|
1
Name of Appellant/
Appealed Provision/
Lands
|
2
Reason for Appeal
|
3
Staff Position/Conformance with Official Plan
|
4
Proposed Amendment
|
|
Appeal #5 - Loblaw Properties Limited,
Appeal # 55 - Emparrado Corporation,
Appeal #58 - Riotrin Properties,
Appeal # 27 - Urbandale Corporation
Appeal # 54
College Square
City-wide
|
Definition of Shopping Centre
The appellants have stated that the definition of shopping
centre should be revised to confirm that a shopping centre is to be
considered one lot for zoning purposes.
One-lot for zoning purposes provision
The appellants have indicated that inclusion of a “one lot
for zoning purposes” provision in the Zoning By-law is necessary to avoid the
need for minor variance applications that are a result of yards being
redefined for zoning purposes upon severance.
|
Staff has agreed that clarification is needed to confirm
that shopping centres will be considered as one lot for zoning purposes.
Staff has agreed to add a new Section to the Zoning By-law
to treat certain types of development as one lot for zoning purposes in order
to avoid zoning compliance issues that are triggered upon application for a
severance.
The recommended amendments will address technical issues
associated with changes in ownership of land and will not affect issues
related to objectives for land use designations in the Official Plan. As a
result, the recommended amendments will not affect conformity with Official
Plan policies.
|
In Section 54 – Definitions, delete the words “may, but
shall not be required to,” from the definition of Shopping Centres and insert
the word, “shall” in their place.
Add a new Section to the Zoning By-law, wording as
follows,
Section 93 – One Lot For Zoning Purposes
A group of occupancies located in an AM – Arterial
Mainstreet Zone, GM – General Mixed-Use Zone, LC – Local Commercial Zone, MC
– Mixed-Use Centre Zone, MD – Mixed-Use Downtown Centre Zone, IG – General
Industrial Zone, IH – Heavy Industrial Zone, IL – Light Industrial Zone, IP –
Business Park Industrial Zone that;
(a) are designed, developed and managed (including site
access and infrastructure servicing) as a unit whether by a single owner or a
group of owners or tenants acting in collaboration;
(b) are made up entirely of uses permitted or lawful
non-conforming on the site;
(c) have a minimum size greater than a cumulative total of
2,000 square metres of gross leasable floor area; and has either:
(i) a common parking lot or parking garage or a
combination thereof; or
(ii) a group of parking lots or parking garages or a
combination thereof which are managed as a unit by the same owner, owners or
tenants of the occupancies required in subparagraph (a) above, and are on the
same lot or lots as the occupancies required in subparagraph (a) above;
shall be considered as one lot for the purposes of
applying zoning provisions and regulations.
|
|
Appeal # 6 - Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
Ward 13
|
The appeal requests that the former definitions for gross
floor area and floor space index be incorporated into the new Zoning By-law
to calculate in the same manner as under the former Rockcliffe Zoning By-law
2000-8, maximum floor space index that applies to the detached residential
zones in Rockcliffe Park. It is felt that the definitions for gross floor
area and floor space index that are in By-law 2008-250 do not pertain to
detached dwellings and that it is necessary for the proper calculation be
applied to control the sizes of the houses in Rockcliffe Park.
|
|
Amend the following
exceptions under Section 239, Urban Exceptions, that affect the residential
lands within Rockcliffe Park zoned R1A[1256], R1A[1257],
R1BB[1258], R1B [1259], R1C [1260], R1I [1261] and R1I1739], by adding the
following text to Column V above the existing text in each exception:
Grade means the average
elevation of the level of the adjoining ground prior to the development
of all the walls of a building on the lot.
Gross floor area, means the total area of each floor, measured from the exterior of
outside walls, excluding a cellar, and
including:
i)
accessory buildings;
ii)
potential floor area that is the area of a floor that is
projected from an actual floor of a storey that is above the floor area of another storey, cellar or basement; and
iii)
attic, where the height above the floor area of the attic is a
minimum of 2.3 m over at least 75% of the floor area with a clear height of
2.1 m of any point over the floor area.
|
|
Appeal #9 - Urbandale Corporation,
Appeal #10 - Greater Ottawa Homebuilders Association
City-wide
Ward 6
|
Visitor parking requirement for multiple attached or
stacked dwelling should not apply when units already have a driveway leading
to a carport or garage.
Allow parking in the right of way in order to meet the
minimum 2 parking space requirement for detached, semi-detached and multiple
attached dwelling, where the required front yard setback or corner side yard
setback is 3 metres or less in Stittsville
|
The appellants have appealed requirements relating to visitor
parking requirements for planned unit developments. Amendments were
requested to eliminate the requirement for visitor parking for dwelling units
that have a driveway that provides access to a garage or carport for that
dwelling unit, because there is space in front of the required parking space,
in the driveway to provide additional parking for visitors.
This provision only applies to Stittsville, whereas in
other suburbs, only one parking space is required for a detached,
semi-detached or multiple attached dwelling. While only one space is required
by zoning, additional parking spaces can and are usually provided in the
driveway, leading to the required parking space (located typically in carport
or garage). These extra parking spaces can be located in the right of way,
provided that they are set back about 1 metre from the edge of the sidewalk
or curb. It is recommended that for purposes of consistently applying parking
standards in the suburbs, that this provision requiring two spaces be
deleted.
While the Official Plan contains objectives regarding
parking including strategic objectives to generally minimize the area of land
used for parking in Section 2.3.1.42, and, reduced parking requirements for
uses within 600 metres of rapid-transit stations in Section 4.3, there is no
specific direction in the Plan regarding parking requirements for residential
uses. Consequently, the proposed amendment will not be out of conformity
with the Official Plan.
|
Delete Section 102 (1) and replace it with the following
text,
“(1) In the case of a multiple attached dwelling or
stacked dwelling, where each dwelling unit has a driveway accessing a garage
or carport located on the same lot as that dwelling unit; and in the case of
a planned unit development, where a dwelling unit has a driveway accessing
its own garage or carport; no visitor parking is required for that dwelling
unit.”
Delete row (a)(iii) in Table 101
|
|
Appeal #27 - Urbandale Corporation, KNL Developments
City-wide
|
Parking diagrams in Section 109 appear to require building
to be setback.
Section 63 – Part Lot Control - the appellants are
requesting that multiple attached dwellings be included to be considered as
one lot for zoning purposes where part lot control application has been made.
The appellant is suggesting that a
reduced interior side yard setback of 6 m should apply in the case of
mid-high rise apartment buildings in the R5A zone.
|
The diagrams in Section 109 are for illustration purposes
only and are not intended to require garages to be offset from the front
wall. These diagrams are not utilized in any by-law requirement.
Given that all the residential zones where multiple
attached dwellings are permitted contain provisions (ie. Section 159(4), (8)
and (9) for the R3 zones) which have the effect of dealing with the
consideration of each unit of a multiple attached independently, therefore no
modification is required.
In harmonizing the various interior side
yard setbacks for mid-high-rise apartments, the range was between 6 m and 12
metres, including 9.1 m and 7.5m. In addition, some of the interior side
yard setbacks in the former zoning by-laws were based on maximum 50% of the
height of the apartment, with heights ranging from the minimum 15 m to over
40 metres in height. Fifty percent of the lowest allowable height of 15 m
equals 7.5m. The minimum 7.5m interior side yard setback is considered the
most appropriate for the R5A zone.
|
No amendment required
No amendment required
No amendment recommended
|
|
Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp.
Appeal # 54
College Square
City-wide
Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp
Ward 11
Ward 2
Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp
Ward 19
|
Table 191 (2) (g) – minimum building height of 6.7 metres
within 400 metres of a rapid transit station in a MC, Mixed Use Centre zone.
Section 189 (3)(c) and (3)(e) with respect to 1111 Ogilvie
Road and 3869 Innes Road
The appellant states that the performance standards for
front, corner side and rear yards setbacks are more restrictive than the
provision under the former Gloucester Zoning
Section 239 with respect to [1175] for property located at
4454 Innes Road
The appellants have indicated that upon severance, it will
not be possible to provide the 12-metre side and rear yard setbacks required
by the Zoning By-law. This non-compliance occurs as a result of yards being
redefined for zoning purposes upon severance.
|
No settlement – to Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Policy 3.6.2 of the Official Plan for Mixed-Use Centres support a zoning,
such as minimum building height, that provides for highest density
development within 400 metres of a rapid transit station.
1111 Ogilvie Road and 3869 Innes Road –
By-law 333 of 1999. The former By-law required a front
and corner side yard of 0 metres, while the requirement in By-law 2008-250 is
3.0 metres. The rear yard setback in the former By-law was 6 metres while
the requirement in By-law 2008-250 is 7.5 metres. As a maximum building
height of 12.5 metres is permitted in By-law 2008-250 (the maximum building
height permitted in the former By-law was 10.7 metres), a larger rear yard
setback is required in By-law 2008-250. Staff has agreed to reinstate the
former front, corner side and rear yards and maximum height from the former
Gloucester By-law. A building in excess of 10.7 metres, to a maximum 12.5
metres, would be permitted if a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is provided.
In an attempt to resolve other appeals relating to
shopping centres, staff is proposing a provision to consider shopping centres
as one lot for zoning purposes. The addition of this provision will
address TDL’s concerns regarding non-compliance associated with the
redefinition of yards upon severance.
|
No amendment recommended
Prepare new exceptions for these properties, including the
following provisions:
-front and corner side yard setback is 0 metres
-rear and interior side yard setback is 6 metres
-maximum building height is 10.7 metres
-a building height in excess of 10.7 metres is permitted,
to a maximum height of 12.5 metres, subject to the provisions in Section
189(3), (4) and (5).
Dealt with through another amendment
|
|
Appeal #36 –
The TDL Group Corp
Appeal #54 –
College Square
|
Section 59 (1) and (5) regarding frontage and access
Section 54 regarding definitions of frontage and private
way
The appellants have indicated that upon severance, it is
not possible to meet the requirements for frontage and access in Section 59
for a common form of retail development.
|
Staff have agreed to amend Section 59 to provide clarity
regarding requirements for frontage and access for lots within a shopping
centre.
|
Amend Section 59 (1) by adding a new clause (c) as
follows,
“for lands on which a shopping centre is located the
requirements in clauses 59(1)(a) and (b) may be satisfied through an easement
or other legal means.”
|
|
Appeal #58 - Riotrin Properties
City-wide
Ward 19
|
The appeal relates to an objection with subsection 101(9)
which does not allow a shopping centre to utilize the shopping centre parking
rate where a restaurant, bar, place of assembly, place of worship or
recreational and athletic facility comprises more than 30% of the gross
leasable area of the shopping centre.
Regarding the property at 4232 Innes Road, the appellants
are seeking the deletion of a provision in exception [213] that limits the
gross leasable floor area to 15,000 m2, and, the deletion of a further
provision regarding the maximum gross leasable floor area of 35,000 square
metres that applies to the entire shopping centre that includes the lands
zoned AM[210]H(18.5), GM1[210]H(18.5) and AM[213]H21, located at 4232, 4270,
4290 and 4300 Innes Road and 2010, 2020, 2026 and 2030 Lanthier Drive
|
Subsection 101 (9) is intended to distinguish between
smaller and larger shopping centres. Smaller shopping centres, less than
7,500 m2, would be required to provide the parking required for
each specific use, and not at the shopping centre rate.
Establishing a maximum size of 7,500 m2 is
between the maximum size of 3,000 m2 for a local shopping centre,
and the maximum size of 10,000 m2 in the case of typical
neighbourhood shopping centres.
Under the former Cumberland Zoning By-law, the
CC-Commercial Community zone limited the gross leasable floor area to 35,000
square metres. In 2005, two site-specific zoning by-law amendments were
approved concerning this shopping centre site, and in each case the maximum
35,000 square metre gross floor area was applied and implemented, on a one
lot for zoning purposes basis, along with the permissions that were
approved for additional permitted uses. The maximum 15,000 square metre
gross leasable floor area requirement was also included in the former Zoning
By-law for the property at 4232 Innes Road.
The provisions in By-law 2008-250 are consistent with the
former Cumberland Zoning By-law. Requirements regarding maximum gross leasable
floor area for former CC zones were carried over on a consistent basis in
By-law 2008-250. As such, maximum gross leasable floor area requirements for
other former CC zones continue to apply.
However, the portion of the shopping centre that is zoned
GM1 [210] H(18.5) (for the addresses on Lanthier Drive) does not share a
common access or a common parking area with the remainder of the shopping
centre. As the definition of shopping centre in By-law 2008-250 states that
this form of development has a group of parking lots or parking garages that
are managed as a unit by the same owner or group of owners or tenants, the commercial
buildings in this GM subzone are by definition not part of the larger
shopping centre development. Staff have agreed to amend exceptions [210] and
[213] to delete reference to the GM1[210]H(18.5) subzone in the one lot
for zoning purposes provision in these exceptions. A new exception for
the GM1 subzone would be applied that would include provisions in exception
[210] that are relevant to this property, while deleting the one lot for
zoning purposes provision. Staff note that there are no changes proposed
to exception [213] regarding the maximum 15,000 gross leasable floor area for
this portion of the shopping centre site. This maximum is from the former
Zoning By-law and should continue to apply. The elimination of the gross
leasable area caps would be more appropriately dealt with through a
site-specific zoning amendment.
|
Amend Subsection 101 (9) to add the phrase “that is less
than 7, 500 m2 gross leasable floor area”, so that the provision
would read:
101 (9) Despite subsection (1), where a restaurant, bar,
place of assembly, place of worship or recreational and athletic facility is
located within a shopping centre that is less than 7,500 m2 gross
leasable floor area, and one or more occupancies of that same use comprise
more than 30% of the gross leasable area of the shopping centre, then the
minimum required parking for that use will be calculated at the parking rate
specified for that use, and not at the shopping centre rate.
Amend exceptions [210] and [213] to delete references to
the GM1[210]H(18.5).
Create and apply a new exception to replace exception
[210] for the GM1[210]H(18.5), to read as follows,
Column II – Additional Land Uses Permitted
- amusement centre
- automobile service station
- cinema
- theatre
- light industrial uses
Column V – Provisions
- minimum front yard, corner side and interior side yard
setbacks: 5 m
- minimum rear yard setback - 12 metres
- loading may be located in any yard
- automobile service station permitted provided it is structurally integrated
into, clearly associated with and secondary to a retail store limited to the
sales of automobile parts and accessories
|
|
Appeal #59 Campanale Homes
Ward 17
|
The appellants have objected to the parking standards as
they apply to 1159-1189 Bank Street on the basis they will have a detrimental
impact on the property.
|
The lands are designated Traditional Mainstreet under the
Official Plan. The site is developed as two separate buildings with a
variety of land uses. Parking is located along Belmont, between the two
buildings and in a garage, comprising a total of 64 parking spaces. There
were also 20 parking spaces provided in a lot across the street at 1176 Bank
Street. Through the Old Ottawa South Urban Design and Zoning Study approved
in 2003, zoning exception [147] was applied to 1159-1189 Bank Street, which
allows parking to be reduced by 20 spaces if a mixed use building with a
minimum three storeys is built across the street at 1176 Bank Street. This
building is now constructed.
In order to implement the objectives of the Official Plan
to encourage compact, pedestrian oriented development on Traditional
Mainstreets, and as a result of an Ontario Municipal Board order regarding
parking standards in the TM zone; parking standards have generally been
reduced in this zone. If the development at 1189-1159 Bank Street were built
today with the new parking provisions, there would be a requirement for 96
spaces to be provided, with 64 provided, and the reduction of 20 spaces
provided by exception [147], the shortfall in parking would be 12 spaces.
However, the property enjoys non-complying rights because the building at
1159-79b was built before parking requirements were in place.
During the implementation of zoning provisions for the
lands along Bank Street in 2003, the zoning boundary for the lands
inadvertently included part of 1201 Bank Street, where the provision
contained in exception [147] was not relevant. It is recommended that
exception [147] be removed from 1201 Bank Street.
While the new TM zone parking standards provide more
flexibility for changes of use along Traditional Mainstreets, the property
owner has requested that a parking requirement reflecting the existing
parking provided should be established for the existing development to allow
more flexibility in changes of use. Staff agree that given the size of this
property, and its development form, that establishing the maximum parking
requirement to what is currently available, but placing limits in floor area
that can be established for uses such as restaurants and place of assembly
which typically have higher parking requirements, is appropriate. Should uses
be expanded beyond these size limits, they would be required to provide the
standard parking requirements for lands in Area B (inner city), rather than
the reduced requirements for the TM zone.
As well, a correction to the location of the zoning line
is to be made so that it is aligned with the actual property line at the rear
of 1159-1189 and part of 1201 Bank Street.
|
Amend Section 239, Exception 147 to replace the text in
Column V – Provisions with the following:
64 parking spaces are required for the non-residential
uses up to a maximum of 3,683 square meters of floor area provided:
i) there is a maximum cumulative total of 1,105 m2
floor area for restaurant uses;
ii) there is a maximum cumulative total of 1,105 m2 of
floor area for medical facility, recreational and athletic facility, place of
worship and place of assembly;
iii) for purposes of i) and ii) above, floor area means
the total area of each floor whether located above, at or below grade,
measured from the exterior of the outside walls, but excluding stairwells and
bicycle and motor vehicle parking; and
iv) additional required parking spaces for non-residential
uses are to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Table 101,
Column III but excluding the provisions of Table 101(a)(ii).
Amend the Zoning Map as
as shown on Document 2.
|
|
Appeal # 65
595799 Ontario/
Brian Karam
Ward 14
|
The appeal contained a number of objections to the zoning
for the lands at 301 Elgin Street and 172 MacLaren.
Objections that staff did not agree to modify through the
appeals process on By-law 2008-250 included a request to change the zoning at
172 MacLaren from residential to commercial, allowing restaurants above the
ground floor, permitting residential care facilities and reflecting the
existing 33 metre height of the building in the zoning designation.
The appeal regarding the parking requirements in the TM
zone was dealt with through an OMB hearing and decision. The appellant had
requested complete elimination of parking requirements in the TM zone, the
Ontario Municipal Board did not agree and did impose parking requirements in
the TM zone.
A settlement is proposed however with respect to the
objections regarding:
- the prohibition of office uses on part of the ground
floor
- the removal of the retirement home use
- restriction on permitted projections above the height
limit which does not include enclosed amenity areas.
|
The Official Plan 2003, Volume 1, designates the lands as
Traditional Mainstreet for 301 Elgin Street and General Urban at 172
MacLaren. Volume 2A – Secondary Plans of the Official Plan, further
designates 301 Elgin Street as “Elgin Street Commercial” and 172 MacLaren as
“Medium Profile Residential”.
On January 12, 2005, City Council approved an Official
Plan amendment and zoning amendments, creating a new CN12 zone under former
Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98, as a result of the Elgin Street Strategic Plan.
The “Elgin Street Commercial” designation is under appeal and new zoning
provisions were appealed by the same appellant and have not yet been dealt
with.
Under Official Plan Policy 3.1 – Generally Permitted Uses
in Volume 1, retirement homes are permitted on designated Mainstreets; while
residential care facilities are not specifically dealt with under this
Policy. Since both uses were permitted under the former Ottawa CN zone, these
two uses were carried over in the corresponding TM zone in By-law 2008-250.
Following the adoption of the zoning changes for Elgin
Street in 2005, a new CN12 zone was created which permitted a variety of
residential uses, including retirement home and residential care facility.
However, in the translation of the CN12 zone to the new TM1 subzone for Elgin
Street, a few anomalies occurred including a number of residential uses were
not carried over to the TM1 zone including: group home, residential care
facility, retirement home, retirement home, converted, rooming house, and
rooming house converted. The previously permitted shelter use in the CN12
zone was not carried over to the TM1 zone as Policy 3.1.4 does not permit
this use in the Mainstreet designation.
With the approval of OPA#76, residential care facilities
were specifically excluded from the Mainstreets designation and therefore
should not be carried over for the TM1 zone.
Under the TM zone, office uses must not be located within
a depth of 6 metres of the front wall of the building abutting the street.
The intent is to encourage pedestrian-oriented uses to directly relate to the
Mainstreet, in line with Official Plan policy. However By-law 2005-221 which
implemented the zoning changes approved as a result of the Elgin Street
Strategic Plan, permitted offices on the ground floor in the CN12 subzone for
Elgin Street, whereas offices were not permitted on the ground floor in the
CN zone. By-law 2008-250 allowed ground floor office uses along Traditional
Mainstreets, but limited their location to the rear of buildings on the
ground floor.
Because of the design of the building at 301 Elgin Street
which has limited pedestrian access due to the grade of the ground floor, it
is agreed that office uses could occupy space up to the front wall of the
building. These uses would still be subject to the size limitations of 20
metres along the street and no more than 600m2 of gross floor area provisions
contained in the TM1 zone.
The maximum height permitted on Elgin Street is 15 metres
however the existing structure is close to 30 metres in height. It is
recommended that additional height be permitted solely to accommodate an
enclosed amenity area on the top roof level of the building. The setbacks
for that structure have been established to minimize the shadowing impacts of
the addition and its visibility.
|
Amend the TM1 subzone to add the following uses in Section
198(1)(a):
-
group home
-
retirement home
-
retirement home, converted
-
rooming house
-
rooming house, converted
Amend Section 239, Urban Exceptions to create an exception
zone for 301 Elgin Street which in Column V – Provisions, would permit:
-
office use without the restriction imposed in Section 197(1)(b);
-
the carrying over the provisions of the existing exception number
1531;
-
the construction of an enclosed structure on the top roof level for the
sole purpose of providing amenity area to occupants of the building at 301
Elgin Street that:
i)
has a maximum height of 3.66 metres
ii)
has a maximum allowable floor area of 265 m2;
iii)
must be setback 5 metres from the east and west facing building line
of the roof level at the highest level of the building; and
iv)
must be setback 10 metres from the north and south facing building
line of the roof level at the highest level of the building.
Amend the zoning map as shown in Document 2.
|
|
Appeal #36 - The TDL Group Corp.,
City-wide
Appeal #70 - Timburwal Developments
Ward 13
Appeal #27 –
Ubandale Corporation and KNL Developments
Ward 4
|
Section 58 - Flood Plain Hazard Overlay
Appeal #36 states that the floodplain regulations
contained in the By-law 2008-250 should be deleted as it is the appellants’
position that this is a duplication of the jurisdiction of the Conservation
Authorities and is an unnecessary set of regulations.
Appeal #70 deals with lands located in a block bounded by
Thomas Street, Stanley Avenue, John Street and Charles Street. The lands are
subject to a floodplain overlay and the appeal relates to the restrictions
placed on future development of these lands as a result of Section 58, which
would restrict development of a vacant lot and limit additions to 20% of the
gross floor area and 20m2. They request that Area Specific
provisions which apply to certain areas of the City also apply to these
lands, thus allowing development in the floodplain.
A request has been made to remove the flood plain overlay
on the existing Shirley’s Brook area north of Kizell pond.
|
No settlement – to Ontario Municipal Board mediation. The
Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan contain policies regarding
floodplains that would support the City’s responsibility to apply municipal
land use controls under the Planning Act to regulate land use and development
in the floodplain. The Conservation Authorities are responsible for the
implementation of regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act which
primarily deals with construction in the floodplain and alteration of the
floodplain; in evaluating its permits, the Conservation Authorities consider the degree to which a development might exacerbate
erosion, pollution, flooding, the conservation of the land, and safe access.
The appellant indicates that
the lands are affected by a floodplain overlay which restricts future
development of the lands, and these lands cannot be considered as an area
specific floodplain overlay without studies or flood control works are
undertaken, which is beyond the mandate of the Zoning By-law. The provision
for the limitation on the size of permitted additions or accessory structures
is based on the Official Plan policy that restricts development to “minor”
additions and accessory structures.
The appellant indicates that
the flood plain overlay should not be applied over the existing Shirley’s
Brook area, north of Kizell pond, as realignment of Shirley’s Brook was a
condition of approval of a draft plan of subdivision. The appellant
requests that the flood plain overlay be removed as these lands will not be
affected by the flood plain following realignment of the watercourse. With
regard to this issue, Urbandale can participate as a party in the
formal mediation regarding resolution of appeals to Section 58.
|
No amendment recommended
No amendment recommended
No amendment recommended
|
