Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 20, 2016 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: lroberts@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 20, 2016 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl + Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of your screen to navigate from one report to the next. 2 Information Report No. 08-16 Page 2 Surrounding land uses include: north: across Whitevale Road are additional lands owned by the applicant that have received draft approval of the Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-01 and rezoned to implement the draft plan and are currently used for agricultural activities and open space east, lands owned by the Province that are designated Seaton Natural west and Heritage System south: 3. Applicant's Proposal The subject lands have received draft approval of the plan of subdivision and rezoned to implement the draft plan. The draft plan of subdivision and zoning were approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in December 2013 and the zoning By-law for Seaton was confirmed by the Province through an Order in Council in March 2014. Since the approval of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law, the Region of Durham has completed the Central Pickering Development Plan Class Environmental Assessment for Regional Services. This resulted in the need to revise the approved draft plan of subdivision to accommodate a relocation of the Regional reservoir block and to address technical design matters for Whites Road and Whitevale Road By-pass. The requested zoning by-law amendment proposed adjustments to the zone boundaries to reflect the revisions to the draft plan of subdivision (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #2). The majority of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning remains unchanged as the revisions mostly affect the northeast quadrant of the approved draft plan. As a result of the recommendations of the Class EA for Regional Services, the lands for the Regional reservoir are shifted east, which resulted in the relocation of the school and park blocks along with some residential lots. Majority of slip~lanes · have been removed along Whitevale Road By-pass and along the west side of Sideline 26 (Whites Road extension) certain local road intersections have been eliminated. These changes result in modifications to the lotting fabric of the approved draft plan of subdivision. The other modification is a reduction in the number of dwelling units in the land designated Community Node. The approved draft plan has a density of 250 units per hectare for the Community Node and the revised draft plan provides a density of 67 units per hectare. Community Node Designations have a density range of over 80 and up to 140 dwellings per hectare. Refer to Attachment #3 for a comparison of the details of the original draft plan of subdivision and the revised draft plan. Information Report No. 08-16 Page 3 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Central Pickering Development Plan The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) sets out the principles and goals that outline the general development vision for the overall Seaton Urban Area, including the integration of new sustainable urban development while ensuring the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural heritage system. The objectives and policies of the CPDP are designed to achieve the vision of Seaton. The subject applications conform to the intent of the CPDP. 4.2 Regional Official Plan The Seaton community falls under 'Special Policy Area A (Pickering)', in the Durham Regional Official Plan. These lands shall be developed in accordance with the CPDP and implementing Neighbourhood Plans. The design, structure and uses proposed in the subject applications are consistent with those permitted in the CPDP and the Neighbourhood Plans. The applications comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan. 4.3 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are within the Seaton Urban Area Boundary in the Pickering Official Plan. The Official Plan contains policies governing various land use designations, such as Residential Areas, Mixed Use Areas, and Open Space System, all of which are located in the subject lands. The Official Plan establishes various polices for such matters as density, intensity of land use and sustainability. Official Plan Amendment 22 further defines the land use designations as well as establishes polices for such matters as the Seaton Natural Heritage System, cultural heritage, sustainable development, servicing, and urban design. The applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. 4.4 Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines The Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines address the urban design guidelines contained within the CPDP and expands upon the key design elements: • the Guidelines set out minimum standards and benchmarks for plans of subdivision and site plans, and list the range of matters that are to be addressed in the development of the lands • the Guidelines provide direction on the design of the public realm, built form and green infrastructure and buildings The applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. 3 4 Information Report No. 08-16 Page 4 4.5 Zoning By-law 7364/14 Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 was approved by the OMB and confirmed by the Province in 2013 and 2014, respectfully. This by-law implemented the City's Official Plan Amendment 22, which brought the Official Plan in conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan. This by-law also implemented the draft plans of subdivisions, including the subject Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-02 that the OMB approved in December 2013. A zoning by-law amendment is required to implement the proposed red-line revisions to the approved draft plan of subdivision. The applicant is only proposing amendments to the zoning schedules modifying certain zoning boundaries. No changes are proposed to the zoning categories or performance standards. The proposed rezoning is only for lands in the draft plan located north of the Whitevale Road By-pass. Zoning for the remaining lands within the draft plan remain unchanged. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Written Comments from the Public As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the public. 5.2 Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Durham Catholic District School Board 5.3 City Department Comments Engineering & Public Works • no objection to the amendment to the zoning by-law or revision to the draft approved plan of subdivision • no objection and requests similar draft plan conditions of approval related to the acquisition of the proposed school block for an elementary school Engineering & Public Works note the revisions to the draft plan no longer mirror the specific location of uses in the Neighbourhood Plans of the Official Plan. The introduction of detached dwelling lots fronting on to Whitevale Road east of Sideline 26 was not contemplated in the Neighbourhood Plan. Information Report No. 08-16 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: Page 5 ~~~ ensuring the applications will implement the City's Official Plan and the Seaton Neighbourhood policies s ensuring the proposal is consistent with the City's urban design goals and objectives in the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines e ensuring that the proposed development contains appropriate sustainable development components • ensuring the Community Node lands provide appropriate density • ensuring the proposed lots along Whitevale Road are appropriately sized to accommodate appropriate building setback and massing • ensuring that required technical submissions and reports meet City standards The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7. Information Received Full scale copies ofthe plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision, dated January 13, 2015 8. Procedurallnformation 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department <~~ oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report, which will be prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 8.2 Ontario Municipal Board is the Approval Authority for this Revision to the Draft Plan of Subdivision As the subject draft plan of subdivision was approved by the OMB, the Board is also the approval authority for the requested revision. If Council supports the requested revision it is anticipated that the owner and staff will approach the OMB to approve the requested revision. The City of Pickering is the approval authority for the amendment to the zoning by-law. 5 6 Information Report No. 08-16 Page 6 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owners of the property are Hunley Homes Ltd, 1350557 Ontario Limited, Affiliated Realty Corporation Limited and Chestermere Investments Limited and is represented by KLM Planning Partners Inc. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Plan 3. Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-02, Proposed Development Detail Prepared By: &£P,PLE Principal Planner-Strategic Initiatives RP:Id Attachments Date of Report: June 3, 2016 Copy: Director, City Development Approved/Endorsed By: ~~~0--- Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Attachment# 3 to . lnforma'dor1 ~1enmi# CB-i fo Details of the Draft Plan Original Approved Revised Draft Draft Plan Plan Total Area of Draft Plan 83.6 hectares 83.6 hectares 3 Elementary School Blocks 7.32 hectares 7.35 hectares 2 Park Blocks 3.1 0 hectares 2.80 hectares 3 Village Green Blocks 1 .24 hectares 1 .24 hectares Reservoir Block 2.12 hectares 1 .34 hectares Stormwater Management Facilities Blocks 2.54 hectares 2.54 hectares Open Space Blocks 0.19 hectares 0.16 hectares Buffer Blocks 0.33 hectares NA Road Widening Blocks 0.62 hectares 0.65 hectares Roads 21.49 hectares 21 .82 hectares Residential Units Detached Dwellings 13.7 meter frontage 55 47 Detached Dwellings 12.8 meter frontage 46 91 Detached Dwellings 11.6 meter frontage 112 115 Semi Detached Dwellings 18.0 meter frontage 178 134 StreetT own house 7.5 meter frontage 333 344 Street Townhouse 6.0 meter frontage 403 324 Street Townhouse 4.0 meter frontage 110 224 Stacked townhouses 76 76 Gateway Blocks 142 144 Commercial I High Density Blocks 3129 837 Total Dwelling Units 4585 2336 1 0 1 2 Information Report No. 09-16 Page 2 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant is proposing a common element condominium development consisting of 14 detached dwellings, and 57 townhouse units accessed from an internal private road (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #2). All buildings are proposed to be three storeys in height (approximately 9.4 metres in height) with flat roofs (see Submitted Conceptual Elevations, Attachments #3, #4 and #5). Vehicular access to the development is from Liverpool Road, which will be aligned with Ilona Park Drive. Resident parking is provided at a ratio of two parking spaces per dwelling unit (one parking space within a private garage and one space on the driveway). Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit for a total of 18 parking spaces. The concept plan illustrates 14 detached dwellings backing onto existing detached dwellings along Foxglove Avenue and Commerce Street. Also proposed are 8 blocks consisting of 42 townhouses with parking at the front of the units fronting onto the internal private road, and 2 blocks consisting of 15 rear lane townhouses fronting Liverpool Road with parking at the rear of the dwelling units. The proposed minimum lot frontage and unit sizes are as follows: Lot Frontage Unit Sizes (minimum) (range) Detached 9.4 metres 203 -226 square metres dwellings Townhouses 6.0 metres 177 -200 square metres A 4.5 metre wide landscape buffer area is proposed along the eastern property line to maintain privacy for the rear yards of the adjacent residential lots fronting Hewson Drive. The concept plan also illustrates internal sidewalks providing pedestrian connections to Liverpool Road, Foxglove Avenue, and the Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park. The applicant has also submitted a draft plan of condominium application to create tenure of the parcels in the development. The common element features include, but are not limited to, the internal private road, sidewalks, visitor parking areas, walkway to Foxglove Avenue, community mailboxes, and the water meter room (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, .Attachment #6). As the subject lands are part of a registered Plan of Subdivision, the applicant proposes to create the privately-owned parcels and the parcels for the common elements of the development through a process called "lifting part lot control". The development will also be subject to site plan approval. Information Report No. 09-16 Page 3 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Regional Official Plan The Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. The applicant's proposal conforms to the policies and provisions of the ROP. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan 4.2.1 General Policies The subject lands are within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban Residential-Low Density Areas", which provides for housing and related uses. This designation permits a maximum net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare, which would permit a maximum of 57 residential units on the subject lands. The Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regard shall be had to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. 4.2.2 Bonus Zoning In 2014, Official Plan Amendment 23 (OPA 23) was approved by City Council, but was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). This amendment revised existing policies and introduced new policies to implement changes to the Planning Act providing area municipalities with additional planning and development control tools to use in the land use planning process. The Bonus Zoning provisions of the Pickering Official Plan were amended by OPA 23 but are not being contested at the OMB. A settlement hearing has been scheduled for July 7, 2016 to address OPA 23 appeals. OPA 23 amended the existing Bonus Zoning provisions to include consideration of a bonus to increase the height of a building, in addition to the consideration of a bonus to increase the density of a development. Further, OPA 23 expanded the criteria for assessing the eligibility of a project for a density or height bonus. The amended Bonus Zoning policies permit City Council to pass by-laws that grant an increase in height of a building or an increase in density not exceeding 25 percent of the density permitted by the Official Plan providing: • the density or height bonus is given only in return for the provision of specific services, facilities or matters as specified in the by-law, such as but not limited to, additional open space or community facilities, assisted or special needs 13 14 Information Report No. 09-16 housing, the preservation of heritage buildings or structures, or the preservation of natural heritage features and functions Page 4 • when considering an increase in density or height, and allowing the provision of benefits off-site, the positive impacts of the exchange should benefit the social/cultural, environmental and economic health of surrounding areas experiencing the increased height and/or density • the effects of the density or height bonus have been reviewed and determined by Council to be in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan, by considering matters such as: • the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density and/or height in terms of parking, landscaping, and other site-specific requirements • the compatibility of any increase in density and/or height with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood; and • as a condition of granting a density or height bonus, the City requires the benefiting landowner(s) to enter into one or more agreements, registered against the title of the lands, dealing with the provision and timing of specific facilities, services or matters to be provided in return for the bonus The applicant is proposing 71 units (or 37.3 units per net hectare), which is a 24.3 percent increase over the permitted maximum density of 30 units per net hectare. In return for the increased density, the applicant is proposing rebuilding and enhancing the adjacent Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park, including a new soccer pitch and associated parking area, play structures, water play feature and landscaping (see Submitted Conceptual Park Redevelopment Plan, Attachment #7). Details of the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan, including the Bonus Zoning provisions as amended by OPA 23 during the further processing of the applications. 4.3 Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines While the subject lands are not within the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node, the Guidelines have identified two 'Design Precincts' within close proximity of the subject site being the Liverpool Road and Commerce Street intersection and Liverpool Road between Krosno Boulevard and Commerce Street. The Guidelines outline that the Liverpool Road and Commerce Street intersection is a third "gateway" intended to act as an entrance to the "Nautical Village", where · streetscape enhancements include nautically themed markers, pedestrian scale street lights, and pedestrian level way-finding signs. Streetscape improvements on Liverpool Road between Krosno Boulevard and Commerce Street envisioned by the Guidelines consist of wider sidewalks, banners, hanging flower baskets, tree planting, and traffic calming measures. Information Report No. 09-16 Page 5 4.4 Zoning By-law 2511 The subject lands are currently zoned "R4"-One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, which only permits lots for detached dwellings with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. The applicant has requested that the subject lands be rezoned to an appropriate residential zone category with site specific performance standards to permit the proposal. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Residents Comments An Open House meeting was held on May 17,2016 at the East Shore Community Centre to allow area residents to learn more about the proposal, as well as review and comment on the plans that the applicant has submitted. Approximately 22 households were represented at the meeting. The following is a summary of written comments received to date, and key concerns and comments identified by area residents at the Open House meeting: • commented that the proposal is too dense for the surrounding neighbourhood and that the proposed three-storey dwelling units are not compatible with the abutting single-storey detached dwellings • concerned about privacy for the abutting residents as a result of the proposed three-storey units and second-storey balconies in the rear yard • requested that balconies in the rear yard not be permitted • commented that the proposed contemporary architectural design of the proposed dwelling units is not in keeping with the nautical theme along Liverpool Road • concerned that the proposal will result in increased traffic and will further aggravate the existing traffic congestion on Liverpool Road • requested that the submitted transportation brief be revised to consider traffic generated from summertime activities at the waterfront • concerned that two parking spaces per dwelling unit is insufficient for the size of the proposed dwelling units • concerned that the proposed number of visitor parking spaces is insufficient to support the development and visitor parking will spill over to adjacent roads • concerned that the pedestrian walkway to Foxglove Avenue will facilitate parking to spill over onto Foxglove Avenue • requested that existing retaining walls and fences should be maintained and existing residents should not be responsible for the cost of new privacy fences or retaining walls • requested that internal private street lighting and lighting on units should be controlled to reduce light pollution and impact on migratory birds • concerned that the proposed new play features in the Frenchman's Bay Ratepayers Memorial Park will increase the City's maintenance cost, resulting in increased taxes for residents 15 1 6 Information Report No. 09-16 Page 6 8 stated that they do not support the new parking area in the refurbished park as it will replace an existing basketball court • concerned the new parking lot in the park will be used for resident and visitor parking for the new development 8 requested that a notice be placed in the local newspaper regarding future meetings • requested that prior to issuing site plan approval, an open house meeting be held to allow area residents to review detailed plans • requested that the City consider installing all-way stop signs at the intersection of Liverpoool Road and Commerce Street • indicated that the existing site is an eyesore and should be adequately maintained until construction is completed • requested that the City explore options to reduce the proposed retaining wall along the south property line abutting the park • requested that the Foxglove Avenue walkway be closed and regraded at the developer's cost, and the lands conveyed to the abutting two property owners • consider providing a north/south pedestrian connection through the development linking the existing Foxglove Avenue walkway to the park • requested that the visitors' parking area at the southwest corner of the property be screened by fencing and/or landscaping • requested that additional community engagement meetings be held to discuss the future programming of the park to meet the needs of the community • consider reorienting the townhouse units abutting the park to 'face' the park • consider live/work units with on-street parking along Liverpool Road 5.2 Agency Comments Durham District School Board Durham Catholic District School Board • no objection to the development proposal • approximately 27 elementary students could be generated from the proposed development • the proposed development is within the boundary area of Sir John A. Macdonald Public School and Pine Ridge Secondary School • no objection to the development proposal • approximately 11 elementary students could be generated from the proposed development • the proposed development is within the boundary area of Father Fenlon Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School Information Report No. 09-16 Page 7 5.3 City Department Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from Engineering & Public Works Department 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • ensuring the proposal is in conformity with the City's Official Plan • assessing the appropriateness and benefit to the surrounding area of the proposed park redevelopment • assessing the suitability of the site for the proposed increase in density (Bonus Zoning) to ensure the proposal is compatible with the existing surrounding community • evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout considering such matters as: building setbacks; building heights and massing; compatibility with existing residential; location of visitor parking; and other urban design elements • ensuring that appropriate landscape buffers and privacy fencing to adjacent landowners is provided ~~ exploring options to reduce the height of the proposed retaining wall along the south property line abutting the parking to facility an accessible pedestrian connection between the development and the park, and minimize the impact of the retaining wall abutting the existing residents fronting Commerce Street • ensuring that adequate resident and visitor parking is provided to support this development and not impact the adjacent neighbourhood • ensuring that the required technical submissions and reports meet City standards The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department, and are also available on the City's website at pickering.ca/devapp: • Planning Justification Report prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated March 2016 • Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment prepared by ASI Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Services, dated November 25, 2015 • Functional Servicing Report prepared by Stantec, dated January 25, 2016 1 7 18 Information Report No. 09-16 Page 8 11 Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessment prepared by CCI Group, dated February 29, 2016 11 Stormwater Management Report prepared by Stantec, dated January 14, 2016 11 Noise Feasibility Study prepared by HGC Engineering, dated November 18, 2015 11 Transportation Brief prepared by Stantec, dated November 30, 2015 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report, which will be prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-lpW for this proposal or makes a decision on the draft plan of condominium • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is Madison Liverpool Limited (Christian Lamanna, Manager) and is represented by Billy Tung, KLM Planning Partners Inc. Attachments 1 . Location Map 2. Submitted Concept Plan 3. Submitted Conceptual Elevation-Single Detached Dwelling Fronting on Internal Private Road 4. Submitted Conceptual Elevation-Rear Lane Townhouses Fronting Liverpool Road 5. Submitted Conceptual Elevation-Townhouses Fronting Internal Private Road 6. Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium 7. Submitted Conceptual Park Redevelopment Plan 28 Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page2 Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The lands subject to this rezoning application are located on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Whites Road, and directly opposite the Whites Road- Highway 401 on/off ramp (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands to be rezoned have an area of approximately 1 hectare with approximately 166 metres of frontage along Kingston Road. The site is currently under construction, Surrounding land uses include: north: vacant lands owned by the applicant zoned for future townhouse development, and on the north side of Sheppard Avenue existing detached dwellings east: an existing detached dwelling fronting Kingston Road, and further east a tributary of the Amberlea Creek south: a place of worship, Whites Road Highway 401 on/off ramp, and a vehicle sales and service establishment west: commercial developments with various uses such as restaurants, drive-through facilities, personal service uses, and day care In December 2015, Site Plan Approval was issued to permit a commercial development consisting of three buildings with a total gross floor area of 3,616 square metres (see Approved Site Plan, Attachment #2). Building A, located on the southwest corner of this site is a two-storey multi-unit building. Building B, located at the rear of the development, is a single-storey multi-unit building. Building C, located at the southeast corner of the site, is a stand-alone commercial building to be occupied by Shoeless Joe's Restaurant. Buildings B and Care presently under construction: 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing site-specific zoning by-law to permit the following: • one drive-through facility associated with a restaurant use • an increase in the maximum combined gross leasable floor area (GLFA) for restaurant uses from 1,000 square metres to 1,220 square metres to allow restaurant uses to be located on the entire ground floor of Building A and to recognize the restaurant use in Building C • a reduction of the minimum number of required parking spaces from 148 spaces to 144 spaces Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 3 Based on comments from the City and the Region, the applicant has submitted a revised site plan incorporating the Region's requirement for a 2.0 metre road widening along the entire Kingston Road frontage, and relocating the order board and pick-up windows to ensure that the drive-through facility complies with the minimum vehicular stacking requirements as outlined in the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines (see Revised Submitted Site Plan and Submitted Elevations-Building A, Attachments #3 and #4). 2. Comments Received 2.1 At the March 7, 2016 Public Information Meeting At the Public Information meeting, one area resident expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on surrounding residential properties. The specific concerns include noise associated with a drive-through facility, hours of operation, odour, traffic flow, truck deliveries, disposal of food/grease waste, security cameras, loitering and lighting. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Region of Durham • a revised MTO Building & Land Use Permit will be required at the site plan stage for Building A • the subject property is designated "Living Areas" with the "Regional Corridor" overlay in the Regional Official Plan • Regional Corridors are to be planned and developed as mixed-use areas, which include residential, commercial, and service area with higher densities • the proposal to add a drive-through facility conforms to the Regional Official Plan as the overall development proposes a mix of uses within the urban area along a Regional Corridor • the 2.0 metre wide road widening across the Kingston Road is acceptable to Regional staff • technical, engineering, and landscaping matters will be addressed through site plan approval Engineering & Public ~~~ no objections to the proposed zoning by-law Works Department amendment application • all technical matters will be addressed through the site plan approval process 29 30 Report PLN 07-16 .June 20, 2016 Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 4 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal to add a drive-through facility complies with the City's Official Plan and the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines The subject property is designated as "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridor" within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. This designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community with a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The proposed development has an FSI of 0.32. The applicant's request to permit a drive-through facility complies with the policies and provisions of the Official Plan. The Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines provide specific standards for drive-through facilities to ensure that these facilities are appropriately designed, achieves City's urban design objectives ~nd fits well within the proposed development. The applicant has submitted a revised conceptual site plan illustrating a minimum of 8 automobile stacking spaces before the order board and a minimum of 4 automobile stacking spaces between the order board and the pick-up window. The drive-through facility is proposed to be located along the north and west sides of Building A, with the drive-through lane exiting through the centre of the ground floor of the building. The proposed location and design of the drive-through facility will still allow for a high quality urban streetscape with buildings sited closed to Kingston Road without impacting internal site design and vehicular circulation. The proposed drive-through facility complies with the design and vehicular stacking requirements as outlined in the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines. 3.2 Sufficient parking supply is proposed on-site to support the permitted uses Parking for this development is required to be provided at a minimum rate of 4.5 parking spaces for every 100 square metres of GLFA. Based on this parking ratio, a total of 148 spaces are required to be provided on the property, whereas 144 spaces are illustrated on the revised site plan, a shortage of 4 spaces. The applicant has advised that the demand for parking will be reduced due to the ability to share parking between different businesses on the property since the anticipated parking use for the office space planned for the second floor of Building A will be during weekday daytime hours, whereas peak hours for the proposed restaurant use will be in the evenings and weekends when the offices are typically closed. Additionally, the site is located adjacent to existing public transit and the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services along Kingston Road, further reducing the demand for on-site parking. City staff are satisfied that the proposed parking supply is sufficient to accommodate the parking requirements for this commercial development. Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 5 3.3 The increase in the gross leasable floor area for restaurant uses will still allow for a variety of uses within this development The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum combined GLFA for restaurant uses from 1,000 square metres to 1,220 square metres to allow restaurant uses to be located on the entire ground floor of Building A and to recognize the restaurant use in Building C. The intent of limiting the maximum combined GLFA for all restaurant uses within this development was to ensure a variety of uses are provided within this development and sufficient parking is available on-site to accommodate all uses. The request to increase the total GLFA for restaurant uses within this development would represent approximately 37 percent of the entire development, while still allow approximately 2,068 square metres of GLFA for a variety of other uses including personal service, medical and professional offices, and retail. Staff are satisfied that the request to increase the maximum combined GLFA for restaurant uses will still allow for a variety of uses to be accommodated within the development to service the community. 3.4 The City's urban design objectives along Kingston Road can be achieved The Region's Long Term Transit Strategy (L TTS) and Highway 2 Transit Property Measures Class EA identified a road widening conveyance of approximately 2.0 metres across the Kingston Road frontage of the subject property. The revised site plan provides for the 2.0 metre road widening along the frontage of Kingston Road, which will be dedicated to the Region at the site plan approval stage. As a result of the Region's request for a road widening, the required building setbacks and landscape buffer width a:long Kingston Road have been reduced. Building A and Building C will be setback 1.25 metres and 0.9 of a metre, respectively from Kingston Road. The landscape buffer width has also been reduced from 3.0 metres to 0.9 of a metre along majority of Kingston Road, except in some instances the landscape buffer has been reduced to zero metres. In June 2015, the Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance to reduce the minimum building setback from Kingston Road for Building C from 3.0 metres to 0.9 of a metre. The applicant has advised that the buildings fagades fronting Kingston Road will be enhanced with additional glazing, principle entrances and architectural articulations to create an attractive and active streetscape along Kingston Road. Through the site plan approval process, staff will continue to work with Regional staff and the applicant to enhance opportunities for landscaping between the regional boulevard and the applicant's property. Staff are satisfied that the reduced building setbacks and landscape buffer width along Kingston Road will continue to achieve the City's urban design objectives along Kingston Road. 31 32 Report PLN 07-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: 816 Kingston Road (Pickering) Limited (A 01/16) Page 6 3.5 The applicant has provided additional information to address concerns raised by area resident In response to the various concerns identified by an area resident to the north, the applicant has provided additional information in support of the rezoning application. The applicant has advised that Starbuck's is tentatively confirmed to operate the drive-through facility, which will be in use between 6:00am and 10:00 pm. All bu'ildings will have its own internal waste collection area. Security cameras and pedestrian lighting will be installed to mitigate any potential crime activities. The existing site plan agreement includes provisions requiring all restaurant tenants to install a mechanical exhaust ecologizer odour control unit to mitigate potential cooking odours. The applicant has submitted a noise analysis to include a drive-through facility. HGC Engineering concluded that sound levels from rooftop mechanical equipment, idling vehicles in the drive-through queue and speaker-board will be within the Ministry of Environment criteria due to the significant background traffic sound levels from Highway 401 and Kingston Road. Further, the consultant indicates that the proposed noise attenuation fence along the north property, previously approved under the existing site plan, is sufficient for noise attenuation from road traffic noise for the properties to the north. 3.6 Technical matters will be addressed during the Site Plan Review process 3.7 Detailed design and technical matters will be addressed through the site plan approval process. Matters to be addressed through the site plan review process, include, but are not limited to: • the dedication of road widening along the frontage of Kingston Road to the Region of Durham • MTO Building and Land Use Permit for Building A • landscaping details between the Kingston Road and Buildings A and C • review of building elevations, details of materials and exterior lighting • signage of new commercial development • any other City and agency requirements Staff support the final proposal and recommend that a zoning by-law be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment · The applicant's request to permit one drive-through facility associated with a restaurant use, increase the GLFA for restaurant uses, and marginally reduce the required number of parking spaces, complies with policies of the Pickering Official Plan and Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, will have minimum impact on internal site design and vehicular circulation, and will complement the existing uses permitted on the subject lands. Staff supports the application and recommends that the site specific zoning provision containing the standards attached·as Appendix I to this report be finalized and be brought before Council for enactment. 34 . Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/16 Additional Permitted Use 1. Drive-through facility Building Restrictions Appendix I to Report PLN 07-16 2. Reduce the minimum building setback to Kingston Road property line from 3.0 metres to 0.9 of a metre 3. Reduce the minimum length of the built-to-zone adjacent to Kingston Road to be occupied by buildings from 58.0 metres to 46.0 metres Minimum and Maximum Floor Areas 4. Maximum gross leasable floor area of 1 ,220 square metres for all restaurant uses Minimum Parking Requirements 5. A minimum of 144 parking spaces 6. Exempt the minimum setback requirement for a parking area abutting a road allowance (Kingston Road) Drive-through Requirements 7. A maximum of one drive-through is permitted 8. A drive-through queuing lane shall not be located between the building and any street (Kingston Road) 9. A drive-through queuing lane shall be setback a minimum of 15.0 metres from a residential zone 10. Minimum of 8 vehicle queuing spaces before the order board and 4 vehicles queuing spaces between the order board and pick..:up window Notes: Recommended zoning provisions 2 and 3 noted above reflect Committee of Adjustment decision on Minor Variance application PICA 73/15 40 Report PLN 08-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Consultant Selection for Urban Design Review Services Page 2 Financial Implications: There are no financial impacts to the City as a result of retaining the services of the consultant for the Urban Design Review Services Program. The Pickering Official Plan and the User Fee By-law include provisions requiring an applicant to be responsible for the cost of the City peer reviewing studies and drawings, including site plan and architectural drawings. The 2016 budget for the Planning & Design section of the City Development identifies an expenditure line item for Urban Design Review Services in the amount of $80,000.00 (Account Code 2611.2392.0003) and a corresponding revenue line item (Account Code 2611.9990.0000) funded by developers, also in the amount of $80,000.00. 1. Background In March 2014, Council approved the implementation of an Urban Design Review Services Program to establish new and higher standards for urban design and architecture in the City. John G. Williams Limited, Architect ("John G. Williams") was retained to undertake Urban Design Review Services for the past two years to review all significant new development and redevelopment of existing properties and building that are prominently visible from a public street or highway. The Urban Design Review Services Program has been successful in raising the standard of architecture and urban design on most development projects. The consultant has provided valuable comments and advice regarding the design and layout of site plans, and enhancing the exterior appearance of new development through the review of material selection and utilizing current architectural trends. Since the implementation of the Urban Design Review Services Program, the City has not received any objections or concerns related to the additional cost incurred by the applicants. Some applicants have also provided positive feedback and comments that this service has significantly improved the overall finish and quality of their project. The existing purchase order issued to John G. Williams to provide Urban Design Review Services will expire on June 30, 2016. To help achieve and uphold new and higher standards for planning, architecture and urban design, the City would strongly benefit from the continued services of a qualified Urban Design Consultant to provide objective and professional advice on architecture and urban design. 2. Discussion 2.1 A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Urban Review Services was issued On February 18, 2016 the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Urban Design Review Services. The RFP was an open proposal call. A number of consulting firms were forwarded a copy of the RFP based on their experience with similar projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). In addition, a notice of the RFP was placed on the City's website. The RFP closed on March 15, 2016. Report PLN 08-16 June 20,2016 Subject: Consultant Selection for Urban Design Review Services Page 3 Three proposal were received from the following multi-disciplinary consulting teams: • MMM Group • SGL Planning & Design • John G. Williams Limited, Architects 2.2 John G. Williams Limited, Architect is recommended On April 19, 2016, an Evaluation Committee consisting of.the Chief Planner, the Manager, Development Review & Urban Design, and the Senior Planner-Site Planning reViewed the proposals against various criteria, as outlined in the RFP. Although the Evaluation Committee was impressed by the quality of all three proposals, the team that received the highest score and best met the City's needs in providing Urban Design Review Services, was John G. Williams Limited, Architect. · John G. Williams Limited, Architect is multi-disciplinary firm specializing in planning, urban design and architectural design control. This firm is one of the few that is active as an Urban Design/Control Architect Consultant in many municipalities within theGTA, including Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, Hamilton, Oakville, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Whitby. They have extensive experience reviewing a variety of built forms including mixed use developments, medium and high density residential projects, as well as commercial and industrial buildings. The firm employs a solution oriented approach to development projects and will work collaboratively with planning staff to continue to raise the level of planning, urban design and architecture within the City while balancing the City's goals against the applicant's requirements. 2.3 Urban Design Review Services Program The primary goal of the Urban Design Review Services Program is to establish new and higher standards for urban design and architecture in the City. To help achieve this goal, the Urban Design Consultant will be engaged in the review of all significant new development and redevelopment of existing properties and buildings that are prominently visible from a public street or highway, as well as any other proposals requested by the Site Plan Committee. Certain minor · projects or additions to existing buildings not visible from the street would generally be exempted. For most proposals, a maximum three week review period will be given to the Urban Design Consultant to provide comments to City Development staff. The Urban Design Consultant will review the proposal and provide their comments and suggested changes with respect to, but not limited to, overall site layout, the pedestrian realm, building placement and massing, architectural design, and building material and colour. The Urban Design Consultant may also attend meetings with the applicants and municipal staff to further discuss their comments, as well as work with the applicants to resolve any concerns or issues with their suggested changes. 41 42 Report PLN 08-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Consultant Selection for Urban Design Review Services Page 4 The Urban Design Consultant may also attend Site Plan Committee meetings to provide advice with respect to architecture and urban design pertaining to a specific application or project. There will be no financial impact to the City as a result of retaining the services of an Urban Design Consultant. The City's Official Plan and the User Fee By-law require applicants to be responsible for the peer review cost of studies and drawings, including site plan and architectural drawings. The Urban Design Consultant will bill the City for the services, at the hourly rate noted in their proposal, and in turn, the City will bill the development proponent. Therefore, although the City retains the service of the Urban Design Consultant, the City is reimbursed by the developer for the cost of the service. The 2016 budget for the City Development Department-Planning & Design section, identifies expenditure and revenue line items each in the amount of $80,000.00 in order to implement the Urban Design Review Services Program. All applicants are made aware of the Urban Design Review Services Program at the pre-consultation stage. Prior to engaging the. Urban Design Review Consultant, a cost estimated is provide to the applicant and a written consent is obtain from the applicant acknowledging that they agree to reimburse the City. of Pickering the full cost of undertaking peer review of any studies or drawings submitted in support of the application. For most development proposals, the additional cost incurred by an applicant as result of the City retaining the services of the Urban Design Consultant will be in the range of approximately $2,500.00 to $4,000.00. For larger scale and more complex projects, the cost could be approximately $5,000.00 to $10,000.00. Staff are sensitive to the additional cost incurred by the applicant and will work with the Urban Design Consultant to minimize the costs of the Urban Design Review Services were possible. Staff have not received any concerns or objections to the additional cost incurred by an applicant. 3. Conclusion Staff recommend that Council approve retaining the services of John G. Williams Limited Architect, to undertake the Urban Design Review Services in accordance with their proposal. Report PLN 1 0-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 2 Executive Summary: The City issued a Request for Proposal to retain a qualified heritage consultant to undertake Cultural Heritage Property Evaluations for ten built heritage resources located in the Seaton Urban Area identified in Pickering Official Plan Amendment 22 with a "Heritage Lot" notation (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The properties are currently owned by the Province of Ontario and managed by the Infrastructure Ontario and Lands Corporation, with the exception of the property located at 3285 Sidel_ine 20, which is privately owned. The property located at 615 Whitevale Road, was included in one of Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessments for demolition. The heritage evaluation for the property was completed first and reported on at the September 2015 meeting of Council. At that meeting, Council endorsed the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommendations opposing demolition and recommending designation of 615 Whitevale Road under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The City's heritage consultant concludes that the remaining nine properties meet the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Staff recognize individual property designation by municipalities do not apply to a property that is Provincially-owned. However, given the significance of the buildings and that the properties meet the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06, staff in consultation with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, recommend to Council .individual designations under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Additionally, given the significant of the former Whitevale school property at 3215 Whitevale Road, it is recommended that staff be authorized to: investigate the use of the property for a municipal purpose; enter into discussions with Infrastructure Ontario and the current tenant regarding the future ownership and use of the many artifacts associated to the former school; and report back to Council on these matters. Financial Implications: The cost to undertake the heritage assessments is approximately $21,970.00 (plus HST) and was funded through the Seaton Development Application Revenue reserve. 1. Background 1.1 The City's Heritage Consultant has evaluated ten "Heritage lot" properties located in Seaton for their heritage significance · The City issued a Request for Proposal to retain a qualified heritage consultant and retained Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting, in partnership with Amy Barnes Consulting and Chris Uchiyama Heritage, to undertake Cultural Heritage Evaluations for ten built heritage resources in the Seaton Urban Area located at: 615 Whitevale, 3250 Sideline 28, 3215 Sideline 28, 750 Whitevale Road, 940 Whitevale Road, 3185 Sideline 26, 1125 Whitevale Road, 1200 Whitevale Road, 1390 Whitevale Road and 3285 Sideline 20. The properties are identified in the City's Official Plan Amendment for Seaton with a "Heritage Lot" notation (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). 45 Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page4 Consultant's Analysis and Recommendation The property at 3250 Sideline 28, also known as the William Turner House, is located east of the Hamlet of Whitevale on the west side of Sideline 28, north of Whitevale Road. The key built resource on the property is a one-an-a-half frame farmhouse built in Ontario Cottage Style between 1851 and 1861, with a two-storey frame addition extending from the westside (circa 1880s). The farmhouse was built by William Turner, an important early settler and farmer. The property is associated with early settlement and agricultural history of the Whitevale area. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or . interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City consider individual designation under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the . property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the property listing on the Heritage Register to include the statement of significance. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. HPAC Recommends to Council At the November 5, 2015 HPAC meeting, the Committee recommended: That Council designate 3250 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and · That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Recommends to Council That Council designate 3250 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and · That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 47 Report PLN 1 0-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area P!3ge 6 It is also fecommended that the municipality enter into discussions with current tenant/owner to determine the ownership and intended future use of many fixtures and fittings related to the use as a school and develop a plan for the acquisition by Pickering Museum Village. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. HPAC Recommends to Council The HPAC recommends that the building be repurposed as a cultural space once the building is vacated., given that the property is directly associated with the early history of public education in the community of Whitevale and is a rare example of a pre-Confederation one-room schoolhouse. In addition, HPAC recommends that any artifacts remain in the building rather than donating to the Pickering Museum Village. The Committee recommends that staff enter into discussions with 10 to request the property be donated to the City of Pickering. · Therefore HPAC recommends to Council: That Council designate 3215 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That staff enter into discussions with 10 to request the property be donated to the City of Pickering to be repurposed as a cultural space; That staff enter into discussions with the current tenant/owner to determine the ownership and intended future use of many artifacts related to the use as a school; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff will investigate the feasibility of HPAC's recommendation to repurpose the building as a City cultural space. Furthermore, staff will enter into discussions with Infrastructure Ontario and the current tenant regarding the future ownership and use of the many artifacts associated to the former school and to report back to Council on these matters. Staff Recommends to Council That Council designate 3215 Sideline 28 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 49 Report PLN 1 0-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 8 The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City consider individual designation under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act when the property passes ou.t of Crown ownership. While the property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the property listing. on the Heritage Register. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. HPAC Recommends to Council That Council designate 750Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That a reference plan be prepared that illustrates the appropriate size of the heritage lot including the stone house; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that the City consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Given that the size of the property is 3.2 hectares (7.92 acres) in area, it is recommended that a reference plan be prepared to create an appropriate size and configuration to retain the heritage context of the stone house. Staff Recommends to Council That Council designate 750 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That a.reference plan be prepared that illustrates the appropriate size and configuration to retain the heritage context of the stone house; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 51 54 Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 11 Consultant's Analysis and Recommendation The property at 3185 Sideline 26, also known as Pennybank or the Hugh Pugh House, is located east of the Hamlet of Whitevale, on the east side of Sideline 26 and south of Whitevale Road. The key built resource on the property is a one-and-a-half-storey, dichromatic brick house with a one-and-a-half-storey stone tail at the rear. The stone tail was constructed circa 1855. The design and detailing of the brick house suggests that it was added in the 1880s. The house is a representative example of the Ontario farmhouse, an L-shaped variant of the Ontario cottage type which was popular in the 1870s and 1880s. The house incorporates features of the late-19th century ltalianate and Queen Ann styles. The stone tail is a representative of characteristic of mid-19th century. The property is directly associated with the agricultural history of the community. The Pugh family owned and operated their farm Pennybank, of which the farmhouse is the only remnant on the parcel, for more than 130 years. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommende·d that the City consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the property listing on the Heritage Register. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. HPAC Recommends to Council That Council designate 3185 Sideline 26 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Recommends to Council That Council designate 3185 Sideline 26 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 14 The key built resource on the property is a one-and-a-half-storey, T-shaped, brick house with a one:-storey kitchen tail at the rear. The west wing was built between 1873 and 1877 by owner William Brignal. The east wing was likely added in the early 1880s by late owner John Tool. The kitchen wing at the rear was likely added in the early 20th century by the Carter family. The farmhouse is likely the most elegant and skillfully executed of the Ontario Cottage style in the Whitevale area. It is one of several examples of dichromatic brick houses built in and around Whitevale during the 1870s which together illustrate the short period of industrial and agricultural prosperity enjoyed by the c~mmunity. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City consider individual designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act when the property passes out of Crown ownership. While the property remains in Crown ownership, it is recommended that the City consider updating the property listing on the Heritage Register. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request that the Province manage the property in compliance witH the · Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. HPAC Recommends to Council That Council designate 1200 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Recommends to Council That Council designate 1200 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Prope·rties. 57 Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton. Urban Area Page 16 HPAC Recommends to Council That Council designate 1390 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Recommends to Council That Council designate 1390 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and That Council request that the property be managed in compliance with the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 59 Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016 SHbject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 18 A large wooden barn (English barn) is located north of the house and is historically associated with the Hastings farmstead. The barn follows construction conventions for mid-to-late 19th century agricultural buildings and retains its 19th century shape and proportions. However, elements have been replaced and repaired over time. The property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and it is recommended that the City consider individual designation under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. This property is privately owned by Francis and Jennifer Dempsey. There is currently a 99 year lease to the Province on part of the lands, as shown above as Part 1 on the Registered Plan 40R-1 0518. The fieldstone tail of the house is situated within Part 2 and the portion of the English barn is situated in Part 1. It is recommended that any individual designation include the property's legal description. It is further recommended that the notice for designation is also provided to the Province of Ontario due to the Circumstances of the 99 year lease to the Province for Part 1. HPAC Recommends to Council That Council designate 3285 Sideline 20 (described legally as Parts 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 40R-1 0518) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Analysis Staff concur with the consultant's conclusions that the property meets the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and that Council consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 (Part IV) of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Recommends Council That Council designate 3285 Sideline 20 (described legally as Parts 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 40R-1 0518) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Actand notice of designation is provided to the Province of Ontario. 2.1 Heritage Designation of Provincial Land Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to designate properties, although the designation would not be binding to the Province. Accordingly, should Council pass a Designation By-law for any or all of these properties, the .. . Province would not be obligated te comply with the By-law. However, if a property is sold, the private property owner would be obligated to comply with the Designation By-law. 61 62 Report PLN 10-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: Heritage Lots Located in the Seaton Urban Area Page 19 The City's heritage consultant advises that while the properties remain in Crown ownership, the municipality consider updating the property listing on Pickering's Heritage Register. If the properties pass out of Crown ownership, the municipality consider individual designation of the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff recognize that Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (individual property designation by municipalities) does not apply to a property that is owned by the Provincial government. However, due to the significance of the buildings and given that the properties meet the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06 staff recommend Council designate the properties. 3.0 Conclusions The properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area, and are subject to the policies of the City's Official Plan Amendment for Seaton. Key objectives of these documents are to restore, rehabilitate, protect and conserve significant cultural heritage resources and integrate them into the new neighbourhoods. The heritage assessments undertaken by the City have concluded that all the properties meet the criteria for designation. These properties are valuable assets to the community and should be continued to be used and incorporated in the new Seaton neighbourhoods. Attachment 1. Location Map 66 Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 2 The introduction of a commercial development in the mixed use corridor will help achieve the goal of a diversified, transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood. The zoning by-law amendment application, excluding the single-storey commercial building with a drive-through facility, is recommended for approval. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located on the west side of Brock Road, north of the Hydro Corridor in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The subject lands comprise two properties, which have a combined area of approximately 3.2 hectares, with approximately 180 metres of frontage along Brock Road. The applicant is proposing to lease approximately 0.8 of a hectare of land within the hydro corridor immediately to the south to provide some of the required parking spaces to support the proposal. The owner has received approval from Infrastructure Ontario to permit parking within the hydro corridor lands. Surrounding land uses include: north -vacant lands owned by the City of Pickering, which are designated as "Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors" within the City's Official Plan and a "Type C Arterial Road" (Valley Farm Road extension) south -a Hydro Corridor and further south is Third Concession Road east -across Brock Road are lands owned by Pistritto's Farms and Greenhouses, which are designated as "Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors" within the City's Official Plan · west -vacant lands owned by Stonepay, which are designated as "Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Areas" within the City's Official Plan; a portion of these lands are to be developed as a stormwater management pond 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes to develop the subject lands for a retail/commercial centre with a broad range of uses, including but not limited to, commercial fitness/recreational centre, day care centre, financial institution, medical office, office, personal service shop, restaurant, retail store and supermarket. High density residential uses are anticipated to be part of phase 2 of the redevelopment of the subject lands, which could include two 20-storey residential apartment buildings. Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 3 The concept plan illustrates a full-movement access to the site from the extension of Valley Farm Road and a right-in/r-ight-out access to the site from Brock Road, south of the future signalized Valley Farm Road and Brock Road intersection. To accommodate the proposed access from Brock Road, a southbound right-turn lane is proposed within the regional boulevard. The applicant also proposes the construction of Valley Farm Road from the intersection of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road to the west limits of the subject property. In response to comments from the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the applicant submitted a revised concept plan (see Original Submitted Concept Plan and Revised Submitted Concept Plan, Attachments #2 and #3). Specifically, the key changes to the proposal include: • a reduction in the number of single storey buildings from 5 buildings to 1 building • an increase in the total gross floor area from 13,786 square metres to 14,025 square metres • a reduction in the amount of paved parking area within the hydro corridor from 1.2 hectares to 0.8 of a hectare • a reduction in the total number of parking spaces being provided on the. subject lands and within the hydro corridor from 686 parking spaces to 560 parking spaces 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public comments from the September 14,2015 Statutory Public Information Meeting and in written submission At the September 14, 2015 Statutory Public Information Meeting, two residents attended the meeting to learn more about the proposal and one resident submitted written comments in advance of the meeting. The concerns identified are as follows: • ensure that the design of the commercial development will not be just another big box development • ensure that the widening and construction of Brock Road will be completed prior to the construction of the proposed retail/commercial centre 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham e subject lands are designated "Living Areas" within the "Regional Corridor" overlay in the Regional Official Plan • expressed concern with the low intensity development proposed for Phase 1, along a Regional Corridor; however recognizing the long-term intensification proposed in Phase 2, which includes two 20-storey residential buildings and the potential for other higher density uses along Brock Road, the proposal is in keeping with the Regional Official Plan and is exempt from Regional approval 67 68 Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 4 • the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted for the subject lands indicated that the site meets the standards for both commercial and residential property uses and no further environmental work is required • the submitted Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance are satisfactory to the Region • a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, dated June 2015, indicated that no archaeological resources were identified on the subject lands; the report has been sent to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport • Regional Works is generally satisfied that the traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated with the improved road system that has been planned for the area • Regional Works has identified various technical matters that will need to be further addressed including: the relocation of the proposed right-in/right-out access further south on Brock .Road; the design of the southbound right turn· lane; signal warrant calculations to determine the timing for the signalization of the Brock RoadNalley Farm Road intersection; and location and infrastructure required for transit stops along Brock Road • the proposed development is within the Duffin Heights sanitary sewer pumping station drainage area; the estimated design flow falls within the · allowable range for the property • Regional municipal services will be installed by the applicant upon execution of a servicing agreement between the applicant and the Region 2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • advises that all parking to support the development should be located on the subject lands to maintain a wildlife corridor within the hydro lands • any proposed low impact development measures must address the infiltration targets in addition to the 5mm target for on-site retention 2.2.3 City of Pickering Engineering & Public Works • the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City for all off-site works, including the construction of Valley Farm Road from the intersection of Brock Road to the west limit of the property; the City will cost share a portion of the works associated with the oversizing of the road from a local road to an arterial road • the southbound right-turn lane has significantly reduced the width of the boulevard on the west side of Brock Road; this must be further reviewed to ensure that there is sufficient space for the installation of all required infrastructure and boulevard trees • the proposed functional design for stormwater management on the site is not acceptable to the City; new modelling will be required through the Site Plan Approval process • compensation for loss of tree canopy will required • detail drawings regarding landscaping, stormwater management and grading will be reviewed through the site plan approval process Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 5 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Proposed Official Plan Amendment to allow a single-storey building with an associated drive-through facility be refused The applicant's original Official Plan Amendment request was to allow five single-storey buildings and a drive-through facility. Through discussions with City staff, the applicant has consolidated a number of buildings reducing the number of single-storey buildings to one. The applicant has combined Buildings B, C and D into a single 3-storey building. Buildings E and E1 have been combined into a single 2-storey building. Building F remains as a single-storey building with an associated drive-through facility. The revised concept plan still requires an Official Plan Amendment to permit the single-storey building with an associated drive-through facility. The subject lands are designated as "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridors" in the Official Plan. Lands within this designation are to be designed and developed in a manner that is consistent with the Official Plan, Duffin Heights Neighourhood policies and the development guidelines for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Policies state that, despite Mixed Use Areas having the widest variety of use and highest levels of activities in the City, drive-through facilities, either stand-alone or in combination with other uses, are not permitted. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies also require all buildings to be multi-storey. The vision for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood is to achieve a sustainable neighbourhood that is pedestrian-focused, transit-oriented, compact and emphasizes high quality design. The neighbourhood was to be designed with the pedestrian in mind by providing appropriate facilities, scale, form and detail to promote walking and social interaction. The intent of the neighbourhood policy was to prohibit drive-through facilities, which by function caters to automobiles rather than pedestrians. It is staff's opinion that a single-storey building with an associated drive-through facility is not in keeping with the vision for the Duffin Height's neighbourhood. 3.2 The proposed retail/commercial centre will provide a needed service for the residents in Duffin Heights The "Mixed Use Area-Mixed Corridors" designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community. The designation provides for a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The applicant's revised proposal has a FSI of 0.4. Staff are supportive of the proposed retail/commercial centre, except for the drive-through facility, as this development will provide for broad range of commercial uses, including but not limited to, commercial fitness/recreational centre, day care centre, financial institution, medical office, office, personal service shop, restaurant, retail store and supermarket, servicing the Duffin Heights neighbourhood. This development will also further diversify the mix of uses provided within the Mixed Use Corridor to support the community. 69 70 Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 6 3.3 The proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies and urban design objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Development Guidelines The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies for lands within the Mixed Corridors designation require new developments to provide a strong and identifiable urban image by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient pedestrian access, and requiring all buildings to be multi-storey. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines envision higher density, multi-storey and mixed use buildings with a high level of architectural quality along this portion of the Brock Road Corridor. The intersection of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road is identified as a Focal Point on the Tertiary Plan within the Council-adopted Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The Guidelines state that development at focal points shall contribute to the prominence of the intersection through the use of appropriate building heights, massing, architectural features and landscaping. The revised concept plan illustrates a 3-storey commercial building with 4-storey massing, at the southwest corner of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road stepping down to one storey with 2-storey massing, away from the intersection. This building appropriately frames the intersection creating a gateway into the community from the south and provides a prominent landmark addressing the intersection of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road. The revised concept plan also illustrates a 2-storey building with 3-storey massing, fronting Brock Road immediately south of the proposed vehicular access from Brock Road, and a 2-storey building with 3-storey massing, located internal to the site. The proposed built form, excluding the single-storey building, is consistent with the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies and design objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The design guidelines also require that primary frontages of buildings fronting Brock Road provide pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and a multi-use trail along Brock Road. Also, non-residential floors fac;ades are encouraged to be at least 33 percent transparent on all the floors, and must be at least 60 percent transparent on the ground floor to encourage pedestrian interaction with retail and commercial activities. The applicant has advised that locating primary entrance doors along the Valley Farm Road and Brock Road frontages may be problematic for certain tenants. Through the Site Plan Approval process, staff will work with the applicant to locate primary entrance doors to some of the commercial uses oriented to the . Brock Road and Valley Farm frontages. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to articulate large walls along Brock Road and Valley Farm Road to enhance the architectural details and features of the proposed buildings. Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 7 3.4 Proposed vehicular access from Brock Road to be relocated further south resulting in potential change~ to the site layout The applicant is proposing a full-movement access to the site from the extension of Valley Farm Road and a right-in/right-out access from Brock Road, approximately 130 metres south of the future signalized intersection of Brock Road and Valley Farm Road. A southbound right-turn lane is also proposed within the Regional boulevard to accommodate the access Brock Road. The Region has indicated that the location of the proposed right-in/right-out access from Brock Road does not comply with the minimum 200 metre spacing requirement from the Valley Farm Road and Brock Road intersection, and recommends that the entrance be relocated to the southerly limit of the site or onto the adjacent Hydro corridor. The applicant is aware of the Region's concerns and has indicated that they are not supportive of the Region's request to relocate the Brock Road access further south. Relocating the vehicular access further south would impact the design of the overall site and the location of the proposed commercial buildings along Brock Road. Through the site plan approval process the applicant will work with Regional staff to demonstrate that the location of the proposed access off of Brock Road, as illustrated on the applicant's revised concept plan, would not have any operational impact on Brock Road. 3.5 The reduced parking area in the hydro corridor will protect for the wildlife corridor to the south of the property The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) requested that all parking to support the development be located on the subje~t lands in order to maintain an unobstructed wildlife corridor through the hydro corridor. The Development Guidelines for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood encourage that lands within the Hydro corridor be utilized for parking areas to serve abutting development. To address TRCA's concerns, the applicant has reduced the amount of parking within the Hydro corridor from 1.2 hectares to 0.8 of a hectare. Staff is supportive that the reduced area within the Hydro corridor will continue to provide an appropriate amount of parking to support the development, while maintaining an appropriate corridor width for wildlife to the south. 3.6 Sufficient parking is available to support the development The general provisions from By-law 3037 require parking for the proposed commercial development to be provided at a rate of 5.9 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area (GLFA) for commercial uses and 5.4 spaces per 100 square metres of GLFA for office uses. 71 72 Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 8 The applicant has submitted a Parking Justification Report, prepared by GHD Inc., dated May 15, 2015, in support of the proposed development. The consultant has indicated that the lands at the northeast corner of Brock Road and William Jackson Drive and the northwest corner of Brock Road and Dersan Street were recently rezoned to facilitate commercial development. The site-specific by-laws for these sites included a reduced parking standard of 4.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of GLFA for commercial uses. The consultants have also indicated that other municipalities, such as the Town of Whitby, have implemented a reduced parking rate for commercial development above the first storey, in order to encourage multi-storey development. The Town of Whitby utilizes a parking requirement of 2.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area for office and retail uses above the first storey. Based on the comparable zoning by-laws, the applicant is proposing the following parking standards for the retail/commercial centre: • 4.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of ground floor commercial • 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of commercial above the ground floor Staff are supportive of the proposed reduced parking rate of 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres for office and commercial uses above the first floor to encourage multi-storey buildings. Staff are recommending a parking standard of 4.5 parking spaces per 1 00 square metres for commercial/retail/personal service uses on the ground floor, which is in keeping with the recently approved zoning by-law for the Seaton community and other commercial developments recently approved in the City. Based on the above-noted parking ratios, a total of 546 parking spaces are required to be provided to support the proposed development, whereas the applicant is proposing a total of 560 parking spaces on the subject lands and within the abutting hydro corridor. Staff are satisfied that sufficient parking will be provided to accommodate the parking demands of the retail/commercial centre. 3.7 All Technical Matters will be addressed through the Site Plan Approval Process A Site Plan application will be required for the development. Detailed design issues and outstanding technical matters to be dealt with through the site plan approval process, include: • review of building massing and fa<;ade treatments • site access, particularly the location of the proposed access from Brock Road • lighting • landscaping within the site and along Brock Road and Valley Farm Road • pedestrian circulation and connections within the site and connections to Brock Road and Valley Farm Road • drainage and grading Report PLN 11-16 June 20, 2016 Subject: OPA 15-001/P, A 6/15-Duffins Point Inc. Page 9 • . site servicing • cash-in-lieu of parkland • tree compensation • revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Plan • construction Management Plan • detail design of Valley Farm Road . In addition to the above-noted matters, an updated traffic impact study will be required through the Site Plan Approval process. This study will also review existing and projected traffic volumes at the Valley Farm Road and Brock Road intersection to determine whether this intersection warrants signalization. No further reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if th.e rezoning application is approved. 3.8 The Zoning By-law will be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment Staff supports the rezoning application, excluding the single-storey commercial building with a drive-through facility, and recommends that a site specific implementing by-law, containing the standards attached as Appendix I to this Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. Appendix Appendix I Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15 Attachments 1 . Location Map 2. Original Concept Plan 3. Revised Concept Plan 73 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions Appendix I to Report PLN 11-16 for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15 75 76 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/15 That the implementing zoning by-law permit a retail/commercial development in accordance witl:l the following provisions: Permitted and Prohibited Uses 1. Permitted uses include a bake shop, cafe, commercial fitness/recreational centre, commercial school, convenience store, day care centre, dry cleaning distribution centre, financial institution, medical office, office, personal service establishment, restaurant, retail store, supermarket, veterinary clinic and residential apartment buildings. 2. Prohibited uses include drive-through facilities. Building Restrictions 3. All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope with the following setbacks: a. 3.0 metres from north, east and south lot lines b. 8.0 metres from the west lot line 4. A 3.0 metre wide build-to-zone adjacent to Brock Road and Valley Farm Road. 5. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of 40 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone is occupied by a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building. 6. A minimum 60 percent of all non-residential ground floor fa<;ades, and a minimum 33 percent of all non-residential floor fa<;ades above the ground floor, of each building face along Brock Road and Valley Farm Road shall be constructed of unencumbered transparent materials. 7.. Minimum first floor height of 4.5 metres. 8. Minimum of 2 functional storeys required for all buildings; however, 3 functional · storeys are required for the building at the northeast corner of the site. 9. Minimum building height: a. 9.0 metres b. 11.5 metres at the northeast corner of the subject lands 10. Garbage to be contained within a fully enclosed structure attached or integrated into the buildings. Landscaped Area 11. A minimum landscaped buffer width of 4.5 metres along the west lot line. Minimum and Maximum Floor Areas 12. Minimum gross leasable floor area of 14,000 square metres. 13. Minimum gross leasable floor area of 4,000 square metres above the ground floor. Parking Requirements 14. Minimum 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses. 15. Minimum 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area for office and commercial uses above the ground floor. 16. A maximum of 160 parking spaces are permitted to be provided on the adjacent Hydro Corridor lands. 77