Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-46-96THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON DN: KAITLIN.GPA C ®T REPOR 1 PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # ��� + Date: Monday, April 1, 1996 Res. #0 W _ If " r1 Report #: PD -46 -96 File #: DEV 96 -004 (X -REF: 18T- 91004) By -law # Subject: REZONING APPLICATION & PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: THE IKAITLIN GROUP LTD PART LOT 28,29,30 & 31, B.F. CONC., FORMER VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE FILE: DEV 96 -004 (X -REF: 18T- 91004) Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -46 -96 be received; 2. THAT the application to amend Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63, as amended, of the former Town of Newcastle, submitted by The Kaitlin Group Ltd., be referred back to staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report pending the receipt of all outstanding comments; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. 1. 1.1 1.2 APPLICATION DETAILS Applicant: The Kaitlin Group Ltd. Agent: 1.3 Subdivision: Bousfield, Dale- Harris, Cutler & Smith Seeking approval for the first phase of the Port of Newcastle development representing 260 single detached dwellings, 53 street townhouses and a 50 unit multiple residential block for a total of 363 units. In addition, the proposal includes three future development blocks which would be developed through subsequent phases of the subdivision. ....2 501 REPORT NO. PD -46 -96 PAGE 2 1.4 Rezoning: from in part Agricultural (A) and in part Environmental Protection Exception (EP) in order to permit the above -noted development. 1.5 Area: Area subject to 18T- 91004: 88.222 hectares (217.99 acres) Area subject to DEV 96 -004: 29.154 hectares (72.04 acres) 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 In April of 1991, Bramalea Limited, then the owners of the subject lands, applied with the Planning and Development to amend Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84- 63 (DEV 91 -016) in order to implement a proposed plan of subdivision. 2.2 Subsequently, the Planning and Development Department was advised by the Regional Planning Department of an application submitted by Bramalea Limited for a plan of subdivision (18T- 91004). Bramalea later submitted an application to amend both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Official Plan for the former Town of Newcastle (OPA 91- 020 /D /N) in order to increase the population allocated to the subject lands. 2.3 The Kaitlin Group Ltd. obtained ownership of the subject lands in late 1995 and intends to continue with the development process started by Bramalea Limited. In the time which had lapsed since the original applications were filed by Bramalea Limited, a new Regional Official Plan was adopted by Regional Council and a new municipal Official Plan was adopted by the Council of the Municipality of Clarington. Appropriate land use policies have been included in the 1991 Regional Official Plan and the newly adopted Clarington Official Plan to effectively guide the review of the development proposal of these lands. ..3 502 REPORT NO. PD -46 -96 PAGE 3 2.4 Although the Regional Planning Department has determined that The Kaitlin Group may proceed with the original subdivision file (18T- 91004) opened by Bramalea Limited, the Municipality of Clarington Planning and Development Department advised The Kaitlin Group Ltd. that the related zoning amendment application (DEV 91 -016) had been closed following the collapse of Bramalea due to the significant amount of time which had passed since the original Public Meeting. 2.5 As a result, on February 23, 1996, the Planning and Development Department received an application from The Kaitlin Group Ltd. to amend Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63 in order to implement the first phase of the Port of Newcastle development. 3. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 3.1 A Public Notice sign was installed at two (2) separate locations on the subject lands as well as in the Bondhead Parkette on the east side of the mouth of Graham Creek. 3.2 As a result of the public notification process, staff have received one (1) submission with respect to the proposal. The submission, which is enclosed as Attachment #3, raised issues such as the financial cost to the Municipality, the lack of a school site on the plan and the enhancement of the existing marina. In addition, staff have received numerous telephone and counter inquiries from area residents who requested more detailed information about the proposal and voiced concerns regarding issues such as density, the destruction of the valley lands and improvements to the existing underpass on Mill Street. 4. OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY 4.1 Within the 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan, Phase 1 of plan of subdivision 18T -91004 is designated in part Living Area and in part Waterfront Major Open Space system. The proposal appears to conform with the provisions of the Regional Official Plan. 503 REPORT NO. PD -46 -96 PAGE 4 4.2 Within the existing Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle, the subject property has been allocated a population of 1100 for the development of the entire tableland portion of the lands. The newly adopted Clarington Official Plan allocates units as opposed to population and has allocated a total of 1075 units for the entire Port of Newcastle neighbourhood. The Kaitlin Group Ltd. has been advised that the entire development of the lands subject to 18T -91004 including future development blocks is not to exceed 1000 units. 4.3 With respect to the design of the proposed plan of subdivision, staff have advised The Kaitlin Group Ltd. of a conflict with the new Clarington Official Plan with respect to the residential units south of Street "B ". The area south of Street "B" is designated Waterfront Greenway and will form part of the municipality's district park along Lake Ontario and a significant linkage for the waterfront trail envisioned by the Crombie Commission. Residential uses are not identified as a permitted use by Section 14.7 of the Clarington Official Plan. 5. ZONING BY -LAW COMPLIANCE 5.1 Within Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63 of the former Town of Newcastle, the lands subject to phase 1 of the development are zoned in part Agricultural (A) and in part Environmental Protection (EP). 5.2 The applicant is proposing to amend the zoning by -law in order to allow the first phase of residential development which would also include a clubhouse for the area residents. The amending by -law, if approved, is intended to include the provision of special zone regulations which allow for the development of a unique community. The requested special zone regulations include: • reduced front yard, rear yard and exterior side yard setbacks • reduced lot frontage and lot area requirements • reduced parking stall • reduced sight triangle requirements to allow for porches on exterior lots ....5 IMA REPORT NO. PD -46 -96 PAGE 5 6. AGENCY COMMENTS 6.1 In accordance with departmental procedures, the application has been circulated in order to obtain comments from other departments and agencies. The following provides a brief summary of the comments received to date. 6.2 The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has not provided specific comments with respect to the proposal but did provide the Planning and Development Department with confirmation that The Kaitlin Group Ltd. has been given a site specific exemption with respect to the provision of a storm water management facility within the floodplain. Standard policy of the Authority would have required the storm water management facility to be located within the tableland portion of the subject lands. 6.3 The Municipality of Clarington Fire Department has advised that the subject lands are within the response area of Station No. 2 in Newcastle Village. Although the Fire Department did not object to the proposal, it was noted that response times would be in the area of 5 to 6 minutes at best. The recommended urban response times is 3 to 5 minutes. 6.4 Comments remain outstanding from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Public School Board, the Separate School Board, the Regional Works Department and both the Engineering and Parks Divisions of the Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department. 7. STAFF COMMENTS 7.1 The Municipality had received numerous technical documents when the original subdivision and zoning amendment applications were submitted by Bramalea Limited. The documents included: • traffic study, including the Mill Street underpass • storm water management report ....6 REPORT NO. PD -46 -96 PAGE 6 archaeological assessment tree survey and evaluation servicing analysis Reports such as the traffic study and storm water management report will need to be updated to reflect the development as proposed by The Kaitlin Group Ltd. and it is anticipated that these revised reports will be submitted to staff in mid - April. 7.2 Being virtually the only landowner in the area, The Kaitlin Group Ltd. has an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive design of the entire neighbourhood. The proposed plan attempts to provide a traditional grid pattern of roads, particularly in the future development blocks with axial view corridors to open space areas along the waterfront and creek valleys. 7.3 The proposal also envisions a variety of housing types and forms. In addition to the standard single detached dwellings and street townhouse units, the applicant would be providing apartment blocks within both the initial and future phases of the development. 7.4 The Kaitlin Group Ltd. is also proposing innovative zoning regulations and engineering standards to promote a sense of community. These would include the special zone regulations detailed in Section 5.2 of this report as well road allowance widths reduced from 20.0 metres to 18.0 metres. The reduced road allowance, when coupled with a reduced front yard setback and innovative architecture which includes the traditional front porch, results in the development being more people- oriented. WA 596 REPORT NO. PD -46 -96 PAGE 7 7.5 Staff of the Planning and Development Department and the Public Works Department have already convened two meetings with The Kaitlin Group Ltd. During the course of the meetings, The Kaitlin Group Ltd. was advised of various concerns and requirements of the Municipality. Staff will continue to convene meetings in the future to review and discuss the development proposal. Among the concerns raised are the following: • financial commitment to construct underpass • amount of parkland dedication with Phase I • public elementary school site not indicated with Phase I • coastal villas and clubhouse in Waterfront Greenway designation • reduced road allowance widths • alignment of Street "A" and Toronto Street with lands to the north • access to open space blocks 7.6 The purpose of this report is to provide a status of the application for the Public Meeting and in consideration of the outstanding comments, it would be in order to have the applications referred back to staff for further processing. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, C Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., Director of Planning and Development WM *FW *cc 120�� - W. H. Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer Attachment #1 - Key Map Attachment #2 - Proposed Plan of Subdivision Attachment #3 - Letter from Area Resident March 25, 1996 Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: The Kaitlin Group Ltd. Bousfield, Dale- Harris, Cutler & Smith 1029 McNicoll Avenue 3 Church Street Scarborough, Ont. M1 W 3W6 Toronto, Ont. M5E 1 M2 507 ATTACHMENT +1 508 - IIIliliil��lllllillll��llllllill J • 1 • . ,,..� „� NO ............... .............. ............: ..............: .............. ............:... .. ` :................ • •.•.•. ❖. ❖. ❖. ❖.•. -. �.--. ME ............... ♦ffffff , , ` Ak Alk • � , , '� NEWCASTLE VILLAGE KEY f�IAF 40 508 'ATTACHMENT 4 1 I Iff 'i I .. I i I t 1 1�. I 0 s a I r _ 1 _ o I g" ° ✓q,° zFzz W _ s62 , i • \ �6 It2Cj Lo— to �3 '� 1!i 3Blt r11 21 - fi r3 v k��+tl i /YL 71 H, 'it It aQ. G`Y � riL? ♦ r r-' � Ir L'� ^ �' � I oft' CO vy �____ _________________ _ __ �zd c - I I o-- -_ - - - -- a it ''y / -•., 1 t 0 4.- i' Y ,g, 'rig E _ I ih `---- - - - - -- I N "V to - 0 133815 _I �I , �e '•Y' ,l J /J/ ! E e Y Y F ILL I ' zss - - - `. I I - 8 13381 13381$ tN00. ' MOl OVO $ —MAN _ all i '_,= oo, raw 33;3 1 0000 , \ y o0 yj 5 i a 1 gg o{�, wa 00 Y2' oln O tl ri A I Ll •09 MAR 2 a 1996 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Mr. Warren Munro Planner Development Review Branch 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Mr. Munro, `Y - ( A y T M uMC N T +3 3715 LAKESHORE ROAD RR #8 NEWCASTLE, ONTARIO, CANADA LIB IL9 TEL: 1-(905) 987 -3587 FAX: 1 -(905) 987 -5133 March 21st, 1996 Re: Revised Draft Plan of Proposed Subdivision - 18T 91004 Thank you for the information you gave me on the Revised Draft Plan for the proposed subdivision west of Graham Creek and the Port of Newcastle when I was in your offices on March 13th. You indicated to me that the area in question had been approved for development within the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and I in turn indicated that while we did have a number of questions that we would encourage the municipality to consider, we would be supportive of a high.quality development in that area. I understand from our discussion that the municipality is supportive of the proposed development because of the potential for the developer to transfer to the municipality an area of green space to the west, east and south, and because of the potential for enhancing the tax base. I raised a number of questions with you at the time of our discussion last week and, since I will be unable to attend the public meeting at the beginning of April, I thought it might be helpful to re- iterate these in a letter to you ahead of time. (1) At a time when deep cuts are to be made to provincial transfer payments to municipalities, it is clearly important to have a good idea of the cost to the municipality of the additional services which would be needed for any new development and the potential for higher taxes for all municipal residents. You showed me that the municipal lot levy for an individual lot is in the order of $5,760 and mentioned also that the educational lot levy is approximately $3,000. This was helpful, but the more important question for the municipality is the cost of the additional services which will be required, net of any 510 4 contribution which the developer would be required to make. While high density development would seem to be incompatible with the area in question from an aesthetic point, the potential for enhanced demand for services presumably increases as density increases and we would encourage the municipality to take this into account in its analysis, comment and approval process.. (2) As you noted, even though the proposed development will be aimed at appealing to "empty nesters ", there is nothing to preclude anyone from purchasing a home there and you showed me where on the draft' plan the developer would allocate land for a school in the second phase of development if this should prove necessary. Given this, the possible future requirement for additional school spaces should be taken into account, particularly at a time when grants to school boards are to be cut in total, and grants for new school facilities can be expected to be severely curtailed. In this regard, you mentioned that the Durham Homebuilders group is presently appealing the educational lot levies to the OMB. This makes careful thought from the municipality on the subject of the educational implications of new developments even more important. (3) It is probably fair to say that all of the local residents, both those here now and those who might move to the proposed development, would have an interest in the continuation of a viable, attractive and well -run marina at the Port of Newcastle. It plays a large part in the charming and distinct character of the area and we would hope that careful attention would be paid to ensuring that. Mr. Al Wilson and his team do an excellent job in this regard and we would hope that the municipality would encourage the Caitlin Group to draw heavily on Mr. Wilson's advice in this regard. We would ask that these comments be public comment process and thank consideration. S' cerely MA L GFORD & TOM CAMPBELL included within your you for your time and