STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Joanne Vanderheyden, Mayor and Members of Council From: Marc Bancroft, Senior Planner Date: July 5, 2013 Re: Rezoning Application South Part of Lot 21, Concession 4, SER, Geographic Township of Adelaide Ian Seddon Planning Services (Ian Seddon) for 2348143 Ontario Ltd. (Ken Peters & Brian Linker) 423 Saulsbury Street, Strathroy Recommendation: It is recommended that the application for rezoning be approved. Purpose: The purpose of this application is to rezone an existing lot from Future Development (FD) to High Density Residential (R3) to permit the use of the lands for high density residential purposes. Background (refer Location Map): The subject property is a 1.2 ha (2.93 acre) parcel located at the intersection of Saulsbury Street and Drury Lane. It is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and detached garage which are to be removed to allow the development of the land. The property is designated Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Future Development (FD) in the Zoning By-law. The applicants are seeking to change the zoning of the lands to High Density Residential (R3) to allow the construction of two 3- storey apartment buildings: one with 30 dwelling units and the other with 50 dwelling units for a total of 80 dwelling units. At a public meeting of Municipal Council held on November 5, 2012, this rezoning application was originally heard and subsequently deferred pending the submission of a concept plan or site plan by the applicants. A concept plan and building elevations (attached) have now been provided which will form the basis for a future application for site plan approval. To address concerns raised at the public meeting in respect of the potential for increased traffic, a traffic impact assessment was prepared by F.R. Berry & Associates. The assessment generally concluded: that no improvements are warranted at the intersection of Saulsbury Street and Drury Lane to accommodate site generated traffic; and, that consideration should be given to changing the traffic control regime at the said intersection to provide stop control on the Saulsbury Street approaches. Currently, stop control is provided on the Drury Lane approaches. 1
On June 26, 2013, the applicants hosted an open house at the Municipal Office and invited property owners within 300 metres of the subject lands to view the concept plan, building elevations and traffic impact assessment. According to the applicants planner, concerns raised included: Not sure about the appearance of the project concerned that it will detract from the existing appearance of the neighbourhood but we cannot see the property from our house. Should the building parallel to Saulsbury Street not be built first rather than the westerly building which is proposed to be end-on to Saulsbury Street? Our concerns are storm water management, proposed location for garbage bins, blocking of headlights (don t want headlights of cars coming to the property shining in the back windows of our house) and the firmness of the proposal our property is on Brennan Drive. What about the number of accidents at the Saulsbury-Drury intersection and what about the traffic from the soccer games at the park? We don t like the proposal because we are concerned about the probable impact on existing property values. We cannot see the proposal very well from our home on Elgin Place. F.R. Berry & Associates has reviewed the query about soccer game traffic and vehicular accidents at the Saulsbury-Drury intersection and responded in a letter to the Municipality with the following conclusions: traffic movements associated with the use of soccer fields will have no significant impact on the operation of traffic movements generated by the proposed apartment development. Lastly, in reviewing accident data provided by Police Services, it is likely that the number of accidents, which falls well within the expected frequency for intersecting streets, would be reduced if stop control transferred from Drury Lane to Saulsbury Street, the street with the lower traffic volume. Analysis: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan all encourage development and intensification to occur within fully serviced settlement areas that demonstrate an efficient use of land and infrastructure. The subject proposal supports the foregoing policies and would provide an alternative housing type in the form of apartment dwellings. This form of residential intensification serves to generally complement the character of the area which includes a wide range of land uses (e.g. residential, institutional, parkland). The area also offers a wide range of housing types in the form of low, medium and high density residential development. To provide adequate buffering along the northerly interface of the existing single detached residential lots along Brennan Drive, a setback of 15 m (49 ft) is proposed whereas a setback of 5.45 m (17.8 ft) setback is proposed from the vacant residential land to the west. To implement the foregoing requirements, a site-specific rezoning is required from a technical standpoint given that the northerly and westerly lot lines are recognized as side and rear lot lines, respectively, based on the frontage along Drury Lane. On a corner lot, the frontage is deemed to be the shortest street line. All other zoning requirements are capable of being satisfied. To prevent the premature development of the lands, a Holding Symbol (H) is recommended as part of this rezoning. The prerequisite for the removal of the H would be site plan approval. 2
Should the subject rezoning be approved, it is anticipated that the applicant will apply for site plan approval to facilitate the development of the land. Site plan approval is to address matters including but not limited to building envelopes, walkways, parking, grading, landscaping, exterior lighting, servicing and road widening dedications. Concerns raised are generally capable of being addressed through the site plan approval process. Subsequent to site plan approval and depending on market conditions, the applicant may wish to make an application to create a condominium where individual apartment units could be bought and sold with common elements jointly owned through a condominium. In the absence of a condominium, individual apartment units are anticipated to be leased. In all, the foregoing alternatives are not a function of land use but rather tenure in that the land use will remain the same in the form of apartment dwellings should this rezoning be approved. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that the application for rezoning under Section 34 of the Planning Act be approved, subject to the amendments as recommended by staff, as the application would be: consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; conforms to the Official Plans of both the County and Municipality; and constitutes good planning; and that no further notice be required pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act. 3
LOCATION MAP Subject Lands 4
1 4 LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 10 LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 13 DRURY LANE 6 6 SAULSBURY STREET ZONING AND SITE DATA