Page 1 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
Page 2 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
Page 3 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
5.2 2007 – Official Plan Amendment 59 22
5.3 2008 – Burlington Intensification Study 23
Page 4 of Report PB-23-15
5.4 2009 – Official Plan Amendment 73 23
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
Page 5 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
Page 6 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
Page 7 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
Page 8 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)
Page 9 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).
Page 10 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
Page 11 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
Page 12 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
Page 13 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;
Page 14 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”.
Page 15 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.
Page 16 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
Page 17 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.
Page 18 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.
Page 19 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.
Page 20 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.
Page 21 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
Page 22 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.
5.2 2007 – Official Plan Amendment 59
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)
Page 23 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.
5.4 2009 – Official Plan Amendment 73
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.
Page 24 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
Page 25 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.
Page 26 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.
Page 27 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
Page 28 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.
Page 29 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.
Page 30 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
Page 31 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.
Page 32 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
Page 33 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
Page 34 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:
Page 35 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
Page 36 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
Page 37 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
Page 38 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.
Page 39 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
Page 40 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.
Page 41 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
Page 42 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:
Page 43 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
Page 44 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”.
Page 45 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”.
Page 46 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,
Page 47 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,
Page 48 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
Page 49 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.
Page 50 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
Page 51 of Report PB-23-15
height of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing
neighbourhood character.
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
neighbourhood character.
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
neighbourhood character.
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
Page 52 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
neighbourhood character.
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
Page 53 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.
Page 54 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
Page 55 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 “)
Page 56 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
Page 57 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.
Page 58 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.
Page 59 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.
Page 60 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).
Page 61 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.”
Page 62 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,
Page 63 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.
Page 64 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.
Page 65 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
Martha Street Setbacks
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
Lakeshore Road Setbacks
Underground
Martha Street Setbacks
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
Page 66 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)
Lakeshore Road Setbacks
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:
Underground parking: 0 m
Floors 1-4: 0 m
Floors 5-28: 3 m
Complies.
Yard Abutting a residential, DRM or DRL zone
3 m Interior Side Yards:
Underground parking: 0 m
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).
Page 67 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.
Page 68 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
Page 69 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
Page 70 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.
Page 71 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:
Page 72 of Report PB-23-15
APPENDIX A - Sketches
Page 73 of Report PB-23-15
Page 74 of Report PB-23-15
Page 75 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
Page 76 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
Page 77 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
Page 78 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.
Page 79 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.