MOMENTUM PLANNING AND COMMUNICATIONS Design Brief Site Plan Control and Minor Variance Applications 59 Russell Avenue December 2014 Revised February 2015 Prepared by: Dennis Jacobs MCIP, RPP
Index 1. Introduction 2 2. Existing Situation and Context 2 3. Development Proposal Overview 3 4. Policy Framework a) Official Plan 4 b) Sandy Hill Secondary Plan 9 Page 5. Urban Design Guidelines a) Low Rise Infill Housing 10 6. Zoning By-law Amendment 11 7. Summary Opinion 12 8. Appendix a) Site Context Aerial Photo A1 b) Neighbourhood Context Aerial Photo A2 c) Neighbourhood Context Building Footprints A3 d) Context Photographs A4 e) Official Plan Designation A8 f) Sandy Hill Secondary Plan Designation A9 g) Existing Zoning A10 h) Proposed Site Plan A11 i) Proposed Landscape Plan A12 j) Building Elevations Front and Rear A13 k) Building Elevations North and South Sides A14 l) Perspective Views on Russell Avenue a. North-East A15 b. South-East A16 m) Existing Conditions Survey A17 1 P a g e
1. Introduction This Design Brief, originally prepared to assess the appropriateness of an application for site plan control for a four-storey, nine unit apartment building to be located at 59 Russell Avenue, has been revised to assess a new proposal for a 12 unit building that preserves the existing historic house on the lot. The revised design has resulted in the need to request minor variances to the applicable zoning provisions and the appropriateness of these minor variances has been addressed in this revised report. The Brief includes an Appendix which contains a collection of maps, plans, aerial photographs and graphic materials that provide visual support to the text. This development proposal is further supported by the following studies and reports prepared by others: Phase 1 Environmental Assessment dated December 3, 2014 prepared by Geofirma Engineering Limited Geotechnical Report dated December 2014 prepared by SPL Consultants Limited Site Servicing and Storm Water Management Report dated February 2015 prepared by MMM Group Limited Architectural Design prepared by Woodman Architect and Associates Limited Landscape Design by MMM Group Limited Site Survey dated November 27, 2014 prepared by MMM Geomatics Ontario Limited OLS 2. Existing Situation and Context The subject property is legally described as Lot 10, Plan 14349, East Side of Russell Avenue, City of Ottawa. It is located on the eastern side of Russell Avenue between Laurier Avenue and Osgoode Street. The lot has a frontage of 16.01 metres and depth of 35.36 metres for a total area of approximately 566 square metres. A single parking space is provided in a carport with a driveway off Russell Avenue on the north side of the lot. As well, there is an informal parking area for approximately three vehicles at the rear of the lot accessed directly from the public lane. The property is occupied by a converted dwelling containing two residential units (see site survey in Appendix). The original two storey brick veneer house was built in approximately 1895 and is located essentially on the southern lot line. Since that time, the building has been enlarged with two additions. One extends into the rear yard containing additional living space and the second is attached to the north side and includes a private entry and the carport. There is also a small storage shed located in the rear yard adjacent to the public lane. Russell Avenue is one the original streets in the development of Sandy Hill with much of the construction dating from late 19 th and early 20 th century. The dwelling at 59 Russell Avenue was one of the original houses constructed on the street and is noted on the Heritage Reference list as being of Category 2 importance but is currently not designated under Part IV or Part V of the Heritage Act. The draft Sandy Hill Heritage Study which was completed in 2010 identifies this block of Russell Avenue as having Potential Heritage Value and as such may be a candidate for designation as a heritage district under Part V of the Act. To date, this draft report has not been presented to Council for consideration or approval. 2 P a g e
The building forms along this block of Russell Avenue (see Photographs in the Appendix) are a mixture of single detached, semi-detached, row houses and low-rise apartments. These range in height up to three storeys but are predominately two to two and half storeys with peaked roofs. Many of the buildings are original with several having undergone extensive restoration. However, there is also new construction albeit in a heritage style (see Photos 3 and 16). The two low-rise apartment buildings found in the block appear to be mid 1900 s style (see Photos 10 and 14) and are flat roofed. 3. Development Proposal Overview The guiding principle leading the design of the proposed development was to construct a low-rise apartment building with vehicular parking to be provided in the rear of the lot off the public lane. This approach was to ensure that the design of front of the building and the landscaping was in keeping with the residential context of the street. The original intent was to achieve this design in conformity with the existing zone provisions applicable to the site which would require the demolition of the existing dwelling. The original application filed in December 2014 was based on the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and their replacement with a new four storey low rise apartment building which is a permitted use in this zone. This proposal fully conformed to all applicable provisions in the zoning by-law. The application was circulated by the City and resulted in a number of comments from Heritage staff and Action Sandy Hill (ASH) related to a desire to retain the existing dwelling due to its importance to the heritage character of the street. It was determined that retention of the existing dwelling was possible but it would require relief from certain zoning provisions related to side yard setbacks, the amount of amenity area in the rear yard and a reduction in the rate of required parking. This relief would require an application for minor variance in addition to the site plan control application. A new design was prepared in January 2015 as a revision to the existing application. This proposal allows for the conversion of the existing dwelling into a four storey low-rise apartment building containing 12 dwelling units. The revised proposal is similar in mass and scale to the original submission. The new building has a smaller footprint (238.4 m 2 ) than the existing dwelling and additions (241.8 m 2 ) and it is more rectangular in shape opening up more of the lot for landscaping. The addition is designed in a contemporary style to complement the existing character of the adjacent properties. The proposal matches the front yard setbacks of the neighbouring lots and provides a soft landscaped front yard which is consistent with the rest of the street. A single entrance is provided with a set of steps linked to the public sidewalk with a perpendicular sidewalk which is also consistent with the local context. The overall height of the building is 13.9 metres which is less than the allowable height of 14.5 metres to provide a more sensitive physical transition between adjacent houses. As well, the first two storeys will be clad in masonry (brick and stone) while the upper storeys will be clad in similar colours and materials to the adjacent dormers and roof structures to tie in with neighbouring properties. There is a 1 metre step back in the building profile along both side yards after 11 metres in height to create a greater sense of space between buildings. This corresponds with the building separation at the roof line of other buildings on the street. In the rear yard, parking is provided for five cars with direct access to the public lane. This is one less than the By-law requirement of 6 spaces for a 12 unit building. As well, the majority of the rear yard is covered with soft landscaping to match with rear yard treatments of adjoining sites. A rear entry to the building is connected to the lane and parking area with a sidewalk of paving stones. A single storey 3 P a g e
accessory building has been located adjacent to the parking lot to provide for a common waste collection point. The parking lot has been defined and screened by a landscaped buffer and fencing along the property lines. 4. Policy Framework This section provides an overview of key land use policies that affect the property and demonstrates how the proposal conforms to the land use policies and urban design objectives applicable to this site. City of Ottawa Official Plan The Official Plan provides the overall local planning policy framework for evaluating the appropriateness of a proposed development. It is broken down into a number of sections beginning with high level city wide objectives relating to growth management and moving down to more specific policies to be applied to individual development applications. The following paragraphs review the proposed development in the context of the Plan. Section 2 Strategic Directions of the Plan provides the strategic policy framework for growth and development at the City-wide level. The Plan anticipates that much of the demand for new housing after 2006 will be for smaller units such as apartments and that one-third of housing growth within the Greenbelt will be this type of housing. Within Section 2, the most relevant subsections to the subject proposal are as follows: Section 2.2.2 Managing Growth Within the Urban Area is part of the strategic directions for the Plan and as such provides an overall strategy and context for the consideration of intensification and infill. The subject property is designated General Urban Area on Schedule B Urban Policy Plan. The proposed design had regard for the following excerpt from the preamble to this section which provides general guidance for the design of intensification and infill projects: Within lands designated General Urban Area, opportunities for intensification exist and will be supported, although such opportunities are generally at a much smaller scale than in the land-use designations described above. By directing major intensification to the Central Area, along Mainstreets, and within Mixed-Use Centres and Town Centres in association with the transportation network, the stability of neighbourhoods within the General Urban Area is enhanced. Because such a large proportion of the city is designated General Urban Area, the scale of intensification will vary, depending upon factors such as the existing built context and proximity to major roads and transit. The quality of the built environment is a significant cornerstone of intensification. Well-designed public spaces and buildings are considered to be critical factors in achieving compatibility between the existing and planned built form. This Plan requires that intensification proposals have full regard for the existing built context and a full understanding of the impacts the proposal will have on both the immediate and wider surroundings. Consequently, this Plan calls for excellence in urban design and architecture, both in the public and private realms. Policy 2.2.2.10 addresses the need for consideration and the design of intensification projects in areas designated as Heritage Districts. As previously noted, the subject property is located within an area under consideration for designation but no formal action has been taken to implement a new district at this time. In view of this, the design of this project had regard for the following policy by retaining the existing dwelling; limiting the height and mass to reflect adjacent architecture; by maintaining similar front and rear yard spacing and; using complementary cladding and colour finishes: 4 P a g e
Where intensification target areas also correspond with Heritage Conservation Districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act the City recognizes that the achievement of intensification targets will be determined in part by the opportunities afforded by the guidelines contained in Council-approved Heritage Conservation District Plans and the provisions of any applicable heritage overlays contained in the Zoning By-law. The scale, profile and density of development permitted will vary, depending on the exact location. When buildings that are out-of-scale, that do not take into account the common characteristics of their setting and the surrounding pattern of development, and do not use suitable materials and finishes in their design they will not be consistent with the relevant guidelines. Such projects will not be recommended for approval under the Ontario Heritage Act. The interpretation of Heritage Conservation District Plans and guidelines cannot be done without a firm understanding that intensification is important to the long-term survival and vitality of the District. District guidelines and heritage overlays will be used to weave intensification proposals successfully into heritage streetscapes. As is the case generally concerning development, proposals for intensification within Heritage Conservation Districts will take into consideration all policies of this Plan. Policy 2.2.2.15 addresses the scale of development on sites located in the interior of stable low-rise residential neighbourhoods. The subject site meets this criteria and this location has influenced the scale, height and site layout of the project as guided by the following policy: The interior portions of stable, low-rise residential neighbourhoods will continue to be characterized by low-rise buildings (as defined in Section 4.11, policy 7). The City supports intensification in the General Urban Area where it will enhance and complement its desirable characteristics and long term renewal. 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. Section 2.5.1 Urban Design and Compatibility provides further direction on the appropriate design of infill and intensification projects. The proposed contemporary design had regard for the following parts of this section and introduced complementary architectural features that provided a link to the heritage nature of the block while not attempting to mimic an older style: Urban Design Community design generally deals with patterns and locations of land use, relative densities, street networks, and the allocation of community services and facilities. Urban design is more concerned with the details relating to how buildings, landscapes and adjacent public spaces look and function together. As the City grows and changes over time, design of these elements should work together to complement or enhance the unique aspects of a community s history, landscape and its culture. Encouraging good urban design and quality and innovative architecture can also stimulate the creation of lively community places with distinctive character that will attract people and investment to the City. The components of our communities where urban design plays a key role, include: o Built form, including buildings, structures, bridges, signs, fences, fountains, statues and anything else that has been constructed, added or created on a piece of land; o Open spaces, including streets, parks, plazas, courtyards, front yards, woodlots, natural areas and any other natural or green open areas that relate to the structure of the city; o Infrastructure, including, sidewalks, bike paths, transit corridors, hydro lines, streetlights, parking lots or any other above- or below-grade infrastructure that impacts upon the design of the public realm. 5 P a g e
Compatibility In support of lively and complete mixed-use communities, the City's growth management strategy includes intensification of development in the urban area over the next 20 years and concentrating rural development in Villages. Introducing new development in existing areas that have developed over a long period of time requires a sensitive approach and a respect for a communities established characteristics, This Plan provides guidance on measures that will mitigate these differences and help achieve compatibility of form and function. Allowing for some flexibility and variation that complements the character of existing communities is central to successful intensification. In general terms, compatible development means development that, although it is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings in the vicinity, nonetheless enhances an established community and coexists with existing development without causing undue adverse impact on surrounding properties. It fits well within its physical context and works well among those functions that surround it. Generally speaking, the more a new development can incorporate the common characteristics of its setting in its design, the more compatible it will be. Nevertheless, a development can be designed to fit and work well in a certain existing context without being the same as the existing development. Where a new vision for an area is established through a Community Design Plan or other similar Council-approved planning exercise, or where the Zoning By-law permits development that differs from what currently physically exists, addressing compatibility will permit development to evolve toward the achievement of that vision while respecting overall community character. Objective criteria can be used to evaluate compatibility and these are set out in Section 4.11. Development applications and proposals for public works will be evaluated in the context of this section, as well as Section 4.11. This section continues with a set of Design Objectives and Principles that identify the design objective in bold followed by the related principle(s) and then describes how the proposed development achieves the related objectives as stated in Section 2.5.1: 1. To enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity. Principles: Design should: Reflect a thorough and sensitive understanding of place, context and setting. The proposed architectural design retains the existing heritage referenced dwelling and provides a complementary addition to the street while creating a unique and contemporary style to provide a distinct identity. The flat roof picks up on the existing low rise apartments in this block and also fits well with other mansard style roofs found in the vicinity. 2. To define quality public and private spaces through development. Principles: Design should: Encourage a continuity of street frontages. Where continuous building facades are not a dominant feature of the streetscape, the gradual infilling of empty spaces between buildings and between the building and the street edge is promoted to occur over time. Depending on the stage 6 P a g e
of evolution of the street, it may be appropriate to achieve this principle in a number of ways e.g., building form, landscape treatment, architectural ornamentation. The building is setback 3 metres from the front property line creating the same front yard condition that characterizes the development on this block. The planting of shade tree varieties will support the tree canopy that is evident in the area while the soft landscaping proposed in the front yard also matches the prevailing treatments in the area. 3. To create places that are safe, accessible and are easy to get to, and move through. Principles: Design should: Create places and spaces that are visible and safe and can be confidently used at all hours of the day and at night where it is appropriate to do so. The existing building had introduced a driveway condition off of Russell Avenue into the front yard crossing the public sidewalk that serves the carport. This is not consistent with the majority of existing lots which are accessed from the rear lane. The proposed development removes this driveway and reinstates the original front yard condition. The new parking area at the rear off the public lane physically separates vehicles from the pedestrian precinct along Russell Avenue. 4. To ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas. Principles: Design should: Integrate new development to complement and enliven the surroundings. Allow the built form to evolve through architectural style and innovation. Complement the massing patterns, rhythm, character, and context. As previously noted the proposed design has had regard for the scale, height and massing of other buildings along the street. The proposed building while larger in mass has a smaller building footprint than the original dwelling and additions. This allows for more landscaped area, particularly behind the building. While using contemporary architecture and construction, the use of similar cladding and colours along with the site layout all respond appropriately to the neighbourhood characteristics. 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. Principles: Design should: Achieve a more compact urban form over time. Provide flexibility for buildings and spaces to adapt to a variety of possible uses in response to changing social, economic and technological conditions. Allow for varying stages of maturity in different areas of the city, and recognize that buildings and site development will exhibit different characteristics as they evolve over time. Accommodate the needs of a range of people of different incomes and lifestyles at various stages in the life cycle. 7 P a g e
Intensification of this lot in a sensitive and sympathetic design and scale supports the need for accommodating more people within existing neighbourhoods and provides a supply of new rental apartments of varying sizes catering to a broad market. 6. To understand and respect natural processes and features in development design. Principles: Design should: Demonstrate that all practical means of retaining storm water on site have been considered. As this is an area that still has a combined sewer system, control of flows from the site is very important. It is intended to manage storm water runoff from the site through natural retention in areas of soft landscaping as well as in a roof top holding area. 5. To maximize energy-efficiency and promote sustainable design to reduce the resource consumption, energy use, and carbon footprint of the built environment. Principles: Design should: Reduce hard surfaces and maximize landscaping and site permeability on site. The proposed addition to the existing dwelling will have a similar building footprint compared to the original dwelling with additions but it is more compact and rectangular in shape. This has allowed for a more effective allocation of soft landscaping to be introduced on the lot. As well, the proponent is considering more permeable treatments for the rear parking area such as turf stone pavers to reduce localized storm water runoff. The subject property is designated General Urban Area and new development is governed by the policies of Section 3.6.1. This designation permits a full range of land uses but primarily applies to residential neighbourhoods. Intensification of the scale proposed by this development is in keeping with the general direction of this land use designation. In approaching the design for this project specific regard was given to this section and in particular Policy 3.6.1.3 which provides direction on appropriate design for infill and intensification. Section 4.11 Urban Design and Compatibility is part of Section 4 Review of Development Applications and provides detailed direction on how to assess development applications in the overall context of the Plan. Within Subsection 4.11.2 there is a list of operational criteria to be considered to minimize the impact of new infill development. The following table identifies the criteria and how this proposal addresses it. Criteria Response Traffic Due to the scale of the application, there will be no significant impact on local traffic. No Traffic Impact Study was required. Vehicular Access The proposed site plan takes advantage of the public lane at the rear to provide access to the required parking. 8 P a g e
Parking Requirements A total of 5 parking spaces will be provided which is a reduction of one space from the by-law requirements. Given the pedestrian nature of this neighbourhood and the proximity to transit, this reduction can be supported. Bicycle parking requirements are met with a storage area in the ground floor of the building. Outdoor Amenity Areas At grade, a large rear yard amenity area is provided. This is primarily soft landscaping and available to all tenants of the Loading Areas, Service Areas, and Outdoor Storage building. A centralized solid waste collection point has been provided in a free standing accessory building located adjacent to the parking area. There will be no other outdoor storage as lockers have been provided in the lower floor of the building. Lighting Not applicable Noise and Air Quality No significant noise or air quality impacts are anticipated from this project. Sunlight Not applicable Microclimate No significant impacts are anticipated on the local microclimate. Supporting Neighbourhood Services The site is well served by existing services in the immediate such as: o Sandy Hill Community Centre o Facilities at the University of Ottawa o Strathcona Park o Retail/commercial services along Rideau Street o Small local commercial uses along Laurier Avenue Section 4.11 also provides direction on determining appropriate building profiles or heights when intensifying in stable low rise neighbourhoods. This site is located within the Sandy Hill neighbourhood which meets this criteria and attention was paid to Policy 4.11.14 in the design process. This policy speaks to the need to designing with attention to the existing zone standards and neighbourhood character relating to height, massing, building setbacks and front and rear yard treatments. The proposed design is in general conformity to the current zone provisions requiring only three minor variances. The site plan and related landscape plan have focused on creating a site layout and landscape features that captures the character of the adjoining lots. Sandy Hill Secondary Plan The subject property is designated Residential Low Profile Area in the Sandy Secondary Plan. This designation permits a full range of housing types with a height limitation of four storeys. While there is limited direction on design in the Plan, the following policies were considered in developing the proposed design of this project: 5.3.6 Site Development a. To ensure that the scale, form, proportion and spatial arrangement of new development cause minimal intrusion on the sunlight, air and aspect enjoyed by 9 P a g e
existing adjacent development. Wherever possible, such new development shall contribute to the overall physical environment. b. To ensure that new development shall provide for internal and external on-site amenity areas. c. To enhance development with landscaping, especially for parking and loading areas and as a buffer between dissimilar land uses. 5. Urban Design and Related Guidelines Urban Design Guidelines for Low Rise Infill Housing The Urban Design Guidelines for Low Rise Infill Housing document was approved by Council on May 2012. The guidelines apply to all residential infill development up to four storeys in height. The guidelines address six components including: streetscape, landscape, building design, parking and garages, heritage building alterations/additions and service elements. The proposed development meets the following applicable design guidelines, among others: Section 2.0 Streetscape and Section 3.0 Landscape: The proposal reinstates the original grassed front yard and single entrance served by a single perpendicular sidewalk to the public realm which is characteristic of the area. It also provides for two large shade trees to replace the existing single tree which is in poor health. First floor windows are slightly elevated from street level and provide eyes on the street. Section 4.0 Building Design (Building Form): As noted the building façade provides primary windows and a main entrance that addresses the street. Retention of the façade of the existing dwelling supports the heritage character of Russell Avenue. The first floor while slightly elevated matches with adjacent houses with large verandahs or porches requiring several steps to access. Setbacks and projections have been matched with adjacent properties. The large rear yard amenity space relates well to the rear yard characteristics of the neighbourhood. The height, width, selection of materials and landscape treatment are complementary to the existing units on either side. Section 5.0 Parking and Garages: The proposed design removes a front yard driveway and carport which is out of character with the streetscape. This is replaced by a rear yard parking area accessed from the public lane which is the same as adjacent properties on this side of the block. The parking lot will have landscaped buffers and a fence along the north and south lot lines to properly delineate the area. It is served by a single paving stone pathway to provide access to the dwelling. Section 6.0 Heritage Building Alterations and Additions: Every effort has been made to complement the heritage character of the neighbourhood both in building height and massing, retention of the existing dwelling, exterior cladding and colours and front and rear yard setbacks to maintain landscape integrity. Section 7.0 Service Elements: A centralized solid waste collection point has been provided in a free standing accessory building located adjacent to the parking area. All public utilities will be centrally metered in the utility room in the basement level. 10 P a g e
6. Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned Residential Fourth Density Subzone S (R4S) [480] which is a low profile residential zone that permits a low rise apartment building up to four storeys or maximum height of 14.5 metres. Exception 480 is an exception relating to rooming houses and is therefore not applicable to this proposal. The proposed four storey 12 unit apartment building is in general conformity to the provisions of this zone. Where minor variances will be required, these have been noted in the following table. Zone Provision Required Provided Minimum lot width 15 m 16 m Minimum lot area 450 m 2 566 m 2 Maximum building height 14.5 m 13.9 m Minimum front yard setback 3.0 m 3.0 m Minimum rear yard setback 7.5 m 10.4 m Minimum interior side yard setback Minimum parking rate Resident Visitor (a) If located within 21 metres of the front lot line: - 1.5 m for buildings up to 11 m - 2.5 m for buildings over 11 m (b) If located further than 21 metres from the front lot line: 6 m.5 spaces/unit 0 for first 12 units then.2 for balance 0 m on south side for first 21 m (existing condition requires minor variance) 1.5 m on north side for first 21 m (requires minor variance) 6 m after 21 m 5 spaces (requires minor variance) Required total = 6 spaces Landscaped Area 30% of the lot area or 169.8 m 2 40.4% or 228.4 m 2 Amenity Area 15 m 2 per dwelling unit for first 79 m 2 located in the rear yard 8 units then 6 m 2 for remaining (requires minor variance) units Area requirement for first 8 65 m 2 located in the side yard units to be located in rear yard behind the building (120 m 2 ) Total provided: 144 m 2 Total required: 144 m 2 Relative to the review of the proposed site plan application, it is clear that the proposed low rise apartment building is in conformity with respect to land use. However with respect to the performance standards for this use, it has been determined that four minor variances are required. These are summarized as follows: 11 P a g e
1. To permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 0 metres on the south side of the lot whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.5 metres where a building exceeds 11 metres in height. (Section 162A, Subzone S - Note 3) 2. To permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 1.5 metres on the north side of the lot whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.5 metres where a building exceeds 11 metres in height. (Section 162A, Subzone S - Note 3) The purpose of Variance #1 is to enable the retention of the existing historic dwelling which was originally constructed on the southern property line. The purpose of Variance #2 is to facilitate the internal design of the addition and allow adequate space for habitable rooms and corridor space. The retention of the existing dwelling has placed constraints on the design of the addition. 3. To permit a reduction in the required amenity space to 79 square metres in the rear yard whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 144 square metres in the rear yard for this project. (Section 137) The purpose of this variance is to permit the reduction of the required amenity space which is located in the defined rear yard. The provisions of Section 137 require a minimum 15 square metres per dwelling unit for the first 8 units and then 6 square metres per dwelling unit for the remainder. The required area for the first 8 units must be located wholly within the defined rear yard. Based on this, the proposed 12 unit building would require a total of 144 square metres of amenity space with a minimum of 120 square metres located wholly within the rear yard. Due to the design of the proposed building only 79 square metres can be provided in the defined rear yard. However, there are two adjoining landscaped areas located in the defined side yard but still located behind the bulk of the building. When these areas are aggregated with the amenity area in the defined rear yard there is a total of 144 square metres provided on site. Thus the total amenity area requirement is met on the basis of area but not on location. 4. To permit a reduction in the rate of required parking to.41 spaces per unit for a total of 5 spaces whereas the By-law requires.5 spaces per unit. (Section 101) The purpose of this variance is to allow the location of all parking in the rear yard with access off the public lane. The width of lot does not permit sufficient space for 6 vehicles along with the required landscaped buffer to be located there. Through the design of this project, an existing driveway and carport which are located in the front yard are being removed to restore the pedestrian character of the Russell Avenue streetscape. Given the availability of local public transit and the walkable nature of the Sandy Hill community this minor reduction in the parking rate is in keeping with the policies of the Official Plan. 7. Summary Opinion It is my professional planning opinion that the proposed application for site plan control and for minor variance for 59 Russell Avenue as outlined in this Design Brief represents good land use planning and the architectural and landscape design is appropriate for the subject property. The proposal conforms in all respects to the Official Plan and Secondary Plan policies applicable to the site. The proposed building form meets the applicable urban design guidelines and conforms to the zoning by-law as summarized in the following points: 12 P a g e
The proposal is in conformity with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Urban Area which encourages intensification of underutilized sites. The proposed addition to an existing building that is listed on the Heritage Reference List supports and complements the historic character of Russell Avenue while allowing for an appropriate level of intensification on this site. The mix of dwelling unit sizes enabled by the 12 unit design will support a broad range of tenants. The proposed development was evaluated against the urban design and compatibility criteria of Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan and clearly demonstrates its conformity to the design principles outlined. In particular, the proposed redevelopment of the site will support the heritage streetscape and enhance the landscape through the introduction of two large shade trees in the front yard where previously there was room for only one tree due a driveway located there. The proposed development was evaluated against the urban design and compatibility criteria of Section 4.11 of the Official Plan and it was determined that it will have no undue adverse impacts on the surrounding community. With respect to the requested minor variances, the following opinion is provided with respect to the four tests under the Planning Act: o Whether the variances are minor: Variance #1 Southern Side Yard Reduction: The requested variance reflects an existing non-complying situation where the original dwelling built in 1895 was essentially located on the property line. The first 9.9 metres of the building wall is located on the property line. The remaining 6.0 metres of the southern wall of the house was set back approximately 1.35 metres from the property line. The building wall itself has been stepped back an additional metre where it exceeds 11 metres in height to create a greater separation and be consistent with building spacing characteristic to this block. This variance is necessary to enable the retention of this historic building as part of the redevelopment of the site as a low rise apartment building. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the proposed variance is minor and satisfies this test. Variance #2 Northern Side Yard Reduction: The requested variance will permit the construction of a four storey addition to the existing heritage dwelling. The reduction to 1.5 metres provides necessary flexibility to accommodate the internal layout of habitable rooms and corridors in the constrained space adjacent to the existing building. As on the southern side of the building, a further 1 metre step back in the building wall has been incorporated where the building wall exceeds 11 metres in height. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the proposed variance is minor and satisfies this test. Variance #3 Reduction in Amenity Area: The requested variance is necessary to permit a small projection in the rear wall of the addition which accommodates a storage area in the basement and habitable rooms on Floors 2, 3 and 4. There is no projection into the rear yard at ground level. In reality the amount of contiguous amenity space required by Section 137 has been provided in the rear of the building however, the projection of rear wall places a portion of this landscaped 13 P a g e
space in the defined side yard rather than in the defined rear yard. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the proposed variance is minor and satisfies this test. Variance #4 Reduction in Parking Rate: The requested variance is necessary to permit a reduction in the parking rate applicable to a 12 unit building so that only 5 spaces are required rather than 6 spaces. The width of the lot does not provide sufficient area to accommodate 6 cars along with the required landscaping. Thus compliance to the by-law would negatively impact the amount of landscaped rear yard space and detract from the neighbourhood character of adjacent lots. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the proposed variance is minor and satisfies this test. o o o Whether the variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land: The proposal to retain an important residential building while intensifying the use of this site is an appropriate redevelopment given the neighbourhood context and character. A low rise apartment building is a permitted use within the R4S zone applicable to this lot. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate redevelopment of these lands. Whether the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained It is my opinion that the general intent and purpose of the by-law has been maintained as the proposed use is permitted. As well, the proposed addition does not adversely impact the neighboring properties and the existing character of the street has been supported by maintaining similar setbacks from the street along Russell and respecting the rear yard character of the adjacent properties. Whether the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained It is my opinion that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan has been maintained by this proposal for intensification. The key issues of compatibility and preserving neighbourhood character have been respected through the project design and retention of the heritage asset on the site. The removal of the front yard parking and the reinstatement of a grassed and treed front yard support the overall character of Russell Avenue. Overall, the proposed development will contribute positively to the immediate area by sensitively increasing density to meet the City s goals and policy objectives with respect to intensification and urban design. Prepared by: Signed original on file Dennis Jacobs MCIP, RPP Principal Planner 14 P a g e
8. APPENDIX Site Context Aerial Photo City of Ottawa Website 59 Russell Avenue A - 1 P a g e
59 Russell Avenue Neighbourhood Context Aerial Photo City of Ottawa Website A - 2 P a g e
1 16 2 15 3 4 14 5 13 6 7 12 8 11 9 10 Neighbourhood Context - Building Footprints and Photo Locations 59 Russell Avenue A - 3 P a g e
Photograph #1 Photograph #2 Photograph #3 Photograph #4 A - 4 P a g e
Photograph #5 Photograph #6 Photograph #7 Subject Property Photograph #8 A - 5 P a g e
Photograph #9 Photograph #10 Photograph #11 Photograph #12 A - 6 P a g e
Photograph #13 Photograph #14 Photograph #15 Photograph #16 A - 7 P a g e
Existing Official Plan Designation: General Urban 59 Russell Avenue A - 8 P a g e
59 Russell Avenue Schedule J Sandy Hill Secondary Plan: Residential Low Profile Area A - 9 P a g e
Existing Zoning: Residential 4 th Density Subzone S [480] 59 Russell Avenue A - 10 P a g e
Proposed Site Plan A - 11 P a g e
Proposed Landscape Plan A - 12 P a g e
Front Elevation Rear Elevation A - 13 P a g e
North Side Elevation South Side Elevation A - 14 P a g e
Perspective View Looking North-East A - 15 P a g e
Perspective View Looking South-East A - 16 P a g e
Site Survey Existing Conditions A - 17 P a g e