|
Recommendation: That, on
the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the
following actions be taken with respect to the application of Rand
Developments Inc. (2355440 Ontario Inc.), relating to the properties located
at 250,
268, 270 and 272 Springbank Drive:
a)
the
Municipal Council BE ADVISED that this Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendment application (OZ-8279) has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal
Board by Alan Patton of Patton, Cormier & Associates LLP on behalf of the
applicant on the basis of non-decision by Council within 180 days;
b) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council recommends that
the Official Plan BE AMENDED, as appended to the staff report dated June 17,
2014, to change the designation of the lands on Schedule “A” – Land Use – FROM an
Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation and a Low Density Residential
designation TO a Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation; and, to add a
“Special Policy” to Section 3.5 – Policies for Specific Residential Areas –
to guide the future development of the subject lands;
c) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that Municipal Council recommends that the
request to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject
lands FROM an Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation and a Low Density
Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High-Density Residential
designation BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
i)
the
Municipal Council has made land available to accommodate an appropriate range
and mix of land uses within the municipality, including opportunities to
provide for high-rise residential development in a manner which is integrated
and harmonious with its surroundings in many appropriately designated large
Multi-Family, High Density Residential areas, including areas along the
Springbank Drive Corridor, in conformity with the policies of the PPS;
ii) the
subject site is inconsistent with the location criteria of the Multi-Family,
High Density Residential designation;
iii) the
subject site is not of a suitable size to accommodate the high density
housing forms proposed through this application in a manner which provides
adequate transition and buffering measures to protect adjacent low density
residential uses; and,
iv) the
requested amendment for the Multi-Family, High Density Residential
designation introduces potential for high-rise built form adjacent to the
Coves Environmentally Significant Area. The physical context of the
surroundings including the topography of the site being perched upon a
plateau facing the Thames Valley Corridor and the low-rise character of
surrounding development provides an unsuitable context for high-rise
apartment buildings;
d) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that Municipal Council recommends that the
request to amend the Official Plan to add a “Special Policy” to Section 10 –
Policies for Specific Areas – to guide the future development of the subject
lands BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
i) the requested amendment should not be
considered in absence of the approval of the foregoing amendment;
ii) the intent of the requested policy is to
permit a broader range of uses than normally permitted within the
Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation including office uses and
commercial uses up to 2,000m2 within the first 3-storeys of
apartment buildings. These land use permissions have generally been
incorporated into the Official Plan amendment recommended in clause b) above;
and,
iii) in specific areas where it is appropriate
to address development opportunities, and constraints through specific
policies that provide additional guidance to the policies contained in the various
residential land use designations, such specific policies should be included
within Section 3.5 – Policies for Specific Residential Areas – of the
Official Plan as recommended in clause b), above;
e) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that Municipal Council RECOMMENDS that the
request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject
property FROM an Arterial Commercial Special Provision (AC(2)) Zone and an
Open Space (OS1) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-7(_)●B(_))
Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
i) the
height and density increases proposed by way of bonus zoning are dependent on
the lands being designated Multi Family, High-Density Residential Designation
(MFHDR) which is not appropriate for the site;
ii) the proposed development does not take
into account surrounding land uses in terms of height and scale, presents an
extreme in bulk between the existing built fabric of adjacent properties, and
is not in keeping with the low-rise open space character of this portion of
Springbank Drive;
iii) the range and extent of special zoning
regulations required to facilitate the proposed form of development including
reduced standards for landscaped open space, increased building coverage and
reduced side yard setbacks are indicative of over-intensification;
iv) the
requested amendment results in a net density of 286 units per hectare whereas
Official Plan policies normally limit densities in the MFHDR designation
outside of Central London to 150 units per hectare;
v) the
requested amendment does not satisfy the criteria for instances where Council
may consider height and density increase beyond what is normally permitted in
the MFHDR designation (150 units per hectare) including a requirement that
the proposed development exceed the prevailing standards established in the
Urban Design principles of Section 11 of the Official Plan;
vi) sanitary
servicing capacity does not currently exist to accommodate the increased
sewage flows anticipated through the proposed redevelopment and the potential
solution to this issue remains unresolved;
vii) the
proposed form of development includes a parking structure which protrudes
from grade level excessively along the eastern portion of the site adjacent
to the Coves; and,
viii)
the
proposed form of development does not meet the Urban Design principles of
Chapter 11 of the Official Plan and, as such, does not satisfy the criteria
for bonus zoning outlined in Section 19.4.4 of the Official Plan;
f) the
Ontario Municipal Board BE ADVISED that Municipal Council RECOMMENDS that the
request to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to add a definition for
“Retirement Suite” to Section 2 (Definitions), to add parking requirements
for “Retirement Suites” to Section 4.19 (Parking), and to add special density
considerations for “Retirement Suites” to Section 3.4 (Density “D”); BE
REFUSED for the following reasons:
i) the requested amendments are intended to be
considered on a site specific basis and should not be considered in absence
of the approval of the foregoing amendments;
ii) the intent of the requested amendment is
to allow for reduced density and parking considerations for a specified form
of senior’s housing. Exceptions to density limits may be made without
amendment to the Official Plan through bonus zoning for developments which
are designated and occupied for senior citizen’s housing; and,
iii) site-specific
special Official Plan policies have been incorporated into the recommend
Official Plan amendments, as appended to the staff report dated June
17, 2014 as Appendix
“B” to recognize the propensity for senior’s housing on this site and
contemplate density bonuses in return for the provision of such housing;
it being pointed out that at the public
participation meeting associated with this matter, the individuals indicated
on the attached public participation meeting record made oral
submissions in connection therewith. (2014-D14)
|