Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Karen Currie,
Manager / Gestionnaire, Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes
d'aménagement, Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme
(613) 580-2424, 28310 Karen.Currie@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 7 GRANTON
AVENUE (FILE NO. D01-01-07-0014 AND D02-02-07-0096) |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Refuse an amendment
to the Official Plan Volume 2A to change the land use designation applying to
the property at 7 Granton Avenue
from Merivale Mixed Use to Arterial Mainstreet to permit a parking lot on the
property for an adjacent commercial plaza.
2.
Refuse an
amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law, to change the zoning of 7
Granton Avenue from R3 Block 1 - Residential Third Density, Exception One Zone
to a commercial zone to permit a parking lot.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de recommande au Conseil :
1.
de rejeter une demande de modification du
volume 2A du Plan officiel visant à faire passer la désignation de zonage de la
propriété située au 7, avenue Granton
de « zone à usages mixtes du secteur Merivale » à « zone
d'artère principale », dans le but de permettre l'aménagement sur la
propriété d'un parc de stationnement pour le centre commercial voisin.
2.
de rejeter une demande de modification du
Règlement de zonage de l'ancienne Ville de Nepean visant à faire passer la
désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 7, avenue Granton de
« R3 Bloc 1 » - Zone résidentielle de densité trois, exception Un, à
« Zone commerciale », dans le but de permettre l'aménagement d'un
terrain de stationnement.
BACKGROUND
The
subject property is located on the eastern edge of the St Claire Gardens
Community, southwest of Baseline Road and Clyde Avenue. The site has an area of
1029 square metres, is zoned for residential use and currently contains a one
storey single-detached residential unit, a detached garage and two small
storage sheds. The property is surrounded by a three metre wide, untravelled,
pedestrian lane and residential uses across the lane to the north (fronting on
Baseline Road), single family residential uses to the west and southwest, an
automotive repair garage to the east, and a commercial plaza (1370 Clyde
Avenue) to the south. The eastern part of the subject lot contains mature
trees, which form a buffer and visual screening between the dwelling on the lot
and the adjacent automotive repair garage.
The plaza's parking lot operates near capacity during its peak time period between 1:00 PM and 1:30 PM. Hence, the applicant proposes amendments to the Official Plan (Volume 2A) and to the Zoning By-law to permit the extension of the plaza's parking lot onto the subject residential property. The proposed parking extension would provide up to 20 new parking spaces.
DISCUSSION
The Official Plan designates the subject site
as General Urban Area. This designation accommodates a broad range of land uses
including employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and
institutional uses. In Volume 2 (Secondary
Plans) of the Official Plan, the site is designated as Merivale Road Mixed Use.
This designation also permits commercial, residential, and institutional uses.
The site of the plaza for which additional
parking is sought is designated Arterial Mainstreet in the Official Plan.
Within this designation, the Official Plan requires that “on lots where
development has the potential to develop both adjacent to the street and to the
rear of the property, the Mainstreet designation will apply to the entire lot
and development situated on the rear portions will not be considered to be
non-conforming by virtue of not being located adjacent to the street.”
Consequently, the applicant proposes to extend the Arterial Mainstreet
designation to the subject site.
Zoning
The subject site is zoned R3 Block 1-
Residential Third Density, Exception One, in the former City of Nepean Zoning
By-law. This zoning permits low density residential use in the form of one
detached dwelling per lot. A stand alone parking lot is not a permitted use in
this zone.
New Comprehensive Zoning By-law
It is intended that the draft New
Comprehensive Zoning By-law is to be considered by City Council on June 25,
2008. This draft By-law designates the subject property as R1FF [632] -
Residential First Density (Exception) Zone. The main purpose of the R1-
Residential First Density Zone is to restrict the building form to detached
dwellings. Further, the R1 zone provisions are meant to ensure that new
development occurs in a manner that is compatible with existing land use
patterns in order to maintain or enhance the single family residential
character of a neighbourhood. The exception in this zoning provides specific
density and setback standards. In light of the above, the R1FF [632] zoning is
consistent with the R3 Block 1 zoning.
Issues
This proposal entails the demolition of a viable residential house within an established residential community, and the rezoning of the site to a commercial use in order to accommodate an extension of the plaza’s parking lot. As a result, the parking lot would abut three residential units.
Section 4.5 of the Official Plan, which deals with Housing within the City, directs that applications to amend the Zoning By-law to introduce or delete residential uses must be reviewed with reference to Policies 6 to 8 of Section 2.2.3, Managing Growth Within the Urban Area. The Official Plan’s strategic directions for managing growth within the Urban Area are centered on intensification, which the Official Plan defines as increased density of development, measured in households or employment per hectare. Policy 6 of Section 2.2.3 states that applications to amend the Zoning By-Law within urban areas to change the permitted use so that the effect is to down-zone a site will not be permitted. Existing development on the site translates into a density of approximately 10 dwelling units per hectare. If the house on the lot were replaced with a parking lot, this density would be reduced to zero households per hectare. The resulting rezoning of the site would be contradictory to the Official Plan’s strategic direction of intensification.
Section 5.2.2 of the Official Plan directs that when considering amendments that affect the use of a specific site or sites, the City will also consider whether there is a need to add the site or sites to the lands already designated for the proposed use. In support of this proposal, the applicant submitted a Parking Utilization Assessment. This study was based on a count of 104 parking spaces. However, staff, by means of a manual count, have verified that there are 108 spaces on the site, including eight accessible spaces and two “reserved” spaces. The study established that during the peak period for the utilization of the plaza parking lot, between 1:00 PM and 1:30 PM, the parking lot experienced up to 96 per cent occupancy. The study concluded “there is currently a shortage of parking spaces at the Mayfair Plaza during peak hours.”
Staff do not dispute the near maximum occupancy of the parking lot during peak hours. However, for a parking lot with 108 spaces, 96-per cent occupancy - the highest observed during the study - means that there are five parking spaces available. Whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 105 spaces, based on the plaza’s total Gross Leasable Floor Area, 108 parking spaces are provided on-site. The net difference is a surplus of three parking spaces. The new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, compared to the current Zoning By-law, has a lower minimum parking rate so that it would require only 78 parking spaces for the plaza. Therefore, a parking shortage has not been established.
Further, the high utilization level of the plaza’s parking occurs only during a half an hour peak period. Section 2.3.1 of the Official Plan, which deals with transportation, states: “A clear objective of this plan is a substantial increase in the use of public transit and reduced dependence upon automobile use during peak hours.” The plaza fronts onto a major bus route (Clyde Avenue) and is within walking distance of Baseline Road, another major bus route. There are also bus stops within walking distance of the entrance to the plaza. To accommodate extra parking at this location at the cost of a residential use and housing stock would be contrary to the Official Plan strategic directions for intensification, housing and transportation.
The plaza for which the additional parking is sought lies within the Merivale Road Mixed Use designation of the City’s Secondary Plans. On the theme of land use within this designation, the Secondary Plan encourages the provision of additional housing opportunities. The Secondary Plan also requires that the stability of the existing residential uses within the Merivale Road Mixed Use Area designation and of the adjacent low-density residential neighbourhood be protected. The Secondary Plan further requires strengthening the visual character of the area. Currently, the plaza’s parking lot abuts only one residential unit. Not only would the proposed parking lot extension remove a residential unit (which is part of the rental supply of the City of Ottawa), but it would also adjoin three residential units. The proposed extension of the commercial use into the residential community starts to threaten the community and its residential character. Hence, this proposal conflicts with the intent of the Secondary Plan.
In Sections 2.2.3.4 c) and 2.3.1.42 c) of the Official Plan, the City identifies among its strategic directions, the reduction of the amount of land used for parking through such means as shared parking arrangements, the use of parking structures and reductions in parking standards. The plaza adjoins an automotive garage site to the north, of which parking lot has a capacity of more than 50 spaces. This parking lot is conveniently located for shared use with the plaza and is always near empty.
Staff recommend that this proposal not be
approved because it is fundamentally opposite to the Official Plan’s strategic
directions.
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of these applications and the staff recommendation. The City received opposition to these applications, as detailed in Document 2.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On
Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law
amendments because of the need to hold a community public meeting.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Consultation Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee
Services to notify the owner, Ferano Holdings Ltd, 409 Industrial Avenue, Ottawa ON
K1G 0Z1, applicant, Agent/Consultant:
Holzman Consultants, 1076 Castle Hill Crescent, Ottawa, ON K2C 2A8, 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, Transit and the Environment
Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch
and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services Branch to forward the
implementing by-law to City Council.
LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT
1
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
2
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. Councillor Rick Chiarelli held two community meetings for this application, on January 30, 2008 and February 12, 2008, due to concerns and comments expressed to his office on the development proposal.
Comments
from the Public
1. When the plaza adjacent to our house was built, the then municipality of Nepean assured us that the plaza had adequate parking needed for its operation. Therefore, there would be no need to encroach on the adjacent residential areas for its use or operation.
2. The City has already expanded the parking lot on the other end of the mall into residential areas. To convert 7 Granton Ave, a residential area with a lot mature greenery, into a concrete block in this day and age, where preservation of green spots is favoured (to combat the problem associated with green house gases and global warming) is deplorable.
3. There is ample parking that is being under-utilized across the street [Clyde Avenue], as well as on the north side of the MayFair Plaza.
4. There are quite a few mature trees on the property. I would like to see the trees which are close (within 3 feet) of my property remain.
5. The rezoning could lead to further development. I would be opposed to the existing commercial development encroaching further into this residential subdivision.
6. There is currently a very clear division between the residential properties on Chippewa Avenue and Granton Avenue, and the heavy concentration of commercial businesses on Clyde Avenue. This proposed by-law amendment would change the quiet nature of the street, and therefore negatively affect the quality of life of the residents and quite probably have a negative affect on property values.
7. A parking lot in the configuration described is creating a "hole" in the street and is thus undesirable to the residents. “Eating into” the residential area in such a way to benefit the commercial elements sets a bad precedent.
8. Given the absence of view from Clyde Avenue, security measures must be built into this development (particularly at night) to limit events where police cruisers must reach this "hidden" area in a rush - something fairly fresh and not wanted in this neighbourhood!
9. The addition of trees and shrubs behind the Denny's, and Offices in that mall, which was requested when they applied to expand the parking behind the current South West corner, has not been provided. There needs to be a clear separation of the Commercial Properties on Clyde Avenue, and the Residential Properties on the streets behind them so that no noise, and other things like snow, or pedestrian traffic can move from the property into the residential area.
10. Stormwater runoff is a concern. I have noticed over the past 7 years flooding in the back yard. My yard gets the runoff from #7 Granton, which looks like a pond for a few weeks every spring. I would imagine that comes from the snow pushed to the back of the Mr. Lubes, which is on that side of #7. Now that a parking lot is being discussed for this property, I do not want the pond in my back yard. Proper drain sewers must be installed.
11. I would hope that fencing (8' privacy) will be installed along my side of the property.
12. There are presently two openings near Granton Avenue for pedestrians. I would propose that the fence closes up the parking lot. The opening (large enough for a vehicle) and a walkway for pedestrians, which can be accessed through to middle of the street, is enough. I do not want what is presently there. The opening right up to my laneway is not necessary.
Response to comments
Staff are recommending against the proposal.
JANUARY 30, 2008 - PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
Community members who attended the public meeting provided the following summary of their comments:
Based upon the group discussion that we had on January 30, 2008,
· the majority of 'neighbours' would prefer that the zoning be left “as-is” and with no change to #7 Granton either now or in the future;
· we understand the proponent's position of requiring additional parking in order to service the growing clientele of Mayfair Plaza and what has essentially become a Medical Services Mall
· we appreciate the fact that the proponent has several options with regard to any rezoning of the property at #7 Granton and has chosen to apply for a particular rezoning that can best be described as 'Residential with a Parking Option'. This means that the proposed parking can be implemented on the #7 Granton Lot but there can be no construction of any building for other than Residential use;
· the plan proposed by the proponent will ensure that there is a physical barrier (a fence) around the #7 Granton lot and integrated into the existing fence at the rear of Mayfair Plaza; trees and/or shrubs and grass will also be added inside the fenced-in area to visually enhance the renovated site;
· given the proponent's recognition of the need to minimize impact by the proposed rezoning to the community and his willingness to accept a Residential zoning as long as the parking needs are met, it is believed that the City Planning and Environment Committee will approve the application;
· even though the majority of us would prefer that the zoning be left “as-is”, it appears that we should be prepared to accept some change as long as it is reasonable. Therefore, if the zoning is to be approved, we propose that the rezoning be subject to the following provisions:
- it will remain from a building perspective as Residential, but with a parking option allowed for the proposed number of parking spaces;
- a building that has any commercial use is not allowed for any reason under the rezoning;
- the barrier (fence) to be added between the new Parking lot and the rest of the community be permanent and at the maximum height allowed by Bylaw; and
- the barrier must prohibit any traffic (pedestrian or otherwise).
After the preceding comments (from the January 30, 2008 community meeting) were received by staff, and following the second community meeting which was held on February 12, 2008, a resident called staff reiterating his categorical objection to the proposal.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
Councillor
Rick Chiarelli indicated that he did not wish to influence staff’s
recommendation one way or the other. However he briefed staff about the residents’ concerns. In
summary, the residents did not want the zoning of 7 Granton Avenue to be
changed, but were concerned that failure to accommodate parking demand might
result in the shopping plaza losing its tenant base. The residents also
expressed concern about possible spill-over parking on local residential
streets. Therefore, as a compromise, the residents would reluctantly tolerate
the proposed parking lot on two conditions: (1) that the residential (R3A)
zoning remains, with an exception to permit the parking lot; and (2) that the
Owner undertakes not to try to build any building other than for residential
use on the lot, and not to further encroach or try to pick up more property
into the residential community.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee indicated the following:
The northern part of the area backyard of the house is forested sparsely with medium height white spruce and a maple tree. In addition, there is a high white cedar hedge along the eastern edge of the property that may be on the adjacent property. Additional trees on the property include several Hemlocks and a White Pine on the eastern side of the property. There is a potential to protect at least some of the trees; but as they are spread out on the property, most if not all, would be destroyed in constructing a parking lot, as proposed. However, with imagination, a parking lot could be constructed to work around the trees.