PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST COMITÉ DE L URBANISME RAPPORT 35 LE 29 AOÛT ZONING GLEBE AVENUE ZONAGE 174, AVENUE GLEBE

Transcription

1 137 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME 8. ZONING GLEBE AVENUE ZONAGE 174, AVENUE GLEBE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 174 Glebe Avenue from Residential Type 3 Zone, Exception 1268 R3B[1268] to permit a four-storey low-rise apartment building. RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ Que le Conseil refuse une modification au Règlement de zonage visant à modifier le zonage du 174, avenue Glebe de Zone résidentielle de type 3, exception 1268 R3B[1268], afin de permettre la construction d un immeuble d appartements de quatre étages. DOCUMENTATION / DOCUMENTATION 1. Deputy City Manager's report, Planning and Infrastructure, dated 3 August 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0199). Rapport de la Directrice municipale adjointe, Urbanisme et Infrastructure, le 3 août 2012 (ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0199). 2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 23 August Extrait de l ébauche du procès-verbal, le 23 août 2012.

2 138 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Report to/rapport au : Planning Committee Comité de l'urbanisme and Council / et au Conseil August 3, août 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 urbainsplanning and Growth Management/Urbanismeet Gestion de la croissance (613) , John.Smit@ottawa.ca Capital /Capitale (17) Ref N : ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0199 SUBJECT: ZONING 174 GLEBE AVENUE OBJET : ZONAGE 174, AVENUE GLEBE REPORT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 174 Glebe Avenue from Residential Type 3 Zone, Exception 1268 R3B[1268] to permit a four-storey low-rise apartment building. RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT Que le Comité de l urbanisme recommande au Conseil de refuser une modification au Règlement de zonage visant à modifier le zonage du 174, avenue Glebe de Zone résidentielle de type 3, exception 1268 R3B[1268], afin de permettre la construction d un immeuble d appartements de quatre étages.

3 139 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Assumption and Analysis Assumption and Analysis The property is located on the south side of Glebe Avenue, between Lyon Street South and Percy Street. It is comprised of two lots of record (174 and 176 Glebe Avenue), commonly referred to as 174 Glebe Avenue. The purpose of the requested Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit the construction of a four-storey apartment building (13.23 metre height) with a fifth-storey mechanical room. The building is proposed to have 17 residential units and one-storey of underground parking (20 spaces). The existing R3B [1268] zoning on the property permits a range of low-rise residential uses including single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, multiple attached dwellings and triplexes. Buildings in the R3B zoning are limited to a maximum height of 11.0 metres. Exception 1268 is a site specific exception to allow the former use of the property as a retirement home or converted retirement home limited to a maximum of 47 units. The site is designated General Urban Area in the Official Plan. The Official Plan supports redevelopment 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 Department acknowledges that a retirement home up to a maximum of 47 units is permitted under the exception provisions applying to the property. While this density is permitted and while the proposed development to remove the current building and construct a new 17 unit apartment will result in a reduction in units, adding to the building envelope in height and mass is considered to be inappropriate. The exception provision already allows a form of development that is not reflective of the nature of uses currently located and permitted for properties along the east west residential streets in the Glebe. The Department therefore is of the opinion that any redevelopment of the site to accommodate an apartment form (rather than having the use limited to a retirement residence) should be accommodated within the current height limits applying in the area to meet the intent of the Official Plan for redevelopment within established low-rise communities. Financial Implications If the amendment is carried and an appeal is brought before the Ontario Municipal Board, staff resources would be utilized to defend Council s position. In the event the amendment is not carried and an appeal is launched, an external planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000. Funds are not available from within existing resources and the expense would impact Planning and Growth Management s 2012 operating status.

4 140 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Public Consultation/Input Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. A number of comments were received from the public, the majority of which expressed concerns for the mass, height and scale of the proposed redevelopment of the site. RÉSUMÉ Hypothèses et analyse La propriété est située du côté sud de l avenue Glebe, entre les rues Lyon Sud et Percy. Elle est constituée de deux lots enregistrés (174 et 176, avenue Glebe), connus comme étant le 174, avenue Glebe. La modification au Règlement de zonage demandée a pour objet de permettre la construction d un immeuble d appartements de quatre étages (haut de 13,23 mètres) surmonté d un local d installations mécaniques. Cet immeuble abriterait 17 unités d habitation et un garage de stationnement d un niveau en sous-sol (20 places). Le zonage actuel de la propriété (R3B [1268]) permet diverses utilisations résidentielles de faible hauteur, notamment des maisons unifamiliales, des habitations jumelées, des habitations multifamiliales contiguës et des triplex. La hauteur des bâtiments de zonage R3B est limitée à 11,0 mètres. L exception 1268 est propre à certains emplacements et permet l ancienne utilisation de la propriété, c est-à-dire une maison de retraite ou une maison de retraite transformée limitée à 47 unités au maximum. La désignation du site est Secteur urbain général dans l annexe B du volume 1 du Plan officiel. Cette désignation vise à faciliter la création de collectivités complètes et viables offrant toute une gamme de logements desservis par des utilisations d emploi, de commerce de détail, de services, culturelles, récréatives, de divertissement et institutionnelles bien situées. Le Plan officiel permet les réaménagements dans le Secteur urbain général à condition qu ils soient réalisés de manière à mettre en valeur et à compléter les caractéristiques souhaitées dans la collectivité, et à assurer sa viabilité à long terme. Le Service reconnaît qu une maison de retraite abritant au maximum 47 unités est autorisée en vertu des dispositions d exception s appliquant à la propriété. Bien que cette densité soit autorisée et que la proposition de démolir le bâtiment actuel pour le remplacer par un immeuble de 17 unités d habitation entraîne une réduction du nombre d unités, l élévation de l enveloppe du bâtiment est jugée inappropriée. La disposition d exception permet déjà une forme d aménagement qui ne traduit pas la nature des utilisations actuellement autorisées sur les propriétés des rues résidentielles est-ouest du Glebe.

5 141 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Le Service considère par conséquent que tout réaménagement de l emplacement effectué sous la forme d unités d habitation (plutôt que pour des utilisations relatives à une maison de retraite) devrait être réalisé en respectant les limites de hauteur actuelles du secteur, conformément aux dispositions du Plan officiel en matière de réaménagement dans les collectivités de faible hauteur établies. Répercussions financières Si la modification est adoptée et qu un appel est interjeté devant la Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario, les ressources en personnel seraient utilisées afin de défendre la position du Conseil. Dans le cas où la modification ne serait pas approuvée et qu un appel serait interjeté, un urbaniste externe devrait être retenu au coût estimatif de $. Les ressources disponibles ne sont pas suffisantes pour couvrir ces fonds et cette dépense aurait une incidence sur le fonctionnement 2012 du Service de l urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance. Consultation publique / commentaires L avis concernant cette demande a été donné conformément à la politique d avis et de consultation publique de la Ville. Un certain nombre de commentaires ont été reçus des membres du public, exprimant en majorité des préoccupations relatives à la masse, à la hauteur et à l échelle du réaménagement proposé sur cet emplacement. BACKGROUND The property is located on the south side of Glebe Avenue, between Lyon Street South and Percy Street. It is comprised of two lots of record (174 and 176 Glebe Avenue), commonly referred to as 174 Glebe Avenue. The property currently contains one large three-storey residential building which originally was two separate single detached dwellings, built in 1915 and joined by an addition in The building has two large front porches with balconies above. The front yard setback ranges from 5.7 metres to 6.7 metres with the front porches projecting into the front yard. The rear of the building has a setback of 15.4 metres from the rear lot line and the interior east and west side yards are approximately 3.2 metres and 2.2 metres respectively. With respect to height, according to the architectural drawings provided by the applicant, the existing building is approximately 11.0 metres in height with a one-and-a half storey (5.3 metre) projection on a portion of the roof that the Department understands is an elevator penthouse. All of the parking for the building is located in the rear yard, the majority of which is paved. There are a number of mature trees on the property as well as adjacent to the property in the rear yards of neighbouring properties. Most notably are the three mature White Spruce trees at the front of the property, which are City-owned street trees.

6 142 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME The existing building was used as a retirement residence accommodating 47 residents between 1975 and 2010 and since then, has been vacant. The area is predominantly characterized by two-and-a-half to three-storey, pitched-roof, low-rise residential buildings including single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings as well as some institutional uses in the vicinity. A number of the existing single-detached and semi-detached dwellings have been converted to contain more dwelling units (converted dwellings). Immediately adjacent to the east and west of the site and on the north side of Glebe Avenue are 2.5-storey single detached dwellings. St. James United Church is located on the northwest corner of Lyon Street South and First Avenue. On the southwest corner of Lyon Street South and Glebe Avenue is a one-and-a-half-storey portion of the St. James Church which contains a Montessori School. Further to the south on the southwest corner of First Avenue and Lyon Street South is a four-storey apartment building (Ottawa Ladies College). The larger development forms in the area (as noted above) are located along Lyon Street which was established as an institutional spine that parallels the Bank Street commercial district for the Glebe neighbourhood. The east west streets in the Glebe are characterized by late 19 th to early 20 th century residential homes. Most of these homes are in the form of singles and semis some of which over the years have been converted to multiple units, such as is the case for the subject property where a retirement residence was established. Purpose of Zoning Amendment The purpose of the requested Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit the construction of a four-storey apartment building (13.23 metres) with a fifth-storey mechanical room. The building is proposed to have 17 residential units and one-storey of underground parking (20 spaces). Images of the proposed building and site plan are contained in Document 2. Existing Zoning The existing R3B [1268] zoning on the property permits a range of low-rise residential uses including single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, multiple attached dwellings and triplexes. Buildings in the R3B zone are limited to a maximum height of 11.0 metres. Exception 1268 is reflective of the former use of the property and permits a retirement home or converted retirement home limited to a maximum of 47 units. The zoning would permit a new development constructed as a retirement home subject to meeting all of the setback and height standards set out in the R3B zone. The minimum setbacks required are a 3.0 metre front yard setback, 7.5 metre rear yard setback and 1.2 and a 2.4 metre side yard setback.

7 143 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME These setbacks are less than the setbacks currently provided by the existing building and would allow for a new development to have a larger footprint on the site than currently exists. Proposed Zoning The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to rezone the subject lands from R3B [1268] to a site-specific Residential Type 4 Zone with site specific provisions for one reduced interior side yard setback, a reduced rear yard setback for a portion of the building and a building height of metres or four-storeys. 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 and requires that all City planning decisions be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), a document that provides broad policy direction on those matters considered to be of provincial interest related to land use development.. The provincial interests that apply to this site and that are articulated in the PPS include intensification within established urban areas, the appropriate location of more significant growth and development and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit, effectively use existing infrastructure and to be oriented to pedestrians. The PPS, as a high level policy document would not preclude the proposed rezoning to permit a low rise apartment and modify various zoning standards. Official Plan Strategic Directions Managing Growth and Building Liveable Communities Policy 14 of Section Managing Growth in the Urban Area indicates that interior portions of stable low-rise residential neighbourhoods will continue to be characterized by low-rise buildings and that redevelopment proposed within the interior of established neighbourhoods will be designed to complement the area s pattern of built form and open spaces. The Official Plan, in Section 2.5.1, 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. In addition, the Plan acknowledges that new development in existing areas that have developed over a long period of time requires an approach that is sensitive and respectful of a community s established characteristics.

8 144 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Section 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 application has been reviewed in the context of Section and the design objectives and principles of the Official Plan set out in Section The Department acknowledges that the applicant has employed various design techniques for the proposed development to try to integrate the proposal with the built form and cadence of development along Glebe Avenue and in particular to minimize the effect of the fourth floor by having it integrated into a mansard roof. However, it is of the opinion of the Department that the proposed increase in height and reductions in yards is not appropriate for the site and does not satisfy the policies of the Official Plan with respect to Sections and Land Use Designation The site is designated General Urban Area in the Official Plan. The General Urban Area 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 redevelopment 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 City will consider the following when evaluating redevelopment in the General Urban Area: recognize the importance of new development relating to existing community character so that it enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form; apply the policies of Sections and 4.11 consider the contribution to the maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types and tenures to provide a full range of housing for a variety of demographic profiles; and assess ground oriented multiple housing as one means of intensifying within established low-rise residential communities.

9 145 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME The 17 unit apartment proposed by the requested zoning is permitted under the broad land use policies for the General Urban Area. However, the Department is of the opinion that the request to increase the allowed building envelope, in particular the height to accommodate the proposed four-storey apartment dwelling is not reflective of the established patterns and built form in this low-rise residential community. The proposal does not meet the criteria of the General Urban Area with respect to enhancing and building upon desirable established patterns and built form along Glebe Avenue. Urban Design and Compatibility The policies set out in Section 4.11 address the issue of compatibility and urban design by providing specific criteria to be used to evaluate development applications, including design criteria contained in Council-approved Design Guidelines. The criteria in Section 4.11 includes detailed site criteria such as traffic, vehicular access, parking requirements, outdoor amenity area, loading area, lighting, noise and air quality, sunlight, microclimate as well as supporting neighbourhood services. The Department has no concerns with this proposal with respect to issues of traffic, vehicular access, parking, sunlight, supporting neighbourhood services or outdoor amenity areas. The remainder of these site-specific criteria are issues which are addressed through the Site Plan Control process. Building Heights and Massing The key concern with the proposed rezoning is ensuring a built fabric of housing which is consistent in height and massing with existing development in the area. Given the current 47-unit retirement residence that is permitted on the site, the Department is not concerned with the notion of a low-rise apartment building at this location. The central issue is the request to allow a larger building than what is currently permitted. The exception already allows for a retirement home which is greater than the scale of development that is permitted in the R3B zone which generally limits uses to low-rise, ground-oriented forms of residential housing. Adding to the building envelope, especially with an increase in height, is considered by the Department to be inappropriate for the site and surrounding area. As such, the Department is of the opinion that allowing an apartment form within the current performance standards (rather than limiting the use of the site to a retirement home) would in and of itself represent a significant step in terms of as-of-right permissions being established.

10 146 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Integration with Pattern of Surroundings Policy 14 of Section 4.11 provides the following measures to determine the appropriateness of a Zoning By-law amendment which requests an increase in building height and modifications to yards from the established area s pattern of built form and open spaces. These measures are: a. building height, massing and scale permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the immediate area; b. prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the immediate area; c. the need to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale as set out in Policy 12. The majority of the zoning in the area consists of Residential Type 3 and Residential Type 1 zones which are reflective of the predominant urban fabric in the area, namely low-rise single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, converted dwellings and multiple attached dwellings. There are a few properties in the immediate area which have been zoned Institutional to reflect existing institutional uses. These are generally located along Lyon Street which was developed as the institutional spine for the Glebe paralleling the neighbourhood commercial spine along Bank Street. These lots are large in both area and depth, and located along the edges of the blocks, on corner lots. These characteristics allow for opportunities for larger building and transitions in building height. The Department is of the opinion that the subject property does not form part of a context that lends itself to a four-storey building outside the maximum height now allowed of 11.0 metres that applies to the east-west residential streets in the Glebe. Nor does the property have a direct relationship to Lyon Street South where larger institutional style buildings exist. The prevailing development characteristics for the east west residential streets reflect a consistent pattern of building heights, massing, proportions and setbacks. The pattern consists of large single detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings which are twoand-a-half to three-storeys with pitched roofs. These properties have front yard setbacks ranging from 3.0 metres to 6.0 metres and large rear yard setbacks which exceed the minimum 7.5 metre requirement in the Zoning By-law. Many of these properties maintain generous side yard setbacks to allow for side yard and/or rear yard parking. Some of these dwellings have been converted to contain multiple residential units.

11 147 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME The Department is of the opinion that the rezoning to accommodate a low-rise apartment building within a larger built form than what is currently permitted in the R3B zone is not appropriate as it does not integrate with the fabric and context along Glebe Avenue. As a result, the Department is not satisfied that the development meets the parameters of Policy 14 of Section Heritage Considerations The property is listed on the Heritage Reference List. Heritage Staff prefer that the existing building be maintained however are not of the opinion that the building is worthy of designation. Concurrent Application An associated Site Plan Control application and Plan of Condominium application was applied for concurrently with the Zoning By-law Amendment application. RURAL IMPLICATIONS There are no rural implications associated with this report. CONSULTATION Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S) The Ward Councillor fully supports the recommendations of this report. It is consistent with the clearly-expressed views of the community associations and the many local residents who took the time to attend several meetings and share their views. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Should this matter be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it is estimated that a three day hearing would be required. If the recommendation is adopted, the hearing could be conducted within staff resources. In the event Council were to enact the rezoning requested by the applicant and the matter were appealed to the Board, an outside planner would need to be retained. The estimated cost would be approximately $25,000.

12 148 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS There are no direct risk management implications associated with this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the amendment is carried and an appeal is brought before the Ontario Municipal Board, staff resources would be utilized to defend Council s position. In the event the amendment is not carried and an appeal is launched, an external planner would need to be retained at an estimated cost of $25,000. Funds are not available from within existing resources and the expense would impact Planning and Growth Management s 2012 operating status. ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS There are no direct accessibility implications associated with this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct environmental implications associated with this report. TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS There are no direct technical 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 the complexity of the issues associated with the proposal. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Document 1 Location Map Document 2 Site Plan and Building Elevations Document 3 Consultation Details

13 149 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME 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. Legal Services to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.

14 150 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

15 151 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 2

16 152 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME

17 153 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 3 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS A number of comments were received from the public and the following is a summary of the comments. Compatibility - Height/Mass/Scale The current building is already significantly larger than neighbouring dwellings. The new development, a condominium of 19 units, is taller still and requires further rezoning. To claim that the spire of the local church is taller than the proposed development and that condominium buildings have been constructed elsewhere is disingenuous. The project is over-building. The height is almost double of the surrounding buildings; it will not conform to current rules and will require variances on the depth and width. A 55-foot high building will dwarf the 2.5 storey homes that surround it. The building is too massive both in height and in distance from property lines and will dominate the streetscape as it rises straight up for four stories. Many recent developments in this area demonstrate that intensification can be achieved within the existing R3B zoning. The proposed development should be modified to meet setback and height of the current buildings on the street. Glebe Avenue has a characteristic architectural look and ambiance that attracts families. The imposition of a multi-story condo is not consistent with the character. The development is completely out of keeping with the character and appearance of the street and neighbourhood. The City s plans for city-centre do not favour garages and driveways that face the front of the property. They do not favour degraded driveways. While a small number of houses in the immediate vicinity have self-contained apartments as permitted by the existing zoning, the dominant character of the area is of single family detached homes. Residents are opposed to the demolition of large, stately and well-built homes that reflect the style and architecture of the neighbourhood.

18 154 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Staff Response: A detailed analysis of the proposed building is contained within the body of the report. The Department is not satisfied that the proposed height and mass of the building is reflective of the neighbourhood and is recommending that the application be refused. Traffic and Parking There is a single garage door for entrance to parking and it faces an already busy Glebe Avenue a recipe for accidents. The driveway must be two-way, which it is not. Because there is only one lane for entry and exit, if vehicles are exiting, any vehicles wishing to enter will have to wait in the no-stopping area directly in front of the building, causing impacts on traffic flow on Glebe Ave. Residents are concerned with the creation of 19 dwelling units with limited parking provisions. They believe that both traffic loading and parking considerations will create inconveniences to residents and obstacles to municipal and emergency services. It is likely that the one proposed parking space per unit will not be sufficient, especially for those residents with two vehicles. There is a decrease in streetparking availability in this area. Glebe Avenue is a major corridor for students walking to school. Having an underground parking entrance/exit on Glebe Avenue couple with the proposed setback, cars will be leaving the parking garage to go up a ramp and cross the sidewalk in order to see oncoming traffic on Glebe Ave. It is a matter of time before an impatient motorist will exit the development and cross the path of children on their way to and from school, causing injury. The degraded driveway means there will not be clear visibility and, upon exiting, it will be necessary to accelerate sharply to move up directly beside the neighbouring driveway. Staff Response The Department does not have any concerns with respect to the traffic generated by a low-rise apartment building. The proposed number of parking spaces exceeds the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law for a low-rise apartment dwelling. Geotechnical Construction will likely have negative effects on the century-old rubble-stone foundations of adjacent houses especially if their moisture and water levels have been compromised. Staff Response: Specific geotechnical issues relating to neighbouring properties is a matter that is addressed through the Site Plan Approval process for development proposals.

19 155 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Precedent This development would set a precedent for developers to purchase single-family homes anywhere in the Glebe, demolish them, and erect R4 condos. The development would set a precedent for R4 zoning on East-West streets (traditionally the low-rise residential streets). The specious arguments used to attempt to justify this project can readily be applied to other projects. If this development goes forward, 174 Glebe will become the streetscape that future developers will look to emulate. Staff Response: Each planning application is reviewed by the Department on its own merits. The Department uses the applicable policies of the Official Plan as well as Council-approved design guidelines to evaluate each proposal. Streetscape The proposal appears deeply at odds with any commitment to preserving the streetscape in a harmonious way, and certainly inconsistent with keeping the heritage facades presently there. With the construction of this project, as with others seen in this neighbourhood over the past few years, one is no longer in a designed and tradition-honoured place but potentially, with further such development, in a congeries of disparate buildings, all devoid of any aesthetic and resulting social fabric. Nothing of grace or architectural convergence is left. The proposed building consumes the entire lot, to the point of requiring variances on every side to push the building closer to the property line. Any new building should be set back so that the fronts of all the buildings along Glebe Avenue align. In consideration of the expanded front yard, a concomitant reduction in the rear yard would be acceptable. Staff Response: The Department s report contains an analysis on the assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed building on the streetscape. City Park and Sun Shadow Study The proposed building is very tall and will cast a considerable shadow, especially after 2 PM in seasons when days are short. This will shadow some of the play yard used by the Glebe Montessori School. The rezoning would be detrimental to the neighbouring properties as a massive four-storey building would reduce privacy and cut off sunlight in winter months.

20 156 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME Staff Response: A Sun Shadow Study was submitted as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The study indicates that the majority of the shade will occur north of the site on the Glebe Avenue right-of-way. The study does not indicate that there will be any shadowing impacts to the Glebe Montessori School which is located on the southwest corner of Lyon Street South and Glebe Avenue. Environmental Concerns The lot will be excavated to the rear lot line and almost to the side lot lines. A mature maple on the neighbour s lot is to be retained, but it is so close to the excavation that it will likely not survive. The landscape plan shows new trees behind the building, but they will be growing on top of the parking garage and will of necessity be miniature. Because of the mass of the building, the mature trees will be at risk. The proposed structure will require large heating/cooling systems and an air circulation system for the underground parking garage. These systems will produce significant levels of noise during operation that will negatively impact the adjacent residential properties. The proposal for storm-water retention on the roof appears to pose potential future structural problems for the condo owners which may occur after the developer is long gone. Rooftop retention of storm water is not necessarily an accepted engineering practice. The preferred practice appears to be sump pumps that discharge water onto green space where the water can be absorbed naturally. The site plan does not provide adequate space for that. The stated intent to maintain the mature vegetation on Glebe Ave is specious. The existing larger trees will be significantly impacted by construction. If they are managed to be protected, the inevitable damage to the root system during excavation for the foundation and underground parking could kill the trees within a short period thereafter. The preservation of trees along the front of the building is a concern; any replacement building should be required to be set back so any excavation cannot interfere with the root balls of the trees. As a result of the enormous size, the green space around this building is reduced to almost nothing compared to a typical home. The lack of green presence is a major concern as far as the streetscape is concerned. Staff Response: Details pertaining to stormwater management and tree protection measures are issue that are dealt with during the Site Plan Control stage for development proposals. The applicant did submit an Arborist Report and Tree Conservation Plan with the Site Plan application addressing the removal and preservation of trees on-site and the impacts to trees on neighbouring properties.

21 157 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS May 31, 2012 Glebe Community Association Further to our letter to you of last December, the proposal for 174 Glebe has been revised but does not appear to be differ substantially from the proposal submitted earlier. The GCA continues to object to the zoning change proposed for 174 Glebe Avenue from R3 to R4. Additionally, the proposed plan, similar to the one presented in December, appears to be too large for the site. It is recommended that any building for this site be limited to 3 storeys (11 m) and that rear and side yard limitations be respected. Moreover, the existing streetscape along Glebe Avenue is still essential to preserving the unique character found throughout the Glebe neighbourhood. Any new building should be set back so that the fronts of all the buildings along Glebe Avenue align. In consideration of the expanded front yard, a concomitant reduction in the rear yard would be acceptable. The preservation of the trees along the front of the building is also of concern. Any replacement building should be required to be set back so that any excavation not interfere with the root balls of the trees. A passive watering system may also be of benefit to help the trees better weather urban living and extend their lives. (Note the building set back proposed above may be sufficient to preserve the health of the Glebe Ave. trees.)

22 EXTRACT OF DRAFT PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST COMITÉ DE L URBANISME EXTRAIT DE L ÉBAUCHE DU PROCÈS-VERBAL 39 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME LE 23 AOÛT 2012 ZONING GLEBE AVENUE ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0199 CAPITAL (17) REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 174 Glebe Avenue from Residential Type 3 Zone, Exception 1268 R3B[1268] to permit a fourstorey low-rise apartment building. At the outset, Committee heard from Mr. Michael Polowin, Gowlings, on behalf of Moda Development Corporation (the applicant), to request a deferral of Committee s consideration of this item to allow for further discussions. In the temporary absence of Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, Corporate Development and Environmental Law Branch, the Committee received a PowerPoint slide presentation overview from Ms. Melanie Knight, Planner, Inner Core Unit, Development Review, Urban Services Branch, PGM (held on file with the City Clerk). Committee discussed the merits of deferral, development timelines and the possibility of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. Following the receipt of legal counsel, and after hearing from Ward Councillor Chernushenko, who felt there was no reason to defer, as the project had been ongoing for a considerable length of time, and that the applicant was seeking a rezoning for a building that was out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, Committee considered the following Motion: Moved by Councillor R. Bloess: MOTION N O PLC 39/2 That the Planning Committee approve that consideration of this item be deferred to the Planning Committee meeting of 23 October NAYS (6): YEAS (2): S. Blais, K. Hobbs, S. Qadri, M. Taylor, J. Harder, P. Hume R. Bloess, B. Monette LOST

23 EXTRACT OF DRAFT PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST COMITÉ DE L URBANISME EXTRAIT DE L ÉBAUCHE DU PROCÈS-VERBAL 39 COMITÉ DE L URBANISME LE 23 AOÛT 2012 Committee then heard from the following delegation in support of the report recommendation: Ms. Valerie Lasher*. In the interest of expediency, Councillor Chernushenko conferred with the following parties, who also all expressed concurrence with the report recommendation, and who did not speak: Mr. Jamie Worling; Mr. Bobby Galbreath, Glebe Community Association*; and, M. Guy Giguère Written correspondence was also received from the following, expressing concurrence with the report recommendation: Ms. Linda Fournier*; Mr. August Heidemann*; and, Mr. John & Ms. Jill Hill*. The Committee then heard from the following delegations in opposition to the report recommendation: Mr. Brian Casagrande, FoTenn Consultants Inc.; Mr. Michael Polowin, Gowlings; and, Mr. Vincent Colizza, Architect. [ * All individuals marked with an asterisk either provided their comments in writing or by ; all such comments are held on file with the City Clerk. ] Messrs. Casagrande and Colizza suggested that the design as presented was a better use of built form, and superior to that which was currently allowed under the existing zoning. Committee discussions having been concluded, the recommendation was then put before Committee and was CARRIED as presented.