Report to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
29 September 2011 / le 29 septembre 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 : Derrick Moodie,
Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review/Examen des projets d'aménagement
Planning
and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424,
15134 Derrick.Moodie@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0149 |
|
ZONING
– 149, 151 and 153 Greenbank Road (FILE NO. D02-02-11-0004) |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That recommend Council approve an amendment to the
Zoning By‑law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 149, 151 and 153 Greenbank
Road from a General Mixed-Use Zone (GM9 H(10)) to a General Mixed-use
Exception Zone with a Schedule (GM9 [XXX] Sch XXX), as shown on Document 1 and,
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
changer le zonage des 149, 151 et 153, chemin Greenbank de la catégorie de zone
d’utilisations polyvalentes générale (GM9 H(10)) à celle de zone d’utilisations
polyvalentes générale dotée d’une exception, avec annexe (GM9 [XXX], annexe XXX), comme le montre le document 1 et l’expliquent les
documents 2 et 3.
BACKGROUND
The subject lands are an assembly of three individual properties located on the northeast corner of Craig Henry Drive and Greenbank Road (see Document 1).
The assembled
lands have a frontage of 42.89 metres (Craig Henry Drive) and depth of 61.05
metres. The current site development
consists of three typical one-storey, single-detached dwellings. Surrounding development consists of a
two‑storey, medical facility to the north, detached dwellings to the
east, a two-storey office building on the south side of Craig Henry Drive, and
a place of worship on the west side of Greenbank Road.
Development along
Along Greenbank Road, to the north
and south of the site, there is a mix of religious, retail, daycare facilities,
professional offices and residential dwellings, all having a maximum building
height of two-storeys. The exception is
a four-storey administrative office for the Ottawa-Carleton District School
Board, which is setback from
Surrounding Community
The residential community on the
east of Greenbank Road consists of a fairly even mix of two‑storey,
semi-detached and detached dwelling units.
The community on the west side of Greenbank Road has a predominately
large cluster of detached residential dwellings central to the area, with
passive and active recreational lands to the north and a mix of townhouses and
four storey residential apartment buildings to the south.
Purpose of Zoning Amendment
The original zoning application was for a minor zoning amendment to the current General Mixed-Use Zone (GM9[10]) to allow for an increase in the allowable building height from 10 to 18.5 metres. The increase in the allowable building height is similar to what is permitted on the abutting GM9 zoned property to the north and the facing property located on the south side of Craig Henry Drive. The applicant originally purposed a six-storey, 72-unit, L-shaped apartment building with its building façade directly fronting onto Greenbank Road and extending easterly along the northerly property line. In addition, the applicant was requesting a reduction in the zoning by-law’s parking requirements from 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.0, as well as, a reduction in the visitor parking requirement from 14 to six.
In response to feedback from
staff, the building was flipped to have a street presence on both Greenbank
Road and Craig Henry Drive. The building
remained as six storey structure with the sixth storey being recessed back from
the building footprint. This was done in
order to reduce the building’s visibility and impact onto
The revised development proposal was the subject to a Peer Review initiated by Councillor Egli and agreed to be carried out by the Department. The purpose of the Peer Review was to examine the merits of the development proposal in terms of context to the neighbourhood, the site plan design, the pedestrian realm, the building form and articulation and a landscaping strategy.
DISCUSSION
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement
provides policy direction on matters of Provincial Interest related to land-use
planning and development by promoting efficient land use patterns that support
development of viable liveable communities.
Contained within the policy statement is an explicit policy objective to
promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where there is the
availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate
projected needs for intensification. The
policy statement promotes all forms of residential buildings to meet a range of
housing demands.
In this circumstance there exists an opportunity to redevelop an existing underutilized parcel of land where the applicant is proposing the demolition of an three older one-storey bungalows and construct a mid-rise apartment building. This proposal for intensification is consistent with the Province’s policy objectives for intensification where it has been established that surplus infrastructure capacity exists.
Official Plan
The Official Plan designates the subject property as General Urban Area on Schedule “B”. This designation permits a full range and choice of housing types to meet the needs of all ages, incomes and life circumstances. It also permits conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment and institutional uses with the goal to attain complete and sustainable communities.
In terms of this proposal, the introduction of mid-rise apartment dwellings provides more choices in housing types along the peripheral edge of two communities that are primarily dominated by detached and semi-detached dwelling unit. The application itself is categorized as minor zoning amendment as it is to permit increase the allowable building height, a height that is marginally less than what is currently permitted by adjacent properties to the north and south of the site. As mentioned, the request for a reduction in the minimum required residential and visitor parking spaces was later abandoned as a result of amendments to the development proposal.
In addition to the foregoing, the Official Plan also contains the following Official Plan policies to guide in determining the appropriateness of intensification proposals.
Managing Growth
The majority of growth in housing is to be accommodated within areas designated within the Urban Boundary, where there exists land that is serviced with major roads, transit and piped sewer and water services.
In this circumstance the property is appropriately located on the corner of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive which are respectively arterial and local collector roadways, both being serviced by public transit, and having adequate water and sewer services.
Compatibility
The introduction of new
development within an established area, some of which have not see changes to
their communities over a 30 year period, requires a degree of sensitivity in how new
development is integrated with the old.
In order to achieve this, some flexibility and variation that
complements the character of existing communities is central to successful
intensification.
It is generally recognized that infill intensification may not be similar in use and size with adjacent uses. However, in order to achieve the Official Plan’s strategic directions for managing growth, other considerations may apply, such as intensification occurring with proximity of major roads or on the periphery of established neighbourhoods. The development proposal, prior to the Peer Review analysis, met or exceeded all the minimum yard setbacks required by General Mixed-Use Zone for those portions of the building having building heights of 10 to 18 metres. After the Peer Review the proposed building height was appropriately stepped by going from a three-storey structure backing onto the detached dwellings located on Wade Court and transitioning to five then six storey building as you approached Greenbank Road.
Shadow Study
A second shadow study was submitted with revised development proposal
for 67 dwelling units. There are
noticeable impacts to the residential back yards to the east, particularly, the
September 21st /March 21st afternoon time periods. The
shadow study demonstrates that the six-storey building casts a full shadow onto
the rear yards of the Wade Court residents, whereas, the existing two-storey
commercial office building to the north shadows two-thirds of the adjacent rear
yard. For the June 21st afternoon
time period, the shadowing of the building only impacts the very rear corners
of two pie shaped lots.
Design and Planning Guidelines
The purpose of Design and Planning Guidelines is
to translate the Official Plan’s vision of the future of the City by providing
a detailed framework by which development is to occur in its physical
form. Of the completed design
guidelines, guidelines for high-rise developments, 10 storeys or greater, would
be the most applicable. Guidelines for
mid-rise developments, five to nine stories, have yet to be prepared. Within the purpose statement, the overall
objective is to achieve compatibility with the existing or planned
neighbourhood context through setting standards for the building massing,
setbacks, transitions.
When transitioning between high-rise development
and existing or lower profile developments, guideline 4 recommends that the
building height be incrementally stepped back.
The incremental change to the building height should be measured at a 45
degree angled plane taken from the adjacent property line. The revised stepped back from six, to five, then
to a three storey building proposal was found to project above the 45 degree plane
by about a half to nearly a storey.
Another design consideration includes setbacks and buffers separating
adjacent development.
Although an adequate building setback of 8.5
metres has been proposed, any potential buffering between the adjacent
properties was largely taken up by a ramp leading to underground parking. Finally, the design and character of the building
plays an important role in the contribution of the building’s human scale. This can include the use of differing
building materials at various levels, in particular, at the lower component which
establishes a pedestrian focus and provides relief from the upper portion of
the building mass. This was achieved through the use of a stone building
material at the first to levels, then transitioning into brick for the next two
levels and the fifth level incorporated a mansard roof like design in an effort
to minimize the impact of the building mass.
The sixth floor was sufficiently setback from the building footprint so
as not to have a visual impact onto the streetscape.
Traffic and Safety
The applicant submitted an accompanying traffic brief with the zoning
and site plan application submission required by the City’s Traffic Impact
Assessment Guidelines. Although not
required for a development of this size, staff subsequently requested a traffic
study be conducted to examine “level of service” at the Greenbank Road and
Craig Henry Drive intersection. The
“level of service” is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating
conditions of a roadway based on factors such as speed, travel time,
manoeuvrability, delay, and safety. The
level of service for all traffic movements at this intersection ranged from, A
to F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. As a result, it has been recommended that a
road modification be required as a condition of site plan approval to allow an
east bound left hand turn lane from Craig Henry Drive into the driveway leading
to the development’s underground parking garage. The recommended road modification will also
be accommodated. It is anticipated that
stacking for three vehicles making on east bound left hand turn.
Peer Review
The focus of the design review
was to take into consideration the context of the existing surrounding
community, in understanding the physical context in which the proposed
development will be located. As
previously mentioned, the key areas of assessment focused on the development’s
response to the area, site plan design, the pedestrian realm, building form and
articulation and landscape strategy.
With respect to context, the peer review recognized a mix of religious, retail, daycare facilities,
professional offices and residential buildings having a maximum height of two storeys
within the Greenbank Road corridor. Established,
mature low density neighbourhoods of detached and semi-detached residential
dwellings exist to the west and east side of Greenbank Road with pockets of
higher density townhouse and four-storey apartment buildings within the
surrounding area. The general conclusion
was that the development, as proposed, needs to further address its surrounding
area context and concluded that the site needed more of a transition along the
easterly property edge in the form of open space and the introduction of a
transitional area to the northeast of the site.
This could be achieved in the following manner:
- ensuring a clear view to and
from sidewalks and provide a well landscaped pedestrian environment;
- cutting back the building’s
east wing to accommodate a westerly shift to the parking ramp (leading to
underground parking) and allowing for wider landscape area at the easterly
property edge;
- shifting or reducing the number
of surface parking spaces to accommodate a transitional area at the
northeast area of the site; and
- establishing a pedestrian-friendly
environment leading to the transitional area identified at the northeast
area of the site.
Finally, the peer review suggested that the
development’s appropriate building height should be limited to five
storeys. The Peer Review produced an
overlay of the building envelope showing the six-storey building, superimposed
with a recommended five-storey structure including the cutting back of the
building’s east wing. In addition, the
peer review suggested that the mansard roof of the revised 67 residential unit
proposal be replaced with a sloped roof, which would be more in keeping with
the residential character of the neighbourhood.
On July 7, 2011 the findings of the peer review were presented to the community
at the Trend-Arlington Community Building.
Response to the Peer Review
In response to the Peer Review, for the most
part the applicant revised the development proposal to accommodate the
suggested changes to the building envelope.
The building proposal was reduced to five storeys and, generally
speaking, the easterly wing was scaled back and in the number of proposed
dwelling units was reduced from 67 to 61 units.
Although the east wing of the building did deviate outside the building
envelope recommended by the Peer Review, it is beneath the 45 degree angular
plane recommended by the Design and Planning Guidelines for high-rise
developments. The use of a 45 degree
angle is the typical “yard stick” standard used by the design industry based on
accomplishing the following:
1)
The protection of
light reaching neighbouring residential properties;
2)
The insurance that
the overall building mass achieves a human scale quality; and
3)
The establishment
of an appropriate scale next to adjacent residential properties transitioning
from low to higher scale building forms.
The development proposal, to place the three story
structure further towards the rear property lines, has a building setback of
over 11.5 metres. This is entirely
appropriate when considering this is a building setback for a three-storey
structure adjacent to two-storey, detached dwelling units. The fifth storey of the development proposal
is well beneath the established 45 degree rendering as no longer contributing
to the overall perceived building mass.
The main departure from the recommended
building envelope was the retention of the mansard roof. The rationale for retaining the mansard roof
was that it is a common style of roofing used throughout the neighbourhood on
the east side of Greenbank Road.
Further, while the usage of a sloped roof is the prevalent character of
the residential development on Wade Court, it was not exclusive. With respect to establishing a landscape area
and a reduction of surface parking, this area is felt to be within the private
domain and would only offer amenity area for the residents of the building. An
adequate green space buffer has been achieved by shifting the building
footprint to the west. This approximate
4.0 metre wide buffer will support the planting of trees that will grow in time
to a significant stature, so as to screen the visibility of the building below
the 45 degree angled plane described above.
The suggested green area at the northeast area of the lot would only
serve as a private amenity area for the residents of the building, outside of
the public realm.
Instead, the private amenity area common to the
residents of the apartment building will be provided on the third floor roof
top area and the surface parking area remain as originally proposed. This proposal eliminates the need for the
establishment of a pedestrian environment connecting to the street. Finally it should be noted that the revised five-storey
structure was found to marginally improve shadowing impacts on the neighbouring
Wade Court residents during the June 21st time period.
Proposed Zoning Details
Staff is recommending the approval of the
applicant’s response to the peer review as detailed in Documents 2 and 3.
Document 3 incorporates in a schedule, the general limits of the building
envelope in terms building placement and building height recommended by the
peer review. Document 3 also addresses
concerns of building shadowing effects from permitted building projects above
the allowable building height, including parapet walls and building mechanical
projects. In addition, the roof top
patio area will be setback and screened in order to avoid any overlook concerns
onto the rear yards of the Wade Court residents. Finally, a zoning detail has been added to
allow a reduction in the minimum required landscape buffering of 1.5 metres for
a parking area of 10 or more vehicles to zero metres abutting the northerly
commercial office development. This
reduction has been recommended to be approved conditional on the parking being
screened from the neighbouring property by a 1.8 metre high solid wooden
fence. This will be enforced a part of
the Site Plan Control application.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The proposed zoning amendment was strongly opposed by the neighbouring residents. The details of the consultation process can be seen in Documents 4 and 5.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
Comments from Ward Councillor Egli have been incorporated in Document 4.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal implications associated with this report. However, in light of the neighbourhood opposition regarding this application, if approved by Council, the matter may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. It is anticipated that a hearing on these issues would take approximately three days in front of the Board, using internal Staff resources. If Council refuses the application, and an appeal is filed to the Ontario Municipal Board, Council will have to provide written reasons to support its decision, and an external planning consultant and an external traffic consultant will have to be retained. If that situation occurs, it is anticipated that a three day hearing in front of the OMB will incur an estimated expense of $55,000-$65,000.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Identify issues as applicable - Wetland Impact Statement, Environment Impact Statement, Site Contamination issues, Natural Environment area lands, etc. and detail mitigation, studies, input from Conservation authority, etc.
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
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 a request for an Design Peer Review.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Zoning Schedule
Document 4 Consultation Details
Document 5 Community Organization Comments
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
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law
Despite Section 64, the following applies:
a)
mechanical and service equipment or
penthouse, elevator or stairway penthouses may not project above 17.12 m
b)
a parapet may not project above 15.75 m
c)
Rooftop Patios are only permitted within Area B on
Schedule X provided they are set back 1.8 m from the easterly building’s
edge. The most easterly limit of the
roof top patio is established by a 1.5 m high opaque or translucent barrier
Despite Table 187, the following applies for a mid-high rise apartment
dwelling as set out in Schedule X:
a)
minimum building setbacks; and
b)
maximum building heights
Despite Section 110, the minimum width of a landscape buffer of a
parking lot maybe be reduced from 1.5 metres to 0 metres when there is a solid
screen being provided having a minimum height of 1.8 metres along the northerly
property line.
ZONING
SCHEDULE DOCUMENT
3
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
4
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. There were three public meetings were also held in the community.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Information Meeting
Below is a summarized comments received as a result of from initial the public consultation carried out by the City and from a public information meeting hosted by the Trend-Arlington Community Association on January 31, 2011held in the Trend-Arlington Community Building at 50 Bellman Drive.
Comment: The six-storey, 72-unit development proposal is too intense/large for this site and is incompatible and out of character with surrounding area. It was suggested that the development proposal represents the first step in the redevelopment of Greenbank Road into a canyon like corridor.
Response: The developer has since now reconfigured the development proposal providing a street presence on both Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive. The building has been reduced to a five-storey structure with the three-storey easterly wing of the building being scaled back from the side property line. The dwelling unit count has been reduced from 72 to 61 dwelling units. The building treatment has also been modified to introduce the use differing building materials at varying building levels, to mitigate the impact of the perceived building mass at the street level.
Comment: A comment was received suggesting that Section 3.2.2 of the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Infill Housing. This guideline suggests that the infill development proposal should not project above a 45 degree angular plane taken from the neighbouring property line.
Response: This is a similar standard applied with the Guidelines for high-rise developments as describe this report. It was determined that revised five-storey development proposal did not project beyond that 45 degree plane.
Comment: What is the density of the development proposal and does it exceed what is permitted?
Response: The current GM zoning for this site does factor in density as a means to limit the extent a property can be developed.
Comment: A traffic study should be required that takes in consideration when the neighbouring schools are in session, as well as, the operation of the daycare facilities.
Response: A number of addendums to the traffic study we made to take account for pedestrian movements. Observations were on pedestrian movements as the Greenbank Road/Craig Henry Drive intersection on February 15, 2011 between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m., and on May13, 2011during the morning peak hour (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) and the afternoon peak hour (3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.). These additional observations did not result in any recommendations for any modifications being made to intersection.
Comment: Vehicular access to the development proposal should be limited to a right-in and right-out on Greenbank Road.
Response: The site plan has been revised that locates the surface parking area to the northeast area of the site, which will have a right-in and right-out access onto Greenbank Road. The Craig Henry Drive access to the underground parking will remain.
Comment: The proposed right-in and right-out vehicle access on Craig Henry Drive will only contribute to the number of unwanted u-turns being made further east along Craig Henry Drive and add to congestion being experienced on that street.
Response: A Craig Henry Drive road modification is being proposed in the latest site plan proposal to permit an east bound left hand turn into the parking garage and will accommodate a vehicular queue for three vehicles waiting to make this traffic movement. This should eliminate unwanted u-turns east-bound along Craig-Henry Drive.
Comment: A
suggestion was made to move the existing east bound Craig Henry bus stop
further east. This would allow for a
longer queuing of cars behind buses which at times can positioned in such a way
as impeding traffic from manoeuvring around it.
When such a scenario occurs, vehicles can become so backed up as to
interfere with the traffic movements at the intersection of
Response: Staff has taken this comment under consideration will be requiring through the site plan approval, that the bus stop be located 11 metres further to the east at the developer’s cost.
Comment: Safety
concerns were expressed at the congested intersection of Greenbank Road and
Craig Henry Drive because of several schools within the area and the wide age
range of students. The development of 72 unit apartment will only further
contribute to the current unacceptable traffic congestion at
Response: The traffic study reviewed and accepted by the City Transportation staff indicates that overall movements for Greenbank Road and Craig Henry intersection concurrently function at an acceptable level of service. With the proposed Craig Henry Drive road modification mentioned above, it is anticipate that this development will not have significant impact on the functionality or safety of this intersection.
Comment: The proposed reductions in the resident and visitor parking space requirements will result in the spill over of on-street parking demand onto on neighbouring streets already at limited capacity.
Response: The latest development proposal complies with the current zoning provisions for parking and previous requests to reduce the required visitor and resident parking requirements have been withdrawn.
Comment: Where will the loading and unloading for the building’s residents occur for this building, as well, where will the garbage be picked up?
Response: This activity will occur in the relocated visitor and resident parking area located within the northeast quadrant.
Comment: The six-storey apartment building will result in the loss of light and privacy in the backyards of those residents on Wade Court backing onto to the proposed development. The development proposal should be redesigned in such a way as to minimize these impacts.
Response: In the latest revised five-storey development proposal, during the March and September 21st afternoon time periods, the shadowing extends a similar amount on to the Wade Court rear yards as the two-storey medical building afternoon time periods. During the June 21st afternoon time period, there is only a marginal shadow being casted at the rear corners of the lot for the two most southerly pie shaped lots. The five-storey revised proposal orientates the buildings balconies of the three-storey easterly building extension in either a north or south direction and does not present an overlook issue onto the rear yards of the Wade Court residents. Regarding the overlook concern expressed by representatives of the medical building to the north, the north facing wall of the development proposal closest to the medical building will be windowless.
Comment: The development proposal should not affect the existing sun-shade patterns of the medical building to the north.
Response: The medical property is only marginally impacted by the five-storey building proposal in varying degrees between the 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. time periods on December 21. The building is most impact at the 2:00 p.m. time period. This is viewed as being acceptable because commercial office or medical uses are not considered to be highly sensitive to shadowing effects.
Comment: The majority of the parking should be located below grade.
Response: In the latest development plan, 71 parking spaces of the total 85 parking spaces on-site will be located below grade.
Comment: The building should be located a minimum of 15.25 metres away from the medical building.
Response: The estimated separation between buildings will be 17.5 metres.
Comment: The dirt and noise for the building construction activity will disturb adjoining residents.
Response: The disruptive construction activity will be temporary. Construction activity is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Comment: Neighbouring property values will be negatively impacted if this development proposal. In particular, for those Wade Court properties backing onto this development.
Response: No evidence has yet to be presented that infill development, such as what is being proposed, has a negative impact on neighbouring property values.
Comment: There is a risk of damage to neighbouring foundations due to construction excavation.
Response: The soil analysis submitted with the zoning and site plan applications reveals at the on-site consist of a mix of layers of silty sand and then clay from the boreholes which were drilled. The method of excavation will be open cut. Blasting, which can potential cause foundation damage to neighbour property, will not form as part of the excavation process.
Comment: The Greenbank Middle School Parent Council, which is a non-registered association, expressed safety concerns for its student population, 300 of which was to school due to their ineligibility for school bus transportation and must walk, bike or take public transit to school. Their path to school frequently takes them across the intersection of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive. It is their belief that the construction of a 72-unit apartment building will only add to the danger to the students of what is already a perilous intersection.
Response: Issue of congestion and safety regarding this intersection has been responded in the concerns expressed by the community.
Second Public Information Meeting
Comment: A second public information meeting to discuss a modified 67-unit development proposal was held on May 16, 2011at the Trend-Arlington Community Building. Comments similar to the original 72-unit development proposal were reiterated accompanied by a common thread of frustration with the development review process and taking issues with the City’s policies on intensification. Some additional comments received included that the erection of a six-storey building would result in the loss of the view of the sky and disappointment that the former Nepean zoning provisions were no longer respected. Another indicated that the revised development proposal was an improved but the building height should be limited to 15 metres. Finally, any short fall in parking should be subject to “cash-in-lieu of parking” and make arrangements have access to the underutilize school parking lot during off-peak hours.
Response: To mitigate the impact of intensification, the same design guidelines for high-rise and low to medium density infill development were applied. These guidelines recommend that an angular plane of 45 degrees be established at the neighbouring property line where the height of the infill development should not project beyond. With respect to current and past zoning by-laws, the Planning Act legislates that municipalities consider all requests for zoning amendments which are to be evaluate on their own individual merit.
Developer’s Response to Peer Review
The developer’s response to the Peer Review was five-storey, 61 unit apartment building was generally speaking in keeping with the recommendations. The revised plans were posted on the City’s website and an e-mail notice of posting was sent out to the residents. A couple of responses favoured the revisions, but the majority of the responses were either in opposition to the development proposal or in support of the Trend-Arlington Community’s position that the revised development plans should conform with the recommendations of the Peer Review in its entirety.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
Prior to putting these comments together, I had the opportunity to
review the various written feedback from residents, speak to people in the
community, communicate with the developer and consult City staff and fellow
councillors.
By way of background, this proposed condominium development was quite
contentious when announced. Through a series of public consultations and a
subsequent peer review process which I pushed hard for, the development
proposal has changed significantly.
The peer review process was very helpful in providing avenues of change
to pursue, and suggesting options and ideas to propel the design process. The
developer, after some initial hesitation came on board with the principles of
the Peer Review in a significant way. The community also is supportive of the
ideas and spirit of the Review.
The current proposal does not adopt all of the recommendations made in
the Peer Review but it does accept and incorporate the bulk of the
recommendations. Additionally, the recommendations it does accept are
significant ones dealing with amongst other issues parking, building height,
and the green buffer zone. The report responds to any lack of compliance,
explaining why it diverges from the Peer Review, with clear and cogent
arguments. As one resident wrote to me: “The project should proceed only if it
respects the recommendations and principles of the Peer Review.” I believe that
this proposal does respect the spirit and intent of the Peer Review.
There is considerable community interest in a building of this sort, as
many residents wish to have the option to downsize but stay within the Craig
Henry community. The current options to do this are extremely limited. This
building provides an opportunity to allow older residents to stay and continue
to enrich the community, while also opening the door to new residents and young
families.
My position on this development has been consistent throughout the
process. I could not and would not support a 6- storey condominium building on
this site. This is why I worked very closely with city staff, the developer and
community residents to come up with a design proposal that would represent a
compromise which would give something to all parties. I believe this design
achieves such a compromise. Like all compromises, not everyone will get
everything that they want. In fact no single party will get everything that
they want. Everyone has contributed something to get to this point. On balance
I support the developer’s current proposal as being in the best interest of the
overall community.
I acknowledge that certain members of the community will not be happy
with my support of the current proposal. I also understand that a lot of the
concern and frustration being expressed is as much a result of the development
process in Ottawa as it is a reflection of this individual project. I concur
that there is a disconnect between current zoning and the Official Plan, and
that this can lead to conflict between communities, staff and developers. This
is a point that I have made at several public meetings. It is also a concern
that the Planning Committee and its Chair are well aware of. They deal with it
at every meeting, and are doing their utmost to come to the best resolution for
individual communities and the city at large as individual projects come
forward. Chair Hume is also looking at the broader framework of the process. I
commend the committee on the good work it is doing.
I do appreciate greatly the efforts made by concerned members of my
ward to express their views on process. However I do not believe that their
very legitimate process concerns should overshadow the good work that has
happened on this particular project. Many hours have been put into this design
process by the community, the developer, City staff and this office. The public
has been consulted extensively and the developer continues in good faith to
answer questions and respond to modification requests from the community.
To my mind the Peer Review process did what it was intended to in a
very real and positive way. It generated discussion, ideas and significant
change. One can argue that the change proposed in the current design is not
sufficient, but that argument should not obscure the broader issues.
These issues include, but are not limited to, the Official Plan, the community’s
concerns (both for and against the project), ward concerns, City vision,
Greenbelt preservation and intensification. In short, the project is not just
about the corner of Craig Henry and Greenbank, and the decision- making process
must consider all the listed issues and more.
I could have drafted comments critiquing the current design but in my
opinion that would disregard all the effort and resources put towards this
project. I have made it clear that I will work with any of my ward’s communities
and developers, in innovative ways if necessary, to make proposed developments
as attractive as is reasonable and practical.
I commit to continuing my current practice of participating fully with
the community in any proposed development plans for Ward 9.
Finally, I would like to thank City staff, community residents and DCR
Phoenix staff for working collectively and cooperatively to come to this
resolution. I believe this community has provided a very commendable example of
dialogue, cooperation and constructive hard work in this instance, which bodes
well for the future of development and change in our ward. I deeply appreciate
the efforts made by all those who have contributed to this process.
COMMUNIT ORGANIZATION COMMENTS DOCUMENT
5
Response
Set
Building Envelop by Peer Review
For reasons set out in the body of the report,
the proposed building falls within the 45 degree angular plane which has become
typical “yard stick” standard used by those design field as a means to gauge an
appropriate scale for infill development.
As such, the proposal’s deviation from the Peer Review’s suggested
building envelope is considered to be acceptable.
Architectural
Style
The mansard roof design of the development
proposal was retained as an architectural component of the building as opposed
to the Peer Review’s suggestion to incorporate a sloped roof primarily because
of the prevalence of mansard roofing throughout the neighbourhood. This formed the rationale for the developer
to retain a mansard roof design versus the suggestion that a sloped roof would
be more in keeping with the residential character of the neighbourhood. The community is actually a mix of both
architectural styles of roofing. The use
of stone on the first and second floor is viewed as a rich durable material
used in residential, commercial and institutional buildings of varying colours and
is seen to provide a pedestrian focus to those two levels of the building,
notwithstanding the Peer Review’s suggestion that the building should
transition from a darker material to lighter coloured material as the building
rises up. The building does transition
from brick, a darker building material for the third and forth level of the
building to a lighter greenish copper coloured material for the mansard roof
level of the building. All of these
building materials are used for residential construction. It should be noted that along Greenbank Road
there are residential, institutional and commercial buildings so it can be
argued that the development proposal provides an appropriate interface between
the commercial and institutional land uses along Greenbank Road and the
residential neighbourhood to the east.