her presentation in opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Councillor Cullen referred to and commented that the current zoning provides for a 6 storey height limit, but the current FSI is less than that proposed.  Mr. Bridgewater advised that the FSI is currently 2.0 and the proposal is 4.25.  The Councillor received confirmation from Ms. Rinfret that she would not have a problem with the proposal if “B” was removed from the Schedule in Document 4, setting the height limit at 21.2m, which is 7 storeys.

 

Robert Edmonds, Action Sandy Hill (ASH), provided a comprehensive written submission of his presentation in opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Martin Laplante, Director, Planning and Development, ASH, provided a comprehensive written submission of his presentation, with photos and an overhead, in opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Councillor Cullen asked Mr. Laplante similarly to Ms. Rinfret on removing “B” from the Schedule in Document 4.  Mr. Laplante responded in the affirmative.

 

On the matter of the Uptown Rideau Design Plan, Mr. Bridgewater advised that it is a joint effort with staff and members of the community working together.  Richard Kilstrom, Manager, Community Design and Environment, added that it was due to come to Committee in a few months.  Councillor Cullen suggested it might be premature to process this application when a planning process is underway for the entire street.  Mr. Bridgewater responded that the applicant had a right to have this application come before Committee and staff opined it had merit even in the face of ongoing work.

 

Councillor Cullen put the Committee on notice he would move a Motion to amend Document 4 to remove “B” (27m) from the Building Height Schedule.  It would leave “A” in place at 7 storeys.

Jon Legg, Board member, ASH, provided a written submission in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Franceska Gnarowski, Chair, ASH, provided a written submission in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Elizabeth Gibb, Lowertown East, was a neighbour of both Sandy Hill and this site for almost 15 years, having previously lived in front of proposed site.  The lowertown area has been neglected for many years.  She provided a brief history of the area, including Macdonald Park, the Wallace House, Turkish Embassy, etc.  She was concerned that with the development of Rideau Street many large buildings were erected; e.g. Quality Inn, Bell, Constitution Building, Horizon Apartments, 160 Charlotte and 215 Wurtemburg.  The proposed building is out of scale and will create a barrier at 9 storeys with no set back.  The planning initiatives in the last 10 years have suggested a variety of improvements for Rideau Street, but none recommended buildings taller than 6 storeys.  The recent draft of the Uptown Rideau Design Plan proposes the street should contain architecture which fits in with existing older and historical fabric of buildings that have been conserved and reused.  She questioned how this plan for a green pedestrian streetscape framed with 4-6 storey buildings transformed into a 9 storey building along Rideau Street.  This is the time to re-dress and ameliorate the effects of design failures over the past 50+ years.  It is not the time to create new problems on Rideau; vis-à-vis parking, etc.  The whole building is out of scale and character and she asked that the present zoning regulations be respected for this site.  She is in favour of intensification, but it should however be on a scale that is in character and enhances the community as a whole

 

Warren Wasylik, summarized from his comprehensive written submission in adamant opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk.  In conclusion, he quoted from the OP, Section 5, Sandy Hill, one of the aims is to preserve Sandy Hill as an attractive residential neighbourhood, especially family living.  The proposal does nothing to move towards that objective.

 

Chair Hunter explicated that Planning and Development Committee has a responsibility to make recommendations to Council on applications made to the City for amendments to the Zoning By-Law.  He believed the community design process will be an invaluable tool in the redesign/redevelopment of existing communities, but the final decision rests with Council and there is an appeal process to the OMB.  The Committee cannot abrogate or delegate this responsibility to an unelected body.  Councillors are delegated that responsibility under the Ontario Planning Act and are elected by the citizens of Ottawa in that regard on behalf of all citizens.  Responding to Mr. Waysylik, Chair Hunter reiterated that input from the community is vital, but the final decision rests with Council.  On the process and rationale for the Committee decision, Chair Hunter advised that the Committee has before it a report from staff.  In that consideration, the Committee hears delegations from the community, with very considered opinions that residents put a lot of time into making presentations; and, the Committee listens very concertedly to each and every one.  The Committee, as individual members, will make responses or ask questions of delegations; and, similarly hear from representatives of the developer.  Following receipt of the delegations, the public will hear the Committee debate the recommendations contained in the report for subsequent recommendation to Council.  The Chair provided this explanation in light of the various presentations made to Committee on the criteria and rationale it will use to make its decision.

 

Chair Hunter advised that Michael Barnes had to depart, but left his written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Peter Ferguson, President, Brigadiers Walk Homeowners Association, provided a written submission of his comments in opposition, which is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Ferguson had provided an earlier letter to the application that was circulated and also on file.

 

Additionally, he made four points:

·        The plan is unacceptable to the owners of Brigadiers Walk and he urged the Committee to reject it or at a minimum to send it back.

·        Second, in answer to the anticipated question from Councillor Cullen, we need a new configuration of height, density and set back; and, he placed some considerable emphasis on set back.

·        Third, there is a need for some consistency in this process.  This is spot development and would set a new precedent in the area, not needed at this point in time.  Something is needed and wanted on that site.  It should be done consistently with development in mind for the balance of Rideau Street, north and south sides.

·        Finally, on process, it is understood, but he suggested some improvement to the early community consultation process.  It has the friendliness of an arms negotiation.  Public consultation needs to be built into this so that staff can come forward with something that more thoughtfully represents input from the community.

 

Patricia Roberts-Pichette, provided a letter that outlined her opposition to the proposal, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

 


Chair Hunter noted Ms. Roberts-Pichette stated in her letter that there were likely to be traffic problems on Besserer and inquired what would give rise to that.  Ms. Roberts-Pichette responded that it was anticipated to have more parking with a lot of entrances and there were homeowners that did not have spaces.

 

Ron Gamlin lived on Besserer Street, almost immediately behind the proposed site, for the last 21 years.  City planning assisted the community when the proposed Sandy Hill Community Centre was to be built at the corner of Besserer and Charlotte with issues related to inadequate parking and high density.  They are now faced with another project not in keeping with the nature of the neighbourhood.  9 storeys is not acceptable; the density is too high and set backs too limited.  He referred to another project on the north side of Cobourg Street, which at one time had another tower projected, but instead there is a nice row of well-appointed shops backing onto townhouses.  This is the type of infill the community is looking for.  There is a need for development of this site, but not 9 storeys.  Property values will be affected.  It would not be in keeping with the character of the heritage area.  Another factor that has been touched upon briefly is parking and traffic flow.  There has been a street closure on Coburg Street for the last 15 years, which keeps traffic from Rideau and Laurier from using their areas as a short cut.  The proposed entrance for this property, which is on Coburg Street will create a dreadful traffic jam on the corner of Coburg and Rideau Street in the future.  Rideau Street is already well used and this development will add to the congestion.  Greater consultation needs to be addressed and thought has to be given to a different type of development.

 

Claire Beauchesne-Chabot provided a written submission in opposition that was circulated and is held on file with the City clerk.

 

John Dimitrijevic noted the staff proposal talks about a step from the proposed 9 storey building to four or five allowed on the north side of Besserer Street.  This works in theory, but in reality there are two or three storey buildings located on the north side of Besserer Street.  The height differential between the proposed building and that on Besserer will in reality be six or seven storeys, so that the visual affect will not be one of a step, but rather that of a cliff.  In other words, there is no compatibility with the existing heritage neighbourhood.  Since the proposal of a 9 storey development, two properties have sold on Besserer Street, between Coburg and Charlotte.  He is concerned that the shade studies do not take into account the south side of Besserer Street in the late afternoon.  Generally, during the summer, residents coming home from work like sunshine at that time of day.  The proposed building would create major shade problems.  The width of this building is incredible at 250-300 feet with no visual break, encompassing 9 city lots.  Lastly, he asked if 9 storeys is needed for intensification.  Sandy Hill is already one of the most intensified communities in the City and because of the great width of this project it will easily fall into the OP of intensification without adding an additional 3 storeys.  Councillor Arnold has already stated there is no need to go to the maximum on the OP for any intensification.  This is a much bigger project than McLeod and there is no need to increase the height from the present zoning.

 

Chair Hunter advised that the following correspondence, in opposition, was received, circulated and held on file with the City Clerk:

·        Letter dated 26 March 2003, from the Rideau Street Development Group

·        E-mail dated 20 June 2003 from Deborah Czernecky and Warren Wasylik

·        Letter dated 4 July 2003 from B. Baylor

·        Letter dated 10 July 2003 from D. E. George

·        Letter dated 10 July 2003 from G. Bedard

·        Letter dated 15 July 2003 from Jason and Margaret Way

·        Letter dated 16 July Tom Bimson

·        Letter dated 16 July Colonel C. Branson

·        Letter dated 17 July 2003 from Brett Martensen

·        E-mail dated 17 July 2003 from Frank S. Ruddock

·        E-mail dated B. M. Haugh

·        Letter dated 18 July 2003 from Hubert and Indra LaRose

·        E-mail dated 18 July 2003 from John Doucet

·        E-mail dated 18 July 2003 from Kathryn Moyer

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Jean-Guy Brault

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Coralie Brault

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Jaqueline Buchanan

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Lena Creedy, Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group

·        Letter dated 21 July 2003 from Alex Mackenzie and Mary Anne Sharpe

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Martin Conboy

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Ken C. McKay

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Julie Hodgson

·        E-mail dated 21 July 2003 from Susan Kelen and Peter Ferguson

·        E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Diane Whalen and Tom Laverty

·        Letter dated 22 July 2003 from Laura B. Farquharson

·        E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Doreen McMullin

·        E-mail dated 22 July 2003 from Hildegarde Henderson

·        E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Sabrina Gaon

·        E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Beatrice Johnston

·        E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Odette Gamlin

·        Letter dated 23 July 2003 from Asif Malik

·        Letter dated 23 July 2003 from Giacomo Vigna

·        E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Nickolas Plowden

·        E-mail dated 23 July 2003 from Linda West and Bill Dunn

·        E-mail dated 24 July 2003 from Odette Gamlin


Lewis Kruger, Director of Development, Richcraft, advised that the site is a vacant lot, located on South side of Rideau between Coburg and Charlotte, on the edge of the Sandy Hill community.  Rideau Street is designated as a main street with the objectives of the City in that regard.  Mr. Kruger expounded on the proposal before Committee as detailed in the report referring to the Sandy Hill Secondary Plan (SHSP), the former City of Ottawa OP, the ROP and the Council-approved OP.  Richcraft supports the staff recommendation and recognizes the extensive review of the various planning documents.  The new OP states the potential for intensification will be largely based on site specific opportunities generally small to medium in scale and may include circumstances such as vacant lots and auto sales lots.  The proposal is architecturally pleasing, lively in its mix of use oriented to the street, friendly to pedestrians and presents a strong continuous building edge along the sidewalk, ensures that the redevelopment of underutilized lands is optimized and considers the extent to which the proposal will increase the diversity of housing types in the area.  The OP also has a section on compatibility of development and that comments that infill development may occur anywhere in the city.  The zoning in many areas may allow for much more intensive developments than has occurred in the past.  Also lands located on the boundaries between neighbourhoods or on major transportation arteries are excellent locations for compact and mixed used developments speak exactly to this site.  The OP speaks to significant increases in density may also be accommodated through design, although the results may not be as successful in the eyes of some observers.  However, compatible design may not necessarily mean the same as the surrounding area.  Even with the attention to design, the process of creating infill and other intensification is challenging for both the proponent and the community.

 

Richcraft believes their proposal addresses all the approved planning documents.  Many concerns were raised by the community, which is consistent with what has been heard in the past; that they are opposed to anything over 6 storeys. There has been a suggestion that consultation has not taken place.  That is incorrect.  Richcraft met with them in January, submitted a design and received a response back that Richcraft not bother seeing them if the proposal is over 6 storeys.  That was the end of the consultation.  From Richcraft’s point of view they consulted with the community to the extent they were able to.  They communicated with staff extensively in the development and submission of this proposal.  There were many comments made, with criticism of staff and the process.

 

Rod Lahey, Roderick Lahey Architect, advised that in the Spring of 2002, he was retained by Lansdowne Developments, which had purchased the subject property, to determine what it can provide under the current Zoning By-Law.  After a cursory review, with a free hand sketch of a 6 storey building within a week Lansdowne realized they were pushing the envelope of their own ability to develop the property and sold same to Richcraft homes, who at that time were beginning to develop outside their traditional suburban row-house and single family homes.  Richcraft subsequently retained his services.  He reviewed with Richcraft the current Zoning By-Laws, proposed OP, discussed the potential for the site and came to the conclusion that the current By-Law, which allows for a 6-storey building (FSI 2.0) underutilizes the potential of a significant mixed use residential site on a major arterial road.  This was a vacant parking lot and eye sore for a long time and seemed perfect for residential development.  Initial meetings with the staff confirmed the site would be best suited for intensification of the urban center, given its location at the edge of the community, on a major arterial with major bus routes and talk of rapid transit systems.

 

Throughout the balance of 2002, numerous options and site configurations were studied.  They elected to develop the plans before Committee today, which is essentially the 7-storey building stepping up to 9.  Throughout the entire development process, certain design objectives were very firmly entrenched, the first being to maximize potential commercial exposure on Rideau.  A significant building with a strong ground floor, commercial presence will help reinforce and expand the existing ground oriented commercial activity of Rideau.  The second was to develop the site in such a way as to take advantage of that small frontage on Cobourg.  That allowed for all vehicular access onto the site through a signalized intersection to a dead end of street, which provided a simple and safe access to the site without increasing vehicular traffic within the two adjoining neighbourhoods.  The third objective was to locate all of the parking below grade.  With two levels of underground parking, they have exceeded the minimum parking requirements imposed by both residential as well as commercial.

 

Market studies were prepared by Richcraft Homes that suggested a younger crowd of first-time buyers be targeted.  By creating smaller and well-designed apartments, Richcraft feels it will provide an alternate type of accommodation not readily available in the immediate area.  The goal was to develop the residential component of the project to reflect the current planning of the City, as well as the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group.  He sat at a number of meetings of that group and was an active participant, it being an interesting process.  Unfortunately, his opinions of intensification were dismissed entirely.

 

The ground floor is essentially all commercial, with small scale stores, street access; and, the building has been well articulated.  It is about 220 feet long, broken up with recesses for the balcony.  Richcraft increased the side yard setbacks to 4.5 metres, an increase of 10 feet over the minimum on both ends.  It created an opportunity to provide 15-foot wide terrace areas.  The ground floor is seen as a potential for coffee shops.  He believes the building will be moved back another couple of feet to about three feet back from the current property line.  The side yard setbacks created small pockets for outdoor terraces, which are directly open to the commercial spaces on both sides.  The 8th and 9th floors were recessed an additional three metres.  The upper floors are some 25 feet back from


both property lines on the east and west sides.  As can be seen from the perspective, the building on Charlotte street is currently a 5-storey building, it then steps up to the 7 storey addition on the side and then again to 9 storeys.  The end product is a win for the street and neighbours. 

 

The ground floor also features a large common area deck at the back, which is accessible through the ground floor amenity spaces at the lower side, that is heavily landscaped along the edge to reduce the impact of the buildings on the adjoining properties.  The application was filed at the end of 2002 and Action Sandy Hill was made aware of the application.  In January 2003, they made a presentation to the Planning and Development Sub-Committee of ASH that was received with mixed sentiments.  On January 9, he received an e-mail from the Committee stating that ASH would oppose any proposal that extended the height limit, on principle, without any discussion as to the specific benefits of the project, and there was no point in continuing any dialogue.  A copy of the letter was forwarded to the Planning Department.  On the sun shade study raised, the study was completed and no impact was done on the community because of the location of the building.  In conclusion, the proposal is an excellent example of increase in the usability of serviced lands within the urban core without adversely affecting the neighbouring community.

 

Mr. Lewis added that it complies with past planning and current planning documents.  It is adjacent to a 5 storey building, a 3 storey building and opposite a 14 storey building.

 

Councillor Cullen was advised that of the 118 residential units, the penthouse section had 2 levels of 8 units, which equals 16 units in total.

 

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter was returned to Committee.

 

Councillor Cullen referenced the message clearly heard from the community to refuse the application and remain with the current zoning, which he is sympathetic with.  The proposal does meet a number of objectives in the OP.  He would propose amending document 4, which is the Building Height Schedule on p. 110, to remove section B, essentially the penthouse section.  This would reduce the 118-unit building to 102 units and leave it at 7 storeys.  It was offered as a compromise, which was supported by some of the presenters.  It is a form of intensification, which has been supported by the Committee in the past.  In the earlier McLeod discussion, it was presented that the issue of compatibility is supposed to be a trade off with intensification.  That is not so.  If communities are to accept the planning logic of intensification, the City must ensure that it provides force to the policy provision that it be compatible with the existing community, that changes do not alter the characteristic of existing communities and form the fabric of our city.  His proposal supports the principal of intensification; however,


it does recognize it is on the border of a low profile residential community.  He commended the developer on the setbacks, landscaping, etc.  The City can accommodate the principles of not overly massing that building with respect to its neighbourhood by putting in 7 storeys.

 

Madeleine Meilleur, as the Ward Councillor, pointed out that as was heard, the community is not against intensification and in support of redevelopment.  She commended the community for its involvement in both the OP, la Charette and also the Rideau Street Redevelopment Working Group.  Mr. Lahey claimed the community association refused to meet with the developer, which is not exactly the case.  ASH sees its role as defending the OP they participated in.  The zoning permits 6 storeys, 18 m, and ASH did not see any possibility of negotiation.  Further to that, she organized two meetings with the community association, staff and the developer.  There was a lot of dialogue.  That part of Rideau Street is residential.  The community is in support of the 6-storey building and redevelopment of the empty lot.  Their concern is that if the Committee and Council allow this proposal to proceed, it will create a precedent.  The community has also worked very hard to protect their area, being involved in the redevelopment of the bridge, saving Wallace House and recently worked with staff to redevelop Macdonald Gardens.  The proposal is a 50% increase in the zoning, which she asked the Committee to reject.  The community wants 6 storeys and 7 storeys may be a compromise.

 

Councillor Stavinga indicated she would neither support 7 storeys nor the staff recommendation.  She found it astounding that during the discussion each side recited the same passages from the OP, but said something different in terms of the outcome, which concerned her.  That is why there is an importance placed upon community design plans, on that further dialogue with the community to better articulate those policies and what they mean.  She held a different opinion than Chair Hunter with regard to the planning process.  It is correct that under the Planning Act, the City does not have the ability to refuse an application; it has to be reviewed and come forward to Committee.  But, as the Chair elucidated there is the opportunity for that consideration at Committee.  But, if the Committee continuously rejects staff recommendations, it behooves the Committee/Council to return to its policy to re-evaluate whether it clearly articulated the direction advocated.  The intention of the community design plan is to be a multi-stakeholder process.  It’s not only the residents, nor the developers, nor only the City, but everyone coming together with consensus building.  She referenced the Kanata West Concept Plan that received unanimous approval at Committee and involved three different communities.  She heard from the community today, as well as the Ward Councillor, that there is a game plan for this community and it behooves the Committee to be the gatekeepers.

 


Chair Hunter highlighted the recent 20/20 Visioning Process and the acceptance of a new OP for the City.  In that plan were clear statements there was going to be intensification in the urban core with no expansion of the urban boundaries to the extent of tens of thousands of new housing units built in the downtown, surrounding areas and communities, such as Sandy Hill, Hintonburgh, and on main streets across the City.  These are the areas where the principles of intensification take place.  What is the difference between 7 and 9 when the 9 is set back?  Residents on the north side of Besserer would need to strain to see the top of the building or those on the south side could not see it because their own houses would be in the way.  He recognized and respected the sentiments of the residents within the community and shared them in the past in his Ward; and, residents learned to live with an apartment next to single family homes in Nepean.  Property values did not diminish as a result.  This scenario takes place across Canada.

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

 

Amend Document 4 to remove B (27.0 meters above grade) from the Building Heights Schedule.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

YEAS (2):  Councillors Cullen, Arnold

NEAS (7):  Councillors Bellemare, Hume, Harder, Munter, Eastman, Stavinga, Hunter

 

On the staff recommendation.

 

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 1998, to change the zoning of 560 Rideau Street from a CN7 F(2.0) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial  Zone to a CN7 F(4.25) Neighbourhood Linear Commercial Zone with an exception, as detailed in Document 3 and shown in Document 4.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

YEAS (6): Councillors Bellemare, Hume, Harder, Munter, Eastman, Hunter

NEAS (3):  Councillors Cullen, Arnold, Stavinga