Date to Committee: October 13, 2015 Date to Council: November 2, 2015

Transcription

1 Page 1 of Report PB TO: FROM: Development and Infrastructure Committee Planning and Building SUBJECT: Statutory public meeting and information report regarding Starlight Investments Inc., Prospect St. Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to permit 96 stacked townhouses at rear of property. Report Number: PB Wards Affected: 2 File Numbers: /15 & /15 Date to Committee: October 13, 2015 Date to Council: November 2, 2015 Recommendation: For information only. Purpose: Respond to legislation. This report provides background information for the statutory public meeting for the Official Plan Amendment and rezoning applications submitted by Ruth Victor & Associates, on behalf of Starlight Investments Inc., for its properties located at and Prospect Street. The report provides a summary of the development applications, an overview of the current policy framework and preliminary planning concerns. Comments submitted by the public are attached as Appendix A to the report. A detailed analysis of the issues and a recommendation on the applications will be addressed in a future report.

2 Page 2 of Report PB REPORT FACT SHEET RECOMMENDATION: For information only Ward No.: 2 APPLICANT: OWNER: Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor & Associates Starlight Investments Inc. FILE NUMBERS: /15 & /15 Application Details Property Details Documents TYPE OF APPLICATIONS: PROPOSED USE: PROPERTY LOCATION: MUNICIPAL ADDRESSES: PROPERTY AREA: EXISTING USE: OFFICIAL PLAN Existing: OFFICIAL PLAN Proposed: ZONING Existing: ZONING Proposed: Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment To replace the four 2-storey fourplex buildings (16 units) at the rear of the property with 96 stacked townhouse units in four 4-level buildings. The two 8-storey apartment buildings at the front of the property will remain resulting in a total development of 224 residential units. North side of Prospect St. approx. 200 m east of Brant St and Prospect St hectares 2 x 8-storey apartment buildings (128 units) and 4 x 2-storey 4-plex buildings (16 units). Total of 144 units. South area of properties along Prospect St. is Residential - High Density. North area of properties is Residential - Medium Density. Residential - High Density for the entire site. RH2, RH4 and RM2 A modified RH zone to permit the development. Processing Details NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETINGS: PUBLIC COMMENTS June 25, 2015 at Salvation Army (Fellowship Hall), 2090 Prospect St. (approx. 70 attendees) 2 comments submitted see Appendix A

3 Page 3 of Report PB Background: The lands under application are located on the north side of Prospect St. approximately 200 m east of Brant St. as shown on Location Sketch No. 1 and the aerial photo below. The lands are comprised of two properties having a combined area of 2.05 hectares and frontage of approximately 112 metres on Prospect St. The site is currently developed with two 8-storey rental apartment buildings at the south end of the site (65 units at 2067 Prospect St. and 63 units at 2077 Prospect St.) and four 2-storey fourplex rental buildings at the north end ( Prospect St. and Prospect St.) for a total of 144 units. Surrounding land uses include apartment buildings to the east, south and west fronting on Prospect St., detached dwellings to the north and two fourplex buildings to the northeast. The applications for an Official Plan Amendment and rezoning seek to replace the fourplex buildings at the north end of the site with four 4-level buildings (12.6 m height) accommodating 96 stacked townhouses as shown on Sketch No. 3. This represents an increase of 80 units resulting in a total development on the site of 224 units. All

4 Page 4 of Report PB townhouses are proposed as 2-bedroom units and the development is intended to remain as a fully rental project. The applications also request a reduction from the parking rates provided in Zoning By-law 2020 for apartments and townhouses based on a parking survey undertaken of the existing development. All new parking is proposed as surface parking. The site layout proposes an amenity area (tot lot) in the north area of the site and to relocate the existing community gardens. Preliminary elevations are attached as Sketch No. 4. The 1 st and 2 nd levels are proposed as through units and the 3 rd and 4 th level units are proposed as 2 storey back to back units. The applicant submitted technical reports and plans as listed below in support of the applications. These materials were circulated to technical staff and agencies for review and can be accessed on the city s website at 1. Plans, Kirkor Architects & Planners, May 2015:» RZ-01: Site Plan & Site Statistics» RZ-02: Proposed Stacked Unit Floor Plans» RZ-03: Elevations» RZ-04: Cross-sections & 45 angular plane 2. Concept Landscape Plan, Terraplan Landscape Architects, Mar 24/15 3. Planning Justification Report, Ruth Victor & Associates Inc., May 27/15 4. Functional Servicing Report, Trafalgar Engineering Ltd., Apr 10/15 5. Tree Inventory & Preservation Study, The Tree Specialists Inc., Mar 24/15 6. Traffic Impact Study, GHD Inc., May 11/15 7. Parking Study, GHD Inc., May 11/15 8. Environmental Site Screening Checklist 9. Phase 1 ESA for Prospect St.; Pinchin Ltd., Oct 6/ Phase 1 ESA for Prospect St.; Pinchin Ltd., Oct 6/ Height Survey of adjacent buildings; MacDonald Tamblun Lord Surveying Jun 18/14 Discussion: POLICY FRAMEWORK The development applications are subject to the following policy framework: the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Halton Region Official Plan, the Burlington Official Plan, and Zoning By-law Consideration of applicable policies from these documents will be addressed in the subsequent recommendation report. Burlington Official Plan The southerly portion of the site fronting on Prospect St. is designated Residential - High Density on Schedule B, Comprehensive Land Use Plan - Urban Planning Area of

5 Page 5 of Report PB the Official Plan. This designation permits ground or non-ground oriented residential development between 51 and 185 units per net hectare. This area of the properties is currently developed with two apartment buildings (128 units) that are intended to remain, as shown in the photos below. Starlight Investments advise they have been undertaking upgrades and improvements to these buildings in recent years and further improvements are proposed as part of the proposed comprehensive redevelopment of the site Prospect St Prospect St. The rear portion of the site is designated Residential - Medium Density and currently accommodates 16 fourplex units, a community garden and green space for the development as shown below. Existing fourplex Community Garden The Medium Density designation permits ground or non-ground oriented residential development between 26 and 50 units per net hectare. The applications propose replacing the 16 fourplex units with 96 stacked townhouses resulting in a total development of 224 units and overall density on the entire site of approximately 110

6 Page 6 of Report PB units per net hectare. The Official Plan Amendment seeks to redesignate the northern portion of the site from Residential - Medium Density to Residential - High Density to permit this development. The objectives of the Official Plan s residential policies include policies that encourage residential intensification within the urban planning area provided the amount and form is balanced with other planning considerations, require new residential development to be compatible with surrounding properties, and support a wide range of housing types and tenure and housing opportunities that decrease dependence on the use of the automobile. Evaluation criteria to be considered when reviewing proposals for intensification are listed in Part III, Policy a) of the Official Plan. These criteria include such matters as adequacy of municipal services, transportation impacts, offstreet parking, compatibility with existing neighbourhood character, vegetation, natural and cultural heritage features, etc. Staff will provide its assessment of the development proposal in light of these criteria in the subsequent recommendation report. Zoning By-law 2020 Sketch No. 2 shows the current zoning of the properties. The southerly portion of the site along Prospect St., where the two apartment buildings are located, is zoned RH2 and RH4 under Zoning By-law The existing development was approved in the 1960s when previous Zoning By-law was in effect. The RH2 and RH4 zones permit apartment buildings but the existing built form is not in accordance with all of the current zone regulations. The northern area of the site, accommodating the fourplex units, is zoned RM2. This zone permits fourplexes up to 25 units/hectare, townhouses up to 40 units/hectare and retirement homes. Fourplexes and townhouses are restricted to 2 storeys and retirement homes are permitted up to 4 storeys. The development applications seek approval for 96 stacked townhouses with 4 levels (3 ½ storeys) in this area of the site. As the entire site functions as a comprehensive development with one access, common parking and shared amenity areas, the applicant is seeking one zone for the entire site and has proposed a modified RH3 zone. TECHNICAL REVIEW The Official Plan amendment and rezoning applications and supporting documents were circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and a site visit was conducted on June 17. Written responses to the technical circulation have been received from Burlington Hydro Inc., Halton District School Board, Halton Catholic District School Board, Canada Post and Bell Network Services. No objections were submitted by these agencies. Additional information has been requested from some internal departments to complete their review of the applications and some agency

7 Page 7 of Report PB comments are still outstanding. Staff will address technical concerns and/or recommended conditions raised by agencies in a subsequent report. Preliminary Issues Planning staff met with the applicant to discuss preliminary planning concerns with the proposal on July 10, It is noted that at this time comments from several key city departments and the Region were not yet completed. Staff identified the following issues for further consideration by the applicant: Compatibility concerns due to overlook of balconies and proposed 3½ storey building height with a 10 m rear yard to adjacent detached dwellings. Applicant should consider different building forms or site layout that increases setback to address compatibility. Existing mature tree canopy along rear property line provides good buffer but most of these trees are identified for removal. Better efforts at tree preservation and providing adequate green space should be considered. Concern with the amount of surface parking proposed. Applicant should investigate structured parking options. Concern with proposed parking reduction to 1.09 combined tenant/visitor spaces per 2 bedroom townhouse unit whereas zoning by-law requirement is 1.85 spaces/unit (1.5 tenant spaces/unit and 0.35 visitor spaces/unit). Is one access point sufficient and does the proposed site layout adequately accommodate emergency vehicles? Sufficient amenity space is required including usable space for apartment buildings. Concern that the stacked townhouse design includes no accessible units. Will any of the proposed new rental units be considered affordable? Applicant s Interim Resubmission, September 2015 The applicant met again with planning staff in mid August to present responses to some of the issues raised above and on September 11, 2015, submitted revised site plans, floor plans, elevations and section drawings. The revised proposal is attached as Sketch No. 5 and described in Appendix C. The site layout has been modified to create a central driveway corridor terminating at the tot lot/amenity area with 3 townhouse blocks west of this driveway, and 1 townhouse block to the east. The plan also shows an increase in the rear yard setback from 10m to 14m between the townhouse blocks and the north property boundary, resulting in more trees being preserved and an increased buffer adjacent to the detached dwellings. The applicant also advises that revisions to the parking layout result in larger islands for increased planting in the parking areas and the ability to create up to 13 additional parking spaces. There is no

8 Page 8 of Report PB change in the number of townhouse units proposed and the applicant has advised structured parking is not economically feasible for rental developments. Further Review Required The revised plans were circulated to select technical agencies and the modified site layout was attached to the public notice letter advising of this staff report. The applicant s September 11, 2015 letter also indicates that additional updates and studies will be submitted shortly, including a revised tree preservation plan, conceptual landscape plan and shadow study. These will also be circulated to technical staff and posted on the project webpage for public review once received. A detailed analysis of all plan revisions and reports, and assessment of whether they satisfactorily address the issues discussed earlier in this report and the evaluation criteria provided in the Official Plan will be undertaken and discussed in the next staff report. Financial Matters: The applications are being processed in accordance with the required development application fees. Any additional financial matters will be addressed in the future recommendation report. Environmental Matters: Concerns were identified about the proposed removal of a large number of mature trees along the north property boundary to accommodate the development. A modified site layout increasing the rear yard setback to allow an additional 23 trees to be preserved in this area has recently been submitted and updates are also anticipated to the tree preservation plan and landscape plan. Staff will review and respond to these matters in the subsequent report. The applications were circulated to the Sustainable Development Committee and their comments, recommending not supported as currently proposed are attached as Appendix B. These comments were forwarded to the applicant for consideration and the applicant s response is included in the September 11, 2015 letter attached as Appendix C. Public Engagement Matters: Notice of the applications with the invitation to attend a neighbourhood meeting was distributed to residents and tenants within 120 metres of the property (approx. 700

9 Page 9 of Report PB letters). A neighbourhood meeting was held June 25, 2015 at the Salvation Army, 2090 Prospect St. and attended by approximately 70 people. Staff has responded to numerous s and questions concerning the proposal and has received two s with comments concerning the applications. These comments are attached as Appendix A to this report. The main issues raised at the neighbourhood meeting and submissions are summarized below. Impact of proposed 4 level townhouses on privacy and sunlight for properties to the north and east. The proposed 10 m rear yard for the townhouses is not adequate. Loss of green space and minimal tree preservation along rear of property. Concerns with proposal for a reduced parking rate and to provide all surface parking for the new development. Traffic impacts on Prospect St. in terms of additional trips and current speeding problems. Pedestrian safety on site. School capacity and accommodation of future students. Adequacy of municipal services to accommodate this development. Loss of affordable housing with demolition of fourplex buildings as new townhouses are proposed at market rent. Will units be accessible? Construction impacts on existing tenants and residents of adjacent properties. Impact on property values. Development not considered compatible with adjacent low density development. What has changed since initial development approvals in 1960s to justify more density on site? Staff will respond to these comments in the future recommendation report. Notice of the subject report advising of the statutory public meeting was sent to individuals on the city s mailing list. A further public notice will be prepared in the future advising of the date a recommendation report will be presented to the Development and Infrastructure Committee.

10 Page 10 of Report PB Conclusion: This report provides a description of the Starlight Investment Inc. development applications on the north side of Prospect Street, transmits the public comments received by planning staff and advises of recent plan revisions submitted by the applicant. A subsequent report will provide an analysis of the merits of the proposal in terms of applicable planning policies and provide a recommendation on the applications. Respectfully submitted, Silvina Kade, Senior Planner ext Appendices: A. Public Comments B. Sustainable Development Committee Comments C. September 11, 2015 letter from Ruth Victor & Associates Notifications: (after Council decision) Name: Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor & Associates Michael Noble, Starlight Investments Mailing or Address: ruth@rvassociates.ca mnoble@starlightinvest.com Approved by: Scott Stewart, General Manager of Dev. and Infrastructure Ann-Marie Coulson, Acting Director of Finance Nancy Shea Nicol, Director of Legal Services & City Solicitor Scott Stewart, General Manager of Dev. and Infrastructure Laura Boyd, Acting City Manager Reviewed by:

11 Page 11 of Report PB-75-15

12 Page 12 of Report PB-75-15

13 Page 13 of Report PB-75-15

14 Page 14 of Report PB Sketch No. 4 - ELEVATIONS

15 Page 15 of Report PB-75-15

16 Page 16 of Report PB Appendix A Public Comments 1. received June 21, 2015 My name is Wilfred Perrott. I have been a resident of Maplewood Drive in Burlington since This is my "preliminary objection" with respect to the Notice received concerning the Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications for and Prospect Street in Burlington: My neighbours, friends and fellow homeowners; particularly those residing on the south side of Maplewood Drive will be adversely prejudiced, incurring material direct loss of their peaceful enjoyment together with marketability and reduced values as damages from the development as proposed; 1.) suffering capital financial losses from deteriorated locational and neighbourhood appeal from lower / adverse demand and reduced market values for their homes, 2.) suffering material loss of personal privacy and personal enjoyment of their owned properties, and 3.) will be exposed to significantly increased noise from high density concentration of people in alarmingly and unacceptably close proximity (only 10 m), and 4.) will suffer a loss of natural light and shadows to their yards and gardens due to the encroaching height, width, glazing and scale of the development, and 5.) will suffer increased pollution / poor air quality as a result of the impacts of intensive population residing in and visiting the development proposed, and 6.) will have municipal services to their homes potentially compromised by increased demand and stresses on the storm and sanitary sewers, water supply various utilities, services and 7.) will adversely impact traffic volumes, pollution, and hazards on Prospect Street which is already suffering poor traffic patterns, and 8.) will be exposed to unforeseen adverse conditions from garbage storage & removal, wind and weather conditions, snow clearing, fire route and police accesses, and

17 Page 17 of Report PB ) depending on minimum unit sizes and configurations, the occupancies may be more transient than experienced in our neighbourhood. Fundamentally, it is my recommendation that for this project to be considered with any positive light the foregoing planning and design problems must be resolved. It is absolutely imperative that all new resident parking for the new proposed development (excepting only reserved visitor parking) should be underground and that the rear yard setback should be at least 40 metres from the south side Maplewood home south lot lines. Any buildings proposed could and should be located centrally on the Applicant's property to accommodate a more sensible rear yard of 40 metres, partially mitigating some of several other foregoing concerns. This would also allow for enhanced appearance with landscaping and overburden over an underground parking serving building residents. It is also my recommendation that "townhouses" really should not exceed two storeys above grade. In the absence of more thoughtful planning considerations, the development as proposed will adversely impact the peaceful enjoyment and induce lower property values of homeowners inducing damages to their significant investments. 2. received July 9, 2015 Dear Silvina and Marianne: I am extremely concerned about the recent rezoning and development proposal on Prospect St. submitted by Starlight Investments. I am a resident of Maplewood Dr. and am directly affected by this proposal, and believe that this proposal of a "High density" rental housing is non-conforming to our "Low density" residential neighborhood. How can 4 story buildings (about 5 story if you include the roof peak) only 10 metres from our backyard be conforming to 1 story residential bungalow neighborhood? How can one of the largest private green space left in Ward 2, be clearcut of 90% of the trees in the proposed area to be developed, and to be replaced by a "Walmart sized parking lot" and 96 high density rentals?

18 Page 18 of Report PB There are a lot of things wrong with this proposal, and I wasn't impressed by the community meeting we had on June 25. Firstly, was the short time of less than two weeks we had to review the proposal. Secondly, some families with children in the neighborhood did not attend because it was the last day of school and they were too busy. It also seemed that the questions we asked Starlight were not fully answered or answered "the matter of factly" and that they were working within the rules. For instance, when asked about how close the buildings were to our property, all the architect said was "all they had to give was 6m by law and we are giving you 10m". When asked about a "Shadow study", the architect said that "they only do that for buildings over 8 stories". When the architect did his presentation, he stated "we are giving you a 45 degree angle from the roofline to your backyard and this is what architects call Open Sky". How is this called "Open Sky"? Do they want us to walk around with our heads leaning back just to see the sky? Also, the traffic studies were answered too vaguely. Isn't Prospect Street already too busy at rush hour and during school drop-off and pick-up time? I don't even know what the landscaper is planning because he said it would be done over time. And, we don't know what the sewage and water runoff from the property will be because there was no one there who could answer the questions. And lastly, what about the families living in the Sixteen 3-bedroom townhomes which will be demolished and made into a parking lot (what a waste), who are going to be displaced? Where are they going to move? This development is only for 2-bedroom units only and will definitely be higher priced rent than what they are paying now. Is it not true, that there is already a shortage (No Vacancies and people on waiting lists) of 3 bedroom family townhouse rentals in Burlington? 47 or so years ago, our Forefathers and City Planners had it "right" when this property was initially zoned. They kept the front half of the property zoned "Hi density" for the two 8 story apartments facing Prospect St., and the back half of the property backing onto Maplewood Dr. zoned "Medium density" allowing only 2 story townhomes to be built. This "High density" rezoning proposal by Starlight is incompatible to our one story residential neighborhood and since that they already have "Medium density" zoning (which is compatible to our neighborhood) they should be able to work within their current means. Any other developer would love to have such a property at hand. Thank you, Phil Fedosiewicz