Report to/Rapport au :
Planning Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au
Conseil
May
22, 2012
22 mai 2012
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale
adjointe, Planning and Infrastructure/Urbanisme et Infrastructure
Contact Person / Personne
ressource: John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire Development Review-Urban Services /Examen des projets
d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
OBJET :
|
ZONAGE – 96, rue
nepean |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the recommend Council approve an amendment to
Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 96 Nepean Street from
Residential Fifth Density Subzone B, Exception 482, FSI 3.0 (R5B (482) F(3.0)) to Residential Fifth Density
Zone, Subzone B, with a new exception, schedule and a holding provision
(R5B-h[xxxx] Syyy –h) as detailed in
Document 2 and 3 and as shown
in Document 4.
Recommandation du rapport
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil
d’approuver une modification au Rčglement de zonage no 2008-250
visant ŕ faire passer la désignation de zonage de la propriété située au 96,
rue Nepean, de Zone résidentielle de densité 5, sous-zone B, exception 482,
FSI 3.0 (R5B (482) F(3.0)), ŕ Zone résidentielle de densité 5, sous-zone B, avec une nouvelle exception, une annexe et
une disposition d’aménagement différé (R5B-h[xxxx] Syyy –h), comme le
précisent les documents 2 et 3 et l’illustre le document 4.
Executive
Summary
The subject
property is vacant and is currently being used as a commercial parking lot.
The surrounding land uses are a mix of residential, office and commercial
uses. The Zoning By-law amendment is to allow for the construction of a
27-storey residential building at 96 Nepean Street. The proposed development will have a total of
201 residential units and approximately 161 underground parking spaces with
ground oriented units on the main floor.
A Site Plan Control application also has been
submitted which reflects this Zoning By‑law amendment application.
The Department is
satisfied that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment meets the relevant
policies of the Official Plan, Centretown Secondary Plan and applicable
Council- approved Guidelines. All site design details such as landscaping,
lighting and fencing will be addressed at the Site Plan Control stage. In
addition, the applicant has met with the Urban Design Review Panel (UDRP) for
a pre-consultation and will return to the UDRP for a formal review during the
Site Plan Control process.
The Department is
also recommending the use of a holding provision as the applicant
has been in discussions with the Ward Councillor and staff with respect to
off-site community benefits. The purpose of the holding provision is to ensure
that a Site Plan Control application is approved which reflects this proposed
development and that the monies intended for the community benefits are
secured prior to the lifting of the holding provision. The Department
acknowledges that City Council recently has adopted Section 37 Guidelines
however this Zoning By-law amendment application was submitted in November
2011, prior to the development of the Guidelines and adoption by City Council.
The use of the holding provision has been used in three other applications for
similar circumstances and is recommended to also be used for this project.
Financial Implications:
If the recommendation is adopted and appealed, staff
resources will be used to defend Council’s position. In the event that the
recommendation is refused and an appeal occur, an outside planner would need
to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000 and possibly an
architect at an additional estimated cost of $10,000 to $25,000. Funds are not
available within existing resources, and the expense(s) would impact Planning
and Growth Management’s 2012 operating status.
Should the discussions with the applicant result in
funds for off-site community benefits, there will be positive financial
implications. The value is unknown at this time; the finalized
amount will be included in the Site Plan Agreement, once confirmed. Any
funds would be held in specific community-benefit reserves until required to
deliver the benefit.
Public Consultation/Input:
Comments were received from the public concerning the
height and setbacks of the proposed building as well as questions involving
servicing of the site, stormwater management and traffic impacts from the
proposed development. A summary of public comments and how they have been
addressed are contained in Document 5 of this report.
RÉSUMÉ
La propriété en question est vacante et sert actuellement de terrain de
stationnement commercial. Les utilisations du sol avoisinantes sont composées
d'un mélange de résidences, de bureaux et de commerces. La modification du
Rčglement de zonage a pour objet de permettre la construction d'un immeuble
résidentiel de 27 étages au 96 de la rue Nepean. L'aménagement projeté
compterait 201 logements au total, dont des logements de plain-pied au
rez-de-chaussée, et environ 161 places de stationnement souterrain.
Une demande de réglementation du plan d'implantation a également été
présentée, qui reflčte la modification demandée du Rčglement de zonage.
Le Service est d'avis que la modification proposée du Rčglement de
zonage satisfait aux politiques pertinentes du Plan officiel, Plan secondaire
du Centre-Ville, et aux lignes directrices pertinentes approuvées par le
Conseil. Tous les détails de conception, tels que l'aménagement paysager,
l'éclairage et les clôtures, seront examinés ŕ l'étape de la réglementation du
plan d'implantation. En outre, le requérant a déjŕ rencontré le Comité
d’examen du design urbain (CEDU) pour une consultation préalable et il le
rencontrera de nouveau durant le processus de réglementation du plan
d'implantation pour un examen formel.
Le Service recommande de plus de recourir ŕ une disposition
d'aménagement différé, vu que le requérant a été en discussion avec la
conseillčre du quartier et le personnel municipal relativement aux avantages
pour la communauté avoisinante. La disposition d'aménagement différé fera en
sorte que la demande de réglementation du plan d'implantation qui sera
approuvée reflčte l'aménagement projeté et que les sommes destinées ŕ assurer
les avantages communautaires auront été obtenues avant la levée de la
disposition. Le Service n'est pas sans savoir que le Conseil municipal a
adopté récemment des lignes directrices en vertu de l'article 37, mais il fait
remarquer que cette demande de modification du Rčglement de zonage a été
présentée en novembre 2011, avant la formulation des lignes directrices et
leur adoption par le Conseil. Une disposition d'aménagement différé a été
appliquée dans des circonstances similaires ŕ trois autres demandes
d'aménagement dans la zone intérieure d'Ottawa, et il est recommandé d'y
recourir également dans le cas présent.
Répercussions
financičres
Voir ci-dessous
Consultation
publique / commentaires
Des commentaires ont été reçus de membres du public
concernant la hauteur et les marges de retrait de l'immeuble projeté, ainsi
que des questions portant sur la viabilisation du site, la gestion des eaux
pluviales et les incidences sur la circulation
routičre d'un tel aménagement. Un résumé des commentaires du public et
de la suite qui leur a été donnée figurent dans le document 5 annexé au
présent rapport.
Background
The subject
property (see location map attach as Document 1) is vacant and is currently
being used as a commercial parking lot. The surrounding land uses are a mix of
residential, office and commercial uses. More specifically, there is a
commercial parking lot to the west, to the east is a three-storey apartment
building and to the north is a parking lot (89-91 Nepean Street) where approval
recently has been given to construct a 27-storey apartment.
A Site Plan
Control application has also been submitted with the rezoning for the
development that would be permitted under the proposed zoning (Document 4).
Purpose of Zoning Amendment
The Zoning By-law amendment is to allow for the
construction of a 27-storey residential building at 96 Nepean Street. The proposed development will have a total
of 201 residential units and approximately 161 underground parking spaces with
ground oriented units on the main floor.
The Zoning By-law amendment proposes to remove the
existing floor space index (FSI) restriction of 3.0, permit a height of 83.0
metres and reduce the front, interior and rear yard setbacks.
Existing Zoning
The property is
currently zoned R5B (482) F(3.0). The R5B zone permits a variety of lower
density residential uses such as single and semi-detached dwellings as well as
higher density uses such as mid to high-rise apartment buildings. Exception
482 permits additional commercial uses such as a personal service businesses,
retail store and restaurant. The intensity of development is limited by an FSI
of 3.0 which allows a building to have a Gross Floor Area equal to three times
the lot area. There is no height limit set under the existing zoning for the
site.
Proposed Zoning
The proposed
Zoning By-law amendment deletes the density restriction (FSI), establishes a
height limit of 83.0 metres, and amends some of the existing performance
standards of the R5B zone. As noted above, the existing exception (482) allows
for limited retail uses. These will continue to be permitted under the
proposed zoning.
A zoning schedule
delineating the height and setbacks for the proposed Zoning By-law amendment
is included in Document 2.
DISCUSSION
Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
Section 2 of the Planning
Act outlines those land use matters that are of provincial interest, to
which all City planning decisions shall have regard. The provincial interests
that apply to this site include the appropriate location of growth and
development and the promotion of development that is designed to be
sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians.
In addition, the Planning
Act requires that all City planning decisions be consistent with the PPS,
a document that provides further policies on matters of provincial interest
related to land use development. The PPS contains policies which indicate that
there should be an appropriate
mix of uses to support strong, liveable and healthy communities.
The proposed zoning allows for an increase of
residential units, which will efficiently use land and contribute to a
balanced community. The site is located in proximity to two arterial roads
(Metcalfe and O’Connor Streets),
which provide access to the site. The site is conveniently located near
transit as well as nearby residential and commercial areas to allow for access
by pedestrians and transit. The Department is of the opinion that
the proposal is consistent with the matters of provincial interest as outlined
in the Planning Act and PPS.
The use of Section 36 is discussed in the Zoning
Details section of this report. Section 36 of the Planning Act provides the authority for municipalities the use of
a holding symbol to specify requirements that need to be met prior to
development occurring. Once the
requirements are met, the holding symbol would be removed by an amendment to
the by-law.
Official Plan
Strategic Directions
and Land Use Designation
Section 2.3.1 of the Official Plan sets broad
strategic directions to meet the challenge of managing growth and directing
growth to the urban area where services exist, providing infrastructure,
maintaining environmental integrity and creating livable communities within
Ottawa. To meet these challenges, polices are set out to pursue compact forms
of development which in turn will enable the City to support a high-quality
transit system and make better use of existing infrastructure and roads.
The site is designated General Urban Area on Schedule
B of Volume 1 of the
Official Plan. The General Urban designation is intended to facilitate the development of complete and
sustainable communities with a full range and choice of housing, in
combination with conveniently located employment, retail, service, cultural,
leisure, entertainment and institutional uses. The Official Plan supports
infill development and intensification within the General Urban Area, provided
it is developed in a manner that enhances and complements the desirable
characteristics of the existing community and ensures its long term vitality.
The Official Plan further requires that uses that serve wider parts of the
city be located at the edges of neighbourhoods on roads where the needs of
these land uses, such as transit, access and parking can be more easily met
and their impacts controlled.
Section 2.2.3 “Managing Growth within the Urban Area”
provides direction for intensification in the General Urban area. Where a
Zoning By-law amendment is required to facilitate intensification, the
appropriateness of the scale of development will be evaluated along with the
design and its compatibility. In addition, the policies provide for
consideration of intensification and infill development when the lands are
within 600 metres of a future or existing rapid-transit station where sites
are currently or were formerly used as parking lots.
The site is
located close to the Central Area at the northern edge of Centretown. The
property is between two arterial streets; Metcalfe Street is a northbound
arterial road that serves as a main access route to the Central Area, and
O’Connor Street is a southbound arterial road that serves as a main access
route from the Central Area to Highway 417 and to neighbourhoods to the south.
The property is within 600 metres of a rapid transit station (420 metre walk
to the Metcalfe Station). The subject property is currently used as a parking
lot. The proposal provides an opportunity for additional residential units,
as well as potential opportunities for commercial uses to serve the local
population in the urban area, all of which support the overall goals and
policies of the Official Plan’s Strategic Directions and General Urban
designation.
Urban Design and
Compatibility
Section 2.5.1 of
the Official Plan addresses the importance of urban design and compatibility
when considering new development. The Official Plan in Section 2.5.1 also
recognizes that in order for a development to be compatible, it does not
necessarily have to be the same as, or similar to, the existing buildings in
the vicinity. Rather, compatible development is to enhance an established
community and is to coexist with existing development without causing undue
adverse impact on surrounding properties.
Section 2.5.1
also addresses community design and acknowledges that good urban design and
quality architecture can create lively places with distinctive character which
provide tools to shape the environment.
This section
provides a set of design objectives and principles to be considered in
evaluating development proposals. The design objectives include:
·
enhancing
a sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own
distinct identity;
·
defining
quality public and private spaces through development;
·
creating
spaces that are safe and accessible;
·
ensuring
that new development respects the character of existing areas;
·
considering
adaptability and diversity when creating spaces; and
·
understanding
and respecting natural processes and promoting environmental sustainability in
development.
The development
proposed to be permitted by the proposed zoning has been reviewed in the
context of the design objectives and principles of the Official Plan set out
in Section 2.5.1. The Department is
satisfied that the proposed development will contribute positively to the
image and identity of the City and in particular the high profile residential
area within Centertown and will provide for enhancing the residential
streetscape along Nepean Street. The
Department also considers the proposed development to exhibit a good quality
architectural design with the main front entrance clearly the dominant feature
of the ground floor facade. Providing
for quality architectural design is encouraged through the polices of the
Official Plan for creating an interesting and dynamic urban environment,
particularly in areas where more intense development is encouraged to meet the
City’s intensification objectives.
While Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan sets out
more objective principles and directions for achieving good urban design and
good fit of new development within established areas, Section 4.11 of the
Official Plan provides objective criteria to evaluate compatibility. The following is an analysis of key
criteria applicable for assessing a rezoning application to allow a more
intense development than currently permitted. These criteria deal with
building height and massing, neighbourhood character, traffic, and adequately
accommodating on-site needs such as parking. Other criteria such as those
dealing with lighting, fencing and loading areas are addressed
through the Site Plan Control process.
As discussed
below, the Department is satisfied that the development to be allowed under
the proposed zoning meets the applicable compatibility tests of the Official
Plan set out in Section 4.11 in a manner that does not result in undue adverse
impacts.
Building Heights and Massing
The Official Plan defines High-Rise as a building of 10-storeys or more
and specifies that high-rise buildings will be considered in those areas that
are: characterized by high‑rise buildings having direct access to
arterial roads; within 600 metres of a rapid transit station; within areas identified
for high-rise buildings in the Zoning By-law; a contaminated site or within
areas where a built form transition is appropriate.
These polices set out in Section 4.11 addressing
building heights and massing provides for recognizing that new buildings need
to have regard for the area context, which includes not only the massing and
height of adjacent buildings but also the planned function of the area. The
desire for a transition in building heights can be offset where natural
buffers and setbacks exist or through the use of appropriate design measures
to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
With respect to height, while the current zoning
does not set a height limit, the intensity of development is limited through
the existing floor space index of 3.0 which in turn will limit the practical
height that could be achieved. Under the proposed zoning, the FSI is proposed
to be removed with a maximum building height of 83.0 metres (27-storeys) being
established for the site. As discussed in the section of the report dealing
with the Centertown Secondary Plan, the subject property is located along the
northern edge of Centretown and designated “High Profile Residential” in the
Centretown Secondary Plan. The Central Area is located to the north which
contains buildings with heights up to 26-storeys.
To the east, adjacent to the site, is a
three-storey apartment building. The southwest corner of Nepean and Metcalfe Streets
is six-storey office building (Medical Arts Building). The southeast corner of
Metcalfe and Nepean Streets is currently being developed for two, 27-storey
buildings (Tribeca). To the south, immediately adjacent to the site, is an
11-storey apartment building. In addition two, 27-storey apartment buildings
were approved in 2011 located north of the site at 89-91 Nepean Street and 70
Gloucester Street.
The area to the north of Gloucester Street is
restricted by a maximum building height plane contained in Annexes 8A, 8B and
8D of the Official Plan, which is further implemented through Schedules
contained in the Zoning By-law. Although this property is not subject to the
aforementioned Schedules of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, it does not
infringe on the extension of the viewplane contained in the Official Plan.
Given the current and planned context of the site,
the Department is satisfied that a 27‑storey residential building for
the site fits within the fabric of the area and that the site can
appropriately support the proposed development in a way that will be a
positive contribution to the character of the area.
With respect to massing and transitioning of
building heights, the applicant is proposing reduced interior side yard
setbacks for the proposed building. The Department is satisfied that the
adjustments proposed are appropriate given the site’s context. It is also
noted, that the applicant is proposing (through the Site Plan Control process)
landscaping features that help to mitigate the effects of the reduced side
yard setbacks and provide for a more pedestrian-scale environment. A
vegetative wall is proposed along the westerly facade of the parking garage
wall, four of the six existing street trees will be retained with the addition
of one street tree as well as landscaping along the pathway along the east
side of the building adjacent to the three-storey apartment building.
The proposed landscaping will provide for
appropriate integration of the development with the at-grade environment and
improve the residential character of the area.
The policies in Section 4.11 (introduced through OPA 76) further
provide criteria relating to Building Profile and Compatibility as well as
Building Transitions by:
- How the site, massing and height of the
proposed development relates to adjoining buildings and the existing and
planned context for the surrounding area;
- How the proposal enhances existing or
creating new views and landmarks;
- The effect of the skyline of the design of
the top of the building;
- The quality of architecture and urban design;
- How the proposal enhances the public realm
(street level – landscaped area, amenity space, street trees, public
art);
- Incremental changes in building height (e.g.
angular planes or stepping building profile up or down);
- Massing (e.g. inserting ground-oriented
housing adjacent to the street as part of a high-profile development or
incorporating podiums along a Mainstreet);
- Character (e.g. scale and rhythm, exterior
treatment, use of colour and complementary building finishes);
- Architectural design (e.g. the use of angular
planes, cornice lines); and
- Building setbacks.
The applicant is proposing to incorporate
ground-oriented housing adjacent to the street which will enhance the
pedestrian environment along Nepean Street and provide opportunities for a
direct relationship between the future residents and the public realm. As
previously mentioned, the building height will be under the extension of the
viewplane restrictions of the Official Plan. The incremental changes of the
building, both in terms of the varied setbacks and the varied massing of the
podium feature and tower provide for incremental changes in building height.
The proposed architecture of the building reflects the character of the
existing three storey apartment building to the east and provides a certain
character to the building in terms of exterior treatment, scale and rhythm
which will be further refined in the Site Plan Control process. The Department
is satisfied that the proposal meets the intent of the new policies
established in Section 4.11 through OPA 76.
Integration with Pattern of Surroundings
Section 4.11 includes a policy that requires new
development to recognize the pattern of the surrounding community and
acknowledges that for development that proposes a different height, building
mass, proportion, street setback or distance between buildings from the
pattern of the area, the design of the proposed building may compensate for
this variation. It is the opinion of the Department that the surrounding area
contains a variety of building heights, massing, proportions and setbacks.
There is a variety of uses in the immediate area ranging from parking lots, to
residential buildings with varying heights, to high-rise office buildings.
It is noted that there are existing and new
buildings being constructed, similar in height, to the proposed development
within a one-block radius of the site. This development, while proposing
reduced side yards and front yard setback, provides for a larger landscaped
rear yard setback than many of the existing residential buildings in the area.
While the proposed building is higher than the existing buildings along Nepean
Street, the design incorporates features of the adjacent three-storey
apartment building, is narrower in width than the existing apartment building
to the south and northwest and provides architectural features that contribute
to the streetscape. Overall, the proposal integrates well with the pattern
existing in the area and in fact, will contribute to improving the urban
fabric and character of the northern section of Centertown as a high-rise
residential community. Increasing the residential density in the area provides
for supporting neighbourhood services, which is a further consideration set
out in Section 4.11.
Traffic
Considerations
Policies in
Section 4.11 require that roads should be adequate to serve the development
with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated by
the development. Access to the proposed building will be from Nepean Street
which is a one-way street running west to east. A Community Transportation
Study (CTS) was prepared in support of the application, and indicates that the
proposed development will result in a modest increase in traffic on most of
the adjacent roadway network, with no need for any transportation system
improvements as a result of the proposed development. Any recommendations of
the CTS, as well as site-specific requirements of the City, will be included
as conditions of Site Plan Control. It is further noted that the site is
located in proximity to the Central Area which is the City’s major employment
node and is within 600 metres of a rapid transit station, providing
opportunities for residents to utilize alternative travel modes.
Parking
Considerations
Policies in
Section 4.11 provides that development provide adequate on-site parking to
support the use proposed to minimize the potential for spill-over on adjacent
areas. Direction is also provided to consider opportunities to reduce parking
requirements and promote increased usage of walking, cycling and transit,
particularly in the vicinity of transit stations or major transit stations in
accordance with Section 4.3. The proposed rezoning includes parking
provisions that satisfy the minimum and maximum requirements of the Zoning
By-law as well as the bicycle parking requirements. Given the proximity of the site to a rapid
transit station and to the Central Area, the site is accessible by a variety
of modes of transportation.
The amount of parking proposed reflects the lower car ownership patterns
observed in Centretown. Also, sufficient visitor parking will be provided to
avoid overburdening surrounding streets with on-street parking demands.
Centretown Secondary Plan
The Centretown Secondary Plan in Volume 2 of the
Official Plan sets out objectives and policies to conserve and enhance the
residential character of Centertown as an inner-city community with several
identifiable neighbourhoods focused around defined commercial corridors and
public open spaces. Uses which are
incompatible with the residential character are restricted through the
Secondary Plan policies.
The Secondary Plan recognizes that the population of
Centretown will increase over time, and that this increase will support the
residential character of the area, benefiting the retail and commercial
enterprises within Centretown and the adjacent Central Area. The Plan also
recognizes that an increase in population in Centretown will also be
beneficial to the city-wide distribution of population and the use of existing
public services and facilities. The Secondary Plan acknowledges that the
neighbourhoods of Centretown will absorb some of the anticipated increase in
population, however the Plan also acknowledges certain neighbourhoods, such as
the area west of Kent Street, the area between Elgin and O’Connor Streets
south of Somerset Street, and the area east of Elgin Street, as more suitable
to family living. Other neighbourhoods adjacent to Bank Street and along the
northern boundary of Centretown are recognized as areas less suitable to
family living where medium and high profile residential uses are more
appropriate. The land use schedule defines the land use designations which are
reflective of the desired use and built form patterns for the area. These
designations are intended to serve as a framework within which the objectives
and policy directions of the Secondary Plan are to be achieved.
The subject
lands are located in proximity to the Central Area and as such are designated
as “High Profile Residential” on Schedule H of the Centretown Secondary Plan
(the boundary between the Central Area and Centretown runs east-west along
Gloucester Street). The High Profile Residential designation extends to the
north to Gloucester Street, to the east to Metcalfe Street, to the south to
Lisgar Street and to the west past O’Connor Street toward Bank Street. The
designation permits a variety of dwelling types with accommodation suitable
for one person and small family or non-family households. Buildings and uses
accessory to, or compatible with, these residential types will be considered.
In general, residential areas identified in the Secondary Plan are intended to
include dwelling uses and may also include public service, minor retail as
well as office uses which serve primarily the local population but are not
necessarily limited to only the geographic area of Centretown.
The proposed
residential building is located on the south side of Nepean Street within the
High Profile Residential designation and serves as a transition from the retail
and office buildings located to the north as part of the Central Area, to the
residential areas to the south in the interior of Centretown. The applicant is
requesting to maintain the existing flexibility within the R5B zoning which
permits limited commercial uses, further meeting the intent of the Secondary
Plan by providing a residential use but with the ability, in the future, to
also provide accessory uses which serve the local population. The proposed
rezoning is in keeping with the intent of the policies of the Centretown
Secondary Plan.
It will allow
for a high profile apartment within the High Profile Residential Area
designation within the northern sector of Centertown and increase the
residential population to enhance the residential character of the area.
Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS)
The subject
property is within the area covered by the DOUDS and is subject to design
review. Properties within this area require review by the Urban Design Review
Panel (UDRP). The applicant presented its proposal to the UDRP for a
pre-consultation. The comments provided by the UDRP through the
pre-consultation will be addressed through refinements to the proposed
development that will be brought back for formal Design Review by the UDRP
during Site Plan Control application process.
Elements expected to be refined through the Design Review and Site Plan
Control processes include the mechanical penthouse and roof top patios.
Design Guidelines
In 2009, City Council approved Urban Design
Guidelines for High-Rise Housing. As well the Transit-Oriented Guidelines
which were approved in 2007.
These guidelines were developed and approved to assist in implementing the
urban design policy objectives of the Official Plan. The proposed development
with the attention given to the architecture and the various techniques to
provide for good integration of the development with the fabric and character
of the area meets the guidelines for high profile and transit oriented
development.
Holding Provision and Community Benefits
With respect to Section 36 (holding provision), the
Department is recommending the holding provision as the applicant has been in
discussions with the Ward Councillor and staff with respect to off-site
community benefits. The purpose of the holding provision is to ensure that a
Site Plan Control application is approved which reflects this proposed
development and that the monies intended for the community benefits are
secured prior to the lifting of the holding provision. The Department
acknowledges that City Council recently has adopted Section 37 Guidelines
however this Zoning By-law Amendment application was submitted in November
2011, prior to the development of the Guidelines and adoption by City Council.
The use of the holding provision has been used in three other applications for
similar circumstances and is recommended to also be used for this project.
Heritage
Considerations
The adjacent three
story apartment building is on the City’s Heritage Reference List. Heritage staff
have not raised any concerns with respect to this proposal.
Traffic Issues
A Traffic Study
was submitted as part of this proposal and has been deemed satisfactory by
staff.
Noise Issues
The property is between
two arterial streets and as a result a Noise Study is required to address any
noise mitigation for the future residents of the proposed development. This
will be addressed through the Site Plan process.
Servicing Issues
A servicing study was provided in conjunction with
the development applications and demonstrated that the existing services are
adequate to support the proposed development. The Department has reviewed the
study and have no issues with the findings with respect to capacity.
Concurrent
Application
A Site Plan
Control application has been submitted which reflects the building elevations
and site plan submitted with the Zoning By-law amendment application. If
approved, the Site Plan Control application would implement the development.
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. Details of the public consultation can
be found in Document 5.
Comments by the
Ward Councillor
Unfortunately the future of this high-profile
apartment zone was determined by development applications and approvals in
advance of the completion of the proposed community design plan, and I have
concerns that the City of Ottawa was not able to establish compensatory
measures such as securing additional greenspace and streetscaping to mitigate
the expected density of new development. Regarding the height and mass of a
proposal of this size on a small lot, although this development does respond
to the design guidelines that are proposed in the Centretown Community Design
by placing a tower on a podium, providing at-grade townhouse units with front
yards, and some soft landscaping, when added to the four already-approved towers
within half a block of this development, it will be an overwhelming presence
on the street, creating a canyon on Nepean Street.
The developer has agreed to provide to the City
of Ottawa monies in exchange for the uplift in property value as a result of the
increased height and density, to two defined community benefits: i) the
commissioning of a public work of art to be located at the Jack Purcell
Community Centre and Park; and ii) the implementation of the street planting
and boulevard beautification plans recommended by the Centretown CDP, in
defined areas in the Nepean Street right-of-way between Metcalfe and Bank
Street.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a two to three day hearing would be
required. If the recommendation is adopted and appealed, it is anticipated
that the hearing could be conducted within staff resources. In the event that
the recommendation is refused, reasons must be provided. If an appeal were to
occur, an outside planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of
$25,000 to $30,000 and possibly an architect at an estimated cost of $10,000
to $25,000 would also need to be retained.
RISK MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS
There
are no direct risk management implications associated with this report.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
If the recommendation is adopted and appealed, staff
resources will be used to defend Council’s position. In the event that the
recommendation is refused and an appeal occur, an outside planner would need
to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000 to $30,000 and possibly an
architect at an additional estimated cost of $10,000 to $25,000. Funds are not
available within existing resources, and the expense(s) would impact Planning
and Growth Management’s 2012 operating status.
Should the discussions with the applicant
result in funds for off-site community benefits, there will be positive
financial implications. The value is unknown at this time; the finalized
amount will be included in the Site Plan Agreement, once confirmed. Any
funds would be held in specific community-benefit reserves until required to
deliver the benefit.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS
Environmental Implications
A Phase I and II
Environmental Site Assessment was submitted as part of the Zoning By-law
Amendment application. Contamination was identified on the site and a Record
of Site Condition from the Ministry of the Environment will be required as
well as additional remediation requirements that will be implemented through
the Site Plan Control process.
Technology Implications
There are
no technology implications associated with this report.
TERm of council priorities
This report impacts the following
priorities within the City’s Strategic Plan:
-
Long-Term
Sustainability Goals: Housing
-
GP3 Make sustainable choices
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 issues identified during the
circulation period.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Zoning Schedule
Document 3 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 4 Site Plan
Document 5 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
ZONING SCHEDULE DOCUMENT
2
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT
3
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law
1.
The
Zoning Map of City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250 is amended by changing the
zoning of the lands known municipally as 96 Nepean Street from R5B(482) F(3.0)
(Residential Fifth Density Zone, Subzone B, Exception 482, FSI (3.0) to R5B[xxxx]
Syyy-h (Residential Fifth Density Zone, Subzone 5, Exception xxxx, Schedule
yyy, – Holding Provision);
2.
Add a new exception, R5B-h[xxxx] Syyy to Section 239 with
provisions similar in effect to the following:
Column III: Additional Land
Uses Permitted:
·
personal service business limited to barber shop, beauty
parlour, or dry cleaner's distribution station
·
place of assembly limited to a club
·
retail store
·
restaurant
Column IV: Land
Uses Prohibited
·
all land uses, with the exception of the use existing on June
13, 2012, until such time as the holding symbol is removed
Column V: Provisions:
a. Additional permitted uses other than place
of assembly limited to a club restricted to the ground floor or basement of a
residential use building.
b.
Despite
clause 65(6), any balcony is permitted to project to the front lot line.
c.
Maximum
building heights and setbacks as per Schedule yyy.
Holding Provisions to add to Column V:
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act, the holding symbol “h” on lands zoned R5B [xxxx] S(yyy) -h may only
be lifted when the following conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction
of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department:
(a) The execution of a site plan agreement for the
proposed development (file D07-12-11-0227); and
(b) The conveyance of monies to be directed to a
reserve account for off-site community benefits
and prior to the
lifting of the holding provision denoted by the “h” symbol, the lands zoned
R5B[xxxx] S(yyy) -h must not be used for any purpose other than that which it
is being used on the day of the passing of this by-law.
3.
Add to
Part 17 – Schedules Document 2 as Schedule yyy
PROPOSED SITE PLAN DOCUMENT
4
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT
5
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.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC
INPUT
One letter of
objection was received from the public. The letter contained a number of
different issues and questions which are summarized and responded to below.
Comment:
The Planning
Rationale does not take into account the Claridge Development on Lisgar Street,
the Charlesfort Development on Lisgar Street, the redevelopment of Friday’s
Roast Beef House by Morguard; the Claridge Tribeca Development at 187 Metcalfe
Street and the Claridge Development at 91 Nepean and 70 Gloucester Streets.
Response:
The Planning
Rationale was considered satisfactory to the Department. There is analysis in
this report that highlights some of the recent developments in the immediate
area.
Comment:
The proposed
development anticipates 123 residential parking spaces and 38 visitor parking
spaces. It is likely there will be approximately 150 vehicles regularly
entering and existing this building via Nepean Street. This is addition to
other recent approved developments in the area. The Planning Rationale also
indicates that there will be no impacts related to loading areas, service areas
and outdoor spaces although no explanation for this conclusion was provided.
The site plan does not include any loading or unloading areas at the front of
the building. A comprehensive traffic study should be undertaken to assess the
impact of an additional 200 residential units and 161 parking spaces to this
three-block section of the City prior to the consideration of the Zoning By-law
Amendment.
Response:
The required
Transportation Study was submitted with the Zoning By-law Amendment application
and all traffic-related issues have been satisfactorily addressed through the Zoning
By-law Amendment process.
With respect to the
loading space, the Zoning By-law does not require loading spaces for
residential buildings and as such the lack of the loading space is not in
contravention of the Zoning By-law.
Comment:
It is our view that
Nepean Street does not have the capacity, even with signals, to accommodate the
additional traffic volume that will result from the development of 96 Nepean
Street.
Response:
The required
Traffic Study was submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of City staff.
Comment:
Is the City
satisfied that the existing water and sewer lines (storm and sanitary) are
sufficient to accommodate this further increase in density?
Response:
The City reviewed
the required servicing studies as part of the Zoning By-law amendment
application and is satisfied that there are no capacity issues with respect to
servicing. The detailed design of the servicing for the site will be further
reviewed and approved as part of the Site Plan Control process.
Comment:
The City should
take steps to ensure that the stormwater run off and impact of construction
from Tribeca and other Claridge projects on Nepean Street will not adversely
affect the ground water or stormwater during construction and will not cause
unnecessary disruption or nuisance to the neighbouring owners.
Response:
The required
servicing studies as well as a geotechnical study were submitted and reviewed
to the satisfaction of City staff.
COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
The CCCA would like
to express its concerns regarding several features of the proposed development
at 96 Nepean Street. We wish to bring the following items to the attention
of Planning Committee:
Inadequate setbacks
of the east and north facades
East: Proposed as
1.5 metre
1. Improper
relationship to the heritage building: a stronger podium under a setback
back tower would better address the heritage structure.
2. An increased
eastern setback in the tower portion of the building would reduce the overlap
with facing tower to the north as outlined in the draft CDP which proposes a
maximum 20% overlap. The current proposal would overlap the future facing
building by about 30%.
3. An increased
setback would be instrumental in allowing more morning sunlight into the
street.
North: Proposed
as 1 m; should be 3 metre
1. An increased
setback would enhance privacy, provide additional space for landscaping and
greenery as well as an improved street-level environment
2. For the tower
portion of the building, the 20 metre minimum distance from the facing building
should be enforced, allowing for enhanced privacy and additional daylight into
the street and to the properties across from the way.
We are also asking
for an increase in bicycle parking as this development is located in close
proximity to important bicycle routes. Currently, the proposal commits to
providing the bare minimum bicycle parking required by the city.
Finally, certain
quality of life issues, such as ensuring adequate sunlight and privacy, are
somewhat disregarded in the proposal and not in keeping with the Official Plan
and the Centretown Secondary Plan. Given the highly densified nature of the
area, we would like to see more attention paid to this matter and request that
you account for these provisions in your review. We ask that any deviation from
these requirements result in the city seeking a density bonus provision under
Section 37.
Response:
The proposed
setbacks were reviewed in the context of the site and adjacent lands. The
Department is satisfied with the proposed setbacks.
With respect to the
bicycle parking, as noted in the comments, the proposed bicycle parking meets
the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law. A request can be made to the
applicant to increase the proposed bicycle parking rate through the Site Plan
Control process.
The applicant has
agreed to contribute monies for off-site community benefits and an explanation
of this is contained in the body of this report.