Colonel By Drive Zoning Review April, 2013
Colonel By Drive Zoning Review - Existing Conditions and Policy Options
1.0 Background This document provides a review and several policy options concerning the zoning of the properties along Colonel By Drive between Bank Street and Bronson Avenue. These properties are referred to as the “study area” throughout this document.
The present review arose specifically from a 2011 request to designate a house at 9 Rosedale Avenue as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act. The City of Ottawa’s heritage planning staff evaluated the request and indicated that the property did not meet the criteria for heritage designation. At its meetings of August 4 and September 1, 2011, the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee considered the request and agreed with the opinion of the planning staff. However, the committee was of the view that the general neighbourhood in which the property is located has heritage value and discussed whether it would be appropriate to implement a Heritage Overlay or create a Heritage Conservation District to protect the characteristics of the area. The committee recommended that City staff be directed to report on the feasibility and appropriateness of these options along this segment of Colonel By Drive.
After the City’s denial of the request for heritage designation, the owner of 9 Rosedale Avenue applied for and was granted minor variances permitting the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a flat- roofed, three-storey semi-detached building. The Ontario Municipal Board dismissed an appeal of this decision in April 2012.
In addition to this particular case, residents in the Colonel By Drive neighbourhood have expressed general concerns about the nature of infill in Old Ottawa South. The infill homes that raise concerns have not generally required minor variances and have often utilized the maximum building envelope permitted by the existing zoning. They are typically taller in height than existing homes, have flat roofs or a square built form, may have one or more rooftop terraces, and are built to the minimum setback from at least one property line. The overall effect of these buildings is to visually dwarf the neighbouring homes, create unwanted shadowing and noise effects and alter the character of the Colonel By streetscape. Residents are concerned about losing the heritage style and character of this highly visible portion of Colonel By Drive.
As a result of these concerns the City initiated a zoning review in this area.
2.0 Existing Zoning and By-law Framework The properties in the study area are currently zoned R3Q [487]. The R3 (Residential Third Density) zone is intended to permit a mix of residential building forms ranging from detached, duplex, semi-detached, three-unit dwellings and multiple attached dwellings. The R3Q subzone stipulates a maximum building height of 11 metres and minimum front and side setbacks of 3 metres. Minimum rear setbacks are generally 25% of the lot depth to a minimum of 4 metres and a maximum of 7.5 metres. Minimum lot widths and areas vary by dwelling type. The exception [487] prohibits planned unit developments.
Three full storeys are generally possible within the permitted building height of 11 metres. Significant development into rear yards is also possible, given that the maximum required rear yard setback is relatively small compared to the depth of some lots along Colonel By Drive.
Meloshe & Associates Ltd. 1 Colonel By Drive Zoning Review April, 2013
The R3Q subzone applies to a larger area of Old Ottawa South running between Colonel By Drive and the south side of Sunnyside Avenue. This larger area has a different character than Colonel By Drive frontage with generally narrower lot widths and a greater mix of housing forms and types.
In May 2012, following an extensive review of infill housing in Ottawa’s core urban area, Council approved Zoning By-law Amendment 2012-147. The intent of the amendment is to increase the positive contributions and improve the overall compatibility of low-rise infill development in mature neighbourhoods. The provisions of this amendment include a change in the definition of “grade” used in measuring building heights, as well as additional guidelines concerning front yard setbacks and rooftop projections above the maximum height limit (Table 1). The by-law was approved in part by the Ontario Municipal Board with direction to the City to redraft the bylaw with revisions.
Table 1: Summary of Significant Zoning Amendments in 2012-147 Summary of Amendment Rationale The minimum required front yard setback is to be the In neighbourhoods where the dominant front yard setback average of the existing front yard setbacks of the adjacent is greater than what is permitted in the zoning by-law, this existing homes. amendment aims to ensure greater compatibility between infill and existing homes. Building height is to be measured as the vertical distance A calculation based on points on the property line and from existing average grade, which is to be calculated prior points on the street centerline should ensure that the grade to any site alterations as the average elevation of each calculation better reflects the immediate context. It is also corner of the lot and of the points of intersection of the less likely to be affected by site alterations. street centerline and the projections of the side lot lines. Permitted projections above the height limit must not This provision provides direction regarding projections exceed 3 metres in height or 11 square metres in area. which provide access to roof decks, such that they serve the intended function but minimize potential adverse impacts on privacy.
As part of the current zoning review, the existing lot areas and frontages in the study area were compiled from City of Ottawa records. A visual survey of building heights in the study area was also undertaken. Heights were estimated at about 3 metres per full storey and the upper measurement points were used as set out in S. 54 of the Zoning By-law (2008-250). A summary of the findings is presented in Table 2. The provisions of the R3 zone were then compared with those of the R2 (Residential Second Density) and R1 (Residential First Density) zones to determine how well each zone fits the existing properties along Colonel By Drive.
Table 2 - Existing Property Characteristics in Study Area
Frontage (m) Depth (m) Area (m2) Height
Average: 16.73 27.78 438.21 7.2 High value: 28.25 52.12 1096.16 11.00 Low value: 9.75 12.19 163.39 5.00 Range of values: 18.50 39.93 932.77 6.00 Median value: 15.24 26.86 379.81 7.00
The existing average building height in the study area is 7.2 metres, and seven of the 36 existing detached dwellings (approximately 20%) are taller than 8 metres. In addition, seven of the of the 36 existing detached
Meloshe & Associates Ltd. 2 Colonel By Drive Zoning Review April, 2013 dwellings are on lots deeper than 31 metres, the depth at which the largest minimum rear-yard setback of 7.5 metres becomes less than the 25% of the lot depth.
Finally, a review of building footprints in the area was performed, in which the minimum setbacks permitted under each lot’s existing zoning were superimposed on an aerial photo of the study area. It found that most of the homes in the study area do not occupy the maximum footprint permitted under the zoning, and that fewer than 30% of them are currently built to the minimum rear yard setback on their lots. It also highlighted that the maximum footprint for very deep lots is particularly large due to the zoning by-law clause limiting the rear yard setback for lots deeper than 30 metres (the point at which 7.5 metres is equal to 25% of the lot depth) to a constant 7.5 metres.
The footprint review noted that eight of 39 lots in the study area are deeper than 40 metres. On these properties, an additional rear yard setback line was drawn in to test the effect of the following proposed zoning amendment: “On lots deeper than 40 metres, in addition to the minimum rear yard setback, no new building or addition to an existing building shall extend into the rear yard by more than 20% of the average rear built line of the two abutting properties, or in the case of a corner lot, of the abutting property.”
For two of the eight properties, the proposed rear setback was less than the existing 7.5-m max setback, leaving six properties to which the proposed setback would apply upon redevelopment. For those properties, the proposed setback was found to notably reduce potential development into rear yards, while maintaining a permitted building area that is comparable to those of the other properties in the study area.
3.0 Consultation The zoning review process included a series of 4 community meetings between October 2012 and February 2013. These provided an opportunity for interested residents to meet with consultant planners, the Councillor’s office and City heritage staff, articulate their concerns, and discuss options for addressing the issues. A survey was distributed to residents participating in the review to determine the highest-priority concerns. The concerns related to building height, rooftop terraces, streetscape character, building design, and front setbacks. Through- lot development, rear and side setbacks, developments other than single-detached homes, and parking were generally identified as lower-priority issues. Discussion at community meetings also suggested that resident concerns regarding infill in the area pertain more to building form, building height, character and compatibility than to the residential type of dwelling (i.e., single detached, duplex, semi-detached dwellings).
4.0 Zoning Options Five zoning options for addressing infill concerns along Colonel By Drive were identified and discussed at the community meetings.
4.1 Down-Zoning The first option is to down-zone the study area from R3 to an R2 or R1 zone. The R2 zone is intended to restrict the building form to detached and two principal unit buildings, while the R1 zone is intended to permit single detached dwellings only. Like the R3 zone, the R2 and R1 zones permit maximum heights of 8 to 11 metres, depending on the subzone applied. Minimum setbacks in R2 are generally equivalent to or larger than those in R3, while those in R1 are equivalent or larger still.
The areas and frontages of the existing properties in the study area conform to the R3Q zoning provisions.
An objective of any down-zoning is to create non-conforming rights for as few of the existing properties as possible. Should the study area be down-zoned to R2, the median lot dimensions of the existing properties
Meloshe & Associates Ltd. 3 Colonel By Drive Zoning Review April, 2013 would conform to the provisions of the R2I subzone at a maximum; in other words, if Colonel By Drive were rezoned as R2I, approximately half the existing properties would acquire non-conforming rights (Table 3). Re- zoning the study area as R2L would reduce the number of non-conforming properties to four, and re-zoning it as R2T would reduce it to one (12 Fulton) . Within the R1 zone, the median lot dimensions would conform to R1Q at a maximum, while an R1T rezoning would result in four non-conforming properties and an R1W designation would result in one.
Table 3: Comparison of existing properties with R2 and R1 zoning Four or One or Average lot Median lot fewer non- fewer non- dimensions dimensions conforming conforming Zone Purpose Permitted uses Setbacks Heights conforming conforming * * R3 allow a mix of R2 uses, plus (existing) 8-11m (existing) (existing) (existing) (existing) residential townhouse building forms dwellings, planned ranging from unit development, detached to three-unit townhouse dwellings, multiple dwellings attached dwellings R2 restrict the R1 uses, plus equal to 8-11m R2H and R2I and R2L and R2T and building form duplex dwellings, or larger below below below below to detached linked-detached than R3 and two dwellings, semi- principal unit detached dwellings buildings R1 restrict the single-detached equal to 8-11m R1Q and R1Q and R1T and R1W and building form dwellings or larger below** below** below** below** to detached than R2 dwellings *Four (or one) or fewer existing detached homes would be non-conforming uses under the subzones indicated **Except subzone R1WW, which has a larger area requirement Zoning information from http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/laws-licenses-and-permits/laws/city-ottawa-zoning-law/part-6- residential-zones-sections
A down-zoning may help address residents’ concerns regarding height and setbacks, if a subzone with a height limit of 8 metres and larger setbacks is chosen. It does not address the form and character of new construction, however. It may also restrict land uses other than single-family homes, which were not generally identified as a concern during the consultation process. Finally, this type of down-zoning in an urban area is inconsistent with the intensification strategy articulated in the City’s Official Plan, which aims to direct growth to compact, mixed- use communities within the existing urban area (Section 2.1).
4.2 Rear-Yard Limit A second option is the addition of a limit on rear-yard development on deep lots. This type of regulation would be set with reference to the existing rear setbacks of adjacent buildings, potentially as proposed in Section 2 of this report, to avoid a rear-yard projection that is inconsistent with surrounding properties. This option would help address concerns regarding building bulk, massing and overlook into adjacent rear yards. However, it may restrict development and renovation potential in a manner inconsistent with the City’s intensification strategy, without addressing the building form and character issues that are the residents’ primary concerns.
Meloshe & Associates Ltd. 4 Colonel By Drive Zoning Review April, 2013
4.3 Reduction in Building Height Limit An additional option to address infill concerns is to lower the height limit in the area from 11 to 8 metres. This option would create non-conforming rights for the seven of 36 (approximately 20%) existing detached dwellings that appear to be taller than 8 metres, four of which are recently built, flat-roofed infill homes. If heights are reduced to 9 metres all of the older homes would be conforming in addition to one infill house at 910 Colonel By Drive. Three infill homes would remain non-conforming at 9 metres.
Reduction in building height may restrict development or renovation potential without addressing building form and character issues. However, it preserves the opportunity for new architectural forms to be introduced along Colonel By, provided they do not visually dominate existing homes or produce unwanted shadowing or overlook effects.
4.4 Heritage Designations A final option is to introduce a Heritage Overlay (HO) in the study area, as per Section 60 of the Zoning By-law 2008-250. A Heritage Overlay is a zoning tool intended to maintain the primacy of the original buildings on the subject lots and to distinguish between old and new architecture. When a HO is applied, the underlying zoning of the subject area remains the same. If a building is removed, however, it must be replaced by a building “with the same character and at the same scale, massing, volume, floor area and in the same location as existed prior to its removal or destruction” (Zoning By-law 2008-250 Consolidation, Section 60). Additions to properties within a HO are also subject to restrictions on height, floor area, setbacks and location. Property owners wishing to build a dwelling or addition that does not conform to the provisions of the HO may apply for a minor variance. In addition, a HO does not regulate architectural details or materials.
Colonel By Drive is designated in the Official Plan as a Scenic Entry route into Ottawa’s downtown. A HO is likely to be effective in preserving the existing streetscape by requiring that new construction have a character, height, massing, and setback similar to those of the existing homes. It may also slow the introduction of larger homes by requiring a variance for development that is not consistent with the current properties. It should be noted that a HO would limit construction by existing property owners as well as developers and may have a particular impact on proposed additions to smaller homes. A HO may also restrict the introduction of desirable modern architectural forms, even at a smaller scale than the existing infill.
Designating the area as a Heritage Conservation District under the Ontario Heritage Act was not considered to be a suitable option for the study area because it lacks a concentration of designated properties that would help justify this designation. Implementing an HCD is also a time-consuming process that may not take effect in time to substantially guide new infill construction in the study area.
4.5 No Change to Existing Zoning Without any change to the existing zoning, the study area will be subject to new guidelines for infill housing as proposed in Zoning By-law Amendement 2012-147. The guidelines include specific changes to the requirements for rooftop projections and grade measurement, and these features have been the focus of particular concern to residents. The guidelines are likely to reduce the size of rooftop projections and slightly lower the maximum height of new infill construction. However, the permitted as-of-right building and projection heights are likely to remain high enough, in relation to the existing homes, to continue to produce shadowing effects from new buildings and overlook effects from rooftop patios.
5.0 Conclusion The portion of Colonel By Drive between Bank Street and Bronson Avenue has been identified for zoning review based on concerns regarding the height, form, massing and character of new infill. Following consultation with
Meloshe & Associates Ltd. 5 Colonel By Drive Zoning Review April, 2013 neighbourhood residents and City staff, several options have been identified to address these concerns. The area may be down-zoned from the current R3Q zoning to R2 or R1, restricting the land use to lower-intensity residential development. A limit on rear-yard development may be introduced to restrict building volume that is inconsistent with that of existing properties. The height limit in the study area may be lowered from 11 to 9 metres. A Heritage Overlay may be introduced to ensure infill development matches the form and character of any buildings it replaces. Finally, the current zoning may be left unchanged, so that the guidelines proposed in Zoning By-law Amendment 2012-147 become the only new restrictions on infill development in the study area.
A down-zoning is not recommended because it will restrict land uses in a manner inconsistent with the City’s intensification guidelines, without necessarily addressing the form and character concerns that are the priority issues in this review.
Maintaining the existing zoning in the study area is not recommended, as the proposed changes to rooftop projection guidelines and grade measurement, among other changes, are not likely to sufficiently address concerns regarding height, shadowing and overlook effects along Colonel By Drive.
A limit on rear yard development, as a stand-alone measure, will not address residents’ primary concerns regarding height, form and character. In our opinion only 25% of existing lots provide for the largest possible rear yard setback (7.5 metres), and fewer than 30% of the existing homes are currently built to the minimum rear yard setback on their lots. A rear yard limit may be most effective in combination with a lower height limit, to address concerns regarding the total building volume of new infill.
A reduced height limit to 9 metres will address concerns regarding height and massing (including shadowing and overlook effects), without placing unnecessary restrictions on land use. Although it does not place limits on the form or character of new infill, it allows for the introduction of modern architectural forms at a scale consistent with the existing heights in the neighbourhood.
A Heritage Overlay will address concerns regarding height, massing, building form and character along Colonel By Drive without placing additional restrictions on land use. In addition, it will not place restrictions on renovation, development or intensification that do not specifically address concerns related to the form or massing of infill construction. However, it may slow the introduction of new architectural forms along the street, even when they are proposed at a scale consistent with that of nearby properties.
6.0 Recommendation
To be finalized following a community meeting in May 2013 to discuss the various options.
Meloshe & Associates Ltd. 6