1.             ZONING – 127 PRESLAND ROAD






Committee recommendationS as amended


(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)


That Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 127 Presland Road, as shown on Document 1, from I1A (Minor Institutional Zone) to R5B [xxxx] S(yyy) (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception xxxx, Schedule yyy) as detailed in Documents 2 and 3, as amended by making the following changes to the zoning schedule contained in document 2 of the staff report:


(1)               the maximum permitted building height for Area L be increased to 33 metres (10 storeys); the setback of Area L to the property line abutting Presland Road be reduced to 29 metres; and the depth of Area L of 12.6 metres be deleted;


(2)               the area shown as Area K be shown as Area J, to reduce the permitted height along the eastern property line from eight to seven storeys.


And that there be no further notice pursuant to section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.



RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité


(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)


Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à faire passer la désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 127, chemin Presland, qui est illustrée dans le document 1, de I1A (zone de petites institutions) à R5B [xxxx] S(yyy) (zone résidentielle de densité 5, sous-zone B, exception xxxx, annexe yyy), comme le précisent les documents 2 et 3, en apportant les changements suivants à l’annexe sur le zonage du Document 2 du rapport du personnel :


(1)               Que la hauteur maximale permise pour un bâtiment dans le secteur L soit haussée à 33 mètres (10 étages); que la marge de reculement du secteur L située sur la limite de terrain contiguë au chemin Presland soit abaissée à 29 mètres; et que la profondeur de 12,6 mètres du secteur L soit supprimée;


(2)               Que le secteur K soit rebaptisé secteur J, et que la hauteur permise le long de la limite est du terrain soit abaissée de huit à sept étages.


Et qu’aucun autre avis ne soit donné conformément au paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.





1.      Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 8 March 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0084)


2.      Extract of Draft Planning Committee Minutes of 26 April 2011.

Report to/Rapport au :


Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme


and Council / et au Conseil


08 March 2011 / le 08 mars 2011


Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/

Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités


Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager/

Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services, Inner Core/

Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Unité du Centre intérieur

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca


Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0084




ZONING – 127 presland road (FILE NO. d02-02-10-0064)




ZONAGE – 127, chemin presland




That the  recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 127 Presland Road, as shown on Document 1, from I1A (Minor Institutional Zone) to R5B [xxxx] S(yyy) (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception xxxx, Schedule yyy) as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.




Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 visant à faire passer la désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 127, chemin Presland, qui est illustrée dans le document 1, de I1A (zone de petites institutions) à R5B [xxxx] S(yyy) (zone résidentielle de densité 5, sous-zone B, exception xxxx, annexe yyy), comme le précisent les documents 2 et 3.





The subject lands, 127 Presland Road, have frontage on both the Vanier Parkway and Presland Road. The Presland Road allowance extends across the Vanier Parkway; however the built portion of Presland Road terminates in a cul-de-sac and does not connect to the Parkway. The property currently contains a three-storey institutional building, a one-storey institutional building and a two-storey single detached dwelling.

The buildings are currently vacant but were formerly occupied by Les Soeurs Franciscaines Missionaires de Marie de l’Ontario, a religious order of nuns. Current vehicular access to the site is a U-shaped driveway that connects to Presland Road.  There is a signalized pedestrian access which connects pedestrians and cyclists from Presland Road to West Presland Road.


The surrounding land uses are a mix of residential uses ranging from single detached dwellings to the north, a four storey apartment building to the east and two storey townhouses on the south side of Presland Road. There are single detached dwellings as well as three- and four-storey apartment buildings on the west side of Vanier Parkway which front onto Presland Road West.


Further to the southwest is a large RCMP complex containing parking lots and four to five storey office buildings; this complex has direct access to the Vanier Parkway. Further to the east the neighbourhood is characterized by a variety of two-, three- and four-storey residential buildings. The property is located less than 300 metres from intersection Vanier Parkway and Coventry Road.


A Site Plan Control application is required to facilitate the construction of the proposed development, however at the time of writing this report, an application has not been submitted to the City.


Proposed Development Concept


The proposed development consists of a 307-unit residential apartment building with varying heights up to a maximum of 29 metres (nine storeys). The building is proposed to be in a U‑shape configuration with the entrance in the middle. Vehicular access is proposed to be from the Vanier Parkway via a circular driveway which will provide access to the underground parking as well as the front entrance to the building. Ground floor oriented units are proposed along the Presland Road frontage with front door access to Presland Road (vehicular access is by way of underground parking).


The original proposal did not have ground floor oriented units along Presland Road; however through the review of the application with staff, the applicant amended the design to include the portion of the building which fronts onto Presland Road.


A site plan of the proposed residential building can be found in Document 4.


Existing Zoning


The property is currently zoned I1A which is Minor Institutional zoning reflective of the previous institutional use of the property. The I1A zone permits a variety of institutional uses ranging from a day care, group home, a place of worship to a sports arena with height limits of 11 metres (where a property abuts an R3 zone) to 15 metres (where it abuts an R4 zone).


Purpose of Zoning Amendment


The proposed Zoning By-law amendment is to permit the development of the proposed residential building. The amendment is proposing to change the zoning from the I1A zone to an R5B zone to reflect the range of proposed heights for the building from four storeys (14 metres) to nine storeys (29.7 metres).


Proposed Zoning


The Zoning By-law amendment proposes to modify the zoning on the property as follows:


  • amend the I1A zone to an R5B zone;
  • reduce the minimum aisle width from 6.7 metres to 6.1 metres for the proposed underground parking; and
  • add a schedule to reflect the proposed heights of the building which vary from four storeys (14 metres) to nine storeys (29.7 metres).


The original application requested a height limit of 29 metres; however through the process the applicant has developed more specific landscaping and grading plans which require a height limit of 29.7 metres to accommodate the nine storeys rather than the originally requested 29 metres.




Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement


Section 2 of the Planning Act outlines those land use matters that are of provincial interest, to which all City planning decisions shall have regard. The provincial interests that apply to this site include the appropriate location of growth and development and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians.


In addition, the Planning Act requires that all City planning decisions be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that provides further policies on matters of provincial interest related to land use development. The PPS contains policies which indicate that there should be an appropriate mix of uses to support strong, liveable and healthy communities.


The proposed zoning allows for an increase of residential units, which will efficiently re-use land and contribute to a balanced community. The site is located adjacent to the Vanier Parkway, an arterial road, which provides access to the site. The site is conveniently located near transit as well as nearby residential and commercial areas to allow for access by pedestrians and transit. The Department is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the matters of provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act and PPS.


Official Plan


Strategic Directions and Land Use Designation


Section 2.3.1 of the Official Plan sets broad strategic directions to meet the challenge of managing growth and directing growth to the urban area where services exist, providing infrastructure, maintaining environmental integrity and creating livable communities within Ottawa.

To meet these challenges, polices are set out to pursue compact forms of development which in turn will enable the City to support a high-quality transit system and make better use of existing infrastructure and roads. 


The site is designated General Urban Area in the Official Plan. The General Urban designation is intended to facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities with a full range and choice of housing, in combination with conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses. The Official Plan supports infill development and intensification within the General Urban Area, provided it is developed in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics of the existing community and ensures its long term vitality. The Official Plan further requires that uses that serve wider parts of the city be located at the edges of neighbourhoods on roads where the needs of these land uses, such as transit, access and parking can be more easily met and their impacts controlled. The consideration of infill and intensification in the General Urban Area, the City will consider the following:


·    recognize the importance of new development relating to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form;

·    apply the policies of Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11

·    consider the 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; and

·    Assess ground-oriented multiple housing as one means of intensifying within established low-rise residential communities.


Section 2.2.3 “Managing Growth within the Urban Area” provides direction for intensification in the General Urban area. Where a Zoning By-law Amendment is required to facilitate intensification, the appropriateness of the scale of development will be evaluated along with the design and its compatibility. Additional cases such as the site being within 600 metres of a rapid-transit station; lands that are no longer viable for their use; lands where the present use is maintained but additional uses can be accommodated on the site; lands currently or formerly used as parking lots; or lands where records indicate existing contamination are also considered for intensification.


The site is located one block north of the intersection of the Vanier Parkway and Coventry Road which is characterized by many large office and commercial uses. The property fronts onto an arterial road, the Vanier Parkway, which is major thoroughfare for vehicular traffic travelling northbound to Beechwood Avenue and southbound to Highway 417. The Vanier Parkway also acts as an edge for the residential communities on either side of it. This edge condition is reinforced by the fact that the communities have no property access or direct building frontage onto Vanier Parkway. There is also pedestrian and cyclist traffic which crosses the Vanier Parkway and travels east and westbound from Presland Road to West Presland Road. The Vanier Parkway is also served by OC Transpo’s route 9, which has peak frequencies of 15 to 20 minutes as well as Route18 which runs two blocks away on Queen Mary Street. The property, once used for a convent is now vacant. The proposal provides an opportunity for additional residential units which support the overall goals and policies of the Official Plan’s Strategic Directions and General Urban designation.


Compatibility and Community Design


Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan recognizes the importance of compatibility and community design when considering new development.

The Official Plan recognizes that, in order for a development to be compatible, it does not necessarily have to be the same as, or similar to, the existing buildings in the vicinity. Rather, compatible development enhances an established community and co-exists with existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. The Official Plan provides objective criteria to evaluate compatibility in Section 4.11.


Section 2.5.1 also addresses community design and acknowledges that good urban design and quality architecture can create lively places with distinctive character which provide tools to shape the environment. This section provides a set of design objectives and principles to be considered in evaluating development proposals. The design objectives include:


·         enhancing a sense of community by creating distinct places;

·         defining quality public and private spaces;

·         creating spaces that are safe and accessible;

·         ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas;

·         considering adaptability and diversity when creating spaces; and

·         understanding and respecting natural processes and promoting environmental sustainability in development.


As previously mentioned, Section 4.11of the Official Plan provides objective criteria to evaluate compatibility. In addition, in 2009, City Council approved Transit-Oriented Guidelines which were approved in 2007. The proposal was also reviewed in light of the criteria in Section 4.11 and the Design Guidelines. The following is an analysis of the applicable criteria, which demonstrates that the proposed development satisfies the compatibility tests of the Official Plan in a manner that does not result in undue adverse impacts.


Policy 1 of Section 4.11 recognizes that compatibility is not the only tool to evaluate development proposals, and that the City must have regard for the policies of Section 4.1 through 4.10, the objectives of Section 2.5.1, and the policies of any applicable Secondary Plans or site-specific policies. As previously discussed, the proposal meets the intent of the General Urban Area and satisfies the policies of the Strategic Directions as contained in the Official Plan. The Department is satisfied that the applicable policies contained in Sections 4.1 through to 4.10 are also met.


Policy 2 of Section 4.11 acknowledges that not all of the objective criteria contained in the Official Plan are meant to be applicable to all circumstances; some may not apply, or may be evaluated and weighed on the basis of site circumstances.


Policy 2(a) requires that roads should be adequate to serve the development with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated by the development. Access to the proposed building is from the Vanier Parkway. As part of the proposal, new traffic control signals (TCS) are proposed at the entrance to facilitate the movement of traffic into and out of the site. A Community Transportation Study (CTS) was prepared as part of the application, which indicates that the proposed development will result in a modest increase in traffic on most of the adjacent roadway network. Any recommendations of the CTS, as well as site-specific requirements of the City, will be included as conditions of Site Plan Control. As per the Transit-Oriented Guidelines, underground parking is being provided.


The design of the building provides for an appealing architecture, the ground floor oriented units along Presland Road are the dominant feature of the ground floor facade and provide for pedestrian access directly onto Presland Road for the future residents and visitors of the building.


Policy 2(b) requires that the vehicle ingress and egress to a development should address impacts such as noise, headlight glare and loss of privacy on development adjacent, or immediately opposite, to the subject property. The proposed garage entrance is located in the interior courtyard of the building perpendicular to the easterly lot line so that residents drive into the site from Vanier Parkway and turn east to access the garage entrance. The portion of the building fronting on Presland Road provides for a buffer to the current residents of Presland Road from the parking garage entrance, helps to mitigate the headlight glare and provides privacy to the residents from the vehicular traffic flowing to and from the building. It is not anticipated that the ingress or egress of vehicles from the site will be detrimental to the land uses in the immediate area. In addition, locating the vehicle access from Vanier Parkway prevents traffic from travelling through the established neighbourhood to Presland Road to access the site. The types of access proposed will not create a precedent for providing direct vehicular access from the Parkway because the location of the access corresponds to the extension of Presland Road, which will remain a City-owned right of way.


Policy 2(c) requires that a development should have adequate on-site parking to minimize the potential for spill-over on adjacent areas. Opportunities should be considered to reduce parking requirements and promote increased usage of walking, cycling and transit, particularly in the vicinity of transit stations or major transit stations in accordance with Section 4.3. The proposal supplies the required amount of both resident and visitor parking with a slight reduction in the reduced aisle width from 6.7 metres to 6.1 metres. The required bicycle parking will also be provided on-site. The property is close to transit services which run northbound and southbound along Vanier Parkway as well as two blocks away on Queen Mary Street.


Policy 2(d) addresses building heights and massing recognizing that new buildings should have regard for the area context, which includes not only the massing and height of adjacent buildings but also the planned function of the area. The desire for a transition in building heights can be offset where natural buffers and setbacks exist or through the use of appropriate design measures to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposal includes significant setbacks to the north and east property lines ranging from 8.5 metres to 10.0 metres for the easterly side yard setbacks and 10.0 metres to 24.0 metres for the northerly yard setbacks. The tallest portion of the building, at nine storeys, is adjacent to the Vanier Parkway with setbacks ranging from 8.0 metres to 14.0 metres. In addition, the terracing of the storeys, starting at four storeys at the north portion of the building, provides for a transition from the single detached dwellings which back onto the site. The portion of the building at the northeast corner of the lot provides a transition from four storeys with a setback of 10.0 metres to the north lot line to eight storeys with a setback of 24.0 metres from the north lot line and 8.5 metres to the east lot line. This terracing with setbacks also provides for a transitioning of height from the single detached dwellings fronting onto Prince Albert Street to the northeast as well as from the four-storey apartment building to the east.

This existing four-storey apartment building’s parking lot is adjacent to the subject property and thus also provides a buffer to the proposed residential building. In addition, the portion of the building that fronts onto Presland Road provides for a two to three-storey built form with a setback of 6.0 metres, which provides a transitioning in built form from the two‑storey townhouse units on the south side of Presland Road and also provides for an improved pedestrian environment with direct pedestrian access from those units to Presland Road. No garages are proposed for the units which front onto Presland Road, all of the parking for the residents is accommodated in the underground parking. This design feature provides for more living space area on the main floors of the units and thus provides the opportunity for a livelier pedestrian-friendly street.


Policy 2(e) recognizes the pattern of the surrounding community and acknowledges that for development that proposes a different height, building mass, proportion, street setback or distance between buildings from the pattern of the area, the design of the proposed building may compensate for this variation. It is the opinion of the Department that the surrounding area contains a variety of building heights, massing, proportions and setbacks. There are a variety of uses in the immediate area ranging from single detached dwellings to four storey apartment buildings. Further to the south are five and six storey offices and commercial use buildings and further to the north are high- rise residential buildings, which flank the Vanier Parkway. The rear yard and side yard setbacks provided to the north and east lot lines are greater than what the Zoning By-law requires for both low-rise and mid-high rise apartment buildings which ranges from 6 metres to 7.5 metres. The Department is of the opinion that the increased setbacks that are correlated with the increased heights of the building compensates for the height of the proposed building. With respect to the front yard setback along Presland Road, the proposed setbacks are similar to the existing setbacks of the adjacent four storey apartment building and the setbacks of the townhouses on the south side of Presland Road. In addition, the portion of the building fronting onto Presland Road with ground-oriented units helps to frame this end of Presland Road at a human scale.


Policy 2(l) requires that the development provide supporting neighbourhood services, or alternatively, is able to be supported by existing neighbourhood services. As previously mentioned, the site is located along the east side of the Vanier Parkway just north of a commercial area beginning at the intersection of the Parkway and Coventry Road and to the north towards McArthur are many existing neighbourhood services to support the development. Both areas provide sufficient neighbourhood services for this development.  


Other design and compatibility criteria such as noise, lighting, fencing, microclimate and loading areas are addressed through the Site Plan Control process.


Official Plan Amendment 76 (OPA 76)


While Official Plan Amendment 76 is currently under appeal and is not in full force and effect, the amendment was adopted by City Council and thus is taken into consideration in the evaluation of planning applications. When evaluating the appropriateness of a development proposal, one of the main differences between the City of Ottawa’s approved Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment 76, are the compatibility criteria found in Section 4.11.


One new policy is the consideration of whether the design of a proposal takes advantage of opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Other new policies appropriate for consideration in a rezoning application are policies related to Building Profile and Compatibility. Development proposals will also address issues of compatibility and integration with surrounding land uses by ensuring an effective transition in built form. This will serve to link the proposed development with existing development.


In terms of height, Official Plan Amendment 76 defines a Mid-Rise as a building of five to nine storeys. The policies recognize that integrating taller buildings within an area characterized by a lower built form is an important design consideration, especially in relation to intensification. The policies further provide criteria to achieve a built form transition by:


a.         Incremental changes in building height (e.g. angular planes or stepping building profile up or down);

b.        Massing (e.g. inserting ground-oriented housing adjacent to the street as part of a high-profile development or incorporating podiums along a Mainstreet);

c.         Character (e.g. scale and rhythm, exterior treatment, use of colour and complementary building finishes);

d.        Architectural design (e.g. the use of angular planes, cornice lines); and

e.    Building setbacks.


The applicant is proposing to incorporate ground-oriented housing adjacent to the street. The proposed terracing with increased setbacks provides for incremental changes in building height. The architectural design of the proposed building including the exterior treatment of the building and building finishes will be implemented through the Site Plan Control process. The Department has had ongoing discussions with the applicant to implement design features that will be beneficial to the design and reflective of these policies. The Department is satisfied that the proposal meets the intent of policies of OPA 76.


Details of Proposed Zoning 


The Zoning By-law Amendment application requests to change the existing I1A zone (Minor Institutional) to an R5B zone with height limits ranging from four storeys to nine storeys and varying yard setbacks. In addition, the applicant has requested a reduced aisle width of 6.1 metres form the required 6.7 metres for the underground parking garage. The schedule found in Document 2 illustrates the requested height limits and setbacks. The details of the zoning amendment are contained in Document 3.


Servicing Issues 


A servicing study was provided in conjunction with the development application and demonstrated that the existing services are adequate to support the proposed development. The Department has reviewed the study and have no issues with the findings with respect to capacity.  Further detailed review will be undertaken as part of the Site Plan Control process.




In summary, the proposal for redevelopment on the subject property with an increase in height up to nine storeys (29.7 metres) supports the direction of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement and Strategic Directions of the Official Plan. The mid-rise residential development, which is located adjacent to the Vanier Parkway (an arterial road), accessible to two bus transit routes, is proposed on a site that is appropriate for redevelopment and intensification which will contribute to a greater housing mix. Compatibility and design criteria, transportation and servicing have been addressed satisfactorily. In light of the discussion above, the Department recommends approval of the Zoning By-law amendment application.




A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was submitted as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment application. No significant issues were identified in the Phase I ESA.








Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Department received numerous comments from the public and community groups which are included in Document 5.




I am not comfortable with the impact on the Vanier Parkway. Balconies and terraces overlooking neighbours backyards is another issue. Intensification, yes, but not at any cost!




Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is estimated that a three- to five‑day hearing would result, depending on where the hearing were to address planning issues only or both planning and transportation issues.  Were the application refused, reasons will have to be provided.  Were there an appeal of the refusal, the estimated cost would be $25,000 to $60,000, again depending on whether the hearing were address solely planning issues or both transportation and planning issues.




The proposed development and planning applications align with the City Strategic Plan in that it respects the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities; creates a walking, transit, and cycling oriented community; and contributes toward achieving a 30-per cent modal split by 2021.








There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.




This application was not processed by the “On Time Decision Date” established for the processing of Zoning By-law Amendment applications as the application was required to address comments of City Planning Staff.




Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Zoning Schedule

Document 3    Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 4    Proposed Site Plan

Document 5    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.

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                DOCUMENT 1


ZONING SCHEDULE                                                                                         DOCUMENT 2




DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                    DOCUMENT 3


Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law


1.      Rezone the subject lands shown on Document 1 from I1A to R5B[XXXX] SYYY;


2.      Add a new exception, R5B[xxxx] Syyy to Section 239  with provisions similar in effect to the following:


a.       In Column II the text “R5B[XXXX] SYYY”; and,

b.      In column V the text:

                                                              i.      The minimum required aisle width for a parking garage is 6.1 metres

                                                            ii.      Columns VII through XI inclusive in Row B of Table 164A of Section 164 do not apply

                                                          iii.      all new buildings must be located within the shaded areas shown on Schedule yyy

                                                          iv.      no new buildings are permitted in area A  on Schedule yyy

                                                            v.      despite the above provisions permitted projections are allowed in area A on Schedule yyy;

                                                          vi.      maximum permitted building heights are as set out on Schedule yyy;



3.      Add to Part 17 – Schedules Document 2 as Schedule yyy

PROPOSED SITE PLAN                                                                                      DOCUMENT 4


CONSULTATION DETAILS                                                                              DOCUMENT 5




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. There were many members of the public and one community group who provided comments on this application. Owing to the large amount of public input, the comments have been categorized to avoid repetition in the comments and staff’s response. A summary of the public comments and staff responses is provided below.






·        The proposed height of the building will cause undue impacts in terms of shadowing, privacy and is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood.

·        The height will set a precedent for the area and more buildings similar in height will be allowed.


Staff Response:

The proposed building has a series of terracing and increased setbacks to help to mitigate the effects of shadowing and privacy. The applicant submitted a sun/shadow study with the application which indicates that there will be some shadowing of the backyards of the properties to the north during the winter months however in the spring and summer months, the shadowing impacts to the backyards of the properties to the north are minimal. Due to the design of the building the majority of the shadowing impacts occur in the interior courtyard of the site and on the neighbouring parking lot for the apartment building to the east. 


With respect to precedents, each planning application is considered on its own planning merits. Surrounding land uses and built form are taken into consideration; however that is only one consideration when evaluating planning proposals as has been discussed in this report.



  • Adding another intersection at Presland would add a third traffic light in the very short distance between the Queensway and Queen Mary and undoubtedly contribute to further slowing an already clogged artery at peak periods. It seems excessive to open another artery on the Vanier Parkway for the sole use of some 430 new dwellers. In fact, this would be the only structure that would have direct access from the Vanier Parkway for its residents’ exclusive use, setting an undesirable precedent for the future Vanier Parkway which has always been intended to promote traffic flow through the community rather than be a direct access route for local residents.

·        The Vanier Parkway already has traffic issues and the addition of a signalized intersection for this building will be detrimental to the traffic on the Parkway.

·        There is an agreement between the NCC and the City for Vanier Parkway which restricts new accesses to the Vanier Parkway.

·        There are existing problems with on-street parking in the area and this new development will only add to these problems.

·        There is a concern that the visitors to the building will not use the underground visitor parking and will instead park on the neighbouring street.

·        The building should not be allowed to access Presland Road.

·        The change in the design with the ground floor units on Presland will mean that residents who live in these units will park on Presland Road instead of parking in the underground parking garage. We were told there would be no access to Presland Road.


Staff Response:


The applicant submitted a Community Transportation Study (CTS) with the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The CTS has been reviewed by City Staff and the Department is satisfied with the study. The CTS proposes a new traffic control signal (TCS) to facilitate the movement of vehicles into and out of the site. The proposal includes the addition of a dedicated left hand turn lane in the southbound lanes of the Vanier Parkway and a dedicated right hand turn lane in the northbound lanes of Parkway to accommodate the traffic flow to and from the site and reduce the impact of the development on the existing traffic flow on Vanier Parkway. The specifics of the design of the intersection will be addressed through a Road Modification Application along with the Site Plan Control process.


There is an existing agreement between the City and the National Capital Commission (NCC) regarding truck access and additional accesses added to the Vanier Parkway. The Presland right of way extends across the Vanier Parkway aligning with the West Presland right-of-way on the west side of the Parkway even though Presland Road terminates in a cul-de-sac before the Parkway. City staff have reviewed this agreement in conjunction with the proposal and have determined that since the access connects with the Presland Road right of way (the portion of the Presland right-of-way that crosses the Parkway) the intent of the agreement between the NCC and the City is satisfied. The NCC was circulated the application and is aware of this agreement and no comments were received.


The proposal does not include vehicular access to Presland Road. The portion of the building added to face the Presland Road frontage will consist of ground-oriented units and a series of terracing and setbacks as the building rises from two storeys to eight storeys. These ground-oriented units will have front door access to Presland Road to create a livelier pedestrian-friendly street. The units facing Presland Road will not have garages and will access the parking garage in the same manner as the rest of the residents and visitors of the building, which is off of the Vanier Parkway. There will be interior access from the underground parking garage to the units that front onto Presland Road. With respect to parking on Presland Road or elsewhere in the neighbourhood, there is on-street parking in the area subject to specific restrictions. It is anticipated that visitors and residents will use the provided underground parking, however if they choose to park on a public street in the area, they will be subject to the parking restrictions on that particular street. The provided parking consists of 303 underground parking spots and four above ground parking spots for loading purposes and short term parking. The provided parking exceeds the minimum 0.5 spaces per unit as required in the Zoning By-law and meets the minimum required visitor parking.




  • The density proposed at 307 units is too high for the property.
  • I would like to see the 127 Presland zoning respect the surrounding zoning, that is R3 or R4. This type of zoning would provide for single or town homes, short story walk up units, etc., with a maximum height of 11 meters, and bring the site density to a more reasonable level, mitigating the negative impacts of the proposed development. This would be in keeping with the visual and architectural character of the immediate surrounding structures, one of the city’s principal policies when considering intensification. The nature of this proposed development is not compatible with the vast majority of dwellings surrounding the site, which are single family homes to the north; 2 story townhouses to the south; and low rise apartment buildings to the immediate east. An eight-storey structure, regardless of how pretty, would stick out like a sore thumb and create an environmentally disjointed presence with the surrounding residences.


Staff  Response:

The Department is satisfied that the requested zoning and proposed density can be accommodated on the site. The underground parking provides for more opportunity for density while still providing ample setbacks and greenspace on the property. The analysis of the design and compatibility of the proposal are discussed in the body of the report.




  • Overbrook already has a large percentage of rental units in the neighbourhood and the addition of new rental units will only contribute to the existing problems in the neighbourhood with rental units.


Staff Response:

The Official Plan contains policies which promote varied housing types and tenures in order to provide choice and housing options throughout the City. Legislation from the Planning Act allow for zoning that permits or restricts land uses but does not restrict tenure.




  • The design of the building is isolated because it is oriented to the back of the site away from Presland Road
  • Will the building have any green building design features?
  • How will the snow be cleared from the site?


Staff Response:

The original proposal did not have any portion of the building fronting on Presland Road which created isolation from the residents of this street. The design was revised to the proposal now found in Document 4, which provides a building face along Presland Road which helps to frame the street and provide for a livelier pedestrian environment with ground-oriented units facing Presland Road. The applicant has not indicated any green building initiatives for this proposal; however this is an element of design that would be addressed at the Site Plan Control stage. Snow clearing and storage is also an issue addressed at the Site Plan Control stage.




  • I am concerned about the security in the area and for this development


Staff Response:

The detailed design of the building, lighting and landscaping will be refined at the Site Plan Control stage. These designs will include a review of the plans by members of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) of the Ottawa Police Services.




  • There should be 3-bedroom units proposed in the building to provide affordable housing to families


Staff Response:

There is no mechanism to require an applicant to provide a certain ratio of one, two and three‑bedroom units in a residential building; however the City encourages applicants to provide housing that meets the needs of City.



NOISE – there is concern with the noise that will be generated by the residents of the 307 units.


Staff Response:

The City’s Noise Control Study guidelines establish when such a study is required, and this will be addressed through the future Site Plan Control process. Local roads and high-rise housing do not generate a noise level that would necessitate a Noise Control Study; however any noise-sensitive development adjacent to an arterial road would require a Noise Control Study to investigate the impacts of the arterial road on the use. 




  • There is a concern that the existing infrastructure is not adequate to handle this development.
  • Stormwater management control is also a concern for this development especially with underground parking.
  • Drainage into neighbouring properties is also a concern.


Staff Response:

Staff have reviewed the required servicing studies through the circulation of the Zoning By‑law Amendment process and have not raised any concerns with respect to infrastructure. Stormwater management, including controlling drainage to neighbouring properties is a detail of the design which is addressed at the Site Plan Control stage.




·       There are a lot of trees on the property that should be preserved.


Staff Response:

Tree preservation and planting will be addressed through a subsequent Site Plan Control application.




·       Where will the truck traffic come from for the construction of the building?


Staff Response:

Construction methods are not considered through the Zoning By-law amendment process. Construction methods have not yet been determined; however a Site Plan Control application will be required prior to development of the site.




·       The building has historic value and should not be demolished


Staff Response:

Heritage Staff have not identified any heritage concerns with respect to the redevelopment of the site.



The Community Council of Overbrook does not support the proposed rezoning of 127 Presland to an R5B with a 29 meter height exception.


The Community Council of Overbrook acknowledges that the property at 127 Presland is of prime interest for development and we are not opposed to re-development. However, we feel that other development options should be considered for the following reasons:

  1. Compatibility and Zoning - Overbrook is predominately R3 and R4 zoning, small bungalow and low rise units.
  2. Ownership rather than rental units. Overbrook already has approximately 59 % rental units.
  3. Character of Overbrook and consideration for ground-oriented multiple housing forms such as duplex, triplex and fourplex, as one means of intensifying within established low-rise residential community.
  4. Traffic issues and the creation of a new intersection at Presland would add a third traffic light in a very short distance between the Queensway and Queen Mary Street. Peak traffic on the Vanier Parkway would be further grid-locked. The additional provision of right and left hand turning is a concern off the Vanier Parkway.
  5. Height issue of 29 metres is a concern to nearby homes. Shadowing and location of current homes must be respected.
  6. Parking issues for 307 rental units and the reality of visitor parking impact to neighbouring areas and Presland Road.
  7. Bicycle and pedestrian considerations are not clearly identified under the revisions. Presland Road is a well used bicycle and pedestrian access route to the east/west for commuters.

In summary, we are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 127 Presland Road. We believe that the development of this property must be more compatible with the surrounding community, that development must support the demographics of our community and that it presents fewer traffic issues to the Vanier Parkway and neighbourhood.


Staff  Response:

The issues raised by the Community Association have been addressed in the body of the report and in the staff responses to issues that were raised by the public comments.




ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0084                                                 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)


(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)




That the  recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 127 Presland Road, as shown on Document 1, from I1A (Minor Institutional Zone) to R5B [xxxx] S(yyy) (Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception xxxx, Schedule yyy) as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.


Committee received the following written submissions with respect to this item, copies of which are held on file with the City Clerk:

·         Letter to Council from the Community Council of Overbrook (CCO) dated 23 February 2011

·         Letter from the CCO to the National Capital Commission dated 16 April 2011

·         CCO Critique of the Staff Report

·         E-mail dated 20 April 2011 from Elizabeth Parcher

·         E-mail dated 20 April 2011 from Chris Page

·         E-mail dated 19 April 2011 from Karen Russell

·         E-mail dated 20 April 2011 from Martine Joly

·         E-mail dated 19 April 2011 from Jeanne Heffernan  

·         E-mail dated 20 April 2011 from Nadia MacDonald

·         E-mail dated 19 April 2011 from Scott Richardson

·         E-mail dated 25 April 2011 from Ray Gould

·         Letter dated 25 April 2011 from Joshua P. Moon on behalf of Presland Investment Corporation

·         Comments dated 26 April 2011 from John Higney and Kelly Hislop

·         Comments dated 26 April 2011 from David Stambrook, on behalf of the CCO,

re: Density, Height and Compatibility Concerns

·         Comments dated 26 April 2011 from Roy Hanna on behalf of the CCO,

re: Density, Height and Compatibility Concerns

·         Comments dated 26 April 2011 from Sheila Perry, CCO


At the beginning of the meeting, at the suggestion of the Chair, Councillor Clark, Councillor Harder and staff met with representatives of the community and the applicant to see if they could reach any agreement to re-orient some of the density on the site.  Following these discussions, Councillor Harder moved a motion to adjust the height schedule, as indicated below.


Melanie Knight, Planner, provided an overview of the rezoning application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.


Committee heard from the following public delegations:


Neil Meisner, resident of Prince Albert Street, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented. While he did not oppose development or densification in the neighbourhood, he felt the current proposal was not appropriate.  He felt the proposal was out of scale and character with the surrounding neighbourhood, which is characterized by smaller scale development, and would have a negative impact on surrounding residents. He expressed disappointment with the process and staff’s support of the proposal. 


Allan Palister, resident of Presland Road, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented, for the following reasons: the setback at Presland Road was too small; there would be shadowing impacts on surrounding residences; the development would exacerbate the lack of street parking for visitors; and the height was excessive. He supported the redistribution of height to the Vanier Parkway side of the site.


Scott Richardson,* resident of Prince Albert Street, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented.  He expressed disappointment with staff’s treatment of the application, suggesting it was not objective. He provided a critique of the staff report, as outlined in his written submission held on file.


David Stambrook,* resident of Glynn Street, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented.  Specifically, he spoke about the traffic concerns related to the rezoning application and the proposed site access intersection on the Vanier Parkway, as outlined in his written submission held on file.


Roy Hanna,* resident of King George Street, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented.  Specifically, he spoke to the density, height and compatibility concerns related to the proposed rezoning application, as outlined in his written submission held on file.


Sheila Perry, President, Community Council of Overbrook,* spoke in opposition to the report recommendations. She requested that Committee not approve the rezoning application as the density and height limits being sought were incompatible with the scale and nature of the surrounding neighbourhood.  A written copy of her comments is held on file.
Randy Bent, resident of Presland Road, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented.  He questioned whether the traffic study had taken into account the impact of other development taking place in the area.  He also sought the City’s water and sewer studies, expressing concern that the development would create significant runoff.  He agreed with his neighbours that the development was not compatible with the neighbourhood.

Rawlson King,* resident of Glynn Avenue, spoke in opposition to the report recommendations as presented. He cited Randall Denley’s 26 April 2011 Ottawa Citizen column on the proposed development, which noted there was little to recommend it.  He argued that the proposed development would be too high, too dense, create too much gridlock on the Vanier Parkway during rush hour, negatively impact parking on surrounding streets and reduce the privacy of surrounding neighbours.

Joshua P. Moon and Joel Pinsky* spoke on behalf of Presland Investment Corporation, owners of the adjacent 161 Presland Road. They were opposed the proposed development. Mr. Moon argued that the development did not have a compelling design, and would have negative impacts on their property, as outlined in the written submission held on file. He also questioned whether the rental market in the area could sustain it.  They supported the redistribution of further height to the Vanier Parkway side of the site, beyond what was proposed in the motion.

Nancy Meloshe, Michael Flainek and Douglas Kelly spoke on behalf of the applicants, Groupe Lepine, in support of the application.  Ms. Meloshe spoke to proposed development, raising the following points:

·         The proposed development supports the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Official Plan (OP), and the City’s strategic directions in OP Amendment 76 and meets the tests for compatibility and community design as outlined in sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the OP.

·         It is an underutilized site with institutional zoning and excellent access to transit, and direct access off the Vanier Parkway would eliminate traffic impact on Presland Road and minimize impact on the surrounding community.

·         The developer feels the proposed heights, density and massing are appropriate for the area and make economic sense for the developer, and have appropriate terracing and setbacks.

·         She proposed that there would be 40 metres between the wall of the proposed development and that of 161 Presland Road.


She also reviewed the drawings submitted to the City for the application, highlighting the specifics of the design, heights and setbacks.


Mr. Flainek, the transportation consultant, provided an overview of the Transportation Impact Study (held on file) and its recommendations, suggesting the proposed traffic volumes would be minimal relative to the overall volumes on the Vanier Parkway.

He noted the study used a conservative modal split, and background traffic growth rate, and suggested average Vanier Parkway traffic volumes were declining.  The existing pedestrian-actuated signal at the location of the proposed site access would become a signalized intersection that would be coordinated with other intersections along the Parkway, resulting in minimal impact.


Mauril Bélanger and John Higney* were also present in opposition to the application, but unable to stay for the discussions.

*Written comments and/or presentation are held on file with the City Clerk.




Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

WHEREAS Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0084 recommends zoning changes to the lands known municipally as 127 Presland Road;


AND WHEREAS through discussions with the Overbrook Community Council and citizens residing near 127 Presland Road, it has been deemed advisable to make certain changes to the zoning schedule to provide further built form transition between the proposed building and surrounding areas;


BE IT RESOLVED that the following changes be made to the zoning schedule contained in Document 2 of the staff report:


1.                  The maximum permitted building height for Area L be increased to 33 metres (10 storeys); the setback of Area L to the property line abutting Presland Road be reduced to 29 metres; and the depth of Area L of 12.6 metres be deleted;


2.                  The Area shown as Area K be shown as Area J, to reduce the permitted height along the eastern property line from eight to seven storeys.


That there be no further notice pursuant to Section 34 (17) of the Planning Act.




The report recommendations were then put to Committee and CARRIED as amended by Motion PLC 12/2.




1.         That staff request that the National Capital Commission (NCC) provide the City, in writing, their position with respect to the existing agreement on access to the Vanier Parkway, and that this be provided before City Council’s consideration of this report.


2.         That the applicant provide Committee and Council with information on how the amending motion approved by Planning Committee will impact the buildable area and number of units in the proposed development.