3.             ZONING – 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326, 328 Gloucester Street


ZONAGE – 224, rue lyon et 324, 326, 328, rue Gloucester



Committee recommendation 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 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326, 328 Gloucester Street as shown in Document 1 from R5B [482] H(37) to R5B [xxxx] H(54)-h as detailed in Document 2, and that the following changes be made to the zoning schedule contained in Document 2:


(1)         Replace the text “despite Section 65, Table 65, Row 6(b), the maximum size and extent of projection for a balcony is 2 metres and may be as close as 0 metres to the corner lot line” with “Table 65, Row 6 does not apply to a balcony and a balcony may project any distance into a required yard and as close as 0 metres to any lot line;”


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


Recommandation modifiÉe 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 du 224, rue Lyon et des 324, 326 et 328, rue Gloucester, de R5B [482] H(37) à R5B [xxxx] H(54)-h, comme il est indiqué dans le Document 1 et expliqué en détail dans le Document 2, et que les modifications suivantes soient apportées au zonage décrit dans le Document 2 :


(1)         Remplacer le texte « nonobstant l’article 65, tableau 65, rangée 6(b), la dimension et la projection maximales d’un balcon est de 2 mètres, et ce balcon peut être situé à 0 mètre de toute limite de terrain » par « le tableau 65, rangée 6, ne s’applique pas à un balcon et un balcon peut projeter à n’importe quelle distance dans une cour définie et aussi près que 0 mètre d’une limite de terrain ».


Qu’il n’y ait aucun autre avis en vertu du paragraphe 34 (17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.




1.                  Deputy City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 30 May 2011.


2.         Extract of Draft Planning Committee Minutes of 14 June 2011.


Report to/Rapport au :


Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme


and Council / et au Conseil


May 30, 2011 / le 30 mai 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


Somerset (14)

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0133




ZONING - 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326, 328 Gloucester Street (FilE no. D02-02-11-0010)




ZONAGE – 224, rue lyon et 324, 326, 328, rue Gloucester





That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326, 328 Gloucester Street as shown in Document 1 from R5B [482] H(37) to R5B [xxxx] H(54)-h as detailed in Document 2.




Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation de zonage du 224, rue Lyon et des 324, 326 et 328, rue Gloucester, de R5B [482] H(37) à R5B [xxxx] H(54)-h, comme il est indiqué dans le Document 1 et expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.




The subject site, 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326, 328 Gloucester Street, is located on the south-west corner of Lyon and Gloucester Street, excluding the property at 222 Lyon Street.

The properties have a combined total area of 1,415 square metres with 10.28 metres of frontage along Lyon Street North and 40.24 metres of frontage along Gloucester Street.


224 Lyon Street is currently occupied by a three-storey converted dwelling, and 324, 326, and 328 Gloucester Street are occupied by 2½-storey converted dwellings.


The site is adjacent to a range of two to three storey residential buildings to the south and a 12‑storey apartment building to the west.  The lot located directly north-east of the subject site, at the south-west corner of Gloucester and Lyon Streets is occupied by a 2½-storey red brick building used as a restaurant.  East of the subject site, across Lyon Street is a three-storey townhome development and north of the site, across Gloucester Street is a five-storey parking garage.  The area is dominated by residential buildings.


 Proposed Development


The proposed development is a 17-storey residential building with 240 dwelling units.  The building will provide pedestrian access from a lobby fronting on Lyon Street and the ground floor on Gloucester Street will contain eight units with direct access from the street.  A green roof is proposed.  Five levels of underground parking are proposed with a total of 116 parking spaces.  Access to the parking area will be provided from Gloucester Street.  Indoor bicycle storage facilities are provided on the ground floor and first parking level as well as six outdoor bicycle parking spaces.  The plan is divided along an east-west corridor off of the Lyon street entrance. The entrance location was selected as a means of integrating with the largely low-rise residential fabric to the south.  The expression of this volume allows its incorporation into the existing streetscape while linking the pedestrian realm to the tower component above.  In contrast, the portion of the building fronting onto Gloucester Street reads as a series of framed volumes that step back towards a glazed central corridor/elevator lobby. The primary mass is lifted three storeys at grade in reference to the low rise neighborhood to the south. Two-storey townhouses have been inserted below, maintaining the rhythm of the adjacent homes. 


Purpose of Zoning Amendment


The Zoning By-law Amendment is requested to increase the height of the zoning from 37 metres to 54 metres, reduce the parking requirements from 154 to 116 including visitor parking, reduce yard setbacks, landscaped area at grade and communal amenity area.  Because the use is permitted, but a number of performance standards are not complied with, the application is for a minor zoning amendment.


Existing Zoning


The subject site is zoned R5B [482] H(37) in Zoning By-law 2008-250.  R5B is a Residential Fifth Density Zone that permits a wide mix of residential buildings ranging from detached to mid-high rise apartment dwellings.  High-rise apartment is a permitted land use in the existing zoning, where the intent is to regulate development in a manner compatible with existing land use patterns so that the mixed building form, residential character of a neighbourhood is maintained or enhanced.  Exception 482 permits a number of additional land uses on the ground floor or basement of a residential use building including beauty parlour, drug store and newsstand among others.  The height limit of the current zone is 37 metres.


Proposed Zoning


The application proposes to retain the R5B subzone but create a new exeption to address performance standards specific to the subject property.  Zoning provisions are detailed in Document 2.


The Zoning By-law amendment proposes to modify the performance standards of the R5B [482] H(37) zone as follows:


  • Increase the maximum permitted height from 37 m to 54 m;
  • Decrease the minimum lot width from 22.5 m to 10.2 m (at Lyon Street)
  • Decrease the minimum required front yard setback (Lyon Street North) from 3 m to 0m at grade and then 10.1 m higher than 40 m above grade;
  • Decrease the minimum required corner side yard setback (Gloucester Street) from 3 m to a range between 1.2 and 1.8m;
  • Permit balconies to project to 0 m from the corner lot line
  • Decrease the minimum rear yard setback (western lot line) from 7.5 m to 0 m
  • Decrease the minimum interior side yard setbacks from 1.5 m to varying setbacks ranging from 0 m to 6.0 m for the upper storeys of the southern lot line.
  • Decrease the required landscaped area at grade from 30% of the lot area to 5%
  • Decrease the minimum communal amenity area from 50% of the required amenity area (753 square metres) to 20% of the required amenity area (319 square metres).
  • Decrease the minimum required resident parking from 108 to 97
  • Decrease the minimum required visitor parking from 46 to 19 spaces


The applicant had originally requested a reduction in the amount of visitor parking spaces from 48 to 5. The requested reduction in visitor parking has been revised to the request noted in the above list.




Planning Act and the 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.  Section of the PPS requires that land use patterns facilitate the efficient use of land and resources, are accommodated by existing or planned infrastructure and minimize negative impacts to air quality and promote energy efficiency. 


The proposed development complies with polices of the Provincial Policy Statement in a number of ways.  The proposed zoning allows for an increase of residential units, which will efficiently re-use land and contribute to a balanced community.  Existing infrastructure is sufficient for the proposed development.  The site is located on an arterial road (Lyon Street) and access is provided from Gloucester Street.  The site is conveniently located 200 metres from the Bay Station on the Transitway and approximately 300 metres from the future Downtown West LRT station.  The subject site is located within walking distance of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses.  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.


The use of Section 36 is discussed in the Zoning Details section of this report. Section 36 of the Planning Act provides the authority for municipalities the use of a holding symbol to specify requirements that need to be met prior to the use of a property.  Once the requirements are met, the holding symbol is then removed by an amendment to the by-law.


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 on Schedule B of Volume 1 of 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 General Urban Area designation speaks to a continuity of street frontages, integrated development to complement and enliven the surroundings and architectural style and innovation.  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.


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. In addition, the policies provide for consideration of intensification and infill development when the lands are within 600 metres of a future or existing rapid-transit station.


The site is located one block south of the Central Area at the northern edge of Centretown. The property is located on an arterial street; Lyon Street is a southbound arterial road that serves as an access route from the Central Area to Highway 417 and neighbourhoods to the south and the subject site is half a block from Bay Street that serves as a main access route to the Central Area.  The property is closer than 600 metres of Bay Transitway.  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.


The property is subject to design review by the Urban Design Review Panel (UDRP). The applicant presented its proposal to the UDRP on January 6, 2011 and March 3, 2011 and the comments of the panel are located within Document 4 of this report.  Design review focused on integration and continuity of the Lyon and Gloucester streetscapes and architectural innovation. 


Section 2.5.1 Compatibility and Community Design


The Central Area designation requires that development have regard for the compatibility criteria found in Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan.  Compatible development means development that, although not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings in the vicinity, nonetheless enhances an established community and coexists with existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. It ‘fits well’ within its physical context and ‘works well’ among those functions that surround it.

The first design objective of Section 2.5.1 is to enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity.  The high-quality architecture proposed for this development and the urban design analysis undertaken as part of the Design Review process ensure that design creates a distinctive identity. 

Design should create places that are safe, accessible and easy to get to and move through.  The site is located both on Lyon and Gloucester Streets, with the prominent pedestrian entrance on Lyon Street and vehicular access more subdued from Gloucester Street. Safety has been ensured through the provision of residential uses at grade, ensuring “eyes on the street”.

Development should respect the character of existing areas and define quality public spaces.  The proposed development complements and enlivens the surroundings.  The introduction of new residential units will bring new pedestrian activity to the site.  The scale of the building is compatible with the surroundings, which include a 12-storey residential building directly to the west and building heights up to 64 metres permitted on the north side of Gloucester Street.  The townhome base on Gloucester Street and lobby entrance on Lyon Street respond to the rhythm, size, massing and proportions of the existing low-rise residential within the block.

Section 4.11 Compatibility


Section 4.11of the Official Plan provides objective criteria to evaluate compatibility. In addition, in 2009, City Council approved Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing as well as Transit-Oriented Development 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, including the comments from the UDRP, 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.


To arrive at compatibility of scale and use will demand a careful design response, one that appropriately addresses the impact generated by infill and intensification. Consequently, the issue of ‘context’ is a dominant theme of the Official Plan where it speaks to compatibility and design.

a.       Traffic: Roads should adequately serve the development, with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated.  Access to the proposed building will be from Gloucester Street which is a one-way street running east to west. A Transportation Brief was prepared in support of the application, and indicates that resulting site-generated traffic will have a negligible effect on the overall operations of study area intersections.  Any recommendations of the Transportation Brief, as well as site-specific requirements of the City, will be included as conditions of Site Plan Control. As per the Transit-Oriented Guidelines, this development is located within 600 metres of a transit station, and underground parking is being provided.


b.      Vehicular Access: The location and orientation of vehicle access and egress should address matters such as the impact of noise, headlight glare and loss of privacy on development adjacent or immediately opposite. The proposed underground parking will minimize any impacts from vehicles associated with the building.  Noise and headlight glare impacts will generally be absorbed internally and mitigated on adjacent properties through the provision of the vehicular loading area at the rear of the property.


c.       Parking Requirements: The development should have adequate on-site parking to minimize the potential for spillover parking on adjacent areas.  Opportunities should be considered to reduce parking requirements and promote walking, cycling and transit, particularly in the vicinity of transit stations or major transit stations in accordance with Section 4.3.  The proposed rezoning includes parking provisions considered adequate for the needs of the proposed development, while recognizing the opportunity to reduce parking and increase other modes of transportation, especially given the proximity of the site to a rapid transit station and to the Central Area.  Cycling will be encouraged on the site through the provision of 130 bicycle parking spaces, 76 of which are provided through at-grade bicycle parking facilities and the remainder to be provided in the underground parking garage.


d.      Building Height and Massing: New buildings should have regard to the area context - the massing and height of adjacent buildings, and the planned function for the area.  To the west of the property is an existing 12-storey apartment building and further west is a vacant lot at 255 Bay Street, which is the future site of a 15-storey residential building.  The existing context of the area contains a range of building heights and the Secondary Plan policies recognize the surrounding area on this block and the block to the south as “High Profile Residential.”  Design principles have been applied to the site including creating a sense of human scale at the ground level through the podium style pedestrian entrance and townhome element of Gloucester Street. 


e.       Pattern of the Surrounding Community: While there must be recognition of the pattern of the surrounding community, there is also acknowledgement 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.  The proposed building is higher than the immediately adjacent building however it does provide architectural and functional features that contribute to enliven the streetscape. 


While there are a number of proposed changes to the required setbacks, they are not inconsistent with the setbacks of neighbouring buildings.  Several of the requested changes to required setbacks are necessary because Lyon Street is considered to be the front lot line of the property for zoning purposes, which means the southern lot line is a side lot line and the rear lot line is adjacent to the existing 12-storey building to the west.  For what would normally be considered the rear lot line (the southern property line), the applicant requests a 0-metre setback for the first portion of the building up to 3.8 metres due to a grade change and then sets the majority of the building back 6 metres from the lot line, not a substantial deviation from the typical required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres.  Landscaping features are proposed through the site plan control process to help mitigate the effects of the reduced setback.  The western property line is the rear property line for zoning purposes and the requested 0-metre setback is the same as the adjacent building to the west.  Windows do not exist on the neighbouring building, nor on the proposed building on the west wall so the 0-metre setback allows for a continuity of the streetscape without unnecessary gaps.  The proposal provides residential frontage along Gloucester and Lyon Streets with sufficient setback to allow for increased landscaping and consistency with neighbouring properties.


f.       Outdoor Amenity Areas: The development should respect the privacy of outdoor amenity areas of adjacent residential units and minimize any undesirable impacts.  Shadows fall largely to the north of the building and do not impact existing low-rise buildings to the south.  The building is close to the southern property line for the first storey, but then sets back to six metres for the upper storeys to allow for appropriate separation distance.  The townhome and lobby elements close to the property line on Lyon Street will animate the streetscape while there is still sufficient space to permit landscaping on the City right-of-way. 


g.      Loading Areas, Service Areas, and Outdoor Storage: The operational characteristics and visual appearance of loading facilities, service areas (including garbage), parking and areas for the outdoor storage of goods or materials should be mitigated using a variety of methods.  Loading, service areas and garage facilities have been provided indoors at the rear of the property, in order to minimize disruption to adjacent properties.


h.      Lighting: The potential for light spillover or glare from any lighting source onto adjacent light-sensitive areas should be avoided or mitigated.  Details regarding proposed lighting will be dealt with through the site plan control process and if necessary conditions will be included in site plan agreement to ensure minimal impact on adjacent properties.


i.        Noise and Air Quality: The development should be located and designed to minimize the potential for significant adverse effects on adjacent sensitive uses related to noise, odours, and other emissions.  The proposed uses are not significant noise generators and are consistent with those existing in the area.   A noise study has been completed as part of the site plan control application and concluded that the building has been designed appropriately to address noise impacts from Lyon Street.


j.        Sunlight: The development should minimize shadowing on adjacent properties, to the extent practicable, particularly on outdoor amenity areas, through the siting of buildings or other design measures. 

The sun shadow study submitted as part of the proposal illustrates that shadows from the proposed buildings move from west to east and fall to the north.  Shadows do not reach into the block across Gloucester Street at all on June 21st, anytime of the day.  On March 21st and September 21st there is a moderate increase in the extent of shadows between a 37- and 54-metre building.  However, the shadows do not extend to the buildings at 470 Laurier Avenue or 500 Laurier Avenue West (where residents expressed concerns regarding increased shadowing).  For the majority of the adjacent properties, shadow impacts are not increased with the proposed increase in height compared to what is permitted under the existing zoning by-law.


k.      Microclimate: The development should be designed to minimize adverse effects related to wind, snow drifting, and temperature on adjacent properties.  The subject site permits an apartment building with a maximum height of 37 metres.  It is not anticipated that the effects from the additional 16 metres requested will more significantly impact adjacent properties than what is permitted currently.  The design of the building provides for an appealing architecture, with the main front entrance clearly the dominant feature of the ground floor facade on Lyon Street and the entrances to townhome units the dominant feature of the ground floor facade on Gloucester Street.  Additional proposed landscaping on Lyon and Gloucester Streets as well as the proposed green roof creates a more desirable microclimate.


l.        Supporting Neighbourhood Services: The development should contribute to or be adequately served by existing or proposed services and amenities such as health facilities, schools, parks and leisure areas.  The site is located south of the Central Area and on the northern edge of Centretown.  Both areas provide sufficient neighbourhood services for this development.  The proposed development is within walking distance of a wide range of community services such as parks, schools, emergency services and a variety of commercial/service uses within the Central Area and on Bank Street.  Six parks are located within one kilometre of the site; a large grocery store is less than 500 metres from the site.  The addition of new residents to this section of downtown will contribute to the strengthening of local demand for retail and services, which would benefit the entire area by being accessible on foot.


Official Plan Amendment 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’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 High-Rise as a building of 10 storeys or more and will consider high-rise buildings in those areas that are: characterized by high-rise buildings having direct access to arterial roads; within 600 metres of a rapid transit station; within areas identified for high-rise buildings in the Zoning By-law; or within areas where a built form transition is appropriate.


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 architecture of the building provides a distinctive character to the building in terms of exterior treatment, scale and rhythm.  The exterior treatment and building finishes are vital to the architectural design of the proposed building and will be implemented through the Site Plan Control process. The Department is satisfied that the proposal meets the intent of policies of Official Plan Amendment 76.


Centretown Secondary Plan


The Centretown Secondary Plan in Volume 2 of the Official Plan intends to conserve and enhance the residential character of Centretown as an inner-city community with several identifiable neighbourhoods focused around defined commercial corridors and public open spaces.  Uses which are incompatible with the residential character are restricted through the Secondary Plan policies.


The Secondary Plan recognizes that the population of Centretown will increase over time, and that this increase will support the residential character of the area, benefiting the retail and commercial enterprises within Centretown and the Central Area. The Plan also recognizes that an increase in population in Centretown will be beneficial to the City-wide distribution of population and the use of existing public services and facilities. The Secondary Plan acknowledges that the neighbourhoods of Centretown will absorb some of the anticipated increase in population, however the Plan also acknowledges that certain neighbourhoods, such as the area west of Kent Street, the area between Elgin and O’Connor Streets south of Somerset Street, and the area east of Elgin Street, as more suitable to family living. Other neighbourhoods adjacent to Bank Street and along the northern boundary of Centretown are recognized as areas less suitable to family living where medium and high profile residential uses are more appropriate. The land use schedule defines the land use designations which are reflective of the desired use and built form patterns for the area. These designations are intended to serve as a framework within which the objectives and policy directions of the Secondary Plan are to be achieved. 


The subject lands are located immediately south of the Central Area and as such are designated as “High Profile Residential” on Schedule H of the Centretown Secondary Plan (the boundary between the Central Area and Centretown runs east-west along Gloucester Street). The High Profile Residential designation extends to the north to Gloucester Street, to the east to Metcalfe Street, to the south to Lisgar Street and to the west past O’Connor Street toward Bank Street. The designation permits a variety of dwelling types with accommodation suitable for one person and small family or non-family households. Buildings and uses accessory to, or compatible with, these residential types will be considered. In general, residential areas identified in the Secondary Plan are intended to include dwelling uses and may also include public service, minor retail as well as office uses which serve primarily the local population but are not necessarily limited to only the geographic area of Centretown.


The proposed residential building is located on the northern portion of the boundary of Centretown and serves as a transition from the retail and office buildings located to the north as part of the Central Area, to the residential areas to the south in the interior of Centretown. The zoning will maintain the existing flexibility within the R5B zoning which permits limited commercial uses, further meeting the intent of the Secondary Plan by providing a residential use but with the ability, in the future, to also provide accessory uses which serve the local population. The proposed rezoning is in keeping with the intent of the policies of the Centretown Secondary Plan.


Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing


The Urban Design Guidelines for High-Rise Housing state that development should provide compatibility in context, coordinate parking, services, and transit into the site, mix uses and open spaces, contribute to urban living and pedestrian-friendly streets, and provide a response to the physical environment and microclimate through design.  The guidelines promote high-rise buildings that contribute to views of the skyline and enhance image of the city. 


The proposed building supports the applicable guidelines. In particular, the proposal provides a transition to buildings further to the north, across Gloucester Street where a height of 64 metres is permitted.  The podium-like architectural feature is used in the east wing to complement the rhythm of the urban fabric along Lyon Street and includes an at-grade highly transparent pedestrian entrance, contributing to way-finding and place-making.  The building includes distinctive and stylish design features, building forms and shapes to contribute to a sense of place, Gloucester Street-accessed units provide a more pleasant and interactive pedestrian environment, a green roof is included, bicycle parking is close to the building entrance as well as secure long-term bicycle storage within the building, and underground parking and the garage entry will not detract from the streetscape.  The proposed development has proceeded through the Design Review process, as detailed in Document 4, and the architecture is of a high quality to ensure that views of the skyline are enhanced.


Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines


The intent of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Guidelines is to provide an urban design standard for assessing, promoting and achieving appropriate TOD within Ottawa.  The guidelines are applicable as the subject site is located less than 600 metres from the Slater Street and Albert Street rapid transit corridors.

The proposal supports the applicable guidelines in that document, including being a transit-supportive and high-density land use within walking distance of a rapid transit station, locating buildings close to each other and the front of the street, creating a transition in scale by stepping down building heights from those closer to transit to the north, providing architectural variety at grade to provide visual interest to pedestrians and highlight the building entrance, featuring a ground floor with highly transparent materials and appealing to pedestrians, providing underground parking, including landscaping elements and a  green roof, to help reduce urban heat and create a more comfortable microclimate.


Servicing Issues 


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


Concurrent Application 


The land to which the proposed zoning amendment applies is the subject of an application for Site Plan approval, file number D07-12-11-0018.




In summary, the proposed increase in height to 54 metres (17 storeys) and related amendments to performance standards supports the direction of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement and Strategic Directions of the Official Plan. The high-density residential development, which is located close to a transit station and in an area designated for high-profile residential buildings, will contribute to a greater housing mix and satisfies density targets for the City. Compatibility and design criteria, transportation and servicing have been addressed satisfactorily.


As the City does not yet have implementation guidelines to address Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Department is recommending the use of a holding provision to secure monies for community benefits through the Site Plan Control process.  The requirement for a holding provision will enable the provision of facilities that will benefit the greater community that can be secured in a site plan agreement for the development.




The holding provision can be lifted once the requirements of the Site Plan Control are met and the monies for community benefits are secured. In light of the discussion above, the Department recommends approval of the Zoning By-law amendment application.








Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. 




Councillor Holmes provided the following comments:


1.      It is clear from the comments made at the public meeting convened on March 23, 2011 that there are strong community objections to increased height, and that residents in adjacent building purchased their units based upon the present zoning, and the access to light and views that this provides. The proposed building should respect the current zoning provisions.


2.      The provision of 19 visitor parking spaces and 5 additional on-street parking spaces on Gloucester Street is an improvement to this proposal.




In the event that this matter is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a three to five day hearing would result.  Should the recommendation be adopted, it is expected that the hearing could be conducted using staff results.  If the application is refused, reasons for such refusal must be given.  In the event of an appeal of the refusal, an outside planning consultant would need to be retained to provide evidence in support of Council's position.  It is estimated that the cost of doing so would be $25,000 to $30,000.  




There are no risk implications.




If this application is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a three to five-day hearing would result. If the recommendation is adopted, the hearing could be conducted using staff results.


Should the recommendation be refused, reasons will have to be provided.  If an appeal of the refusal were to occur, an external planning consultant would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000. Funds are not budgeted for external planning consultants; the expense may impact Planning and Growth Management’s 2011 operating status.





An Environmental Impact Study was prepared to address the potential direct and indirect impacts of constructing a new condominium building near an active peregrine falcon nest on the Delta Hotel at 101 Lyon Street in downtown Ottawa.  The proposed development is located more than 230 metres from the nest site. Based on consultation with falcon experts, literature review and observations, the study concluded that there will be no negative impacts on the regulated habitat of this threatened bird provided that recommended mitigation measures are in place, which can be addressed through conditions in the site plan agreement.


A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was submitted as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment application and a subsequent modification to the original submission has been submitted as part of the Site Plan Control application. No significant issues were identified in the Phase I ESA.








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.




This application was processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendment applications.




Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 3    Proposed Site Plan

Document 4    Urban Design Review Panel Recommendations

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




DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING                                                    DOCUMENT 2


Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law


1.      The subject lands shown on Document 1 are rezoned from R5B[482] H(37) to R5B[XXXX] H(54)-h.

2.      Add a new exception, R5B[xxxx] H(54)-h to Section 239 with provisions similar in effect to the following:


Column III: Additional Land Uses Permitted:


- personal service business limited to barber shop, beauty parlour, or dry cleaner's distribution station
- place of assembly limited to a club
- retail store limited to a drug store, florist shop, news stand,
- restaurant


Column IV: Land Uses Prohibited:


- all uses except existing uses until the holding symbol is removed


Column V: Provisions:


- additional permitted uses other than place of assembly limited to a club restricted to ground floor or basement of residential use building

- minimum lot width: 10.2 m

- minimum front yard yard setback:

(i) for that part of the building 40 m or less above grade: 0 m

(ii) for that part of the building higher than 40 m above grade: 10 m

- minimum rear yard setback: 0 m

- minimum corner side yard setback:

            (i) for that part of the building 10 m or less above grade: 1.2 m

(ii) for that part of the building higher than 10 m above average grade: 1.8 m

- minimum interior side yard setback from the side lot line abutting  340 Gloucester Street, 337 and 333 Nepean Street:

(i) for that part of the building 3.8 m or less above grade: 0 m

(ii) for that part of the building higher than 3.8 m above grade: 6 m

- minimum interior side yard setback for the first 11.5 m back from the front lot line:

(i) for that part of the building 13 m or less above grade: 0 m

(ii) for that part of the building higher than 13 m above grade: 1.8 m

- minimum interior side yard setback in all other cases: 0 m

- minimum percentage of lot area required to be landscaped area: 5%

- minimum communal amenity area to be provided: 20 % of the required amenity area

- minimum required number of resident parking spaces: 97 spaces

- minimum required number of visitor parking spaces: 19 spaces

- despite Section 65, Table 65, Row 6(b), the maximum size and extent of projection for a balcony is 2 metres and may be as close as 0 metres to the corner lot line.

- despite Section 65, Table 65, Row 3, an Ornamental elements such as sills, belt courses, cornices, parapets and pilasters may be as close as 0 metres to any lot line.


- The holding symbol may not be removed until such time as the following conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department:

(a) The execution of a site plan agreement; and

(b) The conveyance of monies to be directed to a reserve account for off-site community benefits as detailed in the site plan agreement referenced in (a).

PROPOSED SITE PLAN                                                                                    DOCUMENT 3

Urban Design Review Panel Recommendations                       DOCUMENT 4


General Comments


·         The Panel thanks the applicant for responding comprehensively to the comments given at the pre-consultation meeting and for a clear presentation.

·         The Panel congratulates the applicant on addressing sustainability issues.


Built Form and Streetscape


·         The Panel thinks the applicant did a good job rationalizing and describing the 4 storey volume along Lyon Street, which also appears consistent in scale with existing development immediately across the street.

·         The new fenestration pattern on the Lyon Street elevations works well and adds horizontality to the narrow facades. Increasing the clear-storey windows from two feet to three feet helps break up the façade.

·         The Panel appreciates the applicant’s thoughtful response to improving the Gloucester Street townhouses, which were originally a concern.

·         The Panel suggests the proponent consider a 4 storey datum line that wraps around onto Gloucester Street from Lyon Street.

·         The Panel appreciates the quiet foil to the heritage buildings, illustrated through the respectful treatment of the existing datum line.

·         The Panel supports the applicant’s conversion of the units on the Lyon Street podium to single units per floor.




·         The Panel emphasizes the vital importance of the street trees proposed. It is critical that the applicant follow through with the planting of these trees. The Panel notes that the responsibility of the City’s technical services to ensure that the planting can occur and that there is adequate soil volume for the trees.

·         In response to the issue of the sewer line being close to the surface (where the trees are intended to be planted), the Panel suggests possibly creating raised beds in order to increase the soil volume for the trees. This would also avoid the issue of the roots wrapping around the sewer pipes below. Another suggestion is to provide a water source closer to the surface, so that roots concentrate in the upper eighteen inches of the soil. Furthermore, the applicant can choose a species of tree that requires less soil space for its roots.




·         The Panel is generally pleased with how the applicant has employed the materials within the site; the Panel particularly appreciates the use of brick.

·         The Panel feels the use of vertical wood frames on the Gloucester Street side successfully provides an identity to the units.

·         Some Panelists have slight reservations about how dark the materials are, due to the climate in Ottawa, but note that the contrast with the extensive glazing and other materials should alleviate this concern.


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.  An information session was held in the community on March 23, 2011.  A summary of the public comments and staff responses are provided below.





·         As a pedestrian walking along Gloucester Street, a 54 metre building will cause more shadows than the permitted 37 metres.

·         Increased shadowing will cause the death of mature trees on the north side of Gloucester Street.

·         I am the owner of an adjacent business and would like to have a patio.  Having a building so high will affect the sunlight.

·         A 37 metre building would still allow for sunlight at my place but the 54 metre building will cast an enormous shadow and render my home dungeonlike and dreary.

·         The increase in height from 37 metres to 54 metres is not minor.

·         The proposed height is not in keeping with the immediate surroundings and would dwarf many neighbouring buildings.

·         The proposed development would interfere with the view I currently enjoy.

·         I would like to see urban development more along the lines of European cities, where apartment buildings are typically no more than 6-10 storeys tall.

·         High rise complexes at Bronson Avenue and Laurier Avenue West, Bronson Avenue and Albert Street and Laurier Avenue West all exceed the by-law height limitation and this should not become the norm.  If so-called minor variances continue to be approved for all high-rise projects in the downtown core, what is the purpose of having a by-law stipulating maximum building heights?




The sun shadow study submitted as part of the proposal illustrates that shadows from the proposed buildings move from west to east and fall to the north.  Shadows do not reach into the block across Gloucester Street at all on June 21st, anytime of the day.  On March 21st and September 21st there is a moderate increase in the extent of shadows between a 37 and 54 metre building.  However, the shadows do not extend to the buildings at 470 Laurier Avenue or 500 Laurier Avenue West (where residents expressed concerns regarding increased shadowing).  For the majority of the adjacent properties, shadow impacts are not increased with the proposed increase in height compared to what is permitted under the existing zoning by-law.


The proposal is for a zoning amendment and not for a minor variance.  The Department recognizes that the proposal is taller than the current buildings on the block.  The request has been evaluated in terms of impact and compatibility with the surrounding community, and the Departmental position is not based on the numerical increase alone.  The other part of evaluating impact was consideration of the pedestrian experience at the streetscape or ground level.  To that end, design elements ensure that the proposed building serves to enhance the streetscape.  Also, there is recognition that while some properties within the subject block to the south are low-rise residential buildings, the Secondary Plan designates this area as “high-profile,” the zoning by-law permits high-rise apartment buildings and the current zoning permits 37 metres.  The subject property exists in an urban context where views continue to evolve.  The evaluation must be based not only on the existing context, but on the policy direction and intent for the future context.



·         Decreasing the number of parking spaces will further compound the on-street parking problems created by the introduction of segregated bike lanes on Laurier Avenue.

·         I oppose the proposal to reduce the required number of parking spaces, in particular, its proposal to reduce the number of visitor spaces to 4 from 48

·         Bicycles or useful urban transit will not completely replace cars for the majority of people.

·         New buildings should be encouraged to provide maximum parking for residents and visitors.

·         Nearby older building have very little or no visitor parking and so they use the on-street parking.  New building will mean conflict for these spaces.

·         Residents who do not have automobiles initially will get one later and require a parking spot.

·         The 4 houses that will be demolished by this project all operate some kind of parking, totaling 34 spaces.

·         The building that I live in has one parking space for each unit and there is always a demand for spaces to rent.

·         High demand for on-street parking in the area during working hours due to proximity of several office buildings.

·         Where are delivery vehicles going to park?

·         So little choice for grocery shopping in the area that owners/renters need to drive far to get groceries and need to own a car.

·         If you improve the parking so as to make this a happy, vibrant area then the height of the building is irrelevant.




The Official Plan states that 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.  The Department does not have issue with the requested reduction to parking spaces for future residents.  However, the Department did initially have concern about the requested reduction to visitor parking spaces, recognizing the existing pressure for on-street parking in the area due to deficiencies of visitor parking spaces in other buildings, and competition for space with the new bike lane on Laurier Avenue.  While the applicant was initially proposing a reduction from the required 48 visitor parking spaces to five, they have since revised their proposal to reduce the number of dwelling units and increase the visitor parking provided. 


The proposed number of units is now 240 which means the zoning by-law requires 46 visitor parking spaces.  The previous zoning by-law requirement for visitor parking spaces would have been 19 and there is recognition within the department that the current by-law requirement is significantly more and may not accurately reflect the requirements for visitor parking.  The applicant is now proposing 19 visitor parking spaces.


Also, the subject site currently contains several different driveways to the various buildings.  Through the redevelopment, the driveway will be consolidated into one single access, and the introduction of on-street parking on the south side of Gloucester Street means that the potential for five additional on-street parking spaces is created through the proposed development.


Loading space has been provided at grade at the rear of the building to minimize any impact of loading and delivery vehicles on the adjacent buildings.


Residential parking is being provided within the building, but it is anticipated that patrons of any new land uses will not be required to drive to and from the site and will in fact be able to walk, cycle or take public transit, offering a viable alternative to car ownership and requirement for a parking space.  The subject site is located approximately 300 metres from the future Downtown West transit station, which will provide a viable alternative to car use to and from the site.  The addition of new residents to this Section of downtown will contribute to the strengthening of local demand for retail and services, which would benefit the entire area by being accessible on foot.  The Department is satisfied that the proposed amount of residential and visitor parking will be sufficient for the building and will not cause undue adverse impact on the surrounding community.




·         The area is congested with traffic

·         Increased traffic to the street will create challenges


Response: A Transportation Brief was prepared in support of the application, and indicates that existing traffic conditions within the study area are very good and are operating within City standards for the Central Area and that resulting site-generated traffic will have a negligible effect on the overall operations of study area intersections. 


Other Comments:


·         Too many units are proposed

Response: There is no required maximum on the number of units for proposed buildings, which are evaluated on impact and compatibility.


·         Gloucester is a key pedestrian route.  More garages means conflict with pedestrians.

Response: The number of cuts to the curb that exists on the site currently will be reduced to one garage entry, reducing the potential points of conflict with pedestrians.


·         The architectural concepts presented were inaccurate

Response:  The Department recognizes that rendering originally provided by the applicant contained an inaccuracy with regards to the portrayal of an adjacent building.  Renderings have since been revised to ensure accuracy.


·         Concern about wind effects of high-rise building on the streetscape

Response:  A 37 metre high-rise apartment building is permitted as of right on the site currently and it is not anticipated that the additional height will increase wind effects over what is permitted.  Increased landscaping will also improve the microclimate of the streetscape.


·         If I had known that a bigger building than what the by-law allows might be permitted, I probably would have not chosen to buy my place.

·         Nobody wants a 17-storey building in their backyard, even those of us living downtown.

·         Requesting a zoning by-law amendment seems like a colourable attempt to circumvent requesting a minor variance.

Response: A Zoning By-law Amendment is a permitted process under the Planning Act and can be proposed for any property.  A Zoning By-law Amendment is typically longer, costlier and includes more analysis by the Department than an application for a minor variance to the Committee of Adjustment.  While a minor variance application was an option because the proposed use is permitted, staff recommended to the applicant that the Zoning By-law Amendment process be completed due to the complexity of the requested changes.  Planning policies are constantly evolving and each application has to be evaluated on its own merits.  Static zoning regulations do not take evolving technology and trends in city building into account.  A proposed Zoning Amendment is evaluated based on current policy direction, impact and compatibility.    


·         The “No parking at anytime” restriction on the south side of Gloucester will be removed when parking is permitted on both sides of Gloucester Street.  Vision will be obscured for vehicles coming out of the garage entrance and be a traffic hazardous situation.

Response: Underground parking is the preferred method of accommodating parking for the proposed building.  The creation of new on-street parking spaces on Gloucester Street will create a benefit to the surrounding buildings and drivers will be required to take responsibility for entering and exiting the underground garage safely.  The provided traffic study did not speak to any concerns regarding safety of the proposed access to the underground garage.


·         Concern with south lot line yard reduction and impact on properties to the south.

Response: While the requested change to zoning is to permit the lower storeys of the building to be 0 metres from the south property line, the upper storeys of the building are setback six metres from the south property line.  The south elevation mirrors the north with the main framed volume floating above a second storey terrace. A planter runs the length of the terrace and provides a buffer between the backyards of the neighbouring homes to the south and mediates a significant change in elevation from the south to the north side of the site. 

The provided sun-shadow study further illustrates that shadows fall to the north of the property and do not impact properties that exist to the south.


·         Unlike the market, this end of downtown is very clean, quiet and free of panhandlers and the homeless.  I am concerned that the more condos are built and the bigger they area, the more we lose that aspect of our community.

Response:  The Department is unaware of a relationship between condominium development and proximity to homeless people.  The current zoning permits a 37 metre high-rise apartment. 


·         With few communal amenities, the residents of the building will not develop a sense of community and that may lead to an increase in abusive behaviour on nearby streets.

·         Increased trees should be planted.

·         Little green space is proposed by the project.

Response:  On the second storey and above, the south face of the building will be recessed by six metres. This will allow the four units located in the southern portion of the building to benefit from private terraces facing south, while a common terrace will also be provided as an extension to the amenity room.  Private terraces are provided for the 4th floor unit in the east wing and for the penthouses on the 17th floor, while a private roof terrace is provided on the 14th floor. Other units will benefit from private balconies.  The applicant is requesting a reduction to landscaped open space as part of the proposal.  The Department recognizes that there are six parks located within one kilometre of the subject site, the applicant is proposing a green roof, and streetscaping will be improved on both Gloucester and Lyon Streets.  Therefore the Department is satisfied that the requested reduction to landscape space and communal amenity area is appropriate. 


·         Neighbouring buildings will experience a property value reduction.

Response:  Property value increase or reduction is not analyzed as part of the Department review of a planning application.


·         530 Laurier was not circulated the zoning by-law amendment proposal in the mail.

Response:  Properties within 120 metres of the subject site were circulated the Zoning By-law amendment by mail.  The property at 530 Laurier Avenue is approximately 150 metres from the subject property and so did not fall within the criteria for circulation.  Comments are considered and responded to by the department from anyone who submits them, regardless of their address.


Comments of Support:


·         I am not opposed to the new building and welcome the addition of more people living downtown

·         The new building is gorgeous and would look fantastic.

·         This proposal is interesting, a rather nice modern design, green roof, bike storage included.

·         This is a nice development, which is good.

·         I have no objections to this highrise project.  It is time for this council to realize that we are a big city.  Think big instead of small townish.  Ottawa citizens and council are known as “not in my backyard”.



Centretown Citizens Community Association (CCCA):

The provision of ground-floor bicycle parking for residents and for visitors, the green roof, the indoor loading dock, the ground-floor townhouse entrances, and the separation of massing are all positive design elements that improve the quality of design of this building above some others we have seen in recent months. However, the CCCA objects to numerous elements of this re-zoning application.

The height should not exceed 12 storeys as per the current zoning and as intended in the Centretown Plan. The neighbouring hirise building, May Nickson Place, is 12 storeys, and the site borders on detached houses, including one at the corner that is not likely developable. The increased traffic from this building could have a negative effect on the ability of children to walk to Centennial Public School one block away.

The setbacks should not be reduced. The building borders on the rear lot line adjacent to the detached houses on the south side of this block, creating just the type of imposition intended to be avoided by the setback regulations. Building up to the lot line will severely restrain the viability of future redevelopment of the remaining lots into a hirise (i.e. up to 12 storeys) development as sought for this part of the neighbourhood in the Centretown Plan, except with a blank wall that obscures the view of south-facing residents of 224 Lyon.

The loss of mature trees should be mitigated by replacement trees planted on- or off-site, at a ratio far exceeding 1:1. The rendering of the site shows a row of shrubs or trees along the south side of the building, which appears to contradict the zoning's request to build to the lot line.

The ratio of resident to visitor parking spaces is unclear from the circulation document.  Visitor parking must be included in sufficient amounts given that Gloucester and Nepean streets are already at capacity for on-street parking, and additional parking will be displaced to those streets from Laurier Avenue as part of the Segregated Bike Lane pilot project.

Nevertheless, if the height increase is approved, the City should seek a Section 37 agreement for the increased density. Possible Community Benefits that could be sought for this site include:

  • Bus shelters to protect residents waiting for the bus in poor weather conditions
  • Public benches for pedestrians and seniors to rest while walking
  • School improvements to Centennial Public School
  • Affordable housing and/or funds for the provision thereof
  • Additional public trees and/or funds for the provision thereof elsewhere in the neighbourhood, given the imminent loss of many trees to the Emerald Ash Borer



With respect to concerns of height, parking and impact on properties to the south, please see the responses above to summary of public input.  Seven trees are proposed in the City Right-of-way as part of the approved landscape plan and a green roof is also proposed.  Visitor parking has been increased from the initially proposed 5 spaces to a total of 19 spaces. 


A Section 37-like agreement is being included as part of the subject application for increased height with funds directed towards the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.  The Department is recommending that a holding provision be used to ensure that the monies for the community benefit are secured through the Site Plan Control agreement prior to the lifting of the holding provision.




ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0133                                                                  SOMERSET (14)


(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)




That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326, 328 Gloucester Street as shown in Document 1 from R5B [482] H(37) to R5B [xxxx] H(54)-h as detailed in Document 2.


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

·         E-mail dated 10 June 2011 from Agustí Bordas i Cuscó

·         E-mail dated 13 June 2011 from Sheilagh Gregory


Erin O’Connell, Planner, provided an overview of the re-zoning application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval.  She did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.


Committee heard from the following public delegations:


Agustí Bordas i Cuscó,* resident of Laurier Avenue West, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. He expressed concern with the process followed for the amendment and the actions of the developer and staff.  Specific concerns are outlined in detail in his written submission.


He highlighted that incorrect and misleading renderings and scale models of the proposed building in relation to its surroundings were originally provided by the applicants for public consultation.  He also expressed concern with the height of the proposal, and the fact that the height seemed to have been revised upward since the beginning of consultation. He signaled his intent to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board should Committee and Council approve the amendment.


Natalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants; Charles Gane, CORE architects; and Brad Lamb, Lamb Development Corp.,* were present for the applicant, in support of the proposal.   They addressed the concerns of the previous delegations, apologizing for the rendering error that portrayed the neighbouring high-rise building as being 16 metres instead of 12 metres.

They emphasized that it was an unintentional error and noted they had subsequently surveyed the tops of the surrounding buildings and provided correct renderings.


Ms. Hughes provided an overview of the proposal by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.  She highlighted the following:

·            The current Zoning is outdated given subsequent changes to the City’s Official Plan and growth-management Strategies, which indicate the subject site is an appropriate location for increased heights.  The draft Mid-Centretown Community Design Plan also identifies this area for increased heights.

·            The proposal provides an appropriate transition to the South, a modern and attractive design and street-scaping and landscaping on Lyon and Gloucester Streets.

·            The proposal replaces under-utilized site, provides new dwelling units in Centretown provides efficient use of land and infrastructure, and is transit-supportive.

·            The proponent is contributing a $263,000 community benefit towards affordable housing.

·            The parking allocation meets the former by-law requirements and is consistent with other projects, given the proposal is on the edge of the central area and close to amenities.


*    Presentation and/or comments held on file with the Committee Coordinator.





Moved by Councillor S. Qadri:


WHEREAS Report ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0133 recommends zoning changes to the lands known municipally as 224 Lyon Street and 324, 326 and 328 Gloucester Street;


AND WHEREAS it has been determined that balconies project varying distances to within 0 metres of various lot lines;


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


(2)               Replace the text “despite Section 65, Table 65, Row 6(b), the maximum size and extent of projection for a balcony is 2 metres and may be as close as 0 metres to the corner lot line” with “Table 65, Row 6 does not apply to a balcony and a balcony may project any distance into a required yard and as close as 0 metres to any lot line”.


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





The report recommendation was put to Committee and CARRIED, as amended by Motion PLC 15/1.