|
1.
ZONING
- 60 SWEETNAM ROAD ZONAGE - 60, CHEMIN SWEETNAM |
Committee recommendation
(This application
is not subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an
amendment to the former Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-law to change the
zoning of 60 Sweetnam Drive from Local Commercial (CL) to Special Residential
Type 4 as shown in Document 1, and detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
Recommandation du Comité
(Cette demande n’est pas
assujettie au projet de loi 51)
Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage de
l’ancien Canton de Goulbourn afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 60,
promenade Sweetnam de zone de commerces locaux (CL) à zone résidentielle
spéciale de type 4, tel qu’il est indiqué dans le document 1 et expliqué en
détail dans les documents 2 et 3.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning,
Transit and the Environment dated
12 April 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-APR-0011).
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes, 8 May 2007.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice municipale adjointe
Planning, Transit and the Environment/ Urbanisme,
Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact
Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement
(613)
580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former
Township of Goulbourn Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 60 Sweetnam Drive
from Local Commercial (CL) to Special Residential Type 4 as shown in Document
1, and detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage de
l’ancien Canton de Goulbourn afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 60,
promenade Sweetnam de zone de commerces locaux (CL) à zone résidentielle
spéciale de type 4, tel qu’il est indiqué dans le document 1 et expliqué en
détail dans les documents 2 et 3.
BACKGROUND
The
subject site, 60 Sweetnam Drive, is located on the northeast corner of Sweetnam
Drive and Harry Douglas Drive. The land
is currently vacant. Surrounding land
uses include: street townhouses, zoned R4-5, to the west across Sweetnam Drive;
single detached homes, zoned R4‑6, adjacent to the east; and single
detached residential, zoned R1-5, to the south across Harry Douglas
Drive.
Land
adjacent to the north of the site is a park under development, with a Parks and
Recreation Zone (PR). A portion of the
site in the northwest corner lies within the 1:100 year flood plain line
and the associated Regulation Limit for Poole Creek.
Purpose of
Zoning By-law Amendment
The applicant is requesting a Zoning By-law amendment to permit a variety of multi-unit residential dwellings including: stacked townhouses; street townhouses; and semi-detached units.
The subject parcel is currently a Local Commercial Zone (CL). The zone permits a number of retail and professional uses, and an accessory dwelling unit. The maximum building height permitted under the current (CL) zone provisions is 7.5 metres.
The applicant originally requested to rezone to a special R5 Residential Zone, with the additional permitted use of private school. Based on discussions with the Ward Councillor, community, and staff, the application was revised to request a Special Residential (R4) Zone with the additional permitted use of stacked townhouses.
DISCUSSION
The Official Plan designates the
site as General Urban Area. The General
Urban Area designation permits the development of a full range and choice of
housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances, in
combination with conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural,
leisure, entertainment and institutional uses.
A broad scale of uses is found within this designation, from
ground-oriented single-purpose to multi-storey mixed-use development.
The Official Plan states that when
considering a proposal for residential intensification through infill or
redevelopment in the General Urban Area, the City will recognize the importance
of new development relating to existing community character so that it enhances
and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form; consider its
contribution to the maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types
and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic
profiles.
The adjacent developments on Azurite Crescent and Harry Douglas Drive are zoned R4-6 and R1-5 respectively. The R1-5 and R4-6 zone provisions permit a maximum height of 11 metres. The existing Zoning By-law defines “Dwelling, Stacked Townhouse” to have a maximum height of three and one half storeys.
A three and one half storey building would typically have a height between 10.5 and 14 metres. Thus, the proposed development is considered compatible with the adjacent zoning height provisions. The R4 zone provisions stipulate 40 units per hectare maximum density.
The proposed zone provisions for the stacked townhouse use stipulate a maximum 70 units per hectare. The special R4 Residential Zone would conform to the Official Plan policies by blending with the character of the surrounding development and increasing the diversity of housing types available in the neighbourhood.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan in support of this Zoning By-law amendment to demonstrate the layout of the buildings and parking on site, as shown in Document 5. This concept depicts units that are approximately 12 metres in height, linearly arranged at a density of 66 units per hectare. Thus, the proposed development is of a compatible height and density with the surrounding neighbourhood zone provisions and its linear arrangement is similar in visual appearance to the street townhouses along Eileen Crescent.
This Zoning By-law amendment is
proposing to change the zoning from Local Commercial (CL) Zone to Special
Residential (R4-(X)), with the additional permitted use of stacked townhouse
dwellings for the subject property located at 60 Sweetnam Drive. A special provision will be required to
acknowledge that no development is allowed within the 1:100 year flood
line. This land will be dedicated to
the City as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval. The stacked townhouse dwelling use will be
developed in accordance with special provisions that incorporate provisions
from both the R4 and R5 Zone. Staff
support the request to permit the use of stacked townhouse dwellings as
demonstrated in the Conceptual Site Plan, Document 5. Stacked townhouses are limited to three and one half stories
under the general provisions of By‑law 40-99 and the development density
is limited to 70 units per hectare.
Generally, a Transportation Impact
Study is not required for minor infill development in areas where the road
network is fully established. The
current guidelines specify a minimum of 75 residential units justify a
Community Transportation Study which is a high level study that focuses on the
basic functionality of the network. The
concept submitted in support of this Zoning By-law amendment application is
considered to be a minor infill development, less than 50 units, and would
not generate enough traffic to require a study pursuant to Council approved
Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines.
Staff expressed concern regarding
the concept plan for the proposed private school building as it did not provide
for an outdoor amenity area. There were
concerns that this use would result in 'unexpected pressures' on the abutting
parkland. The applicant has since
withdrawn their request to allow a private school use.
Conclusions
The proposed permitted uses are considered
appropriate for the site, and will achieve the goal of providing a full range
and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages while respecting the
existing character of the community.
The addition of the stacked townhouse dwelling use would increase the diversity of housing types available in the neighbourhood and is considered a compatible building form that would be in keeping with the surrounding community. Further, the intersection of two collector roads, Harry Douglas Drive and Sweetnam Drive is considered an appropriate location for a higher density infill development.
The existing residents in the community were concerned with the prospect of having a higher density infill development in their neighbourhood. Many of their concerns are applicable to the site plan and will be addressed at the site plan control application stage. Concerns to be ameliorated at the site plan stage include: parking and driveway orientation to minimize traffic congestion, and car headlights shining into existing residences, landscaping, garbage enclosures, buffers and privacy fences to enhance the aesthetic character of the site, along with the design details of the dwelling units will need to be addressed in order for the site to harmonize with the existing community.
In response to community concerns the applicant provided a concept that shows four buildings of eight units each, 32 units in total, with a height of approximately 12.1 metres, and 48 parking spaces. This concept results in a four-unit reduction in the number of units on site and six fewer required parking spaces than the original stacked townhouse concept. Further, the units are linearly arranged and thus look more like a traditional street town house than the original concept. Many existing residents indicated that they would be comfortable with street townhouses and an R4 zoning designation on site. The conceptual units are comparable with the 11-metre maximum height of the adjacent R1-5 and R4-6 zone provisions. The proposal demonstrates 16.2 per cent building coverage on site, leaving 53 per cent for landscaping/open space coverage.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Flood
risk mapping indicates that a corner of the property is within the 1:100 year
flood plain. Permission will not be
granted for construction of new buildings within this designated area. Part of the property is also within the
associated Regulation Limit for Poole Creek and any development within the
Regulation Limit for Poole Creek requires an approved permit from Mississippi
Valley Conservation Authority.
CONSULTATION
Notice
of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public
Notification and Consultation Policy. A
Community Information and Comment Session was held on
October 10, 2006, the applicant hosted an information session on
February 5, 2007.
The applicant produced a new concept in response to the public concerns and met with the Ward Councillor on March 8, 2007. The consultation details are attached as Document 4. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On
Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law
amendments due to timing of the Community Information and Comment Session
requested by the Ward Councillor and a request by the Councillor to hold the
application in order to allow discussions between the Councillor and the
developer, and then to allow for the newly-elected Councillor to be briefed on
the application.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Details
of Recommended zoning
Document 3 Zoning
By-Law Schedule
Document 4 Consultation Details
Document 5 Conceptual Site Plan
DISPOSITION
Corporate Services Department, City Clerk’s
Branch, Secretariat Services to notify the owner, 1384341
Ontario Ltd.,9094 Highway #7, RR#2 Ashton, Ontario, K0A 1B0, applicant, Doug Smeathers, 1384341 Ontario Ltd.,9094
Highway #7, RR#2 Ashton, Ontario, K0A 1B0, Signs.ca, 866 Campbell Avenue, Ottawa, ON K2A 2C5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program
Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch
and undertake the statutory notification.
Corporate Services Department, Legal Services
Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council
LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT
1
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT
2
The
property located at 60 Sweetnam Drive shown on Document 1 will be rezoned from
CL to R4-X.
Despite anything to the
contrary in By-law 40-99, the lands zoned R4-X are subject to the
following:
Additional Uses Permitted:
1. Dwelling, Stacked Townhouse
Provisions:
1. Subsection 1(4) will be amended to add “SCHEDULE B1 - 60 Sweetnam Drive”.
2.
No building development is
permitted within the 1:100 year flood plain as identified in Document 3.
3.
The lands will be considered
one lot for zoning purposes, notwithstanding the lawful division of a lot
pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended, the Condominium Act, as amended, or
any other similar legislation, only when the lands are developed with the Dwelling,
Stacked Townhouse use, but not when developed with that use in combination with
any other permitted use in the zone.
4. The Dwelling, Stacked Townhouse use is subject to the following provisions:
a.
Density: (maximum) 70
units per hectare
b.
Lot Frontage: (minimum) 24
metres
c.
Yard, Front: (minimum) 6
metres
d. Yard, Exterior Side: (minimum) 6 metres
e. Yard, Interior Side: (minimum) 3.5 metres
f. Yard, Rear: (minimum) 7.5 metres
g. Lot Area: (minimum) 900 metres square
h. Dwelling Unit Area:
(i) One-bedroom units (minimum) 50 metres square
(ii) Two-bedroom units (minimum) 65 metres square
i. Landscaped Open Space: (minimum) 25%
j. Lot Coverage, Building Main: (maximum) 25%
k. Building Height (maximum) 15 metres
l. The front yards of units constructed on the land identified on Document 3, must face Sweetnam Drive, and no parking is permitted in the front yards.
General Provisions: In accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of By-Law 40-99.
ZONING BY-LAW SCHEDULE DOCUMENT
3
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
4
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION
PROCESS
Notification and public consultation
was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public
Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. A Community Information Session was also held in the community, and a
second public information session was held by the applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were numerous comments from the public; comments were consistently received throughout the process and generally expressed concern over allowing stacked townhouses on this site. One letter was received in full support of the Zoning By-law amendment. Below is a list of the topics of concern.
1. Opposed to the zoning change because they thought the subject property would be a park/ open space. Further, there was concern with saving the existing trees, a desire to complete the park to the north, and to commence building on site.
2. Traffic concerns, they are concerned with increased traffic resulting from an increased number of residents, and traffic speeds on Sweetnam Drive. The closing of Sweetnam Drive as a through street, and not allowing parking on Sweetnam Drive was suggested.
3. Objected to the site being developed as a private school because they don't want children around due to concern over noise, and the possibility of being left with a legacy use that does not fit in with the residential nature of the community.
4. Residents felt that the concept for development was too dense for the neighbourhood, they don't like stacked towns and apartment style dwellings, and would prefer to rezone to a lower density residential zone similar to adjacent development for example: decrease the density to limit the units to 16 with exterior parking for 32 cars; or an adult lifestyle community similar to the surrounding neighbourhood.
5. Residents expressed concern with the height of the proposed buildings; a two or three storey height limitation was suggested.
6. Residents requested adequate landscaping to visually block parking areas using berms and landscaping.
7. Concerns with the possibility of refuse containers at the northeast property line were submitted.
8. An objection to the rezoning because it would remove the possibility for commercial development and diminish the opportunity to provide local services to the existing neighbourhood within walking distance.
9. Comments were also submitted in support of child care/educational facility and in support of the change in zoning to a residential zone.
Community Information Session, October 10, 2006 - PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
The October 10 Community Information and Comment Session was well attended with 26 people signing the attendance list. The issues brought forth in the meeting and subsequent written comments reiterated the concerns listed above and are summarized below.
1. In favour of Zoning By-law amendment to allow Residential type R4 Zone.
2. Concerned that the proposed development would increase traffic, noise and speeding problems.
3. In opposition to the private school use.
4. In opposition to Zoning By-law amendment to allow Residential type R5, which would allow apartment dwellings and stacked townhouse use. In opposition to the presented concept of three stacked townhouses. Concerns that high-density development on this land would negatively affect the adjacent property values.
5. Concerned with the height of the proposed development and lack of privacy for existing residents and shading of existing residences.
6. Concerned with the entrance of the proposed development and headlights shining into existing residents.
7. Concerned with the vehicle parking of the proposed development and the effect of a large surface parking lot.
8. Concerned with blasting that may be necessary for the development of the site and the damage it would do to existing residents.
9. Would like consideration that many of the surrounding residents are seniors.
10. Would like all residents to have their own garage.
11. Provision of adequate landscaping.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
Former Councillor Stavinga was concerned with the community’s response to the Zoning By-law amendment. The existing residents were disturbed by the prospect of having a higher density infill development in their neighbourhood.
The Councillor requested and attended the Community Information Session and engaged in personal discussions with the owner of the site to discuss the concerns. Shad Qadri, the new Ward 6 Councillor, also expressed concerns with the provision of adequate visitor parking in the event of a stacked townhouse development.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
The Granite Ridge Community Association (GRCA)submitted independent formal comments that included the following:
1. Concern over the "shot-gun" nature of this application, that the applicant is requesting too broad a spectrum of potential development types for this property, and as a result, there is an insufficient level of confidence in what the eventual use will be.
2. Not opposed to the approval of a re-zoning of the subject site to an R4 zoning, thus permitting semi-detached and street townhomes. We believe that this re-zoning would be consistent with the Ottawa Official Plan's directives of having infill developments be of a more dense nature, while still respecting the fact that this site, in fact is bound by single homes and bungalow townhomes.
3. Not opposed to the approval of a re-zoning of the subject site to allow a private school/day nursery.
4. Opposed to the request that would see this site re-zoned as R5; allowing stacked townhouses and/or apartment buildings. Clearly, the surrounding residential units have lower elevations than the 15m allowed with R5, and would suffer a diminishment in privacy, sunlight etc., with development to this height even within the required setbacks. Further, we believe that the density that would result would have a direct negative impact on the vehicular traffic on Harry Douglas Drive; particularly in the case of the homes that would be opposite an entry on Harry Douglas Drive where residents would be challenged to get out of their lane ways. The separate parking areas would require lighting, which would create light pollution for the adjacent residential properties.
5. The applicant should be required to provide some type of entry feature to the property that would demarcate it as the boundary of the industrial park and the entry to a residential area. Although the speed limit on Sweetnam Drive is 40kmh, the entry feature might trigger a realization that the potential for pedestrian (particularly children) traffic etc., is now much more of a factor than in the earlier section of this street.
6. At the public
information session, the applicant provided a concept plan for thirty-six units
of stacked condo townhomes for this site.
Notwithstanding the clear indication above that the GRCA is firmly
opposed to an approval of the re-zoning of the site to permit such a usage, and
acknowledging that the following concerns would be more relevant to a site plan
application, I provide the comments below for your records and (hopefully not!)
future needs.
7. As has been the feedback regarding the "java" type condominium units proposed for Jackson Trails, we firmly believe that these units as built in Barrhaven and areas of Kanata, do not meet the established aesthetic requirements for Stittsville.
The covenants of the Granite Ridge subdivision established that all homes must be constructed with full brick frontages. The bungalow townhomes on Eileen Crescent were also constructed consistent with this requirement. The two or so storeys of siding on the units are thus not acceptable to us as an exterior finish.
8. The proposed three (3), twelve unit buildings may be technically possible on the site, but realistically is an over development.
9. The GRCA would be opposed to the entrance to the site being located on Harry Douglas Drive.
10. Rather than having the units face East-West as proposed, perhaps they should be sited at a 45-degree angle to this so that the windows are not directly aligned with the existing units.
11. Finally, the
GRCA understands that unfortunately, despite the fact that under the leadership
of Councillor Stavinga, City Council did pass a motion that would hold
developers to account for failure to deliver on prior obligations by impacting
future applications, such action is not permitted under the Planning Act of
Ontario. That said, it was clear in the
meeting that discussions with the applicant, not only have taken place
regarding this site application, but that additional discussions/negotiations
are likely before a final decision is made regarding this application. The GRCA respectfully requests that in the
course of those discussions, the following items are given consideration.
12. Happily, some progress has been sited at Sweetnam Park, the Developer needs to continue to be monitored closely and City staff needs to ensure that not only the efforts, but also the results meet the standards set out in existing agreements.
13. If it has not already been made a requirement, that a physical boundary (i.e. even a post and rail fence) be required to be installed along the southern boundary of Sweetnam Park.
14. Considering that the applicant has developed both residential properties adjacent to this site, and that whether deliberately or unintentionally, promises made to persons who purchased the properties adjacent to this site are now being broken, perhaps in an effort to be a "good neighbour", the applicant can consider additional works on the Sweetnam Park site, namely clearing some of the under brush in the bush lot to enhance the safety of the area, and the donation of a bench and/or waste receptacle so that people who are enjoying this passive park can rest during their walk and/or enjoy the creek habitat (alternatively, the City could/should put this into a budget item).
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following provides a response to the zoning related comments:
1. In response to Councillor Qadri’s concern over adequate visitor parking with the Dwelling, Stacked Townhouse use: The Goulbourn Zoning By-law requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for the Dwelling, Stacked Townhouse use, these can be allocated in such a way as to provide visitor parking as needed as part of the site plan or condominium process.
2. In response to questions about a park on site: The subject site is zoned Local Commercial (CL) and is not open space/park, there is no significant vegetation on site. Existing trees are located on the existing park block to the north. The block to the north of the subject site (Park Block 65, Plan 4M-1085), was originally intended to be developed for passive recreation purposes, and recent work on-site lends to that intent. The Granite Ridge community has gone through many years of development and is near the end of residential construction activity(s). Recently, Parks and Recreation Development has received numerous requests to have a seasonal out door rink provided to service the local community. A preliminary investigation indicated limited opportunities in the area, with Park Block 65, Plan 4M-1085 being one viable option remaining. This option is not without its limitations specifically the cost to provide municipal water to the site for use for the outdoor rink. Further investigation will continue on the option of providing a seasonal outdoor rink at this location.
3. In response to concerns with increased traffic: The concept submitted in support of this Zoning By-law amendment application is considered to be a minor infill development and would not generate enough traffic to require a traffic impact study pursuant to Council’s Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines. Under the current guidelines a minimum of 75 residential units would justify a Community Transportation Study, so this would not meet that criteria. Further, the development anticipated and was planned to accommodate a commercial use on this site, which would generate more traffic than the proposed residential uses, therefore the roads are considered adequate for the proposed development.
4. In response to concerns with increased noise: The proposed uses (residential dwellings) are not considered significant noise generators.
5. In response to concerns over increased density, over development, and stacked townhouses: The Official Plan encourages the development of a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances. The addition of the stacked townhouse dwelling use would increase the diversity of housing types available in the neighbourhood and is considered a compatible building form that would be in keeping with the surrounding community. The applicant’s latest concept depicts a linearly arranged stacked townhouse development that more closely resembles a traditional street town house. The new concept represents a reduction of four dwelling units and their associated parking of six stalls.
5.
6. In response to concerns over the broad range of requests and school on site: The private school use has been withdrawn from the applicant’s Zoning By-law amendment request.
7. Landscaping, screening and the location of refuse containers are issues to be dealt with at the site plan control stage. Zoning By-laws have provisions for yard setbacks, landscaped open space, parking and building coverage. The proposed provisions for the stacked townhomes include minimum setbacks of: six metres for the front and exterior side yards; 7.5 metres for the rear yard; and lot coverage of 25 per cent maximum for the building main.
8. In response to concerns over the loss of commercial/retail convenience stores in the neighbourhood: The owner has tried unsuccessfully to market the site with the commercial zoning. Further, there have been numerous complaints from the community to have the site cleaned up because it is used as a dumping ground and is visually unappealing.
9. In response to concerns with the height of stacked townhouses and loss of privacy: By‑law 40-99 defines “Dwelling, Stacked Townhouse” to have a maximum height of three and one half storeys, the concept the applicant supplied in support of the application showed units that are approximately 12 metres in height. The adjacent developments on Azurite Crescent and Harry Douglas Drive are zoned R4-6 and R1-5 respectively and have zoning provisions. The R1-5 zone provisions stipulate a maximum height of 11 metres, making the proposed development compatible with the adjacent zoning height provisions. The current CL Zone allows for a maximum building height of 7.5 metres. The residents on Eileen Crescent (opposite Sweetnam Drive) were particularly concerned with the prospect of three storey building development on the site, as their homes are town homes; single storey on the front and two storey at the rear, zoned R4-5 with a maximum building height of 6 metres. However, the closest house on Eileen Crescent is greater than 36 metres from the property line of the site, and the zone provisions include a six-metre front and exterior side yard setback, which would provide a minimum separation between the buildings of over 40 metres. Approximately 12 metres separate the nearest property line of the site to the houses on Azurite Crescent, and 25 metres to houses on Harry Douglas Drive. Under these circumstances the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and subsequent development of the site can be designed to have minimal impact to the surrounding residential development with respect to privacy and sunlight.
10. The GRCA expressed concern over parking areas, which require lighting that may create light pollution for the adjacent residential properties. All site plans must comply with the Site Plan Lighting Condition and must be designed using only fixtures that meet the Council approved standard criteria for Full Cut-Off (Sharp cut-off) Classification, as recognized by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA or IES), and must result in minimal light spillage onto adjacent properties. The maximum allowable spillage is 0.5 fc.
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DOCUMENT
5
