|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
Valerie Shuttleworth, Director of
|
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
Regan Hutcheson, Manager,
Heritage |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
|
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Applications for Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Amendments OP 04 028702 and ZA 04 027514 |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report dated
And that the minutes of the public meeting held
And that the applications by 2019311 Ontario Inc. for
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved in part to permit business
and professional office uses on the ground floor due to the unique architectural
characteristics of the former church structure;
And that the applications to permit restaurant use be denied;
And that the draft Official Plan Amendment, attached as
Appendix A to the staff report, be adopted;
And that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as
Appendix B to the staff report, be enacted.
PURPOSE:
BACKGROUND:
Property is located within the Unionville Heritage Conservation District
The subject property is located at
Property was used as a veteran’s hall for over 50 years
The subject property was built in
1879 by the Congregational Church. The
building was designed by E.J. Lennox who later went on to design
In 1949, the property was acquired
by the local war veterans association which used the building as a veteran’s
hall. On
Unionville Core Area study was undertaken in 2002
In 2002, the Town
of
The Study confirmed
that the increased number of restaurants was undermining the planned function
of
New Official Plan policies were approved for the
Unionville Core Area
A new Secondary
Plan (Official Plan No. 107) was adopted for the Unionville Core Area on
The
Secondary Plan for the Unionville Core Area includes the following policies
concerning restaurant use and the location of business and professional
offices:
1. The Secondary Plan does not identify
restaurant use as a permitted use for this site. However, it indicates that in addition to the
uses permitted, restaurant uses may be permitted by Council subject to an
amendment to the zoning by-law. When
considering such an application, the applicant shall be required to satisfy
Council that there is sufficient parking available and that the new use will
not negatively affect the predominance of at-grade retail uses along
2. The Secondary Plan also articulates what is
meant by a “traditional shopping experience”.
It shall be the policy of the Town that Main Street Unionville provides
a traditional shopping experience in the form of a historic commercial area
where the at-grade uses are predominantly retail. Specifically, it is intended that in the Main
Street Unionville Traditional Shopping Area (which is identified in the
Secondary Plan), in excess of 50 percent of the total at-grade, gross floor
area shall be in retail use. Council
shall only approve additional restaurant floor space within the Traditional
Shopping Area when retail uses represent greater that 50% of the total
at-grade, gross floor area.
3. The Secondary Plan indicates that to maintain
animation and pedestrian activity and interest at street level, it shall be the
policy of the Town to prohibit business and professional offices on the ground
floor of commercial properties facing
Zoning By-law was amended in 2003 to reflect the Core Area
recommendations
The subject property is zoned
Heritage Main Street (HMS). This zone
permits speciality retail, personal service shops, arts and crafts workshops,
photo studios, bed and breakfast and professional office (but not on the ground
floor). Restaurants are not permitted as
of right in the Heritage Main Street (HMS) Zone.
Owner indicates that building is unsuitable for retail use
The owner has applied
for an amendment to the Secondary Plan to permit restaurant use on the property
and to permit business and professional office use on the ground floor.
The owner has had the
building available for lease for almost two years in the hope of finding a
suitable tenant under the allowable uses.
The property was listed with J.J. Barnicke for twelve months and
although it is reported that interest was shown, no suitable retail tenant was
found. The owner then listed the
property with Monopoly Commercial Realty.
Again, the owner reported interest, but not for retail use.
The owner is of the
opinion that it is virtually impossible to rent this space as retail. The owner believes that the building’s design
limits its retail potential in the following manner:
·
The
building is set back from the
·
The
façade is not suitable for retail. The
lack of display windows and visibility at eye level from the street would make
it difficult to sustain retail activity;
·
The
entrance is narrow and restrictive;
·
Upon
entering the building, a person must walk up a series of steps to what is
considered the ground floor or down a series of steps to a basement level.
COMMENTS:
Objectives for
In 2002-03, the Town undertook an extensive study of the
Unionville Core Area in relation to maintaining the planned function of Main
Street Unionville as a traditional shopping area. There was growing apprehension in relation to
the “displacement” of retail uses by restaurants and pubs (and the potential
impact on the parking supply) and the pressure for ground floor office
uses.
The Study confirmed
that the increased number of restaurants was undermining the planned function
of
A new Secondary Plan was adopted
and the zoning by-law was amended to address the key issues raised during the
study process. The applicant has
requested amendments to permit two uses at
The planned function for
Unionville’s historic commercial core is to provide a traditional shopping
experience where the at-grade uses are predominantly retail. The Secondary Plan policies indicate that the
objective is to have over 50% of the total at-grade, gross floor area in retail
use. A review of the current total,
at-grade floor space within the traditional shopping area reveals the
following:
Restaurant 27.9%
Other 26.4%
If an office use went into the building, the above percentages would not change as office is classified as “other”. If a restaurant or retail use went into the building, the overall, at-grade, gross floor space percentages would change as follows:
|
Category |
Restaurant Use Added |
Retail Use Added |
|
Retail |
45.7% |
48.5% |
|
Restaurant |
30.5% |
27.9% |
|
Other |
23.8% |
23.8% |
Existing building presents certain constraints for retail use
It is
acknowledged that the existing building does not easily lend itself to retail use as it
is setback from the sidewalk, has no display windows, a restrictive entrance,
heavy doors and a complex internal stairwell.
Future tenants may want to alter certain features of the building (of
historical significance) to make it more suitable for retail activity. Uses, other than retail, may be less
intrusive on the architecture and heritage attributes of the building.
Additional uses may also
assist the owner in securing a tenant for the building which has been vacant
for approximately eight years.
The provision of adequate parking associated
with uses is also an objective
Based upon a review of
the Parking By-law, if the building was used for business or professional
offices, no additional parking would be required. The parking requirement for the previous use
(a private club) and for business office is the same (1 space per 30 sq m of
net floor area). The required parking is
calculated as follows:
Parking = # of existing spaces + (# required
for office use - # required for former use)
In order to support a restaurant use, Council must be satisfied that there is sufficient parking. The parking requirement for restaurant use is 1 parking space per 15 sq m of net floor area (which is already reduced when compared to other areas of the Town). The current building is 418 sq m in size (4,542 sq ft with main floor at 2334 sq ft and basement at 2208 sq ft) and if all of the floor area was to be used for restaurant use, 28 parking spaces would be required. The subject site appears to have 15 identified parking spaces which would allow a restaurant approximately 225m2 (2422 sq ft) in size. However, two of the parking spaces are in a tandem arrangement at the front of the building. If restaurant use was supported, Council should consider a zoning by-law amendment that would limit the size of the restaurant in relation to the amount of parking available.
The Secondary Plan also strongly discourages the granting of minor variances for relief from parking requirements for restaurants, and in special cases where relief is granted, the reduction should be no greater than 10%. The Secondary Plan indicates:
“Parking
demand closely mirrors the available parking supply. In keeping with the planned function of
Where site planning considerations result in a small deficiency in the amount of on-site parking available, Council may, in lieu of enforcing the standard parking requirements, accept a payment into a Town parking fund in accordance with a cash in lieu of parking policy to be adopted by Council and in consideration of the total available parking opportunities in the Core Area.”
Feedback from the Public Meeting was varied
There was both support
for the two proposed uses at this location as well as opposition to the requested
amendments. Generally, the feedback can
be summarized as follows:
a) most would like to see something happen at
this location as the building has been vacant for many years. People were appreciative of the recent
restoration and rehabilitation work that the owner had undertaken to preserve
the structure.
b) general support for the policies of the
Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law to prohibit additional restaurants and office
uses on the ground floor. It was noted
that the changes were made after an independent study and extensive
consultation with the community and property owners. Both the Unionville Villagers Association and
the Unionville BIA supported the current policies.
c) some support for additional restaurants in
the area. Reasons cited were that rents
were too high for retail uses and that the market should decide what uses
should occur.
d) Some other commercial property owners on
e) Some concern was raised about the potential
impact of business office uses on the vitality of
Recommendations
Restaurant use is not supported by staff at
this time
In order to support a restaurant use, Council must be
satisfied that the new use will not negatively affect the predominance of
at-grade retail along the
A number of other
commercial property owners have approached the Town concerning restaurant expansion
or new restaurants over the last two years and have been dissuaded from
pursuing this option in support of the current policies. Any approval of the subject application for
restaurant use would increase pressure for other applications for restaurant
use.
Council must also be
satisfied that there is sufficient parking available. It has been demonstrated that there would be
a parking shortfall of some 13 spaces or 46% if the entire building was used as
a restaurant. Secondary Plan policies also strongly discourage minor variances
for relief of parking requirements for restaurants and recommend a cap of 10%
if a variance is supported.
For the above reasons,
staff cannot recommend support for an amendment to permit restaurant use. If Council were to support the amendment, it
may wish to attach conditions, such as:
·
Limit
the size of the restaurant use in the building to correspond to the amount of
parking available (approximately 225 sq. m or 2422 sq. ft);
·
Limit
the types of restaurant use to prohibit fast food,
take-out and tavern; and
·
Place
a “Hold” on the zoning. The holding
provision could ensure that site plan approval is obtained to address garbage
and other related site plan concerns, and that the owner enters into a Heritage
Easement Agreement to ensure the long-term preservation of the property.
Business and professional office uses can be
supported by staff
As noted in this
report, if the building was converted to business office space, the retail,
restaurant and other uses percentages remain the same. As with restaurant
uses, business office use will not decrease the percentage of retail space on
As to parking requirements, no additional parking would be required for business office use.
Therefore, the key question to be considered is whether an office use in the building would detrimentally affect the animation and pedestrian activity and interest at street level. For the last 50 years or so, the building has been a veteran’s hall (similar to a private club) and has had a minimal presence or impact on the vitality of the street. The building has never been a part of the retail streetscape. Therefore, it can be argued that there would be little change to the vitality of the street if an office use occupied the building.
Also, there really is no ground floor or street level
floor in this building. Upon entering
the building’s vestibule, a person must walk up a series of steps to the main
floor or down a series of steps to a raised basement level. From a zoning perspective, the first floor located
above the ground is considered the ground floor for by-law purposes. Also, whereas
the former church structure would not easily lend itself for retail use, the
building could be adapted for offices with little to no impact on the exterior
facades. Allowing office use at this
location should not be seen as a precedent for elsewhere on the
For the above reasons, staff recommends support for the amendments
to the Official Plan and the zoning by-law to permit business and professional
office uses subject to a holding provision on the zoning by-law amendment to ensure that site plan approval is
obtained to address any site plan concerns, and that the owner enters into a
Heritage Easement Agreement to ensure the long-term preservation of the
property. An official
plan amendment is attached as Appendix ‘A’ and
the zoning by-law amendment is attached as Appendix ‘B’.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None at this time.
ENGAGE 21ST
CONSIDERATIONS:
The appropriate re-use of heritage
resources helps to recognize, promote and strengthen a sense of community.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The
applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments have been
circulated to internal departments and external agencies and no comments or
concerns have been expressed. As the property is located within the boundaries
of the Unionville Heritage Conservation District, Heritage Markham was also
circulated the applications.
Heritage
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure 1 Applicant
Figure 2 Area
Context/ Zoning
Figure 3 Site
Plan
Appendix A Proposed Official
Plan Amendment
Appendix B Proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of |
|
Commissioner of Development Services |
Q:\Development\Heritage\PROPERTY\MAINSTU\150\Zoning
& OPA 2004-05\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE May 17 2005.doc
FIGURE 1
File Path: Q:\Development\Heritage\PROPERTY\MAINSTU\150\Zoning
& OPA 2004-05\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE May 17 2005.doc
APPLICANT/
AGENT: 2019311 Ontario Inc. 905- 927-9343 TEL
Attention:
Mr. Jessie Agnew 905-927-9344 FAX
LOCATION:
