RECOMMENDATION:
That the Zoning By-law
Amendment application (ZA.03-115678), as submitted by 1305268 Ontario Inc.
(Royal Crownet Developments), be refused for following reasons:
- The proposal is not in keeping with the policies of the Berczy
Village Secondary Plan,
- The proposal does not respect the existing development pattern in
an area context,
- The proposal does not provide for integration with adjacent lands,
and,
- The proposal does not comply with current engineering standards.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report
is to provide an evaluation of the applicant’s proposal to permit 22
condominium dwellings on Low Density Residential land in the Berczy Village
Community. The report concludes that
the proposal cannot be supported.
BACKGROUND:
Property and area context
The
subject lands are located within the developing Berczy Village Community, on
the east side of Kennedy Road, north of Bur Oak Avenue, municipally known as
9765 Kennedy Road. The 0.964 hectare
(2.38 acre) property contains the Henry Pingle Senior House (heritage
building). To the north and east are
single family detached dwellings. To
the west, across Kennedy Road, are single family detached dwellings, townhomes
and vacant commercial recreation lands.
To the south is the York Downs Garden Centre.
Heritage building is located on the subject property
The applicant has submitted an application to amend the zoning by-law
The applicant has submitted an application to amend the zoning
by-law to permit residential uses at 9765 Kennedy Road. The applicant is proposing 22 single
detached, condominium dwellings. The
proposal includes preservation of the heritage home in situ.
Current zoning and Official Plan Designation
The subject property is designated Urban
Residential in the Official Plan and Urban Residential – Low Density in the
Berczy Village Secondary Plan. The
intent of this designation is to identify lands to be used primarily for low
density housing with direct frontage on a public street.
The subject lands are currently zoned
Agricultural (A1) by by-law 304-87, as amended, and a zoning amendment is
required to permit the proposal.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSAL:
A benefit of
the proposal as submitted would be retention of the heritage house in situ.
CONCERNS/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
The application does not conform to the policies and
provisions of the Berczy Village Secondary Plan
Staff have reviewed the application in relation to the
Berczy Village Secondary Plan Area. The
following is a list of significant concerns that staff have regarding the
proposal:
- One of the goals of the Secondary Plan
is to integrate new development with existing development and existing
road patterns in and adjacent to the new community. The application does not meet this
goal. The condominium concept
proposed is out of context with the surrounding lands. Surrounding new development in Berczy
Village is made up of freehold single detached, semi-detached and street
townhouse dwellings fronting onto public rights of way. The
condominium proposal would not integrate with the adjacent single detached
lots and proposes a private road rather than extension of the public
streets. Tannis Street and Cynthia
Jean Street should be extended into these lands to connect the
neighbourhood and to establish the pattern for the future development of
adjacent lands.
- The principles set out in the Secondary Plan for the Berczy Village
community also speak to the integration of compatible land uses and
compatibility of building types achieved through scale, massing and siting
on individual lots. Of major
concern is that the lot pattern and road layout proposed would not
integrate with existing development,
nor provide links
for future development. The planned extension of
existing streets would not be provided for, and the future development of
adjacent lands would not be accommodated. The proposal would create a fragmented
streetscape, and an odd transition between the existing and condominium
lots. There are also issues of
compatibility between the lot sizes shown on the condominium proposal in
relation to existing adjacent development, as the setback and amenity
areas proposed would be smaller when compared to adjacent lots.
Five of the lots are wide shallow (depth of less than 30 metres), and these lots
would have different development standards from the adjacent conventional lots,
further affecting the streetscape design.
Staff are also reviewing the need to require a minimum depth requirement
of 25 metres for wide shallow lots. If
implemented, these five lots would not comply with this provision.
- While
the proposal would fall within the density range of the Urban Residential
– Low Density category of the Secondary Plan, it would not comply with the
requirement that only dwelling units on lands with direct frontage onto a
public street are permitted. The
type of block (condominium) development proposed on private roads is not
contemplated for Low Density areas of the Berczy Village Secondary Plan.
The Secondary Plan provides for condominium development of this type to
locate on lands designated for medium density development. While the Secondary Plan does provide
for medium density housing types on low density land under certain
circumstances, the subject proposal would not meet the criteria
established in the Secondary Plan for this to occur (i.e. medium density
types to be intermixed with low density on public streets, or developed in
clusters at nodal locations with access strongly encouraged via rear lanes).
The proposal, as submitted, does not comply with these
provisions of the Berczy Village Secondary Plan.
The application does not
provide for integration with the lands to the south
During
preliminary consultations to discuss this proposal, the applicant was advised
to provide access to the Community Amenity lands immediately south of the
subject property. The access is
required to properly accommodate future development and access in the immediate
area. The applicant has not provided
for this integration.
The applicant’s
proposal is not acceptable, as it blocks potential points of access from the
surrounding lands, fragmenting the neighbourhood. This would preclude a
potential link to Bur Oak Avenue, one of the main east/west roads in the Berczy
Village community.
The application does not
comply with current engineering standards
Engineering staff have
reviewed the application and have noted the following issues:
- The inclusion of three streets that terminate in dead ends is not
a an acceptable condition and is not supported,
- Turning circles are not provided to allow for the proper movement
of motor vehicles and service vehicles,
- There have been insufficient noise mitigation measures provided
for on proposed lots 1 and 15.
Berczy Village Urban Design and Amenity Guidelines
The Berczy Village Urban
Design and Amenity Guidelines indicate that the design objective for the street
system is to create a permeable, interconnected street fabric. Using the traditional city grid pattern, a
coherent pattern of streets and blocks should be developed creating a strong
pedestrian environment, a sense of community scale and connection with the
surrounding community. The condominium
proposal on private roads in the interior of a neighbourhood of public streets
is contrary to these objectives.
The
application does not address staff recommendations discussed during preliminary
consultations
The applicant
met with staff on a number of occasions for pre-application consultations. In a letter to the applicant, dated August
20, 2003, staff raised a number of concerns.
The following are some of the issues staff raised at that time, which
the applicant has failed to address through this application:
·
The lotting
and road pattern for the area, developed on the adjacent lands, did not
contemplate a condominium proposal on these lands,
·
The
condominium road would set a precedent of permitting single detached dwellings
on a reduced right of way (7.5 metres as opposed to 18 metres),
·
The proposal
creates an unsatisfactory condition of inserting a private condominium
development into the interior of freehold dwellings on public roads,
fragmenting the neighbourhood
·
Temporary
turning circles have not been provided,
·
Noise
attenuation fences/berms have not been provided on the flanking side yards
adjacent to Kennedy Road.
Staff have
provided examples of alternative concept plans to the applicant. These design plans (Figures 5, 6 and 7)
incorporate the principles of the Secondary Plan, as well as incorporate the
elements and standards refered to above.
One of the concept plans is intended to retain the heritage house in
situ, would other concepts would allow it to be relocated within the
development.
Heritage
Home can be relocated within the development
The applicant
has proposed to maintain the heritage home in situ. Although this is the approach normally preferred by staff, both
staff and Council have in this case agreed that the heritage home may be
relocated to another lot, if development constraints mandate that. Staff
therefore do not accept that the preservation of the heritage home in situ is
sufficient justification for the condominium proposal submitted.
Heritage staff
have also provided the following preliminary comments in regards to the
heritage home:
·
The proposal
provides very little amenity area in the rear yard and,
·
The proposal
provides for visitor parking between the home and Kennedy Road (the front yard)
The proposal is being forwarded to
Heritage Markham on November 12, 2003 for further review and comment.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
There are
no financial implications for the Town in this report.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The application was circulated to
internal departments and external agencies and any issues have been discussed
in this report.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommend that the application be refused
Staff have reviewed the Town’s
Secondary Plan policies, the Berczy Village Urban Design and Amenity Guidelines
and comments received from Town Departments, and recommend the rezoning
application be refused. Staff are of
the opinion that the proposed condominium plan does not address the Town’s
concerns with respect to Secondary Plan policies and appropriate development
and engineering standards. The
condominium block would be segregated from the rest of the community. It would fragment the road network and
streetscape, and create an irregular
transition between the existing single detached dwellings and the proposed
condominium lots. It would not integrate well with existing development, nor
accommodate the future development of adjacent lands as intended. The applicant should review staff’s concerns
and refine the proposal based on the principles 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\zoning\03
115678\ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTE1.doc
L4L 9N4
