Loading...
MINUTES - Special Council - 19861126MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE BOARDROOM AT THE YORK REGION BOARD OF EDUCATION, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 AT 7:30P.M. Present Were: Mayor West; Councillors Barker, Buck (7:40p.m.), Jones, McKenzie, Paivio (7:37p.m.), Pedersen, Timpson and Weller. Also in attendance were K.B. Rodger, Chief Administrative Officer; C. E. Gowan, Clerk; L. Allison, Deputy Clerk; and S. Seibert, Director of Planning. Mayor West ad vi sed those present that this meeting had been called as a Pub 1 i c Meeting with respect to applications for amendment to the Zoning By-law for 604704 Ontario Inc., Paul and Lynn Shiner, and Chris and Carrie Loukras. The Deputy Clerk advised that the required notices of meeting were mailed on October 15, 1986 by First Class mail, to addresses within 120 metres of the areas, as shown on the last revised assessment roll of the Town of Aurora to which the By-laws would apply. The necessary signs were posted on the various properties in accordance with the rules of procedure under The Planning Act (1983). Mayor West advised that any persons who wished further notice of the passage of the By-laws under consideration should sign the forms available before they leave the meeting. The public meeting to consider Application Z-35-86 began and Mayor West requested Mrs. Seibert to outline her report. Proposal -Application No. Z-35-86 (604704 Ontario Inc.) Location The subject lands are located on the west side of Yonge Street North, 100 m (328 feet) south of Orchard Heights Boulevard. Proposal The applicant proposes to amend the zoning category applying to the subject 1 ands from "C3 -Service Commercia 1 (Urban)" to "C4 -. Shopping Centre Commercial" to allow the plaza presently under construction to acquire the uses permitted in the "C4" zone. A 1 ist of permitted uses in the "C2", "C3" and "C4" zones is attached as 'Appendix I'. Official Plan The Official Plan of the Aurora Planning Area designates the subject lands "Commercial". This designation identifies and permits three categories of commercial uses. "General Commercial Uses" are those "which basically serve the Aurora market area and which are primarily located in the Central Business District". "Shopping Centre Commercial Uses" are those commercial uses which provide for the sale of convenience goods to meet the daily living needs in food, drugs, sundries and personal services, and may include recreational uses, places of entertainment, offices and retail stores. "Highway Commercial Uses" are those commercial uses which primarily serve vehicular traffic for its economic existence. Section 5 (c) i of the Official Plan states that uses permitted in General Commercial Areas and in shopping centre commercial areas, however, will not be permitted in Highway Commercial Areas. The subject property is currently zoned "C3" which permits "Highway Commercial Uses". The applicant wishes to rezone the property to "C4" which permits "Shopping Centre Commercial" uses. The Aurora Official Plan contains only one commercia 1 designation which permits all three of the above-mentioned commercial classifications, hence an Official Plan amendment would not be required for this rezoning. Agency Concerns The following agencies had no objections: Fire Department Ministry of Transportation and Communications Ministry of Natural Resources Regional Medical Officer of Health Region of York Planning Department COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - 2 - Planning Considerations The applicant has a 1582 m2 (17,029 square feet) strip plaza under construction which is most suitable for general retail and personal service shops (uses which the current zoning does not permit). Hence, the applicant seeks to rezone the property to permit uses which the design of the building will accommodate. From the monitoring of day to day inquiries, it appears that a demand exists for C3 or Service Commercial uses for which the property is currently zoned. However, such demand exists for more space intensive uses such as recreational vehicle sales and automotive related services. In determining the effect of this property obtaining C4 uses, regard should be had for the existing market of areas which are already zoned C4 and C2 - these being other shopping plazas and the Central Business District. At present there are six existing plazas plus an approved 3036 m2 (32,680 square feet) addition to St. Andrew's Village as well as the Central Business District where general commercial uses similar to the C4 uses are permitted. In order to fully determine the impact of this rezoning, a detailed market impact study would be required. Such a study would indicate whether a great enough market exists to utilize the additional general commercial space, and determine any possible erosion of the markets of existing shopping areas. The present Official Plan attempts to protect the Central Business District by 1 imiting the number of shopping centres to one for each neighbourhood. Due to the rapid growth of the Town, expansion of existing plazas has been permitted in some instances. The owner of the recently constructed plaza on the southeast corner of Valhalla Court and Yonge Street has objected (see attached) to the subject application on the basis that it took him two years to fill his plaza and that his tenants are "hardly financially surviving". In addition, there are a number of vacancies in the Central Business District and a large vacant store in the Aurora Shopping Centre. In view of the objection received and the existing vacancies it is suggested that prior to making any commitment on this rezoning the applicant be requested to carry out the market impact analysis discussed above. Concerns: how a structure could be built that was not suited for the uses permitted by the by-law provisions The public meeting on the application closed and Council's consideration began. Timpson: Resolved that the application be denied. Pedersen: CARRIED The public meeting then reopened with the consideration of Application No. Z-39-86. Mayor West requested Mrs. Seibert to outline her report on this subject. Proposal -Application No. Z-39-86 (Paul and Lynn Shiner) Location The subject lands are an 'L' Temperance and Tyler Streets. Temperance Street frontage while shaped property having frontage on both A commercial building is located on the a detached residence fronts on Tyler Street. COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - 3 - Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone the subject 1 ands from "EP -En vi ronmenta 1 Protection Zone'' to "EP-1 Environmental Protection Exception Zone" and "EP-2 Environmental Protection Exception Zone" to permit the conversion of a printing shop to commercial office space, and to permit the continued use of an existing detached residential dwelling. Official Plan The subject lands are designated "Urban Residential" and "Environmental Protection". Agency Comments Municipal Engineer (by letter dated November 14, 1986) We have examined the site and note that the only parking facility is between the front of the building and the edge of the pavement on Temperance Street. To park any more than two (2) cars in this space requires that the cars either drive in and back out, or back in and drive out, to park perpendicular to the front face of the building. It appears possible to parallel park two (2) cars, and that would not require exiting onto the street at right angles to the street. Because of the presence of a hedge immediately north of the site, there is no visibility to the north for a driver exiting from the site until the driver is positioned almost at the edge of the Temperance Street pavement. This means, of course, that a portion of the driver's vehicle is already on the pavement if the exit maneuver is at right angles. Even though traffic vo 1 umes on Temperance Street are not heavy, it is dangerous to position a vehicle part way across the street without being able to see traffic conditions on the street. In light of the above, we must comment that the parking arrangement as presently proposed, i.e., eight (8) spaces perpendicular to the front of the building, is dangerous from an operational point of view. We have examined the street patterns and conditions with a view to making suggestions as to how the dangerous operation might be alleviated. Subject to further discussions, some approaches that might be considered are: i) make the Temperance/Tyler intersection a four-way stop; ii) install traffic actuated warning light on the face of the Shiner building to warn operators of parked vehicles of approaching traffic; iii)install a mirror south of the parking area to give a view of Temperance Street to the north. These are suggestions for consideration only, and are not intended as recommendations at this time. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (by 1 etter dated November 20, 1986) Our review of this application indicates that the Shiner site which would be flooded to a depth of up to 1. 2 metres during a Region a 1 Storm, has been extensively renovated without the approval of the Authority. As a result, this office will be issuing a violation notice to the owner. We would therefore request that this application be deferred until such time as the aforementioned situation has been resolved. COUNCIL MEETING .•• WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - 4 - Public Works The Director of Public Works referred us to his comments of May 20, 1986 regarding the consent application. The Town should now take the road widening from the Temperance Street frontage (5.0 m). It is Public Works understanding that the Residential property is serviced through the Commercial property, through the same lateral. It is my personal opinion that the Residential property be serviced off Tyler Street, if possible. If impossible, there must be an easement taken over the commercial property in favour of the residential property. Building Department (by letter dated November 13, 1986) I guess the situation could be described as "making the best of a bad situation". The owners, Paul and Lynn Shiner have done an admirable job in renovating and beautifying an old "plain" building. In my opinion I cannot see that much traffic being generated to fill the few parking spaces, now available. I think the proposed uses are very compatible, and I therefore state that the Building Department sees no real problem with this application as presented. The following agencies indicated 'no objection'. Regional Medical Officer of Health Region of York Planning Ministry of Transportation and Communications Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora Fire Department Planning Considerations The applicant proposes to amend the Zoning By-1 aw from "EP -En vi ronmenta 1 Protection Zone" to "EP-1 Environmental Exception Zone" and "EP-2 Environmental Protection Exception Zone" to permit an existing printing shop to be used for commercial offices and to provide for the continued use of the existing detached dwelling. This rezoning is also to facilitate a severance of the property whereby the house and commercial building will be on separate 1 ots. Consent app 1 i cation B-5-86 regarding this property was heard on June 17, 1986 and refused for the following reasons: 1. The elimination of the access to the rear of the proposed retained parcel. 2. The close proximity of the parking for the retained parcel to the street. 3. Nonconformity to the En vi ronmenta 1 Protection Zone in which both the subject and retained parcels are located. 4. Uncertainty as to the proposed reuse of the retained parcel. 5. The lack of available parking for the reuse of the retained parcel. The rezoning of the property would address reasons 3 and 4. Under the current provisions of the Official Plan the subject lands are designated Urban Residential and the use therefore does not conform with the Official Plan. The Official Plan however under Section 4.2 allows uses which existed at the date of passing of the plan to be zoned for provided that the zoning does not permit any significant change of use or performance standard that will aggravate any situation detrimental to adjacent complying uses and they do not constitute a danger to surrounding uses and persons by virtue of the hazardous nature of traffic they generate. Staff is of the opinion that the actual change in use i.e., from print shop to offices will not be that significant, however, it feels that more parking demand will be generated by the multiple use building. COUNCIL MEETING .•. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - 5 - The proposed use of the building would require eight parking spaces. Only five parking spaces can be provided on the site, however, the required aisle space of 7.4 m behind the spaces cannot be provided since there is only an average of 1.6 m (5.2 feet) between the roadway and the parking spaces. The resulting situation is one where cars parked on the site must back out directly onto Temperance Street without being able to see oncoming traffic. Our municipal engineer has pointed out that this would be a very dangerous situation. He has suggested some possible remedies, the viability of which ·,/ would require investigation. The Conservation Authority has stated that the applicant has undertaken alterations to the property without a permit and hence it will issue a violation notice. The Authority feels the application should be deferred until the required permits are obtained. The Director of Public Works has requested a 5.0 m road widening, and that if possible, the residential dwelling acquire its own service lateral from Tyler Street. In light of the outstanding investigations required, it is suggested that this application be deferred until solutions to the above-mentioned problems are found. If this application is approved it should be subject to site plan control. Public Concerns: parking demands generated by the renovation of the building into 4 separate units demolition of the house to create parking traffic increase The public meeting closed and Council began deliberation on the application. Buck: Jones: Resolved that a decision on this application be deferred until the various problems cited in the report of the Director of Planning have been resolved. CARRIED The public meeting then reopened with the consideration of Application No. Z-40-86. Councillor Martin Paivio declared a possible conflict of interest in this matter due to his provision of contractual services to the applicant and did not take part in or vote on any question in this regard or attempt in any way to influence the voting on such question. Councillor Paivio left the room. Mayor West requested Mrs. Seibert to outline Application No. Z-40-86. Proposal -Application No. Z-40-86 (Chris and Carrie Loukras) Location The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Bayview Avenue and the Vandorf Sideroad (see Map 1). The surrounding lands are primarily rural with some rural residential and estate lot development along Bayview Avenue to the south and the Vandorf Sideroad. The lot itself is 16.99 hectares (42 acres) in size and is irregular in shape due to an Ontario Hydro Corridor that runs diagonally along side the east boundary. A dwelling, accessory building and barn are centered on the lot with a driveway access onto Bayview Avenue (see Map 2). The topography of the land is characterized by a relatively flat open field area which is currently used for production of crops, a 15 acre nursery, and a horse-breeding establishment and a steep open ravine area which crosses the property at the south end. ',·~- COUNCIL MEETING ... WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - 6 - Proposal The applicants request an exception to the provisions of the "RU -Rural General Zone" and the permitted uses to allow one additional single family dwelling on the property. Official Plan The subject property is designated "Rural" in the Official Plan. The general development agricultural policy in the rural designated areas is to prevent urban and encourage the maintenance of these areas for rural and uses. Farm residences and other dwellings accessory to a permitted use shall be permitted. Permitted uses in the Rural area and their regulation shall be set forth in the Zoning By-law. The proposed dwelling would be accessory to the permitted nursery and horse breeding, raising and training uses. Agency Comments Building Department -no objection Fire Department -no objection Municipal Engineer (verbal statement on November 19, 1986) No objection provided a separate water connection to the Bayview Avenue watermain is obtained. Public Works {by letter dated October 24, 1986) No concerns with this application with the exception that it would request that any entrance onto the Vandorf Sideroad be subject to departmental approval . Other Agencies Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority No objection, however, the applicant should be aware that the building location appears to be situated within an area subject to the regulations of the Authority and that a development permit may be required from this office. Ministry of Transportation and Communications -no objection Regional Engineering (verbal statement on November 21, 1986) Our preliminary plans show significant changes in grade 3-6 metres ( 10-20 feet) on Bayview Avenue at the south end of the Loukras property. There will also be a significant road widening of 15-18 metres (50-60 feet) occurring at this point. The additional accessway would require approval from the Region. Regional Medical Officer of Health No objection provided the installation of a private sewage disposal system is applied for and dealt with on its own merits. Ministry of Natural Resources We have reviewed the above proposal and note that the subject property contains a cold water fishery of the east branch of the Holland River. We are concerned that the integrity of the watercourse be protected, especially since a steep slope has been indicated on this property. Erosion and siltation resulting from construction activities on the slope could detrimentally affect the water quality of this watercourse. COUNCIL MEETING ••• WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - 7 - Based on the above, we have no objections to the proposed zoning by-law amendment given the following provision: a minimum of eighteen horizontal metres from the stream centreline must be retained in a naturally vegetated, totally undisturbed state. Planning Considerations The applicant runs a nursery, landscaping business and standard bred horse operation. All these uses are permitted within the Rura 1 Genera 1 Zoning. The exception is required to permit one additional dwelling unit on the subject property. The dwelling would be accessory to the above-noted uses and therefore would conform to the Official Plan. It should be noted, however, that allowing two dwellings to locate on one property could lead to a future severance for the second dwelling. According to the Consents Pol icy deve 1 opment should be encouraged to to, existing groups of houses. The appropriate for the intended use. for Rural Areas, nonagricultural locate as infilling in, or adjacent size of the parcel of land should be Some consideration should be given as to whether or not the proposed dwelling should directly abut the existing tennis courts and horse training track (see Map 3). A future severance would make this location questionable as the training track is directly related to the principal farm dwelling and horse barn. For this reason the location of the building site should be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of a Building permit. In summary, the proposal would appear to conform the Official Plan. Should Council approve the proposal concerns regarding siting, driveway access, and servicing requirements will have to be dealt with prior to the issuance of development permits from the respective agencies. Concerns: none The public meeting portion of consideration of the application closed and Council's review began. Buck: Weller: ADJOURNMENT Weller: Mayor Resolved that Council approve the application subject to the concerns of the Planner, as outlined, being addressed. CARRIED Resolved that the meeting be adjourned at 8:41 p.m. CARRIED a " ~. Kc:lt~,w