to: development and infrastructure committee from ......andrew ferancik, walker nott dragicevic...

of Report PB-23-15

TO: Development and Infrastructure Committee

FROM: Planning and Building

SUBJECT: Report recommending refusal of applications for Official

Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for 374 Martha Street

Report Number: PB-23-15 Wards Affected: 2

File Numbers: 505-02/14 & 520-07/14

Date to Committee: March 30, 2015 Date to Council: April 20, 2015

Recommendation:

Refuse the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, submitted by

Andrew Ferancik, Walker Nott Dragicevic Ltd., 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, ON,

on behalf of ADI Development Group Inc., to permit a mixed use development

consisting of 226 residential apartment units and 348 m2 of ground floor commercial

development, on the property located at 374 Martha Street.

Purpose:

Respond to legislation

of Report PB-23-15

REPORT FACT SHEET

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse the applications. Ward No.: 2

Ap

pli

cati

on

Deta

ils APPLICANT

Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Ltd. (WND)

OWNER: ADI Development Group

FILE NUMBER: 505-02/14, 520-07/14

TYPE OF APPLICATION: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments

PROPOSED USES: 28 storey apartment building with at-grade retail uses

Pro

pert

y D

eta

ils PROPERTY LOCATION:

Northwest corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street

MUNICIPAL ADDRESSES: 374 Martha Street

PROPERTY DIMENSIONS: Width: 40.6 m Area: 0.136 ha

EXISTING USE: Private parking lot

Do

cu

men

ts

OFFICIAL PLAN Existing: Downtown Mixed Use Centre (Downtown Core

Precinct)

OFFICIAL PLAN Proposed: Exception to permit building height of 28 storeys (86.37 m) and floor area ratio of 12.5:1

ZONING Existing: DC (Downtown Core)

ZONING Proposed:

DC – Exception to allow building height of 28

storeys, floor area ratio of 12.5:1 and reduced

setbacks, parking spaces and amenity area

Pro

cessin

g D

eta

ils

KEY ISSUES: Height, density, compatibility, urban design, parking, amenity area, land assembly, traffic

NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING:

October 9th, 2014

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

10 letters, 118 emails, 6 Neighbourhood Meeting Comment Sheets, 4 phone calls (See Appendix E for emails received since PB-05-15) Note: Some residents submitted multiple letters.

PROCESSING TIME: 6 months

of Report PB-23-15

Table of Contents

Title Page

PART A Background 6

Site Description 6

Existing Uses 6

Surrounding Context 6

Application Details and Processing History 7

Background Reports 8

PART B Discussion 10

1.0 Provincial Policy Statement 10

1.1 Settlement Areas Policies 10

1.2 Housing Policies 11

1.3 PPS and Local Context 12

2.0 Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 13

2.1 Managing Growth and General Intensification 13

2.2 Intensification Strategy 13

2.3 Urban Growth Centre 14

2.4 Major Transit Station Area 14

2.5 Growth Plan Implementation 15

2.6 Technical Report on Preliminary Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan

15

3.0 The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas

16

3.1 The Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines 17

4.0 Region of Halton Official Plan 17

4.1 Region of Halton Review 18

4.2 Halton’s Regional Structure 18

4.3 Urban Area Designation 19

4.4 Intensification Areas 19

4.5 Urban Growth Centres 21

4.6 Healthy Communities Guidelines 21

5.0 City of Burlington’s Intensification Strategy 22

5.1 2006 – Official Plan Amendment 55 22


5.3 2008 – Burlington Intensification Study 23

of Report PB-23-15


6.0 City of Burlington Official Plan Review: Mobility Hubs Opportunities and Constraints Study

24

7.0 Urban Growth Centre Targets 26

7.1 Additional Residential Developments Between 2011 and 2013 27

7.2 Calculating the Urban Growth Centre Target 28

7.3 Recently Approved Developments in the Urban Growth Centre 29

7.4 Upcoming Developments in the Urban Growth Centre 30

7.5 Additional Development Considered 31

7.6 Urban Growth Centre: Total Required People and Jobs 31

7.7 Additional Development Inquiries 31

8.0 Burlington Official Plan 32

8.1 Mixed Use Activity Area 32

8.2 Mixed Use Centre 33

8.3 Downtown Mixed Use Centre Designation 34

8.3.1 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses 36

8.3.1.1 Compatibility: Physical Adverse Impacts 37

8.3.1.2 Compatibility: Functional Adverse Impacts 38

8.4 Downtown Core Precinct Designation 42

8.4.1 Downtown Core Precinct Permitted Density 43

8.4.2 Downtown Core Precinct Policies 43

8.5 Housing Intensification 44

8.6 Intensification Evaluation Criteria 46

Compatibility Criteria

8.6.1 Scale 48

8.6.2 Massing 48

8.6.3 Height 49

8.6.4 Siting 51

8.6.5 Setbacks 51

8.6.6 Coverage 51

8.6.7 Parking 52

8.6.8 Amenity Area 52

8.6.9 Transition Between Existing and Proposed Buildings 53

8.7 Urban Design Policies 55

9.0 City of Burlington Downtown Urban Design Guidelines 59

of Report PB-23-15

9.1 Specific Guidelines Relevant to the Proposed Development 59

9.1.1 Building Heights 59

9.1.2 Horizontal Through-Wall Venting 60

9.1.3 Building Setbacks 60

9.1.4 Building Stepbacks 60

9.1.5 Visual Angular Plane Analysis 61

9.1.6 Tower Location and Orientation 61

9.2 High Rise Design and Architectural Quality 61

10.0 Zoning By-law 2020 64

11.0 Technical Review 67

PART C Financial Matters 68

PART D Public Engagement Matters 68

Conclusion 70

Appendix A – Sketches 72

Appendix B – Technical Comments 75

Appendix C – Sustainable Development Committee Comments 80

Appendix D – Downtown Burlington Business Association Comments 88

Appendix E – Public Comments 91

of Report PB-23-15

PART A

Background:

Site Description

The proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment

(hereafter referred to as rezoning) applications apply to the property located at the

northwest corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street as shown in Diagram 1 and

Sketch 1. The property’s municipal address is 374 Martha Street. The 0.136 hectare

(0.336 acre) property has approximately 40.6 m (134.5 ft) of frontage along Lakeshore

Road and 21.9 m (71.8 ft) of frontage along Martha Street.

Existing Use

The subject property is currently used as a commercial parking lot and it primarily

supports the adjacent medical offices to the west, along with other businesses and

downtown visitors. Using Martha Street as a north-south axis, the surrounding land

uses include the following:

North One single detached residential dwelling (380 Martha Street); three storey live/work townhouses; and Pine Street

East

Martha Street, 5 storey building (Martha’s Landing Retirement Residence at 2109 Lakeshore Road); a 12 storey building (Martha Terrace condos at 395 Martha Street); a 7 storey building (Village Gate condos at 2121 Lakeshore Road); and Rambo Creek

South Lakeshore Road; one and a half storey café; one storey residential/office building; a one and a half storey office building and parking lots

West One storey medical and dental offices; two storey office building; two storey commercial building and Pearl Street

Surrounding Context

Within approximately 250 m of the subject property, the following uses currently exist:

Natural Features Lake Ontario, Rambo Creek, Centennial Bikeway

Low and Medium-Density Residential Uses

Approximately 55 low density residential units (35 townhouses and 20 detached)

Five two and three-storey multi-unit residential apartment

of Report PB-23-15

buildings

Tall Buildings (above 6 storeys)

Martha’s Terrace (12 storeys); The Baxter (12 storeys); 2121 Lakeshore Road (7 storeys); 360 on Pearl (17 storeys); and 360 Torrence Street (15 storeys)

Office / Commercial Uses

Approximately 30 properties, including the Village Square development which contains a wide range of office and commercial uses

Application Details and Processing History

In September 2014, ADI Development Group submitted applications for an OPA and

rezoning to permit a 28-storey mixed use building with 226 residential units and 348 m2

(3,744 ft2) of ground floor retail facing Lakeshore Road. The proposed development

includes:

• five storeys of underground parking;

• one storey of retail uses at grade;

• three storeys of above-ground parking including a section that cantilevers

forward over the sidewalk on the north side of Lakeshore Road; and

• a 24-storey tower component containing 169 one bedroom units and 57 two

bedroom units.

The floor area ratio of the proposed development is 12.5:1 (measured by adding the

retail floor area, indoor amenity area and residential floor area and dividing it by the site

area), and the proposed density is 1,661 units per hectare. The proposed development

is illustrated in the attached Sketches 2 & 3 (Appendix A).

The subject applications seek approval to:

• increase the height of the building to 28 storeys from the 4 storey permission in

the Zoning By-law and the 8 storey permission in the Official Plan

• increase the density on the property to 12.5:1 from the 4.0:1 floor area ratio

permitted in the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan

• reduce the amount of parking to 218 spaces from the 283 spaces required in the

Zoning By-law

• reduce the amount of amenity area to 981 m2 from the 4,520 m2 required in the

Zoning By-law

• reduce the setbacks from Lakeshore and Martha Street for various floors of the

proposed development from the requirements in the Zoning By-law

• reduce the landscape buffer abutting a residential zone to 0 m from the 3 m

required in the Zoning By-law

of Report PB-23-15

On September 24, 2014, Planning and Building staff acknowledged that complete

applications had been received. Staff initiated the public circulation in late September

2014 and the City scheduled a neighbourhood meeting that was held on October 9,

2014 at the Burlington Art Gallery and attended by approximately 125 residents.

Following the public meeting, staff initiated the technical circulation. The statutory

public meeting took place at the Development & Infrastructure Committee meeting held

on January 19, 2015. Staff information report PB-05-15 was presented at this meeting

and included the public comments regarding the proposed development that were

received by the planning department. Additional public comments received since

January have been attached as Appendix E to this report.

City Council received and filed report PB-05-15 on January 26, 2015. Following the

statutory public meeting, staff met with the applicant and their consulting team on

February 9, 2015 to discuss technical issues and planning concerns with the

development proposal. At this meeting, ADI indicated they would not be amending their

applications to address any of these concerns, except for removing the cantilevered

portion of the building over the City’s property. At the time of writing this report, no

revised drawings have been submitted to the City to address this issue.

Background Reports

The applicant has submitted the following technical reports and plans listed below in

support of the applications. These reports were circulated to technical staff and

agencies for review and comment and posted on the City’s website to facilitate public

review.

1. Planning Justification Report (prepared by WND Associates, September 2014)

2. Functional Servicing Report (prepared by Urbantech West, August 2014)

3. Geotechnical Investigation (prepared by Landtek Limited, February 2014)

4. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Landtek Limited,

February 2014)

5. Traffic Impact Study (prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd.,

August 2014)

6. Noise Feasibility Study (prepared by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Ltd., September

2014)

7. Pedestrian Wind Study (prepared by Novus Environmental, August 2014)

8. Shadow Studies (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)

9. Site Plan (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)

10. Tree Inventory & Preservation Study (prepared by Adesso Design Inc., June

2014)

11. Floor Plans (P1-P5, Levels 1-28, Rooftop Terrace Plan and Roof Plan)

12. Elevations (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)

13. Sections (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)

of Report PB-23-15

14. Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire

In addition, a Parking Justification Study was requested in December 2014 and received

on February 18, 2015.

Parking Justification Study (prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions, Ltd.,

February 2015).

of Report PB-23-15

PART B

Discussion:

Policy Framework

The OPA and rezoning applications are subject to the following policy framework:

Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden

Horseshoe; The Big Move; Halton Region Official Plan; Burlington Official Plan and

Zoning By-law 2020.

Staff has reviewed and analyzed the planning merits of these applications within this

policy framework as described below.

1.0 Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

A new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect on April 30, 2014 and applies

to decisions concerning planning matters made after this date. All planning decisions

are required to be consistent with the PPS.

The PPS provides overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to

land use planning and development.

1.1 Settlement Areas Policies

The PPS identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth and development

(PPS, 1.1.3.1) and requires that sufficient land “be made available through

intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas”

(PPS, 1.1.2).

Policy 1.1.3.2 states:

“Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on:

a) densities and a mix of land uses which:

1. efficiently use land and resources;

2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public

service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need

for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion;

4. support active transportation;

5. are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be

developed)”

In addition, the PPS directs planning authorities to “identify appropriate locations

and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can

be accommodated)” and to promote “appropriate development

of Report PB-23-15

standards)which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form,

while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety” (Policies 1.1.3.3 and

1.1.3.4). The appropriate locations and opportunities for intensification are

clearly described in the City of Burlington’s Official Plan in accordance with the

City’s long-standing intensification strategy. The appropriate development

standards to facilitate intensification are provided through the City’s Official

Plan’s evaluation criteria for intensification proposals and more specifically

through the City’s Zoning By-law 2020.

The PPS also directs planning authorities to “establish and implement minimum

targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local

conditions” (Policy 1.1.3.5). The subject property is located within the settlement

area as well as within a designated growth area; the proposed development is

located near existing transit facilities; and the development can use existing

infrastructure. The City of Burlington has considered local conditions in the

development and implementation of the City’s comprehensive intensification

strategy; therefore, the level of intensification proposed through these

applications is not necessary to achieve the City’s approved intensification goals.

Section 5 of this report describes the City’s intensification strategy in greater

detail.

1.2 Housing Policies

The housing policies of the PPS direct planning authorities to provide an

appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet the needs of

current and future residents of the regional market area. This will be achieved

by:

b) “permitting and facilitating:

1. all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-

being requirements of current and future residents); and

2. all forms of residential intensification, including second units,

and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3

c) directing the development of new housing towards locations where

appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or

will be available to support current and projected needs;

d) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land,

resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the

use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to

be developed; and

e) establishing development standards for residential intensification,

redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the

of Report PB-23-15

cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining

appropriate levels of public health and safety.” (Policy 1.4.3 b-e).

The City’s Official Plan currently permits and facilitates all forms of housing and

residential intensification, including second units and redevelopment. The City’s

existing intensification strategy has appropriately considered, planned for and

implemented an effective strategy that directs a significant amount of

intensification towards the City’s mixed use centres and intensification corridors

and these Official Plan policies are consistent with the PPS.

The appropriate development standards to facilitate residential intensification,

redevelopment and new residential development as described in Policy 1.4.3 e)

are provided through the Official Plan’s evaluation criteria for intensification

proposals and in more detail through the City’s Zoning By-law 2020. Section 10

of this report describes these development standards in more detail.

1.3 PPS and Local Context

Part III of the PPS recognizes that local context is important and that not all

policies will be applicable to every site, feature or area. Further, the PPS states

that “[some] policies refer to planning objectives that need to be considered in the

context of the municipality or planning area as a whole, and are not necessarily

applicable to a specific site or development proposal” (PPS, Part III).

The PPS also states that “the [Official Plan] is the most important vehicle for

implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement. Comprehensive, integrated

and long-term planning is best achieved through official plans. Official plans

shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations

and policies)Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable

policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas”

(PPS, Policy 4.7).

With these two statements, the PPS is clear that the objectives of its policies

should be given contextual consideration and not be interpreted as an

unrestricted or unconditional permission to apply PPS policies to specific sites

and development proposals. The PPS refers the reader to local Official Plans

which are the vehicles to best achieve comprehensive, integrated and long-term

planning and are suited to provide reasonable and attainable policies to protect

provincial interests, such as the intensification strategy embedded in the City of

Burlington’s Official Plan.

The Official Plan provides the overarching policy framework, evaluation criteria

for intensification proposals and development standards in the City of Burlington.

The proposed development and the site-specific development regulation

of Report PB-23-15

amendments required to facilitate the proposed development, represent

overdevelopment of the property.

Planning Opinion on the PPS:

While the proposed development is consistent with the PPS in principle, the proposal

represents over-intensification on a site that is too small and does not provide adequate

setbacks, buffering, amenity space or parking standards. The significant reduction of

numerous development regulations that are required to facilitate this intensification

proposal on the subject property and the failure to satisfy the City’s Official Plan policies

described in Section 8 of this report results in an application that is not consistent with

the PPS.

2.0 Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2013)

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) was established

under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and took effect on June 16, 2006. The Growth Plan

was amended in 2013 and provides a policy framework for implementing the Province’s

vision for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

2.1 Managing Growth and General Intensification

The Growth Plan directs municipalities to accommodate population and

employment growth by “)directing a significant portion of new growth to the

built-up areas of the community through intensification” and by “focusing

intensification in intensification areas” (Growth Plan, 2.2.2 a) and b)).

The City’s Official Plan policies direct new growth to the built-up areas and focus

intensification in the mixed use centres and intensification corridors.

2.2 Intensification Strategy

The Growth Plan requires that municipalities develop and implement, through

their official plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and policies to

phase in and achieve intensification and the intensification target (Growth Plan,

2.2.3.6). This strategy and policies will:

b) “encourage intensification generally throughout the built-up area;

c) identify intensification areas to support achievement of the intensification

target”P

e) “recognize urban growth centres, intensification corridors and major transit

station areas as a key focus for development to accommodate intensification;

f) facilitate and promote intensification;

of Report PB-23-15

g) identify the appropriate type and scale of development in intensification

areas;

h) include density targets for urban growth centres where applicable)”

(Growth Plan, 2.2.3.6).

The intensification areas are to be planned and designed to:

a) “cumulatively attract a significant portion of population and employment

growth;

b) provide a diverse and compatible mix of land uses, including residential

and employment uses, to support vibrant neighbourhoods”P

e) “generally achieve higher densities than the surrounding areas; and

f) achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas” (Growth

Plan, 2.2.3.7).

The City began implementing and developing an intensification strategy in 2006.

Burlington’s Intensification Study addresses the objectives of the Growth Plan

and the intensification strategy has been designed to attract a significant amount

of population and employment growth in mixed use intensification corridors and

centres.

The proposed ADI development constitutes intensification and generally

conforms to the growth management and general intensification policies of the

Growth Plan, although the proposed development does not achieve an

appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas as discussed in Sections

8.3.1 and 8.6.9 of this report.

2.3 Urban Growth Centre

The Growth Plan also establishes Downtown Burlington as an Urban Growth

Centre (Growth Plan, Schedule 4) which must be planned to accommodate a

significant share of population and employment growth (Growth Plan, Section

2.2.4.4) and requires the achievement of a minimum gross density target of 200

residents and jobs combined per hectare by 2031 or earlier (Growth Plan,

Section 2.2.4.5 b).

The proposed development is located within the Urban Growth Centre boundary

established in the Burlington Official Plan.

2.4 Major Transit Station Area

The Growth Plan defines major transit station areas as “the area including and

around any existing or planned higher order transit station within a settlement

area” and generally defines station areas as areas “within an approximate 500

metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk”.

of Report PB-23-15

The subject property is located approximately 290 metres southeast of the John

Street Downtown Bus Terminal.

Policy 2.2.5.1 states that major transit station areas will be designated in official

plans and planned to achieve “increased residential and employment densities

that support and ensure the viability of existing and planned transit service levels;

and a mix of residential, office, institutional, and commercial development

wherever appropriate”.

The proposed development is located within a major transit station area.

2.5 Growth Plan Implementation

The City of Burlington was one of the first municipalities to undertake a Growth

Plan conformity exercise which was included in the completion of Burlington’s

2008 Official Plan (OPA 55) and refined through additional OPAs (59 and 73).

This Official Plan included policies regarding Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre

boundary, intensification corridors and accessory units. Staff notes that OPA 73

has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and is awaiting resolution, but

the growth allocation numbers provided in OPA 73 were approved by the Region

in Regional Official Plan Amendment 37 which was not appealed. Section 5 of

this report provides more detail about Burlington’s Growth Plan implementation

and intensification strategy.

2.6 Technical Report on Preliminary Performance Indicators for the Growth

Plan

In 2013, the Ontario Growth Secretariat (OGS) began a project to gather

information on the 25 urban growth centres (UGC) identified in the Growth Plan.

The Ministry of Infrastructure released the “Technical Report on Preliminary

Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,

2006” (Technical Report) in 2014.

The Downtown Burlington UGC numbers contained on page 13 of the Technical

Report indicate that the population in the UGC decreased by approximately 55

residents between 2006 and 2011. The report also indicates that a total of nine

municipalities, including the Downtown Burlington UGC, have demonstrated a

decline in the total number of people and jobs between 2006 and 2011.

The decrease in the number of people and jobs in the Downtown Burlington UGC

provided in the Technical Report is not consistent with other available data

collected by the City and the Region and discussed in Section 7 of this report.

Staff is currently reviewing the methodology and data sources that were used to

inform the OGS Technical Report in order to determine how the total number of

people and jobs were calculated.

of Report PB-23-15

Planning Opinion on Places to Grow:

The subject applications generally conform to the principles of the Growth Plan by

accommodating intensification in an area that is designated for intensification, and more

specifically, within the Urban Growth Centre. However, the subject applications are not

proposing an appropriate scale of development and the proposed development does

not achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas. The City’s existing

intensification strategy is well positioned to meet the minimum density target established

in the Growth Plan without significant changes to the existing Official Plan policies and

permissions. The City does not require the overdevelopment of one small property in

the Urban Growth Centre in order to achieve the minimum density target.

3.0 The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas (2008)

The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas

(Big Move) is a provincial policy document prepared under the Metrolinx Act (2008) that

contains action items to develop and implement a multi-modal transportation plan for

the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTAH).

The Big Move identifies a comprehensive rapid transit development plan as well as 51

Anchor and Gateway Mobility Hubs throughout the GTAH. Many of these Mobility Hubs

coincide with Urban Growth Centres and major transit station areas. The Big Move

identifies the major transit station area as well as the area approximately within an 800-

metre radius of the transit station as the Mobility Hub and regards these areas as

“generally forecasted to achieve, or have the potential to achieve, a [total] minimum

density of approximately 10,000 people and jobs within an 800 metre radius” (Big Move,

p. 88).

On Schedule 2: 25 Year Plan for Regional Rapid Transit, Downtown Burlington is

designated as an Anchor Mobility Hub. Anchor Mobility Hubs are defined as “hubs that

have strategic importance due to their relationship with urban growth centres” (Big

Move, p.85).

The subject property is located approximately 290 metres southeast of the John Street

Downtown Bus Terminal which is generally considered the centre of the Downtown

Burlington Anchor Mobility Hub and, therefore, the subject property is located within the

boundaries of this Anchor Mobility Hub.

Staff has reviewed the 800 metre radius of the John Street Bus Terminal in Downtown

Burlington and notes that the approximate radius extends to the intersection of New

Street and Bridgman Avenue to the east; to just north of Brant Street and Baldwin

Street; and to the intersection of Maple Avenue and Ontario Street to the west. While

of Report PB-23-15

the limits of this boundary do not exactly align with Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre

boundary, staff notes that a significant amount of the Urban Growth Centre area is

contained within this radius and, of note, a significant amount of the residential

population within the Urban Growth Centre is contained within the 800 metre radius of

the John Street Bus Terminal. As discussed in Section 7 of this report, the Urban

Growth Centre is close to achieving a total density of 10,000 people and jobs and is

expected to reach the density target of approximately 22,000 people and jobs by the

year 2031.

3.1 The Metrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines

Metrolinx also produced Mobility Hub Guidelines which provide guidance for

municipalities to define their Mobility Hubs. Downtown Burlington is classified as

a “Historic Suburban Town Centre” (Category u4) which recognizes the history

and context of Burlington’s downtown core. This classification includes smaller

city centres with low-medium density development; a mix of uses with some

destinations; and a walkable street network with smaller block sizes. The

Historic Suburban Town Centre classification is appropriate given the location

and context of the Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub which is comprised of

smaller blocks, does not have connections to rail transportation and is not directly

located on a major provincial highway.

Planning Opinion on the Big Move:

The proposed development generally conforms to the vision of the Big Move. However,

the City can meet its targets without the proposed over-intensification of this site.

4.0 Region of Halton Official Plan

The Region’s Official Plan (ROP) provides goals, objectives and policies to direct

physical development and change in Halton. Regional Official Plan Amendments

(ROPA) 37, 38 and 39 received partial approval by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2014.

Section 76 of ROPA 38 establishes that the range of permitted uses in the Urban Area

will be in accordance with Local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws, but all development

is subject to the policies of the ROP.

The subject property is designated Urban Area and is also included in the Urban Growth

Centre for the City of Burlington by ROPA 38.

of Report PB-23-15

4.1 Region of Halton Review

Regional staff reviewed the plans and technical report submitted with the

applications and has advised that the land uses conform to the ROP and they

have no objections in principle to the applications. While City staff acknowledges

that the proposed development meets the Regional policies in principle, the

following Regional Official Plan policies have been evaluated on a more local and

specific basis.

4.2 Halton’s Regional Structure

Section 43 of ROPA 38 states that the Region’s primary role is to provide broad

policy directions on strategic matters such as management of land and natural

resources and growth strategies, among others. Section 43 continues,

“Recognizing the above, Local municipalities are to deal with their local

environments to best express their own individualities”.

Section 47 states,

“Local Official Plans, covering the whole of each Local Municipality, are

necessary extensions of The Regional Plan, and are intended to direct

development in accordance with local desires while adhering to the

policies of this Plan. They will contain development phasing and land use

distributions and standards at a level of detail sufficient for the

implementation of both Regional and local policies, and for the preparation

of Zoning By-laws and specific development proposals.”

ROPA 38 also provides population estimates and intensification targets for all of

the local municipalities, including the City of Burlington. In Section 56, Table 1 of

the ROP, Burlington is expected to meet a minimum intensification target of

8,300 new dwelling units constructed within its existing Built Up Area between

2015 and 2031.

As noted in the Planning Justification Report provided in support of these

applications, the proposed development would account for almost 12% of the

minimum number of new housing units to be added to the Burlington Built Up

Area between 2012 and 2017. The City will be able to meet its growth allocation

targets without the need for the type of extreme density represented by these

applications. The City’s intensification strategy employs a comprehensive

approach to meeting the intensification targets through development in both

Mixed Use Centres and the Mixed Use Corridors rather than relying on the

overdevelopment of small sites such as 374 Martha Street.

of Report PB-23-15

4.3 Urban Area Designation

Section 72 of the ROP provides objectives for the urban area which include

accommodating growth; supporting a form of growth that is compact; promoting

the adaptive re-use of brownfield and greyfield sites; and facilitating and

promoting intensification and increased densities.

The proposed development is located on a site which currently contains a

commercial parking lot and would constitute the redevelopment of a greyfield

area and represent intensification and increased density in Downtown Burlington.

Section 72(5) states that the Urban Area should “establish a rate and phasing of

growth that ensures the logical and orderly progression of development)” The

subject applications propose locating a significant amount of intensification on a

small site and justify the overdevelopment of the site as a means to meeting the

City’s growth targets. However, this proposal does not contribute towards an

appropriate rate and phasing of growth to ensure logical and orderly progression

of development. It is worth noting that the development of the subject property

will eliminate redevelopment opportunities for the abutting single detached

residential property to the north because the parcel is too small to accommodate

additional height or density and will be overshadowed by the proposed

development.

4.4 Intensification Areas

Section 78 of the ROP identifies the objectives of intensification areas, including

78(1) which states that one objective of intensification areas is

“to provide an urban form that is complementary to existing developed

areas, uses space more economically, promotes live-work relationships,

fosters social interaction, enhances public safety and security, reduces

travel by private automobile, promotes active transportation, and is

environmentally more sustainable”.

The urban form of the proposed development will not be complementary to the

existing developed area because the built form will tower over the adjacent

buildings and the proposal does not provide sufficient separation or buffering

between the existing buildings and the proposed development. The Planning

Justification Report submitted in support of the applications states that the

development will “foster social interaction by creating a pleasant walking

environment” (WND Report, p.13). The construction of the proposed three-level

above-grade parking garage that cantilevers out over the sidewalk will not

contribute towards a pleasant walking environment as a result of the noise, odors

and aesthetic impact associated with the above-grade parking garage which will

have openings facing Lakeshore Road and Martha Street.

of Report PB-23-15

Regional OP Sections 78(6) and 78(8) set out the objectives for cumulatively

attracting a significant portion of the population and employment growth and

generally achieving higher densities than the surrounding areas. Section 78(10)

states that intensification is intended to “achieve an appropriate transition of built

form to adjacent areas”.

The proposed 28-storey development is located immediately south of a one-

storey residential dwelling, abuts three-storey townhouses to the north and abuts

a one-storey commercial building to the west. The one-storey residential

dwelling is unlikely to redevelop because the parcel size is too small to

accommodate additional height or density and the three-storey townhouses were

recently developed, so there is no redevelopment potential on these sites. It is

staff’s opinion that the proposed development does not achieve an appropriate

transition of built form to adjacent areas because the proposed built form

presents a much taller and greater mass in relationship to the adjacent buildings

and the above-grade parking garage negatively impacts the users of adjacent

properties.

Section 81 states that the Region directs “development with higher densities and

mixed uses to intensification areas”, based upon local planning criteria and plans.

Intensification in Burlington has been designed to be achieved through the

Official Plan designations and zoning permissions that currently exist in the City’s

mixed use centres and intensification corridors.

ROP Sections 81(2) and 81(3) require local Official Plans to identify

Intensification Areas and prepare detailed Official Plan policies for the

development of a new Intensification Area or the redevelopment of an existing

Intensification Area. Staff notes that the City of Burlington has established a

category of detailed Official Plan policies for the Downtown Mixed Use Centre

and the Downtown Precincts.

Section 81(6) states that it is the policy of the Region to

“require the Local Municipalities to ensure the proper integration of

Intensification Areas with surrounding neighbourhoods through pedestrian

walkways, cycling paths and transit routes, and the protection of the

physical character of these neighbourhoods through urban design”.

The proposed development will not be properly integrated with surrounding

neighbourhoods and will not protect the physical character of the surrounding

neighbourhoods through urban design because the minimal spacing, reduced

setbacks and lack of buffering result in a large, unscreened vertical mass

adjacent to existing one and three storey buildings.

of Report PB-23-15

The Planning Justification Report submitted in support of the applications refers

to Section 81(8) of the ROP which encourages “the Local Municipalities to adopt

parking standards and policies within Intensification Areas to promote the use of

active transportation and public transit” and notes that the proposed development

will promote the use of active transportation through “)a reduced parking

standard that will meet the needs of the development while maintaining potential

oversupply” (WND Report, p.15). The City’s existing reduced residential parking

requirements for Burlington downtown and the lack of any required on-site

commercial parking spaces already achieves this objective of the ROP, and a

further reduction for tenant parking as proposed in this development is not

justified.

4.5 Urban Growth Centres

Urban Growth Centre areas are subject to the objectives and policies of both

Intensification Areas and the Urban Area within ROPA 38. Urban Growth

Centres are intended to accommodate a significant share of population and

employment growth and are required to achieve a minimum development density

target of 200 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare by 2031 or earlier.

The proposed development is not required in order for the City to meet the policy

direction for Intensification Areas and Urban Growth Centres as set out in ROPA

38.

4.6 Healthy Communities Guidelines

Section 152(2) of the ROP states that the Region will

“require the Local Municipalities in their preparation of Area-Specific

Plans or Official Plan policies related to intensification and proponents of

major development in submitting their applications, to have regard for the

Healthy Communities Guidelines”.

The Planning Justification Report submitted in support of these applications did

not reference the Healthy Communities Guidelines.

The Healthy Communities Guidelines (the Guidelines) are part of a set of

documents that clarify, inform and aid in the implementation of the Plan’s

policies. The Guidelines were prepared in accordance with Section 192 of the

ROP and approved in 2014.

The Guidelines recognize that healthy communities are comprised of various

attributes including built environment, mobility, natural environment & open

space, human services, sustainable design, economy and community food

supply. The Guidelines describe how the built environment can contribute to a

of Report PB-23-15

healthy community through “compact, mixed use development, walkable and

connected communities” and “welcoming pedestrian-scaled environments”.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will provide a very high

density mixed use development and will not provide a welcoming, pedestrian-

scaled environment because the three levels of above-grade parking garage will

create a harsh interface with adjacent residential buildings to the north and with

the streetscape along Lakeshore Road to the south

Planning Opinion on the Regional Official Plan:

While Region staff generally has no objection to the proposed development on the basis

that it conforms to the Region’s growth policies, City staff is evaluating the applications

on the basis of land use compatibility. The proposed development represents the over-

intensification of a very small site, does not provide an urban form that is

complementary to existing developed areas and does not achieve an appropriate

transition of built form to adjacent areas.

5.0 City of Burlington’s Intensification Strategy

During the past 10 years, Burlington has been developing a comprehensive

intensification strategy to conform to the Growth Plan and achieve its density targets.

5.1 2006 – Official Plan Amendment 55

In 2006, Burlington staff refined the boundaries and population and employment

estimates for Burlington’s Growth Centre in consultation with the Ministry of

Public Infrastructure Renewal (MPIR), as part of the City’s Official Plan update

(OPA No. 55). Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre analysis estimated a

residential intensification increase of 2,200 dwelling units that would support an

additional 3,750 residents by the year 2031.


Planning staff provided an update on various provincial, regional and municipal

initiatives and provided an overview of the City’s intensification strategy which

was approved by City Council on October 1, 2007. These initiatives included the

following:

• OPA 55

• GO Station Intensification Opportunity Study (which informed OPA 59 &

Zoning By-law 2020-213)

of Report PB-23-15

• Analysis of Intensification Potential (corridors, key sites, accessory units,

infrastructure)

• Implementation Measures (OPA/Rezoning, Design Guidelines,

Infrastructure Improvements)

OPAs 55 and 59 included a series of amendments to the Official Plan that

identified the Urban Growth Centre boundary; strengthened the policies for Mixed

Use Centres and Mixed Use Corridors which serve as intensification areas;

added policies for accessory dwellings units; addressed intensification around

GO Stations and established a strategic approach to planning for and

accommodating intensification within the built boundary.

5.3 2008 – Burlington Intensification Study

In 2008, Planning staff prepared the Burlington Intensification Study (Staff Report

PL-1/08) with Preliminary 2031 Residential and Employment Intensification

Estimates. This staff report described the components of residential

intensification in Burlington which included the Urban Growth Centre, Urban

Growth Corridors, Uptown and Regional Malls, low density infill and accessory

dwelling units.


Following the completion of the 2008 Official Plan Review and the approval of

OPA 73 in 2009, which included the City’s population forecasts to 2031, the

City’s Official Plan policies presented a comprehensive and strategic approach to

intensifying the two Mixed Use Centres (Downtown Burlington and Uptown) as

well as a series of intensification corridors identified as Mixed Use Corridors.

Staff notes that OPA 73 is currently under appeal, but the City’s population

forecasts to 2031 are included in ROPA 37 which was not appealed and

therefore the City’s forecasts were approved by the Region of Halton.

Planning Opinion on the City of Burlington’s Intensification Strategy:

The City has conducted several conformity exercises and has developed a

comprehensive approach that balances the protection of neighbourhoods and the

accommodation of compatible intensification in appropriate locations. As outlined in

Section 7 of this report, staff is confident that the density targets established in the

Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan and City Official Plan will be achieved by 2031

without amendments that significantly depart from the City’s Official Plan.

of Report PB-23-15

6.0 City of Burlington Official Plan Review: Mobility Hubs Opportunities and Constraints Study

The subject property falls within the Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub as identified in

The Big Move. The City of Burlington is currently undergoing an Official Plan Review

and retained Brook McIlroy to complete a Mobility Hubs Opportunities and Constraints

Study (hereafter referred to as “the MHOC Study”). Through this study, the consulting

team identified primary, second and tertiary boundaries for each Mobility Hub in the City

of Burlington as well as provided proposed recommendations.

The subject property falls within the proposed primary zone boundary of the Downtown

Mobility Hub. In the Study, the primary zone is defined as “the area within 250 m radius

having the greatest potential for change through redevelopment” (p. 44). This means

that the subject property is one of many sites in the primary zone that may contribute to

supporting the Mobility Hub.

The MHOC Study was transmitted to Council in May 2014. Staff is in the process of

reviewing the study recommendations and will bring forward proposed policy directions

for Mobility Hubs. If endorsed by Council, the proposed policy directions will result in

additional policies to be included in the upcoming Official Plan Amendment that will

result from the current Official Plan Review.

The MHOC Study contains proposed guiding principles that are intended to direct future

development at each Mobility Hub. The Burlington Downtown Mobility Hub has five

proposed guiding principles which include “[concentrating] the greatest densities around

transit services” and “[providing] appropriate transitions to adjacent stable residential

neighbourhoods” (MHOC Study, p. 47).

Other guiding principles for Mobility Hubs include the following:

• “Create landmarks and enhance wayfinding with tall buildings (greater than 10

storeys) in close proximity to Brant Street and Fairview Road”

• “Above-grade parking should be well-screened, located at the rear of buildings,

and in structures near the rail corridor” (MHOC Study, p. 48).

In evaluating the opportunity sites for the Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub, the report

says that

“the historic character of the downtown is defined by a fine grain network of

streets, variation in building scale, and proximity to adjacent residential

neighbourhoods. The design and massing of all new development should

respect this character, while integrating opportunities for greater densities where

appropriate” (MHOC Study, p. 58).

In terms of land use, the report provides a draft Official Plan direction to “concentrate

the greatest densities in close proximity to the transit services along the key transit

of Report PB-23-15

corridors to protect adjacent residential neighbourhoods and heritage buildings” (MHOC

Study, p. 59). Further, the report states that, “at the edge of the Primary Zone, the

height, mass and design of buildings should be controlled to provide appropriate

transitions to adjacent stable residential neighbourhoods (i.e. Martha Street, Hurd

Avenue)” (MHOC Study, p. 59).

Staff notes that the subject property is located at the edge of the Primary Zone. Staff is

of the opinion that the report authors identified the importance of appropriate transitions

between the edge of the Primary Zone and the adjacent stable residential

neighbourhood. This is clearly illustrated by their use of Martha Street as a specific

example.

With regard to built form, the report states that “Mid-rise and Tall buildings should be

subject to front-yard and rear-yard angular planes to reduce their perceived mass and

minimize shadow and privacy impacts” (MHOC Study, p. 60). At present, the City’s

Official Plan contains policies for angular plane studies for the front yard of proposed

developments, but this direction highlights the importance of angular plane at the rear of

mid-rise and tall buildings, as well.

The Planning Justification Report submitted in support of the subject applications

describes the subject property as a “gateway location” and staff is of the opinion that

this description results from the MHOC Study which identifies the intersection of Martha

Street and Lakeshore Road as an eastern “entryway” in the report. The MHOC Study

notes that there is an opportunity to

“enhance the entryway at Baldwin Street/Victoria Avenue and Brant Street)

[which] should be characterized by landmark buildings, urban plazas, public art,

enhanced landscaping, façade design, a higher order of streetscaping, and

information and wayfinding elements” and that “similar treatments should be

considered on Lakeshore Road, for those entering Downtown from the east and

west” (MHOC Study, p. 58).

The proposed development does not provide for enhanced landscaping, urban plaza,

streetscaping or public art. In fact, the public realm at the foot of the proposed building

will be negatively impacted by the lack of landscaping and terracing. The subject

property is located at an intersection that is in close proximity to a ‘kink’ in Lakeshore

Road. However, staff has reviewed the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and other City

documents and is of the opinion that the subject property is not referenced as a

gateway or landmark site in any City document.

of Report PB-23-15

Planning Opinion on the Mobility Hub Opportuniti

The MHOC Study has no policy implications at this time, but staff is of the opinion that

the proposed development would not

directions stemming from the

exercises for Mobility Hubs will determine detailed site

changes to the Official Plan be deemed a

completion of a Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub

will be required to meet the Official Plan policies that are in effect. If Council approves

Mobility Hub objectives that are

Official Plan Review, then development proposal

objectives until such time as the master planning exercise is completed.

7.0 Urban Growth Centre Targets

Staff has prepared the following analysis of the C

with respect to the minimum gros

Map 1: Urban Growth Centre Boundary

Mobility Hub Opportunities and Constraints Study

has no policy implications at this time, but staff is of the opinion that

the proposed development would not be in keeping with the principles and

directions stemming from the MHOC Study. Staff also notes that future master planning

will determine detailed site-specific requirements should

be deemed appropriate. In the interim, prior to the

Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub master plan, development proposals

the Official Plan policies that are in effect. If Council approves

that are incorporated into the Official Plan as a resu

Official Plan Review, then development proposals will be required to meet those

objectives until such time as the master planning exercise is completed.

Urban Growth Centre Targets

Staff has prepared the following analysis of the City’s Urban Growth Centre

respect to the minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs per hectare.

1: Urban Growth Centre Boundary

nstraints Study:

has no policy implications at this time, but staff is of the opinion that

be in keeping with the principles and preliminary

es that future master planning

specific requirements should

prior to the

lan, development proposals

the Official Plan policies that are in effect. If Council approves

the Official Plan as a result of this

s will be required to meet those

ity’s Urban Growth Centre (Map 1)

s density of 200 residents and jobs per hectare.

of Report PB-23-15

Using the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS), staff finds that the shapefile that

is used by the City to delineate the Urban Growth Centre boundary comprises 121.27

hectares of land. This does not include a closer look at all of the rest of the boundary.

When the portions of property underwater (7.47 hectares) are removed from this

boundary, the remaining land comprises 113.80 hectares. For the purpose of this

analysis, staff will use 114 hectares in the calculation of the Urban Growth Centre

density, recognizing that this land area includes existing roads and natural hazards

which will not contribute towards reaching the density target.

In 2014, the Region of Halton requested a custom data set from Statistics Canada to

determine the population in the Urban Growth Centre based on the 2011 Census. This

request was necessary because the standard information from Statistics Canada does

not allow for the calculation of all of the individual parcels within Burlington’s Urban

Growth Centre which has an irregular boundary.

The result from this work was a population of 8,645 residents based on the data

collected in the 2011 Census.

The Region has been conducting an Employment Survey for several years and

continues to improve the methodology of this survey. In 2013, the Region of Halton

employment survey determined that there were 6,238 jobs in the Urban Growth Centre.

7.1 Additional Residential Developments Between 2011 and 2013

In addition to the residential population determined by the Statistics Canada

Census in 2011, the following additional residential developments were occupied

between 2011 and 2013 and the occupants would not have been counted in the

2011 Census.

OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL UNITS DEVELOPMENT LOT AREA

UNITS

Strata Condos – 551 Maple Avenue

In 2007, the site plan application was approved and in 2012, occupancy permits were issued.

21 storey building

0.58 ha

186

Pearl and Pine Retirement Residence – 390 Pearl Street

14 storey building

0.29 ha

128 In 2011, the site plan application was approved and in 2012, building permits were issued.

TOTAL 314

of Report PB-23-15

These two developments contribute an additional 314 residential units to the

Urban Growth Centre. Using the ratio of 1.7 people per residential unit that was

used in Burlington’s Intensification Strategy 314 additional units yields 534

additional people.

7.2 Calculating the Urban Growth Centre Target

Using the resident population of 8,645 from the Region’s 2011 custom data

request from Statistics Canada and adding the additional 534 people who

occupied residential units between 2011 and 2013 as well as the findings of the

Region’s 2013 employment survey, staff has calculated a total of 15,417

residents and jobs in the Urban Growth Centre. Staff recognizes that using this

figure means building in two assumptions:

1) that the boundary and area of the Urban Growth Centre identified by

the shapefile in the City of Burlington’s GIS system, which includes the

road network, is accurate and applicable; and

2) that the resident population in Downtown Burlington for 2013 is

estimated based on the figure collected by Statistics Canada in 2011 plus

additional units constructed between 2011 and 3013.

Staff recognizes that the data used in the above assumptions comes from

different sources and different times; these calculations are based on the most

accurate data available at the time of writing this report.

Using these assumptions and dividing this number, (15,417 people and jobs), by

the area of the Urban Growth Centre described above, (114 hectares), the

mathematical equation for the total number of jobs and residents per hectare is

as follows:

8,959 people + 6,238 jobs / 114 hectares = 135.2 people and jobs per hectare

This calculation provides the approximate density of people and jobs per hectare

in Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre as of 2013 based on the data available at

the time of writing this report.

of Report PB-23-15

7.3 Recently Approved Developments in the Urban Growth Centre

The following developments in the Urban Growth Centre have received

development approval, but they are under construction and / or not fully occupied

at the time of writing this report.

APPROVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS DEVELOPMENT LOT AREA

UNITS

Evian Townhouses – 507 Elizabeth Street

In 2012, the site plan application was approved and in 2013, building permits were issued.

3 storey townhouses

0.29 ha

14

472 Brock Avenue

In 2012, the rezoning application and site plan application were approved. This building is expected to be occupied in 2015.

14 storey building

0.32 ha

115

TOTAL 129

These two developments represent an additional 129 approved residential units.

of Report PB-23-15

7.4 Upcoming Developments in the Urban Growth Centre

The following developments in the Urban Growth Centre have not yet completed

the development approvals process, but are expected to be constructed and

occupied within several years. Using the assumptions that were included in the

Burlington Intensification Study of 1 employee per 28 m2 of office space, 1

employee per 37 m2 of retail space and 1 employee per hotel room, the

estimated number of jobs are also included in the table below.

UPCOMING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS

DEVELOPMENT LOT AREA

UNITS JOBS

Carriage Gate Development – John, Caroline, Elizabeth and Maria Streets

In 2010, the rezoning application was approved. The application is currently undergoing site plan review. The most recent site plan application indicates a total office GFA of 8,354 m2 and 2,566 m2 of commercial space.

8 storey office building

17 storey apartment building

8 storey parking garage

0.38 ha

154

299 (office)

70 (retail)

Bridgewater Development – 2042, 2048 and 2054 Lakeshore Road

This project has undergone a series of development applications including an Official Plan Amendment and rezoning and is currently undergoing site plan review. This development is expected to be built over the next several years.

Condo A:

22 storey building with 100 residential units and 1170 m2 retail space

Condo B:

7 storey building with 50 residential units and 750 m2 retail space

Hotel:

130 hotel units and 855 m2 retail space

0.80 ha

150

32 (retail)

21 (retail)

130 (hotel)

TOTAL 304 552

of Report PB-23-15

These two developments represent an additional 304 residential units and an

estimated 552 jobs in the development pipeline.

7.5 Additional Development Considered

With the 129 approved residential units and 304 upcoming residential units

described above, there are a total of 433 new residential units that were not

captured in the 2011 Census. When the ratio of 1.7 people per residential unit is

applied to this figure, the number of anticipated additional residents is 736.

In addition to the 552 estimated jobs produced by these mixed use developments

in Section 7.4 of this report, the Halton McMaster Family Health Centre is

currently under development for future medical and administrative office buildings

and the Joseph Brant Hospital is also under-going a significant expansion. Once

completed, these two projects are estimated to bring 150 additional jobs based

on projected new office space for a total of 702 additional jobs in the Urban

Growth Centre.

7.6 Urban Growth Centre: Total Required People and Jobs

Using the land area of 114 hectares for the Urban Growth Centre, staff

recognizes that the Urban Growth Centre needs to accommodate a total of

22,800 people and jobs by 2031 in order to reach the minimum target set out by

the Growth Plan.

When the estimated 15,417 residents in the Urban Growth Centre as of 2013 are

added to the 736 anticipated residents and 702 estimated jobs resulting from

recently approved and upcoming developments, the estimated number of people

and jobs in the Urban Growth Centre within the next several years is 16,855.

This figure is 5,945 short of the minimum density target.

After almost 10 years since the release of the Places to Grow Growth Plan, staff

calculates that, with developments in the approval pipeline considered, the Urban

Growth Centre is approaching 74% of the minimum density target for 2031.

Dividing the approximate 5,945 people and jobs by the 17 years remaining to

reach the target will result in an average annual target of approximately 350

people and jobs per year for each of the following 17 years.

7.7 Additional Development Inquiries

It is worth noting that the Planning Department has received additional inquiries

for redevelopment in the downtown and the Urban Growth Centre. Downtown

Burlington contains a number of vacant and under-utilized sites, some of which

are owned by the City and others which are privately owned, and there continues

to be interest from the development industry to re-develop both City-owned and

privately-owned land in the City’s downtown core.

of Report PB-23-15

Planning Opinion on the Urban Growth Centre Targets:

Based on the development patterns that have taken place in the Urban Growth Centre

in the past ten years, staff is of the opinion that the City of Burlington is well positioned

to achieve a total of 200 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031 taking into

consideration the existing Official Plan permissions and zoning regulations within the

Downtown.

8.0 Burlington Official Plan

The City of Burlington’s Official Plan, 2008 (OP) identifies the subject property on three

schedules:

• Mixed Use Activity Area on Schedule A, Settlement Pattern;

• Mixed Use Centre within the Downtown Urban Growth Centre Boundary on

Schedule B, Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Urban Planning Area; and

• Downtown Core Precinct on Schedule E, Downtown Mixed Use Centre.

8.1 Mixed Use Activity Area

Mixed Use Activity Areas are locations where

“employment, shopping and residential land uses will be integrated in a

compact urban form, at higher development intensities and will be

pedestrian-oriented and highly accessible by public transit” (Part III, 5.0).

Mixed Use Activity Areas address the demand for higher intensity employment,

shopping and residential areas within the City.

Policy 5.2.1 a) states that an objective of the Mixed Use Activity Area is to

“encourage comprehensively planned mixed use employment, shopping

and residential areas that provide for the integration of uses such as retail

stores, offices, hotels, institutional and entertainment uses with residential

uses, community facilities, cultural facilities, institutions and open space in

a compact, urban form, while retaining compatibility with nearby land

uses”.

Policy 5.2.1 k) states that the City may

“ensure the proper integration of Mixed Use Activity Areas with

surrounding neighbourhoods through measures such as pedestrian

walkways, cycling paths and transit routes, and the protection of the

physical character of these neighbourhoods through urban design”.

The City’s existing Official Plan policies and zoning permissions include a broad

range of uses in the Mixed Use Activity Areas to help facilitate a compact, mixed

of Report PB-23-15

use form that can be integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods. One way to

ensure appropriate integration with surrounding neighbourhoods is by managing

building height transitions between tall buildings and low-rise development. The

proposed development does not achieve an appropriate building height transition

to the abutting low-rise development.

8.2 Mixed Use Centre

Within the Mixed Use Activity Areas, there are a series of Mixed Use Corridors

and Mixed Use Centres which are intended to accommodate a significant amount

of the City’s intensification within the built boundary.

The objectives of the Mixed Use Centre are:

a) to provide locations centred at the intersection of selected major arterial

roads, inter-municipal transit stations and the Downtown that will serve as

areas for mixed use developments consisting of medium and high density

residential, retail, service commercial, office, industrial, entertainment,

community facilities and institutions and open space uses;

b) to encourage higher intensity, transit-supportive and pedestrian-oriented

development within Mixed Use Centres while retaining compatibility with

nearby land uses;

c) to permit mixed use developments on individual sites where residential,

retail, office and other uses are located, or on different sites where

residential, retail and office uses are located next to one another;

d) to create an open space system incorporating both public and private

lands which provides linkages to adjacent major open space areas and

ensures that the development in the Mixed Use Centres is well

landscaped and balanced with open space areas, such as squares and

parkettes, appropriate for an urban setting; and

e) to ensure that the development, both on a comprehensive and a site-

specific basis, is designed to promote personal safety) (Part III, Policy

5.4.1 a-e).

The proposed development represents higher intensity development, but does

not achieve compatibility with nearby land uses because the proposed height,

massing and scale impose on the existing built form of abutting properties. The

Planning Justification Report submitted in support of the applications often

references the other tall buildings to the north and east of the subject property.

Staff is of the opinion that the existing tall buildings to the east of this site (12

storeys, 14 storeys and 17 storeys) have built forms that resemble the “tower in

the park” model of development and create a sense of space and comfort for

pedestrians in this vicinity. In contrast, the proposed development seeks

permission to construct the tallest and most dense building in Burlington’s

of Report PB-23-15

Downtown with zero setbacks to property lines and no landscape buffering to

soften the impacts of the proposed building. The proposed development

constitutes overdevelopment of a very small site and does not achieve

compatibility with nearby land uses.

Within Mixed Use Centres, the following uses may be permitted:

i) “a wide range of retail, service commercial and personal service uses;

financial institutions and services; a broad range of office uses;

employment, entertainment, recreation and other community facilities such

as day care centres; and

ii) medium and high density residential uses, and to a limited extent, low

density residential uses” (Part III, Policy 5.4.2 a)).

Mixed Use Centres permit a range of development intensities and a range of

building heights, but Policy 5.4.2 f) acknowledges that

“the zoning of individual sites may not allow for the full range of permitted

uses or the full extent of development intensity at every location based on

site specific factors that may include, but are not limited to, traffic, land use

compatibility, market impact, natural hazards and features, and

environmental factors such as soil contamination”.

This Official Plan policy acknowledges and anticipates that the full range of

permitted uses and the full extent of development intensity will not be permitted

at every location within the Mixed Use Centre based on site specific factors, one

of which is land use compatibility. This policy conforms to and is consistent with

policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and in the Regional Official Plan.

Policy 5.4.2 k) states that “proposals for residential intensification shall be

evaluated on the basis of the objectives and policies of Part III, Section 2.5.”

This policy clearly sets out the requirement to evaluate all proposals for

residential intensification within the Mixed Use Centre on the basis of the

objectives and the policies of Part III, Section 2.5. This evaluation has been

completed and is outlined in Section 8.6 below.

8.3 Downtown Mixed Use Centre Designation

The boundary for the Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre is shown on

Schedule B: Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Urban Planning Area and on

Schedule E: Downtown Mixed Use Centre. Part III, Policy 5.5.1 a) states “This

boundary includes various land use designations as outlined on Schedules B and

E, and as such, development within this boundary is subject to the specific

policies of the applicable land use designations.” However, the principles of the

Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre include the following:

of Report PB-23-15

• “accommodating a significant share of population and employment growth

within the City;

• recognizing the distinct identity of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre which

has unique qualities including the waterfront location, historic buildings,

streetscape and development pattern and pedestrian orientation; and

• ensuring new development is of high quality design to maintain and

enhance the Downtown’s image as an enjoyable, safe, pedestrian-

oriented place designed and built to complement pedestrian activity and

historical attributes as outlined in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines”

(OP, Part III, Policy 5.5.1).

The objectives of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre are provided in Part III, Policy

5.5.2 and include the following:

• “establishing the Downtown as a Mixed Use Centre composed of retail,

service, commercial, office, public and residential uses while providing a

focus and source of identity in the context of the City as a whole;

• establishing minimum density targets for residents and jobs in

accordance with the “Places to Grow” Growth Plan for the Greater Golden

Horseshoe;

• creating a compact Downtown city core with a mix of residential and

commercial uses; and

• increasing the resident population and providing a variety of housing types

that will strengthen the live/work relationship, ensure the Downtown is

used after business hours and create a local market for convenience and

service goods”.

The following specific policies in Part III, 5.5.2 are relevant to the proposed

development:

m) “To establish planning precincts within the Downtown, each with their own

distinct character and specific planning policies.

n) To create a continuous, harmonious, safe and attractive environment

through streetscape, building façade improvements and the design of new

buildings.

o) To ensure that the density, form, bulk, height and spacing of development

is compatible with the surrounding area”.

r) “To provide adequate and safe parking in the Downtown”.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development generally meets the

principles and objectives of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre, but does not

address the specific policies listed above. The proposed development does not

recognize the Downtown Core Precinct with its established height limit. The

of Report PB-23-15

proposed development does not contribute to the creation of a continuous,

harmonious and attractive environment because the above-grade parking garage

will provide a rectangular mass that sits above the roofline of the surrounding

buildings and generates noise, dust and vehicular emissions. The design of the

parking structure situated above the existing roofline does not aid in building

façade improvements or an enhanced streetscape. The proposed density, bulk,

height and spacing of the development are not compatible with the surrounding

area. The proposed parking garage does not provide an adequate number of

parking spaces for residents and visitors and the design of the parking garage

poses several concerns related to ramp slopes, visibility, undersized parking

stalls and structural columns obstructing parking spaces as discussed in Section

11 of this report. The proposed development does not contribute towards

providing adequate and safe parking in the Downtown.

The General Policies for the Downtown Mixed Use Centre state that

“development shall be permitted in accordance with the land use designations of

Schedule E, Land Use Plan – Downtown Mixed Use Centre” (Policy 5.5.3) and

that, within the Urban Growth Centre Boundary, as delineated on Schedule B

and Schedule E, the target is established as a minimum gross density of 200

residents and jobs per hectare, in accordance with the Provincial Growth Plan.

Policy 5.5.3 c) states that “higher densities and intensities will be encouraged

within certain precincts of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre” and that “the

provision of community benefits may be considered for developments proposing

residential and business intensification”.

The proposed development represents the infilling of an existing surface parking

lot and will contribute towards achieving the density targets for the Urban Growth

Centre. However, the density, form, bulk, height and spacing of the proposed

development are not compatible with the surrounding area as discussed below.

In addition, the proposal does not provide adequate parking in the Downtown. In

this respect, the proposal constitutes the overdevelopment of a very small site.

8.3.1 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses

The City’s Official Plan defines compatible as:

“Development or re-development that is capable of co-existing in

harmony with, and that will not have an undue physical (including

form) or functional adverse impact on, existing or proposed

development in the area or pose an unacceptable risk to

environmental and/or human health. Compatibility should be

of Report PB-23-15

evaluated in accordance with measurable/objective standards,

where they exist, based on criteria such as aesthetics, noise,

vibration, dust, odours, traffic, safety and sun-shadowing, and the

potential for serious adverse health impacts on humans or animals”

(Official Plan, Part VIII, p. 4).

This definition is part of deferral D53, so it is not in force and effect at this

time. However, this definition helps guide the City’s view of compatibility

and is similar to the definition of compatibility that has been similarly

endorsed by the Ontario Municipal Board in a significant body of

decisions.

Using the City’s definition of compatible, staff finds that the proposed

development is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and built

form. In particular, the existing one-storey residential dwelling located

directly north of the subject property will be enveloped to the south and

west by the proposed L-shaped 28-storey building; the recently

constructed three-storey live-work townhouses located directly north of the

subject property will but up against three levels of a partially exposed

parking garage and the one-storey commercial building located directly

west of the subject property will have its walls nearly touching the western

elevation of the proposed development. The proposed development and

the surrounding buildings are not capable of existing together in harmony.

The proposed development will have undue physical and functional

adverse impacts on existing development in the area, as discussed below.

8.3.1.1 Compatibility: Physical Adverse Impacts

The height and massing of the proposed development without

adequate setbacks or landscaped buffering will provide a harsh

interface with the surrounding buildings. In addition, the proposed

above-grade parking garage with screened openings will result in

noise and odors that are at the same level and above adjacent

residential uses.

Based on preliminary discussions with the City’s Building

Department, staff notes that the open air parking garage will be

required to maintain a minimum of 25% of the total area of its

perimeter walls open to the outdoors in order to provide cross

ventilation to the entire storey in accordance with Ontario Building

Code (OBC) requirements. With the western building elevation not

permitted to have any openings as described in Section 8.7 of this

report, the northern, eastern and southern elevations will be

of Report PB-23-15

required to have more than 25% of their perimeter walls open to the

outdoors.

The three levels of the parking garage (floors 2 to 4) will be located

above the existing one storey residential dwelling to the north so

the noise from vehicle engines, the lights from vehicles’ headlights

and the reduced air quality from vehicle emissions will impact the

rear yard amenity space of the detached dwelling located at 380

Martha Street. These same impacts will negatively affect the three

storey townhouses to the north which have rooftop amenity areas.

These third-storey amenity areas will be negatively impacted by the

potential noise, lights, odors and air quality issues that will arise

from three levels of above-grade parking on the abutting property.

Further, the proposed building has not been designed to provide a

sense of pedestrian scale by the use of terracing above the second

floor. In fact, the proposed building will cantilever out over the

sidewalk instead of being terraced back to minimize its presence

and impact on the pedestrian experience. The Planning

Justification Report states that “the proposed development will

bring “eyes on the street” to a currently under-utilized corner,

providing improved pedestrian safety for the area” (WND Report, p.

17). It is more likely that the portion of the above ground parking

garage that cantilevers out over the sidewalk will result in reduced

pedestrian safety to the area and limit the extent to which the

proposed development can provide “eyes to the street” since the

residential units located above the parking garage will not be able

to view the activity happening on the sidewalk below the

cantilevered parking garage.

8.3.1.2 Compatibility: Functional Adverse Impacts

Angular Plane Study

Staff has reviewed the angular plane analysis submitted with the

applications and finds that the proposed development significantly

exceeds the appropriate building envelope and massing for this

specific site. Although the podium base and the first storey of the

tower fall within the 45-degree angle measured from the property

boundary located directly across the street, the tower element

continues to contribute a significant amount of massing to the site,

especially for the adjacent property owners.

of Report PB-23-15

Noise Feasibility Study

The Planning Justification Report indicates that

“the primary noise sources which require analysis are road

traffic on Lakeshore Boulevard, the existing nearby

commercial and residential uses, and any noise sources

associated with the proposed building such as rooftop

mechanical equipment and parking garage exhaust fans.

The results from the study indicate that the development is

feasible from an environmental noise perspective) Rooftop

mechanical equipment and parking garage exhaust fans

associated with the development will meet the applicable

limits at the existing residences to the north and east” (WND

Report, p. 39).

Engineering staff has reviewed the Noise Feasibility Study and

finds that the report addresses the noise impacts for the future

residents living in the proposed development, but it does not

adequately address the increased noise that will be experienced by

those residents currently living in the abutting three storey

townhouses (which have rooftop amenity areas). The Noise

Feasibility Report also does not address the noise that will be

experienced by the residents of the one storey residential dwelling

to the north of the subject property which will be surrounded by

three levels of above-grade parking on the south and west sides of

their property. The Noise Feasibility Study refers to the sound

levels associated with rooftop mechanical equipment and parking

garage exhaust fans from the proposed building, but it does not

address the noise generated from numerous vehicular movements

within the above-grade parking structure.

In addition, the Noise Feasibility Study recommends that the

retirement residence located at 2109 Lakeshore Road (Martha’s

Landing) construct

“a shielding structure (such as an acoustic parapet wall) with

a partial roof) to block the line of sight of the unit from all

residential dwellings on the east facades [of the proposed

development which would] likely provide sufficient mitigation”

(Noise Study, p. 13).

The Noise Feasibility Study also suggests that the existing roof

screen

of Report PB-23-15

“on the north and east side of the condensing unit on the

rooftop of the retirement residence) should be extended

along the west side of the condensing unit with a partial roof”

(Noise Study, p. 13).

The proposal for a new development should not result in a

requirement or directive for an existing development to alter or

upgrade their built form in order to accommodate the proposed

development. Staff is of the opinion that the noise impacts on

existing residents who live on adjacent properties were overlooked

in the applicants’ preparation of the Noise Study and that the

proposal does not consider nor mitigate all of the adverse impacts

that will be experienced by those who live and work on abutting and

adjacent properties.

Pedestrian Wind Study

The Pedestrian Wind Study prepared by Novus Environmental

includes the

“construction of a physical model of the development and

surrounding features that influence wind flow. The physical

model is instrumented with probes and tested in a wind

tunnel. Afterwards, the wind tunnel data are combined with

regional meteorological data; this analysis is then compared

to the relevant wind criteria and standards in order to

determine how appropriate the wind conditions on site are

for the intended pedestrian usage” (Novus Report, p. 6).

The wind tunnel study submitted in support of the subject

applications used a 1:400 scale model and evaluated 70 different

locations.

In the “Existing Configuration” model prepared by Novus

Environmental, “existing buildings and those under construction

plus approved developments in the surrounding area [were

included]) approved developments included Bridgewater Place

(2042-2054 Lakeshore Road)” (Novus Report, p. 2). The “Existing

Configuration” model compares the difference between a) all of the

buildings that exist on the ground today plus the completion of

those currently under construction and the completion of the three

proposed buildings that will form the Bridgewater development; and

b) all of the aforementioned built, under construction and future

proposed buildings plus the proposed 28-storey ADI development.

of Report PB-23-15

The inclusion of the three proposed Bridgewater buildings (which

are not yet built) in the “Existing Configuration” model used as the

baseline model for the wind study and compared against the

“Proposed Configuration” model with the 28 storey building likely

resulted in less significant differences between the two models.

Pedestrian wind comfort criteria are established in terms of being

acceptable for certain pedestrian activities and range on a scale of

five different activities. For example, the most comfortable activity

category is “sitting” and the least comfortable is “uncomfortable”

with the activities of “standing”, “leisurely walking” and “fast

walking” falling in between the two ends of the spectrum. Generally

speaking, the activities of “leisurely walking”, “fast walking” and

“uncomfortable” indicate that the wind speeds are not ideal for

activities like sitting and reading a book, enjoying a meal on a patio

or having a conversation while waiting at a bus stop.

The Pedestrian Wind Study which identifies that the proposed

development will increase the wind conditions at various locations

in the downtown. Of particular note are the increased wind speeds

that move into the categories of:

• “fast walking” at the northeast corner of Lakeshore Road and

Martha Street (in front of the Martha’s Landing Retirement

Residence);

• “leisurely walking” at the corner of Martha Street and

Lakeshore Road;

• “leisurely walking” near the abutting residential units to the

north at Detlor Common;

• “leisurely walking” and “fast walking” at various points along

the southern side of Lakeshore Road across from the

proposed development;

• “leisurely walking” and “fast walking” at several locations

west of the proposed development in front of the existing

one storey commercial building; and

• an increase from “standing” to “fast walking” at a location

north of the subject property in the vicinity of the existing

residential dwellings on the east side of Martha Street.

Based on the Official Plan’s definition of compatibility which should

be evaluated in accordance with measurable/objective standards,

where they exist, such as aesthetics, noise, vibration, dust and

traffic, staff is of the opinion that the proposed development has not

of Report PB-23-15

established compatibility with surrounding land uses and therefore

does not satisfy the Official Plan policy (Part III, 5.5.8.2 b) related to

height and density in the Downtown Core Precinct of the Downtown

Mixed Use Area.

8.4 Downtown Core Precinct Designation

Part III, Policy 5.5.2 m) describes the precincts as areas that have their own

distinct character and specific planning policies.

Within the Downtown Mixed Use Centre, the subject property falls within the

Downtown Core Precinct. The objectives of the Downtown Core Precinct are:

a) “To designate the inner core area of the Downtown for higher density

development consistent with the role of Brant Street as a major spine of

the Downtown Mixed Use Centre, to meet Provincial Growth objectives

and to help support increased transit use.

b) To require a high standard of design for new buildings in order to provide

a sense of place, compatibility with existing development and a sense of

pedestrian scale and comfort” (Part III, Policy 5.5.8.1).

Policy 5.5.8.1 a) describes the designation of the inner core area of the

Downtown for higher density development that is consistent with the role of Brant

Street as a major spine of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre. The proposed

development is not located along this spine, but is instead located at the

periphery of the Downtown Core Precinct boundary. It is staff’s opinion that

locating a development that proposes the tallest building and the highest density

(when measured by both floor area ratio and by units per net hectare) at the

periphery of the Downtown Core Precinct does not support the role of Brant

Street as a major spine of the Downtown and does not meet the objectives of the

Downtown Core Precinct in the Official Plan.

With respect to Objective 5.5.8.1 b), the high standard of design for new

buildings to provide a sense of place, compatibility with existing development and

a sense of pedestrian scale provided for in the Official Plan does not contemplate

applications with above-ground parking garages located adjacent to low-rise

residential uses nor above-ground parking garages cantilevered over the public

right-of-way. The extreme height and massing of the proposed building design

does not provide compatibility with existing development nor does it provide a

sense of pedestrian scale and comfort.

Part III, Policy 5.5.8.2 b) of the Official Plan provides the heights, densities and

floor area ratios anticipated in the Downtown Core Precinct. Policy 5.5.8.2 b)

states:

of Report PB-23-15

“The minimum density of residential buildings shall be 51 units per net

hectare. The minimum height of buildings shall be two storeys. The

maximum height of buildings shall be four storeys. Taller buildings up to a

maximum height of eight storeys and 29 m may be permitted where they

provide compatibility with surrounding land uses and a sense of

pedestrian scale by the use of terracing above the second floor, and

subject to the community benefits provisions of Part VI, Subsection 2.3 of

this Plan.”

Staff notes that the Official Plan envisions a precinct that has a minimum building

height of 2 storeys and a maximum building height of 4 storeys in accordance

with the Zoning By-law. The Official Plan provides for taller buildings up to 8

storeys under the strict criteria that those taller buildings provide compatibility

with surrounding land uses and a sense of pedestrian scale by the use of

terracing above. This proposal does not satisfy the Downtown Core Precinct

policies in the Official Plan.

8.4.1 Downtown Core Precinct Permitted Density

The Official Plan also addresses density in terms of floor area ratio and

requires that “the maximum floor area ratio for any individual site shall be

4.0:1, except that higher floor area ratios may be permitted in conjunction

with the provisions of clause b) above” (Part III, Policy 5.5.8.2 c)). The

proposed development is requesting a site-specific Official Plan

amendment to permit a floor area ratio of 12.5:1 despite the fact that the

proposed development does not meet the provisions of clause b) with

respect to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the use of terracing as

described in the above paragraph.

8.4.2 Downtown Core Precinct Policies

Policy 5.5.8.2 d) requires that “retail or service commercial uses are

provided at grade along public streets in residential or office buildings and

in parking garages, except where bordering residential precincts”.

Policy 5.5.8.2 e) requires that buildings “be constructed to the street line

with no surface parking permitted, except for loading and emergency

vehicles”.

Policy 5.5.8.2 f) states that “on-site parking is not required for non-

residential uses”.

Staff is satisfied that the proposed development provides retail uses at

grade along Lakeshore Road and that the proposed building is expected

to be constructed to the street line with no surface parking permitted and

of Report PB-23-15

no on-site parking required for non-residential uses. The proposed

development meets these policies of the Official Plan.

Policy 5.5.8.2 i) states,

“Applications for increased building heights for mid to high rise

buildings in the Downtown Core Precinct may be required to

provide an angular plane study, identifying visual, sun shadowing

and wind impacts, and demonstrating how such impacts can be

mitigated to acceptable levels”.

Staff notes that a visual angular plane study, shadowing impacts and a

wind study were provided with the applications. As discussed above, the

applications do not adequately demonstrate how such impacts will be

mitigated to acceptable levels.

The proposed development does not meet the objectives or the policies of

the Downtown Core Precinct, does not provide compatibility with

surrounding land uses, represents an overdevelopment of the subject

property and does not represent good planning.

8.5 Housing Intensification

Part III, Section 5.4.2 k) states that “proposals for residential intensification shall

be evaluated on the basis of the objectives and policies of Part III, Section 2.5.”

Part III, Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan contains policies relative to housing

intensification. Section 2.5.2 provides 13 criteria that are intended to evaluate

and protect against the impacts of intensification proposals within or adjacent to

established neighbourhoods.

The Planning Justification Report (the Report) that was submitted in support of

these applications states the following:

“The proposed development is not located in an established

neighbourhood, but rather well within the Downtown and Mixed Use

Centre designation. The nearest established neighbourhood is over 200

metres to the east, with the intervening area containing several tall

existing apartment buildings. Accordingly, the proposed development will

not have any impact on established neighbourhoods.” (WND, p. 24).

The WND Report states that the Downtown and Mixed Use Centre designation is

not an “established neighbourhood” and concludes that the Official Plan criteria

intended to evaluate and protect against the impacts of intensification proposals

within or adjacent to established neighbourhoods are not applicable in evaluating

the proposed development. The report seems to imply that only single detached

residential areas can be defined as “established neighbourhoods”.

of Report PB-23-15

Staff disagrees with this conclusion for several reasons:

1. Part III, Policy 5.4.2 k) compels the reader to evaluate the residential

intensification on the basis of the objectives and policies of Part III,

Section 2.5 and the 13 evaluation criteria are included in the Official Plan

precisely for the purpose of carefully evaluating the impacts of an

intensification proposal on adjacent properties in a situation such as the

subject applications.

The Official Plan’s definition of “intensification” states that it is:

“Development or re-development of a property or site within an

existing developed area which is proposed to be undertaken at a

higher density or intensity than permitted under the existing zoning,

and which may include re-development, (including the re-use of

brownfield sites), development on vacant and/or underutilized

lands, expansion or conversion of existing buildings, addition of

dwelling units, or creation of new lots”.

The proposed development is located within an existing developed area,

downtown Burlington; proposed to be undertaken at a higher density than

permitted under the existing zoning (28 storeys and 12.5:1 floor area ratio

in comparison to 4 storeys and 4.0:1 floor area ratio established in the

Zoning By-law; re-developing a vacant and under-utilized property; and

adding residential dwelling units. In every regard, the proposal represents

intensification as defined in the City’s Official Plan and is subject to the 13

evaluation criteria that are referenced in Part III, Policy 5.4.2 k).

2. The surrounding context of the development site does comprise an

established neighbourhood. Policy 5.5.1 i) in Part III of the Official Plan

describes the function of the downtown as one that provides “a municipal

wide function for lifestyle and entertainment uses and a Community

Commercial function for the surrounding residents”. This statement

describes the downtown as a place provides a community commercial

function for the people who live in and near the downtown. Furthermore,

one of the objectives of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre is its residential

function which is described in 5.5.2 g) and expresses the City’s intention

of increasing

“the resident population and [providing] a variety of housing types

mainly at medium and high densities that will strengthen the

live/work relationship, ensure the Downtown is used after

businesses hours, and create a local market for convenience and

service goods”.

of Report PB-23-15

Staff is of the opinion that that these descriptions accurately reflect the

role and function of Downtown Burlington and identify it as a unique and

important established neighbourhood within the City. While the built form

and uses of the Downtown may not resemble more traditional,

homogenous residential neighbourhoods, staff is of the opinion that the

proposed development is located in an established neighbourhood which

has a defined function and has maintained a variety of established land

uses for an extended period of time. The recently developed live/work

townhouses to the north are a sign of established built form, operate as a

condominium with multiple ownerships and are not likely to redevelop for a

significant amount of time. Some redevelopment may occur on properties

south and west of the subject property; however, a number of significant

residential buildings have been built in Downtown Burlington in the last ten

years which form a stable population base in the area.

The objective of the housing intensification policies is:

a) To encourage residential intensification as a means of increasing the

amount of available housing stock including rooming, boarding and

lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, infill, re-development and

conversions within existing neighbourhoods, provided the additional

housing is compatible with the scale, urban design and community

features of the neighbourhood.

The housing intensification policies are intended to encourage residential

intensification within existing neighbourhoods with the caveat that the additional

housing must be compatible with the scale, urban design and community

features of the neighbourhood. As discussed in the section below, the proposed

development is not compatible with the scale, urban design and community

features of the surrounding neighbourhood.

8.6 Intensification Evaluation Criteria

Section 2.5.2 in Part III of the City’s Official Plan contains thirteen criteria to

ensure that compatible intensification takes place. Staff has reviewed each

evaluation criterion carefully with respect to the subject applications and provides

this analysis below.

i) Adequate municipal services to accommodate the increased

demands are provided, including such services as water,

wastewater and storm sewers, school accommodation and

parkland;

Based on the technical reports which were submitted with the applications

and reviewed by staff at the Region of Halton and the City of Burlington,

of Report PB-23-15

adequate municipal services exist to accommodate the proposed

development including the provisions of water, wastewater and storm sewers,

school accommodation and parkland. Staff notes that the proposed

development is located near the Centennial Bikeway and Spencer Smith

Park. This criterion is met.

ii) Off-street parking is adequate;

The amount of off-street parking proposed for this development is inadequate.

Based on recent surveys completed by the City’s Transportation Department,

staff is of the opinion that the amount of parking required for this type of

development is consistent with the Zoning By-law provision which requires

1.25 spaces per unit and would ensure that the property is self sufficient in

terms of parking. Providing less than one space per unit is inadequate to

accommodate both the future residents of the building and their visitors and

that the proposed amount of parking will lead to a parking shortage in the

development at a later date. This criterion is not met.

iii) The capacity of the municipal transportation system can

accommodate any increased traffic flows, and the orientation of

ingress and egress and potential increased traffic volumes to

multi-purpose, minor and major arterial roads and collector

streets rather than local residential streets;

The municipal transportation system can accommodate the increased traffic

flows and the orientation of ingress and egress as well as potential increased

traffic volumes to Lakeshore Road. The proposed development will increase

the volume of traffic on Lakeshore Road, but the increased traffic flow can be

accommodated, particularly considering the downtown environment, the

provision of bicycle stalls, the multi-use trail and the proximity of the

Downtown Burlington bus terminal. However, staff notes that the assembly of

the property to the north would allow the access location to be situated farther

north from the intersection of Lakeshore and Martha Street, which would

provide additional distance to manage the vehicle queuing on Martha Street.

This criterion is met.

iv) The proposal is in proximity to existing or future transit facilities;

The proposed development is located approximately 290 metres southeast of

the John Street Downtown Bus Terminal and several bus stops are located

within a short distance of the proposed development. This criterion is met.

v) Compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood

character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks,

of Report PB-23-15

coverage, parking and amenity area so that a transition between

existing and proposed buildings is provided;

Staff is of the opinion that compatibility is not achieved with the existing

neighbourhood character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks,

coverage, parking and amenity area and that a transition between existing

and proposed buildings has not been provided. These issues are discussed

in detail below.

8.6.1 Scale

Scale refers to the apparent size or massing of a building as created by

the placement and size of the building in its setting in comparison with the

size of adjacent buildings and as perceived from the street in relation to

human scale. People tend to evaluate the physical size and massing of

built elements in relationship to their perception of objects that are the

approximate height and size of other people.

The proposed building will dominate the immediate structures around it; in

particular, the one storey commercial building to the west and the one

storey residential building to the north. The visual juxtaposition of

buildings one storey in height located next to a building that is 28 times

that height will introduce a scale that is incompatible on both the

Lakeshore Road and Martha Street streetscapes.

In addition, the proposed location of the structure situated extremely close

to adjacent property lines and buildings does not provide any

distinguishable separation distance from adjacent buildings and

contributes to the absence of “breathing room” for a structure of this

magnitude on a very small site. Unlike the “tower in the park” style of

development which provided generous landscaped setbacks to minimize

the impacts of building height on pedestrians, the height of the proposed

development will be visually reinforced by its proximity to adjacent one

storey buildings.

Further, the building does not propose any visual indicators of human

scale. The three level above-grade parking garage will visually dominate

the streetscape and direct pedestrians’ views upwards.

The scale of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing

neighbourhood character.

8.6.2 Massing

The City’s Official Plan defines massing as “the overall bulk, size, physical

volume, or magnitude of a structure or project”. The proposed

of Report PB-23-15

development as presented along the Lakeshore Road frontage will be

perceived as a tall glass building with horizontal lines created by the

balconies on each floor and some vertical elements along the western

side of the building. The three storey parking garage forms a solid

rectangular base as it cantilevers over the sidewalk as a slightly wider

element than the tower component. The verticality and massing of the

structure is not mitigated by strong building articulation, recessed facades

or stepbacks. Without these architectural cues, the proposed building will

present as a substantial rectangular mass situated on the corner of a

block amidst much smaller buildings. When viewed from Lakeshore

Road, the proposed 28-storey tower rises straight up to the full height of

the building (approximately 90 m (295 feet)) with no podium or stepbacks.

The massing of the proposed development is excessive as a result of

overbuilding the site and lack of assembly to create a larger building lot.

The massing of the proposed development is not compatible with the

existing neighbourhood character.

8.6.3 Height

The proposed building height is significantly taller than any other building

within the immediate vicinity. The nearest existing building with a height

greater than 20 storeys is located approximately 1.2 km to the west of the

subject property. The existing tall buildings that are within a 250 m

distance of the subject property range in height from 12 storeys to 17

storeys and still fall more than 10 storeys below the height of the proposed

development.

Staff notes that the Bridgewater site is located approximately 220 m to the

southwest of the subject property where a 22-storey condominium

apartment building is permitted. The proposed 22-storey building is

situated on the south side of Lakeshore Road, in close proximity to Lake

Ontario and is not located next to low-rise residential uses.

of Report PB-23-15

The following chart illustrates that the proposed building would be the

tallest and most dense building in the City.

LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT AREA

(in hectares)

NO. OF

UNITS

DENSITY

(units per hectare)

HEIGHT

(in storeys)

374 Martha Street 0.13 226 1,661 28

472 Brock Ave. 0.32 115 352 14

551 Maple Ave. 0.58 187 320 21

1270-1276 Maple Crossing Blvd. 2.24 525 234 19

1265, 1285, 1305 Ontario St. 2.14 530 247 18

1272 Ontario St. 0.22 48 223 13

1275 Elgin St. 0.78 198 255 15

1276 Elgin St. 0.26 44 170 6

490 Nelson Ave. 0.21 52 245 5

442-440 Maple Ave. 0.70 125 179 14

476-514, 480, 510 Maple Ave 2.34 239 103 7

Harbourview - 1455 Lakeshore Rd 0.34 62 183 12

Bunton's Wharf - 1477 Lakeshore Rd 0.21 60 285 14

Wellington Terrace - 375 Brant St 0.24 126 525 9

Village Square Condo - 430 Pearl St 0.20 55 275 5

Baxter's Wharf - 399 Elizabeth St 0.43 123 286 12

360 On Pearl - 360 Pearl St 0.23 75 326 17

Bridgewater Development - Lakeshore Rd.

0.68 150 221 22

Wellington Place - 478 Pearl St 0.46 160 348 18

Elizabeth Manor - 477 Elizabeth St 0.45 132 293 15

Carriage Gate Proposal - John St 0.38 154 405 17

While the Burlington downtown core has and will continue to

accommodate tall buildings, the existing and approved tall buildings are

typically either the “tower in the park” style of development set back far

from the street and buffered by open landscaped areas or more urban

developments that have used terracing and stepbacks to mitigate the

impacts of their height in the downtown core. The height of the proposed

development is not mitigated through either of these approaches. The

of Report PB-23-15

height of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing


8.6.4 Siting

As noted above, the siting of the proposed development is partially

responsible for the perceived scale and massing of the building. The

building will address the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street and

proposes no setbacks along the adjacent property lines to the west and to

the north. The building footprint will cover almost all of the lot and leaves

no room for vegetation or separation distance from adjacent buildings.

The siting does not provide any “breathing room” between the proposed

building on the corner property and the adjacent buildings to the north and

west; the proposed building will appear “crammed” into the block. The

siting of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing


8.6.5 Setbacks

The proposed development is requesting reduced setbacks along

Lakeshore Road and Martha Street and proposing to use the 0 m

setbacks for the interior yards. The cumulative effect of using reduced

setbacks and 0 m setbacks along all of the property lines provides minimal

separation from adjacent buildings. While many properties in the

surrounding area have 0 m setbacks along one or two property lines, they

also provide some amenity area at the front or the rear to provide relief

from the built form. There are no adjacent parcels that have been built to

nearly 100% lot coverage with minimal or 0 m setbacks along each

property line.

In addition, the proximity of the proposed development to recently

developed low-rise residential uses to the north should warrant some

setbacks from these sensitive adjacent land uses. The setbacks of the

proposed development are not compatible with the existing


8.6.6 Coverage

The drawings that were submitted as part of the subject applications did

not provide a calculation for lot coverage. However, staff notes that the

edge of the building wall runs along the southern property line and

western property line, runs along most of the eastern property line and

comes very close to the northern property lines in several locations. The

proposed building runs along a number of property lines and leaves no

space for landscaping or buffering the proposed development. As

of Report PB-23-15

discussed above, this property provides greater coverage and less

amenity or open space at grade than any other nearby property. The

coverage of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing


8.6.7 Parking

There are no other buildings along Lakeshore Road that contain above-

ground parking garages and the creation of one will negatively impact the

existing residential units to the north and east as well as the public realm

along the sidewalk. The additional noise and odor generated by the

above ground parking garage will travel into neighbouring properties and

negatively impact outdoor amenity spaces.

Staff has reviewed the development proposal and finds that the amount of

parking is inadequate to accommodate this type of development. The

Zoning By-law requires 1.25 spaces per apartment unit and does not

require assigned parking for visitors or the commercial uses. Using this

parking ratio, the parking requirement for the proposed development is

rounded up to 283 spaces. The development proposal includes 218

parking spaces and 0 visitor spaces which translate to 0.97 spaces per

unit. Staff considers this to be insufficient based on parking surveys that

have been conducted at other condominium buildings in downtown

Burlington.

Without adequate parking provisions, parking would be an on-going and

long-term issue for the tenants and visitors that will lead to by-law

enforcement issues and / or the use of surrounding streets and private

parking areas to accommodate the shortage of parking. The subject

applications have not referenced alternative ways of managing the parking

shortage. The parking provisions for the proposed development are not

compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

8.6.8 Amenity Area

There is no amenity area proposed at grade because of the reduced

setbacks and the amenity area proposed within the building falls

substantially short of the required amount of amenity area for a

development of this magnitude.

The drawings submitted with the applications indicate an indoor amenity

area of 477 m2 and an outdoor amenity area of 504 m2; however, it is

unclear if these numbers include the balcony areas which can be included

in the calculation of amenity area. The Zoning By-law requires 20 m2 of

of Report PB-23-15

amenity area for each apartment unit which translates into 4,520 m2 of

amenity area required for the building.

Based on the numbers submitted with the applications, the proposed

development provides far less than (approximately 21.7% of) the required

amenity area for the number of units proposed. The proposed building

should provide additional communal / gathering space for the residents in

the building to use during winter months. The amenity area for the

proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood

character because there are no outdoor amenity areas provided at grade

like the amenity areas that are provided in the “towers in the park” style of

development. Within the proposed building, the provided amenity area is

insufficient to adequately accommodate the future residents.

8.6.9 Transition Between Existing and Proposed Buildings

There is currently a one storey commercial building immediately west of

the site, three storey townhouses north of the site and a one storey

detached residential dwelling to the north of the site which have not been

appropriately considered in the applications for this proposed

development. The 28 storey building with a four storey podium, three of

which comprise a parking garage, does not provide a compatible transition

between the existing buildings and the proposed building. In fact, the one

storey residential dwelling abutting the site will be engulfed by three levels

of above ground parking which wrap around the south and west sides of

the property. The transition between existing and proposed buildings is

not compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

Based on the incompatible scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks,

coverage, parking, amenity area and transition between existing and

proposed buildings, this criterion is not met.

vi) Effects on existing vegetation are minimized, and appropriate

compensation is provided for significant loss of vegetation, if

necessary to assist in maintaining neighbourhood character;

The survey submitted with the subject applications does not show all of the

boundary trees and there could be potential impacts to existing trees along

shared property lines. The impacts on existing vegetation on the site will be

minimal since the site is currently paved and has been used as a parking lot.

This criterion is met.

of Report PB-23-15

vii) Significant sun-shadowing for extended periods on adjacent

properties, particularly outdoor amenity areas, is at an acceptable

level;

The sun-shadowing on adjacent properties is limited because the floor plate

of the tower results in a very narrow and long shadow. The properties that

will experience the greatest amount of shadowing are the one storey

residential dwelling to the north and the three storey townhouses to the

northwest. Some shadow impacts would occur under the current zoning

permissions for a 2-4 storey building. This criterion is met.

viii) Accessibility exists to community services and other

neighbourhood conveniences such as community centres,

neighbourhood shopping centres and health care;

Accessibility to community services and neighbourhood conveniences are

available because the subject property is located in the City’s downtown area

which provides a wide variety of community service, commercial and health

care amenities. This criterion is met.

ix) Capability exists to provide adequate buffering and other

measures to minimize any identified impacts;

No capability exists to provide adequate landscape buffering or softening of

the streetscape because of the reduced setbacks and the increased lot

coverage which negatively impacts the pedestrian scale and comfort. As

such, the impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the height and

massing of the proposed development have not been mitigated through the

subject applications. This criterion is not met.

x) Where intensification potential exists on more than one adjacent

property, any re-development proposals on an individual property

shall demonstrate that future re-development on adjacent

properties will not be comprised, and this may require the

submission of a tertiary plan, where appropriate;

The future re-development of the parcel to the north, 380 Martha Street, will

be compromised by the development of the subject property and greater

efforts should have been made to acquire that property in order to assemble a

square piece of property at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street.

Additional property could have also been assembled to the west along

Lakeshore Road to create a larger building lot. Staff is of the opinion that the

property at 380 Martha Street will have very limited re-development potential

as a result of the subject applications. There should be a more extensive

of Report PB-23-15

assembly of adjacent lands. The site by itself is too small to support a

building of this size and massing. This criterion is not met.

xi) Natural and cultural heritage features and areas of natural hazard

are protected;

The proposed development does not negatively impact natural and cultural

heritage features nor areas of natural hazard because there are no natural or

cultural heritage features or areas of natural hazard in proximity to the

proposed development. This criterion is met.

xii) Where applicable, there is consideration of the policies of Part II,

Subsection 2.11.3 g) and m); and

The subject policies have been considered and Policy 2.11.3 g) in Part II is

not applicable because there are no floodplains or watercourses located on

the subject property and Policy 2.11.3 m) is not applicable because the

proposed development is not located in the South Aldershot Planning Area.

This criterion is not applicable.

xiii) proposals for non-ground oriented housing intensification shall

be permitted only at the periphery of existing residential

neighbourhoods on properties abutting, and having direct

vehicular access to, major arterial, minor arterial or multi-purpose

arterial roads and only provided that the built form, scale and

profile of development is well integrated with the existing

neighbourhood so that a transition between existing and

proposed residential buildings is provided.

This criterion is not applicable in the Downtown Core Precinct.

8.7 Urban Design Policies

Part II, Section 6 of the Official Plan addresses urban design. The preamble of

the Design section states that “the public expects a high standard of architecture

and will pay more attention to visual coherence and integrity)in re-development

that must be integrated within the existing urban fabric”.

The urban design objectives are provided in Part II, Policy 6.2, including the

objective of

“) [ensuring] that the design of the built environment strengthens and

enhances the character of existing distinctive locations and

neighbourhoods, and that proposals for intensification and infill within

existing neighbourhoods are designed to be compatible and sympathetic

to existing neighbourhood character” (Policy 6.2 c) as well as “)

of Report PB-23-15

[ensuring] consistency, compatibility, and quality in the built environment

while allowing for a diverse design expression” (Policy 6.2 f).

Section 6.5 sets out the design guidelines policies:

a) “The density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials of

development are to be compatible with its surrounding area.

b) The compatibility of adjacent residential and non-residential development

shall be encouraged through site design and buffering measures,

including landscape screening and fencing.

c) The design of all buildings must recognize pedestrian scale, safety and

the perception of safety and access and the preservation of public vistas

and views.”

g) “The location, amount, position and design of parking areas shall be

reviewed to minimize their potential to erode the qualities of the public

streetscape, and to lessen their visual impact.”

The proposed development does not satisfy Policy 6.5 a) with respect to the

density, form, bulk, height, setbacks and spacing of the proposed development in

relation to the abutting and adjacent properties. The density of the proposed

development significantly exceeds the density of any other site in the Downtown

Area. The form and bulk of the building includes a three-storey above-grade

parking garage that cantilevers out over the public realm and none of the

required terracing is provided. The height of the proposed development is

significantly greater than the height prescribed in the zoning by-law or provided

for in the Official Plan.

The applications propose the tallest tower in the City of Burlington. The

proposed development has minimal setbacks from each property line which

situates the podium of the structure extremely close to the existing adjacent

properties and buildings. In fact, the one-storey commercial building located

west of the subject property is located approximately 0.15 m from the mutual

property line and the proposed development has requested a 0 m setback from

this property line. This means that the first four storeys of the proposed

development would be built right to the shared property line and there would be a

space of approximately 0.15 m between the existing commercial building and the

proposed 28-storey building.

Based on preliminary conversations with the City’s Building Department, the

existing and proposed walls adjacent to the commercial building could have no

unprotected openings (i.e. windows or doors) and the proposed western

elevation would have to be constructed and clad with non-combustible materials

and have a maximum 2 hour fire-resistance rating. The proposed building design

does not recognize pedestrian scale and does not consider the preservation of

of Report PB-23-15

public vistas and views. The inclusion of three levels of above-grade parking

along the most important east-west arterial in the City’s downtown core does not

achieve desirable urban design principles. The location, amount and position of

the development’s above-grade parking area has not been minimized to avoid

eroding the qualities of the public streetscape on Lakeshore Road and to lessen

its visual impact.

The Planning Justification Report submitted in support of the applications

describes the four storey podium as “addressing Lakeshore Road and Martha

Street with good proportion)” (p. 23). While the podium base will address the

road network to the south and the east of the subject property, staff is of the

opinion that this analysis of compatibility fails to consider the existing structures

to the north and west of the site which include a one storey commercial building,

three storey live/work units, three storey townhouses and a one storey detached

residential dwelling.

of Report PB-23-15

Planning Opinion on the City of Burlington’s Official Plan:

The proposed development represents residential intensification and is therefore

subject to the housing intensification objectives and policies in the Official Plan. The

proposed development provides additional housing in the form of residential

intensification, but the proposed development is not compatible with the scale, urban

design and community features of the neighbourhood and does not meet the objective

of the housing intensification policies.

The nearest residential buildings are the one storey detached residential dwelling to the

north and the three storey townhouses to the northwest of the subject property. A five

storey retirement residence is located on the east side of Martha Street and a 12 storey

apartment building is located further northeast from the subject property. The proposed

four storey podium which contains a three level parking garage with a 24 storey tower

above at this location does not integrate well with the existing neighbourhood and does

not provide an appropriate or a compatible transition between the existing and proposed

residential buildings.

In fact, many of the taller residential buildings in the area are located northeast and

southeast of the subject property and the existing buildings have greater setbacks from

the street and from adjacent properties. The block containing the subject property

generally has a lower density built form with building heights ranging from 1-3 storeys

and the proposed development does not provide setbacks from the street nor from

adjacent properties.

The proposed development fails to satisfy a number of intensification criterion including

ii), v), ix), x) and xiii) which concern

• the provision of off-street parking;

• the achievement of compatibility with the existing neighbourhood character in

terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity

areas to provide a transition between existing and proposed buildings;

• the provision of adequate buffering; the compromised redevelopment potential

for the abutting property located at 380 Martha Street;

• the requirement for intensification proposals to be well integrated with the

existing neighbourhood in terms of built form, scale and development profile in

order to provide a transition between existing and proposed residential buildings;

• the building height, massing and density lead to the overdevelopment of a very

small lot; and

• the proposal represents overintensification.

The proposed development fails to satisfy the residential intensification policies of the

Official Plan and does not represent good planning.

of Report PB-23-15

9.0 City of Burlington Downtown Urban Design Guidelines

The Downtown Urban Guidelines (hereafter referred to as “the Guidelines”) present a

series of guidelines regarding development in Burlington’s downtown which are

intended to supplement the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The Urban Design

Guidelines are a component of the City’s planning framework and provide a toolbox for

municipal planners to assess development applications and inform the City’s

expectations for built form in a specific area.

The Guidelines provide “a set of recommendations to ensure that new development

protects the most crucial aspects of Downtown Burlington’s existing character [which

includes]

• the relationship of buildings to streets and open spaces;

• the articulation of facades;

• the relationship of buildings to one another;

• the protection of important views;

• the fine-grained pedestrian network with its shortcuts and urban paths; and

• the palette of materials” (Guidelines, 1.3).

In this document, the subject property is identified as being located within the Old

Lakeshore Road Precinct Special Study Area. Staff notes that the Official Plan land use

designations that existed at the time the Guidelines were published differ from the

Official Plan designations that are in effect today.

The Guidelines address a number of topics including:

• loading and service areas;

• setbacks;

• street wall;

• heights; massing;

• separation between tall elements;

• high rise massing;

• high rise design and architectural quality; and

• high rise building massing, articulation and detailing.

9.1 Specific Guidelines Relevant to the Proposed Development

The following guidelines are relevant to the proposed development.

9.1.1 Building Heights

The Guidelines recognize that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law

determine the allowable height of developments while the Guidelines

recommend how the height should be articulated and address a variety of

issues and conditions regarding future infill and new site development.

of Report PB-23-15

The Guidelines state that “existing or approved building heights generally

follow a logical pattern that has a “peak” around the Lakeshore-Brant

intersection and descends along “ridges” towards low-rise areas”

(Guidelines, 5.6.1).

The proposal for the tallest building height near the eastern boundary of

the downtown is not in keeping with the vision for building heights in the

downtown.

9.1.2 Horizontal Through-Wall Venting

Guideline 5.3.2 states that “horizontal through-wall venting to the street

should only be allowed if it is integrated with the architectural design and

not visible to the passer-by”. The western elevation of the parking garage

cannot have any unprotected openings which will result in more than 25%

of the wall area along the northern, eastern and southern elevations as

discussed in Sections 8.3.1.1 and 8.7 of this report. The eastern and

southern elevations face the street and the northern elevation faces

residential development, so staff is of the opinion that this guideline will be

difficult to implement within the proposed development.

9.1.3 Building Setbacks

Guideline 5.4.1 applies to building setbacks which “should be sensitive to

the location of existing built form, sun angles and the intended use of the

sidewalk (patio, gathering place, etc)) [Setbacks] should be well

designed to accommodate a variety of hard and soft streetscapes”. The

proposed development is not sensitive to the location of the surrounding

buildings and the proposed setbacks cannot accommodate soft

streetscaping.

9.1.4 Building Stepbacks

Guideline 5.4.2 states that “stepbacks of upper storeys should be provided

so that building bulk is minimally perceived from the vantage of a

pedestrian on the street. Stepbacks should be considered for buildings

above three storeys”. The proposed development does not provide

stepbacks of upper storeys to minimize the building bulk from the vantage

of pedestrians on Lakeshore Road and the stepbacks for the tower that

begin after the fourth storey of the parking garage are viewable from the

residential properties to the north of the subject property and for

pedestrians on Martha Street. The Guidelines recommend that stepbacks

are considered for buildings above three storeys to minimize the

perception of upper storeys from the vantage of a pedestrian, especially

because stepbacks allow for terraces and suitable angular planes (5.6.5).

of Report PB-23-15

The built form of the proposed development does not meet this guideline

as it does not utilize stepbacks.

9.1.5 Visual Angular Plane Analysis

Guideline 5.6.2 describes how visual angular plane analysis should be

used for determining the appropriate building envelope for a specific site.

Visual angular plane analysis “utilizes a site cross-section and drawing a

45-degree angle measured from the property boundary located directly

across the street of the proposed development. The line extension of this

angle determines the overall maximum building massing along that

frontage. Additional building height can be achieved with stepbacks”.

This report addresses the visual angular plane study submitted with the

subject applications in Section 8.3.1.2 of this report. The proposed height

and massing of the subject development do not satisfy the intention of the

visual angular plane study.

9.1.6 Tower Location and Orientation

Guideline 5.6.7 recommends that towers are placed away from the corner

of two intersecting streets and that the narrowest width of a point tower

should orient to the main street wall so as to minimize shadowing impacts.

Contrary to this guideline, the tower component of the proposed

development is located directly at the corner of Lakeshore Road and

Martha Street and the narrowest width of the tower is not oriented to

Lakeshore Road, but to Martha Street.

9.2 High Rise Design and Architectural Quality

One section of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines focuses on High Rise

Design and Architectural Quality (5.7). The following High Rise Design

Guidelines are relevant to the proposed development and have been evaluated

as follows:

• “Human scale should be reinforced through appropriate building height,

mass and architectural design. The articulation of the building base is

critical)”

o The tower facing Lakeshore Road does not reinforce human scale

through the proposed building height or mass as described above

and the boxy building base is not well-articulated at the street level.

• “The impact of high rises on) adjacent properties should be minimized

through adequate height and mass transition, separation and

landscaping.”

of Report PB-23-15

o The impact of the proposed development on adjacent properties is

significant and has not been minimized through height and mass

transitions or through separation distance or landscaping as the 0

m setbacks leave no room to accommodate landscaping at grade.

• “High-rise buildings should be designed to achieve a high degree of

environmental sustainability and address opportunities for solar orientation

and water runoff minimization.”

o The subject applications have not included any environmentally

sustainable initiatives associated with the proposed development

and have not addressed issues such as solar orientation, water

runoff minimization and green roofs.

• “Parking areas should be located underground.”

o The development proposes a portion of the parking to be located

underground, but more than one third of the parking is proposed to

be located above ground.

• “High rise buildings constitute structures nine to fourteen storeys in

height.”

o The proposed development far exceeds the definition of high rise

buildings as described in the Guidelines (nine to fourteen storeys).

• “New developments should clearly express a minimum 2 storey podium at

the street level with proportioning consistent with the existing 2 to 5 storey

surrounding built form.”

o The proposed development does not clearly express a podium at

the street level with proportioning consistent with the surrounding

built form. The Planning Justification report submitted in support of

the applications indicates that the proposed development “would be

comprised of distinct podium and tower elements” and that “the

upper storey of the podium [will be] cantilevered over the widened

portion of the sidewalk” (WND Report, p. 4). The podium

component of the proposed development is not distinct at the street

level; only at the rear of the property.

• “New developments should be designed to provide a height transition to

surrounding lower scale developments and public spaces to minimize

impacts of taller buildings, including shadowing and wind acceleration.

These transitions or step-backs should generally be at the height of the

adjacent buildings or one additional storey more.”

o The proposed development has not been designed to provide a

height transition to the surrounding lower scale developments to

minimize the impacts of the proposed tall building, including

shadowing and wind impacts. The transition is not at the height of,

of Report PB-23-15

nor does it gradually step down to match the height of the adjacent

buildings which include two one-storey buildings and as well as

three-storey townhouses.

• “Negative impacts on adjacent properties including overshadowing,

overlooking and wind tunnel effects should be addressed through

appropriate building set-backs, ‘stepbacks’, height and massing.”

o The negative impacts on adjacent properties including

overshadowing and overlooking created by the proposed

development have not been addressed through appropriate

building setbacks, stepbacks, height and massing. The building

does not utilize setbacks or stepbacks; the height is significant in

comparison to adjacent properties; and the massing takes the form

of a solid tower.

• “Visual Angular Plane Analysis should be used in combination with other

tools)to determine appropriate building envelopes. Depending on site

location, adjacent properties and street widths, building stepbacks above

the 2-4 storey base may be required to mitigate issues of privacy, sunlight,

shadows and views.”

o The results of the visual angular plane analysis were not used to

determine the appropriate building envelope. Based on the site

location and adjacent properties, building stepbacks should have

been used to mitigate issues of privacy, sunlight, shadows and

views.

• “New developments should seek to achieve a unique expressive identity

respectful of context. Fitting developments within more historic contexts

should be achieved with compatible building proportions)”

o The proposed development does not provide building proportions

that are compatible with the existing built form because the height

and massing of the proposed development significantly exceed

those of the adjacent low rise developments.

of Report PB-23-15

Planning Opinion on the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines:

The proposed development is not in keeping with the City’s Downtown Urban Design

Guidelines for high rise development for the following reasons:

• the building setbacks are not sensitive to the existing built form;

• the building does not propose stepbacks to reduce the perception of building bulk

from the street;

• the building does not utilize the results of the visual angular plane study to

determine the appropriate building height and/or massing;

• the tower is not located away from the corner of the two intersecting streets;

• the building height, mass and architectural design present a tall, boxy structure

that does not reinforce human scale;

• the impact of the high rise development on adjacent properties has not been

appropriately minimized through a transition of height, mass, separation and

landscaping;

• three levels of above-grade parking that address the street are proposed;

• the proposed development does not clearly express a podium at the street level

with a proportion and massing that is consistent with the surrounding built form;

• the proposed development has not been designed to provide a height transition

to the surrounding lower scale developments to minimize the shadowing and

wind impacts; and

• the negative impacts on adjacent properties related to overshadowing and

overlooking have not been addressed through building setbacks, stepbacks,

height and massing.

10.0 Zoning By-law 2020

The subject property is currently zoned “DC” (Downtown Core), as illustrated in Sketch

1 attached in Appendix I. The DC zone permits a wide range of retail commercial,

service commercial, community, office, hospitality and entertainment and recreation

uses. The DC zone permits dwelling units in a commercial/office building, apartment

building and retirement home with a requirement that the ground floor of any building

within 15 m of a public street shall be used only for retail or service commercial uses

with some exceptions.

The DC zone permits a maximum building height of 4 storeys (15 m) and a maximum

floor area ratio of 4.0:1. The applicant is proposing an exception to the DC zone to

accommodate the proposed development.

The regulations for the DC zone are listed below. For comparison, Table 1 lists the DC

zone requirements and the proposed DC-exception zoning for the 28-storey mixed use

building.

of Report PB-23-15

Table 1 – Proposed Development Details

Zoning Regulation

DC - Required Proposed DC - Exception

Compliance / Non-compliance with current Zoning Regulations

Minimum Lot Width

7.5 m No change Complies.

Minimum Lot Area

No minimum No change Complies.

Building Height Minimum: 2 storeys (First and Second Storeys 4.5 m each)

Maximum: 4 storeys and 15 m

28 storeys (86.27 m) Does not comply.

Floor Area Ratio 4.0:1 maximum 12.5:1 Does not comply.

Landscape Buffer Abutting a Residential or DRL Zone

3 m 0 m Does not comply.

Parking 1.25 spaces per unit

1.25 spaces x 226 units = 282.5 units

218 spaces Does not comply.

65 parking spaces below requirement

Amenity Area 20 m2 per unit

20 m2 x 226 units = 4520 m2

Indoor: 477 m2

Outdoor: 504 m2

Total: 981 m2

Does not comply.

3,539 m2 below requirement

Yard Abutting a Street

Martha Street Setbacks

Floor 1: 1 m from Martha Street

Floors 2-4: 0 m from Martha Street

Lakeshore Road Setbacks

Floor 1: 3 m from Lakeshore Road

Floors 2-4: 2 m from Lakeshore Road

(As required on


Underground parking: 0 m

Floors 1-4: 0 m

Floors 5-19: 3 m

Floors 20-26: 2.4 m

Floor 27: 1.1 m

Floor 28: 1.3 m


Underground


Underground parking: Complies.

Floor 1: Does not comply.

Floors 2-4: Complies.

Floors 5-28: No applicable zoning regulation, but complies with zoning regulation for Floors 1-4

of Report PB-23-15

Diagram 6A in the Zoning By-law)

parking: 0 m

Floor 1: 2 m

Floors 2-4: 0 m (2.0 m encroachment above right-of-way)

Floors 5-19: 3 m

Floors 20-21: 2.4 m

Floor 22: 0 m (2.0 encroachment above right-of-way)

Floors 23-26: 2.4 m

Floor 27: 1.1 m (2.0 m encroachment above right-of-way)

Floor 28: 1.3 m (2.0 m encroachment above right-of-way)


Underground parking: Does not comply.

Floor 1-4: Does not comply.

Floors 5-21, 23-26: No applicable zoning regulation, but complies with zoning regulation for Floors 1-4

Floors 22, 27 & 28 – No applicable zoning regulation, but does not comply with zoning regulation for Floors 1-4

Rear Yard & Side Yard

None required for lots abutting Lakeshore Road or Martha Street

Interior Side Yards:


Floors 1-4: 0 m

Floors 5-28: 3 m

Complies.

Yard Abutting a residential, DRM or DRL zone

3 m Interior Side Yards:


Floors 1-4: 0 m

Floors 5-28: 3 m

Underground parking and Floors 1-4: Does not comply.

Floors 5-28: Complies.

The subject applications propose a significant number of site-specific zoning provisions

in order to facilitate the proposed development.

The proposed development requires a reduced setback from Martha Street for the first

storey (0 m proposed where 1 m is required) as well as reduced setbacks from

Lakeshore Road to accommodate the underground parking and the first five storeys and

the 22nd, 27th and 28th floors of the proposed development (0 m for underground

parking, 2 m for first floor, and 0 m for floors 2 – 5 where 3 m is required for the first

floor and 2 m is required for the other storeys).

of Report PB-23-15

While no setbacks are required for the interior yard, the existing one storey commercial

building directly west of the proposed development is located extremely close to the

mutually shared property line which will result in a limited distance between the rear

eastern wall of the commercial building and the proposed western wall of the 28-storey

building in the vicinity of 0.1 to 0.15 m (approximately 4-6 inches). Based on a cursory

review of the Building Code, staff notes that the western wall of the 28-storey building

would not be permitted to have any openings (doors or windows); would be required to

be built using non-combustible materials such as steel beams and would need to be

constructed using materials with the maximum fire rating (2 hours).

It would be virtually impossible for either property owner to maintain the exterior walls of

their buildings that are located near the shared property line.

Planning Opinion on Zoning By-law 2020:

The zoning changes requested are excessive. The site as proposed would be overbuilt

and should not be approved.

11.0 Technical Review

On October 17th, 2014, staff circulated a request for comments to internal departments

and external agencies. The relevant technical comments from Site Engineering and

Forestry are attached in Appendix B.

Transportation Department

Parking Garage Design

Transportation staff noted the following concerns with the parking garage design:

• The ascending and descending ramps in the parking garage are proposed to

have a 15% slope which will cause potential hazards. For example, on Levels 1

and 2, there is a 15% slope proposed where cars make a 180 degree turn and

this ramp cannot accommodate two cars driving from each direction

simultaneously.

• The proposed structural columns are not set back from the driving aisle to

provide for adequate clearance between columns.

• Where structural columns are proposed, the parking space has not been

increased in width to accommodate the obstructed side.

• The proposed underground parking stalls are undersized and do not comply with

the City’s guidelines.

• These comments are based on preliminary drawings supplied to date. Other

concerns may surface as further details are provided.

of Report PB-23-15

Staff is of the opinion that the parking garage does not meet minimum standards as

proposed. With the removal of the cantilevered portion of the building, staff is of the

opinion that the turning movements inside the parking garage will be even tighter and

that it will be challenging to accommodate the same number of proposed parking

spaces at the required stall size, let alone the number of required parking spaces at the

required stall size.

PART C

Financial Matters:

The Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications have been processed

under the standard development application fees. Staff does not support the

applications and therefore cannot support any Section 37 considerations. Should an

acceptable application involving additional height and/or density be filed, staff would

recommend that Section 37 be invoked.

PART D

Public Engagement Matters:

Public Circulation

The applications were subject to the standard circulation requirements and a public

notice and request for comments were circulated in September 2014 to all

owners/tenants within 120 m of the subject property. A notice sign was also posted on

the property.

Neighbourhood Meeting

On October 9th, 2014, a neighbourhood meeting was held at the Art Gallery of

Burlington and was attended by approximately 125 members of the public.

Comments included the following:

• Traffic & safety

o Increased traffic volumes

o Turning movements, especially left-turns onto Lakeshore Road

o Location and interaction of driveways on Martha Street

• Inadequate parking spaces to accommodate residents and visitors

• Concern with number of units / density

o Poor location for additional density

of Report PB-23-15

o Proposed development constitutes over-intensification

• Concern with building height

o Building height is not compatible with adjacent buildings and land uses

o Proposed building height will cast significant shadows on adjacent

properties

• Drainage & flooding

o How will water be managed on site?

o Where will snow storage be located?

• Concern about length of construction period

• Urban Design

o The above-ground parking garage is not attractive or compatible

o The building will overhang the street

o Inadequate landscaping proposed

• Concern that this application will be precedent setting

• Concern about the significant increase in density from the permissions set out in

the Zoning By-law and Official Plan

Written and Emailed Public Comments

Between September and December 2014, staff received 108 emails, 10 letters, 6

neighbourhood meeting comment sheets and 3 phone calls (127 total). These letters

and emails are attached in Appendix III of PB-05-15.

Since December 2014, an additional 10 emails and one phone call (11 total) from the

public have been received. These letters and emails are included in Appendix E of PB-

23-15.

The general themes of these comments are:

• General opposition to the proposed development

• Concern about the significant increase in density from the permissions set out in

the Zoning By-law and Official Plan

• Concern with number of units / density

o Poor location for additional density

o Proposed development constitutes over-intensification

• Concern with building height

o Building height is not compatible with adjacent buildings and land uses

o Proposed building height will cast significant shadows on adjacent

properties

• Concern about development industry establishing heights/densities rather than

the Official Plan

• Traffic & safety

o Increased traffic volumes

of Report PB-23-15

o Turning movements, especially left-turns onto Lakeshore Road

o Location and interaction of driveways on Martha Street

o Pedestrian safety

• Concern that this application will be precedent setting

• Inadequate parking spaces to accommodate residents and visitors

• Drainage & flooding

o Impacts on water table and potential flooding

• Concern about length of construction period

• Concern about minimal area for loading and unloading for retail units

• Urban Design / Streetscape Impacts

o The above-ground parking garage is not attractive or compatible

o The building will overhang the street

o Inadequate landscaping proposed

o Concerns about impacts on views of the waterfront

o Concerns about architectural quality

• Impacts on servicing / water, wastewater and hydro capacity

• Privacy concerns

Conclusion:

Staff has reviewed the proposed applications in accordance with applicable provincial,

regional and municipal planning policies and guidelines. Staff finds the applications

propose an inappropriate level of intensification on a very small parcel at the periphery

of the downtown core without consideration of the adverse impacts on adjacent

properties. It is staff’s opinion that, because of the size of the lot and the magnitude of

the proposed building, the development does not provide adequate setbacks and

buffering along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries; does not provide an

adequate landscape buffer along abutting residential uses; does not provide sufficient

resident or visitor parking; does not provide adequate amenity space; and does not

mitigate the negative noise, odor, light and air quality impacts on adjacent properties.

The proposed density, measured in both units per hectare and floor area ratio, is too

high for this small property and is indicative of the overdevelopment of this site. The

height, density and massing of the proposal is not appropriate for this site and does not

fit with the existing and planned context for this area. The overall proposal does not

conform to the City’s Official Plan, does not achieve compatible intensification,

represents overdevelopment of the site and does not represent good planning. Staff

therefore recommends refusal of the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning

By-law.

of Report PB-23-15

Respectfully submitted,

Rosa Bustamante, Planner 2

335-7600 ext. 7811

Appendices:

a. Sketches

b. Technical Comments

c. Sustainable Development Committee Comments

d. Burlington Downtown Business Association Comments

e. Public Comments

Notifications: (after Council decision)

Approved by:

Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of Planning and Building

Blake Hurley, Assistant City Solicitor

Scott Stewart, General Manager of Dev. and Infrastructure

Nancy Shea Nicol, Interim City Manager, Director of Legal Services & City

Solicitor

Reviewed by:

Name: Mailing or E-mail Address:

of Report PB-23-15

APPENDIX A - Sketches

of Report PB-23-15

of Report PB-23-15

APPENDIX B – Technical Comments

City of Burlington Site Engineering Comments

Site Plan

It is Site Engineering’s interpretation that a portion of the proposed building envelope

along Lakeshore Rd will encroach on to the City of Burlington’s Right of Way. At this

time Site Engineering cannot support this proposed layout, and would not enter into a

permanent encroachment agreement.

Please make the according changes to the architectural plans and re-submit once the

building envelope (vertical, horizontal) are confined to the limits of the site only.

Geotechnical Investigation

Site Engineering has reviewed the submitted “Geotechnical Investigation” prepared by

Landtek Limited dated February 21st, 2014, and our comments are as follows:

The geotechnical investigation report was completed under the impression that an

eighteen storey condominium building with up to two levels of underground parking

would be proposed. The applicant however is proposing a 28 Storey condominium

building with up to 5 levels of underground parking.

Therefore a revised geotechnical report with new borehole depths and analysis must be

re-submitted for review prior to final approval.

In addition the following questions should be addressed:

• Are there any concerns about salt, chemicals, toxins etc from the underground

parking structure leaching into the water table or Lake Ontario? What provisions

are typically proposed?

• Will the structure disrupt the ground water table? Are existing adjacent

developments at any risk of ground water fluctuation?

Stormwater Management (FSR)

The existing site can be described as a paved parking lot with no existing stormwater

infrastructure. Site drainage is currently conveyed via sheet flow in a southerly direction

towards Lakeshore Road. “Uncontrolled Quantity”

It is Site Engineering’s understanding that the proposed development will now control

approximately 97% of the sites stormwater using an underground storage tank (31.8

cu.m) and restrict the flows to the maximum permissible outflow of 0.018 cu. m/s. The

remaining 3% will remain landscaped and graded accordingly. Therefore the applicant

has addressed the City of Burlington’s Stormwater Requirements for the subject site.

*Please note there may be minor revisions and calculations to be confirmed at the Site

Plan stage

of Report PB-23-15

Noise Report

The recommendation for an extension of an existing shielding structure with a partial

roof at the existing retirement residence will not be accepted by Site Engineering staff

as a form of mitigation. Alternative measures should be explored and a revised Noise

Report will need to be re-submitted at the Site Plan Review Stage.

Section 5 of the noise report indicates that an overall power level of 80dBa was

assumed for the parking garage exhaust fans. They are also assumed to operate at

50% capacity during daytime and night-time hours. If the operation capacity increases

any more than 50% will the residential receptors to the north and east still meet MOE

limits?

Was any thought or calculation taken into consideration for vehicles entering/exiting the

1st, 2nd, and 3rd above ground parking levels for noise that may be generated and impact

residents (receptors) to the north and east. The architectural plans seem to show an

open concept façade with potential voids that may allow for additional noise. Please

provide a figure similar to Figure 4 in the study, which outlines the impact of the

proposed development to the surrounding receptors for all proposed noise sources.

Section 6.3 of the noise report indicates that an assumed worst case operating scenario

predicted for the night-time sound levels may exceed the applicable criteria by up to

2dB on the east façade of the proposed residential building. Recommendations were

made by the consulting engineer to extend an existing roof screen which is located on

the north and east side of the retirement residence to the west side of the condensing

unit with a partial roof. The recommendation proposes work on an adjacent property.

Please provide Site Engineering with a process on how you wish to accomplish the

noted mitigation.

Environmental Report

Landtek has confirmed in there Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for 2069

Lakeshore Road and 374 Martha Street that environmental quality of the soil at the

subject site displays no obvious issues or evidence of major environmental

concern/impact. The conclusion is based on historical and regulatory information, and

observations made during the site inspection.

Please note that a Record of Site Condition will be required at the Site Plan Stage.

*Site Engineering has no issues with the ESA report submitted

of Report PB-23-15

Additional Drawings Required

In addition to the above mentioned notes the following drawings will be required at the

Site Plan stage:

• Lighting and Photometrics Plan (incl. site statistics tables and detail sheets of the

fixtures) all lights must be dark sky compliant and full cut-off

• Construction Management Plan

• Utilities Coordination Plan

of Report PB-23-15

City of Burlington Forestry Comments

To: Rosa Bustamante, Planner 1

From: Vanessa Aykroyd, Intermediate Technician - Landscaping

Cc: Rosalind Minaji, Coordinator of Development Review

Brian McKelvey, City Arborist

Angelo Capone, Coordinator, Site Engineering

Date: November 17, 2014

I have reviewed the information contained in the proposed Rezoning and Official Plan

Amendment Application, and have the following comments:

Urban Forestry/Landscape Comments

Trees were not shown on the OLS Survey provided with the application, only on the

Tree Preservation Plan prepared by ‘adesso design inc.’ dated 201-09-03. This is of

concern due to the location of trees in close proximity to the property lines. Specifically:

• Tree #2 located within 1.0m of the property line is listed in the inventory schedule as a single stem Red Maple with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 60cm, but is graphically represented on plan as only 40cm.

• Tree #3 located within 1.0m of the property line is listed in the inventory schedule as having two stems, 50 and 60cm DBH respectively, but is represented graphically on the plan as a single stem tree with a diameter of approximately 70cm.

• Tree #8 located within 1.0m of the property line is listed in the inventory schedule as having two stems, 40 and 70cm DBH respectively, but is represented graphically on the plan as a single stem tree with a diameter of approximately 60cm.

Ultimately, it is unclear exactly where these trees are located, as they have not been

shown on the OLS survey. Confirmation of the actual location of trees will be required.

The accurate location of trees close to or on the property lines of a site is of great

importance as the Forestry Act of Ontario legislates actions taken that will impact

shared trees.

of Report PB-23-15

Section 10. (2) of the Forestry Act of Ontario specifies that a “Boundary Tree” is “Every

tree whose trunk is growing on the boundary between adjoining lands is the common

property of the owners of the adjoining lands. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 21.”

Section 10. (3) of the Forestry Act of Ontario also states that: ”Every person who injures

or destroys a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent

of the land owners is guilty of an offence under this Act. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 21.”

We are unable to approve any application that would contradict the provincial

legislation.

The accurate location of boundary trees, as determined by an OLS Surveyor, will inform

further conditions. If any of the trees are co-owned, consent of the co-owners will be

required before the application can be further reviewed.

to: development and infrastructure committee from ......andrew ferancik, walker nott dragicevic...

Documents