Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-16-026 - Second Addendum to 42 West Acres Cres Zone Change Report REPORT TO: Council DATE OF MEETING: April 11, 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 2016 REPORT NO.: CSD-16-026 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO REPORT CSD-16-012: REVIEW OF HIGHLAND ROAD ACCESS AT WEST END OF PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC15/010/W/AP 42 WEST ACRES CRESCENT 2297868 ONTARIO INC. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: For information. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2. - 1 BACKGROUND: The Zone Change Application for 42 West Acres Crescent was originally considered by Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee (PSIC) on March 7, 2016. At that time, staff recommended approval of the application and advised that notwithstanding objections from certain community members, the only safe and supportable access to the property is on West Acres Crescent (rather than on the Highland Road frontage). PSIC deferred the matter to the March 21, 2016 Council meeting, pending additional information regarding the Highland Road access option. At the March 21, 2016 Council meeting, Council deferred the matter to the April 11, 2016 special Council meeting to allow time for staff to examine the viability of providing access to the proposed development from Highland Road at the west end of the property. Additionally, several councillors requested that staff meet with community representatives and the subject property owners to resolve outstanding community concerns. REPORT: Highland Road Access at West End of Subject Property st Since the March 21 Council meeting, at the request of staff, the subject property owners’ engineer prepared a redesigned plan showing an access at the west end of the property (see Appendix A - Plan Showing Access on Highland Rd at West End). The plan shows the following: A driveway access at the extreme west end of the site on Highland Road, positioned between existing Region-owned monitoring wells and the western property line, which has a maximum grade of 8%. No access is provided to West Acres Crescent. A 50 metre (164 ft) long retaining wall with a maximum height of 1.7 metres (5.6 foot), just inset from the western property line that is necessary to keep the property to the west stabilized due to the grade changes. This wall encroaches into the driveway visibility triangle. 27 stacked townhouse dwelling units within 2 buildings (as before), relocated closer to the easterly lot line. 47 parking spaces (as before) at the south end of the property. This plan was circulated for comment to the Region, and the City’s Fire Services, Transportation Services, Engineering Services, and Urban Design staff. The subject property owners also provided comment on this plan.Department and agency comments regarding this plan are summarized below: Access Authority Concerns: The Region is the authority for access to Highland Road. Senior Regional staff continues to not support access to Highland Road anywhere along the frontage of this property. Previous comments included as part of related reports should be noted. 2. - 2 Safety Concerns: The plan is not safe and not supportable due to the encroachment of the necessary retaining wall within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). The DVT ensures that drivers can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles on the road before pulling out of the property. Additionally, the DVT ensures that drivers pulling into the site can see pedestrians vehicles that are approaching the access. The DVT concern is worsened if Highland Road is widened bringing the edge of the road and cycling facilities and sidewalk closer to the property line (note that there is a concurrent Environmental Assessment process to reconstruct Highland Road). (Region, Transportation Services, and Planning concern). Concern regarding potential icing of the driveway ramp, including freeze/thaw cycles (Region and Engineering concern). Other Department/Agency Concerns: Concern that at least two trees would need to be removed that would otherwise act as a natural screen, providing privacy and shade. These removals are necessary to accommodate the required retaining wall on the west side of the property. At least one of these trees is on the neighbouring property (Planning and Engineering concern). Permission from the adjacent neighbours would be necessary to remove the tree(s) on adjacent properties and to allow the subject property owners to enter onto their land to construct the required 50m long retaining wall. Implementation of this plan would be dependent on permission of the neighbour; therefore, this plan may not be feasible for this reason alone (Planning and Engineering concern). Concern regarding uncontrolled stormwater runoff onto Highland Road. It has not been determined whether the existing ditches/pipes on Highland Road have sufficient capacity, or are in a suitable condition to accommodate uncontrolled storm water flow from the property (Region and Engineering concern). Concern with the proximity of the driveway access to adjacent groundwater monitoring wells (piezometers) related to potential contamination (Region concern). While the driveway ramp appears to just meet the maximum 8% grade for fire routes as required by the City’s Emergency Services Policy, a number of other issues are created. For example, it appears that the plan would need to be further redesigned to accommodate a large, on-site fire truck turn-around. Planning staff advises that the redesign of the site to accommodate this large turn-around would be so significant that it may require an entirely new plan/application (Fire Services comment). The owners of the property to the east (70 High Acres Cres) may have concerns with the stacked townhouses being moved closer to their rear yard and the 2.6m (8.6 foot) grade drop down to their property that would make the stacked townhouse units appear taller (possible neighbour concern). 2. - 3 Subject Property Owner Concerns: Despite agreeing to the preparation of the plan showing a westerly access on Highland Road, it should be noted that the subject property owners do not agree with such an access for a variety of reasons, including: Safety concerns. Required additional redesign. Additional construction costs. The isolating effect it would have from the surrounding community especially considering that there is viable access on West Acres Crescent. Planning Analysis: A westerly Highland Road access is not an option from a staff perspective. There are significant safety concerns with such an access, including an inability to maintain the Driveway Visibility Triangle and potential icing of the steep driveway ramp. In addition, a westerly access would require the approval of the abutting property owners for the removal of trees and access to construct a large retaining wall on the edge of the subject property. Uncontrolled flow of stormwater onto Highland Road is a concern. The neighbours to east may be concerned with the relocation of the buildings closer to their rear yard. Additionally, the subject property owners have stated that they do not support such an access. Planning staff is of the opinion that an access from West Acres Crescent is the only viable and supportable option for the proposal that was submitted. Additional Consultation with the Community On April 4, 2016, Planning staff members Andrew Pinnell and Della Ross met with two community representatives (Deb Tambling and Sharon Harding - residents of West Acres Crescent), Councillor Ioannidis, the subject property owners (Carlos Da Silva and Rick Martins), and Fire Chief Jon Rehill. The purpose of the meeting was to: 1. Inform the community representatives of staff’s findings regarding a westerly access onto Highland Road, 2. Allow the community representatives another opportunity to provide comments and ask questions of staff and the subject property owners, 3. Attempt to resolve concerns where possible, and 4. Inform the community representatives regarding next steps. The meeting was held on the understanding that staff is not revising its recommendation based on concerns identified through additional review, and the subject property owners are not willing to reduce the number of proposed dwelling units. At this meeting, a group discussion took place on a variety of topics raised by the community representatives. This conversation was based on the plan included in Report CSD-16-012 that shows the access onto West Acres Crescent only: 1.Community Comment: Safety concern regarding traffic entering and exiting the site from West Acres Crescent and request for consideration of an on-site stop sign before vehicles exit onto West Acres and on-site speed bumps. Discussion:At the meeting the subject property owner and staff agreed that these are good, realistic ideas that could be considered through the site plan 2. - 4 process. Other ideas discussed were painting a white stop bar across the driveway at the on-site stop sign, using an on-site centre boulevard to slow down traffic, signage to warn drivers of the curve of West Acres Crescent and the driveway entrance, and using the decorative entry feature to create a narrowing effect to slow down traffic. Additional Staff Follow-up: Planning staff met with Transportation Services staff following the meeting to discuss options. Transportation Services staff considered the concerns of the community and prepared the Conceptual Driveway Access Detail, attached as Appendix B. This concept shows a stop sign, stop bar, and speed hump with painted “shark teeth” where the driveway intersects West Acres Crescent. This design is supported by Transportation Services staff and may be implemented through the site plan process. Additionally, Transportation Services staff is willing to consider whether a “curve warning” sign is warranted within the boulevard of the curve on West Acres, if requested by the community. The gateway feature that is already proposed through the Urban Design Brief may also have the effect of slowing down traffic by creating the appearance that the driveway is narrower than it is. 2.Community Comment: Concern that the Canada Post Community Mailbox located in front of the property on West Acres Crescent may cause conflicts with vehicles. Suggestion to move the mailbox. Discussion:Community Mailboxes and their placement are under the jurisdiction of Canada Post, not the City. It was suggested that the mailbox may act as a traffic calming measure. 3.Community Comment: Questions about proposed building heights relative to surrounding houses, especially bungalows. Discussion: Staff clarified that the maximum building height under the proposed zoning is 10.5 metres (same as within the surrounding zoning). On-site grades would be highest towards West Acres Crescent, with the land sloping downward towards Highland Road. The east end of the site would be higher than the properties to the east. Proposed buildings would have a low-pitched roof so as to blend in with the surrounding neighbourhood and not unnecessarily increase the building height. The buildings would be 2 storeys facing West Acres, and 3 storeys facing Highland Road. The impact of the building height is minimized by through maximizing the setbacks to adjacent residences. 4.Community Comment: Questions about drainage from the subject property onto adjacent properties. Discussion:Staff clarified that grading and drainage will be thoroughly reviewed through the site plan process. As a City policy, drainage may not exit onto adjacent properties, but must be contained on-site. Site certifications for grading will be required by a professional engineer before grading securities are returned to the subject property owners. A development agreement will be registered on title that will ensure maintenance of the approved grading and drainage plan. 2. - 5 5.Community Comment: Questions regarding the design of the proposed buildings. Discussion: The subject property owners confirmed that buildings will go through a condominium process and that dwelling units will be of higher building quality than other projects they have completed. A traditional building design was chosen following the Neighbourhood Information Meeting in which concerns were expressed about a contemporary design. The subject property owners showed and discussed conceptual elevation drawings with the community representatives. The design of the buildings will be finalized through the site plan process. 6.Community Comment: Questions about fencing. Discussion: Staff advised that the zoning requires a minimum fence height of 1.8 metres (6 feet) around parking areas. The subject property owners’ commitment to a fence along the westerly side lot line was also reaffirmed. Increasing the fence height to 2.4 metres (8 feet) was discussed with a caveat that such a tall fence may not be desirable to the adjacent property owners. The subject property owner expressed a commitment to discuss the matter with adjacent property owners in advance of constructing the fence after the final grading has been established. Additional Staff Follow-up: As part of the site plan process, staff intends on labelling the fence on the site plan as “minimum 1.8 metre high wood fence” to provide the potential for the height to be increased to 2.4 metres, if this is agreed to by the adjacent property owners. 7.Community Comment: Questions about trees and shrubs. The community representatives requested that as the subject property owner install as many trees/shrubs as possible and as mature trees/shrubs as possible on the site. Additional Staff Follow-up: Through the site plan process, a landscape plan and planting plan will be required. Such plans must be in accordance with the City’s Development Manual and other City policies. Accordingly, many more trees/shrubs will be planted on the property. However, mature trees often do not grow as well as young trees, and may die: young trees react to existing conditions and typically do better than mature trees. The City standard is for young trees to be planted. 8.Community Comment: Questions about noise from HVAC units. Discussion: The subject property owners advised that each dwelling unit would have its own built in HVAC unit, not one large HVAC unit for an entire building. It is expected that the noise from individual units would be less. 9.Community Comment: Question about lighting in the parking lot. Discussion:Staff advised that through the site plan process, the property must be “Dark Sky Compliant” as outlined in the City’s Urban Design Manual. Also, the City’s Urban Designer will ensure that lighting is directed downward and 2. - 6 away from adjacent properties and that cut-off fixtures will be employed so that light bulbs do not protrude from the fixtures and cause light pollution. In conclusion, the purpose of the meeting was accomplished: the community representatives, subject property owners, ward councillor, and staff met face-to-face, shared information, and resolved a number of concerns. The site plan process will alleviate a number of community concerns, such as lighting and drainage concerns. Information and commitments from the developer (e.g., fencing) also helped to alleviate other concerns. While the community continues to express desire for a Highland Road access, staff is of the opinion that the only safe, feasible, and supportable access to the property is on West Acres Crescent. Staff is satisfied that the conceptual driveway access detail prepared by Transportation Services staff responds directly to the community’s concerns and makes the West Acres Crescent access as safe and efficient as it can be for the community. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Core service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications to the City. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: As noted in Report CSD-16-012. Also, City staff met with two community representatives, the subject property owners, and the ward councillor on April 4, 2016 to discuss the subject property. This report will be posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the Council meeting. PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER: Report CSD-16-012 was considered at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting of March 7, 2016 and Report CSD-16-020 was considered at the Council meeting of March 21, 2016. Both contain information directly related to the subject report. CONCLUSION: Planning staff is of the opinion that providing an access to Highland Road anywhere along the Highland Road frontage of the subject property does not represent good planning. Staff is of the opinion that the only safe, feasible, and supportable access to the property is on West Acres Crescent. In addition, staff met with community representatives, subject property owners, and the ward councillor to discuss this project. A number of concerns were resolved. Staff offers the subject report to Council for information, as a second addendum to Report CSD-16-012. REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Manager, Development Review 2. - 7 ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department Attachments: Appendix A - Plan Showing Access on Highland Road at West End of Property Appendix B - Conceptual Driveway Access Detail 2. - 8 CSD-16-026 - Appendix A 2. - 9 CSD-16-026 - Appendix B 2. - 10