|
4. ZONING – 145-151 MEADOWLANDS
DRIVE ZONAGE –
145-151, PROMENADE MEADOWLANDS |
Committee
recommendation
That Council
approve approve an amendment to the
Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 145, 147, 149 and 151
Meadowlands Drive, shown in Document 1, from Residential R1FF (Residential
First Density Subzone FF) to R4Z[XXXX] SXXX (Residential Fourth Density Subzone
Z, Exception zone with a Schedule, as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
Recommandation DU Comité
Que le Conseil approuve
une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de faire passer le
zonage des 145, 147, 149 et 151, promenade Meadowlands, illustrés dans le
document 1, de R1FF (Zone résidentielle de densité 1, sous-zone FF) à R4Z[XXXX]
SXXX (Zone résidentielle de densité 4, sous-zone Z, zone d’exception assortie
d’une annexe), tel qu’exposé en détail dans les documents 2 et 3.
Documentation
1.
Deputy City
Manager's report, Planning and Infrastructure, dated 26 March 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0100).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning Committee meeting of 10
April 2012.
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité
de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
26 March 2012 / le 26 mars 2012
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/Examen des projets d'aménagement, Planning and Growth
Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613)
580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to the
Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 145, 147, 149 and 151
Meadowlands Drive, shown in Document 1, from Residential R1FF (Residential First Density Subzone FF) to R4Z[XXXX] SXXX (Residential Fourth Density
Subzone Z, Exception zone with a Schedule, as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
RECOMMANDATION
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil d’approuver une
modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de faire passer le zonage des
145, 147, 149 et 151, promenade Meadowlands, illustrés dans le document 1,
de R1FF (Zone résidentielle de densité 1,
sous-zone FF) à R4Z[XXXX] SXXX (Zone
résidentielle de densité 4, sous-zone Z, zone d’exception assortie d’une
annexe), tel qu’exposé en détail dans les documents 2 et 3.
BACKGROUND
The site is located on the north side of Meadowlands Drive east of
Woodroffe Avenue as shown in Document 1.
Meadowlands
Drive is a designated major collector road that forms the boundary between the
Ryan Farm community to the north of the site and the Donald Park community
located to the south. The development site is comprised of
four separate lots, each currently occupied with detached dwellings. The contiguous development site has a total
area of 3,059 m² with 76.2 meters of frontage along Meadowlands Drive and a lot
depth of approximately 40 meters.
The surrounding area consists
predominately of detached dwellings on large suburban lots. Certain streets in the immediate area are
built to a semi-urban standard with no curbs or sidewalks on either side of the
street. Meadowlands Drive is a full
urban cross section with curbs and sidewalks.
Dwellings in the area along Meadowlands Drive are setback from the lot
line approximately 5 to 8 metres and have lots depths in the range of 40
metres. Parking associated with detached dwellings in
the area is provided through attached carports and garages and detached garages
in the rear yards.
The site is surrounded on the north, east and
south side of Meadowlands Drive by detached dwellings. The property abutting the site to the west is
a detached dwelling which operates as a commercial building. Along Woodroffe Avenue there are a variety of
commercial, retail and residential uses which are consistent with the Mixed-Use
Centre designation which extends from Meadowlands Drive to Baseline Road on the
west and portions of east side of Woodroffe Avenue.
Purpose of Zoning Amendment
The application proposes to amend the current zoning to allow for the development of a new low‑rise apartment building. The existing detached dwellings would be demolished and replaced with the new structure. The new apartment building would consist of 47 residential units and 56 parking spaces located within one level of underground parking. 47 spaces would be provided for the dwelling units with nine spaces dedicated for visitor parking. The highest portion of the proposed building would be 12.5 metres (four storeys) transitioning downwards when moving to the east along Meadowlands Drive to 6.5 metres (two storeys) in height. Access to the underground parking garage will be provided from one approach along Meadowlands Drive at the eastern edge of the site.
Existing Zoning
The R1FF zone permits uses including but not limited to detached dwellings, home based business and a converted retirement home, however a low-rise apartment is not a permitted use. The FF subzone permits a maximum building height of 9.5 metres. As a result, an amendment to the Zoning By-law has been requested to facilitate the development of a low-rise apartment building as shown in Documents 4 and 6.
Proposed Zoning
The application proposes to establish a new R4 “Residential Fourth Density, subzone” with a site-specific exception and development schedule. The site-specific zoning schedule shown in Document 3, would introduce performance standards with respect to maximum building height and minimum setback requirements to capture the proposed built form as shown on Document 6.
The site-specific exception would also introduce a required parking rate of 1.0 space per dwelling unit from the current rate of 1.2. The required visitor-parking rate of 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit would remain unchanged. The recommended site-specific exception would also limit the maximum number of dwelling units permitted on the site to 47.
In addition to modifying maximum height limits, the proposed schedule requires a recessed fourth storey and a stepping down of the building from four to two storeys as it moves eastward. These requirements reflect revisions to the original design program shown in Document 5 to create a greater separation between the proposed and existing building at 143 Meadowlands Drive. The performance standards as set out by the recommended By-law and schedule will be reviewed and implemented through the application for Site Plan Control to ensure consistency with the development concept.
DISCUSSION
Strategic Directions
To meet the challenge of managing growth, the City will direct
development to locations within the urban area where services already exist or
where they can be provided efficiently. Within the lands designated General
Urban Area, opportunities for intensification exist and will be supported. The City will promote opportunities for
intensification for lands within 600 metres of future or existing rapid-transit
stations with potential to develop as compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly
cores.
Official Plan
The subject property is designated as General Urban Area in the Official Plan. The General Urban Area permits the development of a full range and choice of housing types in combination with conveniently located employment, service and uses to facilitate the development of complete and sustainable communities. The City promotes infill development and other intensification within the General Urban Area in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable characteristics and ensures the long-term viability of a community.
The introduction of a low-rise apartment building provides for a variety of housing forms for various incomes and life cycles, and is considered appropriate and consistent with the policies of the Official Plan that speak to intensification within existing serviced areas that are in proximity to a rapid transit station.
Compatibility Considerations
Compatible development means development that, although not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings, nonetheless enhances an established community and co-exists without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. The physical context fits well and works well among those functions that surround it.
Section 2.5.1 sets out broad design objectives as qualitative statements on how the City will influence the evolution of the built environment. These objectives are focused on enhancing the sense of community and maintaining places with their own distinct identity, providing quality public and private spaces through development, creating places that are safe, accessible and are easy to get to and move through, and ensuring that new development respects the character of existing areas. Design principles further describe how each of the design objectives may be achieved.
The proposed development achieves the design principle of considering the street as a public space with a well-designed streetscape which includes a new built form and landscaping that is designed with the streetscape environment in mind. The proposed front yard setback is consistent with the building setbacks in the area and will allow for a sufficient area for new landscaping. The consolidation of the four existing driveways into one new approach allows for a more continuous landscaping treatment along the property as well.
The proposed development also achieves the design principles of ensuring that development respects the character of existing areas by transitioning the building height to be consistent with existing built forms and incorporating building materials and elements found within the area.
Section 4.11 of the Official Plan as well as the City’s Urban Design Guidelines provide further direction on design and compatible development. Objective criteria that can be used to evaluate compatibility include: height, bulk or mass, scale relationship, and building/lot relationships, such as the distance or setback from the street, and the distance between buildings. An assessment of the compatibility of new development will involve not only consideration of built form, but also of operational characteristics, such as traffic, access, and parking. The following is an analysis of the applicable criteria in Section 4.11 of the Official Plan.
Transportation and Access
A traffic impact study was prepared in support of the application and has been reviewed and accepted by staff. The transportation network can accommodate the additional vehicular traffic generated from the site without the requirement for roadway modifications. The traffic impact study identified that no additional roadway modifications are required along Meadowlands Drive or at the intersection of Meadowlands Drive and Woodroffe Avenue.
The development concept as shown on Document 6 is proposing one access point to the site at the eastern limit of the site. The application has also been revised from the original concept to remove a proposed lay-by along the frontage of Meadowlands Drive.
Parking
All required and visitor parking for the proposed development is to be provided underground with no at-grade parking. Access to the garage is located along the eastern limit of the site. A small amount of at grade parking is available within the building, whereas the majority of parking is below grade. The underground structure can accommodate 56 vehicles. Parking for the dwellings in the area is provided at grade in the rear and side yards through either garages or carports.
Sunlight
A sun-shadow study was prepared for the revised submission which modelled the expected shadows to be cast throughout the year. The proposed shadows are expected to have minimal impacts on the abutting properties to the north during the majority of the year save and except for the winter season due to the low angle of the sun. The revised building location and reduced massing have reduced shadowing impacts.
Building Profile and Compatibility
Integrating taller buildings within an area
characterized by a lower built form is an important urban design consideration
in association with intensification. Development proposals will address issues
of compatibility and integration with surrounding land uses by ensuring that an
effective transition in built form is provided between areas with different
development profiles. Transitions in built
form will serve to link proposed development with both planned, as well as
existing uses, thereby acknowledging the planned function of an area.
The community surrounding the site is characterized as both a stable low-profile community along Meadowlands Drive and the abutting streets, and as mixed-use centre along Woodroffe Avenue. The existing built form along Meadowlands Drive consists of one-storey detached dwellings, many of which are lower than the maximum height limit of 9.5 metres. The permitted heights as of today within the Mixed-Use Centre designation at the western edge of Ryan Farm ranges in height from 9.5 to 18 metres thereby framing a built form which is to transition in height downwards to the east from Woodroffe Avenue as one is moving further into the neighbourhood. The proposed zoning schedule which will regulate the maximum height and minimum required yards is consistent with the existing zoning in the area and will not introduce a requirement which is departing from an appropriate standard.
Owing to the smaller building footprints there is a significant ratio of open space to built form in this context. The proposed frontage along Meadowlands Drive has the building setback ranging from approximate 4.5 metres at each end to approximately 11 metres which is in keeping with built characteristic of the area and will provide for an appropriate landscaped area. The application is also proposing a large eastern side yard of 6 metres which will allow for additional landscape and open space on the site.
In a response to providing an appropriate transition to create a compatible form of development, the proposed building incorporates incremental changes in the buildings height from four to two storeys moving west to east.
The tallest building elements have been located on the western portion of the proposed building with the fourth storey recessed along each edge to further reduce any potential impacts. The lowest portion of the building is located at the eastern edge of the site abutting the existing detached dwellings. The massing of the building has been revised from the original proposal to be shifted towards Meadowlands Drive which creates a minimum rear yard setback that is consistent with the existing zoning performance standard. The mass at the eastern edge of the site has also been pulled back to create a greater separation distance from the existing detached dwelling. The proposed building design has also incorporated building material, colour schemes and rooflines which are complimentary and sympathetic to elements found in the surrounding area.
With respect to privacy impacts, the balconies on the fourth floor have also been designed to face Meadowlands Drive, while balconies on the northern façade have been revised from on open-air design to an enclosed glass solarium. Balconies originally located along the eastern edge of the building facing the neighbouring yard have been removed and replaced with a French-balcony.
Concurrent Application
An application for Site Plan Control is currently under review (File D07-12-11-0159).
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications associated with this report.
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. Comments were received in opposition and in support of this application. A summary of the comments received can be found in Document 7 along with staff responses.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLORS
The Ward Councillor is aware of this report.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a two to three day hearing will result.
If the recommendation is adopted, then such hearing could be conducted within
staff resources. In the event that the application is refused, reasons must be
provided. Upon appeal, it would be necessary to retain an outside planner to
provide opinion evidence. The estimated cost would be $20,000 to $30,000.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk management implications association with the recommendation in this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
In the event of an appeal, staff resources will
be utilized to defend Council’s position. Should the application be refused,
reasons must be provided and an outside planner would be required to provide
opinion evidence, at an estimated cost of $20,000 to $30,000. Funds are not
available within existing resources, and the expense would impact Planning and
Growth Management’s operating status.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLICATIONS
There are no environment implications associated with this report.
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct technical implications
associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The application is consistent with the Planning and Growth Management priority which encourages the infill and intensification of lands designated General Urban Area.
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to the additional time required to consult with the public and address design issues with the applicant.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Recommend Zoning Schedule
Document 4 Conceptual Site Plan
Document 5 Original Building Elevations
Document 6 Revised Building Elevations
Document 7 Consultation Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the owner, applicant, OttawaScene Canada Signs, 1565 Chatelain Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Z 8B5, 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
- Rezone the subject lands shown in Document 1 from R1FF to R4Z[XXXX] SXXX.
- Add a new exception, R4Z[XXXX] SXXX, to Section 239 – Urban Exceptions with provisions similar in effect to the following:
- In Column II the text “R4Z[XXXX] SXXX”;
- In Column V the following:
“- maximum permitted height and minimum required yard setbacks are as per Schedule XXX and Columns VI through X inclusive in Row Z of Table 162A do not apply
- Six extensions of an apartment dwelling, low-rise measuring a maximum of 3.8 metres in width and 2 metres in depth may be located within Area A on Schedule XXX provided:
(i) they are located within the rear yard;
(ii) they have a minimum rear yard setback of 5 metres;
(iii) they are not located any closer to the interior lot lines than that portion of the building which they abut; and,
(iv) their height does not exceed the maximum permitted building height shown on Schedule XXX applicable to that portion of the building they abut
- the maximum permitted height limits shown on Schedule XXX do not apply to permitted projections
- maximum number of dwelling units: 47
- Despite Table 101, the required parking rate for an apartment dwelling, low rise is 1 space per dwelling unit
- Subsections 111(8) through (11) inclusive and related to bicycle parking requirements do not apply”
- maximum permitted number of storeys: 4
- Schedule XXX does not apply to accessory buildings or structures, which continue to be regulated by Section 55”
- Add Document 3 as a new schedule to Part 17
ZONING SCHEDULE DOCUMENT 3
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DOCUMENT
4
ORIGINAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 5
REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 6
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
7
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 with 28 comments received in opposition to the application and three comments in support. Two public meetings were held in the community to discuss the applications for change in zoning and Site Plan Control. Staff also attended two meetings with the Steering Committee on August 2, 2011 and March 8, 2012. The first public meeting took place on June 30, 2011 after the initial submission at which time the applicant presented the applications and took questions from the public. Staff attended to speak to the planning process and provide any clarification. The second public meeting was held on March 20, 2012 at which time a revised design was presented in response to staff and community comments. Below is a summary of the comments received throughout the public consultation process along with a staff response.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Concerns were raised with respect to an increase in traffic in the area as a result of the proposed development.
Response:
The applicant has prepared a traffic study in support of the application which has been reviewed and accepted by staff. The study when submitted was based on the original proposal which proposed 51 units. The project has since been revised to proposed 47 units. Therefore, there are no expected adverse impacts as a result of the development.
2. Concerns were raised with respect to an increase in traffic in the area as a result of the proposed development.
Response:
The applicant has prepared a traffic study in support of the application which has been reviewed and accepted by staff. The study when submitted was based on the original proposal which included 51 units. The project has since been revised to propose 47 units. The project has also been revised to remove a proposed lay-by along the frontage of the property.
3. Concerns were raised with respect to the proposed development not being compatible with the exiting neighbourhood context.
Response:
The Official Plan speaks to compatible development not being necessarily the same as existing buildings but rather that a proposed development can co-exist without causing any undue adverse impacts.
The proposed development was reviewed against the applicable compatibility policies to assess potential impacts such as parking, access, sunlight and building profile. Staff are satisfied that the proposed revisions to the original concept has created a development program that is considerate of the above design criteria and that the proposed form of development is compatible and will function well with the surrounding built environment.
4. Concerns were raised with respect to impacts on property values as a result of the development.
Response:
Staff have revised no information or data to support or refute any potential impacts on property values as a result of development.
5. Concerns were raised with respect to the impacts on existing trees as a result of the construction of the below grade parking.
Response:
The original application proposed to excavate to the northern property limit to construct the underground garage, however based on concerns raised by the community the limit of the underground garage has been revised to be set back 5.5 metres from the northern property limit. This revision will allow for both the retention of existing trees and an appropriate area to provide new landscaping. If required, the applicant will be required to obtain a permit for the removal of any trees through the Site Plan Control application as per the Urban Tree Conservation By-law.
6. Concerns were raised with respect to how garbage would be stored and collected from the proposed development.
Response:
Through the related Site Plan Control application which is currently under review, the details with respect to garbage removal will be finalized. Based on preliminary discussions with the applicant the building is designed with a central garbage facility that would be located within the building.
7. Concerns were raised with respect to the proposed development setting a precedent for development in the area.
Response:
Through the review of any land use planning application, neither the approval nor refusal of an application sets a land use planning precedent. Each application is review on its own merits against the applicable land use policies.
COMMUNITY STEERING COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Comments dated
January 3, 2012
On September 26th,
a meeting took place between Councillor Chiarelli, Mr. Clausi, Nancy Meloshe
and the members of our Steering Committee to discuss elements of the proposed development.
At that time,
members of our Committee stated their concerns with the development (Excessive
Size; Parking; Tree Retention; Balconies).
At a subsequent
meeting on October 11th, Mr. Clausi provided a revised proposal that reduced
the number of units from 51 to 46, moved the parking ramp, stepped down one quarter
of the 4th floor to the 3rd floor at the east corner of the building and
retained a few of the trees on the property lines.
While we
acknowledge that Mr. Clausi has made minor alterations to his proposal, he has not
addressed our main concern - the key issue of the building mass and height,
which will be situated mid-block among small single family bungalows on large
lots. He made it clear to us that he was not willing to reduce the number of
units in the building any further, due to cost.
It is unfortunate
that with this key issue not being addressed that there cannot be a mutual agreement
between the community and the applicant to move this project forward.