Queen Victoria MINOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 30/11/2012

61 Queen Victoria MINOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 30/11/2012

PREPARED FOR: DOYLE HOMES 124 Reis Road Ottawa, ON K0A 1L0 T: 613.831.7924 www.doylehomes.ca PREPARED BY: FOTENN CONSULTANTS INC. 223 McLeod Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0Z8 T: 613.730.5709 F: 613.730.1136 www.fotenn.com

Minor Zoning By-Law Amendment - November 2012 61 Queen Victoria Street FOTENN Consultants Inc. has been retained by Capital View Developments Inc. [ Capital View ] to assist in the preparation of a Minor Zoning By-law Amendment application and request to temporarily lift the heritage overlay on the property municipally known as 61 Queen Victoria Street in Ottawa. Capital View is proposing to put an addition on the rear of the existing home fronting Queen Victoria Street and construct a new single-detached dwelling fronting River Lane. In addition to this application, a Heritage Permit application is being submitted concurrently to permit alteration of the existing building and construction of a new dwelling within a Heritage Conservation District. If the proponent is successful in these applications, an application to the Committee of Adjustment would follow, in order to sever the lot into two (2) parts and grant the necessary servicing and access easements. Capital View has engaged Doyle Homes as the builder/developer in charge of the project. 1.0 Site Context The subject property is located on the south side of Queen Victoria Street in the New Edinburgh neighbourhood of Ottawa. New Edinburgh is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The lot is L-shaped with frontage on Queen Victoria Street to the north and River Lane to the west. The total property area stands at 526 square metres, with frontage along Queen Victoria Street of 10.61 metres, and frontage along River Lane of 10.44 metres. There is an existing single-family home on the property, estimated to have been built in 1874. It is comprised of 2 /3 bedrooms, one (1) bath, and half-basement on a stone foundation. The property is bounded by a two-and-a-half-storey semi-detached dwelling to the west and a three-storey single detached dwelling to the east along Queen Victoria Street. A twostorey semi-detached dwelling with frontage onto Crichton Street bounds the property to the east, and a two-and-a-half-storey semi-detached dwelling with frontage onto River Lane borders the property to the south. Subject Property Figure 1: Aerial image of subject property

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 2 Queen Victoria Street is an existing local road with controlled intersections (via stop signs) at both Crichton Street and Stanley Avenue. River Lane has a paved right of way width of 6.0 metres with vehicle access via Queen Victoria Street and exiting at Keefer Street. Existing Dwelling from Queen Victoria Subject Site along River Lane Frontage River Lane looking South

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 3 The New Edinburgh neighbourhood is predominantly residential with an eclectic mix of dwelling types and architectural styles. Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Governor General, is located to the immediate west, bounded by Mackay at its nearest point. Despite the variety of dwelling types ranging from single-detached to low-rise apartments, the neighbourhood is entirely low-profile (under 5 storeys), including in the immediate vicinity. To preserve this character and built heritage, the area is designated a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Figure 2: Subject property in context Edinburgh Park is located along the Rideau River, approximately 200 metres southeast of the subject property. Seniors housing and child care facilities are available nearby, and a wide range of public and private schools are located within 2 kilometres of the site. The property enjoys retail amenity along nearby Beechwood Avenue to the south.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 4 Figure 3: Area Amenities 2.0 Proposed Development The development proposal submitted here is two-fold: 1) to permit the construction of an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling thereby removing the current building addition; and, 2) to permit the construction a new single family home on a future lot with frontage onto River Lane. On Queen Victoria Street, Capital View is proposing to construct an addition on the rear of the existing dwelling. The addition will stand at a nearly identical height to the existing structure, but will be set in slightly from the rear of the original building on both sides to preserve the appearance of the original heritage building at the street front. The addition itself will provide for a basement recreation room, kitchen, family room, and master bedroom. Two (2) back entrances will access the rear yard, one at grade and the other by means of a portico. Sensitively-designed glazing of different shapes and sizes will be featured on the west and south façades of the addition. Compatible materials have been carefully chosen for the addition to mimic those of the existing building and complement the surrounding neighbourhood. Integration of the new addition with the building will be seamless, while still retaining slight differences that will distinguish the different portions.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 5 Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan On River Lane, the applicant proposes to build a 3-storey single-detached dwelling with an attached garage. The third (top) storey features a small rooftop patio along the River Lane frontage, within an area where the bedroom portion is stepped back from the front façade. This step-back helps to mitigate the appearance of height by limiting the height of the front façade to only two (2) storeys. This also allows the patio to be contained to a small area that is setback by 1.6 m and 1.5 m on all sides to mitigate any privacy / overlook issues. The modern design elements of the new dwelling are showcased through its flat roof, generous glazing, and materials. These elements contribute to the eclectic nature of the neighbourhood and intentionally distinguish the building from the Victorian-era architecture of heritage properties. The colour palette and certain design elements were vetted through the preconsultation process, and were incorporated on the recommendation of City Heritage Staff. This process

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 6 helps to ensure that the new development blends appropriately with its physical, natural, and heritage surroundings. Figure 5: Elevation drawings for the addition to the existing dwelling Should a severance of the two (2) properties occur as proposed, this would result in an area of 278.19 m 2 for the lot with the existing Queen Victoria home, and a total area of 247.01 m2 for the River Lane site. The overall site plan for the property incorporates four (4) preserved trees into the landscaping, removing two (2) trees to accommodate the new dwelling. New landscaping elements will be added, along the rear of the addition to the existing building and also along the front façade of the new

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 7 dwelling. Access to the existing building from Queen Victoria Street will remain in its present location, while the new infill dwelling will be accessed from River Lane. Figures 6 & 7: Elevation drawings for River Lane infill dwelling

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 8 Servicing for both dwellings will be provided from Queen Victoria Street, from which a servicing study has indicated that additional capacity is available in the vicinity of the property. Servicing will be expanded to accommodate the addition to the existing building. An easement will be sought from the Committee of Adjustment at a later date to accommodate servicing facilities within the existing driveway from Queen Victoria Street to the new dwelling on River Lane. 3.0 The Application The minor Zoning By-Law Amendment submitted here requests approval to apply a different subzone within the Residential Fourth Density (R4) parent zone to the property in order to more accurately reflect the land use capabilities of the site. More specifically, it requests to change the property s zoning from R4S [900] to R4K [xxxx]. This is discussed is greater detail under Section 5.5. These amendments will ensure the proposal meets the performance of the Zoning By-Law while maintaining consistency of land use within the R4 parent zone. In addition, the minor Zoning By-Law Amendment assesses the projects conformance with Section 60 of the Zoning By-Law due to the alterations proposed to the existing dwelling within a Heritage Conservation District and requests an amendment to one (1) of the criteria under consideration, along with the other relevant sections of the by-law to confirm conformance. 4.0 Surrounding Lot Areas, Dimensions, and Orientation Figure 8 examines in greater detail the range of existing lot widths on nearby streets that are either similar in width to, or in some cases narrower than, those being sought in the proposed applications. The range of lot widths are divided into three categories: 1) less than 8.0 m; 2) within 8.0-10.0 m; and 3) within 10.0-12.0 m. The lot widths proposed under this application are 10.6 and 10.4 m. Figure 8 demonstrates these widths as being consistent with the existing lot fabric in the area. Figure 8 also illustrates the presence of development adjacent to the subject lands and further south along River Lane. In some cases, River Lane appears to be the only legal frontage for developments.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 9 Figure 8: Surrounding lot widths Figure 9 illustrates the range of existing lot areas of properties surrounding the subject property. After being severed, the proposed lot areas for the new parcels are 277.72 m 2 and 246.48 m 2, which is compatible with the surrounding area. The graphic divides the range of lot areas into three categories: a) less than 200 m 2 ; b) within 200 m 2 300 m 2 ; c) within 300 m 2 400 m 2 and d) over 400 m 2. Figure 9 demonstrates these areas as being consistent with the existing lot fabric in the area.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 10 Figure 9: Surrounding lot areas 5.0 Policy and Regulatory Framework 5.1. Provincial Policy Statement (2005) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect on March 1, 2005. The PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning. The proposed development conforms to the objectives and intent of the PPS and supports several of its specific policies. In particular, the proposed development: Focuses growth within a settlement area (Policy 1.1.3.1); Makes efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities, and supports the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit (Policies 1.1.3.2, 1.4.3); and Contributes to providing an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents (Policy 1.4.1);

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 11 Conserves heritage resources (Policy 2.6.1). By intensifying an existing neighbourhood, taking advantage of existing infrastructure and facilities, creating an appropriate residential density in the neighbourhood, and conserving heritage resources, the proposal conforms to the objectives and intent of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). 5.2. City of Ottawa Official Plan [2003, as amended] The property is designated General Urban Area on Schedule B Urban Policy Plan of the City of Ottawa s Official Plan. The intent of the General Urban Area designation is to permit a full range of housing choice and types to meet the needs of a diverse population. Conveniently-located employment, retail, service, cultural, leisure, entertainment, and institutional uses are also permitted. The proposed development, which consists of a new single-detached dwelling and an addition on an existing single-detached dwelling, meets the intent of the Section 3.6.1 policies that encourage residential uses within the designation. Policy 14 of Section 2.2.2 states that generally, new development, including redevelopment, proposed within the interior of established neighbourhoods will be designed to complement the area's pattern of built form and open spaces. The proposed amendment will maintain the residential use of the property, preserving the existing single-detached dwelling and developing a new single-detached dwelling along the laneway. The new laneway dwelling complements the existing character of the area s built form, and contributes to an active frontage along the laneway. The massing of both buildings provides a contextual relationship between the development and the existing built form of the area. Intensification and redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods is one of the central tenets of the Official Plan. The Official Plan directs growth to areas that can support compact development and that is or can be served with transit, walking and cycling facilities. In accordance with Section 3.6.1 (3) when considering a proposal for residential intensification through infill or redevelopment, the City will recognize the importance of new development relating to the existing community character; apply the policies of Section 2.5.1 and Section 4.11; and consider the contribution to maintenance and achievement of a balance of housing types and tenures for a variety of demographic profiles. Given the property s location within a Heritage Conservation District, the relevant heritage policies under Section 4.6 must also be considered. Section 2.5.1 addresses Urban Design and Compatibility criteria. The proposed development supports a number of the objectives and principles provided in this section, including: Objective 1: To enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 12 o o Principle: Create distinctive places and appreciate local identity in patterns of development, landscape and culture. Principle: Reflect a thorough and sensitive understanding of place, context, and setting. Objective 2: To define quality private and public spaces through development. o Principle: Encourage a continuity of street frontage. Where continuous building facades are not the dominant feature of a streetscape, the gradual infilling [ ] between a building and the street edge is promoted to occur over time. o Principle: Address the relationship between buildings and between buildings and the street. o Principle: Contribute to attractive public spaces and important vistas. Objective 4: To ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas. o Principle: Integrate new development to complement and enliven the surroundings. o Principle: Allow built form to evolve through architectural style and innovation. o Principle: Complement the massing patterns, rhythm, character, and context. Objective 5: To consider adaptability and diversity by creating places that can adapt and evolve easily over time and that are characterized by variety and choice. o Principle: Achieve a more compact urban form. o Principle: Provide flexibility for buildings and space to adapt to a variety of possible uses in response to changing social, economic and technological conditions. The City generally tests the impact and compatibility of a proposed development using the criteria set forth in Section 4.11 of the Official Plan. This proposal has been assessed against Section 4.11 (as amended) and was found to meet the objective compatibility criteria. Of particular relevance to an assessment of the proposal are the following criteria outlined under Policy 2: Traffic: The proposed development seeks to add one (1) new dwelling unit to the site. As such, additional traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood are anticipated to be negligible. Given the proposed access location, a functional traffic movement analysis of the proposal was undertaken. The letter concludes that there is adequate right of way within the laneway environment to support functional movement into the additional dwelling unit on River Lane. This letter prepared by Genivar is submitted as part of the application and discussed in Section 5.0. Vehicular access: Vehicular access to the existing dwelling will continue to be provided from Queen Victoria Street using the existing driveway. Vehicle access to the proposed new dwelling fronting River Lane will be provided from the paved laneway, which currently provides for a 6.0m right-of-way. This is permissible use of a laneway in the current context, although the

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 13 current zoning by-law does not permit sole access to a property from a public lane. This amendment requests exception to that provision in order to accommodate growth while minimizing impact on existing tree canopy and soft landscaping. Consideration of laneway maintenance requirements and emergency access has been given in this proposal. Parking requirements: Both proposed dwellings will provide sufficient parking spaces within the private lot for residents, in accordance with Section 101 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250. One (1) parking space will be provided for the Queen Victoria dwelling at the end of the existing driveway, which is of sufficient length to provide additional space for visitor parking. The infill dwelling provides a garage for parking, as well as a 6.33-metre long driveway to provide an additional parking space due to the garage being recessed from the building face. Outdoor amenity area: Both dwellings will feature ample and varied outdoor amenity areas. The existing dwelling will retain the covered front porch, and add a covered portico in the rear. The infill dwelling will contain a rooftop patio on the third floor and a porch in the rear yard. Both dwellings will also enjoy landscaped rear yard amenity space of approximately 95 sq.m for the Queen Victoria property, and 62 sq.m for the infill on River Lane. Existing tree canopy has been preserved as best as possible in order to ensure a continued green canopy for the properties and surrounding neighbours. Sunlight: A sun shadow study was undertaken to review the potential impacts of the proposed building on neighbouring properties and is attached with this application. The study shows that shadowing impacts on both dwellings. The Queen Victoria dwelling remains consistent with its current built form in terms of shadow cast, while the River Lane casts its greater shadow to the east and north during the winter months, and slightly into the rear neighbours rear yard during summer mornings. This shadow study demonstrates no significant impacts. Surrounding Neighbourhood Services: The proposed development will be adequately served by the surrounding neighbourhood services and amenities as described in this report under Site Context. Policy 14 of Section 4.11 permits intensification inside stable, low-rise residential neighbourhoods. The appropriateness of any Zoning By-law Amendment application, including minor amendments such as this, is assessed based on: 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; and c) The need to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as set out in policy 12 of Section 4.11.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 14 The proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law comply with the above criteria, as they are not being sought to support greater heights or massing than what is currently permitted. The amendment to the subzone within the R4 density appropriately reflects the density currently existing within the neighbourhood and ensures the performance standards of the subzone are met by the development proposal. On comparison of the existing R4S zone and the proposed R4K zone performance standards, the only determinable differences relate to Lot Width and Lot Area, where by the R4S zone requires a 9.0m lot width and 270 m 2 lot area; and the proposed R4K zone allows for a 7.5m lot width and 197 m 2 lot area. The proposed lot dimensions are not out of character with the neighbourhood or the surrounding properties and the application achieves the majority of the setback requirements. The retention of the existing homestead requires an amendment to the R4K provision to permit a reduced front yard setback along Queen Victoria. The proposed development is consistent with the established pattern of single-detached homes in the area. The proposed amendment complies with the growth management policies of the City of Ottawa Official Plan, and meets the intent of the policies for the General Urban Area. The proposal s design meets the compatibility criteria set out in Section 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the Official Plan. Section 4.6 of the Official Plan promotes the conservation of heritage resources. Policy 4.6.2 stipulates that development of any property located in a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act) requires a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement. A Cultural Heritage Impact Statement is provided concomitant with this application. It determines that the application is appropriate within the neighbourhood heritage context. The heritage considerations of this proposal are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3 of this report. 5.3. Heritage Considerations The property at 61 Queen Victoria Street is located inside the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District (HCD), which protects the heritage character of the neighbourhood s built form. The Ontario Heritage Act specifies that all proposals for new construction or to alter the existing appearance must be approved by City Council. The area s heritage value is summarized in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Study (2000). This study recommended the establishment of a Heritage Conservation District in the neighbourhood, and the adoption of Part 3 of the Study as a key planning document to guide change and conservation in the area. Design guidelines were adopted as a consequence of the Study, which are meant to guide development in the neighbourhood in a manner that respects its heritage architectural and built form. The project architects were careful to follow these guidelines closely when designing both the addition to the existing heritage building, and the new dwelling along River Lane. In particular, Section 3.3 on new infill construction which speaks to the need for respecting and reinforcing the character of the streetscape [3.3ii)3]; maintenance of the existing

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 15 small lot development pattern [3.3ii)4]; importance of recessed garages (3.3ii)5]; and provision of parking off of laneways where the alternative is a garage facing the street (3.3iii)5].. In addition, a heritage overlay, listed as Section 60 under Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250, applies to all of the properties within the HCD. This overlay provides specific compatibility criteria, including: The height of the walls and the height and slope of the roof of the addition do not exceed those of the building; The gross floor area of the addition does not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the building; The side yard setback of the addition is at least 60.0 centimetres greater than that of the wall of the building located closest to the side lot line; The addition is located entirely within the rear yard, or in the interior yard abutting the rear yard and complies with the rear yard setback of the underlying zone; The addition must not be located within a front yard. The proposed addition to the existing heritage building complies with four (4) of these criteria. However, it does not meet the criteria requiring a side yard setback of at least 60.0 cm greater than the existing structures exterior side wall. The proposed addition is inset 30.0 cm from the exterior wall. This reduced inset was deemed necessary given the narrow width (6.55 m) of the existing building. While the proposed side yard setback of the addition does not meet this By-Law provision, it does successfully reduce the massing impact the current addition imposes on the property, through its ability to both add to and compliment the homestead within a smaller footprint than what exists. In doing so, it is thought to greatly improve the overall heritage quality of the property. A Heritage Overlay also exists over the property. This must be lifted temporarily to permit development of the proposed new dwelling along River Lane. As there was no previously-existing building on the proposed site for this development, no site-specific massing restrictions apply beyond the applicable zoning provisions. The new building s massing and design comply with the required performance standards, and respond to the surrounding context to be compatible with the area s low-profile built form. A Cultural Heritage Impact Study (CHIS) was prepared by Robertson-Martin Architects. The report concludes that the addition to the existing building is compatible with its surroundings and sensitive to the heritage value of the building. Similarly, the report considers the design of the proposed infill building to fit comfortably within its context.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 16 The proposal complies with the intent of Section 60 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250. It is determined that the addition to the existing heritage structure and the new proposed dwelling are both designed to be sensitive to the surrounding heritage context. While the addition does not meet the required 60 cm side yard setback from the existing exterior side wall, its 30cm inset is consistent with the existing addition that will be subject to removal. A Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) prepared by an independent expert confirms that the proposed development will not negatively affect the heritage resources on the property or in the surrounding area. 5.4. Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Density Infill Housing (2009) The City of Ottawa s Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing applies to all infill and intensification proposals. It must be noted that not every design guideline will apply to every development and as such, the intent is not to use the guidelines as a checklist but to demonstrate a general adherence to the design direction. The proposed development and its architectural merits support the general intent and objectives of the Infill Guidelines, as follows: Design the streetscape to work with the local vocabulary when an architecturally significant fabric exists; Retain all established landscaping such as existing healthy trees. Design buildings around established trees; Reflect the streetscape character; The existing context, character, and pattern of an established neighbourhood can be recognized, while at the same time, allow for the evolution of architectural style and innovation in built form. Infill development should be a desirable addition to an existing neighbourhood. This does not mean imitating historical styles and fashions of another era, or conversely about total contrast in fabric or materials, but rather recognizing the established scale and pattern of the context and grain of the neighbourhood. In determining infill lot sizes, recognize local lot sizes including lot width, relative to the scale and proportions of the new development vis-à-vis the surrounding development; Allow the front door (public entrance) to dominate the front façade, as opposed to the garage being dominant; Use the past to help inform approaches to design, reinterpreting local vernacular in a contemporary way; Make driveway locations and car storage as discrete as possible; In neighbourhoods with open rear public lanes, or corner lots, locate all parking and garages at the back to maximize the area of green front yards adjacent to the public sidewalk; Respect and conserve the heritage value when introducing a new addition to an historic place; Make new development physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the historic place. Look for opportunities to be innovative and creative when blending new development with the existing context.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 17 Make additions either secondary acting as a frame to a heritage showpiece, or visually separate and distinct. The proposed dwellings were assessed against all of the urban design criteria for development and are determined to comply with the majority of the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. 5.5. City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law [250-2008] The subject property is currently zoned Residential Fourth Density Subzone S with Exception 900 (R4S [900]) in the City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250. The intent of the R4 zone is to permit residential housing types ranging from detached dwellings to low-rise apartment dwellings. R4S [900] Subject Property Figure 10: Existing Zoning This Minor Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to change the subzone on the property from R4S to R4K, in order to introduce performance standards that more suitably address the land use opportunity on the property. The requested change in the sub zone does not detract from the intent of the R4

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 18 density, which as noted above, is to provide for a variety of dwelling types within this established urban framework. On comparison of the R4S and R4K performance standards, the only determinable differences relate to Lot Width and Lot Area, where by the R4S zone requires a 9.0m lot width and 270 m 2 lot area; and the proposed R4K zone allows for a 7.5m lot width and 197 m 2 lot area. The specific performance standards for the R4K subzone and the other relevant sections of the Zoning By-law are outlined in the following table, along with highlights (in red) of required amendments that are sought by the subject application: Provision R4K Compliance (Queen Victoria) Lot Width (Min) Compliance (River Lane) 7.5 m 10.61 m 10.44 m Lot Area (Min) 197 m 2 279.64 m 2 246.65 m 2 Building Height 11 m 5.92 m 9.41 m (Max) Front Yard Setback (Min) Rear Yard Setback (Min) Interior Yard Setback (Min) 3 m 1.06 m 3.05 m 25% lot depth (to a maximum of 7.5 m) 1.8 m total, with one side 0.6 m 8.96 m 6.0 m 1.10 m / 2.93 m 1.25 m / 0.64 m While the proposed lots exceed the lot width of the existing zone (9.0m), the property to be severed for the infill development falls short of meeting the existing lot area requirement (270m 2 ). A sub zone amendment was considered to be the most appropriate zoning approach in order to simplify the zoning moving forward and work fully within a permitted subzone of the R4 density. The retention of the existing homestead requires an amendment to the R4K Front Yard Setback provision to permit a reduced front yard setback along Queen Victoria. In addition, Exception 900 currently listed on the property, allows for any use that has its only access from an existing lane is the only use permitted on that parcel of land and any expansion of this use is permitted provided it conforms with the provisions of this zone. This exception must be amended and a new site-specific exception implemented in order to permit lane access for the new dwelling, and ultimately allow for severance of the property. The future severance application will be subject to Section 59 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250 which speaks to the need for direct frontage onto a public street.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 19 The new exception would be similar in wording to that of endnote 16 in the R4 parent zone, but amended to accommodate site specific particulars as noted below: Access to a lot on River Lane is permitted, provided the lot meets the required width under the By-law and the rear lane has a pavement width of at least 3.0 metres. In addition, in no case may the width of the garage, carport or driveway exceed 50% of the width of the rear lot line. The proposed development complies with most of the applicable performance standards for Residential Fourth Density Subzone K (R4K), and the proposed amendments maintain the purpose of the Residential Fourth Density zone. The replacement of Exception [900] with a new site-specific exception is required to permit the proposed addition to the existing Queen Victoria dwelling and the new proposed dwelling, and to permit lane frontage for the property to be severed. The wording of this exception (as noted above) will be similar in nature to the existing endnote 16 in the R4 parent zone with site appropriate amendments. 6.0 Required Technical Studies and Reports Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) A CHIS was prepared by Robertson-Martin Architects in August 2012. The report analyzes the proposal and offers a professional opinion in support of the submitted development options. It concludes that the addition to the existing building is compatible with its surroundings and sensitive to the heritage value of the building. Similarly, the report considers the design of the proposed infill building to fit comfortably within its context. It furthermore supports the proposed severance line, in contrast to a flag-shaped lot that would increase the amount of paved surfaces, force the removal of a tree, and further impact the heritage value of the property. Arborist Report A report produced by Bowthorpe Tree Services concluded that none of the five (5) trees on the subject property were endangered or protected species. Two (2) trees will require a permit for removal. Geotechnical Report Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. produced a geotechnical report, which includes recommendations for the construction process. No major issues were raised. Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd. (DSEL) produced an Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services report for the development proposal, which identified no issues for water, wastewater, storm water, or sanitary sewer services.

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 20 It appears sufficient pressure flow is available within the existing municipal watermain system, but actual pressure and flow at the subject site will need to be confirmed with the City of Ottawa to ensure adequate water supply will be available for the proposed development; The existing 250mm diameter sanitary sewer within Queen Victoria Street has adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated increase in wastewater generated from the proposed development; Due to the complex interconnections and operations of the Keefer Regulator, the City of Ottawa will need to confirm adequate capacity is available in the municipal sewers downstream of the regulator; Due to the size of the subject property being less than 0.2 ha, it is anticipated that a specific site storm water quantity control target will not be required; with the exception that a 75mm ICD is to be installed in any catch basin located in the parking area or as part of a rear yard catch basin system; Utility servicing will need to be coordinated with the individual utility companies prior to site development; Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented prior to any earthworks and will be maintained throughout construction. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. in August 2012. The report notes the evidence of potentially contaminating activities that may create an area of potential environmental concern (APEC), including: Evidence of a former AST and presence of associated piping; An area of stained soil in the basement of the existing dwelling; Old fuel containers, oil containers, batteries, and automotive parts in the storage shed; and Fill material was observed during a geotechnical investigation. The report concludes that a Phase II ESA is required for the site. This work is being undertaken at present and will be submitted to the City in due course. 7.0 Planning Considerations and Conclusions The proposed amendment is consistent with the Official Plan. The two (2) detached dwellings proposed on the property contribute to the residential character of the neighbourhood and the policy direction of the General Urban Area designation and Section 2.2, which encourages and supports opportunities for intensification within General Urban Areas. Additionally, the proposal meets the compatibility criteria found in Sections 2.5.1 and 4.11 of the Official Plan. Both developments are sensitive to the surrounding built form and architectural context. The proposed addition to the existing heritage building is designed to imitate the existing architecture and materials, without replicating its features exactly. The addition s design also meets the intent of

Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 61 Queen Victoria St November 2012 21 Section 60 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2008-250 and the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Development Guidelines. The proposed infill building is designed to complement the surrounding neighbourhood built form, without attempting to re-create the heritage architectural styles that predominate in the area. The built form of the proposed building is compatible with neighbouring development. The development proposal follows the majority of the City of Ottawa s Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Density Infill Housing. The supporting studies confirm that development can proceed without disruption to servicing, traffic, or the natural environment. Additionally, a report from a certified heritage architect confirms that the proposed developments are compatible with the heritage character of the surroundings. The proposed development complies with most of the applicable performance standards for Residential Fourth Density Subzone K (R4K). The proposed amendments to the R4K zone maintain the purpose of the Residential Fourth Density zone. Based on the above, it is our opinion that the proposed minor Zoning By-law Amendment represents good planning and is in the public s interest. Please contact Sarah Millar Martin at ext. 249, or Jaime Posen at ext. 236 should you have any questions or concerns regarding this application. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Jaime Posen, M.Pl Urban Planner FOTENN Consultants Sarah Millar Martin, MCIP RPP Urban Planner FOTENN Consultants