Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-10-117 - MPA 01/107/W/GR - ZC 01/24/W/GR - 66, 68, 82 Weber E; 79, 83, 87 Scott; 1-5 Israel; 15, 25, 29 Pearl REPORT REPORT TO: Development & Technical Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 21, 2010 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning PREPARED BY: Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (519) 741-2869 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 (Centre Ward) DATE OF REPORT:June 4, 2010 REPORT NO.: DTS-10-117 SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT MP/01/07/W/GR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 01/24/W/GR 66, 68, 82 WEBER STREET EAST; 79, 83, 87 SCOTT STREET and 15, 25, 29 PEARL PLACE CROSSCAN INVESTMENTS LIMITED ïì ó ï RECOMMENDATION: A. That Official Plan Application MP/01/07/W/GR requesting a change in designation from Low Rise Multiple Residential to Medium Density Commercial Residential on lands municipally addressed as 79, 83, 87 Scott Street and 15, 25 and 29 Pearl Place,be approved, in the form shown in the attached Official Plan Amendment and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo; B. That Zone Change Application ZC 01/24/W/GR requesting a change from Residential Six Zone (R-6) and Commercial Residential Two (CR-2) with Special Regulation Provision (115R) and Special Use Provision (125U) to (CR-2) with Special Regulation Provisions 115R and 552R and Special Uses 125U and 407U, be approved, in the form shown in the attached “Proposed By-law”, dated May 28, 2010; and further C. That the attached Urban Design Brief, dated December 2009, prepared by the IBI Group,be adopted and that it along with the Heritage Impact Assessment and associated addendums thereto be used as principle guiding documents for site plan approval. BACKGROUND: Crosscan Investments Limited, on behalf of the owners, Inter-Building Investments Limited and Richard Altvater and Sons Ltd. is proposing to amend the Official Plan designation and zoning on the subject site to permit a medium density residential project. The development is proposed on lands currently half occupied by surface parking lots, as well as residential homes, located on nine parcels: 66, 68 and 82 Weber Street East, 79, 83, 87 Scott Street and 15, 25 and 29 Pearl Place. The proposed project includes an 11-storey, 120 unit multiple dwelling with an underground parking structure and surface parking, the retention of 87 Scott Street and the continued operation of EIWO Canadian Property Management Ltd. offices located at 82 Weber Street East. The subject site is located just outside of the designated “Downtown” and is part of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The site contains several properties of potential cultural heritage value and interest, one of which is recommended to be listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value and interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. REPORT: Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)/Places to Grow (P2G) The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) (PPS, 2005) came into effect March 1, 2005 and it applies to all applications, matters or proceedings commenced on or after March 1, 2005. As this application was submitted prior to 2005, the 1997 PPS applies. Notwithstanding, this proposal would conform with the 2005 PPS as it promotes the efficient use of land and infrastructure through intensification; is transit supportive; helps achieve the density targets set out in P2G and encourages heritage conservation by striking a balance between attempting to achieve density while retaining the 87 Scott Street heritage residence. ïì ó î Regional Official Plan (ROP)/ Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) On June 16, 2009, the Regional Council adopted a new Regional Official Plan (ROP). As this application was submitted prior to 2009, the current ROPP would apply to this application. This proposal would conform to the new ROP as the subject lands are located within the Built-Up Area designation and are within 600 to 800 metres of a Major Transit Station Area designation. These polices encourage intensification and increased densities to ensure the viability of existing and planned rapid transit service levels. Moreover, Weber Street is a Regional roadway. Regional roadways are typically designed to carry large volumes of vehicular traffic and are capable of supporting more intensive use of land as proposed in this application. Official Plan Amendment (OPA) There are currently two Official Plan designations on the subject lands. The properties fronting onto Weber Street East are designated as “Medium Density Commercial Residential”, while those on Scott Street as well as Pearl Place are “Low Rise Multiple Residential”. In order for the site to be developed as proposed, an Official Plan Amendment is required from “Low Rise Multiple Residential” to “Medium Density Commercial Residential” in the Central Frederick Secondary Plan. As discussed in the Proposed Official Plan Amendment attached as Appendix B, staff are of the opinion that the Official Plan Amendment is appropriate for the development and staff recommends the Official Plan Amendment be adopted by Council and forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval. Zoning By-law Amendment The subject properties are currently zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) and Commercial Residential Two Zone (CR-2) with Special Regulation Provision (115R) and Special Use Provision (125U). The R-6 zoning applies to the existing dwellings along Scott Street and Pearl Place while the CR-2 (125U) (115R) zone applies to those properties fronting Weber Street. The R-6 zone permits singles, semi detached and multiple dwellings up to a Floor Space Ratio FSR of 0.6. The CR-2 zone permits commercial and residential uses with a FSR of 2.0. The special use provision (125U) allows for a restaurant and special regulation (115R) allows for a FSR of 2.33. Concurrent with the OPA, a request to amend the zoning is required to establish a uniform Commercial-Residential Two (CR-2) (125U) and (115R) zoning for the entire landholdings. Special regulation (552R) is being added to the proposed Zoning By-law that will establish a minimum westerly side yard setback from Pearl Place of 26 metres for a building with a height of 33.0 metres (11 storeys); a maximum front yard setback and maximum side yard setback abutting Weber Street (see Appendix C). The objective of 552R is to locate the building footprint of the proposed 11 storey multiple dwelling as close to Weber Street and as far away from Pearl Place as possible. Special use provision (407U) is also being added to recognize the retention of the 87 Scott Street heritage residence by permitting a single detached and duplex dwelling use. Conceptual Site Plan In support of the OPA and zone change request, Crosscan Investments has submitted a conceptual site plan showing an 11 storey residential building located parallel to Weber Street East. The site plan, dated March 9, 2007, is attached as Appendix D. As the plan is conceptual, staff have requested a Design Brief showing how the site should be developed in conformity with relevant planning and design policies. The current concept also includes the retention of an ïì ó í existing two-storey residence at 87 Scott Street which has been noted in a Heritage Impact Assessment dated December, 2005, as “architecturally distinctive”. The concept also retains the existing EIWO Office Building located at 82 Weber Street East, with the remaining lands between these existing buildings and the proposed 11 storey building used as surface parking. The new building is proposed to contain 120 residential units, with a total of 14,178.4 square metres of gross floor area, and have a setback from Weber Street East of 8.10 metres from the property line and 7.99 metres from Scott Street. Oriented towards Weber Street East, the . building’s massing will create an attractive streetscape leading into the Downtown Studies In assessing the requested change in land use, there were several studies submitted including heritage, shadow and traffic impact assessments. A summary of these are discussed below. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Conservation Plan The subject property contains several structures which had been identified as being of potential cultural heritage value or interest, including 83 Scott Street and 1-5 Israel Place, both of which are listed on Heritage Kitchener's Inventory of Historic Buildings. In compliance with Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies regarding heritage conservation, the completion and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of the processing of the subject Municipal Plan Amendment and Zone Change Applications. A Heritage Impact Assessment dated December 2005 was prepared by Historica Research Limited. The HIA established that 1-5 Israel Place was of particular historic interest and that Pearl Place was of interest because of its homogeneity of style which has a distinctive streetscape. However, the HIA concluded that due to the need for underground parking to serve the proposed development, the physical retention of some of the buildings of heritage interest would not be feasible. The HIA was discussed at the Heritage Kitchener meeting of January 3, 2006. At that meeting, the merit of retaining 87 Scott Street was discussed. The heritage consultant who prepared the HIA confirmed that both 87 Scott Street and 91 Scott Street (located opposite the subject property) effectively framed the entrance to Pearl Place and provides a visual balance to the streetscape. At the request of City staff and Heritage Kitchener, an addendum to the HIA was prepared (via correspondence dated March 13, 2006 from Historica Research Limited and March 22, 2006 from Planning and Engineering Initiatives Limited) and which included the submission of development concept 1B showing the retention of 87 Scott Street and enhanced landscaping along Pearl Place. The HIA and new development concept was reviewed and discussed at the Heritage Kitchener meeting of April 4, 2006. At that meeting, Heritage Planning staff identified conditional support for the HIA subject in part to the retention and conservation of 87 Scott Street. A Conservation Plan dated March 2010 was prepared by James Fryett Architect Inc. The Conservation Plan confirms that the significant cultural heritage attributes associated with the property municipally addressed 87 Scott Street will be conserved in accordance with regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act as well as in accordance with the definition of a significant built heritage resource in the Provincial Policy Statement issued under the Ontario Planning Act. The Plan was formally approved by the Interim Director of Planning on April 30, 2010. ïì ó ì While the HIA included a condition that a Notice of Intent to designate 87 Scott Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act be considered by Council concurrent with its consideration of the subject Planning Applications, City staff agreed to pursue listing 87 Scott Street as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register in the short-term in order to allow the Planning Applications to be considered by the Development and Technical Services Committee and Council in June before the summer recess. As a result, at the June 1, 2010 Heritage Kitchener meeting, the Committee recommended that 87 Scott Street be listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, in accordance with the Statement of Significance attached as Appendix 'A' to Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-10-116. This recommendation will appear on the June 28, 2010 Council Agenda as part of the Heritage Kitchener Council report. Should Council approve listing 87 Scott Street as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, City staff will proceed to initiate the Council approved 4-Step Listing Process for 91 Scott Street and the heritage designation of both properties (87 Scott Street and 91 Scott Street) early in 2011. Shadow Impact Assessment In accordance with the City’s Official Plan and Urban Design Guidelines, a shadow study may be requested in support of applications for re-zoning or site plan approval to demonstrate that the height and/or location of a building will not generate unacceptable amounts of shadows over amenity areas in the surrounding neighbourhood. Shadow impacts were originally assessed in a study conducted when the proposal was at 14 storeys, dated June 10, 2002. The applicant has submitted a shadow analysis as part of the Urban Design Brief (UDB) for the 11 storey proposal. Staff have reviewed this information and are generally satisfied that it meets the requirements set out in the guidelines. It should also be noted that the reduction in building height from 14 to 11 storeys has had a positive effect on shadow impacts. Traffic Impact Assessment At the request of the Region of Waterloo, an updated traffic impact study was required in 2008. An addendum to the 2008 study was prepared recently (May 2010) at the request of the City. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. was retained by the applicant to prepare the study. It examined the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. The report concluded that the proposal will not impact traffic operation in a significant way and traffic will operate well after the development is complete. Both Regional and City Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the study and concur with the study conclusions and recommendations. Urban Design Considerations In addition to the impact studies, staff have undergone a review of urban design considerations in relation to the conceptual site plan submitted in support of the change in land use. These considerations are discussed in detail below. Design Brief At the request of staff, the applicant has prepared a site-specific Urban Design Brief (UDB) (attached as Appendix G). The urban design brief has two key purposes in regards to the site plan and zone change process. First, it gives direction as to how the public realm is developed on site. The design brief discusses and gives direction on numerous items including but not limited to: Building massing; The size and shape of the building, ïì ó ë Building orientation; Where the building is situated on site in relation to the street edge and adjacent site elements, Facade treatments ; How the proposed building face is treated to maximize the aesthetic qualities of the building, Streetscaping; How the perimeter of the site along pedestrian routes is addressed with lighting, landscaping, building location and façade treatments etc. Landscaping; Identification of key focal points and edges that merit unique or upgraded landscape treatment on the site. The second key element that the design brief provides is a baseline for the potential development prior to initiating the site plan process. This is beneficial to staff and the applicant because design details that were previously left to be negotiated at the site plan stage are already identified. This allows a more streamlined site plan process as the applicant already has a good understanding of the site requirements. Staff recommends that the UDB of December 2009 be approved in conjunction with the requested OPA/zone change and that it along with the Heritage Impact Assessment be used as the principle guiding documents for site plan approval. Building Orientation From a general urban design perspective, buildings should be oriented to the street with the main building entrance facing the public thoroughfare. This orientation provides a sense of enclosure along the street, provides for greater streetscape opportunities and increases eyes on the street. In Planning staff’s opinion, orientation towards the street is preferred because it has a stronger visual relationship along Weber Street East, and would allow for the reduction of impacts onto the surrounding residential neighbourhood in terms of shadowing. This objective has been achieved by zoning the footprint of the building as close to Weber Street East as possible and away from Pearl Place. Building Height, Scale and Massing The most contentious issue related to the proposed development was establishing an appropriate building height and massing. As a general principle in an urban environment, a height to width ratio of 1:1 is considered an urban design standard to achieve a human scale. As depicted in the UDB, the proposed 11 storey building maintains a 1:1 height to width ratio for Weber Street and a 1:1 height to width ratio for properties along Pearl Place. As a result, in Planning staff’s opinion, the proposed building height and massing is appropriate from a built form perspective. Interface with Pearl Place and 87 Scott Street Another issue related to the proposal is how to effectively deal with the interface between the proposed surface parking and Pearl Place. Through a combination of ornate fencing, landscaping and berming, the objective is to not only screen the proposed surface parking from Pearl Place but to re-create a street edge that is attractive, pedestrian-oriented and maintains the historic feel of Pearl Place. Streetscape Streetscape is an integral part of design and especially given the gateway location of the subject lands. The UBD speaks to enhanced streetscaping along Weber Street and along Pearl Place. Neighbourhood Response The application was submitted to the City of Kitchener in the fall of 2001 requesting a Municipal Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The application was originally submitted for a proposed ïì ó ê twenty-storey building in one of two forms: 1. either as a mixed use office/apartment building having approximately 150,000 sq. feet of office space within the lower ten storeys, and 150 apartment units within the upper ten storeys, or 2. an apartment building having approximately 300 apartment units. Parking was to be located partially on the surface, as well as underground below the site. The first neighbourhood information meeting was held on March 19, 2002 as a follow-up to the letter sent out on December 12, 2001 to neighbours within 120 metres of the proposal. The meeting was attended by a little more than a dozen concerned local residents. Having heard neighbourhood and staff concerns, the applicant prepared a summary of concerns raised by residents, and attached responses to each, as well as preparing a revised Concept Plan. This summary can be found attached in Appendix F. The Revised Concept Plan brought the height of the building from 20 storeys down to approximately 15 storeys, and the building shifted farther away from existing homes on Irvin Street and Pearl Place. Following the initial neighbourhood meeting, staff requested various studies to show the impacts that the development proposal would have on its surroundings. As a result, Shadow, Heritage and Traffic Impact studies were prepared by the applicant's consultants and were reviewed by City and Regional staff. Continued consultation with staff and Heritage Kitchener resulted in a further reduction in the height of the building to 11 storeys. This latest revision was then circulated to residents in November 2009 with a second neighbourhood meeting held on December 1, 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to inform residents of the progress of the application and to discuss the current 11 storey proposal to determine if the issues identified from the first neighbourhood meeting were still of concern. A total of 19 residents attended the meeting. The 11 storey proposal was met with mixed feelings. Generally speaking, those property owners who are directly affected are less supportive while those who are indirectly affected but have a vested interest in the downtown are more supportive. Staff have consolidated the concerns raised into several categories; each is discussed below. Traffic Traffic was a major concern raised by the area residents at the December 2009 Neighbourhood meeting. An Update (2008) to original Traffic Impact Study was prepared. Transportation Planning has reviewed the study update (Memorandum, Update to Weber Street & Scott Street Analysis, Paradigm, May 6, 2010) and generally concur with the methodology and conclusions. Traffic generated by the proposed development is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic operations on the adjacent municipal streets, and the traffic study does not identify a traffic infiltration problem in the adjacent residential area. During the morning peak hour traffic flow period, 17 two-way vehicle trips are projected to be added to the road network. In the afternoon peak hour, 36 two-way vehicle trips would be added. Vehicles entering and exiting the site would be distributed between the two proposed site driveway entrances (Scott St., Weber St.) In this regard, it is staff’s assessment that projections in the study assumed an under-utilization of the Weber St. driveway, given that the development concept shows an internal driveway connection between the two driveway entrances. This recognizes a conservative approach to traffic projections and analysis of the impact on ScottStreet. The  Region has also approved the Traffic Impact Study. Building Height Some residents commented that the building height was still too high. The original application was for a 20 storey building that has now been reduced to 11 storeys. Eleven (11) storeys is not just an arbitrary height chosen but one that has been reviewed and analysed by staff in the context of the surrounding built form and downtown location of the subject lands adjacent to ïì ó é Weber Street. As a general principle in an urban environment, a 1:1 height to width ratio is considered an urban design standard to achieve a human scale. As depicted in the UDB, the proposed 11 storey building maintains a 1:1 ratio for Weber Street and a 1:1 ratio for those properties along Pearl Place. As a result, in Planning staff’s opinion, the proposed building height at the location depicted on the conceptual site plan is appropriate from a built form perspective. Both the proposed zoning and UDB establishes the “footprint” and height of the building closer to Weber Street and away from Pearl Place. Shadow Impacts In accordance with the City Official Plan and Urban Design Guidelines, shadow studies may be requested in support of applications for re-zoning or site plan approval to demonstrate that the height and/or location of a building will not generate unacceptable amounts of shadows over adjacent lands. Shadow impacts have been submitted and assessed for a 14 storey proposal in 2002 and more recently, for the 11 storey proposal. Both show that shadow impacts are within acceptable limits according to criteria outlined in the Urban Design Manual. Too Much Surface Parking The conceptual site plan illustrates a total of 194 parking spaces of which 74 are surface parking and the remaining spaces are proposed underground. According to the Zoning By-law, a minimum of 191 parking spaces are required for this development, leaving a surplus of 3 parking spaces. Therefore, this proposal just meets the minimum parking requirements. It is conceivable that by the time this proposal gets to the site plan approval stage, downtown parking requirements may change as a result of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) practices being considered jointly for Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. What this could mean is that less parking may be required and/or that larger surface parking areas may be discouraged in order to encourage individuals to take other modes of transportation (i.e. rapid transit, bus, bike, carpool, car share etc.). Headlight Glare and Other Related Nuisances from Parking adjacent to Pearl Place Residential Properties The conceptual site plan illustrates surface parking along Pearl Place which may impact the homeowners who reside on the opposite side of Pearl Place. Staff agrees, and to mitigate these impacts, a buffer of fencing, berming and landscaping is proposed all along the south side of Pearl Place. This landscape buffer is recognized in the UDB and the Zoning By-law stipulates a minimum 3 metre wide landscaped strip. Lack of Parks/Amenity Space for Residents According to the City’s Urban Design Guidelines, the developer must provide an on-site amenity space for the residents of multiple dwellings in addition to having to pay cash-in-lieu for parkland dedication as per the Planning Act. This is received at the site plan approval stage. The funds collected through cash-in-lieu are then used by the City to acquire open space lands throughout the City. 87 Scott Street In accordance with the approved HIA, 87 Scott Street will be conserved by listing as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and designated concurrently with 91 Scott Street early in 2011. This property will be zoned CR-2 like ïì ó è the rest of the landholdings but a special use provision (407U) has been added to the Zoning By-law in order to recognize residential uses of single detached and duplex dwelling uses. Rental versus Condo The City has no authority to zone properties for tenure. It is up to the developer whether or not he chooses rental or condominium ownership for the proposed apartment building. Property Values Residents have also raised concerns that the proposed development may impact their property values. It is difficult for planning staff to comment accurately on the impact that a proposed development may have on the value of nearby homes. Staff understands that MPAC assesses homes based on as many as 200 different factors ranging from the size of the house and lot and the location, to the number of bathrooms and quality of the construction. Market values depend on a host of different factors including the state of the economy and the individual purchaser’s preferences. Planning staff do not consider market value to be a land use planning matter. Planning staff focus on whether the development is good planning with respect to the community as a whole. The proposed development, as discussed in previous sections, helps to achieve a number of development goals set out in Provincial policy, the ROP and the Official Plan for Kitchener. Department/Agency Comments The application was circulated to all applicable agencies and internal departments and comments are attached as Appendix E. The Building Division, Engineering Division, Community Services, School Boards, and the Grand River Conservation Authority have no concerns with the proposed applications. Any issues raised through out the process have either . been addressed or will be considered at the site plan approval stage FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n/a COMMUNICATIONS: Preliminary circulation of the Zone Change was undertaken on December 12, 2001 and sent to appropriate city departments and agencies and to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. The first Neighbourhood Meeting was held on March 19, 2002. A second Neighbourhood Meeting was held on December 1, 2009 and the circulation notice for that meeting was sent to all property owners within a 120 metres radius. Since it has been less than a year since that meeting, all residents who provided written comments, requested to be notified or who attended the neighbourhood meeting will be mailed a copy of this report. Notice of the June 21, 2010 statutory public meeting of the Development and Technical Services Committee was advertised in the Record on May 28, 2010. CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, the Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications are appropriate and represent good planning. The issues identified through the circulation have been addressed. This proposal satisfies City, Regional and Provincial policy and incorporates urban design principles. Therefore, it is recommended that the applications be approved. OTHER CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Culture Heritage Planning ïì ó ç Sandro Bassanese, Urban Designer REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Manager of Development Review ACKNOWLEDGED BY:Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department List of Attachments Appendix ‘A’ Newspaper Advertisement Appendix ‘B’ Proposed Official Plan Amendment Appendix ‘C’ Proposed Zoning By-law Appendix ‘D’ Conceptual Site Plan Appendix ‘E’ Department/Agency Circulation Comments Appendix ‘F’ Neighbourhood Response Appendix ‘G’ Urban Design Brief, December 2009, IBI Group ïì ó ïð ïì ó ïï ïì ó ïî ïì ó ïí ïì ó ïì ïì ó ïë ïì ó ïê ïì ó ïé ïì ó ïè ïì ó ïç ïì ó îð ïì ó îï ïì ó îî ïì ó îí ïì ó îì ïì ó îë ïì ó îê ïì ó îé ïì ó îè ïì ó îç ïì ó íð ïì ó íï ïì ó íî ïì ó íí ïì ó íì ïì ó íë ïì ó íê ïì ó íé ïì ó íè ïì ó íç ïì ó ìð ïì ó ìï ïì ó ìî ïì ó ìí ïì ó ìì ïì ó ìë ïì ó ìê ïì ó ìé ïì ó ìè ïì ó ìç ïì ó ëð ïì ó ëï ïì ó ëî ïì ó ëí ïì ó ëì ïì ó ëë ïì ó ëê ïì ó ëé ïì ó ëè ïì ó ëç ïì ó êð ïì ó êï ïì ó êî ïì ó êí ïì ó êì ïì ó êë ïì ó êê ïì ó êé ïì ó êè ïì ó êç ïì ó éð ïì ó éï ïì ó éî ïì ó éí ïì ó éì ïì ó éë ïì ó éê ïì ó éé ïì ó éè ïì ó éç ïì ó èð ïì ó èï