SPECIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday February 17, :00 p.m. Town Council Chambers Page 1

Transcription

1 Page 1 Procedural Note: Revised February 17, 2016 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes as approved by Motion 16-GC-087 (Addition of items 5-11 under Public Meetings). 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair, L. Giaschi-Pacini called the meeting to order at and the following were recorded as being present. Committee Members: Regrets: Staff: Councillor, L. Giaschi-Pacini (Committee Chair) Mayor G. Smith Deputy Mayor, R. Maloney Councillor, A. Buie Councillor, S. Clement Councillor, B. McMurray Councillor, D. Smith Councillor, C. Wilson Councillor, M. Quemby Chief Administrative Officer/Deputy Clerk, J. Sisson Director of Corporate Services/Clerk, L. McDonald Director of Planning and Development, C. Kelley Chief Building Official, T. Hookings Manager of Planning Services, M. Holmes Planning Administrator, S. McCormick 2. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. PUBLIC MEETINGS 3.1. Statutory Public Meeting for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review for the Town of Bracebridge 16-PD-035 (Section A) Committee Chair, L. Giaschi-Pacini called the meeting to order at The Director of Corporate Services/Clerk, L. McDonald, confirmed Notice was issued in accordance with the Planning Act and the Manager of Planning Services, M. Holmes, presented a review of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. 1. The Town of Bracebridge Official Plan (2013) is the principle policy document which the Municipality uses to express its goals and objectives for the community, identifies significant natural features and guides its physical development and redevelopment. It provides a general policy direction and a land use planning framework to guide the physical, social, economic and environmental management and growth of the Town. In addition to adhering to good planning principles, the Official Plan was prepared within the context of Provincial Policy Statement and the District of Muskoka Official Plan.

2 Page 2 2. The review of the Town s Comprehensive Zoning By-law is a natural out-flow of the approved 2013 Official Plan and is a requirement of the Planning Act. 3. On February 18, 2015, Council ratified Planning and Development Committee motion 15-PD-012 that outlined the project plan for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review as follows: 1. That the Director of Planning and Development be authorized to issue a Request for Proposal for a Planning Consultant to perform background research and project management to assist in the review of the Town s Comprehensive Zoning By-law in accordance with the details contained in Staff Report PD That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement with the successful contractor of the Request for Proposal for the Planning Consultant. 3. That a Zoning By-law Review Working Group with the General Terms of Reference as outlined in Appendix A of Staff Report PD be approved 4. That Deputy Mayor Maloney, Councillor McMurray, and Councillor Wilson be appointed to the Zoning By-law Review Working Group. 4. The Zoning By-law Review was proposed under 4 main phases as follows: 4.1. Phase 1 Background Studies and policy development (primarily in the urban area); 4.2. Phase 2 General housekeeping, public meeting, By-law Amendment #1; 4.3. Phase 3 Official Plan Implementation (primarily rural and waterfront policies); public meeting and By-law Amendment #2; and 4.4. Phase 4 Consolidation of Amendments. 5. The Town of Bracebridge Accessibility Advisory Committee reviewed the accessible parking standards proposed in the amending by-law. The Ontario with Disabilities Act references a Type A and Type B parking space for accessible parking. The Committee has indicated that they would recommend the Town use the larger parking space size, being the Type A parking space for all required accessible parking spaces. 6. District staff noted that a Brewery and Distillery are permitted as a right in the M1 and M2 Zones. It is understood that these uses are currently being interpreted as permitted in the M2 Zone as a Manufacturing use. District staff have concerns with the ability of these type of uses to meet the District s Sewer Use By-law and request that these uses not be permitted as of right. District staff also indicate that there may be other types of industrial uses that would fall within this category and request a meeting with Town staff to discuss in greater detail.

3 Page 3 7. The Muskoka Home Child Care Agency requesting the Town consider changes to the Home Occupation provisions for persons who are permitted to be engaged in the business and hours of operation to address concerns about providing flexibility for home child care providers. Also requesting changes to the definition of Day Nursery to address replacement of Day Nurseries Act with the Child Care and Early Years Act and update to the number of children that can be cared for by home care providers. 8. Peter Neice on behalf of Doug Lowe in support for changing Mr. Lowe s property at 205 Taylor Road from R3-H to C5-9. Requests additional uses of Personal Service Shop and Motor Vehicle Detailing be added to the C5-9 Zone. Also indicates support for the transition provisions related to existing agreements on title. 9. Gary Kirby of 160 Shier Street requested change in the R3-15 Zoning currently on his property to require setbacks for a detached dwelling in accordance with the standard provisions on other properties containing detached dwellings. Also requested some allowance for a T style driveway to allow turnarounds in residential zones. 10. Bert French and Sons Limited opposed to the proposal to restrict attached garage from extending closer to the front lot line then the main building façade. Although the photo in the background report shows an example of bad design and poor aesthetics, the revision would also prohibit good design and aesthetics. Many of their most popular models incorporate an attached garage that projects into the front yard. To propose a blanket statement of this type of design seems excessive in the least. It is requested that Committee not include this particular proposal in the current Zoning By-law update. 11. Peter Bird of Bird Engineering Ltd. indicated his opposition to the provisions related to garage protrusion beyond the front of the main building façade. In reviewing 8 urban streets in Bracebridge, 105 homes would not comply to these requirements and would be deemed legal non-conforming. This provision should be removed. Opposed to the maximum garage door width as it is too restrictive and would not permit a garage with 3 single doors on 60 foot lot. Opposed to proposed limitations for driveways as they are too restrictive as well. It is requested that these provisions for garage width and driveway width be revisited. Bob List of 103 Southbank Drive addressed the Committee. He noted that the preconsultation for the amendments was excellent and he appreciates the chance to address the Committee. Mr. List discussed smaller lot frontages and indicated the frontage of 12 metres in an R1S zone is problematic and suggested a 11.2 metre frontage. This would allow for the appropriate fire separations for dwellings with windows on the side and ensure appropriate construction width. Mr. List did note a concern about the frontage requirements in the Municipal Servicing By-law versus the frontage requirements in the new Zoning By-law. The two by-laws conflict with each other. Mr. List indicated he liked the updated terminology in the Zoning By-law such as the use of the word establishment.

4 Page 4 Mr. List also indicated that there is a good approach on the difference of trailers to mobile homes. He feels that there should be an increase in the projection of docks from 6 metres to 8 metres on the River as sections are quite shallow. Mr. List also indicated a concern with the height change especially in the waterfront. He feels there is a concern when dealing with a 12/12 pitch to ensure snow loads. Mr. Wayne Simpson of Wayne Simpson & Associates addressed the Committee. He also indicted appreciation on the pre-consultation process. He indicated he has a concern with changing all of the language to the word shall as it may not always apply. Mr. Simpson questioned if a site plan agreement registered on a property with elevations not shown override definitive height as set out in the By-law. He has a concern how height is proposed to be measured. Currently height is 9 metres to the mid-point and increasing to 10 metres to the peak does not afford an actual height increase as in the case of a 12/12 pitch to a roofline. He feels the definition should stay as mid-point to peak not just peak. He noted a concern regarding the garage encroaching in front of the main building and questioned an L-shaped design where the entry to the garage is to the side of the home. Mr. Simpson indicated a concern with the requirement to provide 50% of the front yard to be landscaped as this would not allow for parallel parking or accessible parking. He noted also a concern about the location of parking for multi-residential being required in the interior or rear yard and where there is more than 3 units, the parking has to be in the rear yard. He feels that parking should also be allowed in the side yard. Mr. Simpson also noted a concern with the removal of the senior citizens home which is now referred to as seniors assisted living home. There is no provision to allow for a seniors retirement home. Mr. Simpson made mention of updating the zoning maps and that he had discussed this with staff. He noted a concern with the definition of the front lot line for properties in Town and the location of accessory structures. Mr. Simpson noted that by the definition, the parking area for a multi-residential dwelling is to be located in the rear yard which is defined as the water side of a property in Town. Sid Aldred addressed the Committee with concern on the difference of measurements from imperial to metric. He noted that the length of a parking space at 6 metres (19.68 feet) is too small to fit a 20 foot truck. Mr. Aldred also noted concern with the width size of the garage door at 40% of the lot frontage. He noted that the garage door size for a lot frontage of 12 metres would be feet (4.79 metres) and would not meet the standard door sizes sold which would have to be custom made.

5 Page 5 Mr. Aldred questioned why shipping containers cannot be permitted in the Rural area. The storage would help people starting up businesses such as farming. He stated a time period could be put on them, location and a temporary permit at cost. He also noted the problem with the size of 12 metres (39.37 feet) which does not meet the standard sizes of 20 feet up to 40 feet in length for the trailers. He questioned if outdoor furnaces are grandfathered and understands they should not be permitted in the urban area. Shea Greenleaf on behalf of Bert French & Sons addressed the Committee regarding the L-shaped design of the garage with the door off to the side. He feels that the provision restricting the garage from being located closer to the front lot line than the main building façade of the home prevents what can be built. Certain designs are aesthetically pleasing. Committee questioned the concern regarding the availability of the appropriate size of garage doors based on the frontage and staff advised they would review this further. Committee requested the perceived benefits of smaller lots and the positioning of attached garages. J. Dyment of MHBC (Consulting Firm on this project), addressed the Committee and advised this was looked at from an urban design to the zoning and streetscape not to have garages as the first visual. This is a new provision for Bracebridge with a modern approach. Committee questioned if secondary units would be allowed on R1S lots and were advised that they would not and the main reason would be parking. Committee questioned the L-shaped garages where the doors are not visible from the road and were advised staff would be reviewing this. Committee noted a concern regarding the length of the parking spaces and whether it will leave enough room for a person to walk in front of their vehicle. Staff advised that the parking space is proposed at 6 metres, however, it was noted the setback for the structure is 7.5 metres which would leave sufficient room. Committee questioned language updates and staff advised that it was for clarity throughout the By-law. Committee questioned whether outdoor furnaces existing could remain and were advised they would be considered legal non-conforming. Committee questioned second dwelling units over the garage and were advised there is an exemption to a garage with living space above. Committee questioned why the change in the minimum size of dwelling to 60 square metres and were advised the proposal was to accommodate affordable housing. Committee questioned why not follow the Building Code of 41 square metres and were advised that this was felt to be too small.

6 Page 6 Committee noted a concern with the smaller frontages in the R1S zone and where this zoning would apply. Staff advised that there are no lots proposed to be pre-zoned R1S. This would apply if there was a subdivision of a lot or in a plan of subdivision. Staff also advised that if a lot meets the R1 standard for larger frontage then the zoning cannot be zoned to an R1S zone without an exemption. Committee noted that a certain number of garages should be allowed to project beyond the main façade in a subdivision to allow for diversity. It was noted that parking should be side by side and piggyback parking should not be allowed. Committee noted concern with a reduction in the rear yard between an R1 zone and an R1S zone due to the reduction in the lot area. Staff noted that the rear yard setback for both zones is 7.5 metres. Committee stated the minimum lot area in an R1S zone should be increased from 300 square metres to 360 square metres. Committee also noted that the R1S zones should be integrated within a development with R1 zones so as not to have too many small lots side by side. Committee questioned staff on the difference between the planning standards and the public works standards. Staff advised that the larger of the two requirements takes precedence; however, staff have been in consultation with Public Works to amend the provision. Committee noted that a new subdivision should have allotted so many R1 and R1S lots, however, staff noted this is difficult with the market changes and as the subdivision changes over the year. Staff are not proposing to pre-zone any R1S lots. The zone allows for potentially smaller lots with starter homes and future possible additions. Committee questioned the parking concern on a waterfront side of a property in the urban centre and were advised the provision is to allow for accessory structures or fencing only on the water side but not parking. Committee requested clarification on s wherein a lot frontage of 12 metres or less, is permitted a maximum width of the driveway to be 50% of the frontage. Staff advised this is to allow for 6 metre wide side by side parking spaces. Committee questioned the parking requirements for Seniors Assisted Living and were advised it is 1 parking space for each unit. Staff noted this is a higher standard of parking which is usually between.5 spaces and 1 space for each unit. Committee has a concern with no parking being available for visitors or staff. Committee questioned the parking of oversized vehicles and indicated there should be a provision to allow owners to keep larger vehicles such as motorhomes in their driveways during the time they are being used. Staff advised this provision was implemented in the by-law due to a large number of complaints. Staff will review this further. Committee noted that the definition of lot line, front should make reference to the R1S zone under section a) of the definition. Staff advised that a waterfront lot would not be zoned R1S due to the area and frontage requirements. The following persons requested further notice should this Rezoning Amendment be passed by the Municipal Council:

7 Page 7 Mr. Bob List, 103 South Bank Drive, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1G2 Mr. Wayne Simpson, 11 Centre Street S., Suite 102, Huntsville, ON P1H 1W4 Mr. Sidney Aldred, P.O. Box 31, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1T5 Mr. Peter Bird, 19 Bird Lane, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1J1 Mr. Steve Whitworth, 1091 Manitoba Street, PO Box 586, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1T8 Mr. Shea Greenleaf, 126 Green Road, R.R. #1, Port Sydney, ON P0B 1L0 No other submissions were made with respect to this proposal. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 4. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 5. MINUTES FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Project Plan 16-PD-036 (Section A) Moved by: Seconded by: Councillor, A. Buie Deputy Mayor, R. Maloney 7. ONGOING BUSINESS 1. That the draft amending by-law to Comprehensive Zoning By-law , attached as Appendix A to Staff Report PD be received for information purposes. 2. That staff report back to Planning and Development Committee with recommended changes to Comprehensive Zoning By-law , based on agency and public comments received as a result of the public meeting and circulation of the draft amendments. (PD013-16) 7.1. Health and Safety Update CARRIED

8 Page 8 8. CORRESPONDENCE 9. CLOSED SESSION 10. RESOLUTIONS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION 11. ADJOURN 16-PD-037 Moved by: Seconded by: Deputy Mayor, R. Maloney Councillor, A. Buie That Committee adjourn until the next regular meeting or any special meeting called by the Chair. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. CARRIED