Development and Infrastructure Committee

Transcription

Page 1 of Report PB-35-14
TO:
Development and Infrastructure Committee
FROM:
Planning and Building
SUBJECT: Report recommending modified approval of Official Plan
Amendment and rezoning applications to permit a mixed
use development at 5210, 5218, 5226 & 5236 Dundas Street
and 2500 Burloak Drive.
Report Number:
PB-35-14
Wards Affected: 5
File Numbers: 505-04/12 & 520-15/12
Date to Committee: May 5, 2014
Date to Council: May 20, 2014
Recommendation:
To oppose the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, submitted
by Stephen Fraser, A. J. Clarke and Associates Ltd., 25 Main Street W., Suite 300,
Hamilton, Ontario, L8P 1H1, on behalf of Adi Development Group Inc., to permit a
mixed use development consisting of 298 residential units in four connected apartment
buildings and 1249 m2 of ground floor commercial development, on properties located
at 5210, 5218, 5226 & 5236 Dundas Street and 2500 Burloak Drive at the upcoming
Ontario Municipal Board hearing on these applications;
To support modified approval of the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendments to permit a mixed use development at the southeast corner of Dundas
Street and Sutton Drive in accordance with the revisions recommended by planning
staff in report PB-35-14, addressing amenity area, lot coverage, parking and setbacks,
at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend modified approval of the Official Plan
Amendment (OPA) and rezoning applications submitted by Adi Development Group Inc.
(ADI) seeking approval for a mixed use development on properties located at the
southeast corner of Dundas Street and Sutton Drive. The applicant appealed these
applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for Council’s failure to make a
decision on the applications within the required timeframes. This report presents staff’s
analysis of the applications and recommends modified approval of the applications as
Council’s position before the OMB.
REPORT FACT SHEET
Processing Details
Documents
Property Details
Application Details
RECOMMENDATIONS: Refusal of applications as submitted.
Approval of modified applications that address the rear yard, amenity
area, lot coverage and parking issues described in Report PB-35-14.
Ward No.:
5
APPLICANT/OWNER:
ADI Development Group Inc.
FILE NUMBERS:
505-04/12 & 520-15/12
TYPE OF APPLICATIONS:
Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning
PROPOSED USE:
298 dwelling units in 4 connected apartment buildings
and 1,249 m2 of ground floor commercial uses
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Southeast corner of Dundas Street and Sutton Drive
MUNICIPAL ADDRESSES:
5210, 5218, 5226 & 5236 Dundas Street & 2500
Burloak Drive
PROPERTY AREA:
1.26 hectares
EXISTING USE:
Sales centre and detached dwelling
OFFICIAL PLAN Existing:
Neighbourhood Commercial (Orchard Community)
OFFICIAL PLAN Proposed:
Site-specific policy to permit increase in height from 5
to 6 storeys and increase in density from 185 to 237
units per hectare
ZONING Existing:
D and H-RO4
ZONING Proposed:
RO4-exception
Key Issues:
Compatibility, site design, density and traffic
Processing Time:
13 months; 5 months from submission of revised
plans
Neighbourhood Meeting:
April 22, 2013
Statutory Public Meeting:
June 17, 2013 (Report PB-51-13)
Public Comments
12 comments included in Report PB-51-13
Background:
Site Description
Properties owned by applicant
The OPA and rezoning applications affect five properties located on the south side of
Dundas Street and east of Sutton Drive as shown in Diagram 1 and Zoning/Location
Sketch 1. The properties are identified as 5210, 5216, 5226 and 5236 Dundas Street,
plus a parcel located south of 5236 Dundas Street that is a remnant parcel from the
development of the subdivision to the south. The properties have a combined area of
1.26 hectares, approximately 128 m of frontage along Dundas Street and 95 m along
Sutton Drive.
Diagram 1 – Lands under application
Proposed Land Exchange with City
Diagram 1 also outlines a narrow strip of land along the east boundary of 5236 Dundas
Street that is not included as part of the development proposal. The applicant seeks to
exchange this approximately 254 m2 parcel (4.9m x 52m) for a similar sized strip of land
the city owns east of the remnant parcel. ADI consulted with the Manager of Realty
Services and Parks and Recreation staff prior to the submission of the applications and
was advised staff could support this proposed land exchange. This exchange would
benefit the city by providing a wider throat for the city’s multi-purpose trail adjacent to
5236 Dundas St that currently narrows to approximately 10 m at Dundas Street and the
applicant would benefit by obtaining a regular shaped development parcel.
For such a land exchange to proceed, Council approval is required in accordance with a
future report to be prepared by the Manager of Realty Services outlining transaction
details. Staff has reviewed the subject development applications on the basis that this
exchange will occur and included this requirement in the preliminary list of development
conditions attached as Appendix I to this report. Should Council not support the land
exchange, revisions to the applicant’s concept plan as well as the modified approval
recommended by staff, would be required.
Potential surplus city lands along east side of Sutton Drive
The applications also include a narrow strip of city-owned land, approximately 2 m wide,
that are in excess of the current and deemed right of way for Sutton Drive which is 26 m.
Engineering and transportation staff are evaluating the future right of way needs for
Sutton Drive including transportation improvements recommended as part of the subject
development applications, and land needs to accommodate a sidewalk, tree planting
and sufficient boulevard width. The preliminary development conditions listed in
Appendix I indicate that if the city determines these lands along Sutton Drive are not
required for additional road allowance to accommodate possible Sutton Drive
improvements, that the applicant be required to purchase these excess city lands at fair
market value and assemble them with the development property. Should these lands
not be considered surplus, revisions to the applicant’s concept plan as well as the
modified approval recommended by staff, would be required.
Existing Uses
The properties under application previously contained detached dwellings as seen in the
2012 air photo presented in Diagram 2. Council approved the removal of the two central
properties from the municipal register in 2012 and the dwellings have now been
demolished. The detached home on the most easterly property still remains. In Fall
2013 the applicant received site plan approval to construct a sales centre at the
southeast corner of Dundas Street and Sutton Drive and this building has now been
completed. Surrounding land uses include the following:
North
East:
South:
West:
Dundas Street and industrial uses (car wash and brick plant)
Twelve Mile Trail, Bronte Creek and associated woodlands
Detached dwellings
Sutton Drive, elementary school (John William Boich Public school)
Diagram 2 – 2012 aerial photo
Application Details and Processing History
Initial Applications – September 2012
ADI submitted applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit
two 4-storey apartment buildings with 217 residential units, ground floor retail and 20
townhouses, as shown in Diagram 3, in September 2012. The technical reports to
support the applications were not submitted so circulation was put on hold until the
applications were deemed complete. Staff initiated preparation of technical and public
circulations in November 2012 once reports were submitted but the applications were
put on hold again upon advisement from ADI that they had retained a new architect and
would be revising the proposal. During this time period no city initiated meetings were
conducted but ADI arranged several meetings with Orchard residents living in proximity
to the development site and invited the Ward Councillor and planning staff to attend.
Revised Applications – February 2013
ADI submitted revised OPA and rezoning applications in February 2013 that were
deemed complete on March 20, 2013. The revised development concept is shown in
Diagram 4. The applications proposed 311 dwelling units in four connected apartment
buildings ranging in height from 4 to 6 storeys. The two buildings at the intersection of
Dundas and Sutton included 1,234 m2 of ground floor commercial uses and a 2-storey
amenity building was proposed along the easterly boundary. The concept provided 420
parking spaces in one level of underground parking, at grade between the buildings and
below a proposed second storey landscaped courtyard, and adjacent to the southerly
property boundary.
Diagram 3 – Initial Proposal (September 2012)
Diagram 4 – Revised Proposal (February 2013)
The city scheduled a neighbourhood meeting on the revised applications that was held
April 22, 2013 at Appleby Arena and attended by approximately 24 residents. The
statutory public meeting was conducted by the Development & Infrastructure Committee
meeting on June 17, 2013. Report PB-51-13 was presented at this meeting and
included the public comments submitted to planning staff concerning the applications.
Council received and filed report PB-51-13 on July 2, 2013. Council also directed staff
to provide development comparisons to four sites in the city identified as the two
buildings constructed by New Horizon Homes at the intersection of Upper Middle Road
and Sutton Drive, an apartment development currently under construction by ADI at
1284 Guelph Line that was subject to OPA and rezoning applications in 2013, and an
older mixed residential development at Cleaver Avenue and Upper Middle Road.
Development statistics for these four sites, zoning and Official Plan designations and
location attributes are provided for Council’s information in Appendix II.
The first two sites include apartment buildings at the southerly entrance to the Orchard
community that abut roads, creek blocks and medium density residential uses so the
impacts are different from the current proposal that abuts detached homes. The
remaining sites include 4-storey apartment buildings and are adjacent to high density or
commercial developments so also present different transition considerations. Staff’s
review of specific development applications is based on individual merits; therefore the
focus of the analysis in this report is on the site attributes of the properties at Dundas
and Sutton and the potential impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding
area.
Subsequent to the statutory public meeting on the subject applications, staff met with the
applicant and his consulting team in Summer 2013 to discuss technical issues and
planning concerns with the development proposal and to consider options for
proceeding. The applicant agreed to consider the issues raised by staff and responded
with a revised submission in November 2013.
Revised plans and reports – November 2013
Revised plans and updated technical reports were received on November 18, 2013.
The current proposal seeks approval to construct 298 dwelling units in four apartment
buildings (reduction of 13 units), 4 to 6 storeys in height, connected by a central
landscaped courtyard on the second level and 1,249 m2 of ground floor commercial uses
(increase of 15 m2) in two of the buildings. A full movement access to the site is
proposed on Sutton Drive and a right-in, right out access is shown on Dundas Street
between Buildings A and B. Landscape plans were submitted as well as further details
concerning the proposed amenity building. The number of parking spaces was reduced
from 420 to 360 and storage lockers were added to the underground parking level.
The revised concept plan and renderings prepared by the applicant’s architect are
shown in Sketches 2 and 3. The design and massing of the development concept is
similar to the February 2013 proposal. The applicant advises the reduction of 13
dwelling units is largely the result of adjusting the floor areas of some units (i.e. creating
larger units). Details of each building are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 – Building Details
Building
A
B
C
D
Amenity building
Uses
531 m2 commercial at grade
80 dwelling units
91 dwelling units
64 dwelling units
718 m2 commercial at grade
63 dwelling units
500 m2
Height
6 storeys
6 storeys
4 storeys
6 storeys
2 storeys
The applicant submitted technical reports and plans as listed below in support of the
applications. These reports and plans were circulated to technical staff and agencies for
review and comment and were posted on the city website to facilitate public review.
§ Revised Planning Justification Report, A. J. Clarke and Associates Ltd.,
November 2013
§ Revised Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations, RAW Designs
§ Landscape Plans, Adesso, November 2013
§ Update to Shadow Studies, RAW Designs, October 21, 2013
§ Functional Servicing Report Update, A.J. Clarke and Associates Ltd., February 7,
2013; additional update dated November 15, 2013
§ Traffic Impact Study, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., February 2012;
addendum to Traffic Impact Study, November 2013
§ Scoped Environmental Impact Study, Dougan & Associates, November 2012;
update to environmental report, November 15, 2013
§ Noise Feasibility Study, HGC Engineering, Revised February 8, 2013
§ Amendments to Phase One ESA report, Landek Limited, September 17, 2013
OMB Appeals – January 2014
The applicant submitted appeals of the OPA and rezoning applications to the OMB for
Council’s failure to make a decision on the applications within the required timeframes
(180 days for the OPA and 120 days for the rezoning) that were received January 2,
2014. This report has been prepared to present staff’s recommendations on the
applications for consideration by Council in taking a position at a future OMB hearing.
Staff has been advised the OMB has now scheduled a 4-day hearing on these
applications to begin June 24, 2014.
Additional Application - Application to Revoke a Minister’s Zoning Order
The properties under application are part of the Orchard Community in Burlington and
were analyzed as part of the Alton/Orchard Land Use Framework Study in 1993, and the
Orchard Secondary Plan study in 1994-1995. These studies identified that a portion of
the Orchard Community, along the Bronte Creek valley, were included in the provincial
Parkway Belt West Plan (PBWP). The PBWP showed Bronte Creek valley as “Public
Open Space and Buffer Area,” and the tablelands along Burloak Drive as “Special
Complementary Use Area,” a restrictive designation that permits linear facilities such as
roads, trails and existing uses.
The Orchard Secondary Plan recommended closing Burloak Drive south of Dundas
Street to create an open space block and buffer adjacent to Bronte Creek valley, and
identified tablelands west of the creek that were considered appropriate for residential
development. Following approval of the implementing OPA for the Orchard community
in 1995, the city submitted an application to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(MMAH) to remove the tablelands that were recommended for future development from
the PBWP. This application was approved on January 31, 1996 and identified as
Amendment No. 108. The tablelands adjacent to the former Burloak Drive are now part
of Burlington’s urban planning area with Official Plan designations and zoning in place.
In Summer 2013, the city was advised that although the lands were removed from
the PBWP, it appears that the Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO), Ontario Regulation
482/73 that implements the PBWP was still in place. The MZO must be revoked to
bring local zoning into effect. The applicant therefore submitted an application to the
ministry to remove the MZO in October 2013 which is currently being processed.
Burlington staff advised MMAH staff that the approval of urban land use designations
for the Orchard community and submission of an application to remove the
tablelands from the PBWP in 1995 demonstrate the city’s position that local planning
policies and regulations should govern future land use in this area. City staff
supports the removal of the MZO affecting the subject properties and consider the
processing of this application a technical matter given the extensive study and
previous applications governing land use in the Orchard Community. Staff is working
with MMAH on a parallel process to remove the remainder of the MZO outside of the
Parkway Belt West Plan area.
Discussion:
Policy Framework
The OPA and rezoning applications are subject to review under the following
documents: Provincial Policy Statement 2014; Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe; Halton Region Official Plan; Burlington Official Plan and Zoning By-law
2020. Staff’s analysis of the planning merits of the applications within this policy
framework is discussed below.
Provincial Policy Statement
A new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) comes into effect April 30, 2014 and applies to
decisions concerning planning matters made after this date. All decisions are required
to be consistent with the PPS.
The PPS provides broad policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land
use planning and development. It identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth and
development and states their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Policy 1.1.3.2
states that:
Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on:
a) Densities and a mix of land uses which:
1. efficiently use land and resources;
2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service
facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their
unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion; . . .
4. support active transportation;
5. are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be
developed... .
Further policies direct planning authorities to: “identify appropriate locations and
promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be
accommodated . . .” (policy 1.1.3.3); and promote “appropriate development standards .
. . which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or
mitigating risks to public health and safety” (policy 1.1.3.4).
The housing policies of the PPS direct planning authorities to provide an appropriate
range and mix of housing types and densities to meet the needs of current and future
residents of the regional market area. Under policy 1.4.3, this is to be done by:
“c)
d)
e)
directing the development of new housing towards locations where
appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be
available to support current and projected needs;
promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources,
infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active
transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and
establishing development standards for residential intensification,
redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of
housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of
public health and safety.”
Policy 1.5.1 addresses public spaces, recreation, parks, trails and open space and
states healthy, active communities should be promoted by:
“a)
d)
planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of
pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and
community connectivity; . . .
recognizing provincial parks, conservation reserves, and other protected
areas, and minimizing negative impacts on these areas.”
The lands under application are located in the urban area and the proposed concept
plan generally implements the land use mix and higher densities envisioned for this area
in the Orchard Secondary Plan. The development site also abuts an existing transit
corridor and a proposed future bus rapid transit corridor, can efficiently use existing
infrastructure and is in proximity to existing schools and parks. Further, the introduction
of apartment units broadens the range of housing types in the community to meet future
needs.
The Official Plan and zoning by-law are identified as important vehicles for implementing
the PPS and it is in these documents that development standards and evaluation criteria
for intensification proposals in the local context are provided. It is staff’s opinion that the
cumulative impact of proposed revisions to local development standards result in overdevelopment of the site. Under the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2020 sections of this
report, staff is recommending modifications to the concept plan to address parking,
amenity space, lot coverage, and setbacks adjacent to the Bronte Creek corridor. It is
staff’s opinion that with these modifications, the applications would be consistent with
the PPS.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Places to Grow)
The 2006 Growth Plan provides a framework for implementing the Province’s vision for
building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth. The guiding
principles of the Plan discuss building compact, vibrant and complete communities; and
optimizing the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in a compact,
efficient form. Policy 2.2.2 directs that population and employment growth be
accommodated by:
a)
b)
d)
e)
h)
directing a significant portion of new growth to the built-up areas of the
community through intensification
focusing intensification in intensification areas
reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of mixeduse, transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments
providing convenient access to intra and inter-city transit
encouraging city and towns to develop as complete communities with a
diverse mix of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing types,
high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services
Municipalities are directed to include in their Official Plans, policies to: encourage
intensification generally throughout the urban area, facilitate and promote intensification,
identify the appropriate type and scale of development in intensification areas, and plan
for a range and mix of housing, taking into account affordable housing needs.
Staff finds the subject applications conform with the principles of the Growth Plan as
they accommodate intensification in an area designated for intensification, served by
local transit and adjacent to Dundas Street that is under study for inter-city transit. The
site is in close proximity to existing schools, parks and large scale commercial uses, and
the inclusion of ground floor commercial uses will accommodate needs of existing
Orchard residents within their community. Finally, the proposal adds to the range of
housing types in the Orchard and will create a vibrant, focal point at this entrance to the
community.
Region of Halton Official Plan
The properties under application are designated “Urban Area” in the Regional Official
Plan, 2006 (ROP). The ROP states that the range of permitted uses in the Urban Area
shall be in accordance with Local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws but all development
is subject to the policies of the ROP. Regional staff reviewed the plans and technical
reports submitted with the applications and have advised the land uses conform to the
ROP and they have no objections in principle to the applications.
The properties abut Dundas Street, a regional road, so several meetings were held with
regional staff to discuss assumptions made in the applicant’s Transportation Impact
Study (TIS), access locations, road improvements, and development setbacks and the
proposed balconies and terraces on building elevations facing Dundas Street.
Dundas Street is designated a Major Arterial in the 2006 ROP, and in ROPA 38,
approved by Regional Council in December 2009, is also shown as a Higher Order
Transit Corridor and the right of way requirement was increased from 47 to 50 m. The
Region requested that the initial concept plan be modified to identify dedication of
approximately 1.5 m to satisfy the deemed width for Dundas Street as well as a 15 m x
15 m daylight triangle at the intersection of Dundas Street and Sutton Drive. The
applicant’s November 2013 plan now shows these proposed conveyances and staff
have included the required dedications in the city’s list of preliminary development
conditions in Appendix I.
Regional staff also advised the proposed balconies and terraces are not considered
Outdoor Living Areas under the Ministry of Environment guidelines as they are less than
4 m in depth. They are therefore not subject to noise assessment/mitigation. The
Region has recommended conditions that vary by building concerning the provision of
central air conditioning, upgraded building construction, and warning clauses to be
included in the site plan agreement and all agreements of purchase and sale or lease,
and identified special warning clauses to be developed for the ground floor units with
proposed pedestrian connections to Dundas Street These conditions have also been
included in Appendix II.
Burlington Official Plan
§ Orchard Community
On Schedule A - Settlement Pattern of the Burlington Official Plan, the Orchard
Community is identified as a “Residential Area”. Residential areas are intended to
provide for a range of housing forms, from detached homes to high rise apartments,
along with other land uses that form part of a residential community.
The objectives of Residential Areas are listed in Part III, Section 2.2.1 and include
provision of housing opportunities that are compatible with the protection of the natural
environment, encourage use of public transit, provide a wide range of housing types and
tenure, and are compatible with surrounding properties. The policies also encourage
“new residential development and residential intensification within the Urban Planning
Area in accordance with Provincial growth management objectives, while recognizing
that the amount and form of intensification must be balanced with other planning
considerations, such as infrastructure capacity, compatibility and integration with existing
residential neighbourhoods.”
On Schedule B - Comprehensive Land Use Plan - Urban Planning Area, the lands under
application are designated “Neighbourhood Commercial” and are subject to the specific
Orchard Community policies. The objective of the Neighbourhood Commercial
designation is described in Part III, Policy 4.6.1 of the Official Plan as follows: “To
provide opportunities for limited neighbourhood commercial centres within and at the
periphery of residential neighbourhoods in locations that meet residents’ day-to-day and
weekly goods and service needs.”
For most of urban Burlington, the neighbourhood commercial designations are further
characterized as either small-scale or large-scale based on function, size and location.
The intent is to provide a limited range of retail and service commercial uses that meet
the daily and weekly needs of the immediate neighbourhood (and surrounding
residential community for large neighbourhood commercial centres). The policies
indicate residential uses may be permitted on the second or third storey of commercial
buildings.
Part III, Policy 4.6.2 f) provides specific policies for neighbourhood commercial areas in
the Orchard Community as listed below.
The four small-scale Neighbourhood Commercial areas within the Orchard
Community shall also permit medium and high density residential uses, financial
and office uses and urban squares. These uses will be subject to the following:
(i)
a maximum floor area of approximately 300 sq. m per non-residential
establishment;
(ii)
the maximum height of any building shall be five storeys;
(iii) non-residential uses shall only be allowed on the ground floor of predominantly
residential buildings, although offices may be allowed above the ground floor;
(iv) townhouses, street townhouses, stacked townhouses, duplexes, three-plexes,
four-plexes and walk-up apartments housing forms shall only be permitted;
(v)
the combined, total floor area for office, retail and service commercial uses,
excluding restaurant uses, within Neighbourhood Commercial areas in
Orchard Community shall not exceed 7,000 sq. m; and
(vi) the approval of initial development shall allow for the ultimate re-development
potential of the lands at the densities anticipated by this designation.
The above policies indicate a greater intensity of development and a broader range of
uses, including a range of residential dwelling types, are intended in the Orchard
neighbourhood commercial areas. High density residential uses are permitted which the
Official Plan defines as up to 185 units per net hectare.
The development concept proposes 1,249 m2 of retail development on the ground floor
of buildings A and D, the two buildings framing the corner of Sutton Drive and Dundas
Street. These buildings provide visibility and access to the retail units from the street
and are connected to the at-grade visitor parking interior to the site via a pedestrian link.
The concept plans show eight retail entrance doors and no change is proposed to the
300 m2 floor area per non-residential establishment so it is anticipated these units will
provide the smaller-scale retail function envisioned for the Orchard Community.
Policy 4.6.2 f) (v) provides a combined, total floor area of 7,000 m2 for all retail, service
commercial and office uses in the neighbourhood commercial designations within the
Orchard Community. There are a total of four sites designated neighbourhood
commercial in the Orchard Community. The two interior sites, located at the intersection
of Dryden Avenue and Sutton Drive, and Dryden Avenue and Prescott Place, are
developed with only residential (townhouse) and park uses. At the south end of the
community, the recently completed building at the northwest corner of Sutton Drive and
Upper Middle Road also contains only residential uses. This 138-unit, four storey
apartment building is known as The Haven. The only building containing commercial
development in the Orchard Community is the Times Square development located just
east of The Haven. Times Square is a 90-unit, five storey apartment building with 902
m2 of ground floor retail uses.
The subject applications seek approval for 1,249 m2 of commercial development
resulting in a total for the community of 2,151 m2, well below the maximum permitted. It
is staff’s opinion the commercial component of the subject applications is an important
element to provide convenient and accessible services to the residents of the Orchard
Community. It is also recognized that the site is within 750 m of the regional commercial
node at the intersection of Dundas and Appleby Line, so there is no need for ground
floor commercial development to be provided in all of the proposed buildings.
It is staff’s opinion that the applications satisfy the intent of policies 4.6.2 f) (i), (iii), (iv)
and (v) above. The OPA application seeks an increase in height from 5 to 6 storeys for
buildings A, B and D, and an increase in density from 185 to 237 units per hectare so
does not meet 4.6.2 f) (ii) and (vi). The number of dwelling units anticipated under
4.6.2.f (vi) is 232 units so the applications are seeking approval for another 66 units (a
22% increase).
§ Housing Intensification
Part III, Policy 2.5.2 of the Official Plan lists the criteria to be considered when evaluating
proposals for housing intensification in established neighbourhoods. Staff’s assessment
of these criteria concerning the proposed development is listed below.
(i)
Adequate municipal services to accommodate the increased demands are
provided, including such services as water, wastewater and storm sewers,
school accommodation and parkland.
The development application, plans and technical reports were circulated to various
departments and agencies for review and no concerns were raised from a servicing
perspective. The Region of Halton advised that in general there is adequate water
and wastewater capacity to service the development and the applicant’s Functional
Servicing Report (FSR) is satisfactory. City engineering staff responded that storm
drainage can be directed to and accommodated through the existing storm sewer
on Sutton Drive and downstream stormwater management facilities. Some
revisions to the FSR are required concerning storm water storage calculations but
these are issues that can be addressed at site plan stage.
The Halton District School Board (HDSB) and Halton Catholic District School Board
raised no concerns about capacity to accommodate students and provided
standard notification conditions regarding school attendance and bussing that
would be included in a future development agreement. The HDSB did identify a
concern with traffic flow in front of John William Boich Public School located
immediately east of the site at 2474 Sutton Drive. They advise the JK-8 elementary
school had a 2013 enrollment of 777 students and experiences traffic congestion
during school drop-off times (prior to 9:15 a.m.) and pick-up times (after 3:30 p.m.).
Staff’s response to these traffic concerns are addressed under item (iii) below.
Parks and Recreation staff advise adequate parkland is available to accommodate
the development. Emerson Park, as well as the city’s commitment to purchase a
portion of the John Boich surplus school site, are both located within 0.8 km of the
development site. The development also proposes a link to the city’s multi-use
path (Twelve Mile Trail) located parallel to the site’s east boundary.
(ii)
Off-street parking is adequate.
The Orchard Community was designed to be a more compact community that
supports higher use of alternative modes of transportation. It was intended that
residents could easily walk to the retail, office and service commercial uses so the
implementing RO4 zone for the neighbourhood commercial sites does not require
parking for these uses. The RO4 zone also provides a lower parking rate for
dwellings than other zones in Burlington, requiring just one space per dwelling.
Visitor parking is calculated at 0.35 spaces/unit.
The applicant’s February 2013 submission proposed 311 dwelling units and 420
parking spaces. The November 2013 submission proposes 298 units and 360
spaces and no justification was provided for the proposed reduction in parking.
Applying the RO4 rate of 1 space/unit and 0.35 visitor spaces/unit would result in a
requirement for 403 spaces.
To assess the applicant’s proposal for 360 parking spaces, staff undertook a
comparison of parking requirements for different zones permitting apartments
and/or mixed uses in Burlington. These parking rates and staff comments are
listed in Table 2. Table 3 provides parking spaces statistics for the two Orchard
neighbourhood commercial sites developed at Upper Middle Road and Sutton
Drive.
Table 2 – Parking Requirements for select zones in Zoning By-law 2020
Zoning By-law 2020, Part 1,
§ 1.25 spaces/1 bedroom unit
Table 1.2.6 – parking
§ 1.50 spaces/2 bedroom unit
requirements for apartment
§ 1.75 spaces/3 or more bedroom unit
buildings
§ 0.35 visitor spaces/unit
Part 1, Table 1.2.6 – parking
requirements for a retail centre
(2 or more uses)
§ 5.25 spaces/100 m2 gross floor area
Downtown Zones that permit
apartment buildings and
commercial uses
§ 1.25 spaces/apartment unit
§ No parking required for non-residential uses in
Downtown Parking Exemption Area. This area
includes many on-street parking spaces and
municipal parking lots.
Uptown Zones that permit
commercial uses
§
§
§
§
§
Mixed Use Zones that permit
§ Parking for residential uses in accordance with
Part 1, Table 1.2.6
1.25 spaces/1 bedroom unit
1.50 spaces/2 bedroom unit
1.75 spaces/3 or more bedroom unit
No visitor parking required
Parking for non-residential uses in accordance
with Part 1, Table 1.2.6
commercial uses
§ Parking for non-residential uses in accordance
with Part 1, Table 1.2.6 minus 5%
§ Visitor Parking: if a development includes both
residential and non-residential uses, one may
count the non-residential parking spaces
toward the required visitor parking for the
residential use
Table 3 – Parking in select Neighbourhood Commercial sites in Orchard
5327 Upper Middle Road
§ 150 parking spaces provided (114 resident
Times Square – 90 apartments
spaces + 36 commercial and visitor spaces)
and 902 m2 commercial
§ On-site parking achieves rate of 1.67
spaces/unit
§ 5 lay-by spaces along east side of Sutton Drive
5317 Upper Middle Road
The Haven – 138 apartments
§ 188 spaces (139 occupant + 49 visitor spaces)
spaces/unit
§ 3 lay-by spaces along west side of Sutton Drive
Applicant’s proposal – 298
apartments & 1249 m2
commercial
§ 298 resident spaces and 62 visitor spaces
proposed
spaces/unit
§ No opportunity for lay-by spaces
The applicant’s proposal for 360 parking spaces results in a rate of 1.21 spaces per
unit. This rate is lower than all other zones considered above that permit apartment
and commercial uses. If the same development was located in the downtown,
where other parking options are available in municipal parking lots and on-street,
the Zoning By-law would require 373 spaces. Using the 1.35 spaces per unit rate
that has been applied to other Orchard sites results in 403 spaces. And if the same
development was proposed in a mixed use corridor zone along Plains Road or
Fairview Street, the requirement would be 496 parking spaces.
The subject site’s location precludes the ability to provide lay-by parking spaces
and there are no other nearby parking opportunities. Staff also finds that the
characteristics of this site, on the edge of the urban community rather than central
to Orchard neighbourhoods, merits provision of parking for employees or
customers of the future commercial tenants. Similar to the approach used for
mixed use corridors, staff would support the sharing of parking spaces to meet
commercial and visitor needs.
The city is seeking to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation and
supports lower parking rates for developments located on transit routes such as
this proposal. The city also intends to review its parking rates as part of the future
comprehensive zoning by-law review. At this time, based on the comparison of
parking rates in other mixed use areas, a review of the other neighbourhood
commercial sites in Orchard and the characteristics of the subject development
site, it is staff’s opinion the proposed development concept does not provide
adequate parking. In the absence of a parking justification, it is staff’s opinion
parking should be provided for the development at a rate of 1.35 spaces per unit
which would require 403 spaces for 298 units. The applicant can satisfy this
requirement by modifying the concept plan to provide more parking spaces, or
reducing the number of dwelling units.
(iii) The capacity of the municipal transportation system can accommodate any
increased traffic flows, and the orientation of ingress and egress and potential
increased traffic volumes to multi-purpose, minor and major arterial roads and
collector streets rather than local residential streets.
At the request of both the City of Burlington and Halton Region, Paradigm
Transportation Solutions Ltd. prepared a traffic impact study on behalf of the
applicant in order to determine whether the surrounding road network can
accommodate the traffic demand that is expected to be generated by the proposed
development. The critical point in the road network in the vicinity of the proposed
development is the intersection of Dundas Street at Sutton Drive. This intersection
is under the jurisdiction of both the City of Burlington and the Region of Halton and
therefore both agencies reviewed the traffic study.
Under existing conditions, Sutton Drive immediately south of Dundas Street
operates at capacity during the peak hours of the day. The predominant turning
movement is the northbound right turn during the morning peak hour. Based on
observations conducted, vehicles, at times, do not clear the traffic signal within a
one green phase. Based on these conditions, improvements were deemed
necessary in order for this development proposal to function from a transportation
perspective. Transportation staff have recommended the following items as
conditions of development approval:
1) Extension of the northbound right turn lane on Sutton Drive at Dundas
Street.
2) Widening of Sutton Drive in order to accommodate a southbound left turn
lane at the Sutton Drive driveway to the proposed development.
3) Provision of a right in and right out access to Dundas Street for the proposed
development.
4) In consultation with Halton Region, consider extending the green time on the
traffic signal allotted to traffic making turns from Sutton Drive onto Dundas
Street.
An important consideration in staff’s review of the traffic impacts associated with
this proposal is the Region of Halton’s plan to widen Dundas Street in the vicinity of
Sutton Drive to a six lane cross-section in 2017. The additional capacity provided
along the Dundas Street corridor will allow some flexibility in increasing the green
time allotted for Sutton Drive, which will result in an improved level of service. The
recommended improvements 1 to 4 above will serve to accommodate the increase
in traffic due to the development however the Dundas/Sutton intersection is still
expected to operate at near capacity levels in the future. Capacity levels of service
during peak periods of the day are deemed to be acceptable in a built up urban
environment and therefore staff from both Halton Region and the City of Burlington
are prepared to support the development application with the above noted
improvements and the inclusion of the two driveways shown on the concept plan.
(iv) The proposal is in proximity to existing or future transit facilities.
The city’s Sutton-Alton bus route #11 runs adjacent to the site along Sutton Drive.
This route provides regular service between the Appleby GO Station and the
Highway 407 Carpool Lots. The site is also adjacent to Dundas Street which has
been under study by the Region since 2009 for a future Bus Rapid Transit route
(BRT) from Brant Street in Burlington to Trafalgar Road in Oakville. At the
November 2011 Public Information Centre on the BRT study, the Region advised a
4-lane Dundas Street with dedicated curb BRT lanes was the preferred option and
the study would go forward in stages. No specific timing has been provided for the
BRT, but as indicated above, the widening of Dundas Street from Appleby Line to
Tremaine Road is listed in the Region’s capital forecast in 2017.
The preliminary 2011 BRT designs proposed a future transit stop on the south side
of Dundas Street in front of the subject site. The Region has now determined it is
feasible to locate the proposed future BRT stop to the southwest corner of the
Dundas/Sutton intersection in front of the elementary school so Regional staff have
indicated support for the proposed right in/right access to Dundas on the subject
site.
(v) Compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood character in terms of
scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity area
so that a transition between existing and proposed buildings is provided.
Compatibility is defined in the OP as: “Development or re-development that is
capable of co-existing in harmony with, and that will not have an undue physical
(including form) or functional adverse impact on, existing or proposed development
in the area or pose an unacceptable risk to environmental and/or human health . . .”
This site is a gateway into the Orchard Community and has been designated since
the mid 1990’s for a more intense development form that will be different from the
predominantly low-rise form found in most of Orchard. The site also has distinct
attributes as it is surrounded on three sides by major roads or open space. In
considering compatibility, staff’s focus is on the transition between existing single
detached buildings and the proposed development, the interface with the Bronte
Creek valley, and the streetscape along Sutton Drive and Dundas Street.
The development’s only direct interface with existing buildings is the detached
dwellings to the south that front on Tydman Way. The November 2013 concept
plan proposes a tiered building (Building C) that steps back from 3 to 4 storeys
along the majority of this interface. The proposed building setback from the
adjacent residential lots varies from 15.2 m at the eastern end of the building
(adjacent to 5203 Tydman Way) to 21.5 m at the western end of the building
(adjacent to 5195 Tydman Way). This setback increases to 18 m and 25 m,
respectively, for the 4th storey. Within this setback is the entrance driveway, a row
of visitor parking and a 3 m landscape buffer including a wood privacy fence
already constructed along the property boundary. In staff’s opinion the siting of
Building C in terms of both separation distances and a tiered design create an
appropriate transition between the low-rise and midrise development forms. It is
also noted that this is similar to the approach used in the city’s mixed uses zones
where setbacks increase with building height (i.e. 12 m for floors 1 to 3, 15 m for
floors 4 and 5, and 18 m for floor 6).
The proposed buildings fronting on Sutton Drive and Dundas Street present a
scale, massing and height that will create a focal point at this entrance to the
Orchard and an active pedestrian area where commercial uses are proposed. Staff
does not object to the proposed one-storey increase in height for Buildings A, B
and D as they maintain the midrise housing form intended for this site and are not
adjacent to existing low-rise housing forms. Staff also finds the additional storey
will not create significant adverse impacts on the existing residential development
along Tydman Way given the separation of Buildings A, B and D from these
properties.
Along the east property boundary, the terraces and balconies of Building B (6
storeys) and Building B (4 storeys) are proposed less than 2 m from the property
line and a reduction is requested from the 6 m rear yard requirement of the RO4
zone. It is staff’s opinion the massing of these buildings with a reduced setback
does not provide an appropriate transition and negatively impacts the open space
character of the city’s trail system adjacent to the Bronte Creek corridor. Staff
recommends the plan be modified to provide a minimum 6 m rear yard that can
also accommodate the 3 m landscape buffer recommended in the applicant’s
environmental impact study (EIS) to help mitigate the impacts of the development
on trail users (see items vi and xi below). The revisions to the development plan
would be prepared by the applicant but staff has estimated this revision could result
in the reduction of between 12 and 16 units in the two buildings.
(vi) Effects on existing vegetation are minimized, and appropriate compensation is
provided for significant loss of vegetation, if necessary to assist in maintaining
neighbourhood character.
The subject properties were cleared of vegetation prior to the preparation of the EIS
in 2012. The EIS indicates approximately 72 trees >10 cm DBH may have existed
on site. The EIS also recommends planting of a 3 m linear planting within a
proposed buffer area west of Twelve Mile Trail in part to provide some
compensation for lost canopy cover. It is staff’s position this landscaping should be
provided on the applicant’s property rather than on public lands. The landscape
buffer is another reason for maintaining the standard 6 m rear yard along the east
property boundary. There are no existing city trees in the road allowance along
Sutton Drive or Dundas Street. The city’s standard development conditions will
require street tree planting along these frontages.
(vii) Significant sun-shadowing for extended periods on adjacent properties,
particularly outdoor amenity areas, is at an acceptable level.
The applicant submitted shadow studies showing the impact of the proposed
buildings on surrounding lands three times of the day (9:30 am, 12:30 pm and 3:30
pm) at three times of the year (March 21, June 21 and December 21). The studies
show the greatest shadows occur during the winter solstice (December 21) and the
areas impacted are generally to the north across Dundas Street and affecting the
industrial lands. No shadow impacts are identified on the amenity areas of the
detached dwellings to the south.
(viii) Accessibility exists to community services and other neighbourhood
conveniences such as community centres, neighbourhood shopping centres
and health care.
The site is located within 800 m of schools, parks and the regional commercial area
at Dundas Street and Appleby Line that accommodates a wide range of retail and
service commercial uses. The development will also provide ground floor
commercial uses convenient to future residents and the surrounding community.
(ix) Capability exists to provide adequate buffering and other measures to
minimize any identified impacts.
The development proposes a 3 m landscape buffer adjacent to the south property
boundary in accordance with the standard regulations of the RO4 zone.
Landscape buffers are intended to partially obstruct the view of adjacent land uses
by means of dense landscaping or a combination of solid screen fencing with
landscaping. As shown in Photo 1 privacy fencing has already been installed. It is
staff’s opinion that at the site plan stage consultation with abutting residents and
the applicant should occur to consider options for planting more mature vegetation
so a denser screen is in place sooner. Photo 2, taken from the southeast corner of
the fence shows the impact taller vegetation has on creating more effective
screening.
Photo 1 – Existing fence along south property boundary
Photo 2 – vegetation on south side of boundary fence
(x) Where intensification potential exists on more than one adjacent property, any
re-development proposals on an individual property shall demonstrate that
future re-development on adjacent properties will not be compromised, and
this may require the submission of a tertiary plan, where appropriate.
This policy is not applicable as all properties designated Orchard neighbourhood
commercial in this area have been assembled by the applicant.
(xi) Natural and cultural heritage features and areas of natural hazard are
protected.
The properties under application are not subject to any environmental designations
but are in proximity to the Bronte Creek corridor, located east of the city’s multi-use
trail as shown in Photo 3. The Bronte Creek corridor has been designated an
environmentally sensitive area (ESA), an area of natural and scientific interest
(ANSI), a significant woodland and is designated “Greenlands” in the Halton Region
and Burlington Official Plans. The applicant was therefore required to undertake a
scoped environmental study to assess the impacts of the development proposal on
the natural heritage features.
The EIS identified the limit of the ANSI/ESA and recommended a 12 m buffer
(vegetation protection zone) be provided from this limit to mitigate any impacts to
the Bronte Creek corridor. The report advises the buffer is intended to protect the
features and functions of the woodlands by separating development from the
environmental features and providing space for new plantings to create an edge.
Photo 3 – Looking north at 5236 Dundas Street and Twelve Mile Trail
The 12 m distance from the edge of the ANSI/ESA falls on city lands between
Twelve Mile Trail and the development site. The EIS therefore proposes that: “a
linear planting bed containing native tree and shrub species approximately 3m wide
by the length of the property could be planted between the buildings and the path to
screen views, mitigate wind speeds, and provide some compensation for lost
canopy cover.” Staff agrees with the EIS recommendations for buffer planting but
finds that mitigation of development impacts should be located on the development
site and not on city property. Staff has already recommended a 6 m yard be
provided adjacent to the east property boundary in item (v) above. Provision of this
6 m yard will provide adequate space for planting of the 3 m landscape buffer.
Concerning cultural heritage features, two of the properties under application (5218
and 5226 Dundas Street) were previously listed on the city’s Municipal Register of
Cultural Heritage Resources. In March 2012 Council approved the removal of
these properties from the Municipal Register following consideration of a heritage
impact study and staff report. This Council approval included a direction to:
“Require the owner of the properties at 5218 and 5226 Dundas Street to
incorporate significant salvage materials from the residential structures, including
but not limited to the wood beams and joists identified by the consultant as
significant, into a gateway feature and plaque for the new development,
commemorating the village of Tansley, in consultation with Heritage Burlington and
planning and building department staff.
The dwellings were demolished by the previous owner of the property and the
current applicant advises no materials were salvaged. It is staff’s position that
when development of the site occurs, the applicant be required to provide for a
gateway feature or plaque as recommended above. The applicant has proposed
consideration of such a feature along the proposed easterly pedestrian entrance to
the site from the city’s trail system and a staff has included the requirement for a
gateway feature in the preliminary development conditions.
(xii) Where applicable, there is consideration of the policies of Part II, Subsection
2.11.3, g) and m).
This policy is not applicable to the subject applications.
(xiii) Proposals for non-ground oriented housing intensification shall be permitted
only at the periphery of existing residential neighbourhoods on properties
abutting, and having direct vehicular access to, major arterial, minor arterial or
multi-purpose arterial roads and only provided that the built form, scale and
profile of development is well integrated with the existing neighbourhood so
that a transition between existing and proposed residential buildings is
provided.
The proposed development is located at the periphery of the Orchard community,
abutting residential development only to the south, and has direct vehicular access
to a major arterial and collector road. The development has also been designed
with stepped back buildings that satisfy or exceed the recommended buffer and
setback requirements. In the Zoning By-law section below, staff is recommending
a series of design modifications that will impact the scale and profile of the
development. Upon implementation of these changes, staff finds the development
will provide an appropriate transition between the existing low-rise and proposed
mid-rise development form.
Zoning By-law 2020
The properties are currently zoned D and H-RO4 as shown in Sketch No. 1. The D
zone is a development zone that requires submission of an application and required
technical reports to determine the appropriate development of the property in
accordance with the applicable Official Plan designation. The RO4 zone is the
implementing zone for the Orchard Community neighbourhood commercial sites. The
southeast property is currently zoned H-RO4 (holding provision) as it represents excess
lands from the subdivision to the south that requires land assembly and road access to
develop.
The applicant is requesting rezoning to a site-specific RO4 zone to permit the proposed
development. This zone permits a range of residential dwelling forms including
duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, apartment buildings and retirement homes. It also
permits a variety of accessory uses on the lower floors of residential buildings. The list
of accessory uses includes: a convenience store, drug store, florist, bank, barber shop/
beauty shop, dry cleaning depot, office, restaurant (convenience, standard and fast
food) and fitness club.
The uses proposed by the applications (apartment buildings with ground floor
commercial uses) are permitted in an RO4 zone and are supported by staff. Staff
particularly supports the inclusion of an appropriate amount of commercial space to
provide easily accessible services for Orchard residents without having to leave the
community. Staff does not support all of the applicant’s requested changes to the RO4
zone regulations. Table 4 identifies the key RO4 zone regulations, the applicant’s
proposed changes and staff’s comments.
Table 4 – Applicant’s proposed changes to RO4 Zoning Regulations
Front Yard (Sutton Drive)
Required
Ground floor - no minimum, 2 m maximum
Proposed
Ground floor - 3.8 to 8.4 m
Staff supports the applicant’s proposal. The building setback
Staff Comment
enhances the Sutton Drive streetscape by providing room for trees,
flower beds and benches between the sidewalk and buildings while
still maintaining an active pedestrian realm with the ground floor
commercial uses.
Rear Yard (Bronte Creek)
Required
6m
Proposed
2.7 m to building; 1.2 m to amenity terrace
Staff does not support the applicant’s proposal. The reduced rear
Staff Comment
yard does not provide an adequate transition between the
development (4 and 6 storey buildings) and the open space character
of the city trail and the Bronte Creek corridor. A 1.2 m rear yard also
does not provide sufficient space on the applicant’s land to plant the 3
m landscaping strip recommended in the EIS study. The city does
not support that the buffer planting be located on city property.
Modify proposal to provide a 6 m rear yard
Staff
recommendation
Side Yard (abutting residential)
Required
3m
Proposed
15.2 m to Building C
Staff supports the applicant’s proposal. The increased setbacks and
Staff Comment
tiered building design (from 3 to 4 floors) provide an adequate
transition between the detached dwellings area and this designated
intensification site.
Staff
Future zoning regulations to identify this increased setback abutting
recommendation
residential.
Building Height
Required
Minimum 3 storeys, maximum 5 storeys
Amenity building - 2 storeys; Building C – 4 storeys; Buildings A, B
Proposed
and D – 6 storeys
Staff supports applicant’s proposal as taller buildings are located
Staff Comment
away from detached housing forms.
Lot Coverage
Required
60% maximum
Proposed
66%
Staff does not support applicant’s proposal. Only 20% of the site is
Staff Comment
not covered by building or asphalt and this is mainly narrow
landscape strips. It is noted lot coverage would be reduced by
providing the recommended 6 m rear yard listed above.
Staff
Modify proposal to provide maximum 60% lot coverage.
recommendation
Landscape buffer (abutting residential)
Required
3m
Proposed
3m
Staff supports applicant’s proposal. At site plan stage, staff will
Staff Comment
request planting of mature vegetation in buffer area.
Amenity Area
15 m2 per efficiency unit (64 units) plus 25 m2 per one bedroom unit
Required
(154 units) plus 50 m2 per two bedroom unit (80 units) for a total of
8,180 m2
Proposed
4,526 m2
Staff does not support the applicant’s proposal. Staff recognizes the
Staff Comment
common amenity space provided on the second level courtyard and
two storey amenity building along with the private balconies and
terraces. Some reduction to RO4 standard regulations are also
supported given the proposed connection to Bronte Creek corridor
but staff finds the current proposal is not sufficient.
Staff
recommendation
Parking
Required
Proposed
Staff Comment
Staff
recommendation
Density
Required
Proposed
Staff Comment
Staff
recommendation
Modify proposal to provide minimum 20 m2 per unit.
403 spaces
360 spaces
Staff does not support the applicant’s proposal. The amount of
parking proposed for visitors and commercial uses is insufficient
given the site location.
Modify proposal to provide 1.35 spaces per unit. This includes
resident parking at a rate of 1 space/unit and shared visitor/
commercial parking at a rate of 0.35 spaces/unit.
Maximum 185 units per hectare (232 units)
237 units per hectare (298 units)
Staff does not support the applicant’s proposal. The request for an
additional 66 units is achieved by reductions in amenity area,
setbacks and parking, and increase in lot coverage that are not
supported by staff.
Staff will reconsider the request for increased density upon
submission of a revised plan addressing the concerns raised above.
The lands under application abut major roads at the entrance to the Orchard community
and have been designated since 1995 for future intensification Staff supports the
proposed mix of land uses as the development will provide convenient and accessible
neighbourhood commercial uses to Orchard residents and the introduction of apartment
units on the edge of the community increases the range of housing types to meet
resident needs. The development has also been designed to provide an active
pedestrian realm along the street frontages, has located the taller buildings away from
existing detached residential dwellings and created a link from the development to the
city’s trail system. However, staff finds the cumulative impacts of proposed changes to
standard RO4 regulations result in over-development of the site and are not good
planning. Staff opposes the applications as submitted. Staff has recommended a
modified approval that incorporates the revisions to parking, amenity area, lot coverage
and setbacks described above. To facilitate consideration of these applications at a
future OMB hearing, staff has also prepared a preliminary list of development conditions
requested by technical staff and agencies in their review of this proposal. These
conditions are attached as Appendix I and revisions are anticipated upon receipt of a
modified development plan.
Financial Matters:
The applications have been processed under the standard development application
fees. If recommended for approval, the applicant would be required to pay variable fees
prior to zoning by-law amendment. Additional fees would be required at future planning
stages including site plan application, per unit fees and securities to ensure works
associated with the proposed development will be completed to the city’s satisfaction;
and cash-in-lieu of parkland and development charges at time of building permit
Environmental Matters
Environmental matters related to the Bronte Creek ESA are discussed under the
Burlington Official Plan evaluation criteria section of this report. The applications were
also circulated to the Burlington Sustainable Development Committee and their
comments are provided in Appendix III. The comments generally support the
development proposal provided it incorporates green design features. These comments
were provided to the applicant and will be considered at the site plan stage.
Public Engagement
The revised applications submitted in February 2013 were circulated to the public for
comment in accordance with Planning Act regulations and the applicant’s plans and
technical reports were posted on the city website. A neighbourhood meeting was held
on April 22, 2013 at Appleby Arena and attended by approximately 24 residents.
Planning staff received 12 comment letters that were attached to Report PB-51-13
presented to the Development & Infrastructure Committee at the statutory public
meeting on the applications held June 17, 2013.
Revised plans and technical reports were submitted by the applicant in November 2013
and were also posted on the city website. There was no new public circulation as the
plan revisions generally responded to technical issues and were considered minor.
Staff also updated city website once the OMB appeals were received. Notification of
the presentation of this staff report to the D & I committee was provided to the compiled
mailing list.
The key issues raised by the public concerning these development applications are
related to density, height, compatibility, design, traffic and parking. Table 5 provides a
summary of concerns raised by the public and staff’s response.
Table 5 – Summary of Public Comments
Comment
Staff Response
Too many units are proposed
Staff agrees the current proposal represents overdevelopment of the site. Staff has proposed several
design modifications such as providing an appropriate
rear yard setback/buffer, additional parking and
increasing amenity space that should result in a reduction
in the number of dwelling units.
Prefer 4 storeys or maximum
5 storeys as permitted in the
The development proposes a stepped back 4 storey
building that exceeds required setbacks adjacent to
Neighbourhood Commercial
designation
existing detached dwellings. Staff does not object to the
proposed 6 storey height for the remaining buildings as
they are located on the perimeter of the site. The
increase of one storey will not create adverse impacts on
existing detached homes given the separation between
the existing and proposed buildings.
Contemporary design does
not fit/blend in to the Orchard
neighbourhood.
The contemporary design and height along Dundas and
Sutton help create a focal point at the entrance to the
community and support an active pedestrian realm along
the street frontages. It will be important at the site plan
stage to focus on the streetscape to soften the impact of
the development and create a transition to Bronte Creek.
Staff also recommends the applicant provide an entrance
feature recognizing the cultural heritage of this area.
Oppose reduced setbacks
adjacent to Bronte Creek
Staff agrees with this comment. Staff proposes the
landscape buffer recommended in the applicant’s EIS be
provided on site and that a minimum 6 m rear yard be
provided along the east property boundary.
Abutting residents to the
south prefer the landscape
buffer proposed by NHH
under the previous
application
The previous New Horizon Homes rezoning application
proposed a different mix of land uses including a block of
townhouses perpendicular to the south property
boundary. The current proposal provides an appropriate
separation distance from the detached dwellings to the
south and the proposed 3 m buffer is in accordance with
the standard R04 zoning by-law regulations. A privacy
fence has already been constructed along this boundary
and staff supports requesting more mature vegetation be
planted at site plan stage so better screening is in place
at time of development.
Abutting residents concerned
about impacts on rear yard
privacy due to height, building
orientation and window
locations in Building C
These properties have long been designated to
accommodate a midrise development form of 3 to 5
storeys. Mitigation of privacy impacts is addressed in the
Zoning By-law via setbacks and buffer requirements.
This development has been designed to exceed these
requirements where the development is adjacent to
detached homes in order to provide an appropriate
transition.
Oppose visitor parking
adjacent to southerly
boundary
Visitor parking is provided adjacent to the southerly
boundary and at grade below the second level terrace.
Staff finds it appropriate for some visitor parking to be
visible and easily accessible to support the commercial
uses. Staff also finds it is preferable to locate visitor
parking along this area than move Building C closer to
the southerly boundary.
Advise of existing traffic
Traffic impacts are addressed in the review of
problems/congestion along
Sutton Drive and at the
Dundas and Sutton
intersection
intensification policies (item (iii)). Transportation services
staff advise that the improvements to be implemented as
part of the development will alleviate the existing
congestion issues currently being experienced on Sutton
Drive, however, this road segment will continue to
operate at capacity in the future once the development is
occupied.
Safety concerns related to
increased traffic given
elementary school on west
side of Sutton Drive
A collision analysis conducted by staff did not reveal any
safety related issues for this section of Sutton Drive. The
design and location of the proposed driveway will meet
design standards and therefore should not pose any
safety concerns.
Site visibility issues near
project entrance on Sutton
due to curve in road.
Improvements to be implemented as part of this
development will allow for satisfactory sightlines.
Concerned that left turns into
site will back up traffic on
Sutton and impact left turns at
Dundas/Sutton intersection.
Improvements to be constructed as part of this
development will provide a southbound left turn lane into
the Sutton Drive entrance.
How will the proposed access
on Dundas function given
speeds on Dundas?
The right in and right out access will be designed to
conform to the Region of Halton’s geometric design
standards and will function satisfactorily.
Think commercial component
intensifies traffic impacts and
is not needed given
commercial development in
general area.
The traffic impact study took into account the traffic that
will be generated by both the commercial and residential
components of the development and determined that
traffic can be accommodated with the implementation of
the proposed improvements to Sutton Drive. Staff
supports inclusion of small-scale commercial uses within
residential communities so some retail and service needs
can be met without having to leave the community.
Is parking sufficient for
development?
Staff finds the amount of parking proposed is not
sufficient for the development. This is discussed in the
review of intensification policies (item (ii)).
Find proposal for small units
starting at $160,000 will
attract wrong demographics
to Orchard which is a familyoriented community.
The development plan provides a range of apartment
units including efficiency units, one bedroom apartments
and two bedroom apartments. The development is in
accordance with city policies that support providing a
range of housing forms that satisfy existing and future
community needs including accommodating singles and
seniors.
Conclusion:
Staff has reviewed the applications in accordance with applicable provincial, regional
and municipal planning policies. Staff finds the applications propose appropriate land
uses and intensification at the periphery of the community in an area that is designated
for intensification. It is staff’s opinion the November 2013 development plan does not
provide an adequate setback and buffer along the easterly boundary, does not provide
sufficient visitor/commercial parking and amenity space, and that lot coverage is too
high. Staff therefore opposes the applications as submitted. This report presents
planning staff’s recommended modifications to the applications to be presented at the
Ontario Municipal Board hearing on these applications.
Respectfully submitted,
Silvina Kade, Senior Planner
335 7600 ext. 7871
Sketches and Appendices:
Sketch 1 – Zoning/Location Sketch
Sketch 2 – Detail Sketch of Development Proposal
Sketch 3 – Renderings by RAW Design
Appendix I – Preliminary List of Development Conditions
Appendix II – Development Comparisons requested by Council
Appendix III – Comments submitted by Sustainable Development Committee
Notifications: (after Council decision)
Name:
Mailing or E-mail Address:
Stephen Fraser, A. J. Clarke &
Associates Ltd.
Michelle D’Aguiar, Senior Planner,
Halton District School Board
[email protected]
[email protected]
Approved by:
Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of Planning and Building
Scott Stewart, General Manager of Dev. and Infrastructure
Reviewed by:
Sketch No. 3
RENDERINGS BY RAW DESIGN – NOVEMBER 2013
Revised Applications submitted by ADI Development Group Inc. requesting Official Plan
and Zoning By-law amendments to permit the development of 298 residential units and
ground floor commercial uses in 4 buildings.
View from Dundas Street & Sutton Drive looking south
View from Bronte Creek corridor looking west
Appendix I
Preliminary list of Development Conditions
Prior to the enactment of the amending zoning by-law, the owner shall sign the city’s
standard Residential Development Agreement and any other necessary agreement(s) in
effect on the date of signing. The agreement(s) shall be signed within one year of the
date of approval, failing which, approval shall lapse. The Residential Development
Agreement shall include the following:
1. The owner shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Director of
Engineering and Manager of Realty Services:
a) Agree to make the necessary arrangements with the City to exchange equal
portions of land on the east of the property to widen the throat of Twelve Mile
Trail.
b) Agree to purchase the excess City lands along the Sutton Drive boundary of the
site at fair market value and assemble with the development property should it be
determined that these lands are not required for additional road allowance to
accommodate possible Sutton Drive improvements.
Engineering:
a) Provide an update to the Functional Servicing Report (stormwater management
only) as necessary to address city comments concerning the storm water storage
calculations prior to the approval of the site plan and servicing.
b) Agree to construct a 2 metre wide temporary asphalt pathway and provide street
trees along the Dundas Street frontage of the site at no cost to the City.
c) Agree to construct a concrete sidewalk and install boulevard trees along the
Sutton Drive frontage of the site at no cost to the City
d) Agree prior to site plan approval to enter into a Master Servicing Agreement with
other land owners in the Orchard Community which provides for cost sharing for
the construction of the roads, infrastructure, stormwater management facilities,
external servicing and the provision of community parkland if necessary.
e) Agree prior to site plan approval to provide an updated Noise Feasibility Study to
address, based on final building design, noise from the underground parking
ventilation shafts, central air conditioning units and any roof top mechanical
installations that may affect the units themselves or the residential properties to
the south and to finalize building facade and window components based on
actual room floor plans and window configurations.
f) Agree to implement the recommendations of the approved Noise Feasibility
Study.
g) Agree to implement the recommendations of the approved Environmental Impact
Study but provide the recommended 3 metre landscape buffer on the owner’s
property. In addition, agree to provide all new home purchasers in the
development with an information brochure containing information on the
ecological value and function of the natural areas within the community to be
preserved, and appropriate stewardship behaviour such as domestic pet control,
no debris/garbage dumping, no vegetation removal and no pedestrian access
except at specified trail locations.
Engineering and Director of Transportation Services:
a) Agree to make the following road improvements on Sutton Drive at no cost to the
City:
i) Extend the northbound right turn lane on Sutton Drive at Dundas Street.
ii) Widen Sutton Drive in order to accommodate a southbound left turn lane at
the Sutton Drive driveway to the proposed development.
Planning and Building:
a) Agree to incorporate a gateway feature and plaque for the development,
commemorating the village of Tansley, in consultation with Heritage Burlington
and planning and building department staff.
5. The owner shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Region of
Halton:
a) Agree to dedicate any lands within 25 metres of the centre line of the original 66
foot right-of-way of Dundas Street that are part of the subject property to the
Regional Municipality of Halton for the purpose of road right-of-way widening and
future road improvements. These lands shall be dedicated with clear title, (free
and clear of encumbrances) and a Certificate of Title shall be provided, in a form
satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services or his designate.
b) Agree to dedicate a daylight triangle measuring 15 metres along Dundas Street
and 15 metres along Sutton Drive to the Regional Municipality of Halton for the
purpose of road right-of-way widening and future road improvements. These
lands shall be dedicated with clear title, (free and clear of encumbrances) and a
Certificate of Title shall be provided, in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal
Services or his designate.
c) Agree to extend the centre median along Dundas Street easterly from Sutton
Drive for approximately 125 metres.
d) Agree to provide a right in right out access to Dundas Street for the proposed
development. This access to Dundas Street does not require a pork-chop island.
Associated signage (one-way sign, stop sign, no left-turn sign) will also be
required as part of the access design plan.
e) Agree to implement a multi-use path and boulevard (fill to an full urban crosssection – curb & gutter and storm sewers, removal of existing ditches, etc., )
along the frontage of Dundas Street from the east limit of the development
property to Sutton Drive, and along Sutton Drive from Dundas Street to the
existing sidewalk at Tydman Way. The Dundas Street multi-use path must
connect to the existing City multi-use trail at the east side of the development
lands. This also includes any relocation of services and utilities below and
above ground along the multi-use path alignment.
f) Agree that the development plans and setbacks adjacent to Dundas Street shall
consider the required grading lines from the Region’s Dundas Street widening
plans.
g) Agree to enter into a Servicing Agreement with Halton Region through the
Development Project Manager. The owner must provide Halton with a cost
estimate for the required road improvements for review and approval and also
provide Halton with the required funds in the form of a Letter of Credit for the
approved road improvements.
h) Agree to submit detailed design drawings to Halton Region for review and
approval. A design based on the specifications outlined in the TAC Geometric
Design Guide for Canadian Roads manual (and approved by Halton Design
Services) must be shown. The detailed design drawings should include the road
improvements and all associated design details, including the full urban crosssection, multi-use path, continuation of sidewalk along Sutton Drive southerly to
Tydman Way and a pavement marking & signage plan.
i) Agree to submit a Stormwater Management report to Halton Transportation
Services for review and comments. All flows from the development sight must be
maintained on-site and no flows shall be directed to Dundas Street.
j) Agree to prepare a special warning clause, for approval by Halton Region and
the City of Burlington, for ground floor balcony units in order to provide for
accessible pedestrian movements to and from these units to the active
transportation system along Dundas Street in the future.
6. The owner shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Halton
District School Board:
a) The owner agrees to place the following notification in all offers of purchase and
sale for all lots/units in the subdivision agreement, to be registered on title:
i) Prospective purchasers are advised that schools on sites designated for the
Halton District School Board in the community are not guaranteed.
Attendance at schools in the area is not guaranteed. Pupils may be
accommodated in temporary facilities and/or directed to schools outside of
the area.
ii) Prospective purchasers are advised that school busses will not enter cul-desacs and pick up points will be generally located on through streets
convenient to the Halton District School Board. Additional pick up points will
not be located within the subdivision until major construction activity has been
completed.
b) That in cases where offers of purchase and sale have already been executed,
the owner send a letter to all purchasers which includes the above statement.
c) That the owner shall supply, erect and maintain signs at all major entrances into
the new development advising prospective purchasers that pupils may be
directed to schools outside of the area. The owner will make these signs to the
specifications of the Halton District School Board and erect them prior to the
issuance of building permits.
7. The owner shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Halton
Catholic District School Board:
a) That the owner agrees that a clause will be inserted into the Condominium, Site
Plan and/or Development Agreement, and all offers of purchase and sale for
residential units, stating that “sufficient accommodation may not be available for
students residing in this area, and that you are notified that students may be
accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to existing facilities outside
the area.” Further, the clause will specify that the “Halton Catholic District School
Board will designate pick up points for the children to meet the bus on roads
presently in existence or other pick up areas convenient to the Board”.
b) That the owner agrees to erect and maintain signs at all major entrances into the
new development advising prospective purchasers regarding the availability of
school accommodation. The owner will make these signs to the specifications of
the Halton Catholic District School Board and erect them prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Notes:
1) The owner, its successors and assigns, is hereby notified that City development
charges may be payable in accordance with By-law No. 49-2009, as may be
amended, upon issuance of a building permit at the rate in effect on the date issued.
2) Educational Development Charges are payable in accordance with the applicable
Education Development Charge By-law and are required at the issuance of a
building permit. Any building permits which are additional to the maximum unit yield
which is specified by the Development Agreement are subject to Education
Development Charges prior to the issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect
at the date of issuance.
3) Regional Development Charges and Surcharges are payable in accordance with the
applicable Regional Development Charges By-law. The owners will be required to
pay all the applicable Regional development charges prior to the issuance of
building permits, unless a servicing (or other form of development) agreement is
required, in which case the water and wastewater portion of the Regional
development charges are payable upon execution of the agreement.
APPENDIX II
Development Comparisons requested by Council
Subject applications: 5210 – 5236 Dundas Street – Link
South east corner of Dundas Street and Sutton Drive
OP Designation:
Zoning:
Developer:
Description of
Development:
Property area:
Number of units:
Unit mix:
Density:
Surrounding uses:
Height:
Lot coverage:
Amenity area:
Parking:
§ OPA application requesting increased height and density
D and H-RO4
§ Rezoning application requests modified RO4 zone
Adi Development Group Inc.
Propose four connected apartment buildings with ground floor commercial
in two buildings, one level of underground parking, 2nd level landscaped
terrace
1.26 hectares
298 apartments
64 efficiency units; 154 one bedroom units; 80 two bedroom units
Requests increase from 185 to 237 units per hectare
North: Dundas Street, industrial East: city trail, Bronte Creek corridor
uses
South: detached dwellings
West: Sutton Drive, elementary school
Request increase from 5 to 6 storeys
66 %
4,526 m2
360 spaces – 298 tenant and 62 visitor spaces
(calculates to rate of 1.21 spaces/unit)
1284 Guelph Line – Modrn
West side of Guelph Line, south of Centennial Drive
OP Designation:
Zoning:
Developer:
Site plan approval:
Description of
Development:
Property area:
Number of units:
Unit mix:
Density:
Surrounding uses:
Height:
Lot coverage:
Landscape area:
Amenity area:
Parking:
Residential - High Density
RH4-439
Adi Development Group Inc.
March 2014
Apartment building with two levels of underground parking and a rooftop
terrace
0.34 hectares
78 apartments
71 one bedroom units; 7 two bedroom units
230 units per hectare maximum
North: townhouses
East: Guelph Line, townhouses
South: Bell Canada utility building
West: townhouses
4 storeys (approx 14.2 m)
44 %
42%
2,125 m2
(calculates to rate of 25 m2/bedroom)
111 spaces – 83 tenant, 27 visitor spaces and 1 shared space
5317 Upper Middle Road – The Haven
Northwest corner of Upper Middle Road & Sutton Drive
OP Designation:
Zoning:
Developer:
Site plan approval:
Description of
Development:
Property area:
Number of units:
Unit mix:
Density:
Surrounding uses:
Height:
Lot coverage:
Landscaped area:
Amenity area:
Parking:
RO4
New Horizon Homes
December 2011
Apartment building with one level of underground parking
7,506 m2
138 apartments
184 units per hectare
North: creek block, semi-detached units
East: Sutton Drive, mixed use
building
South: Upper Middle Rd, employment
lands
West: townhouses
4 storeys (16.5 m)
39%
37%
3,948 m2; includes balconies and rooftop amenity area on north end of
building
188 spaces – 51 surface spaces; 137 underground spaces
5327 Upper Middle Road – Times Square
Northeast corner of Upper Middle Road & Sutton Drive
OP Designation:
Zoning:
Developer:
Site plan approval:
Description of
Development:
Property area:
Number of units:
Unit mix:
Density:
Surrounding uses:
Height:
Lot coverage:
Landscaped area:
Amenity area:
Parking:
RO4 and O2
New Horizon Homes
March 2008
Mixed use building consisting of 90 apartments, 902 m2 of ground floor
commercial uses and 2 levels of underground parking
4,418 m2
90 apartments
North: creek block, semi-detached
East: stormwater management
units
pond
South: Upper Middle Road,
West: Sutton Drive, apartment
employment lands
building
5 storeys (16.25 m to top of roof slab)
38%
37%
3,018 m2
150 spaces - 114 tenant spaces and 36 commercial/visitor spaces
3497 & 3499 Upper Middle Road
Northwest corner of Upper Middle Road & Cleaver Ave.
OP Designation:
Zoning:
Developer:
Site plan approval:
Description of
Development:
Property area:
Number of units:
Unit mix:
Density:
Surrounding uses:
Height:
Lot coverage:
Landscaped area:
Amenity area:
Parking:
Residential – High Density
RH4-32
Valfour Developments
November 1995
Two apartment buildings that are part of a mixed residential development
that also includes 40 townhouses and 40 stacked townhouses on 2.7
hectares
9,960 m2
102 apartments
16 1-bedroom units; 86 2-bedroom units
North: townhouses
East: shopping plaza
South: Upper Middle Road
West: Cleaver Ave. and townhouses
4 storeys (12.9 m)
27 %
56 %
6,066 m2 (unit balconies plus landscaped area)
187 spaces (calculates to rate of 1.83 spaces/unit)
Appendix III
Comments received from Sustainable Development Committee

Development and Infrastructure Committee

Transcription

Similar documents

Groupe Sutton - Excellence Inc. Brochure - 5475 BOUL

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

The Crossing at Palm Valley

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Sutton™ Thermofoil Cabinetry

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT A ZONING ADMINISTOR

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

For all your real estate transactions, think Sutton.