RECOMMENDATION:
That
the report dated
July 7, 2003, entitled, “Information Report – Avant Investments Inc. - Site Plan, Zoning Amendment, and Official Plan
Amendment applications for 3856, 3864, and 3872 Highway #7 East, Plan 4295, Lot
4, File Number SC 03-112281, ZA 03-112240, and OPA 03-112209” be received.
And that the application be held in abeyance pending
the completion, by the applicant, of outstanding submission requirements.
PURPOSE:
Site
plan, zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications have been
submitted by Avant Investments Inc. to permit the construction of a 5 storey
condominium building containing ground floor commercial space and 72
residential units above. The proposal
is for the lands at municipal addresses 3856, 3864, and 3872 Highway 7
East. The purpose of this report is to
provide preliminary information and analysis on the applications and to note that
the applications will be held in abeyance due to outstanding submission
requirements and staff requests to the applicant to comply with Town policies
and requirements.
BACKGROUND:
Site description and area context
The subject lands are located at the northeast
corner of Highway 7 East and Verclaire Gate (refer to Figure 1) within the
Markham Centre District. The lands
subject to the site plan, zoning and official plan amendments consist of the
parcels municipally known as 3856, 3864, and 3872 Highway 7 East, and are
currently vacant.
To the west of the property, across
Verclaire Gate, is the Markham Town Square Plaza that contains a variety of
retail and restaurant uses. To the east
is an existing single detached residential unit, which is currently being
leased as a Montessori school, and beyond is St. Justin Martyr Catholic
Church. To the south is Highway 7 East
and vacant agricultural lands that comprise part of the Markham Centre
Secondary Plan area (OPA 21). To the
north is a residential subdivision containing single detached residential
units. Tenbury Drive ends abruptly at
the northern boundary of 3872 Highway 7 East (refer to Figure 2).
The lands are comprised of approximately 0.81 hectares (2 acres). Prior to the purchase of the lands by the current landowner,
the combined site contained three single-family residential dwelling units, on
lots covered with a significant mature tree canopy. Since ownership has been transferred to the applicant, the
residential homes have been demolished (the applicant obtained building
demolition permits from the Town in January 2003). All of the trees on the lands have recently been cleared and
mulched on-site without Town approval.
Previous applications
The site was previously subject to site specific Official Plan Amendment
and zoning applications to permit a mixed-use (residential and commercial)
development. At that time, adjacent
lands at 3882 Highway 7 East were also included in the applications. Approvals for a proposed four storey mixed-use building,
containing ground floor commercial and 64 residential condominiums, were
granted in 1998. The official plan
amendment stated that notwithstanding the residential designation, ground floor
retail and service uses are permitted and that the amount and type of retail
and service floor space shall be regulated through the implementing by-law.
The zoning amendment for all four properties was approved on May 26,
1998 and the lands were zoned RMD1(H) – Medium Density Residential One. Permitted uses include apartment dwellings,
retail stores, offices, personal service shops, banks and financial
institutions, community centres, dry cleaners, and one bake shop (not to
include restaurant uses). The amendment
also provides development standards including a maximum total gross floor area
(GFA) for non-residential uses of 1,324 m².
The OPA and rezoning approval in 1998 was based on a conceptual proposal
for a four-storey mixed-use building with an urban street related orientation
to Highway 7 East, with underground parking and no visible parking from Highway
7 East. The zoning was considered to be
in keeping with the emerging pattern of Highway 7 East in the Markham Centre
area, and the Town was comfortable in pre-zoning the lands subject to a Hold
provision (H) and development standards.
In 2001, the previous landowner (Mr. Mario Greco) submitted an application to rezone the subject properties for the development of a
3,600m² office/retail complex, with no residential component. The application did not deal with the fourth
parcel to the east, which was part of the 1998 approval. Staff’s position was that the proposal was
not in keeping with the intent of Markham Centre Smart Growth initiatives, nor
was it keeping with the Town’s initiatives regarding mixed land use and compact
urban form. Staff had prepared a denial
report to go forward to the Development Services Committee on June 19, 2001,
however prior to the report going to Committee, the applicant requested staff remove
the report from the agenda, and withdrew the application.
An
Official Plan amendment is required
The Official Plan (revised 1987) identifies these lands as Urban
Residential on Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use.
This designation provides for a variety of housing opportunities, as
well as public, institutional and recreational uses. Lands designated as such may also permit neighbourhood commercial
centres, the location of which is intended to be shown in a Secondary
Plan. This designation also relies on
Secondary Plans to determine the specific housing categories on a site or area
specific basis.
The Official Plan, as amended by OPA 15 (1998) designates the lands
Urban Residential (Medium Density II).
This permission allows a variety of multiple dwelling types where the
overall density does not exceed 62 units per hectare (25 units per acre). The applicant is proposing 72 units on the
0.805 hectare lot, resulting in an overall density of 89.5 units per hectare
(36.2 units per acre), therefore an Official Plan Amendment is required.
The site
specific zoning by-law requires amendment
The applicant is proposing a
mixed-use, residential building
The applicant has submitted a site plan application, zoning amendment,
and official plan amendment in support of his proposal. The proposal is for a mixed use, 5-storey
building with ground floor retail and 72 unit condominium apartment units.
The submitted site plan illustrates a highly architecturally detailed
building comprised of stone/masonry materials.
Access to an underground parking lot is provided at the Verclaire Gate
entrance for the residents. Visitor and
retail parking is provided as a surface parking lot located at the rear of the
building, extending to the northern and eastern property line. The building mass is brought up to the edge
of the street frontages with on street parking proposed along the Highway 7
East frontage by way of a new lay-by.
Vehicular access is proposed from Verclaire Gate and a single access
from Highway 7 East through an archway in the building. The landscape features on the plan indicate
a highly urbanized landscape, with formal gardens at the parking lot entrance.
POTENTIAL
BENEFITS OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL:
Some of the anticipated benefits of this mixed-use
proposal include:
·
Provide convenience commercial uses
to cater to the existing neighbourhood;
·
The proposal is in keeping with
Town initiatives regarding compact urban development form;
·
Provides an urban street edge with
a pedestrian scale building design, and will provide for urbanization of this
section of Highway 7 East;
·
Proposed development provides
a high standard of design, materials and architectural detailing appropriate
for a high profile location along Highway 7 East;
·
Proposed development has the potential to
provide a catalyst for further development/redevelopment in the area;
·
Proposed development is in keeping with the Town’s vision
for Highway #7 East by providing a
multi-storey, mixed-use commercial/retail and residential development with a
while providing an enhanced pedestrian environment.
·
Proposed
development creates a transit supportive residential development at this key
location along the Highway 7 East corridor.
CONCERNS/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
The following
is a summary of concerns/issues raised to date. These matters, and any others
identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal will be
addressed in a final staff report to be presented to Committee at a later date.
The applicant has removed trees without Town review
or approval
On a number of occasions (in meetings and in verbal
and written correspondence as early as February 2003), staff requested the
applicant to submit a tree inventory as required for site plan application
review. The required tree inventory was
not provided, and on Saturday June 7, 2003, notwithstanding numerous directions
from staff, the applicant proceeded to remove all existing trees and vegetation
from the site without Town review or approval.
According to written submissions by concerned local residents, the site
was clear-cut of all trees and vegetation by Sunday June 8, 2003, at which time
the contractors proceeded to mulch the trees and vegetation on site.
It is standard practice for developers
to submit a tree inventory so staff can determine appropriate tree protection
opportunities, and a preservation and compensation package can be determined
prior to site works proceeding. Staff
has expressed strong concerns to the applicant with regard to his actions and
lack of regard for established policies and requirements concerning tree
preservation. Clearing the site in
advance of any review or approval of the development in the absence of a tree
inventory is not only premature, but is clearly a contravention of standard
development application procedures and a blatant disregard for specific
directions from staff to the applicant.
The terminus of Tenbury Drive has not been addressed
The residential subdivision to the north of the
subject property, previously developed by Baif Developments, extends Tenbury
Drive south onto the applicant’s lands.
Tenbury was to continue through the subject land and connect to
Verclaire Gate. This created five part
lots that would have frontages onto Tenbury Drive. The 1998 residential mixed-use development proposed on the
subject lands provided for the terminus of Tenbury Drive with a cul-de-sac,
creating two new lots fronting onto Tenbury Drive and Verclaire Gate. The current zoning by-law provides that the
Hold provision (H) on the property can be lifted at the site plan agreement
stage, provided the plans accommodate the completion of the terminus of Tenbury
Drive.
The applicant has expressed a strong preference that
the terminus of Tenbury Drive should be completed as part of the subdivision
plan by Baif Developments, and should therefore be accommodated on the vacant
lands to the north of the site, still owned by Baif Developments. The applicant claims the terminus of Tenbury
Drive is not his responsibility, and the site plan provided by the applicant to
the Town reflects this position, as it does not include any indication of how
the terminus of Tenbury Drive will be finalized. This issue will have implications for the provision of parking,
access, and the development of the adjoining easterly property, as well as for
the completion of the existing neighbourhood to the north, and must be resolved
for the application to proceed.
Integration of the 3882 Highway 7 East property
remains undetermined
While the applicant has been in discussions with the
adjacent landowner to the east with regards to the future development of the
lot, it is unclear how these lands will be developed and for what land uses if
the applicant’s proposal for the three land parcels proceeds without this
fourth lot. The applicant has informed
staff he has discussed the future development of 3882 Highway 7 East with the
adjacent landowner (Mr. Ross Gallo).
Currently, the existing Montessori school use has a lease with Mr. Ross
Gallo, and the development of the land cannot proceed until the lease expires
March 1, 2005.
The subject proposal for the three properties does
not provide for driveway or design integration with the fourth easterly
property. Staff has requested that the
applicant submit a conceptual site plan to illustrate how the adjacent parcel
can be developed as an integrated component of the subject proposal. The applicant has discussed preliminary
concepts with staff, however no plan has been submitted to date to demonstrate
a comprehensive development across all four properties that make up the current
approved Official Plan and zoning amendment (1998).
The applicant has informed staff of his discussions
with the adjacent landowner, suggesting the possibility of submitting a
comprehensive application for all four properties. The landowner for 3882 Highway 7 East, Mr. Ross Gallo has
informed Town staff that he intends to submit the required applications to
permit a similar development as the subject proposal. To date, no application has been received by the Town.
Application fees remain outstanding
Through verbal and written correspondence, Town staff
has informed the applicant that the standard application fees for the Official
Plan amendment and a portion of the zoning amendment fees remain
outstanding. The outstanding amount of
$ 1,630.00 is still owed by the applicant.
Also, no application has been submitted to remove the Hold (H) provision
to date.
A significant change in grade exists
The applicant has not submitted a survey (certified
by an Ontario Land Surveyor), as required with the submission of a site plan
application. There is a significant
drop in grade on the three land parcels in relation to the elevation of the
residential neighbourhood to the north, the fourth parcel to the east, and
Highway 7 East. A cinder block
retaining wall exists on the west property line at Verclaire Gate, as well as a
timber retaining wall to the east. The
applicant will be required to raise the grade of the site and provide for the
road widening, sidewalk reconstruction and re-grading of Verclaire Gate and
Highway 7 East.
Various engineering requirements need to be resolved
The applicant has indicated servicing for the site
will be obtained from a connection available at Verclaire Gate. The applicant will be required to pay
recoveries to Baif Developments to connect to the sanitary services, provided
by Baif at the time of the development of the subdivision to the north. In addition, if the fourth parcel (3882
Highway 7 East) is not part of this development proposal at this time, the
applicant will be required to provide a connection across their site to the
adjacent property line, or demonstrate other alternatives to ensure the 3882
Highway 7 East property can access services.
The applicant has been in discussions with Town
Engineering staff with respect to the site-specific requirements pertaining to
storm water management for this site.
The site must accommodate storm flows from the site, as well as overland
flow from the existing subdivision to the north, which discharges into the
culvert across Highway 7 East, and flows into the ‘Flaska Ditch’ on the lands
to the south, and into the Rouge River.
Recent site works and topsoil removal activities have disturbed the site
without providing for erosion or sediment control measures. Activities have also resulted in local
depressions, creating improper drainage and ponding, while tree branches and
debris at the entrance of the culvert block the function of the drainage
swale. Staff has contacted the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority to determine if any infractions have
occurred, in regards to matters of their jurisdiction. Town staff are also currently investigating
the site works that have taken place relative to any applicable requirements of
the Town of Markham Topsoil Conservation By-law 215-91 and the Alteration of
Grade (Fill) By-law 2001-53.
A stormwater management report has not yet been
submitted. However, the applicant has
indicated that a detailed report will be submitted in the near future. Engineering staff has also identified that
the applicant will be required to participate in cost sharing for the future
stormwater management pond to be constructed on the lands south of Highway 7
East, which will provide drainage for the properties within OPA 15.
In addition to the above, the Engineering staff have
identified that the applicant will be required to dedicate a boulevard (amount
to be determined) along Verclaire Gate to provide for a road widening for the
burying of hydro lines, snow storage and to provide a pedestrian sidewalk. The site plan application indicates that the
Highway 7 frontage will undergo urbanization by the applicant as part of the
proposed development. This will include
filling of drainage swales, construction of pedestrian sidewalks and
contribution towards financial requirements for light standards across Highway
7 East.
Transportation Impact Study is outstanding
The applicant has not submitted a Transportation Impact
Study to the Town for review. Such a
study is required to evaluate and determine the potential impacts the
development may have on surrounding neighbourhood roads and the expected
increase in turning movement demand at the intersection of Verclaire Gate and
Highway 7 East. Should the study
determine potential traffic conflicts, the study should also provide
recommendations for mitigation measures on the part of the applicant.
The site is subject to scrutiny by the community
Previous approvals in 1998 and the proposal in 2001
were subject to a great deal of public interest. With the complete removal of all trees and vegetation on the
site, local residents have expressed further concern to Town Councillors and staff
members. The current proposal will require
further discussions with neighbouring residents, in the form of both statutory
public meetings and community information meetings.
Council resolution on June 10, 2003 addressed the status
of the site
On June 10, 2003, Council expressed strong disappointment
in the applicant with regards to the actions leading to the cutting of the
trees, contrary to Town of Markham policy and tree preservation
requirements. The applicant was
requested to cease and desist from the removal of the trees and stumps and to
enlist an arborist to the satisfaction of the Town, to obtain an inventory of
the destroyed trees and to ascertain appropriate compensation. Staff have also contacted the applicant and
requested that the applicant install an 8-foot tall board on board fence along
the northern property line (as an interim measure to respond to public
complaints about the loss of buffering from Highway 7 East); regrade the site
as necessary as to prevent ponding; remove debris from the culvert so as not to
impede overland drainage; install sediment fencing along the culvert to
minimize sediment being introduced into the culvert; and contact the TRCA to
ensure that recent changes to the site are not in violation of their policies.
Council also directed staff to bring a report forward
to the first Community Services and Environment meeting in the fall of 2003 on
a Tree Preservation By-law and, report back to Council regarding the Town’s
process regarding tree preservation and a procedure to be followed when
residents report actions pertaining to the illegal destruction of trees.
The application is currently being held in abeyance
The applicant had been in discussions with Town staff
regarding the proposed development since late 2002. Once the required Official Plan amendment, zoning amendment and
site plan application were submitted, the applicant continued to stress upon
staff his desire to have a report to call a public meeting brought forward as
soon as possible. In good faith, staff
had prepared to bring the application forward to the June 12, 2003 Markham
Centre Advisory Committee meeting to inform the members of the proposed
development. Staff was also working
towards a report to call a public meeting at the July 7, 2003 Development
Services Committee meeting. However,
due to outstanding submission requirements and the need for the applicant to
demonstrate compliance with Town policies and procedures, the applicant was
informed that staff were no longer comfortable in bringing the proposed
development forward to the Markham Centre Advisory Committee nor to Development
Services Committee for a public meeting call.
In response, the landowner submitted a letter to the
Commissioner of Development Services on June 12, 2003 (letter attached as
Appendix A), formally requesting the Town of Markham hold the applications in
abeyance, until further notice.
FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
There are no
financial implications for the Town in this report.
BUSINESS UNITS
CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The applications have been circulated to
internal departments and external agencies for comments.
CONCLUSION:
Staff has identified a number of issues with
these applications, particularly with the lack of detailed information
pertaining to the comprehensive integration of the fourth parcel. While the applicant has formally requested
that staff hold the applications in abeyance at this time, staff will continue
to work with the applicant to address all matters outlined in this report.
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie
Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director
of Planning & Urban Design
|
|
Jim
Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner
of Development Services
|
DOCUMENT:
Q:\Development\Planning\APPL\SITEPLAN\03
112281 Avant Inv\DSCJuly7-2003.doc
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure 1 – Location
Map
Figure 2 – Area Context / Zoning
Figure 3 – Aerial Photograph
Figure 4 – Site Plan
Figure 5 – Elevations
APPLICANT/AGENT: Avant Investments Inc.
Mr. David de Sylva
1151
Denison Street, Unit #18
Markham,
Ontario L3R 3Y4
Telephone: 905-946-1444
Fax: 905-479-2934
Email: howland@on.aibn.com
FIGURE 1: Location Map
