6.             ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPEAL – 747 RICHMOND ROAD

 

APPEL - COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO : 747, CHEMIN RICHMOND

 

 

 

Committee recommendation

 

That Council approve that the City of Ottawa request the Ontario Municipal Board to dismiss the appeal in respect of 747 Richmond Road.

 

 

 

Recommandation du Comité

 

Que le Conseil approuve que Ville d'Ottawa demande à la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario de rejeter l'appel ayant trait au 747, chemin Richmond.

 

 

Documentation

 

1.      City Solicitor 's report Legal Services dated 30 June 2008 (ACS2008-CMR-LEG-0025).


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

 

and / et

 

Council/ Conseil

 

30 June 2008 / 30 juin 2008

 

Submitted by/Soumis par :

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : M. Rick O'Connor, City Solicitor, Legal Services/

M. Rick O'Connor, Chef du contentieux, Direction des services juridiques

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Timothy C. Marc/Timothy C. Marc,

Senior Legal Counsel/Conseiller juridique principal

Legal Services/Services juridiques

(613) 580-2424 x 21444, Timothy.Marc@ottawa.ca

 

Kitchissippi (15)

Ref N°: ACS2008-CMR-LEG-0025

 

 

SUBJECT:

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal – 747 Richmond Road

 

 

OBJET :

APPEL - COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES MUNICIPALES DE L’ONTARIO : 747, CHEMIN RICHMOND

 

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve that the City of Ottawa request the Ontario Municipal Board to dismiss the appeal in respect of 747 Richmond Road.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement recommande que le Conseil municipal approuve que Ville d'Ottawa demande à la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario de rejeter l'appel ayant trait au 747, chemin Richmond.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On 9 July 2007, City Council approved the Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan. 

The draft Community Design Plan did not contain an express recommendation with respect to the height to be permitted for 747 Richmond Road.  Council however adopted the following recommendation:

 

Approve that the Community Design Plan as amended be further amended so that 747 Richmond Road be included in the plan and limited to a six storey (18 m) residential building.

 

The owner of 747 Richmond Road had a zoning application before the City to permit an 19 storey and a 21 storey apartment buildings with a pedestrian plaza between them.  Following Council’s decision, the owner appealed the refusal of the City to enact the requested zoning by-law amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (the “Board”)

 

DISCUSSION

 

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING

 

The hearing is this matter took place the week of 31 March 2008.  Prior to the hearing, the applicant modified its proposal such that it was requesting approval for a 15 storey apartment building on the west side of the site, a 12 storey apartment on the east side of the site, again with a pedestrian plaza between the two buildings.

 

While it was not clear at the outset of the hearing, the applicant quickly confirmed thereafter that it agreed that retail uses would be present on the ground floor of the buildings, consistent with the Traditional Mainstreet designation of this area of Richmond Road.

 

The City retained Ms. Nancy Meloshe as the planner for the hearing.  Ms. Meloshe’s evidence was in support of one, six storey apartment building on the site, also with retail uses on the ground floor.

 

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD DECISION

 

The Board released its decision on 5 May 2008.  (Note:  The link to the decision is provided as Document 1).  The Board did not find in favour of a zoning by-law that would provide for a maximum of six storeys.  However, the Board was also not satisfied that the proposal of the applicant adequately addressed the question of adverse impact on the neighbouring five storey condominium to the east.  In this regard, the Board stated as follows:

 

The Board finds that additional consideration to the height proposed particularly on the most easterly building is required. The present proposal on the easterly building is 12 storeys. The Board requires a meaningful architectural transition exercise to consider the reduction of impact on the five storey condominium. That is to include consideration of both height reduction and stepping back as a form of transition for the higher storeys.  This design exercise is also to include the streetscape for both buildings – its continuation with consideration of human scale on the first 2 or 3 floors with architectural consideration and setback of the higher floors above street level (Emphasis Added).


In the end, the Board directed the applicant to go back and rework its proposal.  The revised proposal was to be submitted to those who participated in the hearing.  Legal Counsel for the City advised that any revised proposal would be brought forward to Committee and Council for their consideration.

 

REVISED PROPOSAL

 

The revised proposal is also for two apartment buildings of 15 and 12 storeys in height.  Legal Services requested the City’s external planning consultant to prepare a planning report on this revised proposal and this planning report is attached as Document 1.  Elevations of the proposal as submitted to the Board and the revised proposal will be presented at Committee and will be available at Council.

 

CONSULTATION

 

As stated above, the revised proposal was presented to those who participated at the hearing.  Those present were advised that a report would be coming forward to Committee on 8 July 2008. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City of Ottawa is being represented by Legal Services in this case.  To allow for the City’s outside consultant to review the revised proposal and be present upon the resumption of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, an amount of $10,000 has been allocated from the Professional Services budget of the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department.  The total amount expended for outside professional expertise (which included an architect called by the City in the initial hearing) is anticipated to be approximately $50,000.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 – Ontario Municipal Board Decision

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e%2Ddecisions/pl070727-May-05-2008.pdf

 

Document 2 – Planning Opinion

 

DISPOSITION

 

Legal Services will advance the position of Council at the Ontario Municipal Board.


 

 


 

PLANNING OPINION                                                                                DOCUMENT 2

 

June 26, 2008

 

Mr. Timothy Marc

Legal Counsel, Corporate Services

City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West, 3rd Floor

Ottawa ON  K1P 1J1

 

RE:     747 Richmond Road - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal by

53655 Ontario Limited and Emros Development Corporation

 

Dear Mr. Marc:

 

This is further to your request that I provide you with my planning opinion with respect to revised drawings for 747 Richmond Road prepared in accordance with the direction of the Ontario Municipal Board in its interim decision dated May 5, 2008. I provided expert planning evidence at the hearing in defence of City Council’s decision to limit the development of 747 Richmond Road to a six storey building. Revised drawings were prepared by the appellant and presented on June 10, 2008 to representatives of the City and participants to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

 

Ontario Municipal Board Direction

 

In its interim decision on page 14 “the Board finds that undue adverse impact is decidedly lacking on all sides of the proposal excepting the east - the existing 5 storey condominium. That condominium has approximately 5 balconies facing the proposal. There is reasonable setback of 9 metres proposed but in the view of the Condominium residents there will be shadowing and in the view of the City witness, Meloshe – overview. Shadowing is depicted in the proponent’s drawings. There is no contrary evidence. Any increase in shadowing is minimal and not beyond what might be expected in an urban area already permitting apartment buildings. The overview is more of a concern that feeds undue impact. The Board finds that additional consideration to the height proposed particularly on the most easterly building is required. The present proposal on the easterly building is 12 storeys. The Board requires a meaningful architectural transition exercise to consider the reduction of impact on the five storey condominium. That is to include consideration of both height reduction and stepping back as a form of transition for the higher storeys. This design exercise is also to include the streetscape for both buildings – its continuation with consideration of human scale on the first 2 or 3 floors with architectural consideration and setback of the higher floors above the street level. There was some discussion and acceptance in revised zoning during the hearing of this concept at street level.”

 


 


Description of Revised Designs


 

At the June 10, 2008 meeting representatives for the owner presented a revised design for the property. The revised plan shows two separate residential/commercial towers of 15 storeys and 12 storeys in height. An outdoor plaza is shown between the towers with a proposed access to the NCC pedestrian pathway to the north. Commercial uses are proposed to be located on the ground floors of both towers.

 

Each tower has a podium base and the podium base of the most easterly building is 4 storeys in height where it abuts the condominium building to the east at 727 Richmond Road. The podium base of the westerly building is 5 storeys in height to match the scale of the approved Charlesfort apartment building to the west of Cleary Avenue. At the top of the 4th storey the easterly building steps up to 8 storeys where it abuts the condominium building and then steps up to 12 storeys.

 

The setback from the ground floor of building to the east property line remains unchanged at 9.0 metres. At the top of the 4th storey an additional setback of 2.0 metres is proposed to the top of the 8th storey. At the top of the 8th storey an additional setback of 6.0 metres is proposed to the top of the 12th storey. A total setback of 17.0 metres is proposed from the easterly property line to the top of the building.

 

The total number of units in the revised design is 115 units whereas the design before the Board showed a total of 114 units. Balconies have been oriented in the easterly building in a north/south direction. Windows of the apartment units occupy all sides of the building and approximately 52 windows would face the existing condominium building at 727 Richmond Road.

 

Planning Opinion

 

I have considered the plans submitted by the appellants at the meeting dated July 10, 2008. I have also considered proposed elevation, streetscape and sun/shadow plans of the first revised design dated June 24, 2008.

 

In my professional opinion the revised preferred drawings presented by the appellant do not fulfill the direction of the Ontario Municipal Board’s interim decision and do not represent good planning. The Board’s direction was to undertake a meaningful architectural transition exercise to consider the reduction of impact on the five storey condominium building to the east. This was to include consideration of both height reduction and stepping back as a form of transition for the higher storeys.

 

While the appellants have considered stepping back the 12 storey tower from the easterly property line they have not considered height reduction of the tower to reduce the impact of the proposed building on the five storey condominium building. In my opinion the issue of overview has not been lessened in the revised design. The 9.0 metre building setback at the ground level from the easterly property line has not been increased in the revised design. While the building has been stepped back at the 4th and 8th  floors to provide an increased setback at the upper floors to the 727 Richmond building, the full impact of the 12 storey tower remains. There will be approximately 52 facing windows along the easterly side of the building which will contribute significantly to the impact of overlook to the residents of the 727 Richmond Road building.

 

The test to consider greater building heights for redevelopment and infill on Mainstreets is set out in Section 3.6.3, Policy 8 and in this case specifically subpolicy (b). Subpolicy (b) states that “the proposed building height conforms with prevailing building heights or provides a transition between existing buildings.” Prevailing building heights have been established at 6 storeys in the Traditional Mainstreet designation and the Westboro Community Design Plan. Therefore in order to exceed the prevailing building heights a transition between existing buildings (existing 5 storey condominium building to the east and the approved 15 storey Charlesfort building to the west) must be achieved. In my opinion a transition in heights is not achieved by the revised design. An appropriate transition would include both stepping up gradually in building height in an east to west orientation as well as a reduction in total building height.

 

As noted in the Board’s decision on page 13 “actual building height is to be based upon such enhanced architectural design and the compatibility policy 4.11 of the Official Plan. The Official Plan states that to arrive at compatibility of scale will demand a careful design response one that appropriately addresses the impact generated by infill and intensification. The Official Plan contemplates specifically that as it manages growth, an amendment to the zoning bylaw may be required for height, and in such circumstances the compatibility of the proposed development must be considered. Height is one of the objective criteria to evaluate compatibility. The Official Plan states in Section 4, Policy 2 (d) that where variation in building height is appropriate, a transition in building heights is desirable.” In my opinion the revised design does not satisfy the compatibility test required in Policy 2 (d) and does not provide a transition in building heights between the adjacent 5 storey condominium building and the approved Charlesfort 15 storey tower to the west of the subject site.

 

Summary

 

In my professional opinion the appellant’s revised design does not represent good planning nor does it meet the tests established by Section 3.6.3 Policy 8 (b) or Section 4.11 Policy 2 (d). In my opinion both building height reduction and stepping back as a form of transition for the upper storeys of the proposed easterly building are required to ameliorate the impact of this development on the 5 storey condominium building located at 727 Richmond Road.

 

Yours Truly,

Nancy Meloshe MCIP, RPP

Principal