2. ZONING – 2851 BANK STREET
ZONAGE – 2851, RUE BANK
(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the Residential Third Zone (R3Y ) of 2851 Bank Street, as shown on Document 1, by amending the current zoning exception  to increase the allowable density from seven to eight dwelling units, as detailed in Document 2.
Recommandation DU Comité
(Cette question est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil approuve une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer le zonage Zone résidentielle de densité 3 (R3Y ) du 2851, rue Bank, comme le montre le document 1, en modifiant l’exception de zonage actuelle , et ce, afin de faire passer la densité permise de sept à huit unités d’habitation, comme l’explique en détail le document 2.
1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 23 September 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0194).
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
23 September 2011 / le 23 septembre 2011
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Derrick Moodie, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review/Examen des projets d'aménagement
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 15134 Derrick.Moodie@ottawa.ca
Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0194
That recommend Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the Residential Third Zone (R3Y ) of 2851 Bank Street, as shown on Document 1, by amending the current zoning exception  to increase the allowable density from seven to eight dwelling units, as detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer le zonage Zone résidentielle de densité 3 (R3Y ) du 2851, rue Bank, comme le montre le document 1, en modifiant l’exception de zonage actuelle , et ce, afin de faire passer la densité permise de sept à huit unités d’habitation, comme l’explique en détail le document 2.
The subject property, 2851 Bank Street, is a vacant lot located on the east side of Bank Street, between St. Bernard Street to the north and Rosebella Avenue to the south, and is located within the Blossom Park Community. The property is an interior lot having a 42 metre frontage on Bank Street and an area of approximately 2694 square metres.
Surrounding area development consists of back lotted townhouses on the west side of Bank Street, detached dwellings fronting Bank Street to the north, and a planned unit development of detached dwellings to the south and east located on a private street. The property also partially abuts an infill development of detached dwelling to the northeast that fronts Treetop Court, which is a municipal street.
Previous Zoning Amendment
In 2004, the City received an application, to amend the former City of Gloucester Zoning By-law at 2851 Bank Street from a Single Dwelling Zone (Rs2) to a Row Dwelling Exception Zone (Rr1). The exception to the Row Dwelling Zone limited the density to a maximum of seven dwelling units. This zoning amendment was approved by City Council and was not appealed.
Purpose of Zoning Amendment
The purpose of this minor rezoning amendment is to permit an increase in the allowable dwelling unit density from seven units to eight units in order to accommodate the construction of a planned unit development consisting of four detached dwellings and a four-door townhouse block located on a private street.
The Row Dwelling Exception Zone (Rr1) from the former City of Gloucester By-law was translated to be Residential Third Exception Zone (R3Y ) in the harmonization of the Zoning By-laws. The site specific exception limits residential development to seven dwelling units.
The proposed zoning would allow a site specific exception to increase the allowable number of dwelling units from seven to eight.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land-use planning and development by promoting efficient land use patterns that support development of viable liveable communities.
Contained within the Policy Statement is an explicit policy objective to promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where there is the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate projected needs for intensification.
In this circumstance there exists an opportunity to redevelop an existing underutilized, vacant parcel of land. The applicant is amending the original development proposal of townhouse dwellings to a planned unit development of detached and townhouse dwelling units resulting in an increase of one dwelling unit. This modest proposal for intensification is consistent with the Province’s policy objectives for intensification.
The Official Plan designates this property as Arterial Mainstreet. The general direction for Arterial Mainstreets is that development is to occur in a way that facilitates the gradual transition to a more urban pattern of land use. This means that, over time, more residential uses will be introduced, where appropriate. On Arterial Mainstreets, development will occur in a way that facilitates the gradual transition to more intensive forms of development. This could mean that, over time, higher density employment and residential uses could be introduced, where appropriate.
In terms of this proposal, the introduction of a planned unit development consisting of detached and townhouses dwellings, has located the detached dwellings towards the rear of the property. This is consistent with the character of the adjacent neighbourhood to the northeast, east and south of the site where the abutting developments consists of infill development of detached dwellings that occur on both private and public streets.
To ensure that land uses are appropriate where proposed, the Official Plan contains additional polices indicating that development should form an integral part of the community and be compatible with surrounding neighbourhood uses. To achieve this, the amendments to the Zoning By-law will regulate the location, scale and type of land uses. The current R3Y zone designation provides that control, in that the neighbouring residential developments share the same R3Y zoning performance standards that include such things as the minimum lot size, building height and setbacks. In addition, staff are currently processing a site plan application for this property, which will ensure that any site design and function issues, such as, landscaping, tree preservation and fencing, are satisfactorily addressed.
It is generally recognized that infill intensification may not be similar in use and size with adjacent uses. However, in order to achieve the Official Plan’s strategic directions for managing growth other considerations may apply, such as intensification occurring close to major roads or on the periphery of established neighbourhoods. The proposal provides an appropriate transition in unit type locating the detached dwellings at the rear of the property and locating the block of townhouse dwelling towards the Bank Street.
This is in keeping with the general character of the existing neighbourhood on the west side of Bank Street, where there are back lotted townhouses. The difference with the 2851 Bank Street proposal is that the townhouses are orientated perpendicularly to Bank Street and are not back lotted, which is preferable in so far that it establishes some form of presence onto Bank Street.
Impact on Neighbourhood
The primary concern expressed by the public dealt with the potential spill over of visitor parking onto the local streets already experiencing a shortage of available on-street parking spaces. Currently, the site plan is proposing a total of four visitor parking spaces; where as the Zoning By law requires only two parking spaces.
In comparison to the existing neighbouring infill residential developments, the availability of on-street and the provided on-site visitor parking spaces works out to be at a dwelling unit ratio of 1:2 which is the same as what 2851 Bank Street is proposing.
In summary, staff are satisfied that the proposal to change the zoning to permit an increase in the number of residential dwelling units by one at 2851 Bank Street is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan. Therefore, the requested Zoning By-law amendment is recommended for approval.
The applicant has filed with the City a site plan application, to construct a plan unit development consisting of four townhouse dwellings and four detached dwellings.
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. A public information meeting was held by Ward Councillor Diane Deans on July 7, 2011 at the 343 Parking Circle – McLean Co-operative Homes. Comments received from the City’s public notification and the public information meeting have been summarized and responded to in Document 4.
The history for 2851 Bank Street dates back to 2005, when the City of Ottawa received an application for a re-zoning requesting a change from Rs2 (Single Dwelling) Zone to Rr1 Exception (Row Dwelling) Zone to allow for 11 town homes. The surrounding community opposed the re-zoning for 11 units. After significant community feedback and several community meetings, the applicant revised their application to 7 dwelling units. City Council voted to place a cap of 7 residential dwelling units on this site. On July 7, 2011 I hosted a community meeting for the applicant to present their proposal to increase the number of dwelling units from 7 to 8.
Please address the following community concerns:
1. Please ensure the property is constructed with proper catch basins and swales to ensure that the drainage is self contained to the site and will not adversely affect abutting property owners and ensure that the engineering is to City Standards.
2. Please ensure that there is sufficient room on site for temporary snow storage and that the location will not cause adverse effects to abutting property owners.
3. Please request the applicant provide a noise study to determine the sound attenuation measures that will be required to mitigate noise on site.
4. How will the garbage be picked up on this site? Where will all the various cans and boxes be located prior to and on waste collection pick-up day? I would like to ensure that staff consult with Solid Waste Services to determine how best to collect the various bins on site.
There are no legal implications associated with the report. However, if the By-law is passed by Council and appealed, the matter should take approximately two days in front of the Ontario Municipal Board. If Council refuses the application and the matter is appealed by the applicant, Council will have to provide written reasons for its decision. As well, Legal Services will have to retain an external planning consultant in order to defend Council’s position before the Board. It is estimated that the expense for a two day hearing in front of the Ontario Municipal Board, with an external planning consultant will be $30,000-$40,000.
Potential costs are outlined in the Legal Implications section above. Should the services of an external planner be required, funds ($30,000 to $40,000) are not available within existing budget, and the expense may impact Planning and Growth Management’s operating budget status.
Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments owing to additional public consultation.
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Landscape Plan
Document 4 Consultation Details
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning and Growth Management to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
That Exception  of Section 239 be amended to increase the maximum allowable residential dwelling units from seven to eight units.
SITE PLAN Document 3
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 4
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. A public information meeting was held by Ward Councillor Diane Deans on July 7, 2011 at the 343 Parking Circle – McLean Co-operative Homes. Comments made by the public during this meeting have been included in the summary of public comments received through the public notification of this application. A total of 17 comments were received from City’s public notification and the public information meeting.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comment: A number of comments requested that the detached home in the right corner be deleted so an existing pine tree can be preserved. This would also allow for a more appropriate spacing between the remaining detached dwelling units.
Response: A Tree Preservation Plan has been submitted with the site plan application, which is running concurrently with the zoning application and, whereas the specific pine tree will not be preserved due to its location on the site, efforts have been made within the proposed development layout to preserve a number of other existing trees on the site. With respect to building separation, the current R3Y zone designation imposes the same building setbacks between dwelling units as was imposed and reflected in the abutting detached housing development to the east and south of the subject property.
Comment: Numerous concerns were expressed regarding the lack of on-site snow storage capacity on the development proposal and a further comment added that snow storage should not block stormwater outlets. Additional concerns were also received related to snow removal cost overruns that have been experienced in heavier snowfall years by a neighbouring residential condominium development located on a private street similar to what is being proposed at 2851 Bank Street.
Response: Through the site plan approval process, snow storage areas will be identified and appropriately located so as not to block the outletting of stormwater. The grading plan will also be designed in such a way that the stormwater and snow melt will be contained to the property.
Comment: The negative impact on the neighbouring drainage was an additional common concern expressed in the public’s feedback. This included existing overland flows impacting neighbouring wells and septic systems to the north, as well as and other surrounding area properties.
Response: The drainage and stormwater management plans are currently being reviewed under the site plan control application. Although these plans have yet to be finalized, in the application of current engineering standards and practices, the overall existing overland flows are expected to remain the same or even result in an improvement to the overall drainage patterns.
Comment: A number of comments dealt directly at the proposed increase in density being inappropriate for the lot size.
Response: There are two adjacent infill residential developments to this proposal, both of which share the same R3Y zone designation. The large infill development of detached dwellings, which is also on a private street, is estimated to have a density of 24.8 units per hectare, whereas the proposal at 2851 Bank Street, the proposed density is 29.74 units per hectare. This would underscore that the same performance standards of minimum building setbacks, and minimum lot width and area are being applied. The marginal increase in the density of 2851 Bank Street can be accounted for by it including townhouse units which have been appropriately located towards Bank Street, which provides for a transitional building form from the neighbouring detached dwelling units. The second infill development of detached dwellings is located on a public street to the northeast of 2851 Bank Street and has an estimated density of 19.0 units per hectare. The reduction in density for this infill development is a result of a wider public right-of-way width within the infill development area. As such, the request for an increase in density for 2851 Bank Street is felt to be appropriate.
Comment: Most of the comments received indicated that the development plan did not provide sufficient on-site visitor parking, which will result in overflow parking from this development onto already over taxed municipal streets.
Response: Here to a comparison has been made with the above mentioned neighbouring infill residential developments. For the residential development on a private street, the ratio of visitor parking is 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit, which is the same ratio the development proposal at 2851 Bank Street is providing. With respect to the on-street visitor parking for the infill residential development on a public road allowance, there appears to be very few legal parking spaces available when applying the Traffic and Parking By-law that requires a vehicle be setback 1.5 metres from a driveway or laneway. Recognizing that on-street parking does not always respect this setback, an estimate of six legal and non-legal, on-street parking spaces can be accommodated on that public street.
Comment: One comment expressed a concern over the emergency vehicles access to the site being too restrictive.
Response: The site plan proposal was circulated to Fire Services and they expressed no concerns regarding what has been proposed.
Two comments in support were received for the revised development proposal. One was conditional support that on privacy fencing is incorporated in the development plan including the replacement an existing chain link fence. The other was an unconditional support received indicating that this site has been vacant for too long.
A final comment indicated preference to the revised mix of detached and townhouse dwellings development proposal over the original proposal for seven townhouse units but still expressed concerns on the site drainage, on-site snow storage and visitor parking being provided.
Finally, City snow removal operations were criticized by the infrequent service provided on local municipal streets and sidewalks. St. Bernard in particular was signalled out as having been reduced to one lane and resulting in the elimination of on-street parking.