3. ZONING - 3358 AND 3362 CARLING AVENUE
ZONAGE - 3358 et 3362, promenade carling
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue shown on Document 1 from Residential First Density Subzone, R1FF to Residential Second Density Subzone, R2L[****], as detailed in Document 2.
Recommandation DU Comité
(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 3358 et 3362, avenue Carling, indiqués dans le Document 1, de sous-zone résidentielle de densité 1 (R1FF) à sous-zone résidentielle de densité 2 (R2L[****]), comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 4 January 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0017).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 9 February 2010.
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue shown on Document 1 from Residential First Density Subzone, R1FF to Residential Second Density Subzone, R2L[****], as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage des 3358 et 3362, avenue Carling, indiqués dans le Document 1, de sous-zone résidentielle de densité 1 (R1FF) à sous-zone résidentielle de densité 2 (R2L[****]), comme il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
The subject property is located just east of the intersection of Carling Avenue and Bedale Drive on the south side of Carling Avenue as shown on Document 1. The subject property has a frontage of 48.81 metres along Carling Avenue and an area of 2200 square metres. There is an existing single detached dwelling and detached garage on the site. The site is located at the edge of the community along an arterial road that divides the residential area to the south from the public space (Dick Bell Park) to the north. A local commercial zone is located to the immediate west at the corner of Carling Avenue and Bedale Drive.
Details of Requested Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal:
The purpose of the application is to permit a site-specific change in zoning to permit the development of a 10-unit planned unit development (PUD) on the subject lands. The existing structures on the site would be removed and replaced with five semi-detached buildings as shown on Document 3.
The subject property is currently zoned “Residential First Density Subzone” R1FF. The R1FF subzone permits uses such as a detached dwelling, group home and retirement home, converted. Semi-detached dwellings and PUDs are not permitted in the R1FF Zone. The R1FF Zone currently has a maximum permitted height of 9.5 metres and a minimum rear-yard setback of 7.5 metres.
The application proposes a site-specific amendment to have a “Residential Second Density Subzone” R2L apply to the property. Within the R2L subzone semi-detached dwellings are permitted however a PUD is not. The intent of the application would be to allow this form of development that exists nearby to the west along Carling Avenue by way of an exception to the proposed R2L zone. The introduction of a PUD as a permitted land use on this site is compatible with the abutting “Local Commercial” LC Zone which does permit a PUD.
The application also proposes site-specific performance standards to the PUD as conceptually shown on Document 3. The recommendation proposes a reduced front yard setback from Carling Avenue of 4.0 metres whereas the R2L subzone requires 4.5 metres. The recommendation also proposes to establish an increased minimum rear-yard setback beyond the current R2L and R1FF standards of 7.5 metres to 8.0 metres. As well, the recommendation proposes a prohibition on the projection of balconies into the rear-yard. Staff support an increased minimum rear-yard setback of 8.0 metres and projection restriction which were revisions agreed upon by the applicant from the initial proposal in an effort to mitigate any potential impacts.
Modifications to the performance standards applicable to all PUDs are also proposed due to the configuration of the proposal. There recommendations related to the minimum setback of a building and garage from a private way.
The application is not requesting an increase in permitted height of 9.5 meters. Should the zoning amendment be approved the applicant proposes to construct five semi-detached dwellings within the PUD. The development of a PUD would be subject to Site Plan Control and additional public consultation.
The subject property is designated as General Urban Area in the Official Plan. The General Urban Area permits the development of a full range and choice of housing types in combination with conveniently located employment, service and uses to facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities. The City promotes infill development and other intensification within the General Urban Area in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the long-term viability of a community.
The introduction of semi-detached dwellings within a PUD that provides a variety of housing forms for various incomes and life cycles is considered appropriate, consistent with and implements the policies of the Official Plan for General Urban Areas regarding intensification and supports the City-wide intensification target for urban areas as per the Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa 2006-2031.
Compatible development means development that, although is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings, nonetheless enhances an established community and co-exists without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. The physical context fits well and works well among those functions that surround it. Development can be designed to fit and work well in a certain context without being “the same as” existing development.
The existing dwellings along Carling Avenue between Crystal Beach Drive and Winthrop Park are oriented towards the street and include both single and semi-detached dwellings with attached and detached garages. There are both single and looping private approaches servicing the various dwellings. The area has seen examples of intensification and redevelopment on existing parcels with a similar multi-dwelling project to the west and new/renovated homes along Carling Avenue. Further to the east along Carling Avenue there are townhome and apartment building developments. The subject property is located at the edge of the community fronting onto an arterial road across the street from a major open space area and abutting a local commercial zone to the immediate west. This context allows the subject property to support a moderate amount of intensification as it is distanced from the interior of the community thereby limiting any potential adverse impacts on the character and quality of the area.
To assist in ensuring compatibility, the Official Plan in Section 2.5.1, sets out broad design objectives and principles to be applied when evaluating an application for intensification and infill development. The design objectives and principles speak to a number of considerations directed to achieving compatibility in form and function between new developments and an established area while allowing for flexibility and variety that is complementary.
Design objectives speak to understanding and respecting the natural features on-site through the integration of existing vegetation. The proposed development of the site will retain significant mature trees along the southern limit of the site in an effort to create natural screening for the project and to protect well-established vegetation. Increased minimum rear-yard set backs will also provide room for the continued growth of these features along with additional plantings. This provides an opportunity for screening and buffering so as to provide for an appropriate integration of the proposed development that differs in form and function to co-exist with the predominantly lower intensity developments fronting onto Stillwater Drive.
Design objectives also speak to considering adaptability and diversity of a place over time by creating places that are characterized by variety and choice. The implementing principles include achieving a more compact urban form over time and accommodating the needs of a range of people of different incomes and lifestyles at various stages in the life cycle. Semi‑detached dwellings are building forms found in the area in both grouped and individual building forms. The further development of semi-detached dwellings within a PUD would further implement this principle as an established compatible land use.
The design objective of ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas is implemented by allowing the built form to compliment the massing patterns, rhythm, character and context. In this regard, the proposed height is consistent with the maximum permitted height in both the R1FF and R2L subzones. The massing of the buildings are designed to be central to the site with recommended performance standards that are complimentary with rear-yard and side-yard setbacks in the area. The reduced front-yard setback will not significantly disrupt the profile of the street and will continue to allow for a positive relationship with the building to the street. The rhythm of the built form along Carling Avenue is continued whereas previously a large portion of the interior side-yard was vacant and served only as a driveway and storage area. A physical separation between the two most northern buildings by the private approach creates an appropriate break in the front façade along the site thereby not overwhelming the site with a continuous built mass. The residential context of the neighbourhood is continued as the proposed development implements both design elements such as flat roofs and front-yard porches and building forms currently found in the community.
In addition to Section 2.5.1, the Official Plan requires that applications for development be assessed relative to the criteria set out in Section 4.11 which deal with compatibility considerations. While Section 2.5.1 is focused more on design and context matters to provide for ensuring compatibility, the criteria set out in Section 4.11 are more traditional planning considerations dealing with matters such as traffic, parking, and built form relationships. The Official Plan further clarifies that the criteria may not apply and/or may be evaluated and weighted on the basis of site circumstances.
Many of the issues raised by the community are focused on those matters addressed by Section 4.11. The following discussion highlights how the subject application responds to these criteria so as to ensure that the proposed development will not result in any undue adverse impacts and that it will co-exist with surrounding developments and uses.
Traffic generated from the site is expected to be minimal as the proposed development is considered a low traffic generator as it relates to its impact on peak flows. Carling Avenue is appropriately sized to accommodate traffic to and from the site. Public transit and sidewalks are also located along Carling Avenue. One private vehicular access to the site will be provided from Carling Avenue. As a result, the proposed development is not expected to have any traffic impact on local residential streets.
The proposed development concept as shown on Document 3 is proposing four visitor parking spaces whereas the by-law requires zero. The provision of visitor parking spaces may reduce any potential for spill over parking into the surrounding area.
Building Massing and Height / Pattern of the Surrounding Community
The proposed height of the new buildings will comply with the maximum height currently permitted within the R1FF and R2L subzones, and will be less than the permitted height of 12.5 metres within the abutting LC zone. The mass on the site will be inherently larger due to the form of development, however the yard requirements have been increased in an effort to mitigate the potential impact and allow space for landscaping. The rooflines of the proposed buildings is consistent with the surrounding area which both includes low profile and flat roofs. As well, the design has also proposed front-yard balconies that are commonly found in the dwellings along Carling Avenue.
The orientation of the Planned Unit Development with an internal courtyard setting will allow for an improved built form along Carling Avenue as the site will have only one private approach and no additional garage doors or front-yard parking facing Carling Avenue. Currently along the immediate area of Carling Avenue there are significant paved areas due to commercial activities and looping driveways serving single detached dwellings and business that does not allow for soft landscaping elements. The three buildings at the rear of the site abutting the dwellings on Stillwater Drive will be aligned backyard to backyard, which is consistent with the building placement and lotting pattern of the area.
Outdoor Amenity Areas
The privacy of abutting residences has been respected through revisions to the design by increasing the minimum rear-yard setback from 7.5 to 8.0 metres along with including a prohibition of the projection of balconies into the rear-yard as originally proposed. The applicant has also committed to constructing a new privacy fence through the Site Plan Control process. Outdoor amenity space for the units abutting existing dwellings will be at grade, thereby shielded by landscaping and the fence.
Any potential for lighting spill over onto abutting properties will be appropriately designed and implemented through the Site Plan Control process.
Noise and Air Quality
Staff is satisfied that the above criteria to be considered when evaluating compatibility have been achieved. The implementing Zoning By-law will establish the performance requirements with respect to height and yard setbacks to allow for a building that implements the Official Plan design objectives and compatibility criteria. The future application for Site Plan Control will establish appropriate landscaping and screening to mitigate any potential impacts.
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Nine letters and one petition were received in opposition to the proposal, along with one letter of support. A summary of the concerns raised along with a staff response is found in Document 4 of the report.
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report.
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to additional time requried to allow for revisions to the proposed development.
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Concept Plan
Document 4 Consultation Details
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
That the property known municipally as 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue be rezoned from “Residential First Density, Subzone FF” R1FF to a “Residential Second Density, Subzone L” R2L[****] exception zone.
The exception will set out provisions similar in effect to the following:
Column III - Additional Land Uses Permitted
· Balconies, uncovered porches must not project into the required and/or provided rear yard
· Minimum rear-yard setback: 8.0 metres
· Minimum front-yard setback: 4.0 metres
· Despite Table 131, the minimum setback for any wall of a residential use building to a private way: 0.0m
· Minimum setback for any garage or carport: 0.0 metres
CONCEPT PLAN 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. Nine letters and one petition were received in opposition to the development. One letter was received in support on the proposal.
1. Concerns were raised with respect to the loss of privacy due to the height of the proposed buildings and the second storey balconies facing Stillwater Drive.
The proposed height of the buildings do not conflict with performance standard of either the existing R1FF subzone or parent R2L subzone that both allow a maximum height of 9.5 metres. The application has not requested an increase in the maximum permitted height. To address potential impacts on abutting properties, the applicant has revised the application to establish an increased minimum rear-yard setback of 8.0 metres. As well, the applicant has removed the proposed balconies on the second storey rear three buildings. The implementing by-law will also prohibit the projection of a balcony into a required or provided rear-yard whereas this is currently a permitted projection.
2. Concerns were raised with respect to the impact on property values in the area.
Staff have received no information to either support or refute this concern.
3. Concerns were raised with respect to an increase in traffic and noise resulting from the development.
The proposed development is required to provide 10 parking spaces for the dwelling units. Each unit has the ability to park two vehicles within the individual garages, as well there are four visitor parking spaces provided whereas the by-law requires zero. With respect to noise, the buildings abutting the dwellings on Stillwater Drive are oriented backyard to backyard which is consistent with the existing building and lotting fabric. Due to the placement of the garages in an internal courtyard setting, the buildings themselves will provide a buffer from any potential noise.
4. Concerns were raised with respect to the precedent this development would set within the community.
Each development application is evaluated on its own merit in concert with the applicable provincial and municipal land use planning policies and plans in place at that time. The application is proposing a site-specific amendment to which the proposed performance standards and uses would apply. The site-specific amendment, if approved, would not apply to any other properties.
The Councillor is aware of the application. As well, the Councillor organized and attended a public meeting on September 14, 2009 at the Maki House. Staff was not present at the meeting.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBCLA)
A letter in opposition, along with a petition was submitted on behalf of the Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBCLA). Concerns raised in the letter related to the height of the proposed development, privacy impacts from the proposed rear second storey balconies, air movement and quality, and impacts on the future Carling Avenue right-of-way. The CBCLA proposed that the development be revised to permit only six units versus 10.
Response to Comments:
With respect to height, as noted above the proposal is not requesting to increase the maximum permitted height within both the current R1FF and R2L subzone of 9.5 metres. To reduce any potential impacts related to the proposed development the application has proposed a flat-roof style of architecture which is consistent with the lower profile rooflines of the area, as well an increased minimum rear-yard setback to 8.0 metres. Lastly, the implementing by-law will prohibit the projection of balconies into the rear-yard. The positioning and the separation of the individual buildings on site does not create a continuous built form across the site thereby allowing for light and air movement. The applicant has been advised of the CBCLA’s request to revise the proposal to six units versus 10. Their preference is to proceed with the proposal as submitted.
(This matter is subject to Bill 51)
The following correspondence was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
· Copy of a petition submitted by the Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBCLA) containing the names of 199 residents
· Two letters dated 8 February 2010 from Ruth Tremblay, President of the CBCLA
· Letter dated 4 February 2010 from Paul Williams
· E-mail dated 4 February 2010 from Lynne McFarlane
· Emails dated 3 February and 7 February from Peggy McGillivray
Simon Deiaco, Planner II, provided an overview of the proposed Zoning By-law amendment and staff’s rationale for approving the application. He did so by means of a Power Point presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Deiaco explained that the original intent was to re-zone the site to a R2M sub-zone, and modify that sub-zone. After some analysis, staff felt it would be easier and more appropriate to modify the base standards of the R2L sub-zone. In either case, a site-specific zone is being created, including the recommended performance standards. Council could direct staff to modify the R2M with the same performance standards; however, the modifications would have the same result in either zone.
Councillor Cullen noted that he had held a public meeting with the community association, developer and area residents to review the proposed development, and some modifications were made to the original proposal as a result. The rear yard setback was increased by half a metre, and the proposed rear-yard balconies were eliminated in recognition of the impact on the neighbours to the immediate south.
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen Mr. Deiaco provided the following information:
· The Planned Unit Development (PUD) use that is to be added to this site-specific exemption pertains to the form of development. The proposed configuration of five buildings comprising 10 units is considered to be a PUD.
· There is no further opportunity for increased density or building form on this site as a result of the PUD use, as it is limited to the proposed permitted use, in this case a semi-detached dwelling.
· The PUD does not change the performance criteria, including the additional setback and the exclusion of rear balconies.
· With regards to the whether the development would jeopardize the City’s right of way on Carling Avenue, it was noted that this section of Carling Avenue is designated and protected for road widening, and staff are in discussions to determine what the ultimate widening will be.
· There are some site-specific circumstances where the City may take less than is required. The City will also ensure that, should the site be developed, no encroachment of structures into the right of way will be permitted.
· This site meets the City’s by-law requirements for visitor parking.
· Issues with regards to storm water drainage would be addressed as part of the site plan process
Councillor Cullen wished to note that he was not in favour of the widening of Carling Avenue.
Ruth Tremblay, President of the CBCLA, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. By means of a PowerPoint presentation, she outlined the rationale for the CBCLA’s objection to the proposed redevelopment. She raised the following points:
· There are too many exceptions required to make the PUD work in the proposed zone.
· The proposed development encroaches into the right of way. The Community Association asks that PEC postpone any decision of the re-zoning application with a PUD until such time as the City surveyor can attend the site and take measurements to ascertain where the City’s right of way is in relation to the proposed redevelopment, and report back to PEC.
· The proposed redevelopment site will be the first of its kind backing onto the bungalows of Crystal beach. There would be undue loss of privacy for residents living behind and adjacent to the proposed development, and it would obstruct the breeze from the Ottawa River from reaching nearby residents.
· There is little green space in the proposed development compared to the rest of the Crystal Beach community.
· The proposed development is not compatible, as it will not enhance the community nor co-exist without causing undue impact on surrounding properties.
· There is a risk of flooding, as the storm water system along Carling Avenue has insufficient capacity to receive all the storm water from the site without restriction. The construction of this and other proposed developments can be expected to aggravate the potential flooding situation.
Ms. Tremblay requested that Committee reject the re-zoning with a PUD, as a PUD is not permitted in an R2 Zone, there are no R2 zones in the Community and the density of the development is too large for the site. She indicated that the community association supports the compromise of allowing the rezoning to R2M, but with a limit to the number of dwellings to six doors (three semi-detached units).
She provided a list of items that the community association would like to be included in the Site Plan approval process and requested that the Site Plan come back to Committee and Council for approval.
In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate with regards to the concerns raised about flooding, Ms. Tremblay referenced the site servicing analysis conducted by Erion Associates, which indicates water will have to be stored in the roof, and expressed her concern that these systems sometimes fail.
Chair Hume spoke to the delegation’s request to have the Site Plan approved by Committee and Council. He advised that in most cases communities will have more leverage to deal with local issues under the delegated Site Plan approval process, where approval rests with the local Councillor who is often more sensitive to community needs. He suggested bringing the Site Plan back to Committee as a last resort if all other means have not worked in the community’s favour.
Danielle Ladelpha, resident, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. She advised that her property is located south of the subject property, and her backyard abuts the proposed development. By means of a series of photographs, Ms. Ladelpha showed how her property would be impacted by the proposed development. She raised the following points:
· The developer proposes to build a 6’9” fence, which is insufficient to block the development, which will be very invasive.
· The existing large trees are likely not to survive the excavation, as they are quite close to where the building will be, and any replacement trees will not be full, mature trees. Even if the trees do survive, they do not provide any privacy in the winter when the leaves are off.
· The living room windows of the proposed development would be overlooking her property
· Her property value will suffer if this development proceeds.
· She had invested much time, effort and money into her backyard, and would receive no compensation for the impacts of this development.
· She suggested this was an issue of money, as the developer stands to make a great money from the development and the City will achieve higher tax revenues through intensification, but this will be at the expense of the neighbours
She concluded by thanking Committee for their time and reiterated her opposition to the redevelopment as it stands.
In response to questions from Councillor Hunter as to why she felt there was a right to privacy due to trees on another property, Ms. Ladelpha noted that the developer had said they would maintain the trees to provide privacy; however, she questioned whether that would really be possible.
She posited that while the development was not to her advantage, it was to the City’s advantage due to the additional tax revenue that will be generated. Councillor Hunter suggested this revenue would lower taxes for everyone else. He also proposed that with southern exposure living rooms, such as those that would face the delegation’s property, people tend to keep their blinds closed, as they also want privacy.
Barry Padolsky, Barry Padolsky Associates Inc. Architects, spoke as the applicant in support of the report recommendations. Carl Madigan, owner of the subject property, was also present. Mr. Padolsky provided the following information with regards to the proposed development:
· The developer wishes to develop 10 units, similar in footprint and concept to the Uniform development on the next block.
· The proposal meets the requirements of the existing R1FF zone in terms of the height, side yards and rear setback requirements. The existing Zone requires a 7.5 metre rear setback, and this development will provide an eight metre setback. The development will not exceed the existing permitted height is 9.5 metres, and will provide the required side yards.
· The existing R1F zoning permits coverage of 45 per cent of the lot, and this development will cover only 36 per cent. As currently zoned, the site can be developed for two houses with the same massing and height as the proposed development.
· The developer is seeking not only to maintain the existing trees on the south property line, but also to intensify that coverage to ensure there is a visible screen in the winter and the summer. It is in the interest of the developer to retain the trees along the south property line, for the benefit of the neighbour to the south and those purchasing the units.
· The original intent was to have balconies on the second floor overlooking the south. Those have been removed at the request of the community association.
Mr. Padolsky concluded by suggesting the proposed development was moderate intensification with good architecture. He emphasized that he would not have taken on the project if he did not think it was moderate intensification that would work for the community, noting he has refused other projects in the past on those grounds.
In response to questions from Councillor Doucet with regards to potential loss of trees, Mr. Padolsky explained that, as the sanitary servicing would come from the southeast corner of the building, there would likely be some trees lost there. However, the developer will replace those trees and add a hedge as part of the Site Plan process. He noted that every effort would be made to ensure the foundations do not cut the existing tree roots and. If necessary, the south foundations would be put on piers to ensure the basement would not obstruct the roots.
In response to questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Padolsky reiterated that the setback for the proposed development would exceed the requirement under the existing zoning by half a metre, and two houses could be built under the current zoning with similar massing to the proposed development, which could be three stories high and have windows in the rear.
In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate regarding the flooding concerns raised by the community association, Mr. Padolsky suggested there may be some misunderstanding of the servicing report. He explained that the servicing report recommended that storm water management be handled on the site. The proposal is to put a 600 millimetre super pipe under the ground to retain water to meet the City standards. The servicing report indicates that these measures would meet the 100 year flood, and would be required by the City during the site plan application. He confirmed that the units are to have flat roofs.
Ted Ladelpha registered to speak in opposition to the report recommendations, but was unable to attend.
Councillor Cullen noted that the development application had created a great deal of conversation in the Crystal Beach/Lakeview community. He noted this would be the second or third example of such a development occurring along this particular stretch of Carling Avenue; however, the previous one backed on to the St. Thomas school site and thus did not impact a residential property as this one would. He noted the impact of the proposed intensification would not be traffic, as the property’s single entrance would be off Carling Avenue, thus avoiding traffic flowing into the interior of the Crystal Beach/ Lakeview community. He noted that if Committee refused the rezoning, and the zoning remained R1FF, the issues of massing and setback would remain, as there could be two buildings within 7.5 metres of the property line with the same height as this proposed development.
He reiterated that there was a public meeting with the community where their concerns were heard, and the applicant adjusted the setback by half a metre and eliminated the rear balconies, and while these were small concessions, they were indeed concessions. He suggested the issue comes down to intensification. This intensification represents a change for the Community, and the the concern is with a precedent being set along Carling avenue, as there are many similar-sized lots.
He referenced the Official Plan (OP) policies that encourage intensification, particularly along major arterials and major transit routes, noting Carling Avenue is a major arterial, and due to its desirable location and views, further development pressure can be expected. along the corridor. He reiterated the concerns of the community, and suggested the concerns were understandable.
He noted the Community was willing to accept a compromise of six units, but acknowledged that was not the application before Committee.
Councillor Hunter indicated his reluctant support for the re-zoning. He suggested the City’s policy of intensification made it hard for developers to find any space for development. As most of the school sites have been developed, if developers do not acquire large lots such as these, they cannot build. He submitted that his concerns with the development were site plan issues, such as the siting of the building. While he would prefer to see the buildings oriented perpendicular to Carling, he indicated he would leave that to the ward Councillor to address as part of Site Plan. He noted the units fronting on Carling would be very attractive due to the view, but the rear ones would have less traffic noise. He suggested the layout of the development would pose challenges to snow clearing and parking larger vehicles. He also noted there is no storage space or places Community gathering. He concluded that the proposal was supportable in light of the City`s OP policy of intensification, as the lot is under built.
Committee then approved the report recommendation as presented.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3358 and 3362 Carling Avenue shown on Document 1 from Residential First Density Subzone, R1FF to Residential Second Density Subzone, R2L[****], as detailed in Document 2.