HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 40-02
CiÚf o~
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
27
Report Number: PO 40-02
Date: August 23, 2002
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 8/02
D. & J. MacKeracher
501 Rosebank Road South (Part Block K, Plan 418)
(North-east corner of Rosebank Road and Cowan Circle)
Recommendation:
1.
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 8/02, be APPROVED subject to
the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. PO 40-02, to permit the
establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling unit, submitted by
D. & J. MacKeracher, on lands being Part Block K, Plan 418 (Part 2, Plan 40R-12933),
City of Pickering.
2.
That the Applicants' request to provide vehicular access to the site from
Cowan Circle be DENIED.
Executive Summary:
The applicants' request a change to the zoning by-law to permit the establishment of a
second dwelling unit within their existing dwelling. The current zoning allows only one
dwelling unit. The property is located on the north-east corner of Rosebank Road and
the south part of Cowan Circle (see Location Map, Applicant's Submitted Plan,
Attachments #1 & #2).
It is recommended that the requested zoning amendment be approved, subject to
conditions. The new door proposed for the south side of the house for access to the
second unit is not a substantial change to the elevations of the existing dwelling. The
house will continue to appear as a single dwelling unit. The alteratiòns will enhance the
south wall of the house, improving the streetscape on Cowan Circle. The applicants'
proposal to introduce an additional driveway off Cowan Circle to accommodate parking
for the second unit is not supported. The existing driveway provides adequate parking
for a second unit.
Financial Implications:
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development.
28
PO Report 40-02
Date: August 23, 2002
Subject: MacKeracher (A 8/02)
Page 2
Background:
1.0 Comments Received
1.1 At June 19, 2002 Information Meeting
(see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #3 and #4)
From Residents Opposed:
- backyard parking pad detracts from area
- increased parking on street
- second units not in character
- precedent setting
1.2 Following Information Meeting
Residents In Support:
- only affects 501 Rosebank Road
- not precedent setting
- accommodating elderly parents
- (see Attachment #5 - form letter
signed by 16 residents)
Residents Opposed
- parking on street and on-site
- safety of children
- increased densities
- inappropriate development
- (see Attachments #6 to #8)
From Applicant (Response Addressinq Residents Concerns):
- proposal is in compliance with City's Official Plans
- increased density is still lower than what is permitted
- on-street parking to be dealt with by by-law enforcement
- character of neighbourhood will be retained
- (see Letter, Attachment #9)
From Aqencies:
The Durham District School Board
- no objections
Durham Planning Department
- conforms with Regional Plan
- no provincial interests
Canadian National Railway
Properties Inc.
- requests noise analysis and warning
clause in offer of purchase and sale
Veridian Corporation
- no objections; applicant must obtain
approval of any proposed electrical work
PD Report 40-02
Date: August 23, 2002
29
Subject: MacKeracher (A 8/02)
Page 3
From City Departments:
Municipal Property & Engineering
- sufficient off-street parking to be
available; existing driveway permits
parking of 3 vehicles (see Attachments
#10 & 11)
Fire Prevention
- construction must meet Building and
Fire Codes
2.0 Discussion
2.1 Site-specific Zoning Application Won't Prejudice On-going City-Wide Zoning
Review of Two-Unit Houses
The City's Official Plan encourages a broad diversity of housing by form, location,
size, tenure, and cost within the neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that
the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve
overtime.
Most zoning within the City of Pickering permits only one dwelling unit per lot. The
City is in the process of completing a review of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
to establish criteria and standards for second units. Until such time as this review
is complete it is appropriate that individual zoning amendments for second dwelling
units be considered on their own merits. Approval of this application will not
prejudice the City's second unit review process.
2.2 Existing House will continue to Appear as a Single Dwelling
The existing zoning affecting the lands is 'R3', Detached Dwelling Residential Zone,
which permits one dwelling unit per lot. The introduction of a second dwelling unit
and associated building and site works within the existing dwelling and its impact
on the established streetscape must be reviewed to ensure that the existing
dwelling continues to appear as one dwelling.
The main dwelling will have two units, with no indication of the existence of the
second dwelling unit within the main dwelling. This second unit can be
accommodated within the building without detection from outside, and thereby
ensures that the visual impact and neighbourhood character within the
Rosebank Neighbourhood is maintained.
The Applicant desires to add an entrance to the south elevation, which fronts onto
Cowan Circle South.
30
PO Report 40-02
Date: August 23, 2002
Subject: MacKeracher (A 8/02)
Page 4
The Planning & Development Department requested that the applicant provide an
improved entrance feature for the flanking elevation, to create a positive visual
impact and streetscape presence. As a condition of recommending approval, a
conceptual flankage elevation drawing is required prior to forwarding the
implementing zoning by-law for Council's approval. The applicants are in
agreement with thi~ condition. The visual impact of this zoning amendment
proposal will be minimal.
Canadian National Railway Properties Inc. noted that a noise report is required for
the rezoning. However, the dwelling has been in existence for quite some time,
and matters respecting noise attenuation were addressed during the original Plan
of Subdivision process. Consequently, no new conditions respecting noise
attenuation are necessary.
It is recommended that the application be approved, to permit the establishment of
a second dwelling unit within the main dwelling unit.
2.3 Existing 3-Car Garage and Driveway Provides Adequate Parking for Proposed
Additional Unit
The applicant proposes additional parking off Cowan Circle to accommodate the
proposed second unit. The applicant's reasons for the additional parking are as
follows:
. Could partially eliminate the overnight on-street parking;
. To eliminate on-street parking and overnight parking from Cowan Circle;
. Parking on Cowan Circle with children running across, makes for a
dangerous situation;
. With the basement apartment in place, 2 cars could easily be added to the
property, making a total of 7 parking spaces on-site. Currently, the
property can support 6 parking spaces, 3 of the 6 are inside of the garage,
but one space was specially built as a workshop, thus making only
5 spaces available;
. Additional parking will also help the occupants which are elderly, and not
able to walk long distances, and not able to negotiate stairs or significant
grades, would benefit from the parking area in the rear of the property.
The existing 3-car garage and driveway spaces available on the property provide
sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed second unit. Additional parking in
the rear yard from Cowan Circle on the site would attract attention to the home,
creating a greater visual impact affecting neighbourhood character and would
introduce a condition not common to single detached dwelling development.
PO Report 40-02
Date: August 23, 2002
31
Subject: MacKeracher (A 8/02)
Page 5
The introduction of a second driveway contradicts the principle of ensuring that the
introduction of a second unit will not detract from the appearance of a one unit
dwelling. The introduction of a second unit must blend into the community. To
address residents concerns, and assist in maintaining the appearance of a one unit
dwelling it is recommended that the applicants' request for a vehicular access from
Cowan Circle to the site be refused.
The City must approve any requested curb cuts, consequently should Council
refuse access to the site from Cowan Circle, City staff will be advised to prohibit
any such request.
The issue of the provision of sufficient off-street parking has also been raised by the
City's Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering. While Mr. Holborn concurs
with Planning staff that 5 - 6 vehicle parking spaces should be sufficient to
accommodate the off-street parking demands of two dwelling units, he notes that
any overflow of parking into the street should be addressed through Municipal
By-law Enforcement.
The applicant does not concur with the recommendation to prohibit access from
Cowan Circle, for reasons stated in the first paragraph of this section.
3.0 Applicant's Comments
The applicant concurs with the recommendations of this report with the exception of
prohibiting vehicle access from Cowan Circle.
. see Attachment Listing on next page
32
PD Report 40-02
Date: August 23, 2002
Subject: MacKeracher (A 8/02)
Page 6
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Location Map
Applicant's Submitted Plan
I nformation Report
Minutes from Public Information Meeting
Form Letter in Support from:
AI Bonk - 503 Rosebank Road
Catherine Coughlan - 433 Toyenvale Road
Dan Coughlan - 433 Toyenvale Road
Bill Koichopolos - 601 Rosebank Road
Nicky Koichopolos - 601 Rosebank Road
Susan Lee - 1040 Moorelands Crego
Tom Lee -1040 Moorelands Cres.
Clack MacGregor - 551 Rougemount Drive
Emma MacKeracher ..;..316 Dyson Road
Eric MacKeracher - 316 Dyson Road
Mr. & Mrs. MacKeracher - 501 Rosebank Road
Joan Merrem - 318 Dyson Road
Kalevi Pollari - 547 Dahlia Cres.
Pat Pollari - 547 Dahlia Cres.
Ryan Pollari - 547 Dahlia Crego
Gail Schumacher - 501 Rosebank Road
6. Opposition letter from Werner Muhm - 506 Rosebank Road
7. Opposition letter from Robert and Norma Chitterden - 504 Rosebank Rd.
8. Opposition letter from James and Adele Chaikalis - 719 Cowan Circle
9. Applicants Response to Residents Concerns
10. City of Pickering - Municipal Properties & Engineering (Comments)
11. City of Pickering - Municipal Properties & Engineering (Memo to file)
PD Report 40-02
Subject: MacKeracher (A 8/02)
Date: August 23, 2002
33
Page 7
Prepared By:
JdL~
Planning Technician
'"
Prepared By:
Lyn a 1 ylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Developmen Review
GXR:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Approved I Endorsed By:
Neil Carroll, C, PP
Director, Plann g & Development
34
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 40-02
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 8/02
1. That prior to forwarding an implementing zoning by-law to Council, the
applicants obtain conceptual approval of the proposed door entry to the dwelling
unit, on the flankage wall (Cowan Circle), from the Director,
Planning & Development.
2. That the implementing zoning by-law permit the establishment of a second
dwelling unit within the existing dwelling.
ATTACHMENT I
REPORT I PO
I TO
¥D .- 0 ;).
35
CI
ð
0::
!z
:::J
0
:¡;
w
C)
:::J
0
0::
z
~
:::J
0
:¡;
(
w
!::
J:
::=
LAKE ONTARIO
Planning & Development Department
PROPERlY DESCRIPTION PART OF BLOCK K, PLAN 418; PART 2, 40R-12933
OWNER DONALD MACKERACHER DATE MAY 2,2002
DRAWN BY RC
l'
APPLICATION No.
A 08/02
SCALE 1 :7500
CHECKED BY GR
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
PN-1
PA-
:~6
Q
«
0
cr:
~
Z
<C
W
W
en
.0
cr:
LT,! ;,,:r'Trrr # t2 TO
;1 P['..,-,-, ¥O "":.Q;},..,...
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN
A 08/02
D.MACKERACHER
-
7.70
3 CAR
GARAGE.
.. ........
PROPOSED
ENTRY
COWAN
44 121
1-:1
~
",~;.
~ /.
.f',
;."~ ~
~~ "Zz,
C,>o.
/0",
,..~
'/.
ff¿¡ ít;.",
í9 ... d'
3ENERAL LOCATION OF
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
PARKING AREA
.2
CIRCLE
~
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES:
AUGUST 23, 2002.
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT # PO L/ð - O;Z
37
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 17-02
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
June 19, 2002
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, RS.O. 1990, chapter P.B
SUBJECT:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 008/02
D. & R. MacKeracher
Plan 418 Part Block K
(part 2, Plan 40R 12933)
501 Rosebank Road South
City of Pickering
1.0
PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
the subject property is located on the northeast comer of Rosebank Road and Cowan
Circle (southern extension) and is approximately 920 square metres in size with a lot
frontage of2l metres (see location map -Attachment #1);
the subject property cUlTently supports a detached dwelling.
the sUlTounding land uses are residential to the north, south, east, and west.
2.0
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
the applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to pennit the
establishment of a second dwelling unit in the basement of the main dwelling unit
(see Applicant's Submitted Plan - Attachment #2).
3.0
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
3.1
Durham Re1!ional Official Plan
the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being designated
"Living Area", where lands are to be used predominately for housing purposes;
the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation.
3.2
Pickerin1! Official Plan
the subject property is designated Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area within
the Rosebank Neighbourhood;
Section 11.3 (a) of the Official Plan, Rosebank Neighbourhood, states that City
Council shall, in established residential areas along Bella Vista Drive, Dyson Road,
Pine Ridge Road, Rodd Avenue, Rosebank Road, Rougemount Drive, Toyenvale
Road and Woodgrange Avenue, encourage and where possible require new
development to be compatiable with the character of existing development;
this designation pennits residential development up to and including 30 units per net
hectare for development within an Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area, the
proposed development would provide a net density of 10,86 units per net hectare;
Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan -:- Transportation Systems designates
Rosebank Road as a Collector Road and Cowan Circle as a Local Road;
- the applicant's proposal appears to conform to the applicable Official Plan policies.
:38
6.0
6.1
6.2
Infonnation Report No. 17-02
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT II PO
3 TO
l.Jo - ~ .. ...
Page 2
3.3
Zoninl! Bv-law
the subject property is currently zoned "RJ" - Detached Dwelling Residential Zone
by By-law 2511;
this zone pennits the establishment of one detached dwelling unit on a lot with a
minimum lot frontage of 18 metres and a minimum lot area of 550 metres square;
an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to pennit the establishment of a
second dwelling unit in the basement of the existing main dwelling unit.
4.0
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
4.1
Resident Comments
no written resident comments have been received to date;
4.2
Al!encv Comments
no agency comments have been received to date;
4.3
Staff Comments
in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by
staff for further review and consideration:
. the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing built fonn;
. examination of the existing parking situation on-site and grading, to detennine its
suitability in serving the proposed second dwelling unit.
this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and
assessed comments ITom the circulated departments, agencies and the public.
5.0
PROCEDURALINFO~TION
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning &
Development Department;
oral comments may be made at the Public Infonnation Meeting;
all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Recommendation Report
prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of
Councilor a Committee of Council;
if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide
comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal;
if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must
request such in writing to the City Clerk.
OTHER INFORMATION
Appendix I
list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies ,and City
Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report;
Information Received
copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department;
Infonnation Report No. 17-02
ATTACHMENT #- 3 TO
REPORT # PO Ljo ~ Ó ~
Page 3
#.¿-SJ '
Planning Technician
GXR/td
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
~~'
Lynda Ð. Taylor P
Manager, Development Review
:~9
40
-?
ATTACHMENT #::J TO
REPORT # PO '/0 - 0 ;}
APPENDIX I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 17-02
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1)
none received to date;
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1)
none received to date;
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1)
Planning & DeveloPl!lent Department;
'.Tl".,'fif¡IP¡I,'# f. TO
k, "',J' ""..,
:"';',:, 'R" 'POi ---~O ,- 0 ~ E t f th
,,-, U" 11 -_..._-_.~, xcerp s rom e
Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes
Pursuant to the Planning Act
41
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
7:00 P.M.
The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and
the Ontaño Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at.
(V)
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 08/02
D.&J.MACKERACHER
PLAN 418, PART BLOCKK
(pART 2, PLAN 40R-12933)
501 ROSEBANK ROAD SOUTH
1.
GeoffRomanowski, Planning Technician, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined
in Information Report #17-02.
2.
Don MacKeracher, applicant, advised that he wishes to build a basement apartmsmt-- for his Ìn-
~~~~ .
3.
James Chaikaws, 719 Cowan Circle, stated his concern with the second unit due to the increase
in parking. He understands that a parking pad will be built in the back yard of the property but
he enjoys the greenspace between the two homes and does not wish to see this happen. He is
also concerned with a precedent being set if this application is allowed.
4.
Pat Kelly, 713 Cowan Circle, stated her concern for the safety of the children and the potential
for increased parking on the street which is already a problem.
5.
Dave Breckan, 711 Cowan Circle, stated his concern with the prospect of this home being sold in
the future, being rented out and absentee landlords who aren't concerned with the condition of
the property. He also advised that he does not want a precedent set for the undeveloped land.
6.
Bill Trapper, 491 Rosebank Road, questioned if this would lead to precedent setting for
basement apartments.
7.
Don MacKeracher, appli~ant, advised that access to his property is off Rosebank Road and that
he is considering adding a parking pad in his back yard:
8,
Nadene Trapper, 491 Rosebank Road, stated her concern with parking in the back yard and the
potential for neighbours to make the same request. She questioned if this home could become a
duplex if the MacKerachers moved.
9.
Leon Sowa, 487 Rosebank Road, stated that if this application is approved there is a possibility
of double population, increase in taxes, traffic, law enforcement officers, landlord and tenant
disputes, noise, larger schools and crime.
--'-
42
ATTACHMENT # 5 TO
REPORT # PO ~o- () ~
RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 2002
Planning and Development Department,
City of Pickering,
Pickering Civic Comples
One the Esplanade,
Pickering, Ontariá,
L 1V 6K7
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Pickering, Ontario
Attn: Geoff Romanowski,
Planning Technician.
Dear Sir,
. .
Please be advised that I am in support of Mr. and MrS. Don and Janet
MacKeracher's application for an amendment to Zoning By~Law 2511 to allow
the construction ofa basement apartment in their home. This application will .
only affect the property at 501 Rosebank Road and is not precedent setting.
The application conforms to the Official Plan for the Rosebank neighbourhood
and was requested so that Don and Janet could provide accommodation for
Janet's Mother and Father who are elderly and not in good "health,
Yours Truly,
. .
"""-.
.Identicalletters received from the following homeowners:
AI Bonk - 503 Rosebank Road
Catherine Coughlan - 433 Toyenvale Road
Dan Coughlan - 433 Toyenvale Road
Bill Koichopolos - 601 Rosebank Road
Nicky Koichopolos - 601 Rosebank Road
Susan Lee - 1040 Moorelands Cres.
Tom Lee -1040 Moorelands Cres.
Clack MacGregor - 551 Rougemount Drive
Emma MacKeracher -316 Dyson Road
Eric MacKeracher - 316 Dyson Road
Mr. & Mrs. MacKeracher - 501 Rosebank Road
Joan Merrem - 318 Dyson Road
Kalevi Pollari - 547 Dahlia Cres
Pat Pollari - 547 Dahlia Cres.
Ryan Pollari - 547 Dahlia Cres.
Gail Schumacher - 501 Rosebank Road
ATTACHMENT # {, TO
P.E¡:tORl # PO I.fD. D J..
rö1~(þJ ~ D W/~rm
I1lJ J UN 2 0 ZOO~!}!J
CITY OF PICKERING
PICKEFiING, ONrARIO
June 1.8, 2002
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
Pickering Civic Complex
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 2K7
"""""-~~~-'~~"'.-..-..__.~_.-.=~
¡ ~;~. ~
. r'"¡ f3
JU
q
,
,-
CITY OF P!C/ŒFHNC¡
PI..;';"I\III\IO AND
DEVELOPMENT DEP.'\i1TMENT
---
Mr. WernerMuhm
506 Rosebank Road South
Pickering, ON
L1W2N5
To Whom It May Concern:
Re:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 008/02
501 Rosebank Road South, Pickering, ON
I have received the notice for the above mentioned application and would like to object to
the proposal for the following reasons:
.
Rosebank Road South is already faced with the problem of parked cars on the
street to the point that it is impossible for two cars to pass at once. It appears that
501 Rosebank Road South does not have adequate driveway space to
accommodate another car. I am concerned that if a second dwelling is permitted
this will add to the congestion already on the street.
.
The houses on Rosebank Road South have remained one dwelling units for some
time and I would like to see it kept that way.
I hope that my comments will help in your final decision.
1 our~;øery truly,
.:./~' -
//~
WernerMuhm
44
ATTACHMENT # 7 TO
BE PORT # PO ¥O- 0 ';;L
719 Cowan Circle,
pickering, Ontario.
L1W 3K6
$/C:~
RECEIVED
CITY OF PICKERING
JUN 2 7 2002
OLERK'S DIVISION
Dear Sir,
fõ) ~ (ÇJ ~ Q \Yl ~ ITïl
lfú JUN 2 7 2002 lW
CITY OF PICKERING
PICKERING, ONTARIO
June 24,2002.
IE!! t= ("'" it":. ~ 1'J. ¡ IJ¡- r'"
n ""- ~ m;;;, N ~; fl.': ~J
Re. Zonlna Bv-Law Amendment ADoi/cation A 008102
H ! rei if p ?no'?' Ji
.,l,.¡:\i",.J,..Ul,- .
err\( OF ¡:'lC;;¿d~NG '
<-'L"NNiNC: .'\t.:~)
DEVELOFi;'H::NT DEPARH,¡1ENT
~. ....-
I am an affected resident who attended the meeting on June 19, and I wish to put on record my
objection to this proposal.
I understand that Mr. MacKeracherwants to provide accommodation for his parents due to their
advanced years. This, in itself, is highly commendable. Too many people are content to dump their
parents in a senior's home and ignore them.
However, I see no need for the proposed alterations in order to accomplish this. If alIO'NSd, this will
have the effect of inaeasing density ratios in this area. It will set a precedent, the outcome of which can
not be measured. For example, it is obvious that at some point in the future, this home will be sold. If
the changes applied for are permitted, such a home vvould be advertised as Hseparate self contained
apartment with income potential" What is certain is that this vvould encourage similar changes, perhaps
for the sole purpose of rental units to an as yet unknown number of residences. This \\WId have a
serious detrimental affect on the safety, and well being, of all other families in the area.
. Page2
HT Þ,CH~.mH #_2- TO
,.:~ <JtV if PO "y~;¿..~"
June 23, 2002
45
Given the size of the subject home (i.e. 5 bedrooms, :kar garage, and :kar driveway) I see no
reason why an additional driveway or entrance needs to be added just to accommodate two additional
people. I certainly do not wish to see a driveway as close to my own as is proposed. I have four
children, two of whom are under two years of age. The added danger to my family is, I believe, obvious.
This together with the possibility of my home losing value due to having a future duplex/rental unit next
door is why J wish tose this application refused.
We bought our home in Cowan Circle approximately 10 years ago. Our decision to locate here was
largely motivated by the fact that we believed we were moving to a quiet, peaceful area and were
delighted with the Wêtf the City of Pickering had controlled the layout of the area.
Sincerely,
)
~
Adele & James Chaikalis.
c.c. W. Arthurs, Mayor
M. Brenner, regional councUJor.
D. Ryan, local councUlor.
2002.
f:Tì!\!"',f- J.~[rn #_.. 8 _TO
. "ftJ ~ 0 J..
5?4 R?sebank R? SouthR E C E B V E D
Plckenng, OntarIo CITY OF PICKERING
L1W2N5
1JUN 2 6 2002
46
~E
¡r-!l-
1tJ~
June 26, 2002
CLERK'S DIVISION
Mr. Bruc
Ci erk
Ity of Pickering
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
Dear Sir:
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 008/02
D. & R. MacKeracher - Plan 418 Part Black K
RP 40R12933 Part 2 (501 Rosebank Rd. South)
We wish, to advise that we strongly object to the proposed amendment of existing zoning
with regard to the above property.
We have lived in this area for 25 years. Before having our home built, we researched the
future proposals for this area and a deciding factor of our moving here, was that it was
zoned as "Single Family Dwellings". We certainly pay enough property taxes to support
a single family-housing environment.
The Pickering Official Plan may identify the subject lands as being located with an
"Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area" within the Rosebank Neighbourhood and
it is for this very reason that families are attracted to the area. This is why just a few
years ago, the residents of this area negotiated with the building contractor of the
subdivision off Oakwood Dr. to forego a play park in order to keep lot sizes bigger. Is
this also ~ot an indication that the ratepayers of this area want to keep spacious living?
In the past 25 years there has been a tremendous increase in traffic on Rosebank Rd. S.
and it is no longer a quiet street. As you state in your letter of May 28, 2002, it is
designated as a Collector Road - does this not indicate even higher volume of traffic in
the future? We do not need the traffic and parking problems associated with multiple
family dwellings. This particular area of the street has become much noisier with the
installation of a 3-way stop sign. Many visitors park on both sides of the road Gust over
the crest of the hill) and within 10 metres of the stop sign, creating difficulties with
getting in and out of our driveway.
If the zoning by-law is amended to allow second dwelling units in basements, then this
area will soon lose its uniqueness of being a 'self-contained' community and become
overcrowded. What would be the next step after that? Townhouses? If this re-zoning is
allowed to proceed that surely would be the next step because once re-zoning applies to
one area, you can be sure it will only escalate from there.
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT f} PO
f? TO
Ljð-(;>.~
47
We were unable to attend the meeting on June 19th, 2002 and would appreciate being
infonned of the outcome of this and subsequent meetings regarding the passing of any
zoning by-law amendment in this regard.
Yours truly,
dJff:ikf!a d¡J~
~~ eLÄ~
Robert and Nonna Chittenden
48
RECEIVED
AUG 0 2 2002
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Planning and Development Department,
City of Pickering,
Pickering Civic Complex,
One The Esplanade,
Pickering, Ontario,
L 1V 6K7.
Attn: Geoff Romanowski,
Planning Technician.
Dear Mr. Romanowski,
ATlACHMErn # 9 TO
r;C'DRT # PO 1./0 - 0 ~
Don & Janet MacKeracher,
501 Rosebank Road,
Pickering, Ontario
L 1W 2N6.
August 2, 2002.
My wife and I are submitting these additional comments relating to our Zoning
Amendment Application number A08/02 and the discussions which took place at
the recent meeting with yourself, Mr. Randy Taylor and Mr. Don Schumacher and
I on Thursday, July 25, 2002. At that meeting we were informed that the
Pickering Planning Department would support our application with two conditions
as follows: . 1) that the new entry way be designed to be more stylish to match
the general style in common use in the neighbourhood and 2) that Planning
would recommend that no additional parking beyond the existing spaces be
permitted.
Thank you and your colleagues in Planning for supporting the zoning revision we
have reques~ed.
We are in agreement with the first condition and will work with our architects and
contractors to come up with an entryway design which meets with your approval.
Drawings will be submitted for your approval once the detail designs commence.
We have great difficulty with the second condition that no additional parking will
be permitted. Because the existing zoning bylaw defines the requirements for
rear yard parking very clearly and because we are able to meet those conditions,
we did not feel that any changes to the bylaw in this regard would be required
and we did not address the issue in our original application. In order to clarify the
situation, we would make the following observations:
1. We understand that the street parking in Pickering is limited to a 3 hour
maximum. This is partially to eliminate overnight street parking.
2. Parking along Cowan Circle contravenes the 3 hour limit as well as the
intent of no overnight parking.
Page 1 of 3
t\Tl ACHf'JiENl # 'r TO
Ç';EHJRT Ii PO ¥o p ù ::2.
49
3. There are many small children who play in the roadway and frequently
run across it among the residents of Cowan Circle. The parked
vehicles make this a very dangerous situation and although there have
been no accidents to date, we have great concern that the parking
situation will soon result in a tragedy. We feel that it would be in the
best interest of the community to eliminate any additional requirements
for street parking resulting from our proposed basement apartment.
4. Our home currently is a 5 bedroom, 3100 square foot house. With the
basement apartment, we would be adding what we expect would be 2
additional bedrooms to make the house a 7 bedroom, about 4300 to
4400 square foot living area residence. We already have 3 cars and
we have two teenagers who are currently in the process of obtaining
their driving licenses. Once they are driving, we will likely add two cars
to the total. The basement apartment could easily add an additional 2
cars bringing the house total to 7 vehicles without considering any
specialized units such as mobile homes or RV's or boats etc. We
currently have 6 parking spots. Three of the 6 are inside our garage
but one of these was specially built as a workshop and is equipped
with electrical distribution panels, insulation etc to make it a useable
workshop. If we leave out the workshop, we are limited to 5 existing
parking spots. This would leave a potential of 2 vehicles without on
site parking. These vehicles would be forced to street park.
5. In the event that we receive any visitors, there would be no on site
parking for them and they would be forced to street part.
6. The tenants for the proposed apartment are elderly and not able to
walk great distances or negotiate stairs. By eliminating any additional
parking spots, they would be forced to walk down a significant grade
and over a distance of about 100 feet to access their entrance. This is
not an ideal situation for seniors carrying in groceries etc. and poses
the risk of injury in winter conditions. .
7. We feel that the resident objection raised at the information meeting
was a frivolous and desperate attempt to stop the project.
In summary then, we would draw your attention to the following:
i) It is very important that the proposed basement apartment not contribute to
the street parking problem.
ii) The proposed tenants are elderly and not able to walk long distances.
Winter conditions combined with the grade present would present a
potential for injury to them.
iii) The current Zoning bylaw permits rear yard parking.
We feel that unless additional parking is included in the project, there will be
much future dissension among the residents affected by increased street parking
along - Cowan Circle and Rosebank Road. We request that the condition relating
to parking be reviewed and that Planning either allow the existing parking
Page 2 of 3
50
ATTACHMENT I q TO
REPORT # PO J../{) .. 0 .;;
conditions in the current zoning bylaw to stand or recommend the addition of a
minimum of two parking spaces to our property to support the basement
apartment.
Thank you for your kind attention,
/##/~ )f;uß<.~
Don and Janet MacKeracher.
Cc: Maurice Brenner, Ward 1 Regional Councillor, City of Pickering
Dave Ryan, Ward 1 City Councillor, City of Pickering.
A. R. (Randy) Taylor, Agent for the applicants.
Don Schumacher, Proposed Tennant.
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT # JOTO
REPORT # PO iff) ~. 0 J-
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 2002
To:
Geoff Romanowski
. Planning Technician
From:
Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application AO08/02
D. & R. MacKeracher
Plan 418 Part Block K .
RP 40R 12933 Part 2
(501 Rosebank Road South)
City of Pickering
51
RECEIVED
JUL 2 22002
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING AND
OEVELOPMENTDE?ARTMENT
The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted
application.
I provide the following comments.
i
Although the existing driveway will permit parking for three vehicles, on-street
parking may result from this application. Provision should be made to ensure
that sufficient off-street parking is available.
RH:ds
Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services
I: \S ITEP LAN\AO 0 8 -02. d ocJ u 1-02
Note: see Attachment #11 for updated comment.
52
ATTACHMENTI--LL-----TO
REPORT /I PO ï.f..().~ D :J
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM TO FILE
Date:
August 2, 2002
File # / Re: A 08/02
********************************************************************************************
I asked Richard Holborn if he would be able to offer some possible solutions
for off-street parking for the property at 501 Rosebank Road South
currently the property can support three cars in the driveway and three cars in
the garage
staff believes that there is sufficient parking already existing on the site, and
that by adding more spaces, it would attract more attention than necessary to
the home, which is what we don't want to happen when supporting a second
unit
the main reason is that the P & D Department wants to maintain a single
dwelling appearance of the home, not a multi-dwelling appearance
Richard replied that the parking sounds like enough, and it would be through
by-law enforcement to make sure they are not overflowing onto the street and
causing traffic problems, or breaking the three hour rule
if this occurs it will be evident through complaints
Geoff Romanowski
Gromanowski/Attach11 rholbom.doc