HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 June 11 2008 Page 1
Minutes / Meeting Summary
Site Plan Committee (SPC) Meeting
June 11, 2008
4:45 pm
Tower Meeting Room
Attendees: Jennifer O’Connell – City Councillor – Ward 1
Doug Dickerson – City Councillor – Ward 2
David Pickles – City Councillor – Ward 3
Neil Carroll – Director, Planning & Development
Tyler Barnett – Senior Planner – Site Planning
Item /
Ref #
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items / Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
1. S 20/98 (R08)
Nivedita Kar
(575 Steeple Hill, Unit #10)
Attendee(s): Mr. Kar
This application proposes to expand the existing second storey
deck to 10’ * 16’.
Tyler advised that letters were sent out for comment to a
select number of abutting properties as per the direction
of the Site Plan Committee on June 20, 2007. Tyler
advised that all residents except one (575 Steeple Hill
Unit #11) have either come into the City offices or have
telephoned to express their objection to the proposed
deck expansion. The predominant concerns with the
proposed deck expansion is the loss of privacy due to
the closer proximity of the expanded deck to the north lot
line, and increase in deck activity that would result with
the larger deck area in close proximity to and overlooking
adjacent rear yards.
Neil indicated that when the original development was
proposed a resident meeting was held (March 23, 1999)
with the developer at the time and an agreement was
made that the decks at the rear of this block would be
kept small in size to minimize any issues respecting lack
of privacy. This agreement was struck due to the
significant concern expressed by the existing northerly
abutting residents.
The Committee recommended that the application be
denied due to the continuing concern of adjacent
residents.
Neil indicated that he will issue a letter refusing the
application based on prior agreements and current
Page 2
Item /
Ref #
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items / Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
consultation.
Councillor Dickerson advised Mr. Kar of his rights of
appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Neil added that Mr. Kar may require permission from the
condo board to proceed with any appeals as the condo
owns the lands were the deck is to be constructed.
2. S 03/99 (R08)
Altona Forest P.S. Addition
(405 Woodsmere Crescent)
Attendee(s): Brenda Coward – Durham School Board
This application proposes to construct a one-storey addition to
the existing school.
Tyler provided an outline of the application.
Brenda Coward explained that the addition is required in
order to accommodate additional classrooms due to
primary class size restrictions of the Province.
Councillor O’Connell indicated that she has received
complaints from residents regarding standing water and
garbage that is in the forest area along Rosebank Road.
Brenda indicated that she would convey this issue to the
superintendant.
Councillor Dickerson questioned how the site is going to
be accessed during construction. Brenda indicated that
the construction management plan proposes that all
access be from Rosebank Road.
Site Plan Committee endorsed the application.
3. S06/07
Brookdale Centre
(1105 Kingston Road)
Attendee(s): David McKay, MHBC Planning
Ronald Gagliardi, VGA Inc.
Guery Goyo, Brookdale Centre
Neil indicated to Site Plan Committee that the building
elevations being presented at this meeting are being
done to seek input prior to the applicant making a formal
submission to the City for an amendment to site plan
approval. Neil indicated that the general layout of the
second phase was shown on the approved plans but that
the approved drawings did not include approvals for the
architectural design of buildings B, C, D & E.
The applicant provided the City with two concepts for
Building E: one which had a sloped roof design and
Page 3
Item /
Ref #
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items / Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
another that provides a flat roof design.
Neil indicated that staff prefer the concept of the flat roof
design provided additional modifications are made to the
architectural treatment of the rooflines, materials and
fenestration.
Councillor Dickerson expressed concern with the flat roof
design as proposed and expressed a preference for the
sloped roof.
Councillor O’Connell also expressed a concern with the
specific flat roof design being illustrated, but noted that
her concern was due to the lack of variety in architectural
features and materials, and not to a flat roof in general.
Tyler presented the Committee with photos of retail
buildings and developments that provide 2 to 3 storey
elevations with a variety of rooflines, materials and
colours that provide for a very urban streetscape. The
examples were taken from other Lifestyle Centres
(Easton Town Centre and Crocker Park).
Councillor O’Connell requested that greater attention be
paid to the northeast corner of building “E”. One of the
photos illustrated a more rounded elevation with second
storey and a metal architectural feature that Councillor
O’Connell thought would be an attractive element. Ron
indicted that such an element could be incorporated into
the project and agreed to pursue this element further.
Neil raised the issue of accommodating variety in the
elevation designs to give the building block the
appearance of separate and distinct buildings that have
developed together to provide a main street feel.
The current elevations use the same windows, colours
and rooflines for each tenant area.
David Mckay and Ron Gagliardi agreed that the
elevations could be modified to reflect the discussion.
A similar architectural treatment will be applied to
Building “C” once the design for Building “E” has been
accepted. David indicated that the concept drawings will
be revised and sent to the City for review.
Ron G. Presented the committee with conceptual
elevations for Building “D” which is intended to be a
partial two storey building that will have medical offices
on the partial second floor and a Shoppers Drug Mart on
the main floor. David M. acknowledged that the partial
second floor will not comply with the zoning by-law and
that an amendment or variance would be required.
Councillor O’Connell expressed strong concern with the
partial second floor, the Kingston road elevations and the
deletion of the underground parking that was originally
Page 4
Item /
Ref #
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items / Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
contemplated. She noted that Building D must have a
strong architectural and pedestrian presence to Kingston
Road, as this elevation establishes the front face of the
total development. Neil expressed staff’s concern with
the Kingston Road frontage as well and the impact that
this layout would have on the courtyard between
buildings “D” & “E”.
Site Plan Committee agreed that greater enhancements
are required to Building “D” and that the courtyard area
should include features such as fountains and/or chess
areas for visitors.
David McKay presented the elevation plans of Building
“B” which is intended to accommodate Futureshop. Ron
G. advised that this design is reflective of their ‘new look’
store.
The Site Plan Committee indicated that they did not have
any issues with the proposed elevations of building “B”.
Geury Goyo advised the Committee that he has been
informed by David McKay that the zoning by-law
schedules passed by Council for this site contain an
error which impacts the location of building “C”. He
noted his concern with this error and inquired as to what
the City will be doing to correct the by-law.
Neil explained that the staff report and draft by-law
associated with Brookdale’s rezoning application
recommended that a 20 metre future road be located
fully on Brookdale’s property. However, in considering
the zoning amendment, City Council directed that the
zoning schedules be amended to reflect a 10 metre road
provision from the Brookdale property. Unfortunately, in
error, the by-law schedules included in the approved by-
law did not reflect the full road shift directed by Council.
Neil indicated that to comply with the current zoning
schedules, Building C would have to be shifted
approximately 10 metres to the south which interfered
with the broader site design reflected in the approved
site plan. He also noted that Pentan’s solicitor had
contacted the City solicitor respecting this matter in order
to ensure that City approvals would not be given to
Building C in the location shown on site plans with the
City. He noted his understanding that Pentan’s objects
to any provisions that would potentially result in a road
(partial or full) on the Pentan’s property.
Mr. Goyo advised that he was not prepared to shift
Building C and stated that the City should take whatever
action is necessary to implement Council’s initial
direction. He noted concern that a zoning amendment
Page 5
Item /
Ref #
Details & Discussion & Conclusion
(summary of discussion)
Action Items / Status
(include deadline as
appropriate)
will bring delay to his development plans and tenant
negotiations, and requested that the City move forward
quickly to correct its error.
Geury indicated that the floor space that would be left in
a southerly shift of the building would not work and he
indicated that he already has leases in place for this
building.
Neil advised the Committee that we had discussed this
issue with Brookdale’s representatives and had hoped
that the matter could be accommodated with a southerly
shift in Building “C”, to comply with the current by-law.
Neil indicated that the process to rectify this error is
through a City initiated zoning by-law amendment
application, and that direction would have to be received
from Council before an amendment could be initiated.
All three members of Site Plan Committee agreed that
the initial direction of Council to require only 10 metres of
future public road from the Brookdale lands should be
pursued and that the current by-law schedules should be
amended accordingly through a City initiated zoning
by-law amendment.
Meeting Adjourned: 7:30 pm
J:\MINUTES\Site Plan\2008\03 June 11, 2008.doc