Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-171-82 4 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1J0 TEL.(416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 25th, 1982 REPORT NO. : PO-171 -82 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL - MUTT ENTERPRISES LIMITED PART OF LOT 14, CONC. 1 , FORMER TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE - OUR FILES: Z_-A-2-4-11 and S-P-2-33 RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report PD-171 -82 be received; and 2. That the draft zoning by-law to amend By-law * 1587, as amended, attached hereto, be forwarded to Council for approval ; and 3. That the attached by-law authorizing execution * of an agreement between Mutt Enterprises Limited and The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle be approved; and * 4. That the attached Development Agreement between Mutt Enterprises Limited and The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle be approved for execution; and V -a(�) Report No: PD-171 -82 . . ./2 5. That a copy of this Report be fowarded to the Region of Durham and that the Region be requested to reduce the posted speed limit on Waverly Road (Regional Road 57) north from Baseline Road to the intersection of Martin Road to a maximum of 60 km. per hour, in order to apply a consistent limit from Baseline Road north to Highway No. 2; and 6. That an exemption be granted to Turbo Resources Ltd. to permit the use of the colour red within 150' of the intersection of Baseline and Regional Road 57. N-----—----- r BACKGROUND: On October 12th, 1982, the General Purpose and Administration Committee considered Staff Report PD-169-82 in respect of the subject application for rezoning and site * plan approval . At that time, a written brief was submitted from the citizens of the Roser Crescent area outlining their concerns with respect to the proposed service station (copy attached) . The submitted brief identified three major items of concern related to the speed limit on Regional Road 57, the servicing of the site and the proposed Development Agreement, respectively. In that regard, staff verbally responded to the residents ' brief at the October 12th Committee Meeting, and in response to the Committee's request, the following written response has been prepared, a copy of which was forwarded to Mrs. S. Leetooze, the spokesperson for the Roser Crescent residents. ITEM # 1 : As indicated above, this item, which was subdivided into four points , basically dealt with the Planning Department recommendation that the Region be requested to review the speed limit on Regional Road 57, north from Baseline Road. i I I Report No: PO-171 -82 .. ./3 The residents indicated their support for this request, however they were also suggesting that the Region not just review this matter, but that they actually lower the speed limit and that approval of the rezoning and Site Plan Agreement be withheld until the Region had undertaken their review and actually reduced the speed limit. Staff would note, in response to this request, that speed limits on Regional roads are a matter of Regional jurisdiction over which the Town has little control other than to request a review or to specifically request a reduction. The final determination must, of course, be made by the Region of Durham. In that regard, our previous Staff Report, PD-169-82, suggested that Council forward a request -to the Region to undertake a review of the speed limit and, if warranted, to reduce same. In response to the residents ' objections , staff are now suggesting that Council perhaps could go one step further, and actually request the Region -to reduce the speed limit without the necessity of a prior review. This then would be a clear indication of the Town's wishes in respect of this matter, and not simply a request that this item be looked into. However, staff are unable to concur with the residents ' request that approval of this proposal be withheld until any action has been taken by the Region. The subject proposal does conform with the Durham Regional Official Plan and the proposed by-law should therefore be considered as an implementing by-law. We noted in our previous Staff Report that the access to Regional Road 57 was in accordance with Regional policy. In the long run, due to the future requirement for a raised median on Regional Road 57 running from Baseline Road north a certain distance, the proposed southerly access to this site will ultimately be restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out traffic only. i I TV - Report No: PD-171 -82 . . ./4 This , combined with -the probable ultimate signalization of this intersection and the potential reduction in speed limit on Regional Road 57, would, in the long run, drastically improve the safety of this existing intersection. We note, however, that none of these works can be justified solely by this proposal , and would be necessitated only by the cumulative effects of development in this area. For that reason, we do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by delaying approval of this application. ITEM #k 2: This item indicated -the residents ' concurrence with Regional Works Department comments, as outlined in Staff Report PD-169-82, which suggested that approval of this development would be premature at this time, and that approval , again, should be withheld until sanitary sewers are available to the above-mentioned property. As indicated at the Committee Meeting of October 12th, 1982, Regional Works Department comments received by the Department on October 7th , 1982, subsequent to the preparation of Staff Report PD-169-82, indicate, and I quote: "that, in view of the fact that the proposal is to proceed temporarily on the basis of partial services (i .e. municipal water supply and private sewage disposal ) as indicated on the revised site plan, we would have no objection to the servicing aspects of this proposal ", and notwithstanding the fact that Section 8.4.3.2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan requires industrial areas to be fully serviced by the municipal water and sewage systems, that same section provides that "limited development may take place in these areas, prior 'to the availability of complete municipal services if the industry is of a dry nature". That same Section goes on to further i I Report No: PD-171 -82 indicate that this may only be permitted where there is an adequate supply of potable water and 'that soil conditions shall permit the installation of a temporary waste disposal system which complies with the standards of the Ministry of the Environment. Given the nature of this proposal and the fact that there will be at most two (2) washroom facilities available for staff and potential members of the public using this gasoline bar, staff are of the opinion that there is no requirement in the Durham Regional Official Plan which would require a proposal located within an industrial designation to be connected to full municipal services if not yet available, provided, of course, that all of the other requirements in respect of water supply and Health Unit approvals are satisfied. Based on this , there is no statutory or legislative reason why this development could not be permitted to proceed on the basis of municipal water supply and a private waste disposal system. ITEM # 3: Item 3 of the residents ' brief speaks to the proposed Development Agreement between Mutt Enterprises Limited and the Town of Newcastle. This item was further subdivided into numerous sections as follows: Sub-Item (a) , in respect of Parking and Loading, indicated a need for clarification regarding the areas assigned for parking, and questioned who was expected to use the parking areas and for how long, taking into consideration the nature of the proposed business. In response to this , staff noted that the majority of the site was to be used for landscaped areas, and the balance of the site devoted to buildings and paved areas necessary to the ingress and egress for this iv-- .26) Report No: PD-171 -82 .. ./6 site. There are very few opportunities provided for the parking of vehicles, and the reference to "Parking and Loading" within the Site Plan Agreement is a standard clause with general application intended to ensure that driveway access and any parking areas that may be provided are in accordance with the approved site plans, have an appropriate surface material and are signed and maintained in such a manner as to ensure access for fire vehicles. Sub-Item (b) , in respect of the Grading and Drainage provisions of the Site Plan Agreement, indicates that the residents of Roser Crescent are concerned about the drainage storm surface waste water, where this waste water is to be redirected, and further, suggests that approval of the application be withheld until storm drains can be added to Baseline Road east of Spry Avenue, or to Martin Road, in order to pick up the flow from the proposed gasoline bar and adjoining industrially designated areas. In response to this, staff note that paragraph 6 of the Site Plan Agreement requires that the owner undertake grading and provide for, at his cost, the disposal of storm surface and waste water from the lands in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by the Director of Public Works. In that regard, the submitted plans indicate that drainage of the site will be directed to Baseline and Waverly Roads, and thence by ditch to a suitable outlet. We would note that the Town is in the process of extending storm sewers westerly along Baseline Road to a point just east of the Waverly Road intersection. The terminus of this storm sewer would provide an appropriate outfall for any storm water originating on this site, and in any event, the grading and drainage must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Town and approvals would not be given to a drainage scheme which would adversely impact upon adjacent lands. i I Fv-aka) Report No: PD-171 -82 . . ./7 Sub-Item (c) , in respect of Illumination, recommends that the identification signs be limited to a maximum of twenty feet (20' ) and that the one sign proposed for the south-west corner of the property be relocated to the south-east corner. Staff note that paragraph 7 of the Agreement in respect of Illumination does not necessarily pertain to signs, but is intended to prevent the erection of lights which, in the opinion of the Town, would cause traffic hazards or a disturbance to residential uses adjacent to the said lands. We would also note that the Town 's Sign By-law places a maximum height of twenty feet (20' ) on ground signs, and that paragraph 15 of the Site Plan Agreement binds the owners to compliance with the provisions of the Sign By-law. We would also note that the number of signs proposed is in excess of those permitted by the Sign By-law, however Section 4, Subsection 13 thereof would permit a variance from the specific requirements of the Sign By-law if specifically included within a Site Plan Agreement. To that end, and although staff do not believe that the proposed south-west location of an identification sign will adversely impact upon the residents , bearing in mind the long term development of this area, we would have no difficulty in requesting the relocation of this sign to the i south-east corner of the property, provided that the new location does not interfere with the sight-triangle for the intersection of Baseline Road and Waverly Road. Staff would also note that should the proposed identification sign be relocated to the south-east corner, a resolution of Council would be required to permit a sign containing the colour red within 150' of an intersection of two or more streets, unless located further than 25' from the streetline. Such a resolution would be required in any event, since the proposed sign would be closer than 150' to the intersection. i VV 2(Q) Report No: PO-171 -82 .. ./8 J Sub-Item (d) , in respect of Fencing and Landscaping, requests clarification as to whether or not there will be a fence along the west boundary of the property, and if one is not proposed, that there be a six to eight foot (6' -8' ) high fence constructed to deter children from climbing it, and keep them away from the service area. This sub-item also requests clarification in respect of the upkeep of the fencing, and whether or not it would include joint upkeep with owners of the existing fencing along the north boundary. In response to this, we note that a fence has not been requested along the west limit of the proposal , inasmuch as staff feel that a fence is not warranted given the future use of lands to the west, and the fact that existing residential areas to the north are presently fenced. Staff are therefore not recommending the inclusion of a fence as a requirement for the approval of this proposal . If, however, Council wishes to do so, the site plan can be amended accordingly, prior to execution. We would also note, for the information of the residents , that where a fence is required pursuant to a site plan agreement, that fence must be maintained by the property owner upon whose property the fence is constructed. The Town has no 1 means of requiring the owner of this site to maintain fences abutting his property but located on properties owned by °ma others. We are therefore unable to guarantee that the owners of this site will assist in the maintenance of the existing fences along the north property line, which by virtue of the Subdivision Agreement applicable to those lands, is the responsibility of those property owners. Sub-Item (e), in respect of Paragaph 9 of the Site Plan Agreement dealing with Sidewalks, requests information in respect of the future construction of sidewalks along Regional Road 57, and the Baseline Road. In response to this, staff note that there are no immediate plans for the construction of sidewalks along either Baseline Road or Waverly Road. i Report No: PO-171 -82 „ . Staff note that although sidewalks are not presently contemplated for either Baseline Road or Waverly Road, this does not rule out the possibility that they could be constructed at some time in the future as this area develops and the need increases. Notwithstanding this , the development of the subject proposal , in itself, does not warrant construction of sidewalks along either of these roads, and staff would again suggest that approval not be delayed because of this item. In view of the foregoing, we again respectfully recommend that the subject application for site plan approval and rezoning be approved, as attached hereto. We note, for the Committee's information, that a revision has been made to paragraph 1 of the Site Plan Agreement to delegate final approval of site plans to the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works, in order to facilitate discussions relative to the location of the signs , and that paragraph 9, formerly identified as "Sidewalks - Not Applicable" has been replaced by a new paragraph 9 in respect of the required Road Widening along Baselne Road, as was discussed briefly with the Committee at the meeting of October 12th, 1982. Respect y ed, e I T. T. Edwards, M.C. I.P. Director of Planning TTE*mjc October 15, 1982 I Tv- - .2- BRIEF FROM THE CITIZENS OF THE ROSER ORES AREA RE : THE RE-ZONING AND SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR PART OF PART 19 LOT 14, CONC. 1, BOWMANVILLE, # Z-A-2-4-11 and S-P-2-33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — The residents of Roser Gres. , who are concerned about the proposed service station at the above mentioned location, met Thursday, October 7, to review the staff report from the Planning and Development Department, # PD-169-82, a copy of which was made available to us by Mr. T. T. Edtilards® The following ate what i,,e consider to be valid. observations, concerns, and recommendations, pertinent to the decision to re-zone and accept the site plan of the above mentioned property in alinlication # Z-A-2-4-11 and 3-P-2-33 , your files. Not all recommendations, observations, and suggestions are directed toward the development of a gas bar, but toward future develonment of the area in general. a We agree with the Planning Department recommendation that the Regidn be requested to -review the speed limit on Rd. # 57, north from Baseline Rd. to the intersection of Martin Rd. b We recommend that the Region not ;tist review and file this matter, but review and lower the existing speed limit in order to apply a consistant limit from Baseline Re-. north to highway // 2. c We also recommend that approval of this application of site plan and re-zoning not be implemented until the Region has finished their review. d We further recommend that approval of the site plan and re-zoning, be made only when this lowering of speed limit is actually in force® -';Z(a) TTENI 2: We agree i,ith the position taken by the Regional Works Department, paragraph 5 of their report , in as much as any approval is premature at this time. b We recommend that approval of this application be ioitheld until sanitary sewers are available to the above mentioned property. Perhaps this application can be presented to the General Purpose Committee after the 1983 budget has been compiled® ITEM RE : THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN MUTT ENTERPTISES LTD AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE. a Re: Development Agreement #3 - PARKING AND LOADING We request clarification of this item regarding areas assigned for parking, in as much as who is expected to use the parking area and for how long, taking into consideration the nature of the propsed business. b Re : Development Agreement #6 ® GR-ADING AND DRAINAGE We are concerned with the drainage of storm, surface and waste -ater as it applies to the area east along Baseline Rd. , past Spry Ave. , toward the flood plain, where storm sewers are non-existant , only drainage ditches; and also, west along Baseline Rd. , toward the intersection of Martin Rd. , and Baseline Rd® b-L We wish the works department to clarify in which direction the waste water from the proposed development will flow® We feel that due to the surfacing of the service area the natural seepage of water into the ground ,,,ill not occur and all storm, 11.).rface ai-ld will have P. 30 to run into the storm sewer system® We wish to observe two points at this time; b--ii Firstly, the land on the south side of Baseline Rd. , now occupied by the nursery, receives the waste water from the major part of the subdivision. There are times when the west end of that land is submerged® The existing storm sewer along Baseline Rd. , writ from # 57, connects to the storm sewer coming south along Martin Rd. , then continues south to a prainap;e dithh along the unopened extension of Martin Rd® We feel that if the flow of excess water from the corner lot development goes west, the increase would be detremental to the already soaked nursery lands® When eventual development of ajoining lands along the north side of Baseline Rd. , takes place , thier surfacing of parking and/or loading areas will add to this flow. The lands now occupied by the nursery will then be totally unusable® b-iii) Secondly, the new storm sewer being placed at this time east from Rd. 57 to Spry Ave. , is going to stop at Spry Ave. The excess water will then flow into a drainage ditch east to the flood plain and the creek. The existing water already flows over the banks of this ditch in the vacinity of Sviartzt farm in the spring. Taking into account the low land in that area, and the Fact that the parking area of the Shell Station is now surfaced, we feel that the danger of flooding along Baseline Rd® is already present. b-iv We , therefore, reco).-nmend that the approval of this application be viikheld until storm drains can be added —TV P-4. to Baseline Rd. , east of Spry Ave. , OR to Ma rtin Rd. , S. P whichever will be taking the flow from the proposed Service Startion and adjoining industrially designated areas, ( c Re: Development Agreement ILLUMINATION c-i We recommend t at the identification signs ( TURBO not be more that 20 feet tall. To clarify this, we must remind you that there was , at one time, a tall Shell identification sign behind the houses on Roser Cres. This sign was extremely tall, taller ve beleive than Turbo plans to make their signs® But, none the less, due to the disturbing nature of that other sign, the residents are fearful of a repeat® This is why we request a maximum height of 20 feet. c-ii) We also request that the identification sign proposed for the south west corner of the property, be re-located to the south east corner of the property. (d) Re: Development Agreement # 8 ® FENCING AND LANDSCAPING ( d-i) We wish to have clarified iahether or not there will be a fence along the west boundary of the property, as this is not indicated on Schedule ttCtt , the Site Plan® ( d-ii )If so, what type has been considered. We respectfully suggest that it be tall enough to deter children from climbing it® ( d-iii)If not , we recommend that there be a 61 to 81 fence to deter children from climbing it, therefore helping to keel) them a, ay from the service area® (d-iv) We wish to have clarification on the upkeep of fencing® 61) P-5 . Does this include joint upkeep ventures with the owners of the existing fencing along the north boundary? (e ) Re : Development Agreemeny # 9 ® SIDEWALKS ( e-i ) Firstly, i,,e wish to know, from the Regional Development Plan if sidewalks are planned for Rd. 57, from the junc- tion of Martin Rd. to the intersection at Baseline Rd. (e-ii) If so, we recommend approval of the site plan upon adjustment to allow for future construction of a sidewalk and grassy boulevard along Rd. , 57. We suggest a grass boulevard between the sidewalk and the road because of the heavy traffic on Rd. 57 , as it is a main arterial route. ( e-iii ) We also recommend that adjustments be made to the site plan, for not only -future widening of Baseline Rd. , -est from Rd. 57 (which has already been allowed for in the site plan) , but also for the future construction of a sidewalk and grassy boulvard, as Baseline Rd. , will eventually be developed as an eastb,rest arterial route and will be eventually commerially developed on both the north and south sides. ( e-iv) If sidewalks and Boulevards are not sheduled to be eventually constructedas has been done along Roenic Dr. , we recommend t'!at approval of this site plan be delayed until. t1iis point h as been implemented by the Region. Then, and only then, we would recommend that approval be made Cohen recommendations in our items ( e-ii) and (e-iii ) , site plan adjustments, have been met. I V P.6. We have respectfully submitted thid brief, not to harass those who wish to develope in our area, (we have resigned ourselves to the fact that progress and develop- ment will come) , but to ensure for ourselves and future residents that our neighbourhood be as safe and pleasant in vhich to live as possible. S. Leetooze, for the citizens of the Roser Cres. area. Bowmanville, Oct. 8, 1982.