Report to / Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee /

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

and Council / et au Conseil

16 January 2003/ le 16 janvier 2003

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

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

Contact / Personne-ressource: Grant Lindsay, ManagerDevelopment Approvals / Gestionnaire, Approbation des demands d’aménagement

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

Ref N°: ACS2003-DEV-APR-0003

SUBJECT: ZONING – 464 WOODLAND AVENUE

OBJET: ZONAGE – 464, AVENUE WOODLAND

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend Council refuse the application to amend the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, 1998 to change the zoning of 464 Woodland Avenue from Minor Institutional (I1) to a new Minor Institutional exception zone to allow parking not associated with a place of worship.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommande au Conseil municipal de rejeter une demande de modification du Règlement de zonage de 1998 de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa visant à remplacer le zonage de « petite institution (I1) » du 464, avenue Woodland par un nouveau zonage d’exception de « petite institution » afin de permettre une aire de stationnement non connexe à un lieu de culte.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located in a low-density residential neighbourhood north of Carling Avenue, west of Woodroffe Avenue and the Carlingwood Shopping Centre (see Document 1). A place of worship is currently located on the subject property. There are 49 parking spaces located on the site and the applicant wishes to rent 48 of them to workers in a nearby office building. Approval of this request would permit parking not associated with the place of worship.

DISCUSSION

Former City of Ottawa Official Plan

The subject property is located on lands which are designated as Residential by the former City of Ottawa Official Plan. Non-residential uses are permitted on lands with this designation, provided that certain policies (3.6.2.e)) relating to the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding community, are addressed. It is the Department’s position that the proposed rezoning does not satisfy the intent of these policies in the Official Plan.

These policies state that non-residential uses are to be located in isolation or at the periphery of existing concentrations of residential development, as well as along major collector or arterial roadways. Contrary to this, the subject site is surrounded by low-density residential development and is located on a local road. In addition, as the proposed development in accessed by local roads, there are no sidewalks for pedestrian access to the site, as intended by the policies.

These provisions were established in the Official Plan to minimize the amount of disruption caused by commercial traffic traveling into the residential neighbourhoods. It is the Department’s position that granting this rezoning proposal to allow commercial traffic on the surrounding local streets will result in a continued vehicular disruption to the local community.

The Department also has a concern about frequent vehicle trips to and from the site throughout the day. While the parking lot may operate on the premise that patrons will park their vehicles for the day, coming and going only at the peak times, this is not an enforceable issue and consequently, the number of vehicle trips to and from the property could be increased significantly, causing more disruption to the community.

The church on the property is a relatively new addition to the community. The community accepted it as a neighbourhood serving use, compatible with the surrounding residential properties. At no time did the residents envision that public parking would become a component of the church, thus going beyond the neighbourhood serving function to that of a commercial intrusion into the community.

As the applicant is requesting that all but one of the parking spaces be used for parking not associated with the place of worship, the Department has a concern about sufficient parking being provided for the place of worship during the weekdays. It is recognized that the peak time for the place of worship is on the weekend, however, if parking for more than one space is needed during the week, such as for a funeral, this will not be provided.

The Woodpark Community is an older suburban neighbourhood with open ditches and no sidewalks. Staff has concerns about the potential conflict with pedestrians and the additional vehicular traffic that the proposed use could generate. The approval of the zoning could lead to other institutional uses seeking to generate revenue, requesting a similar use in other established neighbourhoods throughout the City.

It is recognized that the proposed rezoning can satisfy certain policy points relating to non-residential uses, such as buffering and screening to reduce the adverse visual impact on adjacent residential areas and that the proposed use will not represent a concentration of such uses or jobs, which would be best located under another designation. Nevertheless, it is the Department’s position that the policies mentioned above, which are not satisfied, are critical in determining the compatibility with the surrounding community and therefore the appropriateness of the proposal.

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 of the proposed rezoning were received as a result of the posting of the on-site sign and one response in opposition was received from the Woodpark Community Association. All those in opposition believed that the proposed rezoning would have a negative impact on the quality of life for the neighbourhood. Details of the consultation can be seen in Document 2. The Ward Councillor does not support the application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was not processed within the timeframe established for zoning reports due to the controversial nature of this item.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 – Location Plan

Document 2 – Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

Department of Corporate Services, Secretariat Services to notify the agent (Durrell Construction Ltd., 965 Moodie Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K2R 1H4) and the owner (The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ottawa, P.O. Box 23139, Ottawa, Ontario, K2R 1H4) of Council’s decision.

Location Plan Document 1

Consultation Details Document 2

NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and 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 sign and circulation to concerned community groups. Seven responses in opposition of the proposed rezoning were received as a result of the posting of the on-site sign and one response in opposition was received from the Woodpark Community Association. A summary of the Public Comments and the response from the community association is presented below.

Concerns from the Posting of the On-site Sign

1. When the community agreed to the new church, a public parking lot was not contemplated.

2. This proposal represents commercial traffic on residential streets.

3. I’m afraid there will be noise from the parking lot during all hours of the night.

4. Vehicles from outside the neighbourhood drive faster than those from the neighbourhood.

5. Those seeking parking should contact management of Carlingwood Shopping Centre and park over there.

6. Traffic on Woodland has doubled since the closing of Ancaster at Carling. Approval of This will only make it worse.

7. I’m afraid that if they get this approval, they will cut down trees to expand the parking area and rent out more parking.

8. I believe this rezoning would spoil our neighbourhood with an inappropriate use.

9. If the lot is allowed it will devalue my property.

10. I am concerned about the water draining from the parking lot to my property. If this water is salty from melting ice and snow, it will be worse and damage my lawn.

11. Commercial parking in a residential area will be detrimental to the neighbourhood.

12. This proposal is only to make money for the church.

Woodpark Community Association

Please be advised that the Woodpark Community Association Inc. strongly opposes the rezoning application for 464 Woodland Avenue that, if approved, would create a commercial parking lot in the heart of the residential community. We feel that this application has no planning merit and must be dismissed.

However, should this application be approved by Committee and Council, please understand that this community association will confer with council and will exercise its right to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Councillor’s Comments

Councillor Alex Cullen provided the following comment.

I am writing in response to the zoning amendment application (file # OZP2001/0201) to permit the rental of 48 of the 49 parking spaces in the parking lot of the church at 464 Woodland Avenue. This church was a relatively recent infill development within a residential community (Woodpark), and was accepted by the community on the basis of its relatively modest intrusion into the neighbourhood and its use as a place of worship. Woodpark is an older residential neighbourhood typified by relatively narrow residential streets with ditches and no sidewalks. As a result traffic is an issue in this community. Permitting the daily rental of 48 parking spaces means that (at minimum) 96 additional car trips would occur daily on Woodland Avenue and surrounding streets. This is not acceptable to the community, and is inconsistent with the purpose of the church, which is a place of worship, not a commercial enterprise. Therefore I do not support this application for a zoning amendment to permit this use at this site.

ZONING – 464 WOODLAND AVENUE

ZONAGE – 464, AVENUE WOODLAND

ACS2003-DEV-APR-0003 Bay/Baie (7)

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.

At 9:45 a.m. Councillor Munter advised he had to step out for 45 minutes due to a pre-Federal budget meeting with Minister Jane Stewart regarding Child Care.

Doug James, Planner, provided a presentation, and was available to respond to any questions related to the recommendations contained in the departmental report dated 16 January 2003.

The Committee heard fom the following delegations.

Chrys Tindale, had lived directly across from the questionable property for 5 years. From experience, the traffic situation was the key with many children on the street and no sidewalks. Residents were bombarded every day with a stream from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m. He had to wait to get his car out of his driveway and totally opposed the application to amend the By-Law. The Church spent a lot of money over the last few years; they rebuilt the church, with a new re-paved parking lot and reduced spaces. He understood the rationale to recoup some of their investment. The proposal was not good for the neighbourhood, which had enough problems with people cutting around to get to Woodroffe; coming down from Carling; the Edgeworth connection; and, the current low-income residential project, which would push the demand on parking.

Chair Hunter received confirmation the lot was currently operating as a parking lot, with the Church asking for donations. It was full every morning, Monday to Friday, starting at 7:30 a.m. It was a residential area, but drivers were speeding in / out to get to work. There was ample parking in the area; at Carlingwood; across from Carlingwood; beside the Tim Horton’s, etc. Arrangements were made within the area, such as the Canadian Tire since their lot was on the other side of Woodroffe. The lot was convenient to the Medical Centre on the corner and other commercial enterprises in the area.

Councillor Cullen explained that the Church was a recent addition created as an infill from a severed lot.

Greg Taylor read from a written submission (in agreement with the recommendation to refuse the application) previously distributed, which was on file with the City clerk.

Responding to a query by Councillor Cullen on process, John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals, advised that if the departmental recommendation to refuse was approved by Committee and Council, appropriate notification would be given to the Church to cease the operation and due notice to allow the operation to cease. If it was not ceased, enforcement mode would kick in and if the Church appealed the decision, an OMB hearing would ensue with a decision in approximately 6-8 months. Although parking was currently not a legal use, it would continue until the Board decision.

Mr. Taylor made reference to funerals and that parking on the street was restricted to no parking from 8-4. Chair Hunter remarked that should be reviewed.

John Blatherwick, President, Woodpark Community Association, advised that residents had determined the Church was a very good use for the neighbourhood since the alternative was 15-20 stacked townhouses. Unfortunately, the use was no longer welcome. A neighbourhood serving use was of the community and the current parking situation was in the community. The Community Association supported the departmental and Councillor Cullen’s position on the re-zoning application, which should be dismissed, as it had no planning merit. He pointed out the Church, Carling Corporate Centre, bus stops and transit stations. The transit system was more than adequate within easy walking distance, which was supposed to take precedence in the City. In response to Chair Hunter’s comment to on-street parking restrictions, he provided a history on the Carling Corporate Centre built in the 1970’s with spillover parking problems. By 1982, City Council banned parking; doctors offices disappeared from the Centre; and, the area no longer suffered a parking problem due to the parking restrictions. Unfortunately, traffic problems returned with at least 96 trips per day. In fact, the real estate office also parked their vehicles and had a tendency to come and go frequently during the day. The Association asked that the application be dismissed and that alternative locations, not in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, be found.

Councillor Cullen inquired if the applicant had requested to meet with the Association or the community. Mr. Blatherwick responded that there was no contact between the Church and the Association or residents on Woodland Avenue. Councillor Cullen also advised that there was no contact with him as well.

Responding to the proximity of the Halldon Square large parking lot, Mr. Blatherwick noted the tendency to drive within the high tech industry and availability of spaces. He added that in all likelihood the Church lot was a low cost illegal alternative. Chair Hunter recognized the frustration to the local community with the spillover from the commercial area and the former City of Ottawa’s lax parking standards to construction, which created problems for neighbouring communities. Mr. Blatherwick referred to the Kelly Funeral home and did not believe residents would complain in the event of funerals although there were parking restrictions.

Roch Landriault, Agent for the Applicant advised that the Church wanted to be a good neighbour and had no malicious intent when it created the problem. The Church was approached by Halldon Place to solve a local parking problem. However, the community had a problem with it and, as a good neighbour, if Committee/Council rejected the application, the Church would cease the operation. 48 of the 49 spaces were requested and made sense, but the number could be reduced. The Church asked for a period of grace to allow it to contact those parking to permit alternative arrangements to be made. Having sai that, the Church was approached by the City to make the application to legalize the operation and did so well over a year ago.

Correspondence dated 3 February 2003, from Marylyn and Leonard Champagne in support of the staff recommendation was circulated.

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

Councillor Cullen asked the Committee to support the staff recommendation based on his previous argument. There were over 2,500 parking spots at Carlingwood, Fairlawn and Halldon Place, without mentioning the easy access to public transit. There was no reason to insert a commercial parking lot in a residential community.

Councillor Eastman raised the possible negative impact on the adjoining streets since thse 50 vehicles would have to go somewhere.

Councillor Harder was advised the applicant would have paid a $3,000 application fee for the zoning application and suggested that fee be returned if the application was refused, since the City had asked the Church to make the application. Chair Hunter noted that as presented by Mr. Landriault, the Church was put in this situation in good faith. One City department instructed the Church to make an application to legalize the operation and another department collected the fee for the application and then refused the application. Councillor Cullen pointed out the venture operated illegally for one year.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen:

CARRIED with Councillor Eastman dissenting.

Councillor Harder reiterated her concern that the City instructed the “Church” to make the application. Councillor Cullen described the process following the By-Law Parking Officer notice and a fine was only payable after the third notice. The Church should have recognized there was a problem and complied. The operation was in place for over a year, with 48 spaces x the revenue for that period. One of the premises brought forward by the 20/20 exercise was that Council should adhere to its own policies.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That the Application Fees be waived for the Church.

CARRIED

YEAS (5): Councillors Harder, Eastman, Bellemare, Hume, Hunter

NAYS (4): Councillors Stavinga, Cullen, Arnold, Little

The departmental report dated 16 January 2003 was approved as amended.

That the Application Fees be waived for the Church.

CARRIED as amended