RECOMMENDATION
That the report
entitled "Application by Rodeo Fine Homes Inc. for Secondary Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit Townhouses at 348 Steeles Avenue East and 2
Valloncliffe Road, Files OP.02-110493, ZA.02-110495 and SC.02110496" be
received;
And that the
applications by Rodeo Fine Homes Inc. to permit townhouses at 348 Steeles Ave
East and 2 Valloncliffe Road, be denied.
PURPOSE
This report
provides recommendations regarding a townhouse re-development proposal at 348
Steeles Avenue East and 2 Valloncliffe Road.
The proposal has been revised since the report to Development Services
Committee dated October 8, 2002. The
revisions by the applicant include the construction of two buildings, not one,
and the reduction of the proposed number of units from 10 to 9. Town staff continue to have concerns with
the proposal. The report concludes that
revisions to the proposal are still required to ensure that the character of
the neighbourhood is not compromised.
It is recommended that the applications, as currently submitted, be
denied.
BACKGROUND
Location and Property
The 0.335
hectare (0.828 acre) property is located at the northwest corner of Steeles
Avenue East and Valloncliffe Road. (See
Figure 1) The site is comprised of two
properties, 348 Steeles Avenue East and 2 Valloncliffe Road. Two 2-storey single detached dwellings are
located on the site. There are also a
number of mature trees on the site, particularly along the Steeles Avenue East
frontage and a mature cedar hedgerow, which runs along a portion of the north
property line. The hedgerow is healthy
and should be preserved. The Austrian
Pines along Steeles Avenue East are showing signs of disease and are in
decline. The trees at the corner are
not of high quality and proposed changes to grading would require them to be
removed. An approved landscaping plan
would be required as a condition of any approved re-development.
Area Context
To the north is
an existing low density residential neighbourhood, comprised of large single
detached dwellings on lots with average frontages of approximately 36.6 m (120
feet) and average areas of approximately 1,730 m2 (18,622 ft2). The gross density of the immediate area is
estimated to be 5 units per hectare (2 units per acre).
To the south,
across Steeles Avenue East in the City of Toronto, is an existing low density
residential neighbourhood, comprised primarily of single detached dwellings
that back onto Steeles Avenue East.
Two public information meetings and a Public Meeting were held
Prior to the
submission of the re-development applications, two community information
meetings were held. The first of these
meetings was on February 27, 2002 and the second on June 13, 2002. Based on the comments received at these
community meetings, the owner reduced the number of units from 11 to 10,
reduced the number of stories from 3 to 2, and added 4 visitor parking spaces.
These
revisions were incorporated into the applications submitted to the Town and
presented at the November 5, 2002 Public Meeting. Residents in attendance at the Public Meeting still remained
concerned with the loss of landscaping, amount of visitor parking, location of
garbage and snow storage, and increased density, noise and traffic. Residents also commented on the proposed
setbacks not being compatible with those of the existing homes in the area and
questioned the possible extension of townhouse development onto the properties
to the west.
The proposal has been further revised
In response to
comments received at the Public Meeting, the owner submitted a revised proposal
which consisted of nine units in two separate buildings, four units in the east
building and five units in the west building.
(See Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10.)
The number of visitor parking spaces has also been increased from four
to five spaces. As in the original
proposal, the
existing driveway onto Steeles Avenue East would be eliminated and access to
the site would be via a rear private lane, which would run west from
Valloncliffe Road. Each dwelling would
have a detached garage, which would have two parking spaces.
The Thornhill
Secondary Plan designates the site “Low Density Housing”
The Official
Plan designates the site “Urban Residential”.
It states that the predominant use in “Urban Residential” areas shall be
for housing and related purposes. The Thornhill Secondary Plan
identifies areas where re-development and intensification are considered
feasible and appropriate. This site is
not located within an area where residential intensification was previously
contemplated. The Thornhill Secondary Plan identifies this site as Low Density Housing,
which consists of single detached, semi-detached and single-attached dwellings
with direct frontage on a public street (such as street townhouses). The Low Density housing mix shall generally
not exceed a gross residential density of 14.8 units per hectare (6 units per
acre).
The net
residential density of the nine-unit proposal is approximately 27 units per
hectare (11 units per acre). This represents a substantive
change to the secondary plan policies. Therefore, an amendment to the Thornhill
Secondary Plan to redesignate the lands to Medium Density Housing is necessary,
if this redevelopment proposal were to proceed. The Medium Density Housing provisions of the
Thornhill Secondary Plan provides for densities generally less than 35 units
per hectare (14.16 units per acre).
The Thornhill
Secondary Plan recognizes that additions to the housing stock in Thornhill will
primarily be in the form of multiple housing through intensification of
underutilized sites or areas. It sets out specific criteria
for evaluating residential intensification proposals, in addition to the
density policy outlined earlier. Where
new development is proposed near existing low density housing, it should be
regulated so as to avoid any significant adverse impact on the nearby low
density areas. Consequently, Council
should consider both the on-site and off-site effects of the proposal,
including:
·
The effect upon landscaping, setbacks and other
amenities in terms of both site development and separation or buffering from
adjacent lands;
·
The effect of the height and form of development
so that there are no undue adverse effects in terms of overshadowing or loss of
amenity;
·
The relationship with lower density areas, in
order to provide a gradual transition in height and density, and other
buffering measures; and
·
The
effect of increased traffic and parking so that there are no undue adverse
impacts on local residential streets serving the low density area.
Review
of the proposed development must consider the above criteria, in terms of
compatibility with the established development patterns in the surrounding
area, and the extent to which adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and
neighbourhood can be minimized.
Existing Zoning
The property is currently zoned “Single Family
Detached Dwelling Special Residential Second Density” (SR2) under by-law 1767
as amended.
The by-law permits the following uses on the site:
·
One single family
detached dwelling on each registered lot;
·
Park, playground and
other recreational area under the control of a Municipality or public
authority;
·
Schools under the
jurisdiction of a Public School Board or a Separate School Board;
·
Home Occupations, as
permitted by By-law 53-94. (A Home Occupation must be a secondary use of the
dwelling by at least one of the permanent residents. On Steeles Avenue East Home Occupations may include offices of physicians
and dentists.)
Townhouse dwellings are not permitted.
Therefore, a rezoning is required if the proposal is to proceed.
DISCUSSION
The proposed medium density re-development on
Steeles Avenue East must be considered in the context of the existing pattern
of development in the neighbourhood. To
avoid potential conflict, the built form, massing, siting and landscaping of
any new development should be of compatible character and quality to that
existing in the neighbourhood.
Re-development
should respect the low density character of the neighbourhood
Valloncliffe Road is one of four “gateway” streets
that residents and visitors use when entering and exiting the neighbourhood
from Steeles Avenue East. Any
re-development of this site would not only redefine the character of this
section of Steeles Avenue East, but also have an impact on the existing
neighbourhood and its residents.
Consequently, staff is of the opinion that this site should only be
re-developed in a form that is consistent with and respects the character and
massing of the neighbourhood. To
achieve this, the proposal should respect the neighbourhood’s existing low
density, ground-related built form, which is characterized by single detached
dwellings surrounded by large yards and landscaped open spaces. With some minor modifications the proposed
four-unit building could achieve the desired look and character of a large
“manor home”. However, the larger
five-unit building appears as a collection of
townhouse units, in a form out of character with the neighbourhood’s
single detached dwellings. Reducing the
number of units from nine to eight in two buildings would be one way to
demonstrate greater compatibility in massing and built form.
The proposal
compromises the open character of the community
Although the revised proposal, which separates nine
units into two buildings, is an improvement over the one building ten-unit
proposal presented at the Public Meeting, staff remains concerned that the
open, landscaped character of the community is being unnecessarily
compromised. The concern centres on the
west yard setback and the proposed distance between the two buildings. The proposal does not follow the siting and
landscaping pattern established in the community. Consequently, the open character of the neighbourhood would be
compromised if the re-development is approved as proposed. To protect the character of the neighbourhood, setbacks
comparable to those of the existing homes in the neighbourhood should be
provided. To achieve this, it is recommended that the west side yard setback should
be increased from 3 metres (9.84 feet) to at least 4 metres (13.12 feet) and
the distance between the two buildings should be increased from 5.46 metres
(17.91 feet) to at least 6.5 metres (21.33 feet). This would have the effect of reducing the width of the westerly
building by at least 2.04 metres (6.7 feet).
The east exterior side yard setback, to Valloncliffe Road, should remain
at a minimum of 6 metres (19.7 feet).
The 6 metre front yard
setback is acceptable, and a lot coverage greater than for single detached
homes may be considered
The urban attributes of Steeles Avenue East, a major arterial road, limit
the usability of the front yard as an outdoor amenity area. Consequently, a 6 metre (19.68 feet) setback to Steeles Avenue
East is acceptable. A medium density
development with a lot coverage somewhat greater than the 25% currently
permitted for single detached homes in the neighbourhood may also be considered. The lot coverage of the nine unit proposal
is approximately 36.7%. Increasing the
side yard setbacks and reducing the number of units from nine to eight would
have the effect of reducing the lot coverage to a percentage more in keeping
with the neighbourhood.
Traffic and parking
The applicant has submitted a Traffic
Impact Study. This study concluded that
the trips generated by this proposal could be accommodated on the local and
arterial roads. An assessment of the
number of parking spaces to be provided, including visitor parking, was also
submitted. It concluded that the number
of parking spaces proposed would more that meet expected demand. Staff has reviewed these reports and has
accepted their conclusions.
Additional work on the
building elevations is also required
In addition to the
comments regarding building setbacks, building separation, built form and
massing the following concerns/issues would also need to be dealt with before
any re-development occurs.
· site and building layout, to ensure that the
proposal is compatible with the neighbourhood and that there are no adverse
effects on the neighbourhood in terms of visual impact or loss of amenity;
·
tree and vegetation
preservation;
·
location of visitor
parking and snow storage; and
·
land use, urban design and streetscape issues in
relation to the subject site and neighbouring properties.
Staff has been working with the
owner to refine the proposed building elevations. However, additional work would still be required if a revised
proposal, addressing our other concerns, is to be submitted.
Properties to the west may also have
re-development potential
The approval of this application may establish a
pattern of re-development for the properties to the west. Therefore, in evaluating this proposal it is
important to also consider the effects of extending this type of re-development
to adjoining properties. Extra care
should be taken to ensure that any building(s) constructed on this site
preserve the quality and character of the neighbourhood, as any negative
impacts may intensify with the re-development of adjoining sites.
Site Plan Application
The owner has
also submitted a site plan application for the proposal (SC.02-110496). Site Plan approval for townhouses has been
delegated by Council to the Director of Planning and Urban Design. However, staff is not supportive of the site plan
as originally submitted and is not supportive of the current revised proposal,
and recommends that Council also deny the site plan application.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None at this time.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND
AFFECTED
The proposal has been circulated to other Town Departments and public
agencies.
CONCLUSION
The current proposal does not appear to achieve a
built form that is compatible with the surrounding low density development. Staff has discussed with the owner necessary
changes to the proposal in order to maintain the character of the
neighbourhood. Namely, increasing the
setback to the west property line, increasing the distance between the two
proposed buildings and reducing the size and massing of the larger townhouse
block. The owner has concluded that the
requested changes would either make the resulting units too small or would
result in the loss of one unit.
Consequently, the owner is unwilling to make revisions. Therefore, it is recommended that the
applications as submitted be denied.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure
1 – Applicant/Agent + Location Map
Figure
2 – Are Context/Zoning
Figure
3 – Aerial Photo
Figure
4 – Original Site Plan (10 units)
Figure
5 – North and West Elevations (10
units)
Figure
6 – South and East Elevations (10
units)
Figure
7 – Revised Site Plan (9 units)
Figure
8 – South & East Building
Elevations (9 units)
Figure
9 – West Elevations (9 units)
Figure
10 – North Elevations (9 units)
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie
Shuttleworth, MCIP, RPP
Director of
Planning and Urban Design
|
|
Jim Baird,
M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner
of Development Services
|
