D5­
U BRAMPTON
brompton.ca Flower City
Report
Planning, Design & Development Committee
Committee of the Council of
The Corporation of the City of Brampton
PLANNING, DESIGN &
& DEVELOPMENT COMMjTTEE
C0MMI1
Date:
April 14,2014
File:
C01E14.024
Subject:
RECOMMENDATION REPORT - ROYALCLIFF ALTERNATIVE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
DATE:
Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Royalcliff Developments Inc. - Gagnon & Law Urban Planners Ltd.
Northwest Corner of Sandalwood Parkway and Conestoga Drive
Ward 2
Contact:
Gavin T. Bailey, Planning and Building Division, 905-874-3882
Overview:
This application was previously approved by the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB) (Decision #PL080144) to permit the development of the subject lands
for a total of 834 condominium residential units, consisting of a mix of
apartment towers, townhouses, live/work units, and 9,539 square metres
(102,677 square feet) of office/commercial uses.
Royalcliff Developments Inc. ("Royalcliff") has submitted an Alternative
Development Proposal (ADP) which reduces the total number of units from
what was approved by the OMB and changes the building form.
Specifically, the ADP proposes a total of 607 residential units in a built-form
consisting of four-storey apartments, and three-storey townhouses. No
commercial uses are proposed.
The purpose of this report and the non-statutory public meeting is to
present the ADP to the Planning, Design and Development Committee and
to area residents. Direction is required from Committee and Council on
whether staff is to support the ADP at the OMB.
The ADP represents good planning and is a preferable alternative to what
was previously approved by the OMB. The ADP represents positive site
development at an appropriate scale and will transition well into the existing
community.
1
D9-1
Recommendations:
1. THAT the report from Gavin Bailey, Senior Development Planer, Planning and
Building Division entitled "RECOMMENDATION REPORT - ROYALCLIFF
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - Application to Amend the
Official Plan and Zoning By-law, Royalcliff Developments Inc. - Gagnon &
Law Urban Planners Ltd., dated April 14, 2014 to the Planning, Design and
Development Committee meeting of June 9, 2014, Ward 2, File: C01E14.024, be
received;
2. THAT the Alternative Development Proposal (ADP) as illustrated on Map 2 of
this report, be endorsed and that staff and external legal counsel be directed to
support Royalcliff in seeking OMB approval of the ADP, subject to the
implementation of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in general
accordance with the draft amending documents attached as Appendix 3;
3. THAT staff be directed to support the following:
a. No parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu of parkland be required in connection
with the Alternative Development Proposal;
b. That the units in the ADP be treated as "Apartments" not "Small Apartments"
pursuant to the City's Development Charges By-law;
c. That Royalcliff be credited with a reduction in fees in the amount of
$123,851.00 only with respect to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By
law Amendment Application required to implement the Alternative
Development Proposal;
4. THAT staff be authorized to enter into comprehensive Minutes of Settlement for
the ADP in a form and content that is acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief
Planning and Infrastructure Services Officer, in substantial accordance with this
report.
t)6~3
INTRODUCTION
Gagnon &Law Urban Planners Ltd. on behalf of Royalcliff Developments Inc.
(Royalcliff) has submitted an Alternative Development Proposal (ADP) for the subject
lands located at the northwest corner of Sandalwood Parkway and Conestoga Drive
(refer to Map 1). The ADP was submitted to City staff as an alternative to the
development proposal that was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2010
(Decision #PL080144 - refer to Appendix 2). The ADP represents a significant
reduction from the size and scale of the development approved by the OMB. In this
respect, the number of residential units is reduced by 185 units and the height of the
development is reduced by 16 storeys. A detailed description of the historical
development permissions on the site, and the OMB approved development permissions
is provided in the body of this report. The intent of this report is to provide the Planning,
Design and Development Committee, Council, and the public with a detailed analysis of
the ADP as compared to the OMB approved development for the subject lands.
Furthermore, the report explains the steps required in order to obtain OMB approval of
the ADP.
BACKGROUND
Property Description and Surrounding Land Use:
The site is currently undeveloped and has an area of approximately 4 hectares (10
acres). The subject site is located in the mature, predominately low-rise residential
Heart Lake community. The Heart Lake Town Centre, which serves as a
commercial/retail hub for the larger Heart Lake community is located to the east of the
subject site. More specifically, the boundaries of the site are as follows:
• To the north, Loafer's Lake Lane and the Loafer's Lake Recreation Centre and
Cyril Clark Library.
• To the south, Sandalwood Parkway, beyond which is Sandalwood Park and low
and medium density residential uses.
• To the east, Conestoga Drive, beyond which is the Heart Lake Town Centre
commercial hub and Kennedy Road.
• To the west, Etobicoke Creek Valley/Loafer's Lake, beyond which are low and
medium density residential uses.
D^M
Map 1: Location Map
Zoning Permission (Pre-OMB Decision):
The subject site was comprised of two zoning by-law categories, being "Residential
Apartment B - Section 216 (R4B-216)" and "Commercial Three - Section 577 (C3­
577)". The zoning permitted two apartment buildings with a maximum height of 18
storeys for each building and a total unit yield of 419 units. In addition to the residential
permissions, a 3 storey office building was also permitted under the existing Zoning By
law.
Original Proposal:
In February 2007 Royalcliff submitted an application to amend the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law. This original application proposed a large scale development that
included:
•
Six apartment towers ranging in heights between 18 and 32 storeys.
•
Six blocks of three storey townhouses.
•
A total of 1,443 residential units.
•
A gross residential density of 145 units per acre.
This original application proposed a significant increase in the residential unit yield,
density and height that was permitted by the Zoning By-law at that time. No commercial
uses were proposed in the original development proposal.
4
D<=>-5
Appeal:
Royalcliff appealed their original Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
application to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to Section 22(7) and 34(11) of the
Planning Act that allows for an appeal in the event that a decision by City Council is not
made within 180 days (approximately 6 months) of the date the application being
deemed complete. The application was deemed to be complete on July 25, 2007.
Royalcliff made the appeal to the OMB on January 24, 2008.
City Council Decision:
At a special meeting of the Planning, Design and Development Committee that was
held on September 8, 2008, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
Application was refused.
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Hearing and Decision:
Before the OMB hearing began in Fall 2009, Royalcliff revised their concept site plan, to
reduce the number of residential units and building heights and to reconfigure the
residential and commercial built-form on the site. The OMB decision to approve the
Royalcliff development was issued on April 15, 2010. That decision, attached as
Appendix 2, allowed the appeal made by Royalcliff as revised in 2009, approving the
following:
Residential Unit Yield: 792 units, of which 42 units are live/work townhouses
6 apartment buildings ranging in height from 12 to 20 storeys
One, 7 storey, 9,539 square metre commercial/office building
1783 parking spaces
Density: 84 units per acre (208 units per hectare)
Floor Space Index: 3.6
Conveyance of 0.47 hectares of floodplain land to public ownership
A copy of the OMB approved development concept plan is attached as Appendix 1.
CURRENT SITUATION
Alternative Development Proposal (ADP):
A new development proposal, being an alternative to the OMB approved development,
was recently submitted by Royalcliff for consideration by the City. The Alternative
Development Proposal presents a significant reduction in the number of residential units
and building height. Specifically, the ADP proposes four-storey apartments (six
buildings) and three-storey stacked townhouses (nine buildings). The ADP also
illustrates the limits of development that were determined by the City in consultation with
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The revised proposal does not include
the previously proposed office uses.
t)5-U
Details of the Alternative Development Proposal are summarized below:
Total Residential Units: 607
Four-Storey Apartment Units: 305
Three-Storey Stacked Townhouses: 302
921 parking spaces
Density: 61 units per acre (151 units per hectare)
Floor Space Index: 1.40
Conveyance of 0.59 hectare of floodplain lands to public ownership
The Alternative Development Proposal, in comparison to the OMB approved
development, is a significant reduction to the number of dwelling units and building
height, including:
• A reduction of 185 residential dwelling units, which results in the removal of five,
twenty-storey high rise apartment buildings, one, twelve-storey high rise
apartment building and a reduction in building height by sixteen storeys
• Removal of one, seven-storey office building
•
Removal of 42 live/work units
• A reduction of 862 parking spaces
Scale of Development
The overall scale, magnitude and density of the Royalcliff ADP are significantly reduced
from the Royalcliff proposal that was approved by the OMB. The ADP is
complementary to the existing community, as the height of the four-storey apartments
(total height of 17 metres) and three-storey townhouses (total height 14.7 metres)
respect the existing low-rise character of the immediate neighbourhood.
Urban Design
The proposed architectural design of the apartments and townhouses incorporates a
highly articulated facade and upscale architectural materials (i.e. stone and brick - refer
to Figures 1 and 2).
Both the apartment and townhouse units are to be oriented toward the street edges of
Sandalwood Parkway, Conestoga Drive and Loafer's Lake Lane (refer to Map 2). The
building configuration proposed for the site will visually address the northwest corner of
the Sandalwood Parkway and Conestoga Drive intersection. The ADP Minutes of
Settlement will include the attached plans and figures to ensure the same type and high
quality design is proposed through a future site plan application.
D6->
Landscaping
A Master Landscape Plan has also been submitted with the ADP (refer to Map 3). The
landscape plan illustrates a significant amount of deciduous trees, coniferous trees and
shrubs to be planted throughout the site. In addition, masonry columns/pillars and
decorative metal fencing are located around the periphery of the site. Updated road
surface materials (decorative pavement) are also proposed. A detailed landscape
submission will be required as part of a complete site plan application submission. A
high level of landscaping features/vegetation will be incorporated into the overall design
of the site, which will complement the architectural elements of the proposed villas and
townhouses.
Access
The ADP proposes two vehicular accesses to the site. A full-moves access is proposed
from Loafer's Lake Lane, and a restricted right in/right out access to Sandalwood
Parkway. No access is proposed to Conestoga Drive. The proposed vehicular
accesses will provide appropriate traffic circulation through the site and to municipal
roads. The accesses proposed on the ADP are consistent with the original OMB
approved proposal.
Ontario Municipal Board Proceedings/Public Notice:
The OMB has determined that it has jurisdiction to consider the ADP by way of a
continuation of the previous hearing. It has directed that a public meeting be held for
the ADP before the parties re-convene at the OMB. If Council endorses the ADP, staff
would proceed to finalise Minutes of Settlement with Royalcliff that are consistent with
the recommendations in this report and with the Official Plan amendment and Zoning
By-law amendment attached as Appendix 3. A hearing date of July 16, 2014 is
tentatively scheduled for the OMB to receive evidence respecting the ADP, and make a
final decision.
Staff have followed Council's policy, which are well beyond the Planning Act requests
for notification, and provided letters to residents within 900 metres of the site as well as
notification in the Brampton Guardian.
Next Steps: Planning Process
This report recommends that the implementing Official Plan Amendment and Zoning
By-law amendment documents attached as Appendix 3 be endorsed by Planning,
Design and Development Committee and Council and that these will be presented to
the OMB as the implementing planning instruments.
A site plan application will be required to facilitate the proposed development. Royalcliff
advises that they intend to submit the site plan application shortly after the June 9, 2014
Planning, Design and Development Committee meeting.
DS-*
Map 2: Alternative Development Proposal (ADP)
EXISTING LIBRARY
3 STOREY STACKED
4 STOREY
TOWNHOUSES
VILLA APARTMENTS
302 UNITS
305 UNITS
LANDSCAPE /
OPEN SPACE
TOTAL UNIT YIELD: 607
8
DS-^
Map 3: Proposed Master Landscape Plan
mONT YATO LMC80TE
-fea; ccuue
VlLAOmUfCC
SANDALWOOD
PARKWAY
EAST
"LAfUBCA-fc
.-OMWNTALnON
- r ? a ca.u«5
\
Figure 1: Proposed 4 Storey Villa Rendering
10
DS-ll
CD
c
"i_
CD
"O
c
0
CC
CD
CO
Z3
O
O
"D
(D
-^
O
Oj
-I—I
CO
>
0
o
-4—•
CO
CO
T3
0
Cfl
o
Qj
O
•—
CL
cvi
o
i_
=5
a)
Ll
D5-I2.
CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
Financial Implications:
Development Charges
Development Charges for this development will be applied at the apartment rate for the
City portion of the charges payable. This is based on the stacked townhouse and
apartment villa units meeting the minimum density requirements of 60 units per hectare
and hence qualifying as apartments as per the City by-law. Development charges will
be applied at the townhouse rate, as stipulated by their respective by-laws.
Parkland Dedication
The OMB decision associated with the previous development proposal (see Appendix
2) identified that the Board accepted the argument that there was a previous overdedication of parkland associated with the property and that the new proposal did not
require any further parkland dedication. Nevertheless, the OMB did accept Royalcliff's
'offer1 of slightly more than $1 million in CIL and a small conveyance of land, in
recognition of the intense development form (i.e. 792 dwelling units) that was the
subject of the OMB hearing.
The applicant is not proposing any dedication of parkland nor any contribution of CIL
with the current ADP (consisting of 607 dwelling units). The applicant has indicated that
the CIL and small land conveyance 'offer5 that was contemplated in the OMB decision
was predicated on a greater density. The 'offer' is no longer proposed by the applicant
in conjunction with the ADP. Considering the determination of the Board on the
parkland dedication, staff will be supporting the request by Royacliff for no parkland
dedication at the OMB.
Application Fees
City staff will support Royalcliff's request for a reduction in application fees related to the
Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment application, which totals $123,
851. Staff's support in this regard is based on the view that this ADP is being
processed as an extension to the previous application that was approved by the OMB.
Fees related to subsequent development applications such as site plan approval,
building permit and draft plan of condominium will be required in full.
12
Vb~\*>
OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Matters of Provincial Interest:
The ADP for 607 residential dwellings in a built-form of four-storey apartments and
three-storey townhouses is consistent with matters of provincial interest, i.e. the
Provincial Policy Statement (2014) and the Place to Grow Plan (2006). The ADP
supports the intent of the PPS and Growth Plan by achieving an efficient development
pattern that respects the prevailing community and provides for a mix of residential
housing within the City of Brampton. The proposal will also achieve a high residential
density on the subject lands while utilizing existing infrastructure. The subject site is
located adjacent to existing public services, including transit, community centre and
library. The site is also situated in close proximity to the Heart Lake Town Centre,
which provides for an array of commercial services. The ADP represents an infill
development that makes efficient use of existing undeveloped land. This is supportive
of existing infrastructure, public services/facilities and commercial uses.
Strategic Plan:
The ADP supports the intent of the City's Strategic Plan priorities, in particular "Growth
Management" by supporting the development of complete communities that are
walkable, transit-accessible, maximizes access to public services where future residents
can live, work and shop.
Official Plan:
The subject site is designated "Residential" in the Official Plan. A range of dwelling
types, from detached dwellings to high-rise apartments are permitted, subject to the
policies of the Secondary Plan. The ADP submitted by Royalcliff is consistent with the
intent of the Official Plan policies.
Secondary Plan:
The subject site is designated 'Town Centre" in the Heart Lake West Secondary Plan
(Area 3). The Secondary Plan does allow for a mix of high density residential uses,
live/work units and commercial uses. The ADP is an appropriate residential
development that respects the 'Town Centre" designation of the Secondary Plan.
Region of Peel:
The Region of Peel was also a party to the continued OMB hearings. Royalciff has
provided a waste management plan that will ensure that the ADP will receive municipal
waste collection, as per Peel Region's waste collection guidelines. Staff are waiting for
confirmation from Peel Region that the waste management plan is satisfactory. The
waste management plan will be implemented through the detailed design of the
subsequent site plan application. The Region will also attend a future OMB hearing to
endorse the ADP.
13
D6-M
Parking Analysis:
Royacliff has provided a Parking Analysis Report prepared by Read, Voorhees and
Associates dated April 2014, which has been reviewed and approved by Transportation
Planning staff. The analysis recommends a minimum number of parking spaces based
on dwelling types. Specifically, the following rates are proposed:
•
1.10 spaces for a studio or bachelor unit
•
1.18 for a one-bedroom unit
•
1.32 for a two-bedroom unit
•
1.40 for a three-bedroom unit
The visitor parking rate for all unit types would be applied at 0.25 spaces per unit.
When these rates are applied to the ADP and specifically the dwelling unit types that
are intended for the site, a total of 921 parking spaces (769 resident parking spaces and
152 visitor parking spaces) would be required on site. These parking ratios are
appropriate to satisfy demand for parking that will be generated on-site and will allow for
flexibility in the parking standards for the ADP as the amount of parking spaces will
change if the unit types change. The proposed 921 spaces is a reduction from the
Zoning By-law's parking standard of approximately 1,180 spaces. The parking
reductions proposed is appropriate considering that the site is located within 200 metres
of a transit terminal located within the Heart Lake Town Centre. This terminal provides
an alternative transit option, with many bus routes, for future residents who may not own
an automobile.
Conclusion:
Royalcliff's ADP represents an opportunity to achieve a residential built-form and
density that is respective of the prevailing Heart Lake community. It is appropriate for
Council to support the ADP, as it incorporates positive site development, good
architectural principles and an appropriate transition with the existing community. The
ADP submitted by Royalcliff represents good planning.
Respectfully submitted,
Gavin T. Bai
Senior Develop
Planning and Buildln
e, MCIP, RPP
irectbr of Development Services
Planning and Building Division
CPISO
14
Date |&j s]%\
135-15
Appendices:
Appendix 1 - OMB Approved Development Concept Plan
Appendix 2 - OMB Decision (#PL080144)
Appendix 3 - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Documents
Report authored by: Gavin T. Bailey, Senior Development Planner
15
DSHU
STATIST!
PART
TOTAL
• BRAMPTON
APPENDIX 1
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPROVED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
bmmptoiLco Flower City
PLANNING, DESIGN &DEVELOPMENT
Date: 2014 01 29
Drawn By: A.d.
GAGNON & LAW URBAN PLANNERS LTD.
Royalcliff Developments Inc.
CITY FILE NUMBER: C01E14.024
'APPENDIX 2'
-Ft
ISSUE DATE:
PL080144
April 15,2010
Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario
Royalcliff Developments Inc. & Lake Path Holdings Inc. have appealed to the Ontario Municipal
Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.1G, as amended, from
Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the City of
Brampton to redesignate land at the Southwest Corner of Sandalwood Parkway East and
Conestoga Drive from "Town Centre Designation" to permit "Medium Density Residential"
Approval Authority File No. C01E14.024
OMB File No. PL080144
Royalcliff Developments Inc. & Lake Path Holdings Inc. have appealed to the Ontario Municipal
Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from
Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 270-2004 of the
City of Brampton to rezone lands at the Southwest Corner of Sandalwood Parkway East and
Conestoga Drive from "Residential Apartment B - Section 216 (R4B - Section 216)" and
"Commercial Three-Section 577 (C3 - Section 577)" to residential Apartment B - Section 216
(R4B- Section (216)" to permit the development for 1,443 residential units
OMB File No. PL080145
IN THE MATTER OF subsection 69(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant:
Subject:
Royalcliff Developments Inc. &
Lake Path Holdings Inc.
Protest the levying of fees in relation to an
application for Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment
Property Location/Description:
Southwest Corner of Sandalwood Parkway
East and Conestoga Drive, Part of Blocks B, C,
and G, Registered Plan M-100
Municipality:
Brampton
OMB Case No.:
OMB File No.:
PL070175
M070015
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Royalcliff Developments Inc. & Lake Path
Holdings Inc.
Scott Snider
City of Brampton
Barnet Kussner & Matthew Rea
Regional Municipality of Peel
John Gescher
IDS-IS
-2-
PL080144
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY J. de P. SEABORN
A.
Introduction
The matters before the Board consist of appeals launched by Lakepath Holdings
Inc. and Royalcliff Developments Inc. (collectively referred to as Royalcliff) from a
refusal by Council for the City of Brampton (City) to enact a proposed Official Plan
Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (By-law) in connection with a
development in the Heart Lake area. The City and the Regional Municipality of Peel
(Region) oppose the planning instruments under appeal on the basis that they will
facilitate a project that represents over development for the site. Designated and zoned
for high density residential and commercial development since the 1970's, the parcel
remains vacant. The issue for determination is what represents appropriate
intensification for the Royalcliff site.
In support of the proposed OPA and By-law Royalcliff called a number of
witnesses qualified to give expert opinion evidence, as follows: Mr. Gagnon (land use
planning); Mr. Cherepacha (traffic and transportation); Mr. Feldgaier (housing market
analysis); Mr. Turner (architect); and Mr. Barron (landscape architect). In opposition to
the application the City, called the following witnesses to give expert opinion evidence:
Ms lannuzzielo (traffic, transit and transportation); Ms Given (land use planning); Mr.
Mathew (housing market analysis, forecasting and land use planning); Mr. Gabor (urban
design); Mr. Smith and Mr. Cheatley (land use planning); Mr. Spencer (land use
planning, including parks and open space planning); Ms Pritchard (municipal property
valuation). Mr. Bailey and Mr. Jaros (both land use planners), were called as expert
witnesses representing the Region.
The Citizens for Managed Development at Loafers Lake, a local residents
association, was a participant and represented by Mr. Bokor, who gave evidence 9
including a written submission, Exhibit 78) during the evening session which was
organized to allow members of the public who could not attend during the regular
hearing day an opportunity to provide evidence. Several members of the public testified
in opposition to the proposal to develop the site with high density residential housing,
taking the position that such development represents an over intensification of the site
and the Heart Lake area.
K-R
PL080144
B.
Site Location and the Application
The Royalcliff site is 9.9 acres of vacant land situated at the corner of Conestoga
Drive (Conestoga) and Sandalwood Parkway (Sandalwood) in the Heart Lake area,
which is at the north end of the City. The site is surrounded by institutional and
commercial uses and open space, including Loafers Lake and its associated
Community Centre and Park, Sandalwood Park, Cyril Clark Library, a police station,
church and commercial plaza to the east. The Heart Lake Transit Terminal is part of the
commercial plaza and the site is within one kilometre of the proposed Hurontario Bus
Rapid Transit (BTR) route. There are no residential uses abutting the site and while
vacant, it is fully serviced.
The original application contemplated a development with six apartment towers
at heights of 18, 25 and 32 storeys, six blocks of three storey townhouses and a 17,200
square foot amenity facility. A total of 1,443 residential units were originally proposed
(gross residential density of 145 units per acre (upa)). City Staff were not supportive of
that application.
In an attempt to respond to the concerns expressed by City Staff in its August
22, 2008 Report (Staff Report), (and after a Board sponsored mediation that was not
successful) Royalcliff amended its application in 2009 and the proposal before me
represents a reduction in both height and density and changes, in certain respects, to
the form of development and residential housing type.
The revised application proposes a combination of apartment and commercial
buildings at heights ranging from 3 to 20 storeys, with the exception of one higher tower
at 26 storeys. The overall gross residential density has been reduced to 80 upa
(approximately 99 upa net density) and the total number of proposed residential units is
834, which includes 42 live-work units.
Set out in Attachment "1" is Development
Concept Alternative #3 (Royalcliffs preferred plan, found in Exhibit 32), which depicts
the project, including access points, interior roads, walkways, parking and the area of
open space and flood line (subject to the exact limits of development being established
following more precise mapping). While the concept plan is not before me for approval
per se, it represents Royalcliff's preferred alternative, to be implemented through the
1)5-26
PL080144
planning instruments under appeal, including specific requirements in respect of
phasing the development.
C.
Current Permissions and Agreed Statement of Facts
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1993 City of Brampton Official Plan (1993 Plan)
the Royalcliff site is designated "Residential" and in accordance with the "City Concept",
located in a residential district. A full range of dwelling types, from detached homes to
high rise apartments is permitted, subject to the policies of the applicable secondary
plan. Designated "Town Centre" in the Heart Lake West Secondary Plan (Secondary
Plan), the majority of the site is zoned "Residential" which permits two eighteen (18)
storey apartment buildings, at a density of 419 units. The northwest portion of the site is
zoned "Commercial", allowing for a maximum gross floor area of 30,000 sq. ft. and a
maximum height of 3 storeys. Therefore, amendments to the City's Official Plan
(proposed by Royalcliff in the form of an amendment to the Secondary Plan) and By-law
are required to accommodate the proposal. Current permissions, which have been in
place for approximately 30 (thirty) years, allow for high density residential uses as well
as the proposed office and commercial uses proposed for the site. In consideration of
the existing permissions for the site, and as part of the agreed statement of facts
(Exhibit 25) filed in advance of the hearing, the planners concurred:
•
That high density development in an apartment form compatible with the
host community is acceptable for this site;
•
That office development compatible with the host community is acceptable
on this site;
•
That live work units are acceptable from a land use perspective on this
site; however, there is no agreement on how these units should be
calculated with respect to density; and
•
That two (2) 18 storey buildings and commercial lands uses are currently
permitted on the site in the existing zoning by-law.
l)S-2l
-5-
PL080144
Similarly, the expert witnesses who testified in the area of urban design agreed (Exhibit
39), among other matters, that:
•
The linear distance/spatial separation between the point towers, as shown
on the proposed plan meets minimum acceptable standards from an
urban design perspective;
•
The subject site is part of the Heart Lake Town Centre and as such
higher/high density forms of development as well as a variety of uses as
envisaged by the Secondary Plan that are compatible with the surrounding
context is permitted; and
•
"Towers in the parking lot" typology which is permitted as-of-right is not
desirable.
The site can be developed for high density residential and commercial purposes
under exiting permissions and the issues between the parties were narrowed as a result
of the agreements of the experts, as outlined above. The major difference between the
parties relates to the opposition by the City and the Region to the increase in density
and height that Royalcliff seeks beyond what is currently allowed.
D.
Issues and Findings
1.
Policy Framework and Growth Plan Conformity
Given the Royalcliff site is designated and zoned for high density residential
development the first and primary issue for determination is whether intensification
beyond what is allowed under the as of right permissions is appropriate. In this regard
the evidence was clear that the site is unlikely to be developed in accordance with the
as of right permissions, which have been in place for over thirty years. The planners
agreed that the concept plan implementing the as of right zoning amounts to a "towers
in the park" scheme, a plan that cannot be supported today as appropriate planning or
urban design. Accordingly, the thrust of the evidence centered on whether an increase
in density beyond the permitted 419 units (depicted as two 18 story apartment towers)
constitutes good planning. In this regard I note that while opposed to the project, local
residents and Mr. Bokor were realistic in their testimony insofar as they acknowledged
D5-22.
PL080144
that current permissions do allow the property to be developed with high rise apartment
style dwellings. Their issues concentrated on the number of apartment buildings and
respective heights associated with the buildings as proposed.
While the application
also includes an increase beyond what is permitted as of right for the commercial
development, that element of the proposal was of less concern to the local residents,
the City and Region.
Considerable evidence was provided with respect to the planning history of the
site.
What is however of particular relevance is that the site was always intended to
form part of the Heart Lake Town Centre and identified as such in the applicable
Secondary Plan. Nevertheless, the City (and the Region) took the position that the
proposal fails to conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006
(Growth Plan), the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and particular policies contained
in both the Region and City's Official Plans (1993 and emerging policy in the 2006
Plan).
a) Growth Plan
Pursuant to subsection 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act, a decision of the Board must
conform with "provincial plans that are in effect" or "not conflict with them, as the case
may be". The City and the Region argued that the Growth Plan provides no direction for
additional intensification at the Royalcliff site beyond the as of right permissions (two 18
storey apartments, 419 units, plus commercial space). The suggestion from the City and
the Region was that Royalcliff cannot rely on the Growth Plan to support the increase in
density it seeks. Intensification should be directed to key focus areas, as defined in the
Growth Plan. While the Royalcliff site is listed as a site for intensification under the
Growth Plan conformity exercise, the City argued that it cannot be concluded that the
site can in fact be intensified beyond current permissions. It is just one of many sites
within the built boundary that could be developed to meet provincial targets.
In evaluating the extensive evidence presented on this matter, I find, for several
reasons, that the Royalcliff project does not conflict with and in fact conforms with the
Growth Plan. The site is within the built boundary, is identified by the City as an
opportunity for intensification and the as of right permissions allow for that
intensification. Approving additional density for a site situated in the built-up area and
Xh-ih
-7-
PL080144
already designated for high density development conforms with the Growth Plan. To
suggest otherwise ignores the overall intent of the Growth Plan which is to encourage
intensification throughout the built up area of any municipality. The City and the Region
argued that because the site is not within a key focus area (delineated as urban growth
centres, intensification corridors and major transit station areas), the Growth Plan does
not provide support for the scale and density Royalcliff is seeking beyond the as of right
permissions.
The difficulty with this submission is that the Growth Plan is simply a
framework to assist municipalities in managing growth. As described at the outset, the
Growth Plan is intended to "guide decisions on a wide range of issues—transportation,
infrastructure planning, land-use planning, urban form, housing, natural heritage and
resource protection—in the interest of promoting economic prosperity" (1.1 Context,
Growth Plan, Exhibit 23).
The test that Royalcliff has to meet is whether intensification
of the site conforms with the policy direction of the Growth Plan and that test is met.
Whether the proposal constitutes good planning, taking into account applicable official
plan policies and potential impacts is another matter and a different set of
considerations become relevant, which have no bearing on the issue of Growth Plan
conformity.
Lastly, the City's Growth Plan conformity exercise is not complete and the
planners agreed that the additional 415 units sought by Royalcliff beyond what is
permitted as of right will neither change nor impact the City's intensification strategy.
The inventory prepared by Hemson Consultants (Hemson) identifies opportunities for
intensification outside of key focus areas and outside intensification areas. Clearly, the
City's Growth Plan conformity exercise does not restrict potential sites for intensification
to key focus areas. The inventory identifies sites such as Royalcliff where as of right
permissions are in place; however, it also identifies sites where there is merely an
opportunity for intensification but there are no existing permissions and no application
has been made for an increase in density. One example provided was the commercial
plaza adjacent to the Royalcliff site. Hemson indicates it could be redeveloped with up
to 1000 residential units, yet the site is neither designated nor zoned for residential
development. The Royalcliff site is an intensification opportunity given the current
permissions. That opportunity is not diminished because additional density is sought.
In fact, the City has adopted official plan and zoning by-law amendments necessary to
facilitate developments outside of intensification areas and key focus areas. In short,
lfc-24
-8-
PL080144
the evidence does not support a conclusion that in order to achieve conformity,
intensification should be restricted to key focus areas.
b) Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
Board decisions are required under subsection 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act to be
consistent with any policy statements issued by the Minister on matters relating to
municipal planning that are of provincial interest. The 2005 PPS is a policy statement
relevant to this application. On this matter, I find that approval of the planning
instruments under appeal is a decision consistent with the
policies of the PPS. First,
the City was fair in acknowledging that the PPS recognizes that development under the
current as of right permissions would constitute intensification consistent with those
policies. Second, I accept the opinions of both Mr. Feldgaier and Mr. Gagnon that
additional intensification is consistent with the PPS. In particular the PPS encourages
optimization of the use of land and infrastructure as well as efficient development
patterns. The Royalcliff site is already slated for high density residential development
and in the absence of adverse impact, approval of additional density is entirely
consistent with the PPS and the policies therein actively support the scale of
development, as proposed. Pursuant to section 2 of the Planning Act, the project has
regard to matters of provincial interest and the evidence did not suggest otherwise.
c) Regional Plan
There is no amendment proposed to the Region's Official Plan (Region Plan),
nevertheless conformity of the proposed planning instruments with the Region's Plan
was raised as an issue.
Mr. Jaros and Mr. Bailey, planners with the Region, were fair
in their testimony in agreeing that: first, when the application was initially reviewed
Regional Staff did not raise official plan conformity as an issue; and second, one of the
roles of the Region in participating in the hearing process was to support the City.
First, the Region argued that the applications do not conform to its policies on the
basis that the development is not located within Brampton's Central Area, which is a
defined Regional Urban Node. While Mr. Bailey testified that a project of this scale,
magnitude and density would be more appropriately suited to the Regional Urban Node,
I cannot conclude from this opinion that the project is not equally well suited for a site
that has been identified for over thirty (30) years as appropriate for high density
D£~26>
-9-
PL080144
residential development. Simply put, the Region's Official Plan does not set out any
density directions or targets for the Region of Peel.
Second, it is significant to note that when the Region analysed the original
application (which proposed approximately 1,400 residential units as opposed to the
834 units proposed before me) Staff concluded that, subject to specific technical
requirements, they had "no objection to the proposed amendment to the Official Plan
and Zoning By-law provided that the above noted requirements are satisfied prior to site
plan approval" (Letter dated October 15, 2007, Exhibit 130). Given the application as
revised represents a significant reduction in the number of residential units and
accepting that Royalcliff has satisfied (or will be in a position to satisfy) Regional
technical issues, there is no basis to conclude that Regional Official Plan conformity is
not achieved. It is clear from the record that the Region raised its concerns about the
magnitude and scale of the development following rejection of the application by the
City. While it is open to the Region to raise concerns and support the City in its
opposition, based on the evidence provided the planning instruments do in fact promote
official plan policies. For example, Regional policies urge that development: be directed
to transit supportive locations; promote pedestrian friendly environments; achieve
intensified and compact forms of development and a mix of land uses; and promote
efficient growth while providing for well served communities.
These policies are
satisfied by the project. For all of these reasons, I find that Regional Official Plan
conformity is achieved by the Royalcliff proposal.
2.
Official Plan Policies and Density, Height and Urban Design
The City opposes the Royalcliff application on the basis that it fails to conform to
the Brampton Official Plan (both 1993 and emerging policies in the 1996 Plan) and the
Secondary Plan, and that the massing, density and scale of the project at this location is
not supported by the applicable policy structure. In addition, the City takes the position
that Royalcliff has failed to demonstrate that the municipal policy framework actively
supports and encourages development at the scale and location proposed by Royalcliff.
In contrast, Royalcliff views its revised application as a compromise which has reduced
the density originally proposed resulting in a development that is entirely appropriate for
the site itself and area generally.
D5^2U
-10-
PL080144
The applicable Official Plan (1993) designates the Royalcliff site as Residential,
which includes a full range of housing types. The density range in the Official Plan (Old
Housing and Density Categories chart in Policy 4.1.1.2) permits 31 -80 units per net acre
(upa) for high density residential. Despite the existing designation and the range of
densities set out in the Official Plan, there was a suggestion that an amendment to the
Part 1 Official Plan is required.
In my view, this is a matter that is addressed by
Royalcliffs approach in applying for an amendment to the Secondary Plan. I accept the
proposition that the City's Secondary Plans are incorporated into its Official Plan. As
submitted by Mr. Snider (and supported by the opinion evidence of the planners), Policy
4.1.1.2 simply states that the housing mix and density policies in the Secondary Plans
shall reference the categories set out in the tables. Given the City's various Secondary
Plans are incorporated into the Official Plan under Policy 1.2, "a site specific or
notwithstanding clause in the Secondary Plan would be every bit as effective to address
any concerns about the density categories as a site specific exemption in the Part 1
portion of the Plan" (Submissions of Royalcliff, December 15, 2009, p. 48). Moreover,
the City has not typically required a Part 1 Official Plan amendment where the density is
exceeded.
Instead, as is the case here, the proposed OPA is attached to the
Secondary Plan.
The more significant issue is not the form of the amendment, but whether the
Royalcliff proposal, with the increase in density, conforms to the entire Official Plan. I
find that it does, and in this regard it is not necessary to provide an extensive analysis of
the detailed evidence provided on this point. Suffice to say that the starting point in
considering the policies of the Official Plan is a recognition that the site is already
designated and zoned for high density residential development. No change in use is
requested through the planning instruments under appeal. The current zoning,
permitting two 18 storey apartments, as a matter of law, conforms to the Official Plan. In
this regard, the planners were consistent in their opinions that the existing designation
and zoning constitutes good planning and achieves conformity with the Official Plan,
including the Secondary Plan. There is conformity with the policies (4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7)
that describe the characteristics associated with high density residential development.
While the City's position that the most intensive form and scale of development should
be reserved for the Central Area or Urban Growth Centre is reasonable, in this instance
the land use designation has been long established. There is no question that if a
Vb-TY
-11-
PL080144
change in use and change in designation were proposed, the policy considerations
would be different. For reasons elaborated upon below, I find that the additional density
sought does not result in non-conformity with City policies. It may be correct that the
development will be one of the largest projects in the City. However, that fact has to be
balanced against the reality that the planning permissions have been in place for
decades, the existing permissions and associated zoning represents an out of date
proposal, and the thrust of provincial policy is toward intensification of existing
opportunities. More significantly, accepting that two apartment towers (and commercial)
may be constructed without resort to any further planning approvals, there is no
evidence of impact attributable to adding 415 units at the site that cannot be mitigated.
The Land Use Concept of the Secondary Plan, in particular Secondary Plan Area
3, describes the major elements recognized for the planning area, including: the
Etobicoke Creek Valley as a significant open space system; the new Heart Lake
Community with a full range of facilities; and the Heart Lake Town Centre, which
includes the Royalcliff site. The Heart Lake Area policies stipulate that the Town Centre
(about 37 acres) include retail and commercial facilities, offices, hotel facilities, social
and cultural facilities, high density residential development, and transportation and
automotive service facilities. It also recommends that the westerly portion of the Town
Centre, which includes the Royalcliffe site, be related to a proposed lake creating a
pedestrian precinct.
The Secondary Plan provides for a Town Centre Study (which
was undertaken in 1979), the purpose of which was to set out the appropriate
organization of land uses and densities.
The Town Centre Study was implemented
"through approval of a zoning by-law and the execution of a development agreement.
The amended zoning by-law allowed for a maximum of two apartment buildings at a
maximum height of 18 storeys and a maximum number of total units of 419. The by-law
also allowed retail, office and restaurant uses within the northwest corner of the site
closer to the Lake" (City Staff Report, August 22, 2008, Exhibit 40). Recognizing that
the existing zoning standards and the location and form of the apartment buildings and
commercial space may be "out of date"; City Staff concluded that "with whatever
amount of development is supportable from a traffic and servicing capacity perspective,
and with respect to the City's broader planning policies, the spirit of the original plan
should not be lost" (City Staff Report, August 22, 2008, Exhibit 40).
t)6-2?
-12-
PL080144
What clearly emerged from the evidence was a real concern that the number of
point towers and their associated heights would be inappropriate intensification,
resulting in adverse impact. In this regard, the City suggested that a new concept plan
for the site could be created that reflects an up to date approach of distributing the as of
right density across the site with the result that the towers in the park concept, which the
planners agree is not appropriate, would not be adopted. Attachment "1" (the preferred
development concept) is instructive as it shows the proposed location of the buildings,
their respective heights, and site function. Alternatively, the City recommended in final
argument that a reduction in the overall density and scale of development, including
reduced building heights along Conestoga and Sandalwood, reduction in the number of
towers, including elimination of one of the apartment point towers proposed at twenty
(20) storeys (Building 1B).
Mr. Smith, Director of Planning with the City, was fair in his assessment of the
project, as was Mr. Bokor on behalf of the local residents. In his witness statement, Mr.
Smith stated that "it is my opinion that high density permitted in conformity with the
Official Plan could represent an appropriate development of the subject site provided
complete and satisfactory planning justification was provided. Planning justification
would have to address urban structure, traffic impact, physical impacts on adjacent
properties including privacy, and the ability of the development to physically integrate
with the host neighbourhood in an acceptable manner including density, design,
functional and other physical considerations" (Exhibit 109, paragraph 8). Mr. Smith also
indicated that it had not been demonstrated that a development at a density permitted
by the Part 1 Plan (80 upa) could be accommodated, suggesting that the actual impact
of the development has to be tested. On this issue, I find that the potential impact of the
project has been properly assessed by Royalcliff. Other than traffic, discussed below,
there were no discernable impacts identified in the evidence. The planners agreed that
the apartment towers are properly spaced. Two sides of the development front onto
major roads (Conestoga and Sandalwood) with additional frontage on the west side of
Loafers Lake Lane. The site is otherwise surrounded by institutional uses, including the
Loafers Lake recreation centre, the Cyril Clark Library, and the Etobicoke Creek Valley.
Only a small portion of a residential subdivision is within 120 metres of the site. There
were quite simply no impacts identified in the evidence in respect of privacy, shadow,
K-21
-13-
PL080144
noise or dust, or environmental impacts (subject to final determination of the limits of
development).
As Mr. Kussner fairly indicated, "putting its case at its highest, it is undisputed
Royalcliff has demonstrated that the proposed development will not have certain
unacceptable adverse impacts for the community of which the site forms part" (City's
Argument, paragraph 4). Notwithstanding this submission, the City also suggested that
Royalcliff has failed to demonstrate how the policy framework actively supports the
project. Given the existing designation and zoning and the fact that Royalcliff is adding
just over 400 units to a 9.9 acre site and for the reasons set out above with respect to
the applicable policy regime, I find that the development can be integrated into the
community and impacts, if any, mitigated. While the urban design is compact it is also
sensitive to the surrounding land uses and in fact integrates the site, where appropriate,
with these uses. The site is well supported by transit, linked to the Etobicoke Valley
system and numerous parks and within the site itself, designed to be pedestrian
friendly.
In their testimony, Mr. Smith and Mr. Bokor were both candid that first, the as of
right permissions with two apartment towers is not appropriate development; and
second, the density per se is not the primary concern. The real issue is height (and to a
lesser extent re-distribution of the density across the site). Apartment towers at 18 to 20
storeys are not unreasonable; however, a 26 story tower, even tucked into the middle of
the site, is simply too tall. On this matter, I find that the concept plan should be revised
to reflect a maximum height of 20 storeys, consistent with the other apartment towers.
The original permissions were for 18 storeys. The evidence of Mr. Smith and Mr. Bokor
was that 20 storeys would not be of concern given the high density designation;
however, a taller tower (even with the design that has the upper floors stepped back)
would represent too much height for the site itself and surrounding area. On this point, I
accept the opinion of Mr. Smith and the concern expressed by Mr. Boker..
Based on all of the evidence, provided both by planners and experts in urban
design, and taking into account the agreements reached between these experts, the
preferred development concept (at the density proposed) is reasonable, without adverse
impact, and is not out of character for the area, subject to the one exception discussed
above: the proposed height of Building 3A at 26 storeys. On this matter I find that no
-14-
apartment tower shall exceed 20 storeys.
PL080144
This finding is consistent with the report
commenting on the original proposal (six apartment towers at proposed heights of 18,
25 and 32 storeys) where Staff noted that apartment buildings "in the realm of 20
storeys could establish a suitable landmark for this high-rise site" (Exhibit 40, Tab 83, p.
4550).
Given the agreement between the urban design experts that the spatial distance
separation between point towers meets minimum acceptable standards from an urban
design perspective, the number of towers proposed is acceptable. Similarly, the urban
design experts were in agreement that "locating and orienting buildings along street
frontages is generally appropriate and the use/provision of a three story building
podium/component around the edge of the site is generally a good idea" (Agreed
Statement of Facts, Exhibit 39). The urban design experts also agreed that active and
pedestrian friendly streetscapes are beneficial and further, that the provision of live/work
units promotes flexibility, albeit supporting elements such as parking are significant
components. I adopt and rely upon the agreements reached between the experts in the
area of urban design, and subject to my finding above in respect of height find that the
concept plan (Attachment 1)sets out a configuration of buildings that is compatible for
the site, compatible with the surrounding commercial, institutional and residential areas
and represents appropriate urban design, consistent with official plan policies.
3.
Traffic
The City took the position that the traffic evidence raises serious concerns about
whether the existing and contemplated road network can accommodate the
development. The traffic experts were able to agree that with existing volumes, existing
road configuration and existing signal timing in use by the City, the intersection at
Sandalwood and Conestoga is operating at satisfactory levels of service. There was
also agreement that the widening of Sandalwood as a proposed improvement is
planned to be in place within a five-year period (2015). Nonetheless, the length of
queue for the left-turn at Sandalwood and Conestoga was identified as a concern. Ms
lannuzziello, on behalf of the City, testified that the impacts to levels of service cannot
be adequately mitigated whereas Mr. Cherepacha, acknowledging that mitigation is
required, testified that acceptable levels of service can be achieved once the improved
infrastructure is in place. The City also suggested that a holding by-law regime should
DS-31
-15-
PL080144
be put in place to ensure that the required traffic infrastructure is in place prior to
development of the final phase of development. Lastly, there was a disagreement
amongst the experts on a technical issue relating to the applicable land use category
from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to be relied upon for the purpose of estimating the
traffic to be generated by high rise condominium units.
Dealing with the trip generation issue first, suffice to say that I accept Mr.
Cherepacha's choice of land use category as appropriate. It is clear from the evidence
that first, the category selected by Mr. Cherepacha (combination of categories 231 and
232 versus category 230 selected by Ms lannuzzeillo, which generates more trips) is
reasonable as it accurately reflects the proposed configuration of residential units
proposed by Royalcliff. Second, the category selected by Mr. Cherepacha was not
challenged by City Staff in their initial review.
Ms lannuzziello's Peer Review noted the
use of ITE Code 232, but is not critical of its use. Accordingly in preparing his evidence
and taking into account in any event the overall reduction in residential units as
compared to the original submission, Mr. Cherepacha's selection of land use categories
is appropriate.
In considering the potential impacts associated with increased traffic, Mr.
Cherepacha was clear in his evidence that the road network is capable of modification
to accommodate additional trips from the proposed development. Based on the
evidence presented this is a conclusion that I accept. First, the concern in respect of
level of service is limited to the intersection of Sandalwood and Conestoga and in
particular, the potential that southbound queues on Conestoga waiting to turn left may
block the entrance to the shopping plaza. Mr. Cherepacha demonstrated in his
testimony that the impact can be mitigated if a right hand turn lane is added on
Conestoga resulting in a re-configuration of the intersection with two left turn lanes on
Conestoga, one through lane, and the new right hand turn lane. The infrastructure up
grade would mean that the plaza entrance would not be blocked and the intersection
would operate at an acceptable level of service even when the site is fully developed.
Second, these improvements will be made at the expense of Royalcliff and a condition
in this regard is appropriate. Royalcliff has agreed that holding provisions that reflect the
development phasing requirements identified by Mr. Cherepacha are acceptable subject
to the proviso that such requirements are tied to the posting of necessary letters of
credit. I adopt this approach as a reasonable way to ensure protection for both Royalcliff
D5-2Z
-16-
PL080144
and the City that the improvements will be made, as recommended by Mr. Cherepacha.
Royalcliff has been clear that the new right turn lane and re-configuration of the
intersection with a double left-turn will be constructed at no public cost.
Third, the evidence indicated that while they are not widely used, double left turn
lanes are in use on collector roads within the City. In fact, double left turn lanes were
proposed for the area when the Town Centre Study was conducted in the 1970's.
Fourth, the concern raised that through traffic travelling south on Conestoga will be
restricted to one lane south of Sandalwood is not an adverse impact attributable to the
development proposal. This is the status quo and the traffic impact analysis indicated
that southbound traffic on Conestoga will largely turn right or left onto Sandalwood. In
this regard, Ms lannuzziello's analysis of the double left turn configuration assumed one
through lane and the evidence supports a finding that the intersection operates more
than adequately with a single southbound lane. Lastly, both experts agreed that
Sandalwood is slated for widening within five years. While the original date was 2013,
even with a delay to 2015, there is no evidence to support a finding that the City will not
proceed to widen Sandalwood. It is designated as a Primary Transit Corridor in the
City's Transportation and Transit Master Plan and has been upgraded to a major arterial
road in the 2006 Official Plan. The evidence was clear that with the planned widening
and taking into account the addition of the Royalcliff, all intersections will operate at an
adequate level of service, with the only issue as described above, relating to the length
of the left turn queue. Capacity is not accordingly an issue.
Based on all of the evidence provided, potential traffic impacts have been
adequately addressed by Royalcliff.
4.
Parkland Dedication
There was a difference between the parties with respect to the City's parkland
dedication requirements which it seeks to enforce pursuant to section 42 of the Planning
Act and Section 4 of By-law 41-2000. Based on 1ha/300 dwelling unit factor (provided
for in the City's 1993 and 2006 Official Plans), the City argued that RoyalclifTs
application generates a parkland dedication requirement of more than 7 acres. The
proposal from the City was that approximately 3 acres be dedicated for public
recreational purposes (subject to some adjustment with respect to the limits of
K-33
-17-
PL080144
development, explained below) associated largely in the form of parking for the Loafers
Lake recreation complex, with the balance paid by Royalcliff as cash-in-lieu. The
precise cash-in-lieu figures for parkland dedication were provided by Ms Pritchard in her
testimony. While Mr. Gagnon took a somewhat different approach, Royalcliff indicated
it was prepared to accept the methodology described by Ms Pritchard as the
appropriate way to calculate parkland/cash-in-lieu requirements, should any contribution
be required or volunteered.
The real difference between the parties is whether, in light of the history of the
development of the Villages of Heart Lake, the City is entitled to any parkland
dedication.
The Heart Lake West community was planned and subdivided in the
1970s's. With respect to these lands, a 1973 subdivision agreement was entered into
and amended in 1980 when the zoning for the Royalcliff site was finalized with the as of
right permissions (two apartments and commercial space). Royalcliff's position was
simply that the Villages of Heart Lake Plan of subdivision was over dedicated by about
45.5 acres and once the 7 acres the City now seeks is off-set, there remains an overdedication. Mr. Snider submitted that even "this is a conservative calculation since the
total parkland requirement should be based only on the additional density proposed
through the Royalcliff application since it is clear from the history and various
subdivision agreements that the as of right permissions were already accommodated by
the dedications made through the subdivision approval process." (Royalcliff
Submissions, p. 86). In this regard, Mr. Snider proposes that my order be withheld to
allow Royalcliff to enter into an agreement with the City to dedicate, in conjunction with
the final approval of the Official Plan, zoning by-law amendment and site plan a
dedication of approximately 1.3 acres of parkland (Area of Open Space "A" of 0.82
acres and Area of Open Space "B" of 0.47 acres) as depicted an Attachment "1" plus a
cash payment of $1,093,397.02.
As indicated at the outset, the City is seeking 3 acres of the site for a parking lot
to improve existing facilities at Loafers Lake Community Centre and plus a cash
contribution to represent the balance of the dedication it seeks. I find that the City's
position in this regard is not tenable.
First, pursuant to Section 42(7) of the Planning Act and consistent with the
provisions of By-law 41-2000, if there has been a prior conveyance of land or cash-in­
xt?*v\
-18-
PL080144
lieu of parkland, a municipality is restricted from seeking an additional conveyance,
unless there has been a change in the development that increases the density or where
there is a change in land use. The City initially argued that this exception did not apply
on the basis that it had no evidence to suggest that the lands subject to the Royalcliff
application had ever contributed parkland dedication requirements. Yet in the course of
the hearing it became clear, after extensive evidence and the production of certain
documents, that the lands were in fact subject to a prior subdivision agreement and
through that process parkland was conveyed to the municipality. As a result, Mr.
Spencer on behalf of the City acknowledged that it was reasonable for Roylacliff to take
the position this prior conveyance satisfies parkland dedication requirements. Second,
as submitted by Mr. Snider, the restrictions in "Section 4 of By-law 41-2000 would
prevent the City from requesting an additional conveyance merely because the
development of the land was delayed. The development of the Royalcliff site has,
indeed, been delayed but that delay cannot be used to require the dedication of more
parkland when there was a large over dedication of parkland through the subdivision
process" (Royalcliff Submissions, p. 91). Third, Mr. Kussner argued that changes in the
legislation suggest that the right under Section 42(7) of the Planning Act to a credit in
respect of dedications does not apply if that dedication was imposed under a pre-1994
subdivision agreement or other pre-1994 agreement. I do not accept this interpretation
as it is contrary to what Mr. Spencer, the City witness on this matter, originally stated in
his witness statements. Mr. Spencer was clear the real concern was a lack of evidence
proving past conveyances. If conveyances made before 1994 cannot be used as a
credit, then whether a conveyance had been made in connection with the original
subdivision agreement would not have been relevant to the City. Its position would
have been articulated much more simply, and it would not have been necessary for
Royalcliff to undertake the extensive land registry searches to convince the City that
prior conveyances had in fact been made.
Last, even if the City were entitled to a dedication, paving over 3 acres of a 10
acre site to provide for extensive parking is not an efficient use of vacant land where the
existing permissions allow for high density development. Royalcliffs proposal as set out
in its preferred concept plan has the potential to generate some additional parking for
the recreationi centre. That, coupled with its offer of cash-in-lieu, represents an
appropriate contribution to assist in solving the City's parking concerns for the existing
D6-35
-19-
PL080144
community centre. I find therefore that the dedication/a cash-in-lieu payment proposed
by Royalcliff is appropriate and my order is withheld pending an offer to this effect
(Royalcliff submissions paragraphs 194 and 195).
5.
Limits of Development
The other significant matter between the parties was in respect of the limits of
development, which cannot be finally determined until the location of the flood line is
resolved and mapped. In accordance with a joint submission dated December 3, 2009
Royalcliff, the City and the Region arrived at an agreement with respect to how this
matter can best be handled. In essence, Counsel agreed that my decision in respect of
the other issues and evidence should be "strictly without prejudice to the positions of
the parties respecting the ultimate resolution of the limits of development issue and the
final determination of the developable area and resulting yield on that basis".
I accept
this submission and find that my decision is subject to the agreement reached between
the parties in this regard.
E.
Fees Appeal
Royalcliff protested the levying of fees in relation to its application for official plan
and zoning by-law amendments, and that matter was before me.
However, Counsel
advised prior to the conclusion of the hearing that this matter is resolved and the appeal
was withdrawn.
F.
Decision and Order
In arriving at my decision, I note that the entire development is subject to site
plan control. Accordingly, additional holding provisions (with the exception of Royalcliffs
submission as is relates to road improvements, referred to above) as suggested by the
City and supported by the Region, are unnecessary. The project will be phased in any
event, and detailed design, including landscaping for example will be addressed through
the site plan process. I have also had regard to section 2.1 of the Planning Act and the
decision of Council.
The City chose to designate and zone the site for high-density
development over thirty years ago. The increase in density proposed by Royalcliff is
entirely consistent with provincial objectives to make the best use of existing sites, in the
absence of impact. The project, taken as a whole, constitutes good planning.
W-3L
-20-
PL080144
The appeals are allowed and the parties are directed to prepare an Official Plan
Amendment to the Heart Lake West Secondary Plan and a Zoning By-law Amendment
in accordance with Alternative #3 (Exhibit 32 and Attachment "1"), subject to the
direction that Building 3A shall not exceed 20 storeys and the increase in density
beyond the as of right permissions may not exceed what is proposed by Royalcliff.
The Board's Order is withheld in light of the outstanding matter in respect of the
limits of development and finalization of the wording of the Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment required to implement this decision.
If the parties cannot
agree on the wording of these instruments, I may be spoken to.
"J. de P. Seaborn"
J. de P. SEABORN
VICE CHAIR
t£-^
'APPENDIX 3' - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Documents
AMENDMENT
to the Official Plan of the
City of Brampton Planning Area
D6-3*
AMENDMENT
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF BRAMPTON PLANNING AREA
1.0
Purpose:
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the Heart Lake West Secondary
Plan to add site specific policies to apply to the Town Centre designation on the
west side of Conestoga Road. The site-specific policies permit low-rise, highdensity residential uses with a specified maximum number of residential units.
The Town Centre designation on the west side of Conestoga Drive is refined with
this amendment to reflect the approved delineation between the Urban Public
Open Space and Town Centre designations.
2.0
Location:
The lands subject to this amendment are located on the north-west corner of
Conestoga Drive and Sandalwood Parkway and have an area of approximately 4
hectares, and are located in part of Lot 14, Concession 1 in the City of Brampton.
3.0
Amendments and Policies Relative Thereto:
3.1
The document known as the Official Plan of the City of Brampton Planning
Area is hereby amended:
(1)
by adding this amendment to the list of amendments pertaining to
Secondary Plan Area Number 3: The Heart Lake West Secondary
Plan as set out in Part II: Secondary Plans.
D5-31
3.2
The portions of the document known as the Consolidated Official Plan of
the City of Brampton Planning Area which remain in force, being Chapter
C35 of Section C and Part C thereof, as they relate to the Heart Lake
West Secondary Plan (Part Two Secondary Plans), as amended, are
hereby further amended:
(1)
by defining on Plate No. 2 the lands designated "Town Centre" on
the west side of Conestoga Drive, as shown on Schedule A to this
amendment.
(2)
by deleting from Section 2.2, Town Centre, the final four (4)
paragraphs and replacing therewith the following:
"2.2.1 Town Centre Designation on the West Side of Conestoga Drive
2.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the housing policies of sections 2.4 and 3.1 of
Chapter C35 of Section C and Part C in this Secondary Plan and
the housing mix and residential density categories of Section
4.1.1.2 of the Official Plan, the approximately 3.4 hectares of land
designated Town Centre on the west side of Conestoga Drive is
permitted to be developed, used and maintained with mid-rise
residential apartments and stacked, back to back townhouse units,
uses, subject to the following:
a) Maximum number of residential dwelling units - 607
b) Maximum building height - 4 storeys;
D5-HD
c) Maximum Floor Space Index - 1.47 (exclusive of building floor
areas utilized for: building maintenance or service/mechanical
equipment, common areas including recreational amenity areas,
storage, loading and parking).
2.2.1.2
A 10 metre wide environmental buffer shall be maintained on lands
designated Town Centre from abutting lands designated and zoned
for open space and flood hazard purposes. No buildings or
structures including underground structures are permitted within the
10 metre buffer with the exception of landscaping, landscape
structures and multi-purpose pathways.
2.2.1.3
The development of the lands shall have high quality urban design
and appropriate site function attributes, including the following:
• Able to be a compact and efficient urban form, sensitive to and
integrating with surrounding permitted uses and to define the
residential town centre of the Villages of Heart Lake;
• Incorporate building massing and architecture appropriate for
the Villages of Heart Lake town centre;
• An attractive built environment with high quality landscape
treatment;
• A safe environment for residents and visitors including open and
well lit surface and underground parking areas;
D5-WI
Convenient, safe and efficient vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
access for site residents and employees;
The majority of parking spaces maintained in a functional and
safe underground garage with lay by and visitor parking
provided on the surface of the site."
January 17, 2014
D5-H2.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
PURPOSE OF THE OFFICAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The purpose of the OP
-2006 is to amend the Heart Lake West Secondary Plan
(Area 3) pursuant to an application by Royalcliff Developments Inc. & Lake Path
Holdings Inc. (City File: C01E14.024).
EFFECT OF OFFICAIL PLAN AMENDMENT
The effect of OP
-2006 is to amend the Heart Lake West Secondary Plan along
with associated provisions to permit the use of the lands for RESIDENTIAL and OPEN
SPACE purposes.
LOCATION OF THE LANDS AFFECTED
The lands affected by OP
-2006 are located at the northwest corner of
Sandalwood Parkway and Conestoga Drive within the Heart Lake West Secondary Plan
(Area 3).
Any further inquiries or questions should be directed to Paul Snape, City of Brampton,
Planning and Infrastructure Services Department - (905) 874-2063.
DS-HS
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT_
File No. C01E14.024ZBLA
SCHEDULE A
©IGagnon
BRAMPTON
PART LOT 14, CONCESSION 1 E.H.S.
CITY OF BRAMPTON
21 Queen Street East
Suite 500
Brampton, ON
L6W 3P1
P (905) 796 - 5790
Drawn by: LK
&Law
Dale: January 16, 2014
.-:
3601 Highway 7 East
Suite 310
Toll Free
1 (855)771-7266
vAW.gagnonlawurbanplanners.com
Markham, ON
L3R 0M3
P (905) 477 - 6556
K>-m
To amend By-law 270-2004, as amended
1.
By-law 270-2004, as amended, is hereby further amended:
(1) by changing Schedule A thereto, the zoning designation of the lands as
shown outlined on Schedule A to this by-law:
From:
To:
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT B -
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT B
SECTION 216 (R4B - SECTION 216);
SECTION 216 (R4B - SECTION 216);
AND,
AND,
COMMERCIAL THREE - SECTION
OPEN SPACE (OS).
577 (C3 - SECTION 577).
(2) by deleting sections R4B - SECTION 216 and C3 - SECTION 577 and
replacing therewith the following:
"216 The lands designated R4B - SECTION 216 on Schedule A to this
by-law:
216.1 Shall only be used for the following purposes:
(1)
Apartment Dwelling
(2)
Back-to-back Stacked Townhouse Dwelling
(3)
Accessory uses to those permitted uses.
216.2 Shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:
(1)
Minimum Lot Width - No requirement
(2)
Setbacks
1. Minimum Building Setback from:
a) Sandalwood Parkway - 2.5 metres
b) Conestoga Drive - 2.5 metre
D5-45"
c) Loafers Lake Lane - 2.5 metres
d) An Open Space Zone - 10.0 metres.
2. A minimum setback of 0.0 metres from Sandalwood
Parkway, Conestoga Drive and Loafers Lake Lane is
permitted for below grade parking structures and
accessory structures thereto such as ventilation shafts
and stair enclosures.
3. No accessory buildings, structures, swimming pools or
recreational facilities, above or below ground, shall be
located within 10.0 metres of an Open Space Zone with
the exception of grade related landscaping, landscape
structures and multi-purpose pathways.
(3) Encroachments:
1. Porches, stairs, balconies, canopies or decks with or
without a foundation may encroach into the stipulated
building setbacks along Sandalwood Parkway,
Conestoga Drive and Loafers Lake Lane up to a
maximum of 1.5 metres.
(4) Minimum Building Separation - 3.0 metres
(5) Maximum Lot Coverage - 42% of the lot area
(6) Minimum Landscaped Open Space - 40% of the lot area
(7) Maximum Number of Residential Dwelling Units - 607
(8) Maximum Building Height:
1. Apartment Dwelling - 4 storeys or 17.0 metres
2. Back-to-back Stacked Townhouse Dwelling - 3 storeys or
14.7 metres
(9) Maximum Floor Space Index - 1.47 (exclusive of building
floor areas utilized for: building maintenance or service/
mechanical equipment, common areas including recreational
amenity areas, storage, loading and parking).
Tfc-Mu
(10) Minimum Parking Spaces:
1. Resident Spaces - 1.0 parking space per unit
2. Visitor Spaces - 0.25 parking spaces per unit
3. A maximum of 41 Visitor Spaces shall be surface spaces
(11) For the purposes of this by-law, any building level located
more than 50% below average finished surface elevation at
the outside front walls of any building or structure facing a
public or private street or located above the top storey that
provides direct access to or forms part of roof top amenity
areas shall not be considered a storey.
(12) Outdoor storage of residential waste shall be permitted
anywhere on the lot provided that it is located in a
designated screened staging area.
(13) Loading spaces shall be permitted to be located external to
buildings and be located at grade.
(14) For the purposes of this by-law, Back-to-back Stacked
Townhouse Dwelling shall mean a building containing four
(4) or more dwelling units where each dwelling unit is
separated horizontally and vertically from another dwelling
unit by a common wall and may not have side or rear yards.
(15) All lands zoned Residential Apartment B (R4B) - Section
216 shall be treated as one lot for zoning purposes.
January 17, 2014
t>S-H>
EXPLANATORY NOTE
THE PRUPOSE OF BY-LAW
-14
The purpose of the By-law
-14 is to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law270­
2004, as amended, pursuant to an application by Royalcliff Development Inc. & Lake
Path Holdings Inc. (City File: C01E14.024).
EFFECT OF THE BY-LAW
The effect of the By-law
-14 is to permit the use of the lands for RESIDENTIAL
and OPEN SPACE purposes.
LOCATION OF THE LANDS AFFECTED
The lands affected by By-law
-14 are located at the northwest corner of
Sandalwood Parkway East and Conestoga Drive within the Heart Lake West Secondary
Plan (Area 4).
Any further inquiries or questions should be directed to Paul Snape, City of Brampton,
Planning and Infrastructure Services Department - (905) 874-2063.
Xfr-Uft
EXTRACT FROM PLATE No. 2 OF CHAPTER C35 OF SECTION C AND PART C
OF THE DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE HEART LAKE WEST SECONDARY PLAN
SUBJECT SITE
TOWN CENTRE
URBAN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
\\\
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL^^*-neTACRE)S
ACRE)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MAX. 21-25 UNITS
PER NET ACRE)
Fi!eNo.C01E-M.024OPA A
SCHEDULE A
PART LOT 14, CONCESSION 1 E.H.S.
CITY OF BRAMPTON
Drawn by: LK
©"IGagnon
21 Queen Slreet East
_J
&l Law
Suite 500
Brampton, ON
L6W 3P1
P (905) 796 - 5790
Date: January 16,2014
MARKHAM
3601 Highway 7 East
Suite 310
Toll Free
1 (855)771-7266
vAw.gagnonlawurbanplanners.com
Markham, ON
L3R 0M3
P (905) 477 - 6556