1. ZONING - 100, 110, 120, 130 CENTRAL PARK DRIVE

ZONAGE - 100, 110, 120, 130, PROMENADE CENTRAL PARK

Committee recommendation

(This application is not subject to Bill 51)

That Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 100, 110, 120 and 130 Central Park Drive as shown in Document 1 from "R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100)" to a new R6F - High-rise Apartment Zone with exceptions to modify performance standards as detailed in Document 2.

Recommandation du Comité

(Cette demande n’est pas assujettie au Règlement 51)

Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 100, 110, 120 et 130 de la promenade Central Park, tel qu’il est indiqué dans le Document 1, de « R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100) » à une nouvelle zone de tours d’habitation R6F assortie d’exceptions en vue de modifier les seuils de nuisance, comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 21 January 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0031).

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

21 January 2008 / le 21 janvier 2008

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 x13242, Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

River/Rivière (16)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0031

SUBJECT:	ZONING - 100, 110, 120, 130 CENTRAL PARK DRIVE (FILE NO. D02 02-05-0052)
OBJET :	ZONAGE - 100, 110, 120, 130, PROMENADE CENTRAL PARK

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-Law to change the zoning of 100, 110, 120 and 130 Central Park Drive as shown in Document 1 from "R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100)" to a new R6F - High-rise Apartment Zone with exceptions to modify performance standards as detailed in Document 2.

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’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 100, 110, 120 et 130 de la promenade Central Park, tel qu’il est indiqué dans le Document 1, de « R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100) » à une nouvelle zone de tours d’habitation R6F assortie d’exceptions en vue de modifier les seuils de nuisance, comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

The applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the property at 100, 110, 120 and 130 Central Park Drive in the Central Park neighbourhood to allow for the construction of an eight-storey (25 metres high), 100-unit high-rise apartment building and a 10-storey (30.5 metres high), 100‑unit high-rise apartment building, both buildings being connected by a one-storey link. The Department is recommending approval of this proposal as it conforms with the overall policy directions of the City's Official Plan. The project is complementary to the character of the community and compatible with adjacent properties. The Traffic Impact Overview submitted with the rezoning application concluded that the additional traffic that would be generated by the two proposed seniors apartment buildings, would not significantly impact the Level of Service for either the Central Park North/Merivale or Central Park South/Merivale intersections.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications to the City.

Public Consultation/Input:

Numerous comments have been received from the public, including a comment from the local Community Association objecting to the proposal. The issues can be summarized as follows: planning process, building height, shadowing, density, traffic, parking, quality of life, community character, and property values. Details of the notification and consultation process are highlighted in Document 5.

Councillor McRae is aware of the application.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Le requérant demande que le zonage désignation de zonage des 100, 110, 120 et 130 de la promenade Central Park, dans le quartier de Central Park, afin de permettre la construction d’une tour d’habitation de huit étages (d’une hauteur de 25 mètres) comprenant 100 unités de logement et d’une tour d’habitation de dix étages (d’une hauteur de 30,5 mètres) comprenant 100 unités de logement, les deux tours devant être reliées par un passage d’un étage. Le Service de l’urbanisme recommande d’approuver la proposition puisqu’elle est conforme aux orientations de principe générales du Plan officiel. Le projet présente une complémentarité de caractère avec la communauté et est compatible avec les propriétés adjacentes. L’étude des répercussions sur la circulation qui a été déposée en même temps que la demande de rezonage conclut que l’accroissement de circulation que produiraient les deux tours d’habitation pour aînés n’influerait pas sensiblement sur le niveau de service aux intersections Central Park Nord-Merivale ou Central Park Sud-Merivale.

Répercussions financières :

La demande ne comporte pas de répercussions financières pour la Ville.

Consultation publique / commentaires :

De nombreux commentaires ont été reçus de la part du public en opposition à la proposition, y compris de l’association communautaire. Les questions soulevées portent sur les points suivants : le processus de planification urbaine, la hauteur des immeubles, les effets d'ombre, la densité, la circulation, le stationnement, la qualité de vie, le caractère de la communauté et la valeur des propriétés. Les détails du processus d’avis et de consultation figurent dans le document 5.

La conseillère McRae est au courant de la demande.

BACKGROUND

Site Location and Description

The subject property forms part of the larger development area situated north of Baseline Road and west of Merivale Road known as the 'Central Park' subdivision. The subject property, 100 to 130 Central Park Drive, as shown in Document 1, is located on the south and east sides of Central Park Drive, situated between Whitestone Drive in the north and Scout Street in the south. The irregular shaped property is 2.24 hectares in size. There are two retirement buildings (five- and six-storey) and surface parking located on the north and east portions of the site. The balance of the subject property is vacant. Immediately to the east and south of the subject lands is City-owned parkland containing a soccer field, play structures, and stormwater management pond. Directly opposite to the subject lands on the north, west and south sides of Central Park Drive are a mix of low-density residential dwellings including singles, semis, and townhouses.

Planning Applications Chronology

A detailed chronology related to planning applications and approvals affecting the subject property from pre-amalgamation to today is set out in Document 4. Highlights of the more recent approvals and changes related to the current rezoning application are discussed below.

Previous Approvals

In July of 2001, the owner received approval of a Site Plan Control application for the development of the subject lands. The approved development comprised a total of three residential buildings and associated site works, namely: one five-storey retirement building (112 rooming units), one, eight-storey high-rise apartment building (51 dwelling units), and one, 10-storey high-rise apartment building (61 dwelling units). The eight- and 10-storey high-rise buildings were to be linked at ground level by a one-storey connection. The tenure of the two high-rise apartment buildings was intended to be developed as market condominiums.

Parking on-site totalled 246 spaces, to be accommodated through a mix of surface parking (134 parking spaces) and underground parking (112 parking spaces). The underground parking was to be accommodated within the proposed eight and ten-storey high-rise apartment buildings.

The Site Plan Agreement between the owner and the City included a clause stating that development was to proceed in accordance with the approved plans, and having a maximum unit count of 224 units (as per the permitted maximum set out in the Zoning By-law).

In the fall of 2004 the owner submitted an application for a revised Site Plan application proposing a total of four residential buildings (one existing and three proposed) with a total of 224 units comprising both rooming and dwelling units. This proposal for the development of the property included the construction of one additional retirement building and the reduction in height (and corresponding number of units) of the two previously approved 10- and eight-storey high-rise apartment buildings. In addition to the existing five-storey retirement building, the modified proposal consisted of one, six-storey retirement building (14 rooming units and 85 dwelling units); and a future phase consisting of two, three-storey apartment buildings (each building having 11 dwelling units). For this development, a total of 120 parking spaces were required and the total provided was 146 parking spaces. Parking was to be accommodated on-site and it was comprised of a mix of surface parking (132 parking spaces) and underground parking (14 parking spaces). The underground parking was to be accommodated within the proposed six-storey retirement building. To date, development of the subject lands is limited to the northeast portion of the site, consisting of a five-storey retirement building and recently completed six‑storey retirement building. Planning and Environment Committee carried staff’s recommendation to approve the Site Plan Control report on January 11, 2005, and a Site Plan Control agreement has been entered into and registered as Instrument No. OC439786.

Existing Zoning

The subject property is currently zoned 'R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100)', a site-specific high-rise residential zone which permits low, medium and high density residential uses, including single detached dwellings, townhouses, retirement homes, and high-rise apartment buildings. This zone contains specific provisions in regard to setbacks for yards, establishing a maximum building height of 28 metres and establishing a maximum dwelling unit yield of 100 units per hectare. As the site is being developed for multiple residential buildings, the provisions of the ‘Planned Unit Development’ are also applicable. The regulations of a Planned Unit Development specify requirements for standards applicable to the buildings in relation to each other as well as to property lines.

Proposal

The applicant has submitted a Zoning By-law amendment application for the subject lands. Although the application was filed with the City on April 18, 2005, the application was not deemed complete until May 11, 2005 upon receipt of outstanding supporting materials. The owner is proposing a change to the development scenario for the balance of the subject property, to replace within the west portion of the site the approved two, three-storey apartment buildings, with two high-rise apartment buildings.

As part of the original application filed by the applicant in the spring of 2005, the rezoning initially proposed an eight-storey, 108-unit retirement building and a 12-storey, 70-unit retirement building, both buildings being connected by a one‑storey link. To effect the proposal, the applicant requested at the time a change to the zoning to permit an increase to the maximum permitted number of units from 100 units per hectare (224 units) to 170 units per hectare (380 units), and an increase in maximum building height permitted from 28 metres to 38 metres.

On September 12, 2005 the applicant revised their proposal, requesting a change to the zoning to permit an eight-storey (25 metres high), 100-unit high-rise apartment building and a 10-storey (30.5 metres high), 100-unit high-rise apartment building, both buildings being connected by a one-storey link. The applicant had advised that the two proposed high-rise apartment buildings are to be comprised of one-bedroom units that will be marketed for independent seniors accommodation as part of an overall retirement community with the existing lower profile retirement homes providing for graduated care living arrangements. The current development concept is consistent with a recent trend of developing complete retirement communities where residents are able to attain access to a full spectrum of services consistent with their individual lifestyles and life situations. The applicant had revised their rezoning application requesting an increase in density from 100 to 180 units per hectare (reflecting the proposal to develop smaller units geared to seniors accommodation and permitting a unit increase from 224 to 402 units); and, an increase to the maximum building height permitted from 28 metres to 30.5 metres.

On November 19, 2007, the rezoning application was again revised to request an increase in density from 100 to 127 units per hectare. This is based on a recent zoning interpretation where the 117 rooming units, originally thought to be dwelling units, are in fact not dwelling units, as defined in the City’s Zoning By-law, and should not have been included in the density increase count. The two existing buildings on the site (known municipally as 100 and 120 Central Park Drive) contain a total 117 rooming units and 85 dwelling units. The applicant now proposes a total of 285 dwelling units for the entire property (200 new dwelling units for the two high-rise buildings and 85 dwelling units already exist at 120 Central Park Drive).

In support of the Zoning By-law amendment application, the applicant has submitted various materials, including: a planning rationale report, a Sun Shade Study, and, briefs regarding traffic generation and parking. A revised application for Site Plan Control was submitted on November 24, 2006, which includes a formal Site Plan and detailed development plans for servicing, stormwater management, noise, landscaping, and elevations, floor and building plans. The Site Plan Control report is to be considered together with this zoning report by the Planning and Environment Committee as delegated approval for Site Plan Control has been withdrawn.

The applicant filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P. 13, as amended, due to the time it has taken to render a decision on this application. The report was delayed to pursue resolution of community issues with the proposed development. Staff understand that there has been no resolution of the community’s concerns.

DISCUSSION

Official Plan Considerations

The Strategic Directions Section of the Official Plan advocates creating liveable communities by providing a full range and choice of housing types. The Strategic Directions also call for intensifying within existing development areas to accommodate the City’s projected population growth. Within the Greenbelt, it is expected that at least 40 per cent of new housing development will be in the form of townhouses or apartments. The Zoning By-law is to regulate the location, scale and type of land use in accordance with the provisions of the Official Plan.

The Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area. Lands with this designation are to contain a full range of housing types and tenures to meet the needs of the population, along with conveniently located commercial uses. The policies in the General Urban Area indicate that when considering a proposal for residential intensification, it is important to recognize the new development in relation to the existing built form and planned function for areas and to 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 throughout the General Urban Area. The current development concept for a retirement community providing accommodation to seniors ranging from independent living units to full care accommodation within an existing recently developed new inner urban community is seen to implement the overall strategic direction of the Official plan as it relates to lands designated General Urban Area.

Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan recognizes that introducing new development in existing areas requires a sensitive approach to differences between the new development and the established area and that allowing for some flexibility and variation that complements the character of existing communities is central to successful intensification. Section 2.5.1 further recognizes that compatible development does not necessarily mean the same or similar to existing development, but that compatible development can be achieved that enhances an established community and co-exists without causing undue adverse impact. The design objectives and criteria set out in Section 2.5.1 make reference to Annex 3, which while not part of the Plan, sets out a number of design considerations that support providing for development that fits and works well.

The requested Zoning By-law amendment is to permit the further development of the site for two high-rise apartment buildings for seniors accommodation with a one-storey link, comprised of an eight-storey (25-metre high) high-rise apartment building and a 10-storey (30.5-metre high) high‑rise apartment building, and a site total of 285 dwelling units. The requested change to the zoning of the site is two-fold, first to increase the maximum permitted building height from 28 metres to 30.5 metres; and second, to increase the maximum permitted density from 100 dwelling units per hectare to 127 dwelling units per hectare as a result of smaller units being proposed to be more conducive to seniors accommodation. Given that the site was approved for an eight- and 10-storey buildings combined with its ideal location, there is an opportunity to meet the intensification policies by allowing this development in a way that is consistent with the design objectives and principles of Section 2.5.1.

In this regard, staff have reviewed the proposal in the context of the design objectives and principles set out in Section 2.5.1 and are satisfied that the proposal does fit and work well in its urban context. It will provide for achieving a compatible intensified form of development on the edge of an existing residential neighbourhood and abutting parkland without any appreciable adverse impacts to the existing community.

Section 4.11, in setting out the more traditional planning considerations to be assessed in reviewing development proposals, provides a context for the policies that are to be considered. Of particular note is the recognition that intensification can occur virtually anywhere and achieve the Plan’s strategic directions. Zoning for areas adjacent to major roads, at the periphery of neighbourhoods or around transit stations, may allow for more intense development that is permitted by the current zoning, subject to the compatibility of the proposed development being considered as set out under section 4.11.

Section 4.11 further notes that the measures of compatibility will vary depending on the use and planning context for a proposed development and that in any given situation, certain criteria may not apply and/or may be weighted differently on the basis of site circumstances.

Conceptual Site Plan

The Site Plan (see Site Plan Control report), submitted in support of the application, is based upon the approved January 2005 Site Plan and illustrates the extent of the existing development within the northeast portion of the site and the proposed development of the balance of the site. The plan has been based upon the standards of the applicable Zoning By-law. As noted within Document 3, the site plan shows a second access being proposed to serve the site and that the two proposed high-rise apartment buildings, joined by a one-storey link, have been positioned at the rear of the site, setback from the street. In general, the two existing and one of the proposed buildings are positioned to ‘ring’ the property, with the main parking areas situated ‘central’ to the development. Landscaping of the property is continuous along the street edge as well as being interspersed within the parking areas. Bicycle parking comprised of 214 spaces has been accommodated on-site, located within the underground parking garages and at grade. Vehicle parking on-site totals 310 spaces comprised of 135 underground and 165 surface parking spaces. The 310 parking spaces being provided for the whole site, i.e. two retirement residences and the proposed two high-rise apartment buildings, meets the parking requirements of the Zoning By‑law for retirement residences and high-rise apartment buildings. A total of 40 visitor parking spaces will be available at-grade for the entire site.

The Site Plan proposes a logical and orderly development of the subject lands. As noted earlier, the Site Plan Control report, which is to be considered together with this zoning report by the Planning and Environment Committee, consists of detailed site development, building, landscaping, engineering and servicing information.

Sun Shade Study

The modifications requested to the current zoning include allowing for an increased height for one of the proposed apartment buildings from 28.0 metres to 30.5 metres. This extent of increase is not considered significant from a shadow casting perspective. Notwithstanding, the applicant has undertaken a Sun Shade Study in support of the application to demonstrate that the proposed buildings are being positioned and located to minimize shadow casting impacts, in particular for the lower profile owner occupied homes located across from the site along the west and north sides of Central Park Drive.

The sun shadow study is a compilation of illustrations of the subject lands and neighbouring area showing the impact of shadows cast by the proposed buildings throughout the year. The illustrations show the impact of shadows within the site upon the two retirement residences to the north and east of the proposed buildings and the impact off-site of the shadows upon the adjacent park to the south and east of the site and the neighbouring residences located on the north side of Central Park Drive. The illustrations offer a seasonal perspective of shadows cast by the proposed buildings four times a year, the sampling coincident with the winter and summer solstice and the spring and fall equinox. For each of the four dates, the day is divided by two‑hour increments and the extent of the shadow for each period is shown.

The two proposed high-rise apartment buildings have been configured to form a ‘V’ shape, with the southerly eight-storey high-rise building oriented in a north-south direction, and the northerly ten-storey high-rise building oriented in an approximate east-west direction. The positioning of the buildings at a right angle to Central Park Drive will serve to reduce the building’s massing and reduce the number of windows facing to the north and west across the street, which not only addresses shadowing but privacy concerns as well. It is further noted, that the positioning of the buildings away from the street within the site provides a separation of approximately 38 metres between the proposed front edge of the eight-storey high‑rise apartment building and the lot line of housing across Central Park Drive and a separation of approximately 55 metres between the ten-storey high-rise apartment building and the lot line of housing across Central Park Drive. In addition, the applicant indicates that a flat roof will be utilized on the taller of the two buildings. The applicant is of the opinion that the combination of the above measures will mitigate the impact of the building shadows.

The measures noted above of building location, design, and orientation will mitigate the impact of the building shadows. Further, the Department is satisfied that any additional impact resulting from a 2.5-metre building height increase for the proposed 10-storey apartment building is minimal and will not add to the off-site impacts that would result from the current 28-metre building height allowed by the current zoning.

Traffic and Parking

Staff have reviewed the Traffic Impact Overview submitted with the rezoning application and have determined that the additional traffic that would be generated by the two proposed seniors apartment buildings, would not change the Level of Service for either the Central Park North/Merivale or Central Park South/Merivale intersections.

Current traffic conditions show that the Central Park North/ Merivale intersection operates at a Level of Service C in the AM peak hour and Level of Service A in the PM peak hour. The Central Park South/ Merivale intersection functions at a Level of Service A for both the AM and PM peak hour. The proposed development that would be permitted under the proposed zoning will leave all of the Levels of Service at the two intersections unchanged.

The traffic study has further concluded that the current congestion being experienced by residents of Central Park can largely be attributed to the Tim Horton’s restaurant at the north intersection of Central Park Drive and Merivale Road. This restaurant on its own generates 400 peak hour vehicle trips which accounts for approximately 16 per cent of the total AM peak hour traffic and 17 per cent of total PM peak hour traffic. Notwithstanding, the existing traffic conditions shows that Central Park North/ Merivale and Central Park South/ Merivale intersections operate at a Level of Service C and A for AM peak hour respectively and a Level of Service A and A for the PM peak hour respectively.

As part of the traffic review, consideration was also required to be given to the functioning of the two intersections at full build out of the Central Park subdivision. At full build out, the traffic study determined that there will be a change in the Levels of Service of the two Central Park/Merivale intersections. The northerly intersection of Central Park/Merivale will move to Level of Service E in the AM peak hour and D in the PM peak hour, while the southerly intersection will be at a Level of Service A in the AM peak hour and D in the PM.

In undertaking the traffic assessment at full build out, assumptions were made with respect to background traffic growth along Merivale Road. Staff have reviewed these assumptions and consider them to be very conservative, resulting in the full build out assessment reflecting a worst case scenario. Notwithstanding, staff agree that some level of increased congestion will likely result in the future as the subdivision is built out and that some remediation will likely be required to improve the operation of the north Central Park/Merivale road intersection. Specifically, to accommodate the projected morning peak hour traffic at build-out of Central Park, it may be necessary to consider some intersection improvements at the northerly intersection of Central Park Drive and Merivale Road. The improvements could be in the form of changed signal timing and/or widen the Central Park North approach to Merivale Road to include two eastbound left-turn lanes and a right turn lane. This would reduce outbound delay and queue lengths and improve the intersection’s level of service. Staff have included a condition for the associated Site Plan approval requesting the applicant to put in place a monitoring program to identify if or when modifications might be required.

In conclusion, while traffic levels along Central Park Drive have been increasing as the subdivision builds out to maturity, the level of traffic is within the level of traffic that was anticipated when planning approval for the subdivision was initially given. The one use that has had the single most significant impact is the Tim Horton’s restaurant which is contributing significantly to the traffic passing through and utilizing the north Merivale/Central Park intersection. The additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed two new seniors apartments have been found to be inconsequential in terms of the operation of the two Central Park/Merivale road intersections. Finally, as the subdivision achieves full build out, there may be some need for improvements to address future issues related to the Level of Service for the Central Park/Merivale road intersections. Such needs will be determined based on monitoring and potential remains to have improvements implemented as conditions on approval for future site plan applications for development along Merivale Road.

Conclusion

The subject property is currently zoned 'R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100)', a site-specific high-rise residential zone which permits low, medium and high density residential uses, including single detached dwellings, townhouses, retirement homes, and high-rise apartment buildings. This zone contains specific provisions in regard to setbacks for yards, establishing a maximum building height allowed of 28 metres and establishing a maximum dwelling unit yield of 100 units per hectare. The only modifications requested to the current zoning are to allow a 2.5 metre increase in building height to accommodate a 10-storey apartment and to allow an increase in allowable dwelling units per hectare to 127 to provide for smaller units more conducive to seniors accommodation.

The site plan has been developed to conform with the performance standards of the R6F zone and the PUD and with the exception of the 2.5-metre height increase and the 127 dwelling units per hectare increase in unit density, no other exceptions or changes to the current zoning are being requested. The requested zoning changes as discussed conform to the Official Plan policies related to intensification and compatible development. The proposed development is appropriate and desirable at this location with minimal impact on uses in proximity to the property.

Shadow impacts will be minimized to the extent possible through the orientation and location of the proposed apartments. The additional 2.5 metre height increase will not increase shadow impacts from what can be expected under the current height limit applying to the property. On-site parking to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning By-law is being provided, and the additional traffic can be accommodated by the existing road network without intersection improvements to the Merivale Road / Central Park Drive intersections. Further, the proximity to transit facilities provides the opportunity for residents to utilize transit as well as bicycle as an alternative to automobile use.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of the application.

Numerous comments have been received from the public, including a comment for the local Community Association objecting to the proposal. The issues can be summarized as follows: planning process, building height, shadowing, density, traffic, parking, quality of life, community character, and property values. Details of the notification and consultation process are highlighted in Document 5.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications, due to the change to the application and the submission of materials for the review of the application.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3 Conceptual Site Plan

Document 4 Planning Applications Chronology

Document 5 Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the owner (Ashcroft Homes Ltd., 18 Antares Drive, Ottawa, ON K2E 1A9), the applicant (Trow Associates Inc., 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5), the architect (M. David Blakely Architect Inc., 210 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, ON K2E 7L5), the transportation engineer (Delcan Corporation, 1223 Michael Street, Suite 100, Ottawa, ON K1J 7T2), All Signs, 8692 Russell Road, Navan, ON K4B 1J1, the Program Manager, Assessment, Department of Corporate Services, and all interested parties 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

1. A new R6F-XX zone with exceptions as noted below is established for the properties municipally known as 100, 110, 120, and 130 Central Park Drive as shown on Document 1:

1.1 To permit two high-rise apartment buildings with a one-storey link comprised of one building having a maximum building height that is the lesser of 10-storeys or 30.5 metres and the second building having a maximum building height that is the lesser of eight-storeys or 25 metres.

1.2 Maximum permitted density is the lesser of 127 dwelling units per hectare or 285 dwelling units.

1.3 The provisions of Exception [690] will apply.

2. The lands shown on Document 1 are rezoned from R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100) to a new R6F [XX] H(30.5) U(127) zone.

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DOCUMENT 3

PLANNING APPLICATIONS CHRONOLOGY DOCUMENT 4

Pre-Amalgamation

November 26, 1992 – Subdivision (file#OLV1992-004) and Zoning Amendment (file#OZP1992-050) applications were submitted by the owners of the lands (former RMOC) for the subdivision of the subject lands and to change the zoning (under By-law Z-2K) of approximately 37 hectares of the lands (two-thirds of the subdivision going west from Merivale Road) from G-x(1.0)[3] and C1-a(2.0) to R3-x, R5-x(0.5), R5-x(1.0), R8-x, C1-c(1.4), P-x, a Cons. Zone to permit low, medium and high density residential development, alternative standards residential development, office and retail commercial development and public open space.

The subject lands (100-130 Central Park Drive) were proposed to be rezoned from G-x (1.0) [3] a government use designation to P-x public use zone (northern portion of site) and R5-x (1.0) residential use zone permitting up to 100 units per hectare (southern portion of site).

June 30, 1993 – City Council carried both reports (Subdivision and Zoning Amendment) that Planning Committee had carried the day before (June 29, 1993). Planning Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation which included designation of the lands known municipally as 100-130 Central Park Drive to P-x public use zone and R5-x(1.0) residential use zone permitting the use of apartment building and up to 100 units per hectare.

October 7, 1993 – By-law Number 221-93, enacted to implement the approved rezoning, was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by one appellant (Quickie Convenience Stores).

January 11, 1994 – The Ontario Municipal Board notified the City of Ottawa that the appeal to By-law Number 221-93 had been withdrawn, therefore making By-law Number 221-93 in full force and effect.

November 26, 1998 - Application for Zoning Amendment (file#OZP1998-032) was submitted by the owners of the lands (Ashcroft Development Inc.) to amend the zoning (Zoning By-law Z-2K and Zoning By-law, 1998) by readjusting the zoning lines to reflect, in large part, the plan of subdivision approved on June 30, 1993 and extended on June 24, 1998. In addition, modifications to performance standards respecting yard and setback requirements within some of the zones were requested. The zoning amendment covered lands in and around the 100‑130 Central Park Drive area. The lands at 100-130 Central Park Drive were proposed to be rezoned from R5-x(1.0) and P-x (under Zoning By-law Z-2K), and, R6F H(28.6) and L1 (under Zoning By-law, 1998) to permit low, medium and high density residential development with exceptions to yard setbacks.

April 13, 1999 – Planning and Economic Development Committee carried staff’s recommendation to approve the zoning amendment described above.

April 21, 1999 – City Council carried Planning Committee’s decision and By-law 67-99 was enacted. An R6F (690) H(28.0) U(100) zoning was established for 100-130 Central Park Drive.

May 11, 1999 – Planning Committee carried staff’s recommendation for revised approval for a Draft Plan of Subdivision (file# OLV1992-004) for lands known as Phase 2 (including 100‑130 Central Park Drive) originally approved by City Council June 30, 1993. Subsequent modifications to the draft approval was previously approved by staff on June 18, 1997 (known as Phase 1A) and on May 19, 1998 (known as Phase 1B) for other lands located to the north and east of 100-130 Central Park Drive.

The approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision for lands known as Phase 2 was essentially for the realignment of Central Park Drive to provide street linkage (Staten Way and Scout Street) to the subdivision to the west previously owned by T.C. Assaly and sold to Ashcroft Homes therefore integrating the two subdivisions. The aim was to create one community (Central Park) as opposed to two separate communities with separate accesses as previously envisioned. The parkland, which today has tot lots and other recreational fields, was also reconfigured to improve the access to parkland from two points off Central Park Drive rather than just one from the north which was originally aligned with Whitestone Drive.

May 21, 1999 – No appeals to By-law 67-99 (final & binding). The new zoning designation for the lands known as 100-130 Central Park Drive is R6F [690] H(28.0) U(100). This zone is a site-specific high-rise residential zone that permits low, medium and high density residential uses, including single detached dwellings, townhouses, retirement homes, and high-rise apartment buildings. This zone contains specific provisions in regard to setbacks for yards, establishing a maximum building height allowed of 28 metres and establishing a maximum unit yield of 100 units per hectare. As the site is being developed for multiple residential buildings, the provisions of the ‘Planned Unit Development’ are also applicable. The regulations of a Planned Unit Development specify requirements for standards applicable to the buildings in relation to each other as well as to property lines.

Post-Amalgamation

July 12, 2001 - Site Plan Control application was approved by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals for the development of three residential buildings and associated site works, namely: one 5-storey retirement building (112 units), one 8-storey high-rise apartment building (51 units), and one 10-storey high-rise apartment building (61 units). The eight and ten-storey high-rise buildings were to be linked at ground level by a one-storey connection. The two high-rise apartment buildings were intended to be developed as market condominiums. Parking on-site totalled 246 spaces, to be accommodated through a mix of surface parking (134 parking spaces) and underground parking (112 parking spaces). The underground parking was to be accommodated within the proposed eight and ten-storey high-rise apartment buildings. The zoning of the property was R6F [690] H (28.0) U (100). A Site Plan Control Agreement between the owner and the City was registered on December 12, 2001 as Instrument No. OC26475.

A Building Permit for the existing 5-storey retirement building known municipally as 100 Central Park Drive was issued on February 26, 2002.

January 11, 2005 – Revised Site Plan Control application was approved by the Planning and Environment Committee for the development of four residential buildings (one existing and three proposed) with a total of 224 units. This proposal included the construction of one additional retirement building and the reduction in height (and corresponding number of units) of the two previously approved ten and eight storey high-rise apartment buildings to comply with the unit limit of the R6F [690] H (28.0) U (100) zone. In addition to the existing five-storey retirement building, the modified proposal consisted of one six-storey retirement building (14 rooming units and 85 dwelling units); and a future phase consisting of two three-storey apartment buildings (each building having 11 units). For this development, a total of 120 parking spaces were required and the total provided was 146 parking spaces. Parking was to be accommodated on-site and it was comprised of a mix of surface parking (132 parking spaces) and underground parking (14 parking spaces). The underground parking was to be accommodated within the proposed six-storey retirement building. The 'unit' yield of the subject lands proposed by this development remained at 224 units, the maximum permitted by the Zoning By-law.

To date, development of the subject lands is limited to the northeast portion of the site, consisting of a five-storey retirement building (100 Central Park Drive) and recently completed six‑storey retirement building (110 Central Park Drive). An amending Site Plan Control Agreement between the owner and the City was registered on March 4, 2005 as Instrument No. OC4399786. A Building Permit for the existing 6-storey retirement building known municipally as 110 Central Park Drive was issued on March 4, 2005.

October 8, 2004 – Part Lot Control application was approved to exempt all lots, right-of-ways and easements from Part Lot Control at 100 and 110 Central Park Drive. The purpose was to separate ownership/financing of the lands that have already been developed at 100 Central Park Drive from the lands to be developed at 110 Central Park Drive together with right-of-ways and easements.

April 18, 2005 - The owner submitted a Zoning By-law amendment application for the subject lands. Although the application was filed with the City on April 18, 2005, the application was not deemed complete until May 11, 2005 upon receipt of outstanding supporting materials. The owner is proposing a change to the development scenario for the balance of the subject property, to replace within the west portion of the site the approved two, three-storey apartment buildings, with two high-rise apartment buildings. As part of the original application filed by the owner in the spring of 2005, the rezoning initially proposed an eight-storey, 108-unit retirement building and a 12-storey, 70-unit retirement building, both buildings being connected by a one-storey link. To effect the proposal, the owner requested at the time a change to the zoning to permit an increase to the maximum permitted number of units from 100 units per hectare (224 units) to 170 units per hectare (380 units), and an increase in maximum building height permitted from 28 metres to 38 metres.

On September 12, 2005 the applicant revised their proposal, requesting a change to the zoning to permit an eight-storey (25 metres high), 100-unit high-rise apartment building and a 10-storey (30.5 metres high), 100 unit high-rise apartment building, both buildings being connected by a one-storey link.

The owner has advised that the two proposed high-rise apartment buildings are to be comprised of one-bedroom units that will be marketed for independent seniors accommodation as part of an overall retirement community with the existing lower profile retirement homes providing for graduated care living arrangements.

The current development concept is consistent with a recent trend of developing complete retirement communities where residents are able to attain access to a full spectrum of services consistent with their individual lifestyles and life situations.

To effect the current proposal, the owner has revised their rezoning application requesting an increase in density from 100 to 180 units per hectare (reflecting the proposal to develop smaller units geared to seniors accommodation and permitting a unit increase from 224 to 402 units); and, an increase to the maximum building height permitted from 28 metre to 30.5 metres. In support of the Zoning By-law amendment application, the owner has submitted various material, including: a ‘conceptual’ site plan, a planning rationale report, a Sun Shade Study, and briefs regarding traffic generation and parking.

November 24, 2006 - A revised application for Site Plan Control application was submitted and includes a formal Site Plan and detailed development plans for servicing, stormwater management, noise, landscaping, and elevations, floor and building plans.

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 5

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. The Ward Councillor is aware of the application. One public meeting was held in the community. Further, upon receipt from the applicant of a revision to the application, a circulation subsequently occurred September 19, 2005 of the material to the Ward Councillor, the Central Park Community Association, and the public. The members of the public that were circulated the revised proposal included those persons that had signed the attendance sheet of the public meeting and those persons that had provided comments on the initial application. No further notification was undertaken for the most recent changes considered for the project. The recent changes are of a technical nature that does not change the project. The changes are explained in detail in the report.

COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS

Councillor McRae is aware of the application.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS

The Ottawa Central Park Community Association (OCPCA) provided comments objecting to the application to rezone the subject lands. The OCPCA commented directly to Councillor McRae that, as a result of the association’s executive meeting of July 11, 2005, the OCPCA objects to the rezoning application and by copy of the correspondence, requested that staff note the following motion within the report:

“Whereas citizens of Ottawa who reside in Central Park have expressed their concerns and opposition regarding the application for the rezoning (File # D02-02-05-0052);

Therefore be it resolved that the OCPCA oppose the proposed rezoning in the above noted application;

And be it resolved that City Staff, the Ward Councillor, and members of the Planning and Environment Committee be requested to deny the application rezoning.”

Response

Staff are aware of the OCPCA’s objection to the application.

PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS

A meeting was held the evening of May 31, 2005, hosted by the local community association, the ‘Ottawa’s Central Park Community Association (OCPCA)’. In attendance at the meeting were representatives of the owner, the Ward Councillor Maria McRae, staff of the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, and approximately 40 members of the community.

A representative of the owner provided those in attendance with an overview of their proposal, as well as announcing that they would shortly be amending their application to further increase the density of the site from the permitted 100 units per hectare (224 units) to requested 180 units per hectare (402 units). The owners representative further advised that their forthcoming amendment to their application was in response to their marketing research, in that they would no longer be proposing two bedroom units, that the two proposed buildings would consist entirely of one-bedroom units.

Questions posed of the owner’s representative, staff, and the Councillor concerned tenure, impact of shadowing, traffic, parking, and unit yield. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Councillor requested of the community by show of hands, as to their position on the application, whether they were in support or objection to the proposal. It appeared that all members of the public responded that they were in objection to the proposal.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

A large number of comments were received in response to the application, including the initial notice, as a result of the community meeting, and in response to the circulation of the revision to the application. Approximately 110 responses were received from the public, of which all respondents stated their objections to the proposal. The issues can be grouped into the following main topic areas: planning process, building height and shadowing, density, traffic, and parking. Due to the large number of comments received, the key issues raised related to each of the key topic areas have been summarized below with a response to the issue.

Planning Process

• With respect to the amendment to the site plan approval the owner received from the City in January 2005, reducing the two condominium buildings from eight and ten storeys to two - three storey buildings and the addition to the site of a six-storey retirement residence, I believe that amendment to be a farce and a waste of the tax-payers dollars for the City to have to spend their valuable time with such nonsense.
• The builder's representatives said that the high-rise buildings would be geared to the 55+ age group, but as you know that cannot be controlled, and anyone with the down payment can buy a unit. At the end of the day the builder will have everything back that he gave up in the amendment, and probably more.

Response

The Planning Act is the Provincial legislation that is the law in Ontario in regard to land use planning, which includes land use controls such as Site Plan and Zoning applications. Further, this legislation and its accompanying regulations provide the basis for the processing of planning applications, in particular establishing the considerations in decision-making process as well as establishing firm timeframes for Council to render a decision on these planning applications. The legislation requires of the City that if a planning application is filed then the City must process it and Council must render a decision. The legislation does not permit the City to refuse to process an application or make a decision based upon personalities, perceptions, promises, hard feelings or mistrust. Also, the legislation does not cap the number of times that an owner can submit planning applications. Simply, if an application is received the City is bound to process it. As noted in the main body of this submission, the site plan application approved in January 2005 was reviewed and determined to conform with the policies of the respective planning documents and was approved as it constituted an efficient and orderly development of the subject lands.

Building Height and Shadowing

• The City should not alter the current height restrictions for the land in question. The impact of having 402 units in an eight- and 10-storey structure will be very disruptive and, in my opinion, destructive, to Central Park. Not only will the physical presence of the buildings ruin the view of most residents, particularly on Central Park Drive, the shade caused by the buildings will negatively impact all surrounding residents, the major park, soccer field and tennis court etc.
• Such tall buildings will adversely affect the qualitative feel of the neighbourhood, particularly sunlight on the park, skyline view and evening sunsets. I have already witnessed a change in the view and amount of light that my own house receives due to the recent construction of the second senior residence. I can only imagine how two more taller buildings will impact the view and feel of the neighbourhood. The park itself is used year-round by many residents, and their safety will be compromised with less natural light, particularly in the winter. We need all of the natural light that we can get for safety and good health.
• The City of Ottawa should find the Sun and Shade study submitted by Ashcroft Homes invalid. The reason for this is that this study used an eight- and 10-storey high building to predict shadows. However, the proposed change by Ashcroft is to erect 10- and 12‑storey buildings, respectively. These buildings will cast significantly longer shadows.
• Although the amended planning rationale states "the orientation of the proposed buildings is intended to reduce the potential loss of sunlight to homes across the street", the sun shadow study demonstrates that there is significant loss of light to homeowners.

Response

An analysis of building heights and shadow casting is addressed in detail in the main body of this submission.

The Department is of the opinion that the measures of building location, design, and orientation will mitigate the impact of the building shadows.

Density

· When the City approves a "Plan of Subdivision” changes to that plan should be considered only when demographics dictate that it would be in the best interest of that particular area and not on the whim of the builder. It is not fair to the purchasers when they are told one thing and given another.

Response

The modifications requested to the current zoning are to allow a 2.5 m increase in building height to accommodate a 10-storey apartment and to allow an increase in allowable dwelling units per hectare from 100 to 127 to provide for smaller units more conducive to seniors accommodation. The requested zoning changes are in full conformity with the Official Plan policies related to intensification and compatible development, is acceptable and will promote a development that is appropriate and desirable at this location with minimal impact on uses in proximity to the property.

Traffic

• I am concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic that this increase in density will bring about generally, not just during peak hours.
• It is noted in the site plan that the increase will be from 224 to 402 units (nearly double). The concern with the increase is the impact on the traffic and shear numbers of cars in the area of Central Park Drive itself. Yes the traffic report nicely details the traffic volume and indicates that it will not be a problem. I do wonder if this assessment was done using only formulas or whether anyone from Delcan actually assessed, on-site, the movement of traffic on Central Park Drive during those peak hours. Not only do residents use that road during these hours, so do OC Transpo, and several school bus companies. I do not see these uses factored into the traffic volume ratios/calculations anywhere.
• The traffic study suggests that addition of 164 vehicles per hour (morning) and 231 vehicles per hour (afternoon) is quite insignificant. I beg to differ. This number translates to approximately one vehicle per every 20 seconds (morning) or every 12 seconds (afternoon) along the Central Park drive. The traffic study does not consider the following: there are only two exits from Central Park (onto Merivale) that are already congested during morning and afternoon rush hour. The current traffic in only about half of the proposed traffic. Yet, the congestion was so bad that the City built turning lanes and advanced green signals (on Merivale) that help to move traffic along. Addition of more than 100 per cent more traffic volume (from current 76/109 vph (morning/afternoon) to proposed 164/231 vph) will have a significantly negative impact.
• I seriously question the validity of the traffic assessment presented and the projections of activity levels on Central Park Drive. I challenge the City and/or Ashcroft to sponsor a true third-party assessment of the traffic volume and patterns.

This impartial assessment should include a real-time assessment of current/normal traffic patterns at peak times from September to May, instead of the few days in August 2005 when some info was gathered during the peak of vacation season. It is my contention that Central Park Drive is already too busy, and that speeding is becoming a frequent concern. Add in the street-parking issue, and this residential street is becoming a hazard.

I already am finding it difficult to get out of my driveway safely weekday mornings and increasingly so on the weekends – even with the ridiculously conservative estimates as presented in Ashcroft’s traffic study, the addition of a car every 30-40 seconds would be excessive.

Response

As noted in this submission, staff have reviewed the Traffic Impact Overview submitted with the rezoning application and have determined that the additional traffic that would be generated by the two proposed seniors apartment buildings, would not change the Level of Service for either the Central Park North/Merivale or Central Park South/Merivale intersections.

Parking

· Lack of available parking. The number of parking spaces proposed by Ashcroft is totally inadequate for the number of units (402) proposed. Already, there are vehicles parked overnight on Central Park Drive and Scout Street. Addition of 100 or so vehicles without permanent parking spaces will create a terrible situation.

• Planned parking for the proposed number of living units is grossly inadequate. With 402 proposed units, there should be at minimum one space per unit, plus 40-50 visitor parking spaces. Street parking is already excessive to the point of being a safety issue on Central Park Drive, Manhattan Road, Yorkville Street, and parts of Scout Street. The proposed plan will only further aggravate the situation, adding to the safety issues related to restricted visibility for walkers, bikers, and those trying to get out of their driveways – not to mention the further clogging the other side streets.

Response

Based on the Zoning By-law requirements for parking, a total of 275 parking spaces including visitor parking is required, and 310 are to be provided. Vehicle parking comprises of 135 underground and 165 surface parking spaces. The 310 parking spaces being provided for the whole site, i.e. two retirement residences and the proposed two high-rise apartment buildings, meets the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law for retirement residences and high-rise apartment buildings. A total of 40 visitor parking spaces will be available for the entire site. Bicycle parking comprised of 214 spaces has been accommodated on-site, located within the underground parking garages and at grade.

Privacy

• Despite orienting the proposed eight- and 10-storey buildings at right angles to Central Park Drive and providing an "oblique view", the homeowners along Central Park Drive will have their privacy significantly reduced.

· Lack of privacy. The erection of 10- and 12-storey apartment buildings at 100 and 130 Central Park Drive will create an environment where the houses along the Central Park Drive and portions of Whitestone Drive and Staten Way will have no privacy. This is certainly not what the residents had in mind when they purchased their homes and paid significant lot premiums for "privacy". (see also point #1)

The proposed change by Ashcroft is a breach of contract. Ashcroft Homes were allowed to build the current Retirement Apartments Park Place II (building "D" on the site plan) under the condition that the remaining buildings "B" and "C" will be 3-storeys high. In addition, this is yet another change in zoning requested by Ashcroft that is different from the original plans that were used to sell family homes to individual homeowners. These people were buying expensive homes with significant lot premiums that were supposed to back onto or face the Park. This, however, is no longer the case. The "Central Park" is now becoming yet another urban jungle of concrete and car exhaust fumes.

Response

As noted on the conceptual Site Plan (Document 3), the two proposed high-rise apartment buildings have been configured to form a ‘V’ shape, with the southerly eight-storey high-rise building oriented in a north-south direction, and the northerly 10-storey high-rise building oriented in an approximate east-west direction.

The Department is of the opinion that the measures noted above of building location, design, and orientation will help mitigate privacy concerns.