Report to/Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee/

Comité de l’urbansisme et de l’aménagement

and Council/et au Conseil

07 November 2001 / le 07 novembre 2001

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@city.ottawa.on.ca

Ref N°: ACS2001-DEV-APR-0271

SUBJECT: ZONING – 210 CLEARVIEW AVENUE

OBJET: ZONAGE – 210 AVENUE CLEARVIEW

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Development Committee recommends Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998 for property located at 210 Clearview Avenue from R6B [204] F (2.0) and R5A [133] to R6B H(28) SCH.___ to permit an apartment building.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver une modification du Règlement municipal sur le zonage, 1998, de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa concernant la propriété située au 210, avenue Clearview en remplaçant les désignations R6B [204] F (2.0) et R5A [133] par R6B H(28) SCH. afin de permettre un immeuble d’appartements.

BACKGROUND

The property is located on a through lot between Clearview Avenue and Lanark Avenue with the remnant Hydro corridor on the east and the Centre Jules Léger (formerly Champlain Highschool) on the west. The applicant, Island Park Towers Investments, owns the contiguous parcels at 200 Clearview, with a 22-storey apartment tower, and the remnant Hydro right of way which is currently vacant.

This area was the subject of interim control and a related zoning study in 1989 and 1990 to determine a suitable arrangement of land use. This study resulted in a number of ownership transfers between the former City of Ottawa, the former Ontario Hydro and the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. At that time Sun Life purchased the subject property and it was zoned for residential development. Specifically the northerly half of the property was zoned to permit an apartment building and the southern half was limited to use as a parking lot for the apartment building at 200 Clearview. This property was then purchased by Island Park Towers Investments along with the adjacent high rise apartment buildings at 200, 185 and 195 Clearview Avenue.

Subsequently, as part of the 2020Z process to formulate a new comprehensive Zoning By-law for the former City of Ottawa, the remnant hydro corridor was zoned L2B to recognize its designation as a Greenway Linkage in the Official Plan. This zoning significantly reduced the development potential of the subject parcel. It effectively removed approximately half of the land from the developable parcel and precluded the intended use of the northern half of the property for a low profile apartment building form, such as stacked townhouses.

DISCUSSION

In response to the loss of development potential on the subject property which resulted from its zoning as part of the new comprehensive Zoning By-law, 1998, Island Park Towers Investments is now seeking a new zoning which would permit a high rise apartment building on the southern half of the parcel. This would result in the relocation of the required parking for the apartment building at 200 Clearview onto the L2B zoned lands. The parking is considered an accessory use which is permitted in the L2B [757] zone as long as it is not enclosed in a building.

The location of the proposed 10 storey apartment building on the southern half of the property would ensure that the low profile townhouses on the north side of Clearview would not be overshadowed or otherwise negatively impacted by this development. The applicant has prepared a study of potential shadows cast by the proposed 10 storey building. This study demonstrates that impacts from shadows on any of the adjacent buildings are minimal and would be limited to late in the day during the fall and winter months.

Due to concerns expressed by area residents with respect to anticipated increases to traffic volume along area roads, a traffic impact study was submitted by the applicant. Staff review of this study confirmed that traffic generated by this development will not be significant and that the additional traffic can be accommodated by the area roads and intersections. The traffic related concerns that residents of the area have identified are a result of existing conditions. The proposed development in itself will not have any appreciable impact on these existing conditions.

Another concern expressed by residents of the area, and especially those in the existing apartment building at 200 Clearview, is the impact of the on-site parking related to this proposal. In response to this concern a review of the parking requirement related to the existing 22 storey high rise apartment building was undertaken and it was determined that the required parking for this building, presently located on the subject property at 210 Clearview, can be moved onto the lands zoned L2B (remnant Hydro corridor). The L2B [757] zone permits surface parking as an accessory use related to the residential use on the abutting lot. This will move the parking closer to the building at 200 Clearview, therefore, providing greater convenience for the residents of the building to access their parking.

This proposal for construction of rental apartment units is important to consider due to the high demand for market rental accommodation as a result of an existing low vacancy rate (.02%). The proposed zoning is suitable and appropriate for the development of this property, and the addition of rental apartments would assist in improving the availability of such rental apartments.

CONSULTATION

This application was subject to the requirements of preconsultation and early notification. A public meeting was conducted by the applicants with the community. A number of comments were received from the public in response to the notification and these are summarized in the attached Document 5, Consultation Details.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 – Location Map

Document 2 – Explanatory Note

Document 3 – Details of Proposed Zoning

Document 4 – Municipal Environmental Evaluation Process Checklist (on file with City Clerk)

Document 5 – Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

Corporate Services Department

Statutory Services Branch is required to notify the applicant, IPT Investments Inc., 1250 René-Lévesque Boulevard West, Suite 2940, Montreal Quebec H3B 4W8 and the agent, Michaelange Panzini Architects, 4115 Sherbrooke West, Suite 102, Westmount, Quebec H3Z 1K9
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law with respect to the zoning amendment to City Coucil.

Development Services Department

3. Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch to prepare the implementing by-law for the zoning amendment.

Location Map Document 1

Explanatory Note Document 2

EXPLANATORY NOTE TO THE PROPOSED BY-LAW NUMBER------

By-law Number ________amends Zoning By-law, 1998, the City’s comprehensive zoning by-law. The amendment affects the property located at 210 Clearview Avenue. The property is located on the attached location map.

CURRENT ZONING

The current zoning of the property is an R6B [204] F (2.0) zone on the south half and an R5A [133] on the north half. The exception to the R6B zone on the south haf restruct the permitted uses to a parking lot. The R5A exception zone on the north half permits residential uses from a single detached dwelling to an apartment building.

REQUESTED ZONING

The intent of this amendment is to reinstate high-rise apartment building as a permitted use for this property with a limited height and setbacks.

Zoning Details Document 3

1. A schedule to the zoning by-law will set out the minimum setbacks of the high-rise apartment building from the zoning boundaries as shown on the attached Location Map (Document 1).

2. The height limit for this zone is 28 metres above grade

Consultation Details Document 5

The Westboro Beach Community Association expressed concern with the perceived cumulative impact of the subject proposal along with three other residential projects, which Minto has proposed for Ellendale and Lanark Avenue. In response to this development activity in the area the community association has put forward a vision statement, design principles and a suggested process for a secondary planning process for the area. Their preliminary proposal would include the closure of Lanark Avenue at Ellendale and establishment of a new road link to the existing McRae Street along the abandoned Hydro corridor. This along with a number of principles related to site planning and building design, traffic, roads and parking, environment and commercial uses have been submitted in a brief to the Development Services Department.

The Island Park Towers Residents Association also submitted a number of concerns more specific to this proposal. They wish to maintain the existing surface parking for the apartment building at 200 Clearview on the same lot as that building. Their parking is presently located on the lot proposed for the subject development and would therefore need to be moved. The residents association also sees the potential for the loss of views, shadows cast by the ten-storey building, and problems with an increase in stormwater runoff.

Residents of the Oaks of Island Park townhouse development on the north side of Clearview Avenue have also expressed concern with this proposed zoning change, as it would result in a high-rise building across from their low profile homes. They suggested that care be taken with respect to vehicle access from Clearview and that the landscape treatment of the project be designed to mitigate possible impacts from the proposed building. Some also have concern with the potential for more rental housing in the area.

Response

The following information is provided to address the issues raised by residents with respect to this proposal:

With respect to the request of the Westboro Beach Community Association for a comprehensive study of traffic circulation in the area prior to any further intensification, the Planning Act enables a property owner to make applications for zoning and other planning approvals. City Council is bound by this legislation to consider these applications within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, these applications are being considered on their own merits but in the context of the subject property and its unique characteristics.
As this application addresses an impediment to the development of this property created inadvertently by the zoning of the remnant Hydro corridor under Zoning By-law, 1998, it is considered fair and reasonable to remedy this situation by returning the development potential which was put in place as a result of a planning study of this area in 1989-1991.
A Traffic Impact Study has been submitted by the applicant and reviewed by staff. The results of this study have determined that any additional traffic generated by this development can be accommodated by the existing streets and intersections and will not worsen the movement of traffic in the area.
The existing surface parking located on the subject property which is required for the apartment building at 200 Clearview can be moved closer to that building on the remnant Hydro corridor lands. Therefore this parking will be maintained and made more convenient for those residents.
Due to the proposed location of this building on the south side of the property and its 10-storey height, the shadow study demonstrates that shadows would be limited to late in the day during the winter months.
The intervening remnant Hydro corridor provides a suitable separation distance between the existing building at 200 Clearview and the proposed 10-storey structure.
Stormwater management will be addressed as part of the Site Plan Control review process with respect to this development proposal along with vehicle access, parking layout and landscape treatment.

Zoning – 210 Clearview Avenue

ZONAGE – 210 AVENUE CLEARVIEW

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0271

Committee Chair Hunter read a statement required under the Planning Act, wherein he 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.

Charles Lanktree, Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch provided the Committee with an overview of the staff report. Mr. Lanktree noted staff were proposing a technical amendment which dealt with the underground parking structure projecting into the L2B zoned lands (the Hydro easement).

Councillor Little referenced his motion, distributed to members of the Committee, which combined the technical amendment from staff, together with two additional amendments. He also referenced a letter received from the Island Park Towers Residents’ Association (held on file with the City Clerk), which expressed support for his motion. Councillor Little noted one of the problems identified by the residents was not being able to access existing surface parking for 200 Clearview. He advised this situation had been remedied that morning, with the company removing the barriers. However he said the residents of 200 Clearview were still concerned there would not be an adequate number of surface parking spots following the construction and that during the construction they would be denied access to that parking lot. The Councillor noted his motion dealt with the issue of adequate surface parking and that surface parking would be established prior to any other construction happening on the site. He asked for staff comment as to whether or not they felt this motion addressed these concerns.

Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals, advised he had reviewed Councillor Little’s motion and he felt it did address these concerns. He said staff would ensure that the development occurs in phases such that the surface parking of the existing residents is not affected. Councillor Little advised that both the developer and the Residents’ Association were in support of this motion.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

Paul Coles, President, Island Park Towers Residents’ Association, indicated his Associations’ concerns regarding parking, were addressed in the motion put forward by Councillor Little.

Responding to questions from Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Lanktree advised the zoning on the Hydro easement (i.e. Greenway Linkage) permits accessory uses and parking is one of those uses. Responding to further questions from the Councillor, Mr. Lindsay agreed the Greenway Linkage would be impacted by having surface parking on the Hydro corridor.

Councillor Stavinga then asked if there was a pedestrian walkway established on the Greenway Linkage and whether it would be reinstated. John Smit, Senior Transportation Planner, Development Services, said as the subject land is vacant, it is likely there is a passive pathway. He noted the former City of Ottawa Official Plan established a Greenway system with linkage lands. He said often these are associated with Hydro rights-of-ways and are intended to remain open. However, where these lands are in private ownership, the City cannot require that public use access be made available through those properties but, through the site plan process, staff do endeavour to implement linkages. Mr. Lindsay confirmed staff would be vigorously pursuing linkages for pedestrians and cyclists, on the subject property, between Clearview and Lanark.

D.C. Van Alstine, advised in the early 1990’s, the area residents participated in an exercise to develop zoning that was appropriate for this area. This zoning was in place when the townhouses were built on the north side of Clearview, just west of 195 Clearview. As well, this same zoning (with a height restriction of 38 feet) was applicable to the south side of Clearview Avenue (the subject land). However, in 1998, the City went through a rezoning and the zoning for the south side of Clearview was changed. This caused him great concern.

Mr. Van Alstine went on to express concern about the great amount of development and the increase in population in this area and the affect this will have on this long existing, quiet, residential neighbourhood. With respect the surface parking issue, Mr. Van Alstine opined the parking lot at 210 Clearview had, in effect, a “lien” on it. He explained this parking lot was used so that the building at 200 Clearview complied with the parking requirements of the zoning by-law. He indicated Councillor Little’s motion addressed his concerns about the existing parking and strongly agreed that the parking lot had to be developed completely before any other construction on the subject lands could begin. He advised with these amendments, he could accept this development. As a final comment, Mr. Van Alstine stated he wanted to ensure that the proposed building (a maximum of 10 storeys, 100 feet) would be the only one ever built on this strip of land that runs from Clearview Avenue to Lanark Avenue.

Frederick Oppen, stated he had observed heavy effluent (smoke) coming from the chimneys of 185 and 195 Clearview Avenue, and carried parallel to the land in the direction of the wind. He questioned what would happen with the effluent from the proposed building, which will be blown by the prevailing winds right into the windows of 200 Clearview.

Mr. Oppen then spoke of the traffic situation in this area and felt a traffic signal was necessary at Clearview Avenue and Island Park Drive. He pointed out cars could not make left hand turns from Clearview onto Island Park and it was very difficult for cars to cross Island Park Drive. He felt this proposed building and the number of other proposed projects in the area would only add to the traffic problem.

Chair Hunter noted a representative of the applicant would be addressing the Committee and would likely be able to answer Mr. Oppen’s question concerning smoke effluent from the building. The Chair then asked staff to comment on the delegation’s concerns regarding traffic in the area. Mr. Smit stated there is a recognized traffic problem in this area currently. A traffic calming study was undertaken a few years ago and some of the recommendations have been implemented. He said staff are aware of the concerns that development in this area will impact the traffic situation further and for this reason, required the proponent of this development to undertake a traffic study. This study confirmed that the traffic generated by this development can be accommodated. He said future projects in this area will be required to undertake traffic studies as well and at that time, it may be necessary for the City to examine the area road network and determine if modifications should be introduced. With respect to traffic signals at Clearview and Island Park, Mr. Smit said he suspected signals would not be merited at this intersection, as the cross traffic from Clearview would not be sufficient.

Barbara Barr stated her recommendation was that this proposal be rejected, unless the parking lot proposed on the L2B lands is put underground (with appropriate landscaping at ground level) or some other means is found to deal with this Greenway System site. Ms. Barr emphasized that this land is zoned L2B to recognize its designation as a Greenway linkage in the Official Plan.

Ms. Barr expressed her opinion the staff report could have been much more balanced and thorough. For example, she noted the report stated the L2B zone permits surface parking as an accessory use in the Greenway system. However, the report did not explain the Greenway System or the fact that development in the Greenway System is discouraged. Ms. Barr then went on to read a number of the objectives of the Greenway System from the former City of Ottawa Official Plan. She felt the Committee should have been advised that interrupting the Greenway System with a parking lot is contrary to the intent of this system. Ms. Barr also argued, that contrary to what was stated in the report, the zoning on the lands was not “inadvertent”, rather the zoning was put in place to reflect the Greenway System land use designation in the Official Plan. She also felt the proponent could have appealed the zoning by-law when it was approved in 1998

In conclusion, Ms. Barr advised she had visited the site and noted there was a path across the property that led to a Transit Station. She felt smart growth should encourage pedestrian access to the Transitway and also to keep things green. As a final comment, Ms. Barr questioned what the parkland requirement was for this site and said she would not recommend there be cash-in-lieu of parkland.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Lanktree advised parking was a permitted use under the L2B zoning. He noted site plan control would be required for the development of the new apartment building and the associated parking for 200 Clearview would be part of that site plan approval. Approval for site plans is delegated to staff. Councillor Cullen then had questions on the process for removing delegated authority, which the Chair suggested be dealt with after all of the delegations had been heard.

Amy Kempster advised she lived close to this development and had attended the public meeting. She said, as there was no planner at the public meeting, there was a lot of misinformation. The public did not realize what the actual zoning was and the proponent was not clear on it either.

Ms. Kempster said this neighbourhood is receiving a lot of intensification (at least four developments in the immediate area) and noted the Westboro Beach Community Association had requested a secondary planning study for this area, which was rejected. She stressed the community is not necessarily opposed to all of the development in the area, but would have liked a much more coordinated process. Ms. Kempster pointed out that no one project would mean that much increase in traffic, however, the combined effect of all of the proposed developments in this area will be a great increase in traffic.

Ms. Kempster stated she felt strongly there should be a path across the L2B lands through to the Transitway, as well as across the Minto lands that will be developed in the near future. She said this was in keeping with the recommendations of a study she participated in which promoted intensification close to Transitway stations and pedestrian access to these stations. As a final remark, Ms. Kempster said, if it were technically feasible, the parking should be put underground and the L2B corridor kept as greenspace.

Councillor Munter sought confirmation from staff, that they would be seeking pedestrian access across the Minto lands to the Transitway station, when the site plan for this development comes forward. Mr. Smit confirmed it is clearly the direction in the Official Plan to pursue such an access. He said staff would do what they could to facilitate a pedestrian system but reiterated the City could not require a pathway on private land. He noted there is generally a willingness on the part of developers to do this.

Graham Bird, IPT Invest Inc., the agent for owner of the subject land, stated the site plan that will come forward for this development will deal with the entire property and at that time all of the parking and pathway issues, will be dealt with. He assured the Committee his client respects the link that runs from the apartment buildings to the north and advised that in the Minto design there is a corridor and pathway system that will run to the Transitway system. He noted one of the motions put forward by Councillor Little would enable a minor encroachment underground within the Hydro easement, to permit some extra parking.

Mr. Bird went on to say the developer wants to work with the residents of 195 and 200 Clearview to ensure the right solutions for landscaping, parking and pedestrian pathways are incorporated to their satisfaction. With respect to suggestions that the parking be built underground, he said the concern is that this does not allow for mature trees. By keeping the majority of the easement free of underground structures, it allows mature trees to develop over time. Mr. Bird said his client was in support of the motions put forward and he assured the Committee that during the site plan stage, they would work to ensure that the appropriate pedestrian linkage would be established in the correct place.

Chair Hunter noted an earlier delegation had raised a concern about smoke effluent from the proposed building. Mr. Bird said the speaker was correct that the prevailing winds come from west to east through this area and he undertook to consult with the mechanical engineers to minimize any impact. The subject building will be much lower than the existing building (10 storeys as compared to 24 storeys) and he felt with the appropriate locating of wind vents, etc. this problem could be mitigated. Mr. Bird indicated he would contact Mr. Oppen directly to discuss the matter with him.

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

Speaking to his motion, Councillor Little encouraged the Committee to support it, as he felt it addressed the concerns raised by residents in the surrounding buildings. He referenced comments made by Ms. Kempster and noted the traffic study undertaken for this development did in fact include projections for other developments in the area that will potentially occur in the next while. With respect to the issue of underground parking, he pointed out his motion was to add 23 parking spaces underground. The Councillor indicated he had committed to the residents to work with them to determine what they would like to see in terms of the pathway options and the surface parking options. He asked for the Committee’s support.

Councillor Cullen asked if Councillor Little would accept a friendly amendment to his motion to add after “to the satisfaction of the Ward Councillor” the words “and staff”. Councillor Little felt this was too broad but agreed to add “and the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals”.

Councillor Cullen said he was disappointed to find out that the zoning to protect the greenway system, allows the greenway system to be paved over. He felt this to be a problem that must be addressed in the Official Plan. The Councillor stated he hoped the Ward Councillor would bring the site plan back to Committee, as he felt the issues to be dealt with were more than just “on-site issues”, with broader community implications.

Councillor Eastman sought clarification on the motion, regarding the zone being modified to permit the below-grade parking garage. Mr. Lanktree explained the intent is to permit the planned below-grade parking structure (under the building) to encroach on the L2B lands (the hydro easement) for an additional 23 spaces.

Moved by Councillor Little

1. That the provisions of the abutting L2B [757] zone be modified to permit the below-grade parking garage for a 79 unit residential apartment building at 210 Clearview to extend into that zone to accommodate an additional 23 parking spaces.

2. That staff be directed to ensure when the site plan control application is submitted that it include adequate surface parking to the satisfaction of the Ward Councillor and the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch; and

3. That the surface parking be constructed first before any other structures are built.

CARRIED

The motion as amended was then approved.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998 for property located at 210 Clearview Avenue from R6B [204] F (2.0) and R5A [133] to R6B H(28) SCH.___ to permit an apartment building, as amended by the following:

3. That the surface parking be constructed first before any other structures are built.

CARRIED as amended