4. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION - 22 CLEMOW AVENUE

DECISION DU COMITE DE DEROGATION – 22, AVENUE CLEMOW

Committee recommendation

That Council approve the plans prepared by Barry J. Hobin and Associates Architects shown in Document 1 to satisfy a condition set out in the Committee of Adjustment decision shown as Document 2 for an infill development at 22 Clemow Avenue subject to the following: the Owners withdrawing their appeal filed to By-law 2011-346 designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District under Section 41 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act within five days of Council’s approval of the plans.

Recommandation DU Comité

Que le Conseil approuve les plans préparés par Barry J. Hobin and Associates Architects, tel que le montre le Document 1, en vue de satisfaire une condition exposée dans la décision du Comité de dérogation, ci-jointe en tant que Document 2, concernant un aménagement intercalaire au 22, avenue Clemow, sous réserve de ce qui suit : que les propriétaires retirent leur appel déposé pour le Règlement 2011-346 et désignant le district de conservation du patrimoine de l’est du domaine de Clemow, en vertu de l’article 41 (1) de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, dans les cinq jours suivant l’approbation des plans par le Conseil.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 21 December 2011 (ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0020).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 10 January 2012.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme

and Council / et au Conseil

21 December 2011 / le 21 décembre 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 : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire , Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca

Capital (17)

Ref N°: ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0020

SUBJECT:	Committee of Adjustment DECISION - 22 Clemow Avenue

OBJET :	décision du comité de dérogation – 22, avenue Clemow

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Committee recommend Council approve the plans prepared by Barry J. Hobin and Associates Architects shown in Document 1 to satisfy a condition set out in the Committee of Adjustment decision shown as Document 2 for an infill development at 22 Clemow Avenue subject to the following: the Owners withdrawing their appeal filed to By-law 2011-346 designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District under Section 41 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act within five days of Council’s approval of the plans.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver les plans préparés par Barry J. Hobin and Associates Architects, tel que le montre le Document 1, en vue de satisfaire une condition exposée dans la décision du Comité de dérogation, ci-jointe en tant que Document 2, concernant un aménagement intercalaire au 22, avenue Clemow, sous réserve de ce qui suit : que les propriétaires retirent leur appel déposé pour le Règlement 2011-346 et désignant le district de conservation du patrimoine de l’est du domaine de Clemow, en vertu de l’article 41 (1) de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, dans les cinq jours suivant l’approbation des plans par le Conseil.

BACKGROUND

Twenty-two Clemow Avenue is a vacant lot located in the Glebe. The lot was created through a Consent for Severance application approved by the Committee of Adjustment in September, 2011. The property is located within the boundaries of the recently approved Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District. The proposed infill project for the site is a three-storey, three units building with an underground parking garage. To accommodate this development, the Committee of Adjustment in addition to giving approval to the severance to create the new lot, also approved a minor variance application subject to conditions which included a requirement for Council to approve the plans for the infill development should Council enact a by-law designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District within 60 days of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.

By-law 2011-346 designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District was passed by Council on September 28, 2011 within 60 days of the Committee of Adjustment decision. To satisfy the condition imposed on the minor variance application, the Owners have requested that staff bring forward the plans for the proposed infill to Council for its approval to allow the approval given by the Committee of Adjustment to be finalized.

DISCUSSION

City Council approved the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District Plan in July 2011. The owners submitted applications in August 2011 to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever to create a new vacant lot and Minor Variances from the Zoning By-law for the proposed infill project for the new lot as follows:

To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 6.0 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 m; and
To permit a reduced driveway width of 4.4 m, for the driveway leading to the underground parking garage, whereas the By-law requires a minimum driveway width of 6.7 m.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent and variances on September 7, 2011 with the following condition attached to the approval of the minor variance application:

The proposed construction being in accordance with the revised plans filed and the Committee of Adjustment date-stamped July 25, 2011 and August 23, 2011, or, in the event that City Council passes the heritage designation by-law within 60 days of this decision, the proposed construction being in accordance with the plans approved by Council in exercising its jurisdiction under the Ontario Heritage Act.

City Council passed By-law 2011-346 designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District on September 28, 2011 which was within the 60 day time frame noted in the Committee of Adjustment Decision. As such, City Council approval of the plans for the proposed infill development is required.

By-law 2011-346 has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the applicant as a result of concerns that the district designation and associated Management Plan would preclude the applicant from proceeding with the proposed development.

In this regard, the Management Plan included within the guidelines for new construction direction that below grade parking not be allowed. Until the appeal is disposed of, the by-law designating the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District is not in effect. Consequently, while the Committee of Adjustment decision noted that the requirement for Council approval of the plans would be based on Council exercising its jurisdiction under the Ontario Heritage Act, no application can be submitted at this time requiring Council to consider approving the plans outside a formal Heritage Act application. Council approval of the plans therefore is to satisfy the requirements of the Committee of Adjustment decision for Council to give approval to the plans outside the parameters of the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant has further agreed to withdraw their appeal to By-law 2011‑346 within five days of receiving Council approval of the plans for this project.

When the plans for the proposed infill were initially submitted to the Committee of Adjustment, staff had some concerns regarding the proposed landscaping and the garage and driveway at the front of the proposed new development. To address these, the owners have modified their plans for the project following the approval given by the Committee of Adjustment.

The proposed building as reflected on the modified plans included as Document 1 retains the three‑story, three unit building with an underground parking garage, however, modifications have been made to the landscape treatment and parking access to better integrate into the streetscape and ensure that the garage will not dominate the façade or streetscape. It is further noted that the manner in which parking is to be provided is in full conformity with the Zoning By‑law.

The building is a contemporary interpretation of the eclectic architectural styles found in the Clemow Estate East district. The building incorporates typical materials such as stucco, brick, and common detailing including geometric decorations, offset entrance and tall chimney. The setback of the building matches the neighbouring buildings at 20 and 24 Clemow Avenue and the front yard landscaping has been designed to be sympathetic to existing grade and the open lawns and terraced walkways typical in the neighbourhood. While the garage entrance remains at the front of the house, it has been set back further then what was initially proposed and has been recessed beneath the terrace to minimize its impact on the streetscape and façade. For these reasons, staff is satisfied that the proposal is sympathetic to the character of the neighbourhood and is generally in keeping with the directions set out in the Heritage Conservation District Management Plan. Staff are therefore recommending that the plans attached as Document 1 be approved and are further recommending that the approval be conditional on the owners withdrawing their appeal to By-law 2011-346 within five days of receiving Council approval of the plans for this project. This will allow this by-law to come into effect without having the OMB hear the appeal which is scheduled for March 2012.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

No consultation was undertaken as this matter is being brought forward to Council as a result of a Committee of Adjustment Decision. It is noted that no public opposition was expressed to the project at the Committee of Adjustment hearing.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

The Ward Councillor has been made aware of this matter and has been provided a copy of the modified plans that are included as Document 1.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

Council approval of the recommendations set out in this report will provide for the one appeal that was received to the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District to be withdrawn which would avoid the need for the OMB hearing which has been scheduled for March 2012.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications.

ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT

N/A

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS (optional)

N/A

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Objective F2: 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 City wants to protect the qualities and characteristics that define what is unique and special about each community while accommodating new growth.

Review applications as part of the development and infrastructure approval process for neighbourhood compatibility and the preservation of unique identities of our communities and villages.

Objective E8: Operationalize the Ottawa 20/20 Arts & Heritage Plan.

2.1.2 Identify and Protect Archaeological and Built Heritage Resources, Streetscapes, Public and Symbolic Civic Places and Cultural Landscapes

2.1.2.2 The City will preserve distinct built heritage, streetscapes and cultural heritage landscapes that serve as landmarks and symbols of local identity in both urban and rural districts, as outlined in the Official Plan.

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

N/A

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Development Plans – 22 Clemow Avenue

Document 2 Committee of Adjustment Decision – Minor Variance Application – 22 Clemow Avenue

DISPOSITION

City Clerk and Solicitor Department Legislative Services to:

Notify the applicant of Council’s decision, and
Advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the appeal to By-law 2011-346 has been withdrawn once the formal notice of withdraw of the appeal has been received to allow the Board to cancel the hearing scheduled for March 2012.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS – 22 CLEMOW AVENUE DOCUMENT 1

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION

Decision – Minor Variance Application

– 22 Clemow Avenue DOCUMENT 2

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

FOR THE CITY OF OTTAWA

DECISION

MINOR VARIANCE/PERMISSION

(Section 45 of the Planning Act)

File No./Dossier n^o: D08-02-11/A-00262

Owner/ Propriétaire: Douglas & Cheryl-Ann Casey (Under Agreement of Purchase & Sale)

Agent/ Représentant : Gord Lorimer

Legal Description//Description officielle: Lot 26 & Part Lots 25 & 27, Reg. Plan No. M40

Property Address/Adresse de la propriété : (22) Clemow Avenue

Zoning/Zonage: R3P

By-Law/Règlement: 2008-250

Ward/ Quartier: 17 - Capital

Former Municipality/Ancienne municipalité: Ottawa

Notice was given and a Public Hearing was held on Wednesday, September 7, 2011 as required by the Planning Act.

PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION/OBJET DE LA DEMANDE:

The Owners have filed a Consent Application (D08-01-11/B-00327) which, if approved, will have the effect of creating two separate parcels of land. The proposed development on the newly created and consolidated parcel of land will not be in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning By-law. The Owners want to construct a three-storey, three unit dwelling with underground parking, as shown on plans filed with the Committee.

RELIEF REQUIRED/DISPENSE REQUISE:

In order to proceed, the Owners require the Authority of the Committee for Minor Variances from the Zoning By-law, for the proposed dwelling at 22 Clemow Avenue, as follows:

a) To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres.

b) To permit a reduced driveway width of 4.4 metres, for the driveway leading to the underground parking garage, whereas the By-law requires a minimum driveway width of 6.7 metres.

c) To permit an accessory use (two parking spaces for the benefit of 24 Clemow Avenue) to be located on this property, whereas the By-law states, in part, that an accessory use is permitted if it is located on the same lot as the principal use to which it is accessory.

The application indicates that the Property is the subject of the above mentioned Consent application under the Planning Act.

At the outset of the Hearing, the Committee considered the request for an adjournment by the City’s Planning and Growth Management Department on the basis that these applications were premature. Mr. A. McCreight, who appeared on behalf of the Department, stated that these properties fell within the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District, the designation of which was approved by City Council in July of this year. Mr. McCreight explained that when the subsequent designation by-law is passed, the proposal would require approval under the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. He explained that Heritage staff had expressed concerns with the current design, and in particular with the proposed garage entrance in the front of the building which specifically contradicted the design guidelines for the new heritage district.

Mr. A. Cohen, solicitor for the Owners, stressed that it was unfair to call the applications premature when the proposed heritage district was not yet in force, and that it was unreasonable to delay the applications as it was uncertain when the designation by-law would be passed. He submitted that the applications were properly before the Committee and that the Owners had the right to be heard at this Hearing. Mr. G. Lorimer, a project architect, advised that they had attended an information session with the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) to present the proposal and had held discussions with the City’s Heritage Planners.

Mr. Cohen indicated that his clients were prepared to acquiesce to a condition that, should the variances be approved, the proposal would be tied to the plans on file with the Committee, but in the event that Council adopts the Heritage Conservation District By-law within 60 days of the Committee’s approval, the development plans that would be complied with would be those approved by Council in exercising its jurisdiction under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Cohen identified that the minor variances being requested would be the same in either case.

Mr. P. Gratton of 97 Glebe Avenue and Mr B. Galbreath, representing the Glebe Community Association, both addressed the Committee on the matter of the adjournment request.

After further discussion, the Committee agreed to hear the applications later in the Public Hearing.

Upon recall, the Committee heard presentations from Mr. B. Hobin and Mr. G. Lorimer, the project architects, and from Mr. D. Casey, one of the Owners. It was noted that variance b) in application D08-02-11/A-00262 should be amended to read as follows:

b) To permit a reduced driveway width of 3.6 metres for the driveway leading to the underground parking garage, whereas the by-law requires a minimum driveway width of 6.7 metres.

The application was amended accordingly.

In describing the proposal, Mr. Hobin advised that his clients were open to returning to OBHAC to further review the design of the building and that while the footprint would not change, some flexibility in the details of the building design would be required. Mr. Lorimer further described the project and the parking options that were available, noting that there was a shared driveway pattern in the neighbourhood and that the proposed garage acccess would be heavily landscaped and built-in to the hill at the front of the property. In response to a question from the Committee with respect to the off-site parking spaces for the Owners of 24 Clemow Avenue, it was indicated that two parking spaces in the garage of the new building would be reserved and conveyed as part of the condominium process.

Mr. McCreight reiterated the Planning and Growth Management Department’s concerns with the proposal’s size, massing, use of materials, and with the location of the garage. He requested that should the applications be approved, that the approval not be tied to the development plans currently on file which, in the Department’s view, completely contradicted the direction approved in the Heritage Conservation District Plan.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED, AS AMENDED

DÉCISION ET MOTIFS DU COMITÉ: DEMANDE ACCORDÉE, TELLE QUE MODIFIÉE

In deliberating on these applications, the Committee takes particular note of the fact that the Clemow Estate East Heritage Conservation District is not yet in force and therefore, at this time, the applications cannot be considered to be premature. Moreover, the Committee is of the view that the Owners have a right to have their applications heard in a timely manner under the existing planning policies in place. The Committee also notes the Owners’ willingness to undertake further reviews of the building design with the City’s Heritage Advisory Committee and Heritage Planning staff.

In considering the evidence presented and having reviewed the plans and correspondence on file, a Majority of the Committee is satisfied that the proposed dwelling will not cause an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties and that the proposed garage entrance at the front of the dwelling will not result in a visual intrusion on the existing streetscape, given its placement within the slope of the existing hill and the proposed landscaping around the garage.

A Majority of the Committee therefore finds that, in all the circumstances and in this instance, the variances sought, as amended, are minor, that they are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and that the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan is maintained. This application is granted subject to:

1) An Agreement being registered on Title of the property known municipally as 22 Clemow Avenue, and being a covenant running with these lands, requiring the Owner of 22 Clemow Avenue to provide 2 reserved parking spaces to the Owners, from time to time, of the lands known municipally as 24 Clemow Avenue.

2) The proposed construction being in accordance with the revised plans filed and Committee of Adjustment date-stamped July 25, 2011 and August 23, 2011, or, in the event that City Council passes the heritage designation by-law within 60 days of this decision, the proposed construction being in accordance with the plans approved by Council in exercising its jurisdiction under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The dissenting Member of the Committee is Ms. A. Tremblay.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/AVIS DE DROIT D’APPEL:

To appeal this Decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, a letter, outlining the reasons for appeal, must be filed with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment by the 6^th day of October, 2011. The OMB has established a filing fee of $125.00 for an appeal with an additional filing fee of $25.00 for each secondary application. A cheque payable to the Ontario Minister of Finance must accompany the Notice of Appeal. If you have any questions about the appeal process, please contact the Committee of Adjustment office.

Only individuals, corporations and public bodies may appeal Decisions in respect of applications for Consent to the Ontario Municipal Board. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or group. However, a Notice of Appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a Member of the Association or group on its behalf.